There are high hopes for AMD's Piledriver FX CPUs, but Steamroller may be more interesting.
AMD FX-8350 Piledriver CPU Expected to Launch Mid-Q3 : Read more
AMD FX-8350 Piledriver CPU Expected to Launch Mid-Q3 : Read more
- Status
Memnarchon
Distinguished
- Oct 4, 2011
- 1,352
- 0
- 19,860
Yeah, but in 2013 and 2014, Haswell and Broadwell will be out... AMD has a huge gap to cover and for the sake of competition (and low prices for us), lets hope this will not be just talking like buldozer architecture.
apache_lives
Splendid
- Dec 10, 2002
- 6,873
- 1
- 26,160
Is it just me or is everyone just over it and not really interested in any of these future AMD cpu's and there promise on more performance?
Gone are the days of intense competition and exciting new hardware releases, amazing performance and change (new revolutionary things) etc.
Not really interested any more.....
Gone are the days of intense competition and exciting new hardware releases, amazing performance and change (new revolutionary things) etc.
Not really interested any more.....
The absolute clock rates are irrelevant as long as they reach clock rates high enough to deliver the necessary performance.
I don't care if Intels CPU give the same performance at 3 GHz as AMDs CPU at 4,5 GHz, as long as AMD is reaching 4,5 GH. - especially if they got the pricing right.
[citation][nom]Zoido[/nom]The absolute clock rates are irrelevant as long as they reach clock rates high enough to deliver the necessary performance.I don't care if Intels CPU give the same performance at 3 GHz as AMDs CPU at 4,5 GHz, as long as AMD is reaching 4,5 GH. - especially if they got the pricing right.[/citation]
yeah price will play a big role
but lower clock = lower tdp = lower temp (usually) = good overclock
i remember intel pentium e21xx series overclocks up to 100%
yeah price will play a big role
but lower clock = lower tdp = lower temp (usually) = good overclock
i remember intel pentium e21xx series overclocks up to 100%
The_Trutherizer
Distinguished
- Jul 21, 2008
- 509
- 0
- 18,980
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]Is it just me or is everyone just over it and not really interested in any of these future AMD cpu's and there promise on more performance?Gone are the days of intense competition and exciting new hardware releases, amazing performance and change (new revolutionary things) etc.Not really interested any more.....[/citation]
Just you ;D
Just you ;D
belardo
Splendid
- Nov 23, 2008
- 3,540
- 2
- 22,795
[citation][nom]Zoido[/nom]I don't care if Intels CPU give the same performance at 3 GHz as AMDs CPU at 4,5 GHz, as long as AMD is reaching 4,5 GH. - especially if they got the pricing right.[/citation]
I care as well as most others in the biz.
Its a problem with a 4.5ghz CPU that is runnin 150watts is equal to an 80watt 3ghz from another company. Hence the disapointment of the FX series... There is a PROBLEM when the spanking *new* "8core" CPU has trouble competing against its older sisters with 4 or 6 real cores or intel's 4-core CPU that also costs less money.
I've built nothing but AMD mostly in the past 10 years since the P4 days. Now I'm building mostly intel i5 systems. I can pick up an i5-3570K for $190 and it'll smack down any AMD CPU.
So on these intel systems (I'm getting Gigabyte Z77 boards for $80~110), the cooler is better than AMD's, they are quiter and smaller. The systems run quite cool. AMD cooler fans have gone low-quality in the past year or so.
An AMD friend bought an FX-3core CPU... I showed him what he could have bought for $40 more. He was able to get his money back and went i5-2500K and noticed a HUGE difference in performance.
I want AMD to do better. I'm will to use AMD if the price is right... and that is with low-cost systems... and at those prices, I can't compete with HP/Dell, etc. I just have such clients buy thoses (I do offer to build but I have to give them options).
So as of today, an AMD FX-8150 has to be OC to 4~5Ghz to beat an i5 class CPU that is cheaper running at stock 3.3~3.4Ghz. What do you think happens when the i5 is overclocked?
I care as well as most others in the biz.
Its a problem with a 4.5ghz CPU that is runnin 150watts is equal to an 80watt 3ghz from another company. Hence the disapointment of the FX series... There is a PROBLEM when the spanking *new* "8core" CPU has trouble competing against its older sisters with 4 or 6 real cores or intel's 4-core CPU that also costs less money.
I've built nothing but AMD mostly in the past 10 years since the P4 days. Now I'm building mostly intel i5 systems. I can pick up an i5-3570K for $190 and it'll smack down any AMD CPU.
So on these intel systems (I'm getting Gigabyte Z77 boards for $80~110), the cooler is better than AMD's, they are quiter and smaller. The systems run quite cool. AMD cooler fans have gone low-quality in the past year or so.
An AMD friend bought an FX-3core CPU... I showed him what he could have bought for $40 more. He was able to get his money back and went i5-2500K and noticed a HUGE difference in performance.
I want AMD to do better. I'm will to use AMD if the price is right... and that is with low-cost systems... and at those prices, I can't compete with HP/Dell, etc. I just have such clients buy thoses (I do offer to build but I have to give them options).
So as of today, an AMD FX-8150 has to be OC to 4~5Ghz to beat an i5 class CPU that is cheaper running at stock 3.3~3.4Ghz. What do you think happens when the i5 is overclocked?
belardo
Splendid
- Nov 23, 2008
- 3,540
- 2
- 22,795
[citation][nom]regor245[/nom]I wanna see some benchmarks ASAP.[/citation]
Look at an overclocked fx-8150 running at 4.6~4.8Ghz, apply that performance to a 4.0Ghz FX-8350 (if it is running 4 Ghz) and if its prices over $200, it'll be too much.
Thing is: AM3+ is a dead end... maybe 2 or 3 more upgrade CPUs come out.
FM2 replaces AM3 and FM1. Intel i5s with the onboard GPU uses the GPU to help render video and 3D graphics. Something the A-series Llano/Piledrivers can do and FX cannot. Thats another reason to buy an i5 over an FX CPU. Really, I wish AMD was doing better. Intel screwed AMD out of market share which is $$$ they could have used for better R&D.
When AMD decided to go down the Netburst path, it was a screw up from the start. (didn't they learn anything about how they kicked Pentium4 butt? P4s ran HIGH clock rates with high heat and low performance)
Look at an overclocked fx-8150 running at 4.6~4.8Ghz, apply that performance to a 4.0Ghz FX-8350 (if it is running 4 Ghz) and if its prices over $200, it'll be too much.
Thing is: AM3+ is a dead end... maybe 2 or 3 more upgrade CPUs come out.
FM2 replaces AM3 and FM1. Intel i5s with the onboard GPU uses the GPU to help render video and 3D graphics. Something the A-series Llano/Piledrivers can do and FX cannot. Thats another reason to buy an i5 over an FX CPU. Really, I wish AMD was doing better. Intel screwed AMD out of market share which is $$$ they could have used for better R&D.
When AMD decided to go down the Netburst path, it was a screw up from the start. (didn't they learn anything about how they kicked Pentium4 butt? P4s ran HIGH clock rates with high heat and low performance)
[citation][nom]Memnarchon[/nom]Yeah, but in 2013 and 2014, Haswell and Broadwell will be out...[/citation]
Where is this "Broadwell" coming from? It's supposed to be Rockwell, not Broadwell. ALL of Intel's roadmaps since before 2009 have called it Rockwell. Why the sudden change?
[citation][nom]Zoido[/nom]The absolute clock rates are irrelevant as long as they reach clock rates high enough to deliver the necessary performance.I don't care if Intels CPU give the same performance at 3 GHz as AMDs CPU at 4,5 GHz, as long as AMD is reaching 4,5 GH. - especially if they got the pricing right.[/citation]
No, just no. A CPU running at or above 4GHz is known to be bad for your health and is an unnecessarily high clock rate besides. I'd much rather have a 3.something GHz CPU with a highly efficient IPC.
Regardless, even a dual core Sandy Bridge Pentium is faster than an 8-core Bulldozer for most tasks.
Where is this "Broadwell" coming from? It's supposed to be Rockwell, not Broadwell. ALL of Intel's roadmaps since before 2009 have called it Rockwell. Why the sudden change?
[citation][nom]Zoido[/nom]The absolute clock rates are irrelevant as long as they reach clock rates high enough to deliver the necessary performance.I don't care if Intels CPU give the same performance at 3 GHz as AMDs CPU at 4,5 GHz, as long as AMD is reaching 4,5 GH. - especially if they got the pricing right.[/citation]
No, just no. A CPU running at or above 4GHz is known to be bad for your health and is an unnecessarily high clock rate besides. I'd much rather have a 3.something GHz CPU with a highly efficient IPC.
Regardless, even a dual core Sandy Bridge Pentium is faster than an 8-core Bulldozer for most tasks.
"Yeah, but in 2013 and 2014, Haswell and Broadwell will be out..."
Yes, because every Intel CPU generation and process node is guaranteed to give stunning gains, just like Ivy... Oh wait...
Yes, because every Intel CPU generation and process node is guaranteed to give stunning gains, just like Ivy... Oh wait...
[citation][nom]00wait[/nom]"Yeah, but in 2013 and 2014, Haswell and Broadwell will be out..."Yes, because every Intel CPU generation and process node is guaranteed to give stunning gains, just like Ivy... Oh wait...[/citation]
/shrug.
Maybe you missed the mobile benchmarks.
/shrug.
Maybe you missed the mobile benchmarks.
horaciopz
Distinguished
- Nov 22, 2011
- 446
- 0
- 18,960
I really want AMD to improve, and also i dont want 300+ for a decent mobo + processor combo, so i hope THAT 15% improvement over bulldozer will be enough for 150ish bucks upgrade over my aging phenom i 2. If not, well my Christmas Gift will be an I5 + intel mobo... Im an AMD fan, but i dont feel like AMD is rewarding my loyalty. If Piledriver worth the money, I will be really happy of getting a new processor!
[citation][nom]belardo[/nom]Look at an overclocked fx-8150 running at 4.6~4.8Ghz, apply that performance to a 4.0Ghz FX-8350 (if it is running 4 Ghz)..[/citation]
Wrong. Allow me to explain:
Pair the best cpu available today with the worst graphics card, and you have a "bottleneck" in gaming, correct? Now overclock the cpu to 1284048ghz, the gpu will still bottleneck and fps will remain largely unchanged, correct?
Now, there are many factors in a cpu that determines its speed other than clock rate, and most of those can't be changed. Now if for example the cache isn't "optimized" so the cpu has to wait for data from the next level cache or, god forbid, from the RAM, then the cpu is missing a ton of clock cycles until the data is available. Now if you overclock, the cpu will get it done faster, but this doesn't change the fact that it waited a ton of time for the data to arrive.
Now, in an overclock, you can get a hint of an efficient architecture by observing speed gains by overclocking. If it's a linear / almost linear gain, the architecture is very efficient, and can provide data very fast to the execution units. If the gains are sub-linear (some / most of the time) then the architecture could use some more optimizations - Such is the case of Bulldozer.
So don't let the 10-15 percent gains fool you - If it's in the right places, we may see more performance out of an overclock AND a more consistent performance (other than high FP workloads, which is a disadvantage inherent to the design, and will probably change when FP units will be replaced by a gpu block in future generations).
Wrong. Allow me to explain:
Pair the best cpu available today with the worst graphics card, and you have a "bottleneck" in gaming, correct? Now overclock the cpu to 1284048ghz, the gpu will still bottleneck and fps will remain largely unchanged, correct?
Now, there are many factors in a cpu that determines its speed other than clock rate, and most of those can't be changed. Now if for example the cache isn't "optimized" so the cpu has to wait for data from the next level cache or, god forbid, from the RAM, then the cpu is missing a ton of clock cycles until the data is available. Now if you overclock, the cpu will get it done faster, but this doesn't change the fact that it waited a ton of time for the data to arrive.
Now, in an overclock, you can get a hint of an efficient architecture by observing speed gains by overclocking. If it's a linear / almost linear gain, the architecture is very efficient, and can provide data very fast to the execution units. If the gains are sub-linear (some / most of the time) then the architecture could use some more optimizations - Such is the case of Bulldozer.
So don't let the 10-15 percent gains fool you - If it's in the right places, we may see more performance out of an overclock AND a more consistent performance (other than high FP workloads, which is a disadvantage inherent to the design, and will probably change when FP units will be replaced by a gpu block in future generations).
Thing is: AM3+ is a desktop socket, FM2 is an APU socket, and FM2 replaces FM1 not AM3+. Not sure what you're smoking
AMD sockets always last longer than intel, and you can bet even if steamroller or excavator switches sockets for DDR4 They will still include the DDR3 memory controller and work on AM3+ boards.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Nvidia 4700 Super vs Sapphire RX 7900 XT Pulse
- Started by Hyedwtditpm
- Replies: 3
-
Question Something might've gone wrong during PC upgrade.
- Started by Karasio
- Replies: 3
-
Question My pc beeps 9 times while shutting down. How do i fix it.
- Started by Jeremy32
- Replies: 3
-
-
RTX 4070 vs RX 7900 GRE faceoff: Which mainstream graphics card is better?- Started by Admin
- Replies: 5
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram