AMD Piledriver rumours ... and expert conjecture

[Reynod]

We have had several requests for a sticky on AMD's yet to be released Piledriver architecture ... so here it is.

I want to make a few things clear though.

Post a question relevant to the topic, or information about the topic, or it will be deleted.

Post any negative personal comments about another user ... and they will be deleted.

Post flame baiting comments about the blue, red and green team and they will be deleted.

Enjoy ...

 

[noob2222]

That line of "thinking" is about as meritorious as asking what would happen if Intel kidnapped the family of every games developer. It just ain't going to happen.

That will never change, hence why AMD is "no longer competing with Intel"

Amd is no longer competing with Intel because they are about to be even more disadvantaged on manufacturing process, than has been the case in the last 15 years.

Also they stuffed up the design of what will be their base for the next 4 or more years, so they are trying to make lemonade out of the lemons they got, and present it as though the course their charting is their preferred one, not one that was forced upon them.


Yes he does. Impressive huh? TH reviews aren't supposed to be about doing reviews for consumers, they are meant to be apologists for those lagging behind.


The more realistic reason is that AMD sucks at game benchmarks mainly because of the CPU and the software code is just the cherry on top.

Amd cpus rune perfectly fine against sb in any game that's not "optomized for intel" so the problem must be _________.

No, AMD cpus run fine in a massively GPU limited situation.

Thanks to Consolitis, game engines are trying to get away with as weak a CPU as they can. AMD benefits enormously from this.

Once the game engines for next gen consoles kick off, AMD's CPU shortcomings will be exposed even more for a couple of years.

But the conclusion is "AMD sucks"

Pretty much as far as gaming goes.

Sure you can get away with it on most titles with little problem, but you are going to be forced to update quicker down the track for next gen games, if you have a BD today instead of an SB or IB.


Because competing for the riches of the X86 money pit, has enormous financial and technological barriers to entry, with two well entrenched competitors.

IBM use to sell X86 CPU's before they realised they couldn't keep up with Intel's relentless process & design march and got out.

Why would anyone after seeing IBM quit like that, think they will do better?

lol, same chad as always, Im not writing a bible thats posted in verses where you examine each sentence separately and make your own story out of it.

ill make it simple for you and try to sum it up in one sentence for you.




Amd runs perfectly fine on every game except those partially written by Intel.




Stop reading here so you don't get confused

The problem isn't necessarily the CPU, but the coding. Either Intel is pushing for such piss poor code that it will only run on single core super high ipc comuputers (ie thiers), or they are changing the parameters when AMD cpus are detected (ie disabling SSE extensions.)

Call it a massive gpu situation if you want, truth is the game is so well coded that it will run on as much hardware as you can possibly throw at it, CPU AND GPU (metro 2033, BF3, Dirt 3, RE 5, ect ect...) instead of being forced to run the entire game through one or two threads. (skyrim, SC2, FarCry 2, ect)

It only makes sense to force a game to run on 1-2 threads for Intel that way they can sell their I3 series at a higher price since the performance is sooo much better for those particular games.

After all, how many people would even consider recommending an I3 if this was the situation all the time instead on just games that can utilize as much hardware as it can handle(wich seemed to be too much graphics for the I3)?

 

[Chad Boga]

lol, same chad as always

Seeking TRUTH in a sea of mendacity. 😀

Amd runs perfectly fine on every game except those partially written by Intel.

Which means that as some of these games Intel gets involved with are incredibly popular, those with a modern Intel based computer will have no problems with having enough CPU power for their gaming needs, but it is more hit and miss for those with AMD rigs.

 

[de5_Roy]

short story.
boy likes a brand. boy waits for the new cpu to launch. the upcoming lineup looks promising, the wait has been long, the hype is strong, the figures seem very competitive if not better. cpu launches. critics have mixed reaction... most are cautious but disappointed. boy follows his loyalty, buys the one that seems like the best price-performance combo and likely to earn him some bragging rights (yes, people do expect to possess them). boy follows up with a kickass cooling system, high speed ram, a gaming gfx card or two, sturdy psu to supply juice to the parts, and a great case. time passes. in depth articles come out pointing out the weaknesses of the lineup. most of the loyals seems to be disappointed and some of them even jump ship to the 'detestable' competing platform. overall disappointment grows. brand defends itself for a while, but eventually, meekly admits that they failed, moves on to compete on other sectors. after a few month, a gaming cpu roundup article comes out and boy notices that his cpu got beat by a mere 2 core budget cpu that most 'enthusiasts' avoid and mock, let alone the not-so-powerful-looking 4 cores which, by the way, sit at the very top where boy's favorite brand cannot touch.
boy goes off the rails.
moral - (early) april fool!..er... april fool eve..? there isn't any.
anywho, if you want to champion a zambezi vs a core i3, you have no choice but cherry pick and present your benches in a way that core i3 has no chance in ..heck. first benchmark to use - encryption. zambezi supports aes acceleration across the lineup. core i3 has no chance against 8 cores of raw encrypting power. second - photoshop. photoshop loves threading, and core i3 barely has 4 threads. win goes to zambezi. third - virtualization support. this one should be the easiest. afaik amd-v supports iommu while most of intel's cpu supports either vt-x or vt-x and vt-d on select few chipsets (q series iirc). thumbs down to core i3. oh yeah.
stay the heck away from memory bandwidth related stuff like memory bandwidth, gaming, and others like power consumption, itunes encoding,
on topic: er.. am i the only one who thinks there might not be a steamroller cpu ...or a 'seperate' sr cpu until q4 2013 or h1 2014? i see apu with sr cpu core but not a seperate sr cpu on amd's roadmap.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5491/amds-2012-2013-client-cpugpuapu-roadmap-revealed

 

[nforce4max]

Personally AMD is pretty much on borrowed time and with so many of their good engineers gone and the remainders ditching sip like rats. They got a few products that could save them but their continued mistakes and bad luck isn't doing them any good. GF is slowly ruining amd's chances much like national semiconductor did for cyrix.

 

[jimmysmitty]

I'm going to have discrete graphics(gaming 😀), so that would disable QuickSync anyway.

No it would not. Most people go for a Z68 mobo anyways. With a Z68 mobo, Lucid Virtu lets you use the best of both worlds (GPU and QS) with very minimal performance loss (in most games it was like 1-2FPS, is QS it was 2-3 seconds).

That was the main purpose of Z68, to combine the best of P67 with the best of H67 and also add SSD caching.

Personally AMD is pretty much on borrowed time and with so many of their good engineers gone and the remainders ditching sip like rats. They got a few products that could save them but their continued mistakes and bad luck isn't doing them any good. GF is slowly ruining amd's chances much like national semiconductor did for cyrix.

I had a bad feeling about GF. It sucks as AMD as no QC over the process.

As for the optimizations, as I said before, you cannot expect company a to optimize for their competition, company b. Game reviews are done with the most popular games, some of them may be optimized for Intel, others AMD others nVidia.

You can't expect review sites to cherry pick games based on who it was optimized for. Lets look at one game just for kicks. L4D2. The Source engine was only ever optimized on ATI graphics, back in 2003 when the 9800XT was king of the hill so a vastly different arch. That said, Source has changed vastly from HL2 to Portal 2 and soon DOTA/CS:GO:

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/compare,2433.html?prod%5B4788%5D=on&prod%5B4950%5D=on&prod%5B4485%5D=on

A quad core 2500K gets 25% better FPS at the same settings. Unfortunatley there is no BD benchmarks with it but still, it shows that a game does not have to be Intel optimized to show the strength of SBs arch. And Source is a pretty good multicore utilizing engine. A 2500K sees about 43% better FPS than the i3 of about the same clock speed.

THG has used L4D/L4D2 for that because at the time they were one of the top co-op MP games and as I said can utilize multiple cores very well.

 

[viridiancrystal]

I also just remembered that if i were to do overclocking,(probably to 4 Ghz with either cpu) then that further justifies the 2500k, because the increase will be more marginal.

There you go AMD, another reason IPC matters.

 

[-Fran-]

As for the optimizations, as I said before, you cannot expect company a to optimize for their competition, company b. Game reviews are done with the most popular games, some of them may be optimized for Intel, others AMD others nVidia.

You can't expect review sites to cherry pick games based on who it was optimized for. Lets look at one game just for kicks. L4D2. The Source engine was only ever optimized on ATI graphics, back in 2003 when the 9800XT was king of the hill so a vastly different arch. That said, Source has changed vastly from HL2 to Portal 2 and soon DOTA/CS:GO:

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/compare,2433.html?prod%5B4788%5D=on&prod%5B4950%5D=on&prod%5B4485%5D=on

A quad core 2500K gets 25% better FPS at the same settings. Unfortunatley there is no BD benchmarks with it but still, it shows that a game does not have to be Intel optimized to show the strength of SBs arch. And Source is a pretty good multicore utilizing engine. A 2500K sees about 43% better FPS than the i3 of about the same clock speed.

THG has used L4D/L4D2 for that because at the time they were one of the top co-op MP games and as I said can utilize multiple cores very well.

That's why I love having either a site with a lot of games in their reviews or a lot of sites using different games, hahaha.

It sucks for AMD to be on the lower end of the stick, but I'm sure a lot of programmers have it hard when doing code for a lot of reasons; I give that side to palladin's argument, since it's mostly true. Most decisions on how to program (or for what to optimize) come from "up there", so programmers/developers (people, not dev studios) have little there to argue/move/do with their code. A programmer might have all the good intentions of having their code work wonders for all vendors out there, but time constraints and contract constraints are a real b!tch (pardon my french). AMD has to invest for real in getting to the good side of senior and expert coders (which they actually try, but could do better) and architects to make better software.

Now, for both sides of the argument... Unless we actually know what's going on behind those closed doors at Intel or Game Devs, we can't say for sure that Intel is the evil doer here. It's just business, unfortunately for us... No one is going to code for the underdog if money doesn't talk doing it. Besides, if we go back to the settlements, why people say Intel is bad there when AMD accepted money instead of "making justice" in a court? Tough reality, ain't it?

At the end of the day, the consumer is hurt, thanks to little choice and high prices (remember, Intel is not gonna do us any favors in pricing, nor AMD in Intel's shoes).

I just stick to "both of them are companies and don't do it for us, but their bottom line; period". We should use that as mantra and stop arguing about "evil doers" and "goodie goodie underdog", hahaha.

Cheers!

PS: I like red more than green and black, blue or green 😛

 

[truegenius]

question.
I5 can hit 4ghz on stock voltages (for example mal's i5 😉)
so why intel limits i5 to 3.4 only , why not a 4ghz locked i5 with 115w tdp for non overclockers.

 

[Blandge]

Call it a massive gpu situation if you want, truth is the game is so well coded that it will run on as much hardware as you can possibly throw at it, CPU AND GPU (metro 2033, BF3, Dirt 3, RE 5, ect ect...) instead of being forced to run the entire game through one or two threads. (skyrim, SC2, FarCry 2, ect)

Ok let's look at Skyrim:

The six core i7-3960X performs 20% better than the four core (eight thread) i7-2600K, and the FX-6100 performs 28% better than the FX-4100. Obviously Skyrim can use six cores.

Furthermore, look at the dual core i3-2120 performing 14% better than AMD's FX parts. This is a clear counter example to your argument that Intel's dual cores will be trounced by games that use more than one or two cores.

It's obvious to me that you are just making wild guesses and baseless claims. To spare yourself some dignity, please do the a little research before posting so as to avoid making erroneous statements that I can disprove with a single sentence.

It only makes sense to force a game to run on 1-2 threads for Intel that way they can sell their I3 series at a higher price since the performance is sooo much better for those particular games.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but do you think that Intel has bribed EVERY single game developer that has ever released a game that performs CLEARLY better on Intel hardware and all of them happily agree to commit federal crimes? That each of these game developers limit their games to one or two cores to ensure that they run better on Intel architecture?

Amd runs perfectly fine on every game except those partially written by Intel.

How many employees do you think Intel has that it can write 50% of the code for every game that performs poorly on AMD chips. Intel has about 6000-8000 software engineers that have to develop things like drivers, the Intel compiler suite (~10 different tools), Meego, McAfee assist in the development of Windows, OSX, VMware and Android, and they have hr infrastructure that dwarfs AMD and ARM put together. Use your brain. Intel has so many things to worry about that there is no way they can do this. Games are small fry compared to their other interests.


noob222, you usually have something constructive to add to any discussion but this makes me seriously doubt your intelligence. It's one thing to say "I believe Intel practices questionable business tactics to keep AMD from gaining market share." But that position you are taking loses all credibility when you back it up with false claims and an unwavering belief that Intel pays $100M for every big game or benchmark that gets released. You think $100M is chump change? Intel spent only $300M to back Ultrabooks, which they believe is the future of computing. Do you think Starcraft 2 is worth 1/3 of the value of the future of computing? Either shut up about it or get your head out of your ass and come up with a more compelling argument.

 

[r0ck3tm@n]

Ok let's look at Skyrim:

http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/467/bench/CPU_2.png

The six core i7-3960X performs 20% better than the four core (eight thread) i7-2600K, and the FX-6100 performs 28% better than the FX-4100. Obviously Skyrim can use six cores.

Furthermore, look at the dual core i3-2120 performing 14% better than AMD's FX parts. This is a clear counter example to your argument that Intel's dual cores will be trounced by games that use more than one or two cores.

It's obvious to me that you are just making wild guesses and baseless claims. To spare yourself some dignity, please do the a little research before posting so as to avoid making erroneous statements that I can disprove with a single sentence.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but do you think that Intel has bribed EVERY single game developer that has ever released a game that performs CLEARLY better on Intel hardware and all of them happily agree to commit federal crimes? That each of these game developers limit their games to one or two cores to ensure that they run better on Intel architecture?



How many employees do you think Intel has that it can write 50% of the code for every game that performs poorly on AMD chips. Intel has about 6000-8000 software engineers that have to develop things like drivers, the Intel compiler suite (~10 different tools), Meego, McAfee assist in the development of Windows, OSX, VMware and Android, and they have hr infrastructure that dwarfs AMD and ARM put together. Use your brain. Intel has so many things to worry about that there is no way they can do this. Games are small fry compared to their other interests.


noob222, you usually have something constructive to add to any discussion but this makes me seriously doubt your intelligence. It's one thing to say "I believe Intel practices questionable business tactics to keep AMD from gaining market share." But that position you are taking loses all credibility when you back it up with false claims and an unwavering belief that Intel pays $100M for every big game or benchmark that gets released. You think $100M is chump change? Intel spent only $300M to back Ultrabooks, which they believe is the future of computing. Do you think Starcraft 2 is worth 1/3 of the value of the future of computing? Either shut up about it or get your head out of your ass and come up with a more compelling argument.

Well, aren't you the tough guy. Easy to be tough online, isn't it?

 

[noob2222]

Ok let's look at Skyrim:

http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/467/bench/CPU_2.png

The six core i7-3960X performs 20% better than the four core (eight thread) i7-2600K, and the FX-6100 performs 28% better than the FX-4100. Obviously Skyrim can use six cores.

Furthermore, look at the dual core i3-2120 performing 14% better than AMD's FX parts. This is a clear counter example to your argument that Intel's dual cores will be trounced by games that use more than one or two cores.

It's obvious to me that you are just making wild guesses and baseless claims. To spare yourself some dignity, please do the a little research before posting so as to avoid making erroneous statements that I can disprove with a single sentence.

first, good job finding the skyrim review, but post the right image

Take note of core 2.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but do you think that Intel has bribed EVERY single game developer that has ever released a game that performs CLEARLY better on Intel hardware and all of them happily agree to commit federal crimes? That each of these game developers limit their games to one or two cores to ensure that they run better on Intel architecture?

only the ones Intel is proud to announce through their Game-on Intel website or have convinced the devs to use the Havok software they own and have 100% control of. Havok engine is one thing the FTC can't touch and there is nothing that can stop Intel from disabling functions within that code to not work on AMD cpus. It doesn't mean they did, but no one will ever know the truth.

How many employees do you think Intel has that it can write 50% of the code for every game that performs poorly on AMD chips. Intel has about 6000-8000 software engineers that have to develop things like drivers, the Intel compiler suite (~10 different tools), Meego, McAfee assist in the development of Windows, OSX, VMware and Android, and they have hr infrastructure that dwarfs AMD and ARM put together. Use your brain. Intel has so many things to worry about that there is no way they can do this. Games are small fry compared to their other interests.

Don't be so sure.... http://software.intel.com/sites/billboard/article/blizzard-entertainment-re-imagines-starcraft-intels-help

"The Promise Of Good Gameplay For The Gamer Is Job #1

Intel has been a key force in supporting games running on Intel® architecture for many years, through both the development of new capabilities and the introduction of new form factors. As early as 1999, Blizzard began working with Intel to understand the details and upcoming changes of the consumer PC platform. Knowing which Intel® processor-based PCs would be available to their worldwide customer base by the time their games hit the stores helped Blizzard understand how new technology would affect their gamers’ gameplay.
"
How often does a question come onto this website asking what cpu to buy for gaming? It is absolutely in intels interest to promote and work with gaming companies.

noob222, you usually have something constructive to add to any discussion but this makes me seriously doubt your intelligence. It's one thing to say "I believe Intel practices questionable business tactics to keep AMD from gaining market share." But that position you are taking loses all credibility when you back it up with false claims and an unwavering belief that Intel pays $100M for every big game or benchmark that gets released. You think $100M is chump change? Intel spent only $300M to back Ultrabooks, which they believe is the future of computing. Do you think Starcraft 2 is worth 1/3 of the value of the future of computing? Either shut up about it or get your head out of your ass and come up with a more compelling argument.

now go back and read carefully what I said. I said its easy for intel to afford to do just that if they wanted to. I never said they did. It was just to show you how easy it is to manipulate the market when your overpowered and abusive. They post PROFITS of 1.5 B dollars every quarter, even when they paid AMD 1.25B dollars they still posted a profit of 1.75B dollars (I didn't look it up but pretty sure thats what it was that quarter).

AMD on the flip side makes ~100M in profit every quarter. If Intel spent 100M on a game dev, thats more than AMD's entire profit. Who do you think the game devs will opt to listen to? someone who can afford at any point to pay if they need some help, or some company thats still running along the cliff of bankrupcy. Corporate world and strategy is a bastard to even think about, much less deal with. Its easy to just sit back not knowing a thing and put all the blame on one company, but what can that company truthfully do about it? They can't just go spend every penny they have to try and bribe some vendors to push thier architecture with software code, the vendors simply won't do it for one.

Now look at something instead of changing what I said. If Intel pushed code to be massively threaded, the I3 processors would look like crap compared to the i5 processors in every single game. I will repeat what I said. Its in Intels best interest to keep profits high on the I3 and to push light threading where they can so the I3 looks good on paper. And since Intel's sole focus is on IPC, it still makes sense to push for as few threads as possible. Its their strategy, and its sheer genious on thier part and a game AMD can't win. But it doesn't mean we should just ignore the reasoning and only look at "benchmarks" and never question why.



Starcraft 2:

Goes from 82% on one core to 97% with more cores, no wonder BD has a hard time with SC2 ... my question is what kind of code slows down as you add cores.

And if you really don't think Intel just throws money away ... whats the point of this $270,000 investment? ...
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/starcraft-warcraft-diablo,11612.html

The world is already full of blind leading the blind. I walk my own path, and if that makes me look odd, well, to you I probably am, doesn't make me stupid just because I question things instead of just following without reason. It just makes people resent me because I walk against the current. I like to eat the grass that hasn't already been crapped on by everyone else, and if I get eaten by the wolves, well I enjoyed it while it lasted.

 

[Chad Boga]

Well, aren't you the tough guy. Easy to be tough online, isn't it?

Blandge's comments were well said and needed to be said.

Now look at something instead of changing what I said. If Intel pushed code to be massively threaded, the I3 processors would look like crap compared to the i5 processors in every single game. I will repeat what I said. Its in Intels best interest to keep profits high on the I3 and to push light threading where they can so the I3 looks good on paper. And since Intel's sole focus is on IPC, it still makes sense to push for as few threads as possible. Its their strategy, and its sheer genious on thier part and a game AMD can't win. But it doesn't mean we should just ignore the reasoning and only look at "benchmarks" and never question why.
.
.
The world is already full of blind leading the blind. I walk my own path, and if that makes me look odd, well, to you I probably am, doesn't make me stupid just because I question things instead of just following without reason. It just makes people resent me because I walk against the current. I like to eat the grass that hasn't already been crapped on by everyone else, and if I get eaten by the wolves, well I enjoyed it while it lasted.

Whilst you are out walking and doing your Ray Charles impersonation, why didn't you address what Blandge wrote below, which refutes your low thread claims

Ok let's look at Skyrim:

http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/467/bench/CPU_2.png

The six core i7-3960X performs 20% better than the four core (eight thread) i7-2600K, and the FX-6100 performs 28% better than the FX-4100. Obviously Skyrim can use six cores.

Furthermore, look at the dual core i3-2120 performing 14% better than AMD's FX parts. This is a clear counter example to your argument that Intel's dual cores will be trounced by games that use more than one or two cores.

It's obvious to me that you are just making wild guesses and baseless claims. To spare yourself some dignity, please do the a little research before posting so as to avoid making erroneous statements that I can disprove with a single sentence.

 

[Blandge]

first, good job finding the skyrim review, but post the right image

http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/467/images/CPU_Low.png

Take note of core 2.

I can't say this with absolute certainty, but it appears that Skyrim is smart enough to only use 1 core per cpu (Due to HT). The best explanation for the 20% increase in performance on the i7-3960X and 28% on the FX-6100 would be that Skyrim expands to 6 threads on the 6 core system, but will not use the hyperthreaded cores on the 4c8t i7-2600K.

It would be interesting to see that same screen shot for the 6 core parts.

What do you think?

only the ones Intel is proud to announce through their Game-on Intel website or have convinced the devs to use the Havok software they own and have 100% control of. Havok engine is one thing the FTC can't touch and there is nothing that can stop Intel from disabling functions within that code to not work on AMD cpus. It doesn't mean they did, but no one will ever know the truth.

In the link I posted before it showed that AMD works with Intel to optimize Havok for AMD's chips. Furthermore, AMD has worked with Intel to optimize Havok for their GPUs.

Don't be so sure.... http://software.intel.com/sites/billboard/article/blizzard-entertainment-re-imagines-starcraft-intels-help

"The Promise Of Good Gameplay For The Gamer Is Job #1

Intel has been a key force in supporting games running on Intel® architecture for many years, through both the development of new capabilities and the introduction of new form factors. As early as 1999, Blizzard began working with Intel to understand the details and upcoming changes of the consumer PC platform. Knowing which Intel® processor-based PCs would be available to their worldwide customer base by the time their games hit the stores helped Blizzard understand how new technology would affect their gamers’ gameplay.
"
How often does a question come onto this website asking what cpu to buy for gaming? It is absolutely in intels interest to promote and work with gaming companies.

now go back and read carefully what I said. I said its easy for intel to afford to do just that if they wanted to. I never said they did. It was just to show you how easy it is to manipulate the market when your overpowered and abusive. They post PROFITS of 1.5 B dollars every quarter, even when they paid AMD 1.25B dollars they still posted a profit of 1.75B dollars (I didn't look it up but pretty sure thats what it was that quarter).

AMD on the flip side makes ~100M in profit every quarter. If Intel spent 100M on a game dev, thats more than AMD's entire profit. Who do you think the game devs will opt to listen to? someone who can afford at any point to pay if they need some help, or some company thats still running along the cliff of bankrupcy. Corporate world and strategy is a bastard to even think about, much less deal with. Its easy to just sit back not knowing a thing and put all the blame on one company, but what can that company truthfully do about it? They can't just go spend every penny they have to try and bribe some vendors to push thier architecture with software code, the vendors simply won't do it for one.

Now look at something instead of changing what I said. If Intel pushed code to be massively threaded, the I3 processors would look like crap compared to the i5 processors in every single game. I will repeat what I said. Its in Intels best interest to keep profits high on the I3 and to push light threading where they can so the I3 looks good on paper. And since Intel's sole focus is on IPC, it still makes sense to push for as few threads as possible. Its their strategy, and its sheer genious on thier part and a game AMD can't win. But it doesn't mean we should just ignore the reasoning and only look at "benchmarks" and never question why.



Starcraft 2:
http://images.bit-tech.net/content_...ny-cpu-cores-does-starcraft-2-use/6-cores.jpg

And if you really don't think Intel just throws money away ... whats the point of this $270,000 investment? ...
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/starcraft-warcraft-diablo,11612.html

Yes we've already established that Intel works with companies like Blizzard. That's not in question. You had said that Intel can offer $100M to every game developer like it is chump change and writes part of the code for every big game. I have said why that is false. I was not implying that Intel doesn't invest heavily into the gaming market. You seem to think Intel has for more loose change than they really do.

As for the Starcraft sponsorship $270,000 isn't $100M is it?

The world is already full of blind leading the blind. I walk my own path, and if that makes me look odd, well, to you I probably am, doesn't make me stupid just because I question things instead of just following without reason. It just makes people resent me because I walk against the current. I like to eat the grass that hasn't already been crapped on by everyone else, and if I get eaten by the wolves, well I enjoyed it while it lasted.

LOL. Do seriously think you're the only person who thinks this exact same thing? Welcome to college, this way of thinking makes you part of the majority. Every freshman who's taken a political science class thinks they walk their own path and the man is keeping them down. That doesn't make you any smarter or righter than anybody else. It just makes you arrogant.

Your overall stance, and the stance of every AMDzone loving, intel hating conspiracy theorist, is that Intel is an evil giant corporation that is being controlled by the 1% to fill the already overflowing bank accounts of the super rich. And AMD is the ma and pa store down the street that everybody should support because they are just trying to make an honest living and support their community. Well guess what, $5B per year still makes AMD a giant corporation. AMD doesn't give a single rats ass about you more than Intel does. They are all about the bottom line.

Intel makes 10x more than AMD, but they also spend 10x more on charity, clean energy and education. But you people are all the same, you see green and it makes you see red. Stop for a moment and appreciate that Intel spends billions per year to make the world a better place. Did you know that Intel employees regularly volunteer a combined 1 million+ hours per year, and Intel pays the charity of their choice $10 per hour they volunteer? Intel literally PAYS their employees HOURLY to volunteer.

So don't act like you're the one person on these forums that sees the evil giant for what they really are.


P.S. I hope you don't feel like I am personally attacking you, that is not my intention. You are entitled to your own views and I respect that.

 

[Blandge]

Well, aren't you the tough guy. Easy to be tough online, isn't it?

I make a long winded post and you challenge me to a fist fight ?

Is it what I said or how I said it?

 

[noob2222]

I said it before, I like the way Techspot is starting to show cpu usage on games, wish they were more like the BF3 article. http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-performance/page7.html

helps to see the workings behind the "fps show".

In the link I posted before it showed that AMD works with Intel to optimize Havok for AMD's chips. Furthermore, AMD has worked with Intel to optimize Havok for their GPUs.

That link was from 2008. Intel took over mid 2007. My best guess is that AMD had a contract that Intel had to honor until it expired

There nothing new or any sign of AMD being able to work with the Havok engine now, or anything that I can find thats not dated back to 2008.

Yes we've already established that Intel works with companies like Blizzard. That's not in question. You had said that Intel can offer $100M to every game developer like it is chump change and writes part of the code for every big game. I have said why that is false. I was not implying that Intel doesn't invest heavily into the gaming market. You seem to think Intel has for more loose change than they really do.

As for the Starcraft sponsorship $270,000 isn't $100M is it?

Don't get stuck on the $100M its just a random figure, and only used as a refrence to AMD's profits.

In short, Intel can pay more than AMD makes in profit towards marketing, meaning AMD has no chance in hades to compete with Intel on a marketing campaign. AMD simply can't afford it, and I don't see this changing, at least not for a long time.

 

[g4114rd0]

AMD is working on Phenom II with 8 cores..."

http://translate.google.de/translate?u=http%3A//www.planet3dnow.de/cgi-bin/newspub/viewnews.cgi%3Fid%3D1333238908&sl=de&tl=en&hl=de&ie=UTF-8

 

[viridiancrystal]

AMD is working on Phenom II with 8 cores..."

http://translate.google.de/translate?u=http%3A//www.planet3dnow.de/cgi-bin/newspub/viewnews.cgi%3Fid%3D1333238908&sl=de&tl=en&hl=de&ie=UTF-8

AMD should hire some of those graduates.

 

[-Fran-]

I thought the Phenom II x8s are just FX non BEs?

and......wouldn't it be a really sad case for the FX name if a Phenom could beat a FX ?

Remember what day it is today 😛

Cheers!

 

[truegenius]

AMD is working on Phenom II with 8 cores..."

http://translate.google.de/translate?u=http%3A//www.planet3dnow.de/cgi-bin/newspub/viewnews.cgi%3Fid%3D1333238908&sl=de&tl=en&hl=de&ie=UTF-8

😱
😀

that ph2 x8 @3.4 will be enough to match sb-e x6 @2.8ghz+ht in heavily threaded tasks.

 

[jimmysmitty]

I said it before, I like the way Techspot is starting to show cpu usage on games, wish they were more like the BF3 article. http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-performance/page7.html

helps to see the workings behind the "fps show".

In the link I posted before it showed that AMD works with Intel to optimize Havok for AMD's chips. Furthermore, AMD has worked with Intel to optimize Havok for their GPUs.

That link was from 2008. Intel took over mid 2007. My best guess is that AMD had a contract that Intel had to honor until it expired

There nothing new or any sign of AMD being able to work with the Havok engine now, or anything that I can find thats not dated back to 2008.

Yes we've already established that Intel works with companies like Blizzard. That's not in question. You had said that Intel can offer $100M to every game developer like it is chump change and writes part of the code for every big game. I have said why that is false. I was not implying that Intel doesn't invest heavily into the gaming market. You seem to think Intel has for more loose change than they really do.

As for the Starcraft sponsorship $270,000 isn't $100M is it?

Don't get stuck on the $100M its just a random figure, and only used as a refrence to AMD's profits.

In short, Intel can pay more than AMD makes in profit towards marketing, meaning AMD has no chance in hades to compete with Intel on a marketing campaign. AMD simply can't afford it, and I don't see this changing, at least not for a long time.

Intel bought Havok but that doesn't mean they wont let others optimize for it. Its like McAfee. Intel bought them yet the AV software still sucks.

Havok has been around for years and is widley used, not due to Intel optimization but due to the great physics. I love Havok. Came out with the ability to pin enemies to the walls with bolt guns and such.

Still the same could be said of AMD, as you are saying with Intel. There is nothing that shows that AMD works with Intel to optimize Radeon GPUs for Intel CPUs. But I would like to think that after the pay off, AMD and Intel have gotten over their differences. If everything you are saying was 100% true, then I am sure that AMD would have included that in their suit claims but they never did.

So I say, lets get over it. Lets get over it like AMD has.

I will say one interesting thing though, in the games that are Intel optimized Intel has a major advantage but in the games that are not Intel optimized but rather AMD optimized Intel still keeps up with AMD. Strange really.

 

[r0ck3tm@n]

😱
😀

that ph2 x8 @3.4 will be enough to match sb-e x6 @2.8ghz+ht in heavily threaded tasks.

It will not, be realistic. The Phenom II's instructions per clock is not going to be as high as any cpu with the Sandy Bridge architecture. Right?

I hope AMD is making such a cpu but it's probably an April 1st joke. The article seems well detailed though.

 

[palladin9479]

I will say one interesting thing though, in the games that are Intel optimized Intel has a major advantage but in the games that are not Intel optimized but rather AMD optimized Intel still keeps up with AMD. Strange really.

Ok we need to stop this. There is no such thing as "Intel Optimized" or "AMD Optimized" unless we're talking FMA / XOR which we're not. The only difference between them is the compiler and subsequent libraries used, otherwise it's the same instructions. You can tweak certain functions to get a few cycles here and there, but will typically result in less then 2% total performance at the end of the day. If a company is using the Intel compiler then the produced code will not use the extended instruction sets on the AMD CPU, instructions sets which are identical to what the code will run on the Intel CPU. If you could change the CPUID on the AMD CPU you would suddenly get higher performance. If a company is using the GCC or MS compiler then it will do a proper CPU detect and chose the code path that match's the CPU's capability.

Thus you either produce code that works well on Intel and sh!t on everything else, or you produce code that works well on everything.

 

[r0ck3tm@n]

I will say one interesting thing though, in the games that are Intel optimized Intel has a major advantage but in the games that are not Intel optimized but rather AMD optimized Intel still keeps up with AMD. Strange really.

Ok we need to stop this. There is no such thing as "Intel Optimized" or "AMD Optimized" unless we're talking FMA / XOR which we're not. The only difference between them is the compiler and subsequent libraries used, otherwise it's the same instructions. You can tweak certain functions to get a few cycles here and there, but will typically result in less then 2% total performance at the end of the day. If a company is using the Intel compiler then the produced code will not use the extended instruction sets on the AMD CPU, instructions sets which are identical to what the code will run on the Intel CPU. If you could change the CPUID on the AMD CPU you would suddenly get higher performance. If a company is using the GCC or MS compiler then it will do a proper CPU detect and chose the code path that match's the CPU's capability.

Thus you either produce code that works well on Intel and sh!t on everything else, or you produce code that works well on everything.

Now that makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Reynod]

AMD is working on Phenom II with 8 cores..."

http://translate.google.de/translate?u=http%3A//www.planet3dnow.de/cgi-bin/newspub/viewnews.cgi%3Fid%3D1333238908&sl=de&tl=en&hl=de&ie=UTF-8

Dharmachakra

lol

 

[r0ck3tm@n]

Dharmachakra

lol

So, you think it's a joke? There were a few news reports some months ago about an 8 core Phenom II but those reports said it was a reduced frequency Bulldozer line of CPUs.