AMD Plans New FX Processors to Go Up Against Ivy Bridge

[blazorthon]

^^

Just remember, even C2Q has higher IPC than Deneb, and the high-end quads overclock to 4ghz easily.

I'd say they're pretty far behind.

Deneb and C2Q are very close. Also, Deneb overclocks to 4GHz easily too. In fact, just look at the latest CPU performance charts and some Core 2 versus Phenom II reviews.

Even my Phenom II x6 overclocked to 4GHz easily, so despite AMD CPUs not being great anymore, let's not undervalue them more than AMD already has. Phenom II is regarded as more or less equivalent to Core 2 in IPC. Is AMD behind? Yes. Is AMD very far behind? Yes. Is AMD really 6 years behind like you suggest? Nope. more like four years behind.
also remember that despite FX having lower IPC than Phenom II and Core 2, it has higher clock frequencies that more than make up for it and higher core counts that help a little.

 

[kohvipaus]

lol you intel teenies mad? Also to the article writer, please stop writing, hopefully AMD will take action against you for spearding wrong information

 

[captaincharisma]

lol you intel teenies mad? Also to the article writer, please stop writing, hopefully AMD will take action against you for spearding wrong information

what would the intel fanboi's be mad about? my 5 year old Q6600 still can inch by some of the modern AMD CPU's

FAIL

 

[captaincharisma]

I like how people are saying "I WONT BUY ANOTHER AMD PRODUCT UNTIL THEY MAKE SOMETHING DECENT/AMD IS FAILING."

If you guys stop supporting AMD, they WILL fail because designing new chips isnt free and costs millions of dollars. AMD just doesnt have the kind of money right now and they are probaly making a majority of money off selling phenoms to the xbox 360.

Im not an AMD fanboy or such but im rather just making fair statements.

Just my 2 cents

how would you expect them to make money by then? the enthusiast crowd might be the smallest but they are the ones who gives intel and AMD the most money over the mainstream crowd. if that goes away say goodbye to AMD.

 

[kohvipaus]

what would the intel fanboi's be mad about? my 5 year old Q6600 still can inch by some of the modern AMD CPU's

FAIL

Sure, give me a proof for it...oh sorry you cant as there isnt any. Now go *** off kid and tell your lies somewhere else. I love how you fanbois keep bringing up stuff that aint real and you got nothing to back it up with. lets take the latest multi-threading apps shall we..CS5/Winrar/7zip/most of the video editing software...awww what? bulldozer bulldozed intel in that? Awww. ******* sad...thats what you are.

 

[captaincharisma]

Sure, give me a proof for it...oh sorry you cant as there isnt any. Now go *** off kid and tell your lies somewhere else. I love how you fanbois keep bringing up stuff that aint real and you got nothing to back it up with. lets take the latest multi-threading apps shall we..CS5/Winrar/7zip/most of the video editing software...awww what? bulldozer bulldozed intel in that? Awww. ******* sad...thats what you are.

LMAO thanks for giving me a good laugh kid. h0w about you provide some proof of any modern AMD CPU's can beat an intel Q6600 or how about you provide proof that any AMD CPU's can beat anything intel can and you cannot count any of the old athlons vs pentium 4's race that happen over a century ago

but i don't really care i just found it funny how you expect the intel fanbois could be crying because AMD hasn't been able to beat any intel CPU's since the P4 days. anyway i see from you're behavior it is that time of the month for you so i will leave you be :lol:

FAIL

 

[trumpeter1994]

[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]LMAO thanks for giving me a good laugh kid. h0w about you provide some proof of any modern AMD CPU's can beat an intel Q6600 or how about you provide proof that any AMD CPU's can beat anything intel can and you cannot count any of the old athlons vs pentium 4's race that happen over a century agobut i don't really care i just found it funny how you expect the intel fanbois could be crying because AMD hasn't been able to beat any intel CPU's since the P4 days. anyway i see from you're behavior it is that time of the month for you so i will leave you be FAIL[/citation]

Lol thanks for the laugh, and I agree, my 3 year old q9300 @ ~3Ghz still likes to run circles around the amd chips. On top of that it ran without the heatsink on all the way for at least a month at around 100C (yes I know i was stupid to let it do that, but it was still my first build and I figured it out soon enough. It was under the stock cooler and I hate those push pins they use as they're a pain in the *** to secure to the mobo). My 3 year old chip still runs very strong and I really haven't found anything that I can't run on it yet.

 

[blazorthon]

Lol thanks for the laugh, and I agree, my 3 year old q9300 @ ~3Ghz still likes to run circles around the amd chips. On top of that it ran without the heatsink on all the way for at least a month at around 100C (yes I know i was stupid to let it do that, but it was still my first build and I figured it out soon enough. It was under the stock cooler and I hate those push pins they use as they're a pain in the *** to secure to the mobo). My 3 year old chip still runs very strong and I really haven't found anything that I can't run on it yet.

Phenom II 975, 980, 1090T BE, 1100T BE, and FX-4170 beat the Core 2 Q9300 in gaming performance even if it's overclocked to 3GHz. The Phenom II X6 1075T, Phenom II X4 Black Edition 970, 965, 955, FX-8150, and FX-6200 match the Core 2 Q9300@3GHz in gaming performance. You seem to be over-exaggerating quite a bit there. I'm not surprised if you haven't found anything that can't run on it, but like the Phenoms and top FXs, it can't handle everything that the Nehalem and Sandy Bridge CPUs can. Despite this, Core 2 Quad CPUs are certainly enough for most gamers.

Also, my Phenom II 1090T BE ran for about two weeks before I realized that I had forgotten to plug the CPU cooler's fan (Cooler Master Hyper 212) back in after a memory upgrade (needed to move the cooler for it) and it had no problems. It still has no problems despite it's overclock to a little over 4GHz, although it wasn't overclocked until after I plugged the fan back in (251MHz BLCK and x16 multiplier and I could go higher, but I don't care to).

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html

EDIT: I do agree with you in that the push pins are a horrible securing method. The stock AMD coolers are a lot easier, although the stock Phenom II cooler I had probably doesn't perform as well as the stock Intel coolers despite it being more convenient to secure to the motherboard. I wouldn't know for sure how well it does because I never used the stock AMD coolers and for my current system, I've used the Hyper 212 ever since I built it.

 

[moonzy]

[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]wow there are people who still like having slow PC's[/citation]
Actually, my AMD CPU is overclocked, MOBO is up-to-date (AM3+), plays everything great, and I couldn't be more happy.
I wouldn't call my PC slow at all. It's more than fast enough for everything I do.
And, I can be impatient. So I'm good with it.

 

[Guest]

If AMD dead, we will see IB until 2020 or beyond The best thing for Intel is the worst for us.

 

[blazorthon]

If AMD dead, we will see IB until 2020 or beyond The best thing for Intel is the worst for us.

Completely over-exaggerated. Do you think that Intel even considers AMD as serious competition right now, despite Intel still releasing a new arch about every year? AMD hasn't matched Nehalem yet and Nehalem came out something like four years ago. Intel keeps improving and that isn't going to change. Without AMD (a nearly impossible scenario anyway), Intel might slow down a little and overcharge some more, but it won't be nearly as bad as Ivy still being sold eight years from now.

Besides that, if AMD was seriously having financial problems that they couldn't fix, well then Intel would pay AMD to stay afloat (wouldn't be the first time either) because without AMD, Intel would be screwed over by anti-trust laws that already bother Intel somewhat. People keep saying stuff like of Intel will bring back the days of $1000 processors and the like, but there still are $1000 processors (although they aren't any more worth it than their predecessors). Besides that, some of those Athlon 64/FXs cost in excess of $600 and $700, so AMD is also no stranger to high prices.

If you want to talk about architectures being used for long periods of time, how about the fact that everything from AMD except for Bulldozer has used basically the same architecture since 2003? Sure, it gets modified and die shrunk repetitively, but it's the same basic architecture. At least Intel comes out with new architectures fairly often as of the last several years. Completely new architectures since 2006 from Intel include Core 2, Nehalem, and Sandy Bridge. New architectures from AMD since 2003 include Bulldozer and that's it.

I'd have nothing against AMD had their strategy worked better, but it doesn't seem to have done them too well in comparison with Intel. I'm not a fanboy for either side, but I will defend either side when someone posts a biased statement.

 

[mocchan]

Bleh good luck, AMD.

 

[bearclaw99]

125 watts? Zzzzz

 

[K3v1n]

When I get out of college I'm going to AMD to design CPUs..I'll fix this mess

 

[razor512]

ivy bridge will offer around 15-20% extra desktop performance, but the area where it will really do good in is on mobile computing. The low TDP means that they can put desktop style CPU performance on a laptop, or keep mobile CPU performance the same and significantly reduce power consumption

read up on the power efficiency of ivy bridge and you will understand what it can do

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]Razor512[/nom]ivy bridge will offer around 15-20% extra desktop performance, but the area where it will really do good in is on mobile computing. The low TDP means that they can put desktop style CPU performance on a laptop, or keep mobile CPU performance the same and significantly reduce power consumptionread up on the power efficiency of ivy bridge and you will understand what it can do[/citation]

If that mattered, then it would be helpful. Intel's problem in mobile computers isn't CPU performance, it's graphics performance. Besides that, the performance increase isn't THAT much on the desktop side. It could be for the mobile side, but it probably won't be. What would really help Intel is the ability to overclock the mobile IGPs of Intel's CPU. That way, IB laptops could ship with CPU performance similar to SB laptops (give them a small 5-10% boost), but could have a huge graphics improvement beyond even the ~60% promised by Intel with HD 4000.

Give it HD 4000 a big overclock so it will be more like a 100% improvement. It shouldn't make a big difference in power usage on the chip because HD graphics is already so power efficient, but it would make a big difference in performance. Besides that, the CPU's lower power usage would make up for the IGP using more power even in a larger overclock. This would make HD 4000 almost as good as A6 graphics (maybe as good as or better than mobile A6 graphics, I'd have to check up on that to be sure).

It still wouldn't be a powerhouse, but it would really hurt Llano's position as the best low end laptops.

 

[Guest]

when they will be out?

 

[bunz_of_steel]

Had hopes of something offering better performance than their current FX offering... egads. I have moved onto the Intel bandwagon Core i7 2600K. For the price makes better move. Take money from CEO's sucking the company dry and give it to R&D and they can come up w/better proc

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]bunz_of_steel[/nom]Had hopes of something offering better performance than their current FX offering... egads. I have moved onto the Intel bandwagon Core i7 2600K. For the price makes better move. Take money from CEO's sucking the company dry and give it to R&D and they can come up w/better proc[/citation]

I think that AMD's problem either isn't the CEO or at least isn't just the CEO.

 

[silverblue]

Certainly isn't the CEO right now; RR looks like a good hire.

 

[zloginet]

[citation][nom]velocityg4[/nom]125 watts, I guess AMD is just pumping up Ghz at the cost of heat to try and compete like Intel did with the Pentium IV. Come on AMD what happened to the geniuses you had that trounced Intel with the Athlon 64? They are doing well with AMD Fusion, Hondo looks promising and the Radeon HD 7000 series are great in power savings and completely trounce nVidia in performance per watt.[/citation]

Does anyone realize AMD use to waste Intel even before Athlon 64. Everyone seems to bring up the Athlon 64 days only. It was after Athlon 64 days that Intel finally winning and the reason AMD never truly took the table is because Intel was so good at marketing. Think of Apple, they never went away, marketing kept um in.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]zloginet[/nom]Does anyone realize AMD use to waste Intel even before Athlon 64. Everyone seems to bring up the Athlon 64 days only. It was after Athlon 64 days that Intel finally winning and the reason AMD never truly took the table is because Intel was so good at marketing. Think of Apple, they never went away, marketing kept um in.[/citation]

Intel isn't winning just because of marketing right now. AMD didn't waste Intel prior to the Athlon 64 versus P4 either. Before the Athlon 64 came out, Intel and AMD traded places as the best several times. The difference is that neither held that position for too long and there was also Cyrix competing with both of them for a while.

 

[eliezer_kt]

I have always been an AMD fan, Always respected them for their value offerings. But now I have no option but Sandy Bridge. I kinda feel bad for them, hope they make a come back. That would be good for everyone. Goodluck AMD you need it!

 

[deksman]

[citation][nom]willard[/nom]+1. Anyone who says a 77W chip is hotter than a 95W chip is either a moron or troll. In either case, they aren't worth your time.[/citation]

TDP is not necessarily directly connected to lower or higher temperatures.
You need to take into account the amount of transistors (higher amount can produce higher temperatures) and lets not forget that Intel has a more powerful version of it's integrated gpu on the same chip - which is probably contributing to higher temperatures.

As for AMD... I would love for them to finally have a product that can directly compete with Intel, but it's entirely possible that these FX chips might present a marginal increase in performance and nothing large.
Unless of course AMD did some changes to the architecture itself.
Either way, we won't know until the chips can be tested.

To that end, AMD is still a good bang for buck, and those who may need more cpu power, they will probably get Intel either way.
In games, the higher performing cpu's won't really offer that much of a difference, unless the game is heavily reliant on the cpu in the first place (and that is not so often).
The biggest difference would be felt in professional programs such as 3d Studio Max, but even there, you can switch over to GPGPU solution that would effectively speed up your rendering times by a factor of 15 to 20.

 

[tipoo]

The per-core performance of the top end model is still around the higher end Core 2 Quads. The price drops would have to be pretty damn steep for it to be even moderately appealing. Right now you can build a Core i5 SB system for close to the same price, so what's the point of getting the FX series with worse performance in 9 out of 10 tasks? They need to go really cheap for these to sell.