AMD Plans New FX Processors to Go Up Against Ivy Bridge

[Guest]

i dont know why ppl are so protective towards 'their favorite company'. Are you all really brainwashed and manipulated that much? I love intel, but id love amd to deliver some competing product again. Its a GOOD THING for us the consumers. Remember when AMD produced the Athlon cpu's? Those were good times, high speed computers for a really good price.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]deksman[/nom]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.[/citation]

FX has huge non-architectural problems. Also, all of AMD's CPUs provide huge bottlenecks for high end graphics systems. The best Bulldozer based FX for gaming at stock performance, the FX-4170, bottlenecks anything more than the Radeon 6950 or GTX 570 (Nvidia is a little less CPU reliant than AMD graphics cards) in modern games (including the quad threaded games). For example, one of Tom's SBM had an FX-6100 machine with dual 6950s in CF and an i5-2400 machine with a single 6950. The i5 machine, despite having almost half of the FX machine's graphics performance, beat the FX machine in most of the games.

FX's biggest problems are it's poor design methods and it's very high latency cache. For example, the FX CPU was designed purely by computers (it's a computer generated design). The problem with this is that computers tend to not know the way to design the fastest CPU, they just know the fastest way to design a CPU. A CPU that is designed transistor-by-transistor by a small group of highly skilled engineers can be hand-optimized to be far better than the very poor computer generated designs. According to AMD's ex engineers, the computer generated designs are roughly 20% slower, 20% larger, and consume 20% more power. Just fixing this non-architectural problem alone would improve power efficiency by about 44%!

Improving the cache's latency, another non-architectural problem, would also improve performance significantly, although it wouldn't improve power efficiency nearly as much as using the proper design methods. Improving the efficiency of the memory controller, yet another non-architectural problem, would also be of benefit because the Bulldozer and Llano memory controller gets about 25% less bandwidth than the Sandy Bridge controller does at the same memory frequency.

Fixing these three non-architectural problems could improve upon Bulldozer based FX CPU's performance by over 40%* while decreasing power usage by almost 20%.

* It's hard to say how much more performance the CPU would have if the cache latencies get brought down properly. Many of them would need to at least be cut in half in order to come close to Sandy Bridge's latencies and I'm not quite sure just how much performance would be increased by this.

 

[silverblue]

SB has a full speed cache architecture; AMD seems pretty happy with sitting back on 2.2GHz cache. Additionally, the L3 cache is split into four blocks with Bulldozer, whereas Sandy Bridge has a shared 8MB block. There's also that frighteningly quick ring bus.

There's definitely plenty of areas where Piledriver can improve on Bulldozer. Even if Piledriver still uses more power than the i7-2600K, that won't be a surprise considering the significantly higher amount of resources on-die... only this time it should make proper use of them.

 

[eddieroolz]

Let's hope the new FX-4xxxs can capture the budget processor recommendation...

 

[Guest]

Well that AMD troll is correct in some respects. Ivy bridge chips do generally run hotter than their sandy bridge predecessors when overclocked. It turns out that intel used a cheap thermal interface material rather than soldering the integrated heat spreader to the ivy bridge chip.

But I think most of us here are interested in overclocking ivy bridge-e when it arrives, rather than overclocking a laptop. It would be pretty stupid of intel to cheap out on thermal interface on ivy bridge-e.

With an unoverclocked processor ivy bridge is cooler and faster than sandy bridge.

 

[Guest]

We need AMD to fight against Intel , so that Intel won't get the chance to over-price whatever whenever it fells like it .

 

[pacioli]

AMD needs to take back at least the Price/Perf crown at least in the sub-$100 sector to survive...
When a $70 Intel proc outgames AMDs $250 offerings it is an ominous sign...

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]pacioli[/nom]AMD needs to take back at least the Price/Perf crown at least in the sub-$100 sector to survive...When a $70 Intel proc outgames AMDs $250 offerings it is an ominous sign...[/citation]

That only happens in games that don't use more than two threads. That isn't as common anymore and the AMD CPUs are doing a little better. Besides, AMD doesn't have a $250 offering, the 8150 is $200 and it's not a gaming processor, it's a highly threaded productivity processor that competes with the i7s. It should come as no surprise that it does not do well in gaming. In fact, the FX-6100 and FX-4100 are just as good as the FX-8150 for gaming, so it's more fair to compare AMD's $100 FX-4100 to the $70 Pentiums. The FX-4100 wins in games that can make use of it's threads and is very close in games that only use two threads (the FX-4100 has a 1GHz advantage that helps to curb Intel's performance per Hz advantage and it also has an additional two cores to spread highly threaded and background work on). The FX-4100 competes well with the more expensive (yet more power efficient) i3s, although it isn't quite as fast as them. The performance difference isn't enough to be noticeable in most modern games unless you're using a high end graphics setup and in that case, the i3 would be almost as much of a bottle-neck anyway.

 

[constepatdyak]

probably won't even touch the 3570k

 

[blazorthon]

probably won't even touch the 3570k

They're not supposed to. The i5-3570K is in a completely different price league, not just performance league. Of course, you might mock AMD for not making their sub $150 *gaming* CPUs beat Intel's $250 *gaming* CPU, but that doesn't make much sense to me. Of course, if we go by highly-threaded performance, we can see how the FX-8xxx CPUs fly past the more expensive i5s, so it's not like the i5-3570K wins in everything or even close to everything, just in gaming and similar CPU workloads.

A 95w FX-8120 (I'm having trouble finding many of them because the 125w variants are much more common, but 95w 8120s are around) could actually beat the i5s in highly threaded power efficiency and performance. A lower wattage FX-6xxx might have a chance at that too. They don't beat i7s in highly-threaded power efficiency, but they're not in the same price range and the 95w 8120s are close enough to the i7s in both highly threaded performance and highly threaded power efficiency that the huge price gap can't be closed in a reasonable amount of time. Piledriver should do an excellent job of continuing this.

 

[jewie27]

Faildozer part 2.

 

[spookyman]

I guess I will have to settle for my 3960X for now. Be a long time before AMD has anything that can beat it.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]spookyman[/nom]I guess I will have to settle for my 3960X for now. Be a long time before AMD has anything that can beat it.[/citation]

Beating a $1000 CPU that is only slightly faster than a $600 CPU that is also overpriced is not on AMD's top priority list because it doesn't matter. Frankly, I'm surprised that anyone is willing to waste the $400 for at best, maybe a 5% gain. I'd be surprised if the 3960X can be even as much as 10% faster than a 3930K in the same situation.

Furthermore, some of AMD's Opterons can beat the 3960X in highly threaded performance.

 

[Guest]

I usually don't comment but for everyone jumping down Chip in a Box's throat. http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/ivy-bridge-chips-run-hot-due-to-intels-thermal-paste-choice-20120514/

 

[Guest]

AMD needs a foundry that has a light source in the ultraviolet to produce features smaller than what the intel foundry uses. Intel funded a hi teck R&D company to produce a high power laser to upconvert an other companys light source to illuminate it's masks . AMD needs to raise the capital to fund the hi teck company
to build the laser that directly illuminates their mask at a higher UV frequency than intel..

 

[tomhuang03]

I was duped by the deceitful title!

 

[griptwister]

Intel and AMD Fanboy Idiots... Intel and AMD Fanboys Idiots EVERYWHERE...

Most benchmarks show the FX-8350 Competes well with the i7-2600K in video editing and various other benchmarks. The FX-8350 out performs the i5-3570k and the i7 out perfroms the FX-8350 in most gaming benchmarks and a few by only a hairs difference... Get your facts straight... the Ivy Bridge is a VERY good setup, but for us that can't afford it, AMD is the better option.

 

[griptwister]

The Ivy Bridge chipset performs better, and has a lower TDP, but it does not OC as well as the Bulldozer, Just because it only requires 77w doesn't mean it runs cooler. It only means it requires less power.

 

[jewie27]

Vischera already came out and can't beat Ivy Bridge. A I5-3570K smokes an FX 8350.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]jewie27[/nom]Vischera already came out and can't beat Ivy Bridge. A I5-3570K smokes an FX 8350.[/citation]

In highly threaded work, the 8350 usually smokes the i5-3570K. Oh, it also smokes the i5-3570K in BF3 MP if you're going for who can get the most ridiculously high FPS with 64 players and such.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]Anonymous[/nom]AMD needs a foundry that has a light source in the ultraviolet to produce features smaller than what the intel foundry uses. Intel funded a hi teck R&D company to produce a high power laser to upconvert an other companys light source to illuminate it's masks . AMD needs to raise the capital to fund the hi teck companyto build the laser that directly illuminates their mask at a higher UV frequency than intel..[/citation]

AMD is fab-less. It's not AMD that *needs* to do anything like that, it's the fab companies such as GF, TSMC, and Samsung.

 

[artbunker]

Im a AMD fan and I gotta call Shanaghans on this. Wasnt there a article on this site a few days ago stating AMD wasnt going to go in a desktop war with intel anymore !? Im getting mixed messages here AMD. Sorry AMD you might just want to work on the casual market or budget gamers customers.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]artbunker[/nom]Im a AMD fan and I gotta call Shanaghans on this. Wasnt there a article on this site a few days ago stating AMD wasnt going to go in a desktop war with intel anymore !? Im getting mixed messages here AMD. Sorry AMD you might just want to work on the casual market or budget gamers customers.[/citation]

These CPUs in the article never launched (at least not in retail). However, Piledriver CPUs which are superior to the CPUs in this article did launch and are selling right now with plenty of reviews of them if you want to read them. Tom's and Techreport only reviewed the FX-8350, but other sites reviewed all of the new CPUs that I'm aware of, the FX-4300, FX-6300, FX-8320, and FX-8350.

The greatest improvement is probably the FX-4100/4170 to the FX-4300 which uses a little less power than the FX-4100 while outperforming the FX-4170.

 

[dijadoit]

I like AMD, if the don't change ther socket platform it will cripple there steamroller cpu.

Intel
775 to 1156 good move

Amd
AM3 to Am3+ ok, eventually it will come to a deadend.

Should've done already:

Am3/Am3+ to 1207 socket (operton flip chip style socket)

For example the Phenom II x6 is a derivative of the amd operton core and assuming the future cores are the same. Great for multi threaded apps but very weak on single threaded apps.

The engineers are like working with one hand tied behind the back trying to make the next following core to work efficiently on a socket that can be limiting.

By switching to a new socket or using socket design that is in already use; like the amd operton as an example, it can give the designers more breathing room to focus in improving execution on single threaded apps without compromise. And finding creative ways in improving power usage at the same time reducing heat problems.

Don't get me wrong, the piledriver was a huge step in the right direction; worthy of an upgrade from a phenom II to the vishera. But as for the steamroller coming out next year, the benchmarks probably be good when it can be alot better.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]dijadoit[/nom]I like AMD, if the don't change ther socket platform it will cripple there steamroller cpu.Intel 775 to 1156 good moveAmdAM3 to Am3+ ok, eventually it will come to a deadend.Should've done already:Am3/Am3+ to 1207 socket (operton flip chip style socket)For example the Phenom II x6 is a derivative of the amd operton core and assuming the future cores are the same. Great for multi threaded apps but very weak on single threaded apps.The engineers are like working with one hand tied behind the back trying to make the next following core to work efficiently on a socket that can be limiting.By switching to a new socket or using socket design that is in already use; like the amd operton as an example, it can give the designers more breathing room to focus in improving execution on single threaded apps without compromise. And finding creative ways in improving power usage at the same time reducing heat problems.Don't get me wrong, the piledriver was a huge step in the right direction; worthy of an upgrade from a phenom II to the vishera. But as for the steamroller coming out next year, the benchmarks probably be good when it can be alot better.[/citation]

What does the socket have to do with any of this? Intel moved from 775 to 1156 to get the memory controller integrated into the CPU die, so sure, it was a good move, but AMD already has their memory controller integrated into the CPU die (and has for almost a decade), so there's little reason to update the socket like Intel did in that case.

AFAIK, pretty much all of AMD's desktop CPUs are Opteron derivatives these days (hence their ECC support, among other such things), so I also don't see your point in mentioning it.