AMD Plans New FX Processors to Go Up Against Ivy Bridge

[davemaster84]

Well sure they will in the price - performance category, although at least for gaming the 8350 has done a very good job overpassing the 3570k and been so close for the more expensive 3770k

 

[maxw]

[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]

Actually he is right about that. The Ivy chips are packed more densely because of a smaller process (22nm) and the stacked 3d transistors. Same wattage in a smaller space results in higher temperatures and less room for overclocking.

 

[bunz_of_steel]

Yeh well not much new then. AMD still suffering from nut shot

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]maxw[/nom]Actually he is right about that. The Ivy chips are packed more densely because of a smaller process (22nm) and the stacked 3d transistors. Same wattage in a smaller space results in higher temperatures and less room for overclocking.[/citation]

Actually they're mostly hotter just because of the crap paste that was used to replace the flux-less solder between the IHS and the CPU die. Also, the transistors aren't stacked. They're 3D because they're not flat.

 

[MaXimus421]

Just because AMD can't compete well (enough) or top Intel isn't necessarily a deal breaker. They still turn a huge profit as a chip manufacture and make good GPUs.

Yeah, I like AMD. Sorry.

 

[MaXimus421]

Err.. Okay they don't turn a profit, lol.

Still though.. lmfao.

 

[nebun]

so how does this make it compete with intel?.....amd will never more powerful when compared with intel

 

[justchuck69]

Well i hope all you Intel fan bois are enjoying the drastic price cuts in the ivy and sandy bridge cpus !

If AMD goes titsup then we will all be enjoying $500 i3 ! We need competition in this market to drive prices down innovations coming !

just stating facts ( except the first line was sarcastic ) i've noticed that the i5 2500k and i5 3570k and also the i7 2700k and i7 3770k have pretty well stuck to the same prices ( a little fluctuation in the amount of 10 20 bucks here and there for a short sale but nothing major ) that they were released at !

 

[hytecgowthaman]

If see in cost per core and oc capabilities AMD is better then Intel , but only difference is AMD use high w to get the speed so we need more watts psu .

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]nebun[/nom]so how does this make it compete with intel?.....amd will never more powerful when compared with intel[/citation]

There are a great many situations where AMD has beaten Intel over the years and even to this day. At no point in time has Intel had greater highly threaded performance for the money as far as I can remember. When it comes to overclocking today, AMD has Intel beat by significant margins everywhere south of around the $200 price point and in many cases, still beats Intel everywhere south of around the $300 price point.

Even for power consumption, AMD's Trinity APUs beat out most of the Intel competition in idle power consumption, far more important for most users than fully loaded power consumption. AMD has their fair share of wins just as does Intel.

[citation][nom]justchuck69[/nom]Well i hope all you Intel fan bois are enjoying the drastic price cuts in the ivy and sandy bridge cpus !If AMD goes titsup then we will all be enjoying $500 i3 ! We need competition in this market to drive prices down innovations coming !just stating facts ( except the first line was sarcastic ) i've noticed that the i5 2500k and i5 3570k and also the i7 2700k and i7 3770k have pretty well stuck to the same prices ( a little fluctuation in the amount of 10 20 bucks here and there for a short sale but nothing major ) that they were released at ![/citation]

Intel can't have such ridiculous prices because most people would not buy their CPUs anymore if they did even if they had no alternative other than keeping what they had for many years at a time. Intel isn't just competing with AMD, Intel is competing with themselves. If Intel fails to compete with what they've already sold, then they simply won't sell many CPUs anymore. Programmers and such will have little choice but to make more and more optimized code (as will Microsoft with their operating systems), further reducing the need for CPU upgrades. Intel would have little choice but to offer fair prices and that's all assuming that they're not crushed by anti-trust lawsuits if they become more of a monopoly.

 

[digiex]

Put L3 in their APU at the same price. They will reconquer the lower end market taken by Intel's G series.

 

[justchuck69]

yeah a small or medium sized low latency L3 cache might help but the FX series screwed up by having a large L3 with high latencies !

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]digiex[/nom]Put L3 in their APU at the same price. They will reconquer the lower end market taken by Intel's G series.[/citation]

There's not much of a difference between the A8-5600K and the FX-4300 in performance. The only hardware difference in their CPUs is that the FX-4300 has a 4MiB L3 cache whereas the A10-5600K has no L3 cache and an identical 2x2MiB L2 cache. Both also have comparable performance to the FX-4170 which has an 8MiB L3 cache Like justchuck69 said, AMD's L3 cache's performance is simply too low for it to make a significant difference in most situations.

Including L3 would increase cost and power consumption significantly without improving CPU performance much overall. Having a good on-die eDRAM cache for the GPU might help it significantly, but the CPU needs much lower latency than AMD's L3 cache offers if its to make a significant difference.

 

[danwat1234]

[citation][nom]kawininjazx[/nom]Maybe they can beat the i5 2500K by 2014.[/citation]
Yep, after Piledriver comes a little update called Richland but then a bigger update in 2014 or so with 28nm lithography tech and it'll be called Kaveri. I'm sure that would be equivalent or better clock for clock to the 1st generation of Core i3/i5/i7 CPUs.

 

[subtleendowment]

Doesn't matter with the next gen intel processors.

 

[internetlad]

So how's that working for you, AMD?

 

[justchuck69]

[citation][nom]internetlad[/nom]So how's that working for you, AMD?[/citation]


Well it keeps Intel prices high !

 

[spat55]

I would really like to see AMD give intel a run for there money, personally I think they should try and offer chips for about £50, (!5 3570k is about £170) with not as much power as the 3570k but not to far off, and make the sockets stay the same for 5+ years so you can swap them out every 2 years. This is very easy to say however doing is another thing, would be nice to see them get so of the market share back.

 

[blazorthon]

I would really like to see AMD give intel a run for there money, personally I think they should try and offer chips for about £50, (!5 3570k is about £170) with not as much power as the 3570k but not to far off, and make the sockets stay the same for 5+ years so you can swap them out every 2 years. This is very easy to say however doing is another thing, would be nice to see them get so of the market share back.

Undercutting in cost by so much might not be feasible if AMD wants to make a profit.

 

[scannall]

I use whatever works best for the application/price. My newest laptop has an AMD A8-4500m (Trinity). Works great, and I couldn't be happier. My HTPC uses a Llano A4. Works great. But for my gaming rig, well I have to go Intel. As for that application, that's the best part.

 

[marisano]

I don't think 'Chip in a Box' is trolling. Ivy Bridge isn't much of an improvement over Sandy Bridge when you're talking overclocking, and the chips do run hot, particularly when overclocked:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ivy-bridge-overclocking-high-temp,15512.html
http://www.overclockers.com/ivy-bridge-temperatures
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2171299/intel-admits-ivy-bridge-chips-run-hotter

PArt of the heat problem is because of "thermal density," so there's not enough room for heat dissipation and so heat builds up due to the nearness of the lines (and probably increased resistance due to their thinness). The other is because Intel changed the packaging - in Ivy Bridge they're using paste rather than solder to connect to the heat spreader.

The graphics improvements are substantial between the two units, but overclockers are almost assuredly going to have their own discrete graphics cards, so to them - and arguably the large majority of high-end users - that point is largely moot.

 

[blazorthon]

I don't think 'Chip in a Box' is trolling. Ivy Bridge isn't much of an improvement over Sandy Bridge when you're talking overclocking, and the chips do run hot, particularly when overclocked:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ivy-bridge-overclocking-high-temp,15512.html
http://www.overclockers.com/ivy-bridge-temperatures
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2171299/intel-admits-ivy-bridge-chips-run-hotter

PArt of the heat problem is because of "thermal density," so there's not enough room for heat dissipation and so heat builds up due to the nearness of the lines (and probably increased resistance due to their thinness). The other is because Intel changed the packaging - in Ivy Bridge they're using paste rather than solder to connect to the heat spreader.

The graphics improvements are substantial between the two units, but overclockers are almost assuredly going to have their own discrete graphics cards, so to them - and arguably the large majority of high-end users - that point is largely moot.

LOL, we figured that out a long time ago.

Also, Ivy's issues seem to really not be due much to the thermal density. It seems to be pretty much purely the crap paste. Even switching out the paste with higher end paste has been demonstrated to allow for roughly 20% more overclocking headroom and that's still using paste rather than the even better fluxless solder.

 

[marisano]

> LOL, we figured that out a long time ago.

There got to be more pages of comments out here when I wasn't looking. Anyway, back in the early pages they were really giving that guy a hard go of it. Good to know about replacing the thermal paste. Surely Intel must have been aware of this though. Why then, did they go that route?

 

[blazorthon]

> LOL, we figured that out a long time ago.

There got to be more pages of comments out here when I wasn't looking. Anyway, back in the early pages they were really giving that guy a hard go of it. Good to know about replacing the thermal paste. Surely Intel must have been aware of this though. Why then, did they go that route?

I'd assume that Intel found it cheaper, but I'm not sure. It's also possible that Intel wanted to ensure that their SB-E CPUs weren't shown-up or maybe something else instead/too. I am sure that Intel's aware of it and did it intentionally, I just don't know what they're reasoning was and can't do anything more than speculate on it since they don't seem to be talking about it as far as I'm aware.