- Status
davemaster84
Distinguished
- Jun 15, 2011
- 464
- 0
- 18,810
[citation][nom]master_chen[/nom]Even after this is released, I'll still recommend Phenom II to any of my clients that would wish for a trully high-quality AMD-based build.I'll easily recommend Phenom II to anyone anytime, instead of a lame fail that is the entire FX line.P.S. Faildozer's inept fanboys butthurt incoming!...in 3...2...1...[/citation]
Looks like another Intelfanboy silly AMD hater is right on the radar
Looks like another Intelfanboy silly AMD hater is right on the radar
davemaster84
Distinguished
- Jun 15, 2011
- 464
- 0
- 18,810
[citation][nom]luciferano[/nom]I like to consider myself an enthusiast. I have no problem with spending a few minutes of my time to use an AMD CPU properly rather than go for Intel. That the average user doesn't really have this option without outside help is a great obstacle in the way of this for the average user, so Intel can make more sense. However, if any enthusiast can take an FX-81xx CPU and make it perform more like an i7 K edition in overclocking performance at comparable power consumption, then I can save a lot of money by going with it and that's money that can be focused on other aspects of the computer. If it's a gaming build, then that's a good amount of money sent towards the graphics and/or other components. A professional build could get a better SSD and such.[/citation]
I totally agree with you, Intel's IB prices and boards are on the roof and even though I like to spend a lot on my computer I rather use that money to buy another 680 or 2 monitors or whatever. I think people cries to much about those 125w and most of them have 1000W power supplies, so why are they so worried about anyway?
I totally agree with you, Intel's IB prices and boards are on the roof and even though I like to spend a lot on my computer I rather use that money to buy another 680 or 2 monitors or whatever. I think people cries to much about those 125w and most of them have 1000W power supplies, so why are they so worried about anyway?
luciferano
Honorable
- Sep 24, 2012
- 1,513
- 0
- 11,810
[citation][nom]nebun[/nom]really now?....they are called i7 the 3rd edition or you might also call them revision 3[/citation]
A well-configured FX-8120 can meet or marginally beat those i7s in performance with only marginally higher power consumption at about half the price. Also, their called third-generation i7s.
A well-configured FX-8120 can meet or marginally beat those i7s in performance with only marginally higher power consumption at about half the price. Also, their called third-generation i7s.
luciferano
Honorable
- Sep 24, 2012
- 1,513
- 0
- 11,810
proffet
Honorable
- Aug 30, 2012
- 489
- 0
- 10,810
and, so.?!
one's random thoughts is one's random thoughts...
and as for my AMD unit: [980BE @ 4.1GHz | ASUS 990X | EVGA SC GTX 580]
(yes I have an AMD unit as well as Intel)
I'll be running that (980BE) well into Piledriver unless I am mistaken and Piledriver is worth something more than I expect it to be.
thanks for your concern.
you 'jelly'.? LoL
technoholic
Distinguished
- Feb 27, 2008
- 800
- 0
- 19,160
I really want AMD come back into this arena with decent CPUs. I used AMD for my 3 rigs before, begining from k6-2 to an excellent A64 3k+ but after that their CPUs didn't really make sense compared to Intel's. Now i have a first gen i7 in my laptop. I can't say i'm impressed with this one but AMD really don't have a good CPU solution in laptop market. I mean a mobile CPU not APU. Don't favor APUs myself
technoholic
Distinguished
- Feb 27, 2008
- 800
- 0
- 19,160
I don't understand this. How can they put CPU and GPU in the same package with decent results and how can they NOT design a well performing CPU in a dedicated package?
luciferano
Honorable
- Sep 24, 2012
- 1,513
- 0
- 11,810
[citation][nom]technoholic[/nom]I don't understand this. How can they put CPU and GPU in the same package with decent results and how can they NOT design a well performing CPU in a dedicated package?[/citation]
They did design well-performing CPUs. The FX-81xx CPUs are right up there with the i7s in highly threaded performance. They simply weren't configured towards lightly threaded performance which is arguably more important for most consumers and that's not difficult to do yourself if you really cared.
They did design well-performing CPUs. The FX-81xx CPUs are right up there with the i7s in highly threaded performance. They simply weren't configured towards lightly threaded performance which is arguably more important for most consumers and that's not difficult to do yourself if you really cared.
halcyon
Splendid
- Dec 4, 2004
- 5,566
- 0
- 25,810
Again, I'm not an Intel fan...I'm a best-performance fan. It could be AMD, Intel, or Toy-R-Us...get me that which is of the quick. I wish AMD (or Toys-R-Us or whoever) would choose to compete here as I realize Intel is the school-yard bully and I don't particularly like that.
how could they put in an inferior integrated memory controller that bottlenecks the igpu?
how could they not improve the imc prior to designing the igpu?
how could they keep the said inferior imc in the upgraded version of apu that offers higher performance in igpu dept in every way?
how could they end up with oversupply of prior gen apus despite observing user buying habits or not adjust with the market-wise economic situations (in emerging markets mainly)?
how could they not build pcie 3.0 supporting server cpu and chipsets?
how could they...
*yawn*
anyway, sufficient supply in retail channels and attractive launch prices is the key. i am guessing that amd will attack with cpu+mobo combo deals with now-cheap-but-feature-rich 970/900x/990fx motherboards.
current "leaked" prices are not attractive... to anyone who has held out through bulldozer hype.
to repeat: these cpus better not choke/bottleneck!!!
how could they not improve the imc prior to designing the igpu?
how could they keep the said inferior imc in the upgraded version of apu that offers higher performance in igpu dept in every way?
how could they end up with oversupply of prior gen apus despite observing user buying habits or not adjust with the market-wise economic situations (in emerging markets mainly)?
how could they not build pcie 3.0 supporting server cpu and chipsets?
how could they...
*yawn*
anyway, sufficient supply in retail channels and attractive launch prices is the key. i am guessing that amd will attack with cpu+mobo combo deals with now-cheap-but-feature-rich 970/900x/990fx motherboards.
current "leaked" prices are not attractive... to anyone who has held out through bulldozer hype.
to repeat: these cpus better not choke/bottleneck!!!
luciferano
Honorable
- Sep 24, 2012
- 1,513
- 0
- 11,810
[citation][nom]proffet[/nom]and, so.?!one's random thoughts is one's random thoughts...and as for my AMD unit: [980BE @ 4.1GHz | ASUS 990X | EVGA SC GTX 580] (yes I have an AMD unit as well as Intel)I'll be running that (980BE) well into Piledriver unless I am mistaken and Piledriver is worth something more than I expect it to be.thanks for your concern. you 'jelly'.? LoL[/citation]
To keep things simple, you could just disable four cores of an FX-8120 (available for about $150 last I checked) and bring the CPU/NB frequency from 2GHz or 2.2GHz up to 2.8GHz. You'd be between Nehalem/Westmere and Sandy Bridge in performance per Hz and could hit higher clock frequencies than Sandy and Ivy Bridge, so you could match them in performance in an OC versus OC comparison. If you actually want to use AMD in the high end with proper performance, then you can.
To keep things simple, you could just disable four cores of an FX-8120 (available for about $150 last I checked) and bring the CPU/NB frequency from 2GHz or 2.2GHz up to 2.8GHz. You'd be between Nehalem/Westmere and Sandy Bridge in performance per Hz and could hit higher clock frequencies than Sandy and Ivy Bridge, so you could match them in performance in an OC versus OC comparison. If you actually want to use AMD in the high end with proper performance, then you can.
Mathos
Distinguished
- Jun 17, 2007
- 584
- 0
- 18,980
[citation][nom]bustapr[/nom]by the looks of trinity piledriver cores, I doubt a 4.4 clocked 8120 would equal the 8350. AMD has undoubtably fixed alot of its design flaws, and this new 8 core should overclock like a beast. Im quite confident that this round of cpus will be much better than the last.[/citation]
They don't have abysmal floating point performance.. All of the synthetics showed BD's 4 FPU's outperforming the 6FPUs in the PII X 6. It was only in real world programs that there seems to be a problem. And that we don't know if it's thread scheduling on the OS level, or at the CPU level.
They don't have abysmal floating point performance.. All of the synthetics showed BD's 4 FPU's outperforming the 6FPUs in the PII X 6. It was only in real world programs that there seems to be a problem. And that we don't know if it's thread scheduling on the OS level, or at the CPU level.
luciferano
Honorable
- Sep 24, 2012
- 1,513
- 0
- 11,810
[citation][nom]De5_roy[/nom]how could they put in an inferior integrated memory controller that bottlenecks the igpu?how could they not improve the imc prior to designing the igpu?how could they keep the said inferior imc in the upgraded version of apu that offers higher performance in igpu dept in every way?how could they end up with oversupply of prior gen apus despite observing user buying habits or not adjust with the market-wise economic situations (in emerging markets mainly)?how could they not build pcie 3.0 supporting server cpu and chipsets?how could they... *yawn*anyway, sufficient supply in retail channels and attractive launch prices is the key. i am guessing that amd will attack with cpu+mobo combo deals with now-cheap-but-feature-rich 970/900x/990fx motherboards.current "leaked" prices are not attractive... to anyone who has held out through bulldozer hype.to repeat: these cpus better not choke/bottleneck!!![/citation]
For PCIe 3.0, we might actually get that with a new chipset (although I think that it'll hit with a new socket instead) and with these Vishera CPUs just like native USB3.0 support and more, so the servers might actually get it even if we don't, but that's beside the point. The servers use the exact same dies as the consumer CPUs do as far as I'm aware, so that they have the same limitations (especially since the current Bulldozer Opterons all use the same sockets as the previous generation did for convenient compatibility).
Similarly good questions might include why has Intel used a flawed implementation of PCIe 3.0 in the LGA 2011 CPUs, why does Intel make a huge number of ridiculously similar models (differing by 100MHz or 200MHz is not really differing at all), why does Intel only let us overclock i5s and i7s when lightly threaded performance is generally still key and i3s are no worse at it than i5s (if an ~3GHz i5 can handle things just fine, then I bet that a 5GHz i3 would do similarly well with decent power consumption at a little more than half the price of an i5K), why did Intel use low conductivity paste between the integrated heat spreader and the CPU die of Ivy Bridge CPUs (and a few others historically), and why for so many other screw-ups and screw-yous of AMD, Intel, Nvidia, and so many other companies. They all screw up and do things that can be considered abusive to their customers.
For PCIe 3.0, we might actually get that with a new chipset (although I think that it'll hit with a new socket instead) and with these Vishera CPUs just like native USB3.0 support and more, so the servers might actually get it even if we don't, but that's beside the point. The servers use the exact same dies as the consumer CPUs do as far as I'm aware, so that they have the same limitations (especially since the current Bulldozer Opterons all use the same sockets as the previous generation did for convenient compatibility).
Similarly good questions might include why has Intel used a flawed implementation of PCIe 3.0 in the LGA 2011 CPUs, why does Intel make a huge number of ridiculously similar models (differing by 100MHz or 200MHz is not really differing at all), why does Intel only let us overclock i5s and i7s when lightly threaded performance is generally still key and i3s are no worse at it than i5s (if an ~3GHz i5 can handle things just fine, then I bet that a 5GHz i3 would do similarly well with decent power consumption at a little more than half the price of an i5K), why did Intel use low conductivity paste between the integrated heat spreader and the CPU die of Ivy Bridge CPUs (and a few others historically), and why for so many other screw-ups and screw-yous of AMD, Intel, Nvidia, and so many other companies. They all screw up and do things that can be considered abusive to their customers.
proffet
Honorable
- Aug 30, 2012
- 489
- 0
- 10,810
I've heard that before.
how come AMD just doesn't make the chip that way then.?
kinda defeats the purpose of having the (well designed...
) FX-Bullcrapper CPU and then having to disable half of it for performance...what kind of crap is AMD trying to produce.?
oh I know, they took the human element out of their chip design and production so now it's all machines and wasted die space.
first mistake..
then instead of improving the Deneb/Thuban arch they pulled a fast one on us and thought this is a better direction.
second mistake.
and then marketing of how well the new arch performs...
third strike (mistake) and you out.!!!
from what i've read so far, ...
intel couldn't (or intentionally didn't, to sell ivb) validate for pcie 3.0 in time for sb-e launch.
intel will never sell an unlocked, <32nm dual core/triple core/core-unlockable cpu. i think they ended with i5 655k. they would do this to protect the unlocked i5 and some lower priced i7s. hell, they even make seperate cpu dies. it isn't about consumer convenience. it is, and always has been, about money. they segment their products in a way that customers have to pay more to get better desired performance. the lack of competition in the i5/i7 price segment doesn't help either...
i read somewhere that because of the new 22nm design, newer 3d finfet tech etc somehow made the cpu more fragile, may be the solder would put more pressure on the cpu. another reason is the one more well-known: to sell ivb without hurting the sb sales while focusing on mobile sector. the ivb cpus have higher tjmax so stock isn't usually the problem. oc is where the heat and temp issues start and intel intentionally sidestepped them with ivb.
intel is in a place where they can enforce certain things on users as no one's there to challenge them. and they are not diong anything illegal this time e.g. in ivb oc case, intel openly says that they do not cover component overclocking in their standard warranty (neither does amd).
amd isn't anywhere near where intel is and they don't seem to be chasing intel that way. their biggest asset has been their way of out-strategizing intel like they did by designing the brazos and llano apus. i am expecting them to do the same with trinity and piledriver although it doesn't seem like they've succeeded so far. i really hope they turn around soon.
proffet :
I've heard that before.
how come AMD just doesn't make the chip that way then.?
kinda defeats the purpose of having the (well designed... ) FX-Bullcrapper CPU and then having to disable half of it for performance...
what kind of crap is AMD trying to produce.?
oh I know, they took the human element out of their chip design and production so now it's all machines and wasted die space.
first mistake..
then instead of improving the Deneb/Thuban arch they pulled a fast one on us and thought this is a better direction.
second mistake.
and then marketing of how well the new arch performs...
third strike (mistake) and you out.!!!
how come AMD just doesn't make the chip that way then.?
kinda defeats the purpose of having the (well designed...
) FX-Bullcrapper CPU and then having to disable half of it for performance...what kind of crap is AMD trying to produce.?
oh I know, they took the human element out of their chip design and production so now it's all machines and wasted die space.
first mistake..
then instead of improving the Deneb/Thuban arch they pulled a fast one on us and thought this is a better direction.
second mistake.
and then marketing of how well the new arch performs...
third strike (mistake) and you out.!!!
They didn't "design it that way before" because the issue isn't in the implementation of the hardware itself, but in the scheduling of the threads. As has been stated before when you get off windows and onto an operating system that understands what it's dealing with, performance jumps to Nehalem/sandy bridge levels per clock and clockspeeds jump significantly on top of that. Everything that he stated in his post happens automatically.
davemaster84
Distinguished
- Jun 15, 2011
- 464
- 0
- 18,810
[citation][nom]ubercake[/nom]The prices seem good, but are these things going to make AMD competitive from a gaming standpoint or do we have to wait for an architecture upgrade (ie AM4) to see this?[/citation]
As you may know games lately are mostle GPU dependant, I'm sure they will be competitive enough to be an alternative to IB and maybe to mid Haswell
As you may know games lately are mostle GPU dependant, I'm sure they will be competitive enough to be an alternative to IB and maybe to mid Haswell
proffet
Honorable
- Aug 30, 2012
- 489
- 0
- 10,810
still weak, period.
the testing show that Windows 'scheduling' didn't do much in terms of performance, maybe 7% at best.
so what you say is a far reach.
same was said about FX-Bullcrapper too so remember that.
wait for the actual reviews of the released final retail product before you jump off the bridge and sink.
[citation][nom]proffet[/nom]still weak, period.the testing show that Windows 'scheduling' didn't do much in terms of performance, maybe 7% at best.so what you say is a far reach.[/citation]
Those numbers don't even come close to manual thread scheduling. That was a hotfix. 8 is the real McCoy.
Those numbers don't even come close to manual thread scheduling. That was a hotfix. 8 is the real McCoy.
proffet
Honorable
- Aug 30, 2012
- 489
- 0
- 10,810
we'll see.
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1425/pg6/windows-8-installation-overview-and-radeon-7750-fx-6100-performance-test-system-and-methodology.html
with Piledriver 'Vishera'
single core performance will ONLY be as good as Deneb C3 hopefully better but not close to Intel.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Can´t open BIOS because no keyboard input is received.
- Started by Blatscher
- Replies: 11
-
-
-
News US sanctions transform China into legacy chip production juggernaut — production jumped 40% in Q1 2024- Started by Admin
- Replies: 35
-
-
Question New pc build r9 7900x3d rtx 4080 super no post only ram rgb turns on- Started by Harvey Durward
- Replies: 4
Latest posts
-
-
-
Question RTX 2060 Zotac stops giving display output when pushed hard- Latest: Moru Zerinho6
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram