FX series CPUs and Gaming in 2015 and beyond

[cowboy44mag]

I'm posting this and asking the question why do so many "experts" think that FX CPUs can't game?

I have seen many threads of people asking for expert advice and not really getting expert advice so I am posting this to basically ask why. I have seen people who already have a good AMD AM3+ motherboard asking for a good upgrade path and being told to go to i3 Intel. I read that and think what in the world are they thinking??

Lets look at a few facts about PC gaming. Most PC games are developed for console and ported from console to PC as consoles sell vastly more copies of said game than PC does. So for the past 8 years or so games were made for the Xbox 360 and ran on a maximum of 3 cores, however the vast majority of the games made in the last 8 years ran on 2 cores. That made the iCore the legend that it is in the gaming community, as Intel computers have very powerful core per core performance. If Intel has a weakness it is only apparent in heavily multi threaded applications where the i3 and even the i5 struggle a bit.

Now we have wholly new console systems that utilize AMD hardware. The PS4 (most powerful of the consoles) has 8 jaguar cores running at a max of only 2.0Ghz. Developers aren't going to able to just write and code as usual as trying to code for 2 or even 3 cores isn't going to cut it. With the weaker cores at low speeds they are going to have to make highly multi threaded games that spread the workload to as many of the cores as is possible.

In practice we already have a game we can look at that is a true prelude into what video games of the future are going to look like. I am referring to Shadow of Mordor. Minimum requirements Intel i5 quad core or AMD Phenom II 965 quad core Recommended Intel i7 quad core (with 8 threads) or AMD 8320 8 core. Notice that i3 isn't even listed, it can't run the game well enough to be recommended. Yet there are still "experts" recommending people to go to i3 systems for gaming... Really, really bad advice for future gaming.

As games become more and more optimized for the new consoles they are going to be more and more multi threaded. In benchmarks that will test the entire CPU, such as Cinebench R15 the FX series fairs much better than in benchmarks that will only test one or two cores that have dominated the benchmark world for a long time now. In the old standard of benchmarking, where one or two cores are tested even an i3 can out benchmark an FX 8370, but that particular horse has been beat to death for far too long. In Cinebench R15 my FX 8370 @ 4.5Ghz scores 712-725 reported scores of i5 4690k @ 4.5Ghz are in the 690-700 range. So an older socket FX-8370 is outperforming the much newer, more expensive "superior" i5 4690K when more than one or two cores is benchmarked.

Given that games are becoming more and more multi threaded, given that in multi threaded benchmarks the FX 8370 can outperform the i5 4690K, at a better price, why do so many "experts" say that the FX line can't game? Paired with my Sapphire R9 290 there isn't a game out there that my FX 8370 can't play at ultra settings, newer games at really nice FPS. These first round games developed for the new consoles aren't even optimized yet either. Shadow of Mordor never uses more than 6 cores on my FX 8370 and never pushes any core past 60% utilization. Once games can utilize 6-8 cores at 80, 90, 100% utilization things like bottlenecking won't be an issue anymore for the FX line. And how will even the i5 4690K with 4 cores and 4 threads fair in a game optimized for 6, 7, 8 cores and 6-8 threads? I'm sure it will still run the game, but it won't be outperforming a processor with 8 cores 8 threads.

Shadow of Mordor is the writting on wall for future gaming. i3 computers won't game much longer, i5 compters are going to be the minimum required and therefore may not be able to get ultra settings anymore, and i7 computers are going to be the new best gaming system, closely followed by FX 8 core systems (until Broadwell 8+ thread and next gen AMD is released late 2015, 2016).

I think its past time that anyone recommends an i3 as a gaming rig. the much vaunted i5 was the gaming rig of the last generation, this generation its going to be CPUs that can handle 8 threads or more, so your looking at i7 being the very best, for now, with AMD FX 8320+ being the next best choice. Notice I'm not an AMD fanboy, I'm saying that the i7 is going to be the best processor for future games, I'm just pointing out that games are becoming more and more multi threaded and i5s are already being listed as the minimum required. We are going to have at least 6 or 7 more years of game development for the 8 core PS4 before its replaced by the next consoles. In that time we are going to see games utilizing 6+ threads to their full potential.

With that said FX 8370 is a better recommendation than any i3, and will more than likely be a better recommendation than i5. Best budget gamers would have to start with FX 6300.

 

[cowboy44mag]

believe me any games that require a 3ed party [steam/origin/uplay] type client installed on my drive I don't own so all my games are from the real pc gaming days - not from this crap fest going on today

what game really is not console port first? console is what sells and there best money pc is now 2ed fiddle .. even john carmack went that way cause its easier to do

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/916373-pc/67813102

Totally agree, most if not all games are developed for console first. Don't know how he is a "gaming expert".

 

[junkeymonkey]

''Amd's concepts have been innovative''

that's right but funny how everyone capitalizes on them but amd -- if it was not for amd where would 64bit be at ?? look at a lot of cpu instructions [amd] and so on

that is something we joke about around here as amd comes up with stuff but others do a better job with it


as I said the reason I ditched amd is that they did not offer anything that I all ready had or something I was not interested in ..

maybe next build things maybe different and i'll gladly go back to them ??? but today nothing

 

[cowboy44mag]

Even if the 8 cores or 8 threads get fully utilized, amd still really isn't part of the equation. There are plenty of programs aside from games which make use of more than 4 threads and fx 8xxx/9xxx still fall short of intel's 'only' 4 cores on the i5. Do as many things simultaneous as you want, but do them so slowly and the fewer stronger cores will continue to beat it. Even when it comes down to real world multitasking comparisons where double the core count on the amd chips should shine they continue to fall short. Not to say amd's future endeavors may not turn this around but the current status of the am3+ and fx 8 cores is unfortunately stagnating. If anything, dx12 will make things like the quad and 6 core fx and intel i3's more potent rather than needing an 8 core as the 'min requirement'.

Amd's concepts have been innovative, without a doubt. The execution has just been poor. The had the first 64bit cpu's for desktop, but with little to no 64bit software to use it. A feature without a calling. By the time software migrated to 64bit, the initial amd 64bit cpu's were outdated and intel was producing 64bit chips. Amd decided to take off from 4 to 6 and 8 cores for the mainstream desktop pc. Even today intel doesn't really have 8 core options for mainstream desktop setups. X99 is more of an enthusiast/workstation platform. Yet with half the cores intel has been sitting at the front of the pack for years. In theory 8 cores should prove more capable but in reality cpu's with half the core and half the thread count are outperforming which contradicts that more cores are better, either in single core performance or in multithreaded or multitasking situations.

A newly designed 6 or 8 core from amd with better ipc performance would make for improved performance but that's not going to happen until 2016 and the current already aging fx 8xxx/9xxx just aren't going to magically be revived into powerhouses. Chips only continue to show their age, not grow more powerful from the day they're released. No one is running out and digging up first gen i5's/i7's because they're suddenly better, same goes for similarly aged 6 and 8 core i7's. Yes they have the structure but they're dated and tech improvements are continuing to make present day options more potent.

DX12 isn't gonig to make the i3 shine. 74% performance drop going from 8 cores to 2 cores, and DX12 really only utilizes physical cores, so hyper threading isn't going to help much. I do agree that the FX line is at its end and we are now awaiting the next line of processors, that God willing will have much better IPC. As stated before I'm only looking at gaming, which is also largely decided by GPU, so in gaming the difference between i5 and FX 83xx is getting less and less. With the new technologies and new games being developed for 6 cores the FX performance is only going to improve in gaming. Intel has nothing at all to worry about however as a 6 or 8 core i7 will still crush anything AMD has.

 

[James Mason]

Proof: Games Released in 2014
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XwrPgjfxWoqFZzvxsJtgSm45L4eRbeHWfRsa8K106iY/edit?usp=sharing
Windows: 224
PS4: 135
XB1: 98

 

[NightAntilli]

He's not wrong...

Most PC games being console ports is not entirely untrue. They are maybe not direct ports, but the programming structure remains the same. Thinking that consoles do not influence the way PC games are programmed is either ignorance or denial.
Generally, a game is optimized on consoles first, and later when working on it for the PC they maintain the basis the same to keep development cheaper. It's the reason why last gen games like Assassin's Creed II use one main thread and two additional support threads, the first support thread being medium calculations and the second support thread being very light calculations. Exceptions for this are games like Battlefield, where PC optimization is quite extensive, mainly due to the franchise starting on PC. The majority of other games that are released either on consoles first or on consoles and PC at the same time, are based on the way they designed the Xbox 360 version of the game. The Xbox 360 had three cores, one being almost entirely used for OS, and the other two (almost) completely free for games. Even the PS3 used one core (the PPE) to divide calculations across its SPEs. Only one core could talk to the GPU at any given time, so this method of having one main thread and one or more sub-threads made sense. The one main thread was the most important, which is why Intel CPUs seem so great at gaming. AMD's FX line came in with their CPU design expecting multithreading to take off within the life of the CPUs, but it didn't...

With the more recent games, things have started to changed. Both current consoles (PS4/Xbox 360) support at least 6 threads. With the cores in them being weak, it means developers are forced to program 'sideways' and they can't rely on a single strong core to divide the work anymore. And that's where the current problems come in. DX11 sucks ass for multithreaded calculations, because it still has the limitation that only one core can communicate with the GPU at the same time. This means that when the game has to be translated to PC, they have to figure out how to translate those 6+ threads onto again one main thread, with the rest being support threads. This gives all sort of performance problems, which is why the likes of Watch_Dogs and Assassin's Creed Unity had all those problems.

Then there's DX12 and Vulkan (obviously Mantle as well). Each cpu thread can communicate with the GPU simultaneously at any given time. It becomes quite clear why the sacrifice of single threaded performance for multithreading can be beneficial in this case. You can say that it won't happen, but games are already reporting to be supporting DX12. Deus Ex Mankind Divided is one of them. And in the short time that Mantle was available, over 10 games supported it despite being in beta. Developers themselves asked for these features. So the chance that they'll go unused is slim at best. In the next two years multithreading will be so prevalent that it will be seen as normal. At least for games.
The argument that things didn't become multithreaded in the past and therefore won't be now either is a fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

Proof: Games Released in 2014
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XwrPgjfxWoqFZzvxsJtgSm45L4eRbeHWfRsa8K106iY/edit?usp=sharing
Windows: 224
PS4: 135
XB1: 98

How many of those 224 Windows games are;
- Mobile games
- Indie games
- Ports of very old games
- 2D games
- Card games

In how many of those games does it really matter whether you have a strong CPU or not? If you're going to argue something, at least try not to be deceptive.

 

[junkeymonkey]

see thers the one thing where AMD has turned it attention to is the console -- desk top took a back seat

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/01/14/advanced-micro-devices-inc-hints-at-a-new-video-ga.aspx

 

[synphul]

I don't see the difference between i5's and fx 8xxx getting less. In many games they do perform similarly but there's also the issue of frame rate drops. Many times people only look at max or avg fps and skip min fps. More of an exaggeration but if you have 2 cpu's both pushing 80fps max but one dips to the mid 40's or 50's while the other only dips to the 60's, there will be noticeable stutter. Just using that example in reference to 60hz monitors, when fps dip below the monitor's refresh rate it doesn't make for smooth gaming. Similar to comparing two cpu coolers which have similar temps at idle and people say so why is one more money? Because the one that costs more cools better under load, where it counts.

A quick look at bioshock infinite for example, tests show the following @ 1080 with a single gtx 770.
Average frames, 4690k 93.5fps. fx 9590, the amd flagship, average frames are 90fps. They look pretty similar. Now looking at min frames when the framerate drops, the i5 drops down to 29.9 which isn't good. However the 9590 drops clear down to 10.2fps.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/1109

As far as i3's getting a performance bump from dx12, it wasn't the same boost a series amd chips got but in starcraft getting a 50% increase in fps moving from dx11 to dx12 I'd consider a pretty decent performance nudge. For those with an i3, nearly 41fps is much more playable than the previous 24.8fps on dx11.
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph8968/71532.png

This article makes some notes about current dx11 vs dx12 and mantle. With mantle performing a bit better than dx12 on a hyperthreaded quad core i7 and dx12 performing better on a strictly dual core dual thread g3258. The performance gains were 10x for the 3258 with dx12. Similar were the gains for the quad core ht enabled i7. This being the case, no real reason to go to 6 core or 8 core cpu's when a simple software modification is making current cpu's 10x as powerful in gaming. In a sense, similar to intel's design path. Rather than packing chips with a ton of inefficient cores and cranking up the volume (and heat) just as much (and more) performance can be gained from a more efficient design. Exactly what's happening with the move from dx11 to dx12.
http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/1885-dx12-v-mantle-v-dx11-benchmark

Another factor to take into consideration are all the games which are gpu heavy. If a game is already gpu bound (as many are) dx12/mantle will make little difference in gaming performance. Every game will be different and react different as they always have, there's no one size fits all 'best gaming' setup. Only 'best' for the games intended to be played. Yet another reason cpu's have no compelling reason to go 6 or 8 core for gaming if the titles are gpu bound then current cpu's are still waiting for gpu's to catch up.
http://wccftech.com/dx12-revealed-compared-dx11/

 

[junkeymonkey]

heres a sli test looks close

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/58/core-i7-4770k-vs-amd-fx-8350-with-gtx-980-vs-gtx-780-sli-at-4k/index.html


one thing I noticed and as I said this is my first intel is games I ran with all my amd builds that had 'issues '' in some way or buggy acting don't with this intel

I do get a lot smoother game play and on this build all the parts from the am3+ except board and chip of course went on this intel build same memory same psu same hard drive same vid card

now them games load faster - no shuttering - no lag- nothing that I exhibited with the amd all the way back to 939 with these games it was nothing major [heck I did the old blame EA o some ] but no more `smooth sailing with this intel

 

[cowboy44mag]

heres a sli test looks close

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/58/core-i7-4770k-vs-amd-fx-8350-with-gtx-980-vs-gtx-780-sli-at-4k/index.html


one thing I noticed and as I said this is my first intel is games I ran with all my amd builds that had 'issues '' in some way or buggy acting don't with this intel

I do get a lot smoother game play and on this build all the parts from the am3+ except board and chip of course went on this intel build same memory same psu same hard drive same vid card

now them games load faster - no shuttering - no lag- nothing that I exhibited with the amd all the way back to 939 with these games it was nothing major [heck I did the old blame EA o some ] but no more `smooth sailing with this intel

I'm glad that switching to Intel has been good for you and you are happy with the results. I can only go off of what I'm seeing my processor actually doing and comparing it to Intel rigs that I use. My friend's i5 is within a couple FPS in every game we have tried and you can't tell the difference between my system and his i5. With the new emerging technologies pushing multi core computer systems into areas they have never been before the FX 83xx line is still a very good processor. Really installing a SSD would give much better results than the gaming difference between a high end i7 and FX 8 core processors.

 

[junkeymonkey]

yup, I guess that's why they all ways say its ''good enough'' for gaming - and don't forget how much that gpu comes into play running them games

well enjoy

 

[Epic Sasa]

wait are intel processors better at bideo editing or not against amd 01i3901283091283019023cores 091231839012398103watts and 120938129031892032 degrees

 

[junkeymonkey]

I don't know what your saying there but I guess amd is better seeing It beat intel 4 out of 42 tests ?? and that's with the older 4770 it will beat the i5 in a few more but remember the i5 don't do multithreading

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/376/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i7_i7-4770.html

beat the i5 4670 non k 7 of 42 tests
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/371/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-4670.html

or here as concluded [poor]

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-vs-AMD-FX-8350/1537vs1489


so it may come down to you get what you pay for ??? [some times less ]

 

[cowboy44mag]

Again guys, yes Intel is very impressive in the professional sector. I have already said for professional use Intel is better than AMD. I really don't think too many "Joe Blows" sit around their home video editing every night, but for you guys who seem to have private recording studios making music videos and shooting scenes for Stephen Spielberg by all means buy Intel. For the rest of us who aren't producing Hollywood blockbusters video editing isn't that big of a concern. The light duty video editing the normal person is going to do really doesn't warrant going to a more expensive processor.

There is however a very high probability that "Joe" or his kids will video game on a home PC. For those in the professional sector who are into highly CPU intensive tasks for their profession of course an Intel processor is best. For the average home user though, well lets face it the most intensive thing they are going to ask of their personal PC is video gaming. That is why this thread was expressly about video gaming on the FX 83XX series. You don't need a supercomputer to word process, surf the web, do spread sheets, ect. You do need a good system for video gaming the latest AAA releases on Ultra. The FX 83XX is more than capable and actually excels at that.

 

[synphul]

I guess I went with intel because of the performance. I wouldn't have purposely sought out intel if amd were leading in performance and if they were, probably would have gone amd. Not to say people with amd are 'stupid' or anything, for many light tasks it doesn't matter too much. There's not that much of a price difference though between the 8350 and an i5, even the highest priced 4690k. Both use motherboards in similar price ranges, both use aftermarket coolers when overclocking and the difference is less than $70 so I think it's just a matter of preference. The price difference may be higher elsewhere, or lower if someone lives near a microcenter. $70 is like 2 inexpensive nights out for dinner for a component that will likely be in a system for 2-3yrs or more. I find intel an excellent choice for home use, for professional use there's the x99 platform and serious cpu's.

 

[cowboy44mag]

I guess I went with intel because of the performance. I wouldn't have purposely sought out intel if amd were leading in performance and if they were, probably would have gone amd. Not to say people with amd are 'stupid' or anything, for many light tasks it doesn't matter too much. There's not that much of a price difference though between the 8350 and an i5, even the highest priced 4690k. Both use motherboards in similar price ranges, both use aftermarket coolers when overclocking and the difference is less than $70 so I think it's just a matter of preference. The price difference may be higher elsewhere, or lower if someone lives near a microcenter. $70 is like 2 inexpensive nights out for dinner for a component that will likely be in a system for 2-3yrs or more. I find intel an excellent choice for home use, for professional use there's the x99 platform and serious cpu's.

I hear what your saying. For me the decision was pretty easy, I was already on AM3+ with one of the best motherboards available. To go to Intel I would have had to replace the motherboard and processor, maybe more if there was an unforeseen problem transferring everything to a new board (ie in my experience RAM can be very tricky- brand new out of the box it might not work right, now transfer it to a new board after a couple years of heating it up and... you never know). To be perfectly honest after reading all the reviews and benchmarks I wasn't expecting the FX 8370 to perform as well as it does. I really thought it would lag, and I would have problems here and there. The awesome performance I've gotten out of it is one of the reasons I wanted to start this thread. I can't tell the difference going from this computer to my friends i5 or even the i7 I use "in the office". For sure if you already on AM3+ this is a great upgrade.

 

[junkeymonkey]

I understand that's how it went for me started with a 6100 and upgraded up to a 8350 and just did not see going to a 220w chip so all that was left to do was go amd apu or intel .. at that time the amd apu's did not offer nothing I was interested in

I've been happy with my older amd builds , and as for am3+ I just was never satisfied overall with it when it was all said and done . I am more satisfied with this intel z87 build and its my first intel build ever .

 

[synphul]

Looks like there's no real big choice between dx12 and mantle. Mantle will continue to be around but amd looks to already be shelving it and is encouraging dx12 since it does everything mantle does. Sorta gone before it ever happened.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9036/amd-lays-out-future-of-mantle-changing-direction-in-face-of-dx12-and-glnext

 

[cowboy44mag]

Looks like there's no real big choice between dx12 and mantle. Mantle will continue to be around but amd looks to already be shelving it and is encouraging dx12 since it does everything mantle does. Sorta gone before it ever happened.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9036/amd-lays-out-future-of-mantle-changing-direction-in-face-of-dx12-and-glnext

Indeed Mantle is "dead" but not really. AMD next API is a newer Mantle called Vulkan.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2894036/mantle-is-a-vulkan-amds-dead-graphics-api-rises-from-the-ashes-as-opengls-successor.html

The nice thing is even if a program doesn't support Vulkan it will more than likely support DX12, which is still great for AMD. If the program will support Vulkan its even better as Vulkan can support up to 8 cores whereas DX12 tops at 6.

 

[NightAntilli]

Mantle is indeed dead, but Vulkan is pretty much Mantle 2.0. It's even in the name. Think about it... Mantle, as in a layer of the earth's crust, and Vulkan refers to volcanoes. Volcano born from mantle... The correlation is more than obvious.

 

[cowboy44mag]

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/amd-explains-two-major-features-of-dx12-async-shaders-multi-threaded-command-buffer-recording/

http://wccftech.com/amd-directx-12-async-shaders-multithreaded-command-buffer-dx12/

I'm predicting right now that Windows 10 and DX 12 is going to raise the level of gaming possibilities for the upper line of FX processors to be somewhere between i5 and i7. We already have a couple of titles where the 8350 can edge the i5 and that is still using Windows 7-8.1 and DX 11 or Mantle. Windows 10 as a operating system will allow for much better multi threaded operation and DX 12 is just so far ahead of either DX 11 or Mantle they could have called it DX 20. DX 12 will allow for up to 6 cores (6 threads) to be used instead of being bound to a maximum of 4 with DX 11 (where one thread is seriously overworked). If a game is Vulkan (next "generation" Mantle) compatible then it even gets better as 8 cores (8 threads) can be utilized. This innovation in operating system and API is exactly what the FX series needed. The 6 core FX may be the equal gaming as an i5, however realistically the high end 8 core FX's should fall in gaming performance between an i5 and i7.

 

[synphul]

Hopefully something helps amd, but the fx line is ever increasingly aging. By the time something finally materializes to help it along amd might finally have an actual new desktop cpu out. Was just looking at some gtaV benchmarks and despite being more heavily threaded than other past games, as people have said a sign of the future, the fx continues to struggle. The i5's and i7's continue to outpace the fx and the fx 8350 only barely surpasses the i3. The only thing keeping much of the fx line 'current' is purely the lack of anything new from amd. If intel had just up and stopped making cpu's in 2011, the 2500k would be the latest and greatest.

GtaV was a much awaited game and because of it being more heavily threaded should've been exactly what the 8 core fx was waiting for to really excel and it just didn't happen. "Future" games are coming to fruition and the playing field isn't changing much if any. Still slower frames per second from amd and much lower min fps which has been an ongoing problem.

 

[cowboy44mag]

^^ GTA5 while being more multithreaded doesn't utilize more than 4 cores, and of those cores, like all DX11 games it will heavily use one core, the other cores will only have light duty work and in fact you can disable 2 of them and will barely loose performance because DX11 was made to favor dual core. DX12 is something totally different, we won't see it until at least end of July (Windows 10 launch date) and probably won't see games till near the end of the year. If you bothered to look at the graphs in the link you can clearly see how DX12 will boost a multicore system with 8 cores far above anything they can do using DX11.

On a side note AMD is already working on their next generation processors named Zen- they show a lot of promise.

 

[synphul]

I'm well aware of zen, which is why I said I expect by the time any of this comes to fruition the fx (already past due) will likely be a past gen cpu. That said there are always buckets of promises and amd hasn't been exactly delivering on those. From bulldozer to piledriver to mantle being the next best thing. While I realize there's 'something else' in the works stemming from mantle it's still a project which started and ended and never came to be. Basically despite all the 'supposed to be's', starting with bulldozer amd hasn't delivered much of anything on the desktop front but empty promises. Even if zen flops I'll applaud amd for actually seeing something through. Anyone can hint at things and propose theories and make promises but what matters is what is. So far amd just hasn't pulled through. It's not just amd, intel's made hyped claims that didn't deliver as well. All it does is gets people hyped and they're so worried they're going to miss out that they jump the gun before the jury is in which can lead to disappointment if all the 'what ifs' don't turn out to be the 'what is'.

Obviously all these things, vulcan, dx12 etc etc are in the works. At the same time, I can draw pretty pictures of a super space flight vehicle that's low power, fast, energy efficient, can bring affordable space travel to the everyman with sight seeing tours of saturn and get them home in time for dinner. Until that rocket's been tested, proven, is sitting on a launch pad with tickets for sale and in customer's hands it means little more than the napkin I doodled it on. I can't say zen shows a lot of promise, it's not in a machine being put to real use with real benchmarks on real programs with hard figures in place and while it may seem skeptical I prefer to wait and see what actually happens rather than fretting about the what ifs.

I imagine there's still a handful of people sadly looking at their finite relics of betamax and their dusty old player muttering 'it was supposed to be the next big thing, it was so promising and had everything going for it'. Much like firewire sort of fizzled, thunderbolt hasn't really taken off aside from apple mainly and many manufacturers are already dropping it for something else. I still stand by the reasoning that the major players on the hardware and software front are working together for business purposes. If multicore beyond 4 cores were a sure thing, intel wouldn't still be making so many quad core ht, quad core, dual core ht cpu's. Anymore than ford or chevy would be caught off guard if suddenly goodyear made their tires square. Amd has always been the underdog but even more so the past several years. If it came down to a struggling amd vs a thriving intel to speculate on which one is driving the industry's hardware (for better or worse) I think the answer's pretty obvious.

 

[cowboy44mag]

I'm well aware of zen, which is why I said I expect by the time any of this comes to fruition the fx (already past due) will likely be a past gen cpu. That said there are always buckets of promises and amd hasn't been exactly delivering on those. From bulldozer to piledriver to mantle being the next best thing. While I realize there's 'something else' in the works stemming from mantle it's still a project which started and ended and never came to be. Basically despite all the 'supposed to be's', starting with bulldozer amd hasn't delivered much of anything on the desktop front but empty promises. Even if zen flops I'll applaud amd for actually seeing something through. Anyone can hint at things and propose theories and make promises but what matters is what is. So far amd just hasn't pulled through. It's not just amd, intel's made hyped claims that didn't deliver as well. All it does is gets people hyped and they're so worried they're going to miss out that they jump the gun before the jury is in which can lead to disappointment if all the 'what ifs' don't turn out to be the 'what is'.

Obviously all these things, vulcan, dx12 etc etc are in the works. At the same time, I can draw pretty pictures of a super space flight vehicle that's low power, fast, energy efficient, can bring affordable space travel to the everyman with sight seeing tours of saturn and get them home in time for dinner. Until that rocket's been tested, proven, is sitting on a launch pad with tickets for sale and in customer's hands it means little more than the napkin I doodled it on. I can't say zen shows a lot of promise, it's not in a machine being put to real use with real benchmarks on real programs with hard figures in place and while it may seem skeptical I prefer to wait and see what actually happens rather than fretting about the what ifs.

I imagine there's still a handful of people sadly looking at their finite relics of betamax and their dusty old player muttering 'it was supposed to be the next big thing, it was so promising and had everything going for it'. Much like firewire sort of fizzled, thunderbolt hasn't really taken off aside from apple mainly and many manufacturers are already dropping it for something else. I still stand by the reasoning that the major players on the hardware and software front are working together for business purposes. If multicore beyond 4 cores were a sure thing, intel wouldn't still be making so many quad core ht, quad core, dual core ht cpu's. Anymore than ford or chevy would be caught off guard if suddenly goodyear made their tires square. Amd has always been the underdog but even more so the past several years. If it came down to a struggling amd vs a thriving intel to speculate on which one is driving the industry's hardware (for better or worse) I think the answer's pretty obvious.

The industry as a whole, yes you are right Intel drives the industry not AMD. However Intel has let the gaming industry (the focal point of this thread) slip through their fingers. Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft are all AMD partners for their gaming consoles. Microsoft being an AMD partner is why DX12 very closely resembles Mantle. Microsoft needed it for the AMD hardware in their Xbox One so yea, AMD is driving where the gaming end of the industry is heading. Really Intel doesn't care about the gaming side of things when you look at their dominance in the server markets, ect, ect.... Its not like DX12 won't help to boost the i3, i5, and i7 as well. I'm just predicting the high end FX to be boosted to a level somewhere between i5 and i7 (note I'm not saying that it will boost FX past i7 in gaming).

 

[junkeymonkey]

don't kid yourself. amd innovate and come up with stuff and then intel will license it out from them and be the ones who capitalize on it just like its all ways been .. amd can innovate and intel capitalizes.. all ways have, all ways will. amd will be good for a year or two with there new toy , but then there money issue pop up and then sell there rights off ..

poor old intel just pays a lump sum for it, and amd Is holding all the r&d costs just think what if AMD held on the the 64bit [ that's why all the 64 bit are call amd64 in windows ] and was the only chip to use it right up till today ?? look at all the rest amd developed and intel ends up doing a better job with it ??

part 1
http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/04/the-rise-and-fall-of-amd-how-an-underdog-stuck-it-to-intel/1/

part 2
http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/04/amd-on-ropes-from-the-top-of-the-mountain-to-the-deepest-valleys/