haswell or piledriver

[vishalaestro]

i need a recommendation for the cpu since today's games are using more no of cores is it wise to stay with amd or with intel

 

[8350rocks]

If you are planning to upgrade later on, Piledriver is in an architecture AMD is committed to until 2015 (AM3+ socket) and that socket will get Steamroller and eventually Excavator, if you go with something by intel, Haswell will be their new architecture so they will commit to that for at least 2 years.

If money is at all something you're concerned about, go with AMD, for the money you would spend on an intel system, a comparably built AMD system will have more processor and more GPU for the same money...

Also, PS4 and XBOX 720 are all running AMD hardware in their consoles, so future games will be optimized for AMD architecture anyway.

 

[hapkido]

If you are planning to upgrade later on, Piledriver is in an architecture AMD is committed to until 2015 (AM3+ socket) and that socket will get Steamroller and eventually Excavator, if you go with something by intel, Haswell will be their new architecture so they will commit to that for at least 2 years.

So... two more years for both?

If money is at all something you're concerned about, go with AMD, for the money you would spend on an intel system, a comparably built AMD system will have more processor and more GPU for the same money...

This is not true at all.

Also, PS4 and XBOX 720 are all running AMD hardware in their consoles, so future games will be optimized for AMD architecture anyway.

More complete nonsense for multiple reasons. Games aren't optimized for hardware at a machine level. They're optimized for hardware containers like DirectX, OpenGL, or whatever propitiatory software consoles are using. Otherwise either developers would have to write specific code for EVERY GPU, or AMD and Nvidia would have to write specific drivers for every game for that GPU to work.

But even if they were optimized for hardware, Intel and AMD CPUs are both x84-64 architecture. It's why you can install the same OS, games, and apps on a PC using either CPU. PORTING games between PC and the different console systems will become easier, because now all the consoles will be using the same architecture.

 

[hapkido]

I forgot to answer OP's question. Haswell isn't out yet, so it's hard to say exactly. We're expecting a smallish increase in CPU performance over Ivy Bridge which had a smallish increase over Sandy Bridge. AMD is becoming more price competitive with Piledriver, but it depends on your budget and what you'll use the system for. Intel CPUs since Sandy Bridge have been benchmarking better in gaming than similarly priced AMD chips.

 

[munkeepc]

Game developers design games and/or software independently for consoles and PC's. That being said. AMD offers the best performance per dollar spent but also less reliability. Haswell isn't out yet but I would invest in the Ivy Bridge anyway seeing how you're looking at getting a dedicated GPU.

 

[8350rocks]

If you are planning to upgrade later on, Piledriver is in an architecture AMD is committed to until 2015 (AM3+ socket) and that socket will get Steamroller and eventually Excavator, if you go with something by intel, Haswell will be their new architecture so they will commit to that for at least 2 years.

So... two more years for both?

If money is at all something you're concerned about, go with AMD, for the money you would spend on an intel system, a comparably built AMD system will have more processor and more GPU for the same money...

This is not true at all.

Also, PS4 and XBOX 720 are all running AMD hardware in their consoles, so future games will be optimized for AMD architecture anyway.

More complete nonsense for multiple reasons. Games aren't optimized for hardware at a machine level. They're optimized for hardware containers like DirectX, OpenGL, or whatever propitiatory software consoles are using. Otherwise either developers would have to write specific code for EVERY GPU, or AMD and Nvidia would have to write specific drivers for every game for that GPU to work.

But even if they were optimized for hardware, Intel and AMD CPUs are both x84-64 architecture. It's why you can install the same OS, games, and apps on a PC using either CPU. PORTING games between PC and the different console systems will become easier, because now all the consoles will be using the same architecture.

(1) I said at least 2 years for intel...though they change sockets like most people change socks, you should have some relative security with haswell. Even though it's a complete architecture jump down to a new size...the improvements for haswell that intel is projecting are really not that stellar in the grander scheme of things. They still won't break 5 GHz...

(2) Actually, you're half right and half wrong. In a generic sense, yes, the 64-x86 architecture is essentially similar enough that there are not enough drastic differences to be unable to use the same OS on either machine. However...

Intel and AMD have their own proprietary protocols and hardware designs, which make greater use of some things and less efficient use of others in some circumstances. Programmers can specifically code things in a manner that makes one set of hardware slightly better for a given task. For Example...Intel is better at single threaded performance because it fits their protocols so well, so any program coded in single threads or a low number of threads will run better on Intel hardware. Now, AMD is superior in heavily threaded applications that require lots of integer calculations because their protocols and architecture are designed that way...so...console developers will be designing things HEAVILY geared toward numerous threads to tap the most capability from the AMD Hardware.

Plus, AMD's GPUs have different architecture than Nvidia, and the developers working on the graphics side of things will play to the strengths of that hardware because the architecture they're using would benefit from things being worked to play to their strengths and produce the most "polished" game.

Intel and Nvidia will be at a disadvantage, and Intel will have to figure out how to get similar heavily threaded performance out of their architecture designed mostly for single threaded applications.

 

[logainofhades]

If you are planning to upgrade later on, Piledriver is in an architecture AMD is committed to until 2015 (AM3+ socket) and that socket will get Steamroller and eventually Excavator, if you go with something by intel, Haswell will be their new architecture so they will commit to that for at least 2 years.

So... two more years for both?

If money is at all something you're concerned about, go with AMD, for the money you would spend on an intel system, a comparably built AMD system will have more processor and more GPU for the same money...

This is not true at all.

Also, PS4 and XBOX 720 are all running AMD hardware in their consoles, so future games will be optimized for AMD architecture anyway.

More complete nonsense for multiple reasons. Games aren't optimized for hardware at a machine level. They're optimized for hardware containers like DirectX, OpenGL, or whatever propitiatory software consoles are using. Otherwise either developers would have to write specific code for EVERY GPU, or AMD and Nvidia would have to write specific drivers for every game for that GPU to work.

But even if they were optimized for hardware, Intel and AMD CPUs are both x84-64 architecture. It's why you can install the same OS, games, and apps on a PC using either CPU. PORTING games between PC and the different console systems will become easier, because now all the consoles will be using the same architecture.

Steamroller is slated to be out beginning of 2014 last I heard. Games are optimized for hardware. Hence why some games work so much better on Nv than AMD and visa versa. Nvidia and AMD both do write specific code for games. They are usually called game profiles. Hence why some games have better multi card support than others and some drivers have to be fixed to improve performance for certain games. Future console games will be optimized to run on 8 threads for an x86 APU. The cores are not exactly high end, so more efficient use of the cores will be necessary.

 

[Kindredsouls]

Generally speaking AMD tends to have a better price/performance ratio then Intel and Nvidia.

AMD's top end processor is usually meet/beat by Intel's middle-high end CPUs such as the 3570k and 3770k. A lot of that is because most games are written to use 2-4 processing cores and AMD's greatest strength lies in multi core processing. Therefore today's games tend to perform a little better on Intel's 3570k compared to a Vishera CPU from AMD.

Truthfully I don't believe much in future proofing beyond 12-18 months due to things changing so rapidly. It's also difficult to give direction to people since everyone has their own feelings/budget on how often to upgrade/replace their desktop PC. Ultimately you can't go wrong with either AMD or Intel and the same goes with AMD and Nvidia. Budget is really your biggest deciding factor.

I think of money wasn't a concern we'd all be running $1,000+ Intel CPUs and SLI'ed Nvidia Titans in our computers. Doesn't mean AMD's products are bad though.


I hope that helps and I wish you luck!

 

[jaguarskx]

Also, PS4 and XBOX 720 are all running AMD hardware in their consoles, so future games will be optimized for AMD architecture anyway.

Not necessarily since the PS4 (and I guess the Xbox 720) uses the Jaguar core which is a different CPU architecture. Games optimized for Jaguar are unlikely to be optimized for PileDriver and future socket AM3+ CPUs.

 

[jaguarskx]

I expect a relatively small increase in Haswell's performance compared to Ivy Bridge. I'm guessing 6% - 8% mainly due to reducing power consumption to break into the tablet market. On the other hand, I would say Broadwell, with its 14nm die shrink, will probably have a 10% - 15% increase in performance over Haswell. The die shrink will allow additional power savings while allowing Intel to increase the clockspeed without sacrificing too much power savings. Higher clockspeeds requires more voltage, thus more power. Additionally, Intel tends to boost IPC in every CPU generation.

 

[munkeepc]

LoL ... Fail! Lost my thoughts.

Basically was just concerned about heat on the smaller architecture from increased voltage.

 

[vishalaestro]

I expect a relatively small increase in Haswell's performance compared to Ivy Bridge. I'm guessing 6% - 8% mainly due to reducing power consumption to break into the tablet market. On the other hand, I would say Broadwell, with its 14nm die shrink, will probably have a 10% - 15% increase in performance over Haswell. The die shrink will allow additional power savings while allowing Intel to increase the clockspeed without sacrificing too much power savings. Higher clockspeeds requires more voltage, thus more power. Additionally, Intel tends to boost IPC in every CPU generation.

so at current scenario what you guys will suggest me to do finally?

 

[Kindredsouls]

Really, there is no wrong answer. A lot depends on what your budget is. A little depends on how much you care about future proofing. If you want to give us a budget you're working with that would help to guide you.

 

[8350rocks]

Also, PS4 and XBOX 720 are all running AMD hardware in their consoles, so future games will be optimized for AMD architecture anyway.

Not necessarily since the PS4 (and I guess the Xbox 720) uses the Jaguar core which is a different CPU architecture. Games optimized for Jaguar are unlikely to be optimized for PileDriver and future socket AM3+ CPUs.

Wrong, Piledriver cores are used in Jaguar Architecture, and the Jaguar chip used in PS4 and XBOX 720 have Jaguar APUs and iGPUs that are designed to differing specs, specfically made for each unit. Sony came to AMD and collaborated on what they wanted the design to be capable of, and Microsoft did the exact same thing, AMD then made a design to handle those demands. So, the Jaguar architecture in those consoles will not be available to the consumer. Also, the Consoles are using higher bandwidth DDR5 memory onboard, which will increase the performance on that hardware that will also not be available to the consumer for quite some time yet.

 

[logainofhades]

Also, PS4 and XBOX 720 are all running AMD hardware in their consoles, so future games will be optimized for AMD architecture anyway.

Not necessarily since the PS4 (and I guess the Xbox 720) uses the Jaguar core which is a different CPU architecture. Games optimized for Jaguar are unlikely to be optimized for PileDriver and future socket AM3+ CPUs.

Wrong, Piledriver cores are used in Jaguar Architecture, and the Jaguar chip used in PS4 and XBOX 720 have Jaguar APUs and iGPUs that are designed to differing specs, specfically made for each unit. Sony came to AMD and collaborated on what they wanted the design to be capable of, and Microsoft did the exact same thing, AMD then made a design to handle those demands. So, the Jaguar architecture in those consoles will not be available to the consumer. Also, the Consoles are using higher bandwidth DDR5 memory onboard, which will increase the performance on that hardware that will also not be available to the consumer for quite some time yet.

I was under the impression they were using graphical DDR5 which is becoming quite common on the lower midrange cards? In a PC the GPU memory speed would be of more importance than the motherboard ram speed. In discrete GPU setups, faster GDDR affects performance more than motherboard ram. Only systems that see a big improvement from faster ram are those running APU's without a discrete card.

 

[8350rocks]

Also, PS4 and XBOX 720 are all running AMD hardware in their consoles, so future games will be optimized for AMD architecture anyway.

Not necessarily since the PS4 (and I guess the Xbox 720) uses the Jaguar core which is a different CPU architecture. Games optimized for Jaguar are unlikely to be optimized for PileDriver and future socket AM3+ CPUs.

Wrong, Piledriver cores are used in Jaguar Architecture, and the Jaguar chip used in PS4 and XBOX 720 have Jaguar APUs and iGPUs that are designed to differing specs, specfically made for each unit. Sony came to AMD and collaborated on what they wanted the design to be capable of, and Microsoft did the exact same thing, AMD then made a design to handle those demands. So, the Jaguar architecture in those consoles will not be available to the consumer. Also, the Consoles are using higher bandwidth DDR5 memory onboard, which will increase the performance on that hardware that will also not be available to the consumer for quite some time yet.

I was under the impression they were using graphical DDR5 which is becoming quite common on the lower midrange cards? In a PC the GPU memory speed would be of more importance than the motherboard ram speed. In discrete GPU setups, faster GDDR affects performance more than motherboard ram. Only systems that see a big improvement from faster ram are those running APU's without a discrete card.

They're using 8 GB DDR5 shared between the APU and iGPU is my understanding of the architecture, which is innovative, though I may have misinterpreted the information...I will have to go back and reread it to clarify.

 

[hapkido]

You go around the forum spouting biased nonsense. Next you'll be telling us these AMD-based consoles are better for gaming than a PC with an Intel CPU and discrete video card.

Benchmarks all over every site except tek syndicate -- including this one -- have shown consistently Intel CPUs are better for gaming PCs at almost every price range. If you want to talk about whether or not a 4-core/8-thread AMD Piledriver is faster than a 4-core/4-thread Intel Ivy Bridge in other tasks, that's a different discussion.

 

[jaguarskx]

Wrong, Piledriver cores are used in Jaguar Architecture, and the Jaguar chip used in PS4 and XBOX 720 have Jaguar APUs and iGPUs that are designed to differing specs, specfically made for each unit.

I have read nothing that suggest the Jaguar Architecture uses PileDriver cores. Perhaps you should provide some evidence that suggests otherwise.

For example, the following chart distinguishes the Kabini APU using Jaguar cores as opposed to the Richland APU using PileDriver cores.

AMD Richland APU:
According to the roadmap, AMD Richland APU would not feature the steamroller core architecture but instead would be based on the current generation x86 Piledriver core architecture which is currently being used within the recently launched Trinity APUs. Along with it, ARM cores would also be fused on the same die for AMD’s HSA (Heterogeneous System Architecture) enhancements. The APUs would remain compatible with the FM2 socket boards and would be include the latest Radeon Cores 2.0 which would presumable fall under the HD 8000 series (Sea Islands) specs. The AMD Richland APU would be the mainstream/performance entry level chips and would launch around mid-2013.

AMD Kabini (Low Power) APU:
In addition to the mainstream APUs, AMD is also expected to unveil the 2nd generation low power Kabini APU which would be updated with x86 Jaguar cores. The chip has already been taped out and is expected to debut in 1H of 2013. The chip would feature the PCH fused on its die making it a true SOC (System on chip) which doesn’t needs to rely on external controllers. In addition, the new HSA features would also be introduced in Kabini and Tamesh 28nm ULP (Ultra Low Power) APUs. The Kabini APUs fall under AMD’s “Essential APU” branding scheme.

Source
http://wccftech.com/amd-richland-apu-feature-piledriver-cores-launching-2013-kabini-apu-radeon-hd-8000-series/

The following article regarding the Jaguar architecture is from Xbitlabs.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20120904201534_AMD_Discloses_Peculiarities_of_Next_Generation_Jaguar_Micro_Architecture.html

It makes no mention of Jaguar using Piledriver cores at all. Instead the improvement over Bobcat by 10%+ is based on longer pipelines.

Note in the above chart it states "Jaguar" cores, not "Piledriver" cores.

 

[8350rocks]

You go around the forum spouting biased nonsense. Next you'll be telling us these AMD-based consoles are better for gaming than a PC with an Intel CPU and discrete video card.

Benchmarks all over every site except tek syndicate -- including this one -- have shown consistently Intel CPUs are better for gaming PCs at almost every price range. If you want to talk about whether or not a 4-core/8-thread AMD Piledriver is faster than a 4-core/4-thread Intel Ivy Bridge in other tasks, that's a different discussion.

Really, so I suppose the benchmarks from techreport, overclock.net and pureoverclock, as well as teksyndicate are ALL wrong then?

 

[8350rocks]

This spec release shown from Sony has the PS4 Jaguar using 8 cores, how many other 8 core AMD chips do you know about?:

http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/games/1298257/ps4-release-date-specs-price-and-controller

This link shows they are slightly different from Bulldozer cores, but the architecture is similar, the resources are divided slightly differently...

http://www.techpowerup.com/180394/AMD-quot-Jaguar-quot-Micro-architecture-Takes-the-Fight-to-Atom-with-AVX-SSE4-Quad-Core.html

 

[jaguarskx]

This spec release shown from Sony has the PS4 Jaguar using 8 cores, how many other 8 core AMD chips do you know about?:

http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/games/1298257/ps4-release-date-specs-price-and-controller

This link shows they are slightly different from Bulldozer cores, but the architecture is similar, the resources are divided slightly differently...

http://www.techpowerup.com/180394/AMD-quot-Jaguar-quot-Micro-architecture-Takes-the-Fight-to-Atom-with-AVX-SSE4-Quad-Core.html

Having 8 cores does not mean it is automatically mean it is based on Piledriver. It is the architectural design that differentiates the processors that is why AMD has a processor called "PileDriver" and another called "Jaguar".

By your logic, if Intel produces an 8 core CPU, then it must be based on Piledriver.

The Jaguar architecture is different from the Piledriver architecture. They are two separate and distinct processors.

 

[8350rocks]

This spec release shown from Sony has the PS4 Jaguar using 8 cores, how many other 8 core AMD chips do you know about?:

http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/games/1298257/ps4-release-date-specs-price-and-controller

This link shows they are slightly different from Bulldozer cores, but the architecture is similar, the resources are divided slightly differently...

http://www.techpowerup.com/180394/AMD-quot-Jaguar-quot-Micro-architecture-Takes-the-Fight-to-Atom-with-AVX-SSE4-Quad-Core.html

Having 8 cores does not mean it is automatically mean it is based on Piledriver. It is the architectural design that differentiates the processors that is why AMD has a processor called "PileDriver" and another called "Jaguar".

By your logic, if Intel produces an 8 core CPU, then it must be based on Piledriver.

The Jaguar architecture is different from the Piledriver architecture. They are two separate and distinct processors.

Actually, I was just searching for an architecture schematic, and found one...Jaguar to the consumer will only be 4 cores, but they are somewhere between Thuban and Bulldozer style cores.

Evidently this Jaguar APU that AMD designed for the PS4 is going to be about 2x as potent as it would be to the consumer, as it will have twice the iGPU capability and twice the raw computing power. That's interesting indeed...so Jaguar and Richland are actually drastically different architecturally...I was expecting them to just offer a Richland variant at low voltage for that product line...

 

[hapkido]

You go around the forum spouting biased nonsense. Next you'll be telling us these AMD-based consoles are better for gaming than a PC with an Intel CPU and discrete video card.

Benchmarks all over every site except tek syndicate -- including this one -- have shown consistently Intel CPUs are better for gaming PCs at almost every price range. If you want to talk about whether or not a 4-core/8-thread AMD Piledriver is faster than a 4-core/4-thread Intel Ivy Bridge in other tasks, that's a different discussion.

Really, so I suppose the benchmarks from techreport, overclock.net and pureoverclock, as well as teksyndicate are ALL wrong then?

Pureoverclock.com looks to do very few processor reviews, mostly motherboards, and I can't find anything relevant. Likewise I couldn't find anything useful on Overclock.net. If you want to link gaming benchmarks from those sites, feel free.

I did find a fx-8350 review on Techreport.com.
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14

"Pop over to the gaming scatter, though, and the picture changes dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the highest-performance AMD desktop processor to date for gaming, finally toppling the venerable Phenom II X4 980. Yet the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor. Meanwhile, the Core i5-3470 delivers markedly superior gaming performance for less money than the FX-8350. The FX-8350 isn't exactly bad for video games—its performance was generally acceptable in our tests. But it is relatively weak compared to the competition."

It's 25fps behind an i5-3470 in Skyrim:
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/5

It's 12fps behind the 3470 in Arkham City:
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/6

The BF3 and Crysis 2 benchmarks show the GPU as the limiting factor:
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/7
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/8

 

[8350rocks]

You go around the forum spouting biased nonsense. Next you'll be telling us these AMD-based consoles are better for gaming than a PC with an Intel CPU and discrete video card.

Benchmarks all over every site except tek syndicate -- including this one -- have shown consistently Intel CPUs are better for gaming PCs at almost every price range. If you want to talk about whether or not a 4-core/8-thread AMD Piledriver is faster than a 4-core/4-thread Intel Ivy Bridge in other tasks, that's a different discussion.

Really, so I suppose the benchmarks from techreport, overclock.net and pureoverclock, as well as teksyndicate are ALL wrong then?

Pureoverclock.com looks to do very few processor reviews, mostly motherboards, and I can't find anything relevant. Likewise I couldn't find anything useful on Overclock.net. If you want to link gaming benchmarks from those sites, feel free.

I did find a fx-8350 review on Techreport.com.
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14

"Pop over to the gaming scatter, though, and the picture changes dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the highest-performance AMD desktop processor to date for gaming, finally toppling the venerable Phenom II X4 980. Yet the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor. Meanwhile, the Core i5-3470 delivers markedly superior gaming performance for less money than the FX-8350. The FX-8350 isn't exactly bad for video games—its performance was generally acceptable in our tests. But it is relatively weak compared to the competition."

It's 25fps behind an i5-3470 in Skyrim:
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/5

It's 12fps behind the 3470 in Arkham City:
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/6

The BF3 and Crysis 2 benchmarks show the GPU as the limiting factor:
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/7
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/8

You, of course neglected the one gaming review that you refuse to admit is valid...because it runs max settings on CPU intensive games...

Overclock.net has a LOT of synthetic benchmarks run by AMD chips that DESTROY intel chips...not barely either...they blow away i5s and best i7s

See what you want to see...you are obviously ignorant of the fact that Intel is NOT all that you make them out to be...

I am not here to "win you over" just provide sound advice to others...and whether you agree or not, I don't follow you around bashing intel.

 

[Gennaios]

well firstly hasswell is not out yet!but its the perfect choice as they consume 15-25% less power than the previous generation!their performance would be increased too!for example the 4770k will have 20% more performance than the 3770k also thy have intergrated graphics intel hd 4500!very powerful cpus!