[citation][nom]ta152h[/nom]IPC latency? Were you drinking when you made that up? It makes no sense.They basically castrated the integer units for the Bulldozer and Piledriver, and then added another one to make a pair. Consequently, the only way to get good integer throughput is to use two threads per core, or you just have a lousy processor. But, of course, the decoder can't keep up with two threads at the same time, so basically you have this crummy processor that performs worse at everything compared to the Intel processors.On top of that, AMD still hasn't learned how to make a cache. They have a puny 16K L1, but it's still slow, and makes the processor much more dependent on the L2 cache. The L2 cache is catastrophically slow, and is only exceeded in ineptness by their L3 cache implementation. In short, AMD's Bulldozer/Piledriver chips suck donkey balls. So, if you meant their cache latency is killing the processors, and exacerbating already poor IPC caused by castrating the integer unit, I'd agree. It's a remarkably poor implementation, being quite large, very slow, and consuming massive amounts of power. It took a lot of engineering talent to make a modern processor that bad. Piledriver helped, but the basic design and slow cache limit this lousy processor severely.Steamroller could fix a lot of sins with a better decoder, restoring the ALU in each integer unit, and making a cache system that works. The latter of which is nearly impossible, since AMD has no idea how to implement an efficient cache, but maybe with Jim Keller there's hope. I'm pretty sure they'll improve the first two, but if the cache continues to blow, it's going to severely limit the performance of the processor. I'd settle for even a moderate improvement, which is possible since the BD/PD has significantly lower performance than the Thuban had. Just get us back to Thuban, and it will help a lot.[/citation]
you are definitely drinking the intel coolaid , crummy processor ??? in gaming the FX chip holds pace with the top i7 (see previous tom's benches) , the I7 only beats it in work applications , and considering price points the amd matches or hands down beats the i5's that are in it price range. and let's face it ... the average joe is NOT going to spend 500 bucks to 1000 on a processor. even the average gamer at most is going to spend 150-200 on a cpu , and in this price range AMd's FX line is great, considering how it handles work apps better than the i5's ( such as 3ds max and autocad) .
Lastly most intel based main boards that are worth a flip tend to cost way mroe than simularly specd AMD main boards which makes the saving of an FX over an I5 all the more apparent.
I'm not trying to blow smoke up any one's butt here , nor am i licking the AMD lolipop. just stating facts. for it's price range the FX chips are not bad buys, paricularly if you are a gamer that does mod work in 3ds max , or a developer that likes to game on the side of work at home.
Sure if i want a super do it all PC, and the company i'm working for is footing them bill. or some miracle i get the m oney to afford it , I'd go Intel I7 for sure ... but at 500-1000 bucks compared to amd's top end at 200 , i just don't see the value in it with my current bank account numbers.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram