What do you think of AMD's Thuban

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DXcellence718

Distinguished
Mar 22, 2010
35
0
18,530
You guys probably already heard the news, but now that amd's six core processor is coming out what are your thoughts. Personally im not really impressed, from what i've heard its only equivalent to an i7 quad but cost under $300. It is still the cheapest hex core a consumer can get, so i guess there still good for price/performance ratio(for a six core processor anyways)
 
Solution
jimmysmitty
If we can take into account MC vs Xeon (24 real cores vs 12 real/12 fake) than I am not too impressed. That means that Core i7 will probably be on par if not better than Thuban, hence why the highest end one is priced near a Core i7 920.

While 6 real cores is a nice thing to hear, if its performance is meh its not impressive. If it can't beat a quad that has 4 real/4 fake cores than its just not what I would call impressive.

My bet is that the only thing AMD will have that will truly beat Core i7 on a core per core and clock per clock basis is Bulldozer.
Sort by date Sort by votes
Why not wait until it officially is available and benchmarked? If it performs as well as an i7 and is less expensive, then it's great news! Until then we can only presume that it will be better than the i7 at some tasks and worse at others. I see no issues with that.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote



You would think a six core processor would greatly beat an i7, its just that its a hex core and it only does marginally better or equivalent to that of an i7 quad. Of course though waiting for some benchies will be nice, im just sharing thought on what i've heard so far
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If we can take into account MC vs Xeon (24 real cores vs 12 real/12 fake) than I am not too impressed. That means that Core i7 will probably be on par if not better than Thuban, hence why the highest end one is priced near a Core i7 920.

While 6 real cores is a nice thing to hear, if its performance is meh its not impressive. If it can't beat a quad that has 4 real/4 fake cores than its just not what I would call impressive.

My bet is that the only thing AMD will have that will truly beat Core i7 on a core per core and clock per clock basis is Bulldozer.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution

Agreed to everything above. Too bad we have to wait until next year for those (Bulldozer/Orochi)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think AMD has already maxed its potential with 965 and so they need to start looking somewhere else. I mean aside from maybe a 975, which I doubt will provide much of any performance boost. Who knows maybe AMD has some amazing quadcore in the works like they should. I'm thinking if they can't even compete in the higher end quadcore market, I doubt they'll be successful in the hexacore market against intel anyways. I'm not saying AMD hasn't been doing okay selling at better price/performance ratio, but those higher clock rates will only take AMD so far and they'll run into some problems with heat again. We'll see if they ramp up the size of their cooler. I agree with Jimmy, "My bet is that the only thing AMD will have that will truly beat Core i7 on a core per core and clock per clock basis is Bulldozer."

I think Intel considers AMD a joke right now in the higher end market. They already have like 10 desktop CPUs in existence that out bench AMD's flagship.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote




In addition, hex core always consume more power than the quad core. ( For example, i7-980X consumes more power than i7-975 even with better 32nm architecture. ) Hence, I said that hex is useless and power hog if it can't at least beat quad.

BTW, speak of price/performance, non of the quads from AMD can match i5-750 especially when OCed.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


That statement is a commonly accepted internet driven fallacy propagated by people that desperately wish it was true. The myth was mainly propagated because of the turbo-marketing feature of the Intel CPU fooling gullible people. (Without that feature the i5-750 gets completely owned by the AMD chips.)

Luckily the new 6 core AMD chips have added the same type of marketing gimmick. We'll have to wait until they are available to see how badly the Intel chips get abused.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


I'm leaning on the side of power heater.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Wow that is indeed surprising. I read another review that posted the opposite - showing that the 980x actually consumed slightly more power but that was said to be the product of a brand new revision. I'm sure it will drop down even more when they optimize their fab.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

AMEN! For gaming purposes, a 965BE can meet or beat an i7 870 (let alone the 750) in most games.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i3-gaming,2588.html

They're great for gaming and general purpose use. Sure, there are multi-threaded apps that run far better on Intel than they do on AMD, but overall 99% of users would see better peformance for far less money than Intel. Yes, I use Intel, but only because I run 3 VMs and do a lot of BR/DVD encoding and love the fact that it takes only about 1 1/2 hours to encode a BR to MKV...something I couldn't do in twice the time with my old 965BE. I can't wait until AMD is competitive again, but for people to constantly say the 750 is faster than a 965BE is, as stated, pure fallacy.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


http://anandtech.com/bench/Product/102?vs=107

No. 870 trumps it most of the time and sometimes by a very large margin. There is a large amount of misinformation coming from AMD fanboys that claim the opposite with bogus and cherry picked benchmarks. What it ultimately comes down to is price for performance and AMD wins for the most part but Intel really narrowed the gap with the i5s - especially if you can find a discounted one near a microcenter. If I was gaming I and needed and upgrade I would go i5 at the moment and invest in a great gpu. If I was strapped for cash I would go for the x3. x3 is still the best bang for the buck hands down.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

i7 870 = $550. 965BE = $170.
And a lot of these benchmarks are synthetic (NOT gaming) and I clearly said the i7's would whoop a 965BE in those cases. I said, strictly in gaming, the 965BE is equal or under 5% slower than an 860 or 750. The only GAME I see on that comparison that doesn't fall into that 5% difference is Far Cry 2 and I think it's weird that Tom's, in their article today, showed the 965BE beating the 870 at all resolutions.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i3-gaming,2588-9.html

I guess it depends on what sight you want to believe. That said, it's clear that the 870 (and the i7 920 which is more than half the price) can beat a 965 in things NOT game related, but for gaming....

And, BTW, it's hard to call me an AMD fanboy when I have an Intel rig, no (see my sig)? I like competition and I go for the best for what I need at the time for the best price. I'm absolutely drooling over a 980X but I'm having a hard time justifying the cost even though it's technically a tax write-off. IF I was JUST a gamer, though, the 955/965 is, by far, the best bang for the buck in processors out there (unless you want to OC an i3 530, which I have in my HTPC currently and LOVE). I'm NOT a fanboy, but I do appreciate the low cost of AMD/ATI compared to Intel/nVIDIA.

Just my 2¢
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well, we have 12-cores.

Just a pity software devs just can't keep up with the core count. Such a shame.

Would have loved to see it for AM3. That'd be a great way for AMD to re-enter the >$300 market.

Alas, the chip is massive to the point where it is Socket G34.

Let's all go out for ice-cream.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

LOL. Only if it's mint chocolate chip!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If you want, we could go to Intel's ice-cream parlour.

I here they have hyperthreaded scoops that make you believe there are double the amount of actual scoops. I hear it's really popular with Jenny Craig.

Does wonders for weight loss, or so I'm told.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

LOL. YOU are my new favorite poster!!! Not to hijack a thread, but holy crap I busted out a good, hearty LOL on that. NICE!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

Oh sorry! I was thinking about the lower clocked 920.

21993.png
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom