[QUOTE=Dr.C;41000261]How well are these supposed to do with the next generation of console parts? I don't think my Q6600 and 6gb ddr2 800 ram will be cutting it[/QUOTE]
The One and the PS4 both use 4-module Jaguar-based CPUs, and they sit at around 1.6GHz. Piledriver has better single-threaded performance, and since the number of threads are identical (there might be some architectural changes between Piledriver and Jaguar that I don't know about, but it's way too late for me to check up on that) the theoretical performance should be [I]a lot[/I] higher, depending on the workload. But the consoles are going to be used in an entirely different way, so it's absolutely meaningless to discuss.
Make a thread in PC building, and you'll get something longlasting.
AMD > Intel in my opinion.
[QUOTE=Pepsi-cola;40999297]Or Garry's Mod.[/QUOTE]
Or ArmA with about 500+ people on the map.
[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;41000390]AMD > Intel[/QUOTE]
Great post, way to go. I like the sources and the sound argumentation in particular.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;41000480]Great post, way to go. I like the sources and the sound argumentation in particular.[/QUOTE]
it's just my opinion tho, probably should've said that
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;41000321]The i3s are around that price range as well.
The segment that AMD actually wins out in is the motherboards - in general you get a lot more stuff on there compared to the Intel ones.[/QUOTE]
That is one reason I tend to prefer AMD over Intel, AMD have a few sockets, they use them as much as possible for a generation, then move on. Intel have a ton of sockets, and have been known to hop around them in a generation.
[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;41000511]it's just my opinion tho, probably should've said that[/QUOTE]
why aren't you banned
Sounds cool but the proof is in the pudding. I'll wait till benchmarks get released.
Price is going to be a defining factor as well. If they can make it more affordable and on par/more powerful than haswell, they'll have won me over.
I wonder if AMD has learned absolutely nothing from the K8 era, where Intel was spamming clock rates on their Netburst chips and losing terribly the entire time.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;41000648]That is one reason I tend to prefer AMD over Intel, AMD have a few sockets, they use them as much as possible for a generation, then move on. Intel have a ton of sockets, and have been known to hop around them in a generation.[/QUOTE]
AMD has been most successful when they do switch sockets because it allows for significant changes, not doing so is just a barrier. Look at how fast FM1 was chucked, and how well their APUs are doing.
Intel doesn't switch just for laughs. With the integration of the iGPU, north bridge and south bridge components, etc etc throughout all the Core series CPUs, it's necessary to do socket changes. It's definitely a pain, and everyone's wallet hates them for it, but it contributes to why Intel is ahead right now. They don't have any barriers beyond the technology available to their engineers, and physics.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;40999081]This is still Piledriver. And "massively" is pushing it.[/QUOTE]
I think he meant the situation with piledriver is a lot different than it was at launch.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41000989]I think he meant the situation with piledriver is a lot different than it was at launch.[/QUOTE]
Except it isn't. Piledriver hasn't had any improvement, the only improvement AMD's chips have had was a slight performance bump through a Windows patch to improve scheduling on the modules, and that was back with bulldozer. The IPC and core speed increases on piledriver still put it behind Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, and Haswell. This is the only chip that might actually pull ahead of Sandy and maybe Ivy, and if it does it needs 3x the TDP to do so.
amd please just call it a quad core with lousy HT and quit lying to yourselves
these bitches better come with some high end coolers, wouldn't doubt a 150W+ TDP and the current coolers can barely handle the TDP of the "8 core" piledriver chips
[QUOTE=HolyCrapAWalrus;41001114]amd please just call it a quad core with lousy HT and quit lying to yourselves
these bitches better come with some high end coolers, wouldn't doubt a 150W+ TDP and the current coolers can barely handle the TDP of the "8 core" piledriver chips[/QUOTE]
It isn't the same as Intel's HT.
[QUOTE=danharibo;41001155]It isn't the same as Intel's HT.[/QUOTE]
I think it's less misleading for him to call it a hyper[i]threaded[/i] quad that than for AMD to advertise it as an octo-core. It's not an octo core in the sense you would think of one as. It's a four module CPU, with each module having two integer units that share floating point resources. All 8 integer units are fully pipelined but you have the shared frontend and decoder, shared FPU unit, and so you get weak SIMD and FPU performance.
[QUOTE=Kaabii;41001200]I think it's less misleading for him to call it a hyper[i]threaded[/i] quad that than for AMD to advertise it as an octo-core. It's not an octo core in the sense you would think of one as. It's a four module CPU, with each module having two integer units that share floating point resources. All 8 integer units are fully pipelined but you have the shared frontend and decoder, shared FPU unit, and so you get weak SIMD and FPU performance.[/QUOTE]
HyperThreading is a rather specific technology that Intel invented, so no it isn't miss-leading at all.
[QUOTE=Kaabii;41001030]Except it isn't. Piledriver hasn't had any improvement, the only improvement AMD's chips have had was a slight performance bump through a Windows patch to improve scheduling on the modules, and that was back with bulldozer. The IPC and core speed increases on piledriver still put it behind Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, and Haswell. This is the only chip that might actually pull ahead of Sandy and maybe Ivy, and if it does it needs 3x the TDP to do so.[/QUOTE]
I used the word situation for a reason. meaning piledriver CPUs are just overall better to have now than they were on launch. partly because of the windows patch and partly because of developers of individual games. when piledriver launched there wasn't a single game that would even use 8 threads.
[QUOTE=danharibo;41001245]HyperThreading is a rather specific technology that Intel invented, so no it isn't miss-leading at all.[/QUOTE]
It's Intel proprietary but it's just a term for a form of SMT they utilize. AMD themselves admit their modules are somewhere between a single core with SMT and a physical dual core setup.
[QUOTE=The golden;41001305]
Wouldn't a fancy cooler defeat the point of buying AMD in the first place? You know, the whole "saving money" thing?[/QUOTE]
I'd imagine this will carry a bit of a premium over current FX chips just cuz well, it's AMD's flagship. With the increase in TDP they probably wont toss in something crazy high end like he said, but probably better than their current one, whatever it is. I don't work with stock heatsinks much and I don't know how the FX one compares to Intel stock but unless it's a lot better it'll struggle with 150+ W TDP.
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;40999283]In Planetside 2 isn't that due to bad optimization and in Skyrim it's an engine that doesn't properly support multicore?[/QUOTE]
With the right ini settings it can. However there are patches of problems within the game itself the developers never bothered to optimize because of time restraints, leaving functions disabled or untouched. If they did, players wouldn't feel unsatisfied with stuttering, crashing, and rough frame rates.
[QUOTE=The golden;41001101]It won't be more powerful than Haswell. AMD cannot compete with Intel in regards to power. Intel has like 30x(or whatever) the R&D funding that AMD has.
AMD competes by a price:performance offering. You pay a lower price and you still get a CPU capable of handling all the modern games at good settings but it won't be a processing powerhouse like what Intel offers.[/QUOTE]
I believe it's more about improving the architecture rather than throwing money at it.
I could have sworn AMD completely threw in the towel and abandoned the PC CPU market after the Bulldozer disaster. Isn't that why Intel hit everyone with a huge price hike on their CPUs?
[QUOTE=Kaabii;40999312]Yeah, this. It still shares the horrible...not design flaw, but failure of good design, with the shared floating point resources. With piledriver you have boosted IPC a bit, and they've been bumping clocks, but it's not some massive architectural overhaul. This is a bad solution for them, more so than Intel, because their chips run hotter and have higher power usage to begin with. Massively is just wrong, it's past pushing it.[/QUOTE]
AMD seems to have forgotten Intel's history and is repeating it.
Between 2001-2006, Intel was solely focused on the awful Netburst architecture and getting as much GHz out of it as possible, totally disregarding the sharp diminishing returns on performance increases, thermal envelopes and power usage. It took a small obscure team from Israel to save Intel from oblivion.
A 220W TDP for a desktop processor is [B]ridiculous[/B]. That's up there with the dual core Netburst based Xeon-MPs that had a 270W TDP. Those needed massive copper heatsinks and 8k RPM delta fans to keep them from melting down.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;40999350]Your PC only runs as fast as it's slowest part. If your GPU can handle Crysis 3 on ultra but yourr CPU is a Pentium 4 you're not going to get high framerates.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't quite work like that. It entirely depends on how the game was written. If it's heavily reliant on GPU power, you can have a weak CPU and do fine. If the inverse is true though, you'd need a good CPU but can have a mediocre GPU and be fine.
[QUOTE=The golden;41001305]Yes the HT would be pretty lousy considering that HT is technology that is propitiatory to Intel.
Wouldn't a fancy cooler defeat the point of buying AMD in the first place? You know, the whole "saving money" thing?[/QUOTE]
yeah because i definitely meant it literally is HT, it's just a badly implemented form of it, not the actual thing you dingus
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;41001639]I could have sworn AMD completely threw in the towel and abandoned the PC CPU market after the Bulldozer disaster. Isn't that why Intel hit everyone with a huge price hike on their CPUs?[/QUOTE]
But they didn't. They've had the same basic pricing standards for years now. $100 range for an i3, $200 range for an i5, and $300 range for an i7. With the introduction of K and non K chips you get that ~$30 difference between models based on overclocking and features, and then the obvious range of chips based on clockspeed throughout a given price bracket. There really is no huge price hike that occurred. I remember the i7-920(or i7-860 for those with an LGA 1156 i7) back in the Nehalem days being right where the i7-4770 is now.
[QUOTE=HolyCrapAWalrus;41001673]yeah because i definitely meant it literally is HT, it's just a badly implemented form of it, not the actual thing you dingus[/QUOTE]
Of course it's a badly implemented HT, they aren't even aiming for HT.
[editline]12th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kaabii;41001683]Except they didn't. They've had the same basic pricing standards for years now. $100 range for an i3, $200 range for an i5, and $300 range for an i7. With the introduction of K and non K chips you get that ~$30 difference between models based on overclocking and features, and then the obvious range of chips based on clockspeed throughout a given price bracket. There really is no huge price hike that occurred. I remember the i7-920 being right where the i7-4770 is now.[/QUOTE]
They've never really increased in price by a lot, but they're still rather expensive.
[QUOTE=The golden;41001523]Yeah that kinda requires money. You think they can just pull stuff like that out of their asses?
I don't know if you've been following AMD at all but they've been in financial hot water for quite a while now. However they did just get the three big consoles under their belt so that might help them out a bit.[/QUOTE]
The point I was trying to make is they're position in the market could change. I'll admit they're new processor is very unlikely to beatswell, but if they increase perfomance to price ratio more than their previous lines they could dig themselves out the hole they made and scare intel into lowering their prices.
[QUOTE=danharibo;41001685]
They've never really increased in price by a lot, but they're still rather expensive.[/QUOTE]
Proportional to their performance, not really. An FX-8350 is $200 for me to go grab, an i5-4670K is $250 and that $50 gets me a faster CPU that is certainly cooler and uses less power. Significantly faster in workloads that aren't heavily multithreaded, and still faster in ones that are. What might set you over, is if the motherboards cost significantly more(which I don't know about since I'll be with Ivy until Broadwell). But the CPUs themselves really aren't some huge jump price wise.
[QUOTE=Kaabii;41001787]Proportional to their price, not really. An FX-8350 is $200 for me to go grab, an i5-4670K is $250 and that $50 gets me a faster CPU that is certainly cooler and uses less power. Significantly faster in workloads that aren't heavily multithreaded, and still faster in ones that are.[/QUOTE]
Well am I in the UK and the pricing is a bit more all over the place.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
