78 replies to this topic

[Byzan]

AMD have lost the plot with the poledriver processors they sacrificed per clock and per thread performance to enable high frequency and high core counts. Sure some people are goign to get giddy looking at 5GHz but anyone who's smart will see the 220w and look for benchmarks and see it's not as good as it's made out to be.

I honestly think they should just throw the poledriver out the window and admit it is a failure and go back to the drawing board and devalop the phenom based CPUs. everyone would be much better off if they had just kept improving the Phenom, heck by now we would maybe have 22nm 6 core phenom based CPU running 3.8-4.2GHz for like 100w

surely would not have been hard for AMD and it would be better than the current i5 range

intel epic failed with the pentium 4, it was garbage but they did the right thing and got rid of it, learned their lesson went back and devaloped an earlier/better archetecture and now they are whiping the floor with AMD

Crazy because AMD are doing what intel did with the P4, intel sacrificed per clock performance and effiency for high clock frequencies and failed totally with the P4.

Piledriver, a very loud and deadly sounding bark but it's bite tickles. If your buying a mid level CPU or higher you would be silly not to get an i5 or i7, heck even the i3 is a good and ultra efficient CPU for gaming and general computing.

if AMD were smart they would focus on efficency and per clock & per core performance, piledriver is the complete oposite of that.

[Agarwaen]

I'll stick with my 130w TDP, 12 thread, 4.5GHz, 3930k.

Yet another POS from AMD.

[Smokeyjedi]

Byzan, on 17 July 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

AMD have lost the plot with the poledriver processors they sacrificed per clock and per thread performance to enable high frequency and high core counts. Sure some people are goign to get giddy looking at 5GHz but anyone who's smart will see the 220w and look for benchmarks and see it's not as good as it's made out to be.

I honestly think they should just throw the poledriver out the window and admit it is a failure and go back to the drawing board and devalop the phenom based CPUs. everyone would be much better off if they had just kept improving the Phenom, heck by now we would maybe have 22nm 6 core phenom based CPU running 3.8-4.2GHz for like 100w

surely would not have been hard for AMD and it would be better than the current i5 range

intel epic failed with the pentium 4, it was garbage but they did the right thing and got rid of it, learned their lesson went back and devaloped an earlier/better archetecture and now they are whiping the floor with AMD

Crazy because AMD are doing what intel did with the P4, intel sacrificed per clock performance and effiency for high clock frequencies and failed totally with the P4.

Piledriver, a very loud and deadly sounding bark but it's bite tickles. If your buying a mid level CPU or higher you would be silly not to get an i5 or i7, heck even the i3 is a good and ultra efficient CPU for gaming and general computing.

if AMD were smart they would focus on efficency and per clock & per core performance, piledriver is the complete oposite of that.

You missed the entire ^point that AMD has now cornered the market in everything besides CPUs for desktops and laptops, with APUs Pcs and Desktops aren't the priority so much anymore........or so it seems.

[Dragoon20005]

AMD FX is more as a flagship CPU to show off that their CPU could hit crazy speeds or a slightly cheaper version of their server grade CPUs for the open market

but now they are pushing APUs to the mass market first with the A10-5800k followed by A10-6800k

and now the PS4 and Xbox One are using 8 core APUs which got tongues wagging about the graphics in the AAA titles

yes AMD pure desktop CPU can't beat Intel in terms of single threads but mind you that AMD is currently the leader with a pure 8 core CPU not the pesodo 4 core 8 threads Intel.

rendering Photoshop on a 8 core is way faster than the Intel i7-3770

don't always compare CPU based on gaming benchmarks alone

sure Intel will win in terms of gaming performance but you can't be just using your computer just for games

we all have a bad habit of multi tasking like music,web,office or video rendering so more cores is the way to go

[Dragoon20005]

http://www.newegg.co...t=Combo.1386646

Newegg combo!!!

includes CPU,Asus mobo,G.Skill 2400MHz RAM,1200w PSU and Corsair water cooler


Mega combo whole desktop! with HD7990

http://www.newegg.co...t=Combo.1389960

Edited by Dragoon20005, 18 July 2013 - 08:19 PM.

[Dragoon20005]

bottomline

the FX9590 is an overpriced FX8350 that is factory OC to 4.7GHz

really AMD...

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Dragoon20005, on 18 July 2013 - 09:31 PM, said:

bottomline

the FX9590 is an overpriced FX8350 that is factory OC to 4.7GHz

really AMD...

They don't have very many chips that are able to overclock this high so it makes sense for AMD to sell them for a premium to people with more money than sense.

[Dragoon20005]

if the price was like 300 dollars maybe i will consider but 900 bucks just for the CPU alone is madness

if i got the dough to pay 900 for a CPU i would be looking at the blue camp already

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Dragoon20005, on 18 July 2013 - 10:54 PM, said:

if the price was like 300 dollars maybe i will consider but 900 bucks just for the CPU alone is madness

if i got the dough to pay 900 for a CPU i would be looking at the blue camp already

I 100% agree. Still, more profit for AMD is good for all of us if it keeps Intel from becoming a monopoly.

[Dragoon20005]

if only i got 15 grand lying around

hmmm

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1iheF

[Byzan]

Dragoon20005, on 17 July 2013 - 06:19 PM, said:

AMD FX is more as a flagship CPU to show off that their CPU could hit crazy speeds or a slightly cheaper version of their server grade CPUs for the open market

but now they are pushing APUs to the mass market first with the A10-5800k followed by A10-6800k

and now the PS4 and Xbox One are using 8 core APUs which got tongues wagging about the graphics in the AAA titles

yes AMD pure desktop CPU can't beat Intel in terms of single threads but mind you that AMD is currently the leader with a pure 8 core CPU not the pesodo 4 core 8 threads Intel.

rendering Photoshop on a 8 core is way faster than the Intel i7-3770

don't always compare CPU based on gaming benchmarks alone

sure Intel will win in terms of gaming performance but you can't be just using your computer just for games

we all have a bad habit of multi tasking like music,web,office or video rendering so more cores is the way to go

Just to get things straight the Piledriver cpus are not "pure 8 core" CPU's they have 8 "integer cores" are paired and share a single floating point unit between the pair. So they are "4 module" processors, each Module has one FP unit and two integer cores. One of reasons why they lag behind Intel CPUs in a major way in terms of "per core" processing power.

AMD sacrificed "per core" and "per clock" performance to increase core/thread count and frequency but also seem to have screwed up in terms of power usage as well. It was a mistake plain and simple because the market still demands per core/per clock performance and low power usage.

AMD do get ahead in some benchmarks but overall they are a long way behind.

AMD really need to catch up to intel in terms of manufacturing process as well. They are still making 32nm CPU's when intel are down to 22 and have more reductions on the cards.

by the time AMD have fixed the problems with this generation Intel may be too far ahead or even have something totally new to blow AMD (and the others) away with. Recent changes to Intel CPUs have been pretty minor, you simply have to expect that Intel are working on something else or something new to raise the bar.

[Smokeyjedi]

Byzan, on 21 July 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

Just to get things straight the Piledriver cpus are not "pure 8 core" CPU's they have 8 "integer cores" are paired and share a single floating point unit between the pair. So they are "4 module" processors, each Module has one FP unit and two integer cores. One of reasons why they lag behind Intel CPUs in a major way in terms of "per core" processing power.

AMD sacrificed "per core" and "per clock" performance to increase core/thread count and frequency but also seem to have screwed up in terms of power usage as well. It was a mistake plain and simple because the market still demands per core/per clock performance and low power usage.

AMD do get ahead in some benchmarks but overall they are a long way behind.

AMD really need to catch up to intel in terms of manufacturing process as well. They are still making 32nm CPU's when intel are down to 22 and have more reductions on the cards.

by the time AMD have fixed the problems with this generation Intel may be too far ahead or even have something totally new to blow AMD (and the others) away with. Recent changes to Intel CPUs have been pretty minor, you simply have to expect that Intel are working on something else or something new to raise the bar.

You are speaking like AMD didn't take Intels Shotty hyperthreading idea and take it one further, ( now close enough to a real core not many programs can tell through SMT) Yes indeed they do suffer per core performance but hey, least we don't need special program code(mainly found in THE games that use it,and synthetic benchmarks) to actually make use of the 4 otherwise useless hyperthreads that Intel have laying around. Ill just wait until AMD makes the next 32-22ish NM Jump or whatever thy decide to do, and see where they land.

Edited by Smokeyjedi, 21 July 2013 - 06:22 PM.

[RiceyFighter]

220W TDP what is this the stone ages?

[Smokeyjedi]

RiceyFighter, on 21 July 2013 - 07:19 PM, said:

220W TDP what is this the stone ages?

I bet you drive a Prius too.........

[lshtaria]

I stopped reading when the OP said "legendary".

I was working in the industry when Athlon64 was shi***ng on Netburst from Mount Everest and I know the exact reasons why, AMD bought the rights to the DEC Alpha CPU which was at the time, the absolute best floating point central processing chip ever designed.

Way back during the very first Pentium 4 iterations, the Alpha CPU (then owned by Compaq) was providing FP computing that was 3x the power of anything that Intel could offer at 1/2 the clock speed. It really was the epitome of supercomputing until HP bought Compaq and ditched Alpha in favour of back-handers from Intel for its Itanium sh*t-tip.

AMD bought the Alpha EV6 architecture and created an x86 chip based off of it, the Athlon64. Of course they couldn't ride on that forever, Intel eventually fought back with Core and to this day has never looked back at anything AMD has created.

It doesn't matter if you're an enthusiast, mid-range or budget builder. AMD simply cannot compete with Intel in any segment of the CPU market. Anytime AMD can compete is simply purely artificial to prevent Intel having a complete monopoly.

[RiceyFighter]

Too bad the I7 3960x out perform this processor.

Also I7 3960x half the TDP required (130)

Kyocera, on 21 July 2013 - 07:28 PM, said:

I stopped reading when the OP said "legendary".

I was working in the industry when Athlon64 was shi***ng on Netburst from Mount Everest and I know the exact reasons why, AMD bought the rights to the DEC Alpha CPU which was at the time, the absolute best floating point central processing chip ever designed.

Way back during the very first Pentium 4 iterations, the Alpha CPU (then owned by Compaq) was providing FP computing that was 3x the power of anything that Intel could offer at 1/2 the clock speed. It really was the epitome of supercomputing until HP bought Compaq and ditched Alpha in favour of back-handers from Intel for its Itanium sh*t-tip.

AMD bought the Alpha EV6 architecture and created an x86 chip based off of it, the Athlon64. Of course they couldn't ride on that forever, Intel eventually fought back with Core and to this day has never looked back at anything AMD has created.

It doesn't matter if you're an enthusiast, mid-range or budget builder. AMD simply cannot compete with Intel in any segment of the CPU market. Anytime AMD can compete is simply purely artificial to prevent Intel having a complete monopoly.

Also Intel DOES NOT want to elimiate AMD because without steady competition it will be in heavy scruteny of the goverment. It is cheaper and better to keep AMD alive than having the goverment starting to put regulations, inspections, etc.

AKA monopoly.

Edited by RiceyFighter, 21 July 2013 - 07:37 PM.

[lshtaria]

RiceyFighter, on 21 July 2013 - 07:31 PM, said:

Too bad the I7 3960x out perform this processor.

Also I7 3960x half the TDP required (130)



Also Intel DOES NOT want to elimiate AMD because without steady competition it will be in heavy scruteny of the goverment. It is cheaper and better to keep AMD alive than having the goverment starting to put regulations, inspections, etc.

AKA monopoly.

Indeed, very true. However the fact remains that if they could (and it would be in their best interests) then they would.

The Athlon64 vs Netburst war was the best thing to happen to processing power in recent times. It really opened up the parallel processing and bandwidth route as opposed to pure GHz speed. With the world becoming more tech savvy along with the spreading of the interwebz and review/comparison sites, Intel could no longer rely on its advertised numbers as a factor for its actual "speed".

I still have massive respect for AMD and its Opteron server architecture which still rules the roost when it comes to scalability and power/output ratio. I just wish they could start translating some of that into desktops to push forward the next great leap in computing power.

Let's face it, Athlon64 was the only real competition Intel have had since they jumped to the Pentium and it's the same today. There's no other sleeping supercomputer giants now that their architecture is solely x86 based thanks to the demise of Alpha, Itanium, Sparc and anything else RISC based.

The next few years are going to be more of a grind than trying to F2P your GXP here.

[LordDeathStrike]

Dragoon20005, on 17 July 2013 - 06:19 PM, said:

AMD FX is more as a flagship CPU to show off that their CPU could hit crazy speeds or a slightly cheaper version of their server grade CPUs for the open market

but now they are pushing APUs to the mass market first with the A10-5800k followed by A10-6800k

and now the PS4 and Xbox One are using 8 core APUs which got tongues wagging about the graphics in the AAA titles

yes AMD pure desktop CPU can't beat Intel in terms of single threads but mind you that AMD is currently the leader with a pure 8 core CPU not the pesodo 4 core 8 threads Intel.

rendering Photoshop on a 8 core is way faster than the Intel i7-3770

don't always compare CPU based on gaming benchmarks alone

sure Intel will win in terms of gaming performance but you can't be just using your computer just for games

we all have a bad habit of multi tasking like music,web,office or video rendering so more cores is the way to go

my laptop has an intel 6 core 12 thread cpu. and its unlocked so i could clock it into the 5 ghz range potentially. but theres no reason to consider that currently as nothing has utilized it over 50% yet at 4 ghz clock speed.

it isnt intel making the junk here, its amd making crap hehe, high end laptops dont even offer amd as a cpu option because amd has nothing too offer.

[Smokeyjedi]

LordDeathStrike, on 21 July 2013 - 08:38 PM, said:

my laptop has an intel 6 core 12 thread cpu. and its unlocked so i could clock it into the 5 ghz range potentially. but theres no reason to consider that currently as nothing has utilized it over 50% yet at 4 ghz clock speed.

it isnt intel making the junk here, its amd making crap hehe, high end laptops dont even offer amd as a cpu option because amd has nothing too offer.

I would pay good money to watch you set your laptop to near 5ghz for all of 20seconds before it goes Thermo-nuclear and melts your desk into a puddle............High end Laptops, BAHAHAHAHA A so called High end laptop is still going to make about half the raw CPU performance as its non mobile counterpart. Safer to use Upper middle for descriptions of Lappy tops.....

[Iqfish]

My room is hot enough, tell me, why should i use AMD?