16 replies to this topic

[Nemesis Duck]

Found this review last night from a reputable source that compares the two CPU giants and gives an idea of the performance difference between them. Pay attention to single thread (core) performance as it tells you generally how much faster one will be over another. There's even some gaming comparisons in there to make some correlations to MWO.

Thinking of you! Enjoy! *WINK WINK*

http://www.overclock...x_9590_fx_9370/

[xWiredx]

The single-threaded lead Intel has over AMD is ridiculous. Good thing AMD hired back one of their former best to get things rolling again and has decided to abandon this terrible architecture.

[Hougham]

xWiredx, on 09 July 2014 - 03:58 PM, said:

The single-threaded lead Intel has over AMD is ridiculous.

I suspect it will be a bit like 3DFX, Hardware D3D, Hardware Open GL, MMX, 3Dnow, SSE, Hyper Threading, IA64 and the ilk. The simple fact is multi threading is becoming the standard and will be even more so over the next few years. So as the hardware evolves so will games and all other software to take advantage of it. It will not be long until mass multi threading will become the standard and the single core argument will become somewhat of a mute point.

Edited by Hougham, 10 July 2014 - 12:50 AM.

[Catamount]

Hougham, on 10 July 2014 - 12:49 AM, said:

I suspect it will be a bit like 3DFX, Hardware D3D, Hardware Open GL, MMX, 3Dnow, SSE, Hyper Threading, IA64 and the ilk. The simple fact is multi threading is becoming the standard and will be even more so over the next few years. So as the hardware evolves so will games and all other software to take advantage of it. It will not be long until mass multi threading will become the standard and the single core argument will become somewhat of a mute point.

While I suspect you're correct, the advantage of Intel is often so overwhelming, the argument is almost moot in the case of AMD's CMT architectures, because even in many multithreaded apps, i5s still beat 8350s, even with half as many cores. In some software, AMD's chips do really well, but that's a minority of software titles.

I suspect AMD will have a very interesting architecture for us in the beginning of 2016, which seems to be the tentative date there, largely because I suspect they've learned some interesting lessons in trying to make Bulldozer/Piledriver competitive, but until then, I'm just staying away from their CPUs for the most part.

Edited by Catamount, 10 July 2014 - 04:36 AM.

[StainlessSR]

It is mainly due to the shared fpu in the amd "core" that allowes such a huge single core advantage to intel. Amd envisioned most fpu tasks to be coded to run on the gpu so Unless the programmer takes the time to code for it intel will perform better. A good synopsis of this can be read here.

http://linustechtips...ahead-is-intel/

If amd could push the fpu tasks to the built in gpu on a hardwre basis (therby not requiring the programmer to specifically code for it) they would be ahead of intel in price/performance accross the board. There must be some fpu task that is in MWO but not in Crysis that would explain why amd 8 core needs to disable one core of each pair,or else mwo hasn't pushed the fpu task to the gpu while crysis has. Thus showing why crysis on amd performs better than mwo on same.

[Catamount]

It can definitely be argued that it's as much the fault of software for not utilizing the chips well as anything. Bulldozer/Piledriver would be amazingly good chips, especially for the money, if they were utilized perfectly by every software title.

I don't really think one can release a chip, though, and expect every software title to conform to it. Intel's chips run software well as they are, not as they'd like them to be, and that's ultimately why they get better performance

[Odins Fist]

I remember going to the Micro-Center south of me (2 1/2 - 3 years ago)on a Saturday, and saying to the sales guy that was bugging my friend about their deals..
"Looks like you can't give these FX CPUs away huh" (I was joking with him).

Right then he got a little upset (not yelling) saying that it was Windows fault that the FX CPUs were getting a bad name, this excuse and that excuse, and I noticed that they still had couple Phenom x4 II 965 and a Phenom II x6 1055t in the glass case as I browsed.

While we were having our little discussion my friend was standing behind the sales-guy and doing the old hand motion to me to shut up, because he was trying to get the guy to let him inspect the pins on an open box 2011 socket X79 deluxe Asus Mobo or he wouldn't buy it.

Just then a another customer walked up and looked in the glass case and after a couple of seconds he said to the sales-guy "Excuse me, can I get one of these AMD CPUs".. The sales-guy turned into a smiling happy person and replied, "Sure thing, I have the key right here, now which one of those FX CPUs did you want the new 6300 that's on sale, or are you looking for and 8 core?"
The customer replied "I want that 6 core right there", the sales guy grabbed the FX-6300 and the customer said,
"I'm sorry I meant that last Phenom 6 core, right here in the black box".

The sales-guy's neck started turning red all the way up to his ears and he said, "Are you sure these AMD FX CPUs are the newest CPU they have out", and the customer replied, "No thanks, i'm replacing a FX- 4 core I put in my new Mobo, I gave my wife the old system with AMD 980 4 core I had, and I think there's something wrong with the FX 4 core I have in my new mobo, don't worry I bought it from Tiger Direct and i'm going to try to get my money back".

I just about lost it, I had to walk down the isle full of their OEM DVD players/burners.

I decided to walk over to their used computer case shelf and give it a minute.
The sales guy went into the back and came out with the open box 2011 socket Mobo for my friend to look at, but said he couldn't let him pull it out and pop the pin guard over the socket, my friend said, "I'm not going to buy it or the CPU I want for it if you don't let me see it"

Poor sales-guy had a bad day, the guy's face was red, I could tell he was pissed, but he kept his cool. He ran both the CPU and the mobo up to the front where it would be for us to pick them up at checkout.

A few minutes later as we left that part of the store, I stopped and asked the sales-guy when they would be getting more of those Phenom II 1055t CPUs in stock, he got a disgruntled look on his face and said, "WE'RE NOT" and walked away.

As my friend and I walked to the front my friend said "You're a D!CK, you almost ruined that deal for me", then he laughed..

Some days you're the windshield, somedays you're the bug.

Edited by Odins Fist, 10 July 2014 - 09:02 AM.

[Catamount]

Absolutely beautiful

Electronics store sales guys are always hit or miss as far as actually knowing anything, but when they miss it's often hilarious.

[Barbaric Soul]

There's the difference between you and I Odin. I would have made sure the sales person heard me laughing when the guy asked for the 1055t over the FX6300

I always found it funny that the Phenom II x6 outperformed the Bulldozer 6 cores.

[Bluefalcon13]

Barbaric Soul, on 11 July 2014 - 04:35 AM, said:

There's the difference between you and I Odin. I would have made sure the sales person heard me laughing when the guy asked for the 1055t over the FX6300

I always found it funny that the Phenom II x6 outperformed the Bulldozer 6 cores.

So heres the thing with the FX series. If you look at the 'quad cores' (quotes for a reason....) as dual cores with hypertreading, there peformance is much more in line with realistic expectations. For example, to match my 955BE set at stock speeds (3.2ghz) I had to crank an FX4130 up to 4.4ghz. Not bad for a dual core (or dual module as they should be called), but terrible for a CPU marketed as a 'quad core'.

The FX '6 core' (3 module) cpus are going to be more akin to the Phenom x3 CPUs. And so on. I honestly think they should be advertised as modules, and not cores, as it is a bit misleading...

[Egomane]

Bluefalcon13, on 11 July 2014 - 05:52 AM, said:

I honestly think they should be advertised as modules, and not cores, as it is a bit misleading...

It's not misleading, as they actually do have 6 cores. It's just that two cores share a floating point unit. If you find an application that doesn't need much floating point operations, but support multi-threading with enough threads, the FX CPUs will outperform CPUs with half as many cores.

Hyperthreading, like Intel is using, is virtualizing another core that doesn't really exist. If on an i7-4790 all four cores are running at close to full power already, you'll gain nothing from HT. But if they have free capacity, it's possible to gain a good advantage from it. Again... if the application supports multi-threading with as many threads.

Both systems have their strong and their weak points. I'm pretty sure, that if AMD would produce in 22 nm like Intel does, instead of their currently used 32 nm production, the advantage of the Intel processors wouldn't be as big as it currently is. They are literally 50 % behind in capacity because of that difference alone.

I do hope they are releasing a shrink soon, so that they can close the performance gap between them and Intel. But from their roadmaps it doesn't look like they will.

[Catamount]

That's because AMD is focusing on abandoning CMT architectures.

Honestly, the fabrication process past 32nm isn't going to make much of a difference. After all, IB and Haswell are not notably faster than the 32nm Sandy Bridge. In fact if OCing is taken into account, it can be argued that SB is actually capable of the highest absolute performance of the three.

22nm still isn't a bad idea, but it may only net modest power consumption gains, not necessarily performance gains, since the performance/power gets gobbled up by hypersensitivity to power, or at least we saw that with Intel. The biggest thing for AMD is just having an architecture that plays nicely with existing software. Bulldozer was a failure, plain and simple.

[Odins Fist]

At some point in going smaller/Die Shrink, you start to lose overclockability due to heat and voltage issues. It's the laws of physics at that point.

You can only run so much voltage through small components, and while you wouldn't think there would be much of a difference between 45-NM and 22-NM, you would be suprised the difference between the two when it comes to Voltage/Power Load Maximums that each could handle before "POOF".

[Smokeyjedi]

Odins Fist, on 11 July 2014 - 08:11 AM, said:

At some point in going smaller/Die Shrink, you start to lose overclockability due to heat and voltage issues. It's the laws of physics at that point.

You can only run so much voltage through small components, and while you wouldn't think there would be much of a difference between 45-NM and 22-NM, you would be suprised the difference between the two when it comes to Voltage/Power Load Maximums that each could handle before "POOF".

but if they were to make a true quad core with an improved IPC from die shrink and higher clocks on lower volts....Like the APU abandoned the extra threads for GPU........forget the GPU............

5ghz on a vishera actual quad core shrunk to 22NM, somehow improving IPC just as Vishera did over Bulldozer by 10-15% before the die shrink........ I would be heavily inclined to pull out the 8 core 350Watt monster and replace it with the offering.....Lets hope that AMD continues to use AM3+ socket.......after all they can supply entirely too much voltage and wattage 370Watts lol, my MOBO browns out..........LOL

[Barbaric Soul]

Egomane, on 11 July 2014 - 06:06 AM, said:

Hyperthreading, like Intel is using, is virtualizing another core that doesn't really exist. If on an i7-4790 all four cores are running at close to full power already, you'll gain nothing from HT. But if they have free capacity, it's possible to gain a good advantage from it. Again... if the application supports multi-threading with as many threads.

Not true. My computers number crunch at full load all day every day running Bionic/WCG. My 2600k scores higher than a 2500k because of its' HT. I'm not saying the HT makes my 2600k and 3930k crunch like a true 8 and 12 core cpus with the same single threaded performance as a 2600k, but HT definitely helps with my scores.

[ninjitsu]

Hyperthreading is proven to give roughly a 30% increase to performance at full load.

[Lordred]

I do not understand posts like this, Intel has historically been faster then AMD ever since they came out with the Core 2 family.

In the multi-threaded world the performance gap isnt as huge, but single threaded, it is large.