Been gone 5 years

T

tvdang7

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Messages
4,301
Can some one educate me on amd cpus?
what is the diff between the old FX series of 2012-2013 compared to these apu's?
Friend asked for advice on building and I am stumped.:confused:
 
Which APU in particular? A lot of them are simply re-using the Bulldozer/Piledriver cores/modules setup and squeezing a GPU onto the package alongside either 1 or 2 modules (2 or 4 'cores'). The CPU performance is behind Intel at a given price point, but may allow you to get away without a dedicated GPU in the build, depending on the workload. If that is the case, AMD offers a decent bang-for-the-buck.
 
Its a bit of an apple/orange comparison. The APUs do have some IPC improvements over the older FX chips and a better memory controller, but they are also limited to 4 cores and lack an L3 cache.

AMD has a new high-end AM4 socket and FX CPUs in the works based on a new architecture called Zen, but its a ways off. The current gen FM2+ APUs make good midrange gaming machines.
 
MrCaffeineX said:
Which APU in particular? A lot of them are simply re-using the Bulldozer/Piledriver cores/modules setup and squeezing a GPU onto the package alongside either 1 or 2 modules (2 or 4 'cores'). The CPU performance is behind Intel at a given price point, but may allow you to get away without a dedicated GPU in the build, depending on the workload. If that is the case, AMD offers a decent bang-for-the-buck.
Click to expand...

Was looking on AT and see Godaravi benchmarks. So I will assume the older FX series are still faster than these apu's even though its been years since a new FX model?
 
AMD currently uses modules 1 module = 2 cores.

But the cores don't scale to 100% this used to be far more noticeable. But still AMD cpu can only thrive with Mantle supported games or the new DX12.

The AM3+ have 4 modules = 8 cores these work rather well with Mantle/DX12
The FM2+ platform is limited to 2 modules = 4 cores.

For a true performance cpu AMD is sadly to far behind.
 
tvdang7 said:
Was looking on AT and see Godaravi benchmarks. So I will assume the older FX series are still faster than these apu's even though its been years since a new FX model?
Click to expand...

It depends on the fx model 5 years puts you back quite a ways in fact before bulldozer...

no the current apu would likely be faster than a 5 year old cpu. But the pinnacle of amds line atm is on am3+ and is a 8 core...

honestly you need to wait till next year if you want something super great zen will be hyperthreading and have ddr4 zen will also be using the am4 socket.

otherwise if it needs to be built soon go for a 8000 series fx processor on the am3+ socket
 
tvdang7 said:
Can some one educate me on amd cpus?
what is the diff between the old FX series of 2012-2013 compared to these apu's?
Friend asked for advice on building and I am stumped.:confused:
Click to expand...

amd as you know it ran out of money and ceased to exist.

they reorganized, stopped competing against intel the way they always had, and now they proceed at the slowest possible pace to conserve resources. they will have a new CPU architecture coming out sooner rather than later.
 
The only advise you need to give is wait till next year for both amd and intel
 
Is the a10-7850k that bad? I feel like with dx12 coming out in July it will give it a nice boost in gaming and processor-wise it should be decent enough. Hell I've been using an intel z3735 tablet and its sufficient for my normal usage (web browsing, docs, video streaming.)
 
KazeoHin said:
Don't worry, so has AMD.

Let your good memories stay that way. AMD is the tech equivalent of a drug-addicted child-star at this point.
Click to expand...

I really don't get this attitude, neither AMD or Intel has really focused on performance improvement in the last 5 years and the PC market has been slow. Intel and AMD have mostly been focused on power savings. AMD went for higher core-counts, Intel went for higher IPC. Either architecture is perfectly adequate for media and 1080p gaming.

I have an i7 4930k in one desktop and an FX 8320 in another. I really don't notice the difference unless I'm playing something that is very CPU-intensive and not heavily multi-threaded, like Kerbal Space Program. That and the AMD build didn't rape my wallet.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
I really don't get this attitude, neither AMD or Intel has really focused on performance improvement in the last 5 years and the PC market has been slow. Intel and AMD have mostly been focused on power savings. AMD went for higher core-counts, Intel went for higher IPC. Either architecture is perfectly adequate for media and 1080p gaming.

I have an i7 4930k in one desktop and an FX 8320 in another. I really don't notice the difference unless I'm playing something that is very CPU-intensive and not heavily multi-threaded, like Kerbal Space Program. That and the AMD build didn't rape my wallet.
Click to expand...

Spending all day fapping to benchmarks can dilute one's perception of reality. People greatly overexaggerate the state of CPU's today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top