waiting hashwell...

I said if it's only a 10% IPC increase with no clock speed increases, it gives AMD time to catch up. If it's a 10% IPC with an unknown clock speed gain, then we're back where we started.
 
I think hoping for AMD to get both 10% IPC AND 10% higher frequency in the next chip is a whole lot of wishful thinking, thinking I might argue well outside the realm of reason. I mean that's almost an additional 400MHz on the high end, and in case you haven't noticed we reached the MHz cap a few years back, large frequency increases just aren't physically possible with current manufacturing methods for red, blue, or anybody else. So even if AMD does come out with a 4GHz 8 core next generation, probably 200-300MHz of that 400MHz increase will come out of the OC headroom, so while stock clocks may go up 10%, max OC clocks will only probably go up 2-3% if at all, I mean intel OC max for most chips has been 4.5-5GHz for how many years now? I don't see AMD/GF making some magic chip that can magically hit 5.5Ghz on all 8 cores regularly with just air or even water cooling.

Even if AMD could some how pull 10% IPC AND 10% clocks per year every year until they passed intel, and intel only did 10% IPC every 2 years it would still be what? 4 or 5 years until they caught up with single threaded performance? I got news for you, 10% IPC + 10% freq every year like clockwork with AMDs engineering team and fabs isn't even remotely near the realm of possibility.
 
Tsumi said:
I said if it's only a 10% IPC increase with no clock speed increases, it gives AMD time to catch up. If it's a 10% IPC with an unknown clock speed gain, then we're back where we started.
Click to expand...

That "only" 10% will give Intel a 50%-60% performance lead over AMD's best effort to date (Deneb). AMD will need to pull something massive out of its ass to pull that off, and I just don't see it happening.
 
AMD has already said that they are focusing on APUs and the low end and not really interested in going toe-to-toe with Intel on the higher end anymore.

Their strength right now is the GPU they can pack into their processor.
 
-Dragon- said:
I think hoping for AMD to get both 10% IPC AND 10% higher frequency in the next chip is a whole lot of wishful thinking, thinking I might argue well outside the realm of reason. I mean that's almost an additional 400MHz on the high end, and in case you haven't noticed we reached the MHz cap a few years back, large frequency increases just aren't physically possible with current manufacturing methods for red, blue, or anybody else. So even if AMD does come out with a 4GHz 8 core next generation, probably 200-300MHz of that 400MHz increase will come out of the OC headroom, so while stock clocks may go up 10%, max OC clocks will only probably go up 2-3% if at all, I mean intel OC max for most chips has been 4.5-5GHz for how many years now? I don't see AMD/GF making some magic chip that can magically hit 5.5Ghz on all 8 cores regularly with just air or even water cooling.

Even if AMD could some how pull 10% IPC AND 10% clocks per year every year until they passed intel, and intel only did 10% IPC every 2 years it would still be what? 4 or 5 years until they caught up with single threaded performance? I got news for you, 10% IPC + 10% freq every year like clockwork with AMDs engineering team and fabs isn't even remotely near the realm of possibility.
Click to expand...

Trinity using Piledriver cores has a ~10% IPC gain on average over Bulldozer, and the top-end Vishera part (FX-8350 leaked to be at 4 ghz) is clocked ~10% higher than the top-end Zambezi part (FX-8150 at 3.6 ghz) in the same thermal envelop. So, stock performance can be reasonably expected to be at least 20% higher than Bulldozer.

And as I said, Steamroller is when the big jumps are supposed to happen (new socket, architecture overhaul, new manufacturing tech, etc). Piledriver is more of a refresh, fixing the mistakes made in Bulldozer. And AMD focusing heavily on APUs is mainly to further push their HSA goals, which may or may not give them an edge over Intel in the long run.
 
jwcalla said:
AMD has already said that they are focusing on APUs and the low end and not really interested in going toe-to-toe with Intel on the higher end anymore.

Their strength right now is the GPU they can pack into their processor.
Click to expand...

They're just saying that to save face. I highly doubt they would invest in hiring apple's head chip designer for nothing. AMD has the APU market dominated right now. AMD will attempt to make a comeback on the enthusiast platform, you can bet on that. Most likely not with Piledriver, but something down the line.
 
If they hired anyone from apple, it's unlikely they were chip designers considering apple does not design their own chips. It's all supplied by Intel for their computers or Samsung for their mobile devices.
 
RamonGTP said:
If they hired anyone from apple, it's unlikely they were chip designers considering apple does not design their own chips. It's all supplied by Intel for their computers or Samsung for their mobile devices.
Click to expand...


The processors used by iOS devices (e.g., the A5) are ARM-based chips of Apple's own design. Samsung only manufactures them.
 
Who also happens to be one of AMD's former chip designers during the early Athlon days.
 
AMD is slowly catching up, emphasis on slowly. Personally, I just hope Ivy-bridge-E has 10 cores :/ esp since Xeon E7's are on 32nm and have 10 cores already. Still a whole year away though.
 
Nightbird said:
AMD is slowly catching up, emphasis on slowly. Personally, I just hope Ivy-bridge-E has 10 cores :/ esp since Xeon E7's are on 32nm and have 10 cores already. Still a whole year away though.
Click to expand...

Meh. The mainstream parts have been so good for 1155, that spending the high entry fee for IB-E seems foolhardy in comparison. Maybe Intel will rein in the 1150 gear to sell more IB-E, but I doubt it.
 
Nightbird said:
AMD is slowly catching up, emphasis on slowly. Personally, I just hope Ivy-bridge-E has 10 cores :/ esp since Xeon E7's are on 32nm and have 10 cores already. Still a whole year away though.
Click to expand...

Yes, slowly catching up.... To Sandy Bridge i3/i5 performance. Which is well over a year old already.
 
Any idea on when Haswell will be released?

From (dated) news/rumors, late H1 2013 seems to be the consensus.

Itching to upgrade the Q6600 rig and make the new PC my main.
 
mda said:
Any idea on when Haswell will be released?

From (dated) news/rumors, late H1 2013 seems to be the consensus.

Itching to upgrade the Q6600 rig and make the new PC my main.
Click to expand...

No one knows, well not no one, but those that due are surly under NDA. But I feel you on the itch. I had a Q6600 and had to scratch that itch when IB rolled along. If I could have achieved a 3.55GHz OC like you have I may have been able to hold out longer.
 
Tsumi said:
I said if it's only a 10% IPC increase with no clock speed increases, it gives AMD time to catch up. If it's a 10% IPC with an unknown clock speed gain, then we're back where we started.
Click to expand...

It will use mature 22nm process so clock speed increase should be visible.

But the slower it is the longer i can use my 2500K :D
 
novadaemon said:
AMD has yet to catch up to Nehalem performance which is almost 4 years old.
Click to expand...

Not to start a flame war, but have you actually used both a Nehalem generation quad core(w/ HT) AND an AMD X6 cpu? When both cpus are overclocked to 4Ghz, the X6 is just as fast in most tests, while being faster in nearly every encoding/multi threaded program..The X6 also uses less power, and produces way less heat, which are important factors IMO..

How do I know? Simple, I have owned both.
 
ccityinstaller said:
Not to start a flame war, but have you actually used both a Nehalem generation quad core(w/ HT) AND an AMD X6 cpu? When both cpus are overclocked to 4Ghz, the X6 is just as fast in most tests, while being faster in nearly every encoding/multi threaded program..The X6 also uses less power, and produces way less heat, which are important factors IMO..

How do I know? Simple, I have owned both.
Click to expand...

We're talking about per core performance. It took AMD 50% more cores to meet up with what was the time almost two years old. Then they took a step backwards, making a similar mistake to the one Intel made with Netburst.
 
ryan_975 said:
We're talking about per core performance. It took AMD 50% more cores to meet up with what was the time almost two years old. Then they took a step backwards, making a similar mistake to the one Intel made with Netburst.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Then there's the price argument, when in reality the savings are between $0-100 but the Intel setup can last you an additional 2 years over a $100 (or less) cheaper AMD setup.
 
ccityinstaller said:
Not to start a flame war, but have you actually used both a Nehalem generation quad core(w/ HT) AND an AMD X6 cpu? When both cpus are overclocked to 4Ghz, the X6 is just as fast in most tests, while being faster in nearly every encoding/multi threaded program..The X6 also uses less power, and produces way less heat, which are important factors IMO..

How do I know? Simple, I have owned both.
Click to expand...

Lol what ?
I had X6 1055 and it was slow POS in everything that didn't use 6 cores and when something used it it was barely average.
 
Michaelius said:
Lol what ?
I had X6 1055 and it was slow POS in everything that didn't use 6 cores and when something used it it was barely average.
Click to expand...

Did you bother to read the part where I stated "when o/c'd to 4Ghz"?? I am going to assume you are either running the cpu @ stock, or you had some kind of issue somewhere(most likely your didn't bother raising your NB speed to 2.8-3Ghz, which yielded massive performance boosts)..There are plenty of people who found the X6 cpu's to be just as fast @ the clock speeds I am talking about..

Sorry for derailing the thread a bit, and I do realize we were talking about "per core" performance..But calling an intel quad core with HT just a "quad core" is a bit false (not saying "you", but a lot of people take that position)...

I know that logical cores do not perform anywhere near physical cores, but the fact that having 4 of them does add a decent amount of performance..
 
ccityinstaller said:
Did you bother to read the part where I stated "when o/c'd to 4Ghz"?? I am going to assume you are either running the cpu @ stock, or you had some kind of issue somewhere(most likely your didn't bother raising your NB speed to 2.8-3Ghz, which yielded massive performance boosts)..There are plenty of people who found the X6 cpu's to be just as fast @ the clock speeds I am talking about..

Sorry for derailing the thread a bit, and I do realize we were talking about "per core" performance..But calling an intel quad core with HT just a "quad core" is a bit false (not saying "you", but a lot of people take that position)...

I know that logical cores do not perform anywhere near physical cores, but the fact that having 4 of them does add a decent amount of performance..
Click to expand...

infact HT is CPU with highest raw performance, non HTs are intentionaly slower. HT allows one physical core to be double loaded
 
Acer_Sheep said:
infact HT is CPU with highest raw performance, non HTs are intentionaly slower. HT allows one physical core to be double loaded
Click to expand...

HT is maybe 25% faster in a few very specific server apps, ones with lots of memory access and low IPC. For desktop use, it's usually only a bit faster.
 
Intel won't get my money unless socket 1150 gets hexcore cpus or greater. My 2500K is sufficient for now even if Haswell offers an additional 25% IPC boost over it.
 
Ehren8879 said:
Intel won't get my money unless socket 1150 gets hexcore cpus or greater. My 2500K is sufficient for now even if Haswell offers an additional 25% IPC boost over it.
Click to expand...

Then Intel won't get your money, because Intel's roadmap clearly says 4 cores for mainstream.
 
Anyone know the answer to this:
When will we see quad core desktop cpu's under 35w tdp?

I will jump from my 2600k if and when these arrive.
 
chimera996 said:
Anyone know the answer to this:
When will we see quad core desktop cpu's under 35w tdp?

I will jump from my 2600k if and when these arrive.
Click to expand...

Not going to happen any time soon with milions of transistors wasted into shitty integrated GPUs.
 
Michaelius said:
Not going to happen any time soon with milions of transistors wasted into shitty integrated GPUs.
Click to expand...

I only need to point you to laptop CPUs. ULV dual-core i7s with HD4000 with 17 watt TDP. Also, the i7-3612QM is a quad-core with HD4000 with 35 watt TDP.
 
Haswell will be my new upgrade path. Was going to do Ivy Bridge, but there's no point in wasting $ on a "tick". I'm rocking an i5 750 @ 3.8-4ghz and it's been great at gaming performance.

Haswell should be a nice upgrade for me.
 
chimera996 said:
Nice find!

As soon as I saw Xeon and you said it was expensive I braced myself for a chip around $1k.
Click to expand...

Based on clock speed, I considered ~$300 expensive :D

2.4GHz isn't generous. Underclock and undervolt your 2600K and you can probably get pretty close TDP-wise
 
Again the i7-3770T and the i5-3570T are both quad core and 45W TDP. However the original post wanted a 35W quad core.
 
Lots of heated debates here.
I'll throw my hat in as a system builder.
Intel have the fastest chips best IPC by some margin. AMD have tended to be an option for those who are looking at bang per buck, except in the era of the Athlon 64 where they were leading Intel, but those X2 Athlon 64's were pricey at launch.

I was not impressed with Bulldozer took too long to turn up, folks were expecting big things that did not happen. On the other hand, well AMD slashed the prices quite a bit so I picked up a few for some builds I was planing.

Forum angst aside about AMD not matching or beating Intel (I personally did not expect that to happen) or new designs and all that stuff. They are actually by no means the disaster portrayed by some (and I include myself who was very critical of AMD strategy)..the main problem was the price simply was not going to cut it at launch prices.

If you don't match a rival in performance you can't charge as much simple as that. However AMD did slash prices and I picked up a few various FX models to try out and I got some cash back too!

I would say that I liked the FX6100 so much that I actually used it for my own build. Why did I like it? Well at it's £145 price point not a hope in hell I'd go near it, on Amazon I got one including cashback for aruond £75. For intensive multi threaded applications Intel have nothing to rival this at that price point, nor even close (Video encoding and stuff like that) it runs cool, easy to OC if desired and the performance is very decent for the price. The FX4 range is ok for fun OC's etc but needs more modules for threaded performance, the FX8 can be a bit juicy power wise with bigger overclocks.

No question the i5/i7 range are superb processors and rightly so. I do not feel AMD can effectively compete at these price points (yet anyway) but below that the dual core design of the i3 range is running out of steam, by no means a bad processor but it cannot rival AMD bang per buck.

And that's the real point bang per buck, where AMD get a following. The APU's are interesting and will grow as time goes on. FX has actually re-positioned itself to where it should be prices wise, and I have to say not a bad choice for video folks on a budget.
If you want the fastest processors buy Intel, if you're looking for a deal at a price point below that AMD are by no means a disaster some make them out to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top