|
There's no currently-made air cooler that can handle that. As for the Xbox/PS4 APUs, based on the reviews of Kabini, a Haswell i3 has the same fully-multithreaded CPU performance as the Xbox/PS4's 2-module/8-core CPUs. Rather than AMD having an advantage from increased threading, it's more like their extreme deficit in single-threaded performance may become less of a handicap.
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 04:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:50 |
|
|
Is there any reason AMD can't just go back to Phenom and start over, dropping the 2 integer cores per fpu stuff they did with Bulldozer? Besides their horrific financial situation and lack of manpower, that is. That's what I understand Intel did after netburst, so would it be possible for AMD to do that as well? Speaking of which, why on earth did they choose to make such an insane bet with Bulldozer, that heavily multithreaded computing was the way of the future? By 2009 I think it was evident that it wasn't, they had 3 and 4 core processors and it's not like single core performance was rendered obsolete. Were they just tired of competing against the goliath that is Intel? icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Jun 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 04:29
|
|
|
It's possible that they already have and we'll find out soon. Product cycles for CPUs are something like 4-6 years of development before there's something to sell. In the meantime, while that's happening, gotta make money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 04:30
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:There's no currently-made air cooler that can handle that. Alereon fucked around with this message at 07:02 on Jun 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 06:54
|
|
|
Deathreaper posted:It's APUs are wonderful, finally you can purchase a sub $1000 laptop with decent 3d performance. I really hate to poop on anybody's parade and very glad that AMD finally has a niche where they can get some revenue in the gaming consoles, but the Haswell laptops also do this. The HD5000 Intel parts are usable for midrange gaming. I'm a huge AMD fan and rooting for them to find a place to be profitable. I don't see anything in the current market like the X120e anymore unfortunately, so when relatives and friends are asking me for laptop recommendations I haven't suggested an AMD once in the last year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
Weinertron posted:I really hate to poop on anybody's parade and very glad that AMD finally has a niche where they can get some revenue in the gaming consoles, but the Haswell laptops also do this. The HD5000 Intel parts are usable for midrange gaming. The HD5000 parts are a little off of the 650. Does this make them not-gaming-grade? Well, they're a substitute at best if you have access and willingness for dedicated cards, but this isn't the end of the tape - the most demanding thing on Steam for Linux is Serious Sam 3, which a 5200 on 1866+ RAM can manage easily, (note that both of these may have changed recently - and it doesn't bode GREAT for Steam for Linux, what with its less than 150-title lineup) and Intel's Linux support is impeccable, mostly because they release their entire API and as much design as needed to not blow at drivers to the open-source community. My only concern is that Valve saw a convenient place to jump into the console wars and bought up most of the production runs of HD 5x00-equipped processors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
E: Oops, thought this was the GPU thread because of that last post.
Factory Factory fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Jun 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Is there any reason AMD can't just go back to Phenom and start over, dropping the 2 integer cores per fpu stuff they did with Bulldozer? Besides their horrific financial situation and lack of manpower, that is. That's what I understand Intel did after netburst, so would it be possible for AMD to do that as well? One should remember that Intel didn't pull the core processors out of a hat after Netburst. They had been developing them for years prior and selling them as the Pentium M processors in laptops. The Dothan core was much faster per clock than the Netburst chips, and used a lot less power. Intel basically ran with their excellent mobile chips, they didn't have to go back to the drawing board so to speak.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 06:29
|
|
|
Naffer posted:One should remember that Intel didn't pull the core processors out of a hat after Netburst. They had been developing them for years prior and selling them as the Pentium M processors in laptops. The Dothan core was much faster per clock than the Netburst chips, and used a lot less power. Intel basically ran with their excellent mobile chips, they didn't have to go back to the drawing board so to speak. It's more interesting than that, in my opinion - they basically saw AMD's strategy with the Athlon XP and then Athlon 64 chips, shorter pipelines with efficient execution and lower clock-rates as a result. I recall the Athlon XP Barton core had a 12-step pipeline, compared to a 30 or greater step pipeline for the Prescott P4s (which required the invention of a technology that would become very useful later, HyperThreading - back then, it was a desperate solution to the problem of wasting catches in the gigantic execution pipeline, slowing an already problematic execution system down even further... Now we enjoy it as a supplement to an efficient pipeline with effective hit vs. miss technology already in place and it just makes that even better). Intel had a processor more or less like the Bartons already - the Pentium 3 (P6) - and making the Pentium M basically involved a lot of effective R&D on how to make the P6 into a (for the time) modern processor. I'm kind of hoping that AMD has something like this going on with the K10.5 chips, but early results with the post-K10 Bulldozer alternatives were discouraging. Still, AMD just isn't in a position to sit stubbornly and hope that computing changes overnight to make their good multithreaded performance matter more than their poo poo singlethreaded performance, and nobody is interested in trying to deal with the heat and power requirements in higher end markets anyway. They don't have the clout to do what Intel did when faced with this problem, which was to force computer building companies to use their processors even though they sucked by making them offers they couldn't refuse. AMD's broke compared to Intel, that fine in the EU was a blip on the bottom line and nothing more. A moral victory counts for poo poo when your company is in the red and things are looking grim. But it would be great to see them have some really competitive K10.5 derivative chip come out and be genuinely competitive against Intel's lineup. Even if it wasn't able to dominate, just getting something that doesn't suck at each price point except in the most multi-threaded things and without regard to efficiency would be fantastic. I miss the days when it made damned good sense to build an AMD-based computer, and they went from nothing to 25% server marketshare in the space of a couple years. I want to see them there again, for nostalgia and to give Intel a reason to innovate further and solve more than one problem at a time. And care about the little things, like appropriate spacing between the IHS and the CPU. For goodness' sake, it's a bad scene when something like that is just considered fine by them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 08:06
|
|
|
Intel had a string of remarkably well executed products post RDRAM and netburst: Conroe, Nehalem and Sandy Bridge. AMD's bulldozer was crippled by management turmoil and was released half baked. Piledriver was a nice improvement and I imagine steamroller with follow suite. AMD is more or less punting on the server/high end market until excavator it seems. Being contractually wed to GloFlo has been a nightmare for AMD. Intel has done a remarkable job in continually optimizing their IPC, but the low hanging fruit is long gone and the move to 14 nm is a challenging one even for Intel. As GloFlo and TSMC get their 28 and 20 nm lines going, AMD has a shot at becoming more competitive vis-a-vis the i5, i3 and Atom. AMD does not have the resources to go after Intel on all fronts, so they have targeted desktop and tablet APUs as well as the microserver market as niches to exploit with keveri, kabini, temash and their new 64 bit ARM platform. Assuming the leaks are accurate, AMD seems to be doing a few things to address a number of problems with piledriver, and getting on a "modern" process will also help. We will see. Intel is in a bit of a holding pattern, taking longer than expected to move to the next node (and why should they rush?); TSMC and the common platform, on the other hand, going balls out to get 20 nm up and running. AMD is limiting the use of macros in their future designs so hopefully they will be more portable, so if TSMC or the common platform get in a process bind AMD won't be as stuck (I think they are ditching SOI as well). Getting $60-$100 per XBone/PS4 should help as should a still competent design team, better fabrication process availability and a slightly less awful management team. This is all speculation. Things may be dire, but there is reason for hope. It will be interesting to see in the near future if OEMs put jaguar in products that people actually want to buy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 09:30
|
|
|
Sorry for being off topic but I have been out of the AMD game for awhile. I currently have an Athlon II X2 240 and was looking to upgrade. I understand that the FX series is no good so I was wondering what you guys suggested. Thanks! Currently have an AM3+ motherboard. To keep the thread slightly on topic, I have been rocking AMD since socket 939 and plan to stick with it. Mainly because I enjoy having zillions of things running at once.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 09:43
|
|
|
AutoFool posted:I understand that the FX series is no good so I was wondering what you guys suggested. Intel. Seriously. 3rd and 4th generation Intel dual cores are a match for similarly clocked AMD quads, and Intel quads (outside of some unusual tasks) have no AMD match. This is not an AMD CPU booster thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 10:00
|
|
|
As ridiculous as those new 220W TDP processors are, if single thread performance could beat the best Xeons out there they could sell a mints worth under the Opteron brand to certain industries. The fact they're not doing this puzzles me, and makes me wonder if these things aren't being as strictly validated as their other processors; or if this is just a PR game and they're not going to be able to harvest enough dies to meet the big OEM's demands. EDIT: Based on the link Alereon posted, I guess the answer is that these processors won't beat the highest clocked Xeons in integer math in single threaded code. Maybe not even FP. That's really terrible. Chuu fucked around with this message at 10:42 on Jun 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 10:31
|
|
|
AutoFool posted:I understand that the FX series is no good so I was wondering what you guys suggested. Thanks! Currently have an AM3+ motherboard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 11:29
|
|
|
AutoFool posted:Sorry for being off topic but I have been out of the AMD game for awhile. I currently have an Athlon II X2 240 and was looking to upgrade. I understand that the FX series is no good so I was wondering what you guys suggested. Thanks! Currently have an AM3+ motherboard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 13:35
|
|
|
adorai posted:Despite the hating in this thread, I am quite happy with my FX series processor. I bought an fx-4170 at Christmas time at a great price, and it plays the games I like to play quite well. "Hating" implies that AMD hasn't been hit by the results of their own devastating failure to produce a competitive CPU. Remember how all the guys starting with "C" either got fired or walked, including the CTO of the graphics division? Remember how either nearly or over 100K workers got canned? Under new management they're totally shifting focus away from desktop CPUs? These things all really happened. The company had to look in the mirror and acknowledge their failure, it's not some ol' bullshit for people in general to do the same. I wish Bulldozer had Bulldozed. That would have been awesome. If anything, this is a thread full of people who entirely sympathize with AMD's position, but who also recognize the reality of their situation. Ain't a hater in sight.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 16:12
|
|
|
Please, AMD, please make me happy by releasing a 4-module/8-thread APU that knows how to Core Park and boosts its single-thread performance somehow with magical HSA. I secretly weep uncontrollably in my bed at night knowing that my machine is occupied by an Ivy Bridge that can actually make the most out of your 7970, AMD. Please do this for me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
Sidesaddle Cavalry posted:Please, AMD, please make me happy by releasing a 4-module/8-thread APU that knows how to Core Park and boosts its single-thread performance somehow with magical HSA. I secretly weep uncontrollably in my bed at night knowing that my machine is occupied by an Ivy Bridge that can actually make the most out of your 7970, AMD. Please do this for me. HSA won't do much for single threaded performance as I understand it. It could potentially improve FP performance by offloading math to the graphics part of the APU. Some sort of "heterogeneous" architecture is the future, though depending on compilers has been a sucker's bet in the past. HSA is no EPIC, but the sinking of the Itanic is a cautionary note. Anyways I'm pretty sure even the most enemic of modern CPUs can keep that nice card if yours fed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
Yudo posted:Anyways I'm pretty sure even the most enemic of modern CPUs can keep that nice card if yours fed. Yeah, Anandtech had an article showing this not too long ago: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6934/choosing-a-gaming-cpu-single-multigpu-at-1440p/5 Unless the game was very CPU bound (like Civ 5), there wasn't much difference between processors when running a single 7970.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
syzygy86 posted:Yeah, Anandtech had an article showing this not too long ago: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6934/choosing-a-gaming-cpu-single-multigpu-at-1440p/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
Yudo posted:HSA won't do much for single threaded performance as I understand it. It could potentially improve FP performance by offloading math to the graphics part of the APU. Some sort of "heterogeneous" architecture is the future, though depending on compilers has been a sucker's bet in the past. HSA is no EPIC, but the sinking of the Itanic is a cautionary note. Forgive my unbearable ignorance, but am I correct when I conject that games use a lot of floating points? And sorta. I have the double-whammy of having the unnecessarily high standard of minimum 60 FPS on my current 1080p setup and having a tendency to play really shittly-coded online games.  someday i will win the lottery and rob a bank and then i will be able to afford an overclocked korean ips monitor and another 7970 and then i will win at every game because i deserve it
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
Sidesaddle Cavalry posted:Forgive my unbearable ignorance, but am I correct when I conject that games use a lot of floating points? Yes, 3D video games require a tremendous amount of floating point calculations, but almost universally this is off loaded to the GPU which is designed to do bulk parallel array/vector/matrix maths (e.g. calculating the color of each pixel on your screen, each frame). While CPUs have gotten better at number crunching and x86 has added specialized instructions like SSEx and AVX to speed up vector operations, raw compute is still owned by GPUs. CPUs are more generalized processors designed to handle code that has branches (if x, then do y; else do z), and other dependencies that make up the bulk of consumer applications and things like game AI. There are, as you point out, some CPU dependent games like Skyrim or World of Warcraft. Intel rules for this stuff, but for a lot of games a CPU basically fetches poo poo from memory for the GPU to process; too slow and FPS will drop. I also think that some GPUs have gotten better at branchy code to better handle certain functions, but only for the simplest of dependencies. Others ITT know much more about that than I. Eventually there will be no distinctions as CPU and GPU further converge.(Part of) The idea behind HSA is to send tasks best suited to either kind of processor without the programmer having to "vectorized" their code: making code parallel is quite challenging and for some things impossible. Yudo fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Jun 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
Alereon posted:That wasn't a very good article to be honest, they only tested at settings that almost eliminate the CPU as a factor, and average framerates don't do a good job of showing the dips in framerate that are caused by the CPU. TechReport's reviews are a lot better for this because they actually compare the amount of time various CPUs spend below certain framerates, which shows pretty significant variability between CPUs. Ian Cutress, the guy who did that AnandTech roundup, may be a smart guy, but he's also a nut for Bitcoins and runs mining rigs. He's not the wisest smart guy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:Ian Cutress, the guy who did that AnandTech roundup, may be a smart guy, but he's also a nut for Bitcoins and runs mining rigs. He's not the wisest smart guy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
Question. I'm debating between a core i3 and one of the new Richland APUs for my four family PC upgrades. My main driver is best all around performance for the 55-65w TDP range. I'll be keeping their discrete cards and am wondering if I do an APU and disable it in the BIOS does it technically drop the TDP lower? Like if I did a 100w one would it still use that much power with a disabled GPU or drop down much lower to be more competitive with an i3 under load?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 01:34
|
|
|
The way AMD's Turbo Core works, it would not change the maximum power of the chip, but it would change the average power. The GPU would pretty much never power up. The CPU would take a lot of the TDP headroom for its own turbo-ing, at least under stock configuration, and might potentially use the entire TDP under really heavy CPU load. At idle, though, the GPU would remain completely power-gated rather than on-but-not-doing-much, so that would reduce power consumption when the CPU wasn't doing much. You could also manually undervolt/underclock the chip. In an i3, there's no Turbo Boost, so you would just get lower power, yes. Sanity check question: Why are you obsessing over the last handful of watts at a mid-level TDP? Get the Richland if your CPU uses are primarily multi-core, the i3 if they're primarily gaming, or get an i5-4570S if you need both, have the money, and are definitely wedded to that 65W TDP for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
I can't strain the budget as high as an i5. Mainly I'm looking to try to collectively reduce heat/power usage, there are four PCs all in one spot in the house and it can get warmish and I don't want them too close to breaker popping. Also if I get them low enough I can plug them all into one (or two) big UPS, I don't need them to stay on long just not reboot for minor power blips, etc. Also I know jack poo poo about electricity so maybe I am over-thinking this. They are all x3 720s right now because I got them on a really good deal long ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 02:39
|
|
|
OldPueblo posted:Mainly I'm looking to try to collectively reduce heat/power usage I hate to say it, but one of the cornerstones of Intels dominance in the mobile space is that for consumer computing needs an Intel CPU will use significantly less power to do the same work. Go Intel, just get some i3s.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 02:46
|
|
|
Lowering CPU TDP from 95W to 65W on three systems saves maybe 1.5A on the mains at 120V under full load, or about 10% of a typical US mains line capacity, and that's with REALLY lovely power supplies. With a decent PSU, it's more like 1.2A. A very high-performance desktop (6-core i7, 130W standard overclocked to 4.3 GHz, and a GeForce 770) takes about 3.3A (380W) from the wall. Your systems will take less unless you're using stupid old video cards and terrible power supplies. A toaster typically takes around 12A. Halve these amperages for 240V. If you want to reduce heat, 120W less heat in the room... I mean, replace a 150W incandescent with a CFL and that's about the same difference. It's significant, but not very big. Increasing airflow through the room will pay off better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
I'm genuinely impressed by Intel though. I have built nothing but AMD since '99 and I just got the wife an i3-3225. Hardly high end but it loads stuff almost as fast as my SSD equipped Phenom II (she has a 500 GB WD Green). As pricey as they can be a Haswell i5 is a serious consideration for my next move.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 05:35
|
|
|
Detroit Q. Spider posted:As pricey as they can be a Haswell i5 is a serious consideration for my next move. Are they really that pricey? Microcenter has the i5-4570 for $160, I remember paying WAY more than that for my Socket 939 Athlon X2 back in the day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 05:52
|
|
|
Weinertron posted:Are they really that pricey? Microcenter has the i5-4570 for $160, I remember paying WAY more than that for my Socket 939 Athlon X2 back in the day. Maybe I'm shopping at the wrong places. Every time look at Newegg it seems like any i5 is 200+. fake edit: Yeah that specific model is $199 on Newegg. No Microcenters near me though. Guess there's always Tigerdirect!
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
Microcenter sells high end intel chips at a discount as a loss leader to get people in the door. They'll often throw in nice combo discounts with motherboards, on top of that. You probably won't find anyone matching their prices on CPUs if you don't have one nearby, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
VorpalFish posted:Microcenter sells high end intel chips at a discount as a loss leader to get people in the door. They'll often throw in nice combo discounts with motherboards, on top of that. You probably won't find anyone matching their prices on CPUs if you don't have one nearby, unfortunately. Well there's one in Dallas. We've been toying with the idea of a day/weekend trip for a while soooo...  Also Tigerdirect is $209. Welp, no reason to go there I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
I love coming into these threads and reading the first post "HOLY THUNDERFUCKING poo poo CUNTS, Bulldozer!!!!!" and now it's like.. monumental disappointment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 09:05
|
|
|
Packstand posted:I love coming into these threads and reading the first post "HOLY THUNDERFUCKING poo poo CUNTS, Bulldozer!!!!!" I, too, celebrate the massive destruction of AMD's computing division and overall reduction in labor force nearing the 100,000 mark, and Intel's unchallenged monopoly in x86 computing leading to highly questionable market segmentation tactics and bean-counting crap like using glue that's too thick for the IHS on the processor but selling said processor as an overclocking-capable chip anyway for a price premium! Wait no this is horrible
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 09:47
|
|
|
AMD CPU and Platform Discussion: Better Luck Next Platform 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 12:55
|
|
|
The thread title should probably be changed, its going to get confusing as the summer moves on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 14:38
|
|
|
Agreed posted:overall reduction in labor force nearing the 100,000 mark, Having a hard time believing AMD has somehow churned through their current headcount plus Global Foundries 5 times over.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 14:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:50 |
|
|
thebigcow posted:The thread title should probably be changed, its going to get confusing as the summer moves on. I approve of the title change. I know this is a goony thing to be sad about but I've had nothing but AMD based systems for almost fifteen years and not even having a really viable AMD option is just weird and I don't care for it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 15:18
|
|