|
Only extremely budget cards that nobody really buys for playing games would have DDR3, it's really unusual and usually deceptive marketing. Under-educated consumers will think that a card with tons of slow memory is better than one with a reasonable amount of fast memory.
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 06:21 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:E: Actually, it's on Newegg, too. $700 upgrade from an 8350 is actually in keeping with the retail cost. I wonder if the price is that high because they only have 2 chips per 1000 that can clock that high, even with the 220W TDP.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
keyvin posted:Wow, I guess I have a really niche need, but I am very happy with the performance of my A8 equipped notebook. It runs everything at the native resolution I have thrown at it other than GTA IV - but I think that is because it is such a lovely port. Holy poo poo, which A8 notebook is under $400? I've been watching manufacturers because if I could get a non-plastic poo poo notebook with an A8 that cheap it might barely meet my needs instead of a ~$650 Haswell system. I liked my X120e, in the "extreme value" range AMD might still get some volume. They're probably not making any money off of this though. The biggest problem that I've seen is that the major manufacturers who have well-built laptop lines (Dell, HP, Lenovo) are Intel only in their nice product lines. Twerk from Home fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Jul 22, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
keyvin posted:Why is AMD even trying to compete on performance? I think it's because they're behind on performance per watt, single-threaded performance per dollar, and rapidly losing ground in the extreme low end. $249 Chromebooks with Haswell processors are showing up, as well as a new Atom that looks extremely competitive and dirt cheap. What is AMD supposed to compete on if Intel builds a complete chip range including options under $100?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
Ignoarints posted:I'm just trying to confirm my suspicions, but has AMD made anything awesome for the time since the 965 BE time period? The 965 BE wasn't really awesome for the time that I can think of, their last CPUs I remember that were really above and beyond the competition were the Socket 939 dual-core Athlon 64s. In more recent years, they've sometimes had a value leader with the Athlon X3 CPUs that overclocked well and could usually have a 4th core unlocked, but now Intel has better options in pretty much any price range.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Stanley Pain posted:Intel for any kind of desktop built. AMD if you're looking for a good, cheap laptop that can do light to medium gaming, or a nice all in one HTPC box. I'm not sure that I would agree with the laptop thing, as battery life is a huge priority in the laptop space and Intel parts use significantly less power at idle, peak, and partial usage. Also, with Ivy Bridge and Haswell Intel's integrated graphics have gotten competitive.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
orange juche posted:Oh god, 2 more years without an architectural refresh is really gonna put the hurt on AMD. They have enough revenue to continue their existence as a company from the console deal, but they're going to have a hell of a hard time trying to claw their way back into the server market with their next generation uarch. I don't see them breaking back into the consumer PC market anytime soon, and that's a shrinking market at this point anyway. Intel's getting involved in a race to the bottom with Haswell Celerons and Atoms in the chromebook / tablet market. I'd expect all of AMD's focus on getting Opterons that can undercut Intel's multi-socket Xeons and somehow clawing their way back into servers. The problem is that will take a new architecture that's far more power efficient than their current one.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
Chuu posted:Yeah, they'd need to have a track record developing their own processors and have put in the resources to snipe top talent from other chip markers. With how ridiculous the CPU is in the iPad Air 2, I could see them adding 1 or 3 more cores and dropping it into a Macbook Air. Good point.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:No you really can't, it's quite slow and people would really notice. Especially if Apple's going to expect them to keep paying Macbook Air prices. I'm not saying it would compare favorably with Haswells, I think it would compare with the quad core Bay Trail Atoms that go in Windows tablets, netbooks, and small computers. The Z3740 and other similar processors. This could be a way towards extreme battery life. Are Macbooks Airs really that expensive? My wife got a 2014 13" MBA for $750 a couple months ago, it was cheaper than any comparable windows devices we could find.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
Sidesaddle Cavalry posted:You paid 3/4 of a grand for a tablet lol I'm really not understanding the Macbook Air hate going on here. It's a very nice combination of light weight, great battery life, passable CPU, really fast SSD for about what you would pay for a decent mainstream laptop anyway. I was just trying to speculate that given the success of Bay Trail atom CPUs creeping into so many products, it's not crazy that apple would put a similar speed CPU in its devices. Edit: They're laptops, not tablets, right?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Sidesaddle Cavalry posted:To stop the derail, the fact is that Apple doesn't vertically control the process to make processors for ~all~ potential markets from design to fabrication like Intel does. You might as well have said Samsung could compete instead and that would have been a better response--those guys actually work their own silicon for multiple projects. The A8X and similar chips may just be ARM implementations, but they're definitely designed by Apple and produced by TSMC. It's not very far off of laptop class performance. This is an AMD thread, so we had probably focus on AMD again. However, ever since they went fabless AMD doesn't "vertically control the process to make processors for ~all~ potential markets from design to fabrication like Intel does", so I guess they aren't technically a chip manufacturer either. Edit: Yeah the Bay Trails are extremely cheap and have great battery life. It looks like the A8X is faster than a Bay Trail Atom, and could maybe help Apple push the entry level Macbook Air down to $650 or $700 like it helped push entry level Windows shitboxes from $250-300 to $150.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:With an extra core it scores lower than last year's midrange that's missing 1/3rd of it's clock speed. It's really tempting to cobble together a guess from the boiled-down leftovers from popular press, but you're making statements based on generalities of generalities and every single data point underneath them doesn't add up the way you want it to. I'm not saying it would be faster or even as quick as Haswells. Bay Trail is the better comparison. I'm saying that 95% of consumers would probably be OK with this in the Macbook Air, and those that care could look at it as more reason to get the Pro. This is mostly moot speculation, but in general consumers have way more CPU performance than they need and wouldn't miss much by going down to something slower.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
I am not a book posted:Last time I built a computer, I paid like $100 for an AMD proc. What am I looking at these days for ~$100-150 from AMD? Don't buy an AMD CPU. If you are near a Microcenter, $160 gets you an Intel Core i5, and if you're not then $60 gets you an Intel G3258. These are better options than anything AMD has.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
Beautiful Ninja posted:The Phenom II X6 1100T was AMD's last hurrah on the high end, it was pretty competitive with the high end Nehalmen Intel's at the time, but once Sandy Bridge came out it was pretty much all over for AMD as a performance desktop option. It was a double whammy: Sandy Bridge had incredible performance, and AMD's new architecture had deep fundamental problems that meant it was 2 years before they produced another CPU as fast as the Phenom II 965. You can't afford to come out with a new product that is worse than your old product in this business. AMD had some really cool niche products creep out too, like the E-350 CPUs that were in netbooks ~ 2010 and 2011. Way better experience than an Atom for the same price and battery life.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
No Gravitas posted:http://www.agner.org/optimize/microarchitecture.pdf All of this is prettying shocking to me, especially that AMD's best years from 2003-2006 were primarily because Intel had an overly long pipeline and long latencies that made their chips less power efficient and less competitive. I guess AMD failed to learn a single thing from watching Intel flounder with the P4.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
Lord Windy posted:If the HBM Ram is as good as they are expecting then I think they could make some pretty stellar SOCs. I agree with this in theory, but for what the nicer A10 APU & motherboards cost I could just get an Intel G3258 and Z97 mobo for $99 in the Microcenter bundle and have a way more effective CPU and some change left over for GPU.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
ehnus posted:(guessing that the number of dual core, 64-bit, DX10+ machines isn't terribly high). The overwhelming majority of laptops are dual core, right? And most people would expect that a laptop with an i7 and a GTX 860m or something should be able to play games at medium-low settings, so they had better support dual cores.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
teagone posted:I'd consider a $200-$250 AMD APU based Chromebook. If it manages to notch 10-12 hours of battery life, I'd get one in a heartbeat. The whole problem is battery life. Intel has just pulled massively far ahead on battery life and it's getting worse. It's not the OS that gives chromebooks really good battery life, it's the CPUs, whether they are Intel or ARM.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
Wheany posted:I bought it because it was compatible with my mobo Things change in a decade, 10 years ago AMD was the best choice for desktop CPUs by a mile with Athlon 64s competing against Pentium 4s.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 16:28
|
|
(or so I thought at least)
|
teagone posted:Yeah, 4 years ago AMD still had some great budget offerings. I built my main PC around a Phenom II X4 840 processor that I got for $100 in early 2011 and was super happy with the price/performance ratio. That was the last AMD processor I have used in a build though. You know, the flip side of this is that I can keep riding the 2500K that I got for $200 in 2011 for the forseeable future.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:What you're saying is that the ARM chips are less efficient at turning watts into flops than Intel chips? In what world is the former what anyone would want? The smallest ARM chips are much lower power usage than Intel chips. They are still worse performance per watt, but good luck finding 2W Intel parts. Edit: ARM chips are also way better at using less power when idling.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:I guess out of 2015 I'm most excited for Beema, since I've been looking to replace my clunky and oversized old C2Q for HTPC use. In theory, we should be seeing small form factor APU things coming out for exactly that usage. Instead, I'm not seeing anything from AMD so I got one of these. The NUCs are a really impressive tiny-PC package.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
roadhead posted:He didn't say anything about per-watt performance though That would be something to see, a 300W Zen locked with a 65W Skylake in multithreaded performance. Also feasible!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Angry Fish posted:I really think Ars Technica really did a good job explaining AMDs new mobile platform: If they can make something that's broadly comparable to Sandy Bridge and sell it for Atom prices, we're cooking with gas.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
teagone posted:I still have a fully functioning computer I built circa 2005 that has an nForce 4 board (Epox 9NPA+ SLI). CPU is an Athlon 64 X2 3800+ Manchester and it has dual Geforce 6800GS graphics cards in SLI, haha. It was my first dual-core, SLI system I"m surprised yours is still going, my Socket 939 system had caps on the motherboard fail, and I carried my X800 Pro onto a Core 2.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:I just want the return of low-power low-cost hobby ECC servers that the Athlon2/Phenom2 line made possible Can't you still get ECC support from Pentium branded Intel CPUs? Just not i5s or i7s. http://ark.intel.com/products/82723/Intel-Pentium-Processor-G3258-3M-Cache-3_20-GHz
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
SHOTGUN REGULAR posted:What's wrong with the 8350? Seemed like decent value, only real drawback was the power draw as far as I can tell. Looks about the same price range as an i5, which would be significantly faster.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:If Zen can give me 8 cores and ~90% of Skylake I'm in. Perhaps out of pity, if nothing else. Aren't the construction cores there already in relation to something like a 4690? In perfectly multithreaded tasks, I remember the 220W 4.7GHz FX being equal to or a smidge faster than the 84W i5-4690.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
BurritoJustice posted:Hahaha I'm not joking here and not saying that there's any case where anybody should buy a 9590, because they cost more than their Intel competitors while using 4x the electricity, but with a perfectly threaded 8 thread load isn't an AMD 8 core @ 5ghz broadly equivalent to an Intel quad @ 3.9 like the 4690? That's what I understood El Scotch to be saying, if a Zen 8 core is 90% the total multithreaded computer of the Intel competitor he may be in, out of pity.  Edit: This is pretty much the only benchmark AMD is competitive in because very few things are perfectly 8+ threaded. Twerk from Home fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Jul 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
A Bad King posted:So if any of you have AMD's marketing team sending you spam, they're offering the FX-6300 for less than $90 with rebates. In what edge case are these preferable to ~$100 core i3 or a ~$50 G3258? It looks like it's slower than an i3-3220 even at video encoding. http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/3
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:But no one wants that right now, and with Zen so theoretically close, then It's do or die. Either they'll have an interesting value proposition somehow next year, or they fold.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:Zen is a reverse engineering job of an ivy bridge chip calling it now. This would be fine and awesome, if AMD is able to sell an Ivy Bridge i7 in 2016 for $150 we're cooking with gas.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:At this point you could just buy an i7 2600k on eBay, probably for less, so it'd have to be something very special or very, very cheap. If this were true, then wouldn't people be buying eBay 2600Ks rather than i3s and low-clock i5s? $150 doesn't get you a lot in Intel-land anymore, unless you're looking at Microcenter's deviant pricing. Good, solid, quad core performance comparable to an Ivy Bridge or Haswell i7 at a mid $100s price point would be a giant thorn in Intel's side.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
adorai posted:That's the crux of the argument. I get awesome performance in the things i do on an AMD, it cost me less upfront and my electric is pretty cheap in the midwest. Are you on some old legacy part, or something from the last 2 years? The biggest argument against cheap AMD is i3s and Pentiums / Celerons. You can get Intel CPUs under $80 too, that's not only an AMD thing. My wife still uses a 6 year old AMD K10 machine daily, and it's fine.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
Rastor posted:Nice build quality on this Carrizo laptop: Man, Carrizo looks like a legitimate i3 competitor, but it really seems like you can only get it in laptops that are enormous pieces of poo poo. Whens the last time that Thinkpad T / X had AMD options? Or anything like an XPS 13? A Carrizo laptop with good build quality would actually be a valid option, but none seem to exist.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:Z for Zen? Phenom/Athlon/Duron, then basically replace the AX-XXXX with ZX-XXXX, so Z4, Z6, Z8, Z10 for dual, quad, hex, and octacores. Bring back Black Edition types, maybe as Red Edition. But then you'd have the weird future lawsuit involving AMD and Games Workshop about "Red ones go faster". I thought they were doing away with bulldozer modules? Isn't Zen shipping as Dual - Quad on normal mainstream sockets, just like Intel? I'd take a quad core that performed like a 4770K over anything Bulldozer descended.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 06:21 |
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:SPEAKING OF CARRIZO IN LENOVOS. The Y series are unfortunately bulky, plasticky trash, but usually they have relatively powerful hardware for the price. 15.6" is just too huge for a laptop in my opinion, but I'm glad to see them pushing something like this.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 20:17
|
|
