AMD 2013/2014 the next big changes. - Page 2

HSA... don't forget that

Generally you look at professional reviews with benchmarks approximating the purpose you intend to put the computer. Also, it's pretty well-known that Intel cores are usually superior to AMD cores. This is because Intel has a higher IPC (Intructions-Per-Clock), so Intel ghz are worth more than AMD ghz. (The latest AMD offerings improve this a little, but not much. Their main benefit is a higher base speed, but if you're going to overclock, they can't go at much higher speeds than Intel chips.)

For instance:



or



or



So for instance you can see that even in the heavily threaded handbrake benchmark, the Intel quad-core (with hyperthreading) did better than the AMD octo-core even though it's clocked slower. Of course, an i7-3770k is also more expensive than an fx-8350.

Then later, in the SC2 benchmark (SC2 can only use 2 cores), we see exactly what we expect: all the AMD offerings have roughly the same performance (core count doesn't matter), and all perform significantly under the Intel offerings (with only 2 cores running, per-core performance is far more important).

Of course, these benchmarks are all at stock speeds. I haven't seen any good benchmarks including the latest AMD processors overclocked yet. However, given the relative changes in .ghz possible, we can safely say that AMD processors will have an additional benefit after overclocking compared to locked Intel processors, but unlocked Intel processors will get a slightly larger benefit from overclocking than AMD processors will.
Edited by MisterFred - 10/26/12 at 2:22pm

Forget Intel sure they make good stuff but AMD has always been better at graphics. Case in point Crytek went to AMD to help build Crysis 3. Fastest chips in the world are AMD .

Have you seen this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eu8Sekdb-IE

Or perhaps this:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8350+Eight-Core&id=1780

Now, nobody is arguing that AMD has better architecture. Intel has better architecture, hands down, period. However, it's interesting to note that some gaming benchmarks put the 8350 ahead, while other gaming benchmarks will put the i7s ahead. Your benchmarks make the i7s look a little better, while Passmark CPU Mark scores make the AMD look like it's giving it a run for its money. Let's not bicker over tiny discrepancies in benchmarks, and let's just say that the 8350 and some of the i7s it's compared to are about evenly matched.

It's still an 8-core 4.0GHz CPU just barely keeping up with a 4-core 3.4GHz CPU, which just goes to show how much better the architecture of the Intel i7 is, but it DOES keep up, and it keeps up for about $90 less. So no, I don't think it's fair to say that value does not matter and the Intels are flat out better. AMD does give way better performance for the buck, so for someone on a very tight budget, or even someone who wants to get about the same performance for $90 less, the AMD 8350 can make a lot of sense, especially in applications that take advantage of those 8-cores. AMD's APUs are also a good value and people here have already pointed out what a great value the Radeon cards are.

Now when Intel starts releasing 8-core i7s, then it's TOAST. But what do you think Intel is going to charge for a next-gen 8-core i7? Probably over $1,000. The 8-core AMD at $200 is still pretty appealing. Hopefully AMD will have better tech out by then but I doubt it. It's almost like AMD has given up on CPUs. The 8350 might be the last "high end" CPU they ever put out. They're going to focus on servers, APUs, GPUs, and mobile solutions to break into the tablet market (good luck...). Personally I'm going with the 8350 because I want an 8-core, I don't want to wait for Intel to release an 8-core, and I don't want to pay what Intel will probably want for an 8-core. It does what I want for less money.

Excavator will be at the 20nm if we are lucky. It depends if TSMC and GloFo can deliver.

I doubt the consoles are using the same ole graphics cores the current consumer APUs are using. AMD could've given them the 7000 series GPU in their 'custom GPU'.... maybe even the 8000 series. I just think your throwing some major disinformation about the graphics. We've heard 7970m type level with the graphics. Who knows? I don't.... but the 6670 isn't going to give anywhere near the performance they (Sony and Microsoft) want.

I don't think the chip they're putting in the PS4 can be directly compared to any CPU, GPU, or APU AMD currently puts out. If they could, they would say "it's going to be like the 7770" or 7970 or whatever. It's a custom chip that Sony and AMD worked together to design, and they keep emphasizing this fact. I'm willing to bet that even once the PS4 is out and full specs and benchmarks are available people will still argue which GPU/APU it's most similar to. Custom = no direct comparison.

It[te name="eTernalPulse" url="/t/1320035/amd-2013-2014-the-next-big-changes#post_18451681"]
Realy?.... 6670? Oh dear.
Your absolutely right intel are way better. I have nothing to base my preference on other than i just like AMD. Ha. Im hoping amd consentrate on 18nm OR smaller and using their strength in GPU design to create an incredable apu for desktop.
If they fail at that... i will looking into the next big thing for intel in 2014.
For now im an AMD follower.[/quote]

It will have a 7850 level GPU so no, not a 6670

EDIT: Sorry, using my "smart"phone +it will be using GCN
Edited by AlDyer - 2/28/13 at 10:45pm