Originally Posted by SpinnyD
...It certainly beats just throwing on more and more cores/cranking up the clock speed each year to keep the income flowing. What we are seeing here is a company actually improvising.. Architectural improvements and perfecting the individual core itself should always come first before just throwing on two more cores a year. (The more cores the less balanced the unit as a whole becomes) ...
For them to throw in the towel really means a lot. (I still hold hope that AMD will eventually pull through again someday) But intel is currently doing something which i thought was impossible..improving on something thats already (in my opinion) perfect. Kudos to intel..As much as i love intel, I still hope someone else comes out of the woodworks and offers intel some healthy much needed competition
. I Would hate to see them dominate completely and no longer see the need for performance improvements.
The step from Ivy to Haswell makes one thing clear to me for the tower I want to build this fall/winter... If I go Intel, it'll be an IB and likely a 3770K. But if Steamroller proves to be a legit jump closer to Intel performance, especially in single-threaded task performance and memory controls, then it'll be a much cheaper to upgrade my current tower and stick with AMD, and I will.
AMD threw the towel 10 years ago when they launched the Athlon 64s, got lazy, and didn't look ahead to the future and spend the R&D money when they should have to start up their multi-core processors. They've survived on the cost/performance value of their GPUs, while taking the opposite route of Intel and beefing up the core and clock speed technology. Now, with the jump to Steamroller, and the reduction to 28nm architecture, they're focusing first on APUs and trying to bring the Opteron's on a more even par with the Xeons. And for AMD I think they have the right idea in mind. They don't seem to be wanting to continue the jumps up in cores as much as improving the architecture to catch up and enhance the performance of the speeds they've reached. Let's be honest... 4.2GHz on AMD's top-notch quad-core processor that only costs you $125 is pretty good considering the cheapest Intel quad-core is the 2-yr old Core i5-2310 at about $175, especially when you consider that it shouldn't be too hard to overclock them to 5.5 or better with good cooling and see excellent jumps in the performance. And with AMD (FINALLY) including native memory support for 1866 means it shouldn't be hard to overclock ram to speeds of 2133+... it also make me wonder if the Steamroller will be able to handle DDR3-2400... hey a guy can hope right?
Intel now has to look at expanding their core count, and possibly also will need to start biting their pride and their profit margin and begin price drops of older generation processors. AMD is focused on tightening up the die and reducing the architecture. Although you say that the more cores, the less balanced the processor, I disagree... my FX-8120 has done outstanding, it overclocks very well on a Corsair H80... 4.6 is the highest I've gotten it stable thus far, and while that took 1.4625V to achieve, that's almost a 50% overclock on a mere +.05V jump, for a core design that has been broadly considered by almost everyone to be a flop (Myself included mind you, as it's a pain in the @$$ getting it to control memory above 1866, and that the 990FX chipset screwed us all with no PCI3 support... but getting an i7-3770K and a quality Z77 board would've cost me double of what I spent... budget many times rules what we can buy unfortunately) The only instability problems I had with dialing in overclocks were the result of a bad DIMM stick. Now from what I've read, yeah I got lucky and got one of the very strong Bulldozers... but the Piledriver Vishera CPUs, which you could say is AMD's "Tock" to the Bulldozer, are nipping at the heels of IB. To be honest, AMD is in a great position to make a large competitve jump here... and I'm all for it. I've had both Intel and AMD rigs, but for the cost/performance ratio, the last Intel build I had was a now seemingly archaic P4 2.8B Northwood... in 2002.
Now that I'm at a point where I have the disposable income, I would love to see some genuine competition between Intel and AMD, same as everyone else, because not only will it drive down costs to the mainstream consumer market, it will also spur the drive to make better improvements all the way around, both architecture and tasking, and push the enthusiast market faster, and at cheaper prices for us all. AMD has survived this long because even though they've been a step behind Intel, they can still offer pretty good performance levels at a great value... which is why a lot of Intel enthusiasts have been so unhappy with the cost they're paying. But that tide seems to finally be past it's peak and receding. Grant it Intel has some pretty decent iGPU... but they better focus on making it redonkulous for the next couple platforms, and here's why... AMD now has it's GPU and CPU lines on the same size die, and with all the R&D they're pounding away on right now, it sounds like their plan is to continue that trend... The Richland will launch in the next 4-8 weeks with Radeon 7000 series graphics on board. By the end of 2014 there's a very good chance that AMD will be pushing out high performance, 8+ core APUs with Radeon 8000 or better integrated graphics... I don't see Intel doing anything right now to really improve their integrated graphics to a par that can compete with Radeon 7000 series and beyond... especially if the rumors I'm hearing about AMD wanting to design an APU specific series of boards with additional, separate DIMM slots dedicated strictly for the iGPU... imagine 16GBs of DDR4 memory driving a Radeon HD 8000 series chipset...
I think that this is where AMD stands to gain the most ground fastest, and quite possibly with great success if they do it right, and really make a push that forces Intel to press much harder than they have been for the last 5 years. Steamroller is either going to make all of us happy by actually living up to it's hype, or it will fail and it will be at least 2-3 more years of Intel dominance, but only if you're willing to pay far more. I don't care who's are the best.... I just want to see an honestly competitive market again so $200-300 CPUs deliver far more than what they currently do.Edited by SpacemanSpliff - 5/18/13 at 3:43pm