Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › AMD No longer a viable option for mid-high end?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AMD No longer a viable option for mid-high end? - Page 149  

post #1481 of 1593
For those who won't have a Microcenter nearby, Amazon has the Haswell 4670K for $189.99 today:

ssyLXFO.png
5 GHz SFF Box
(18 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-2700K @ 5.0 GHz, 1.38V Asus Maximus IV GENE Asus GTX 670 DC II 4x4GB Samsung 30nm @ DDR3-2133 9-9-9-21 1.5V 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Plextor M3 SSD WD Velociraptor 500GB WD Caviar Black 1TB WD Caviar Green 2TB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Thermalright HR-02 (GT AP-15 Push/Pull) Windows 7 Pro x64 LG 27" 2560x1440 S-IPS (Calibrated with Eye-One) CM Quickfire Rapid 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X-750 Silverstone SG09 Logitech MX518 Steelseries QcK 
Audio
Asus Xonar DX + Shure SRH840 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Core i5-3570K Gigabyte H61N-USB3 Mini-ITX 2x4GB Samsung 30nm DDR3 Samsung 830 128GB SSD 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
WD Scorpio Blue 500GB Win 7 Pro x64 Antec 90W DC-DC/Delta power brick Antec ISK 110 
  hide details  
5 GHz SFF Box
(18 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-2700K @ 5.0 GHz, 1.38V Asus Maximus IV GENE Asus GTX 670 DC II 4x4GB Samsung 30nm @ DDR3-2133 9-9-9-21 1.5V 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Plextor M3 SSD WD Velociraptor 500GB WD Caviar Black 1TB WD Caviar Green 2TB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Thermalright HR-02 (GT AP-15 Push/Pull) Windows 7 Pro x64 LG 27" 2560x1440 S-IPS (Calibrated with Eye-One) CM Quickfire Rapid 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X-750 Silverstone SG09 Logitech MX518 Steelseries QcK 
Audio
Asus Xonar DX + Shure SRH840 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Core i5-3570K Gigabyte H61N-USB3 Mini-ITX 2x4GB Samsung 30nm DDR3 Samsung 830 128GB SSD 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
WD Scorpio Blue 500GB Win 7 Pro x64 Antec 90W DC-DC/Delta power brick Antec ISK 110 
  hide details  
post #1482 of 1593
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvborgh View Post

Hi Kuivimaa,

Seems to me that Stars core on Llano was severely crippled frequency wise... almost like it was done on purpose.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2012/02/06/amd-a8-3870-review/3

compared to this:

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/174632-amd-kaveri-a10-7850k-and-a8-7600-review-was-it-worth-the-wait-for-the-first-true-heterogeneous-chip/3

Notice that 4 core LLano at 3.6 completely outscores the latest A10-7850 Steamroller part running .1 Ghz faster in Cinebench and it took two revs of Steamroller to get even to where it is.

Llano at stock 3 ghz... matches A10-7850k at 3.7 Ghz on Cinebench.

After 3 years of work... that really isn't progress (as far as cores go)...

that's the funny thing about AMD, the clockrate today is actually worse performing than before.....only these youngins don't realize it because they don't even know anything about previous generations. so they think "Oh I went from 3.5Ghz to 4.7Ghz, it must be blazingly faster!".....turns out, nope.

An 8320 is barely twice as fast as a stock Phenom II x3 720, and it has 5 more cores at 700Mhz higher clock rate per core at stock! And that's a 5 year old chip that only cost $120 at the time.....then 5 whole years later, here comes a $160 chip that only performs twice as well at a much higher clock rate and energy usage.

You know this whole Ghz thing is kind of ridiculous and misleading because it doesn't tell the picture of performance except against other chips based on the same design, but people fall for it everytime. That's why some people actually think AMD's 4Ghz is higher performing than Intels 3.5Ghz.

I honestly wouldn't care about power usage if they delivered more respectable performance, all things considered.

Now I know you can't exactly combine the added up Ghz of a multi core chips to tell real performance, but let's look at how disparate the two are anyways:

8x3.5Ghz = 28Ghz
3x2.8Ghz = 8.4Ghz

combined, that's quite a disparity for the performance.

One thing is clear to see though: an 8 core Phenom II would wipe the floor with the FX series, and overclock just as well if not better if it was done on a 32nm process rather than a 45nm.
Edited by AMDATI - 4/7/14 at 10:15am
Not Yours
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4790k ASRock Z97E-ITX/AC MSI GTX 1080Ti G.SKILL DDR3  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SAMSUNG 830 OCZ Deneva 2R WD Scorpio Noctua U14S 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Acer XB270HU IPS CM Quickfire Rapid Fractal Design 650w 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Node 304 SteelSeries Rival 700 SteelSeries Qck Sennheiser HD598 
  hide details  
Not Yours
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4790k ASRock Z97E-ITX/AC MSI GTX 1080Ti G.SKILL DDR3  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SAMSUNG 830 OCZ Deneva 2R WD Scorpio Noctua U14S 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Acer XB270HU IPS CM Quickfire Rapid Fractal Design 650w 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Node 304 SteelSeries Rival 700 SteelSeries Qck Sennheiser HD598 
  hide details  
post #1483 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMDATI View Post

that's the funny thing about AMD, the clockrate today is actually worse performing than before.....only these youngins don't realize it because they don't even know anything about previous generations. so they think "Oh I went from 3.5Ghz to 4.7Ghz, it must be blazingly faster!".....turns out, nope.

An 8320 is barely twice as faster as a stock Phenom II x3 720, and it has 5 more cores at 700Mhz higher clock rate per core at stock! And that's a 5 year old chip.

You know this whole Ghz thing is kind of ridiculous and misleading because it doesn't tell the picture of performance except against other chips based on the same design, but people fall for it everytime. That's why some people actually think AMD's 4.7Ghz is higher performing than Intels 3.5Ghz.

FX is basically the new Pentium 4.

Remember back when AMD used to advertise their CPUs in terms of equivalence with Intel's chips? For example, a Athlon 64 3000+ was clocked at 2 GHz but was branded a "3000+" because it performed on par with a Pentium 4 at ~3 GHz.

Intel should take a page out of AMD's playbook and brand the 4770K as a "5000+" in FX terms biggrin.gif
Edited by 996gt2 - 4/7/14 at 10:04am
5 GHz SFF Box
(18 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-2700K @ 5.0 GHz, 1.38V Asus Maximus IV GENE Asus GTX 670 DC II 4x4GB Samsung 30nm @ DDR3-2133 9-9-9-21 1.5V 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Plextor M3 SSD WD Velociraptor 500GB WD Caviar Black 1TB WD Caviar Green 2TB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Thermalright HR-02 (GT AP-15 Push/Pull) Windows 7 Pro x64 LG 27" 2560x1440 S-IPS (Calibrated with Eye-One) CM Quickfire Rapid 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X-750 Silverstone SG09 Logitech MX518 Steelseries QcK 
Audio
Asus Xonar DX + Shure SRH840 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Core i5-3570K Gigabyte H61N-USB3 Mini-ITX 2x4GB Samsung 30nm DDR3 Samsung 830 128GB SSD 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
WD Scorpio Blue 500GB Win 7 Pro x64 Antec 90W DC-DC/Delta power brick Antec ISK 110 
  hide details  
5 GHz SFF Box
(18 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-2700K @ 5.0 GHz, 1.38V Asus Maximus IV GENE Asus GTX 670 DC II 4x4GB Samsung 30nm @ DDR3-2133 9-9-9-21 1.5V 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Plextor M3 SSD WD Velociraptor 500GB WD Caviar Black 1TB WD Caviar Green 2TB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Thermalright HR-02 (GT AP-15 Push/Pull) Windows 7 Pro x64 LG 27" 2560x1440 S-IPS (Calibrated with Eye-One) CM Quickfire Rapid 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X-750 Silverstone SG09 Logitech MX518 Steelseries QcK 
Audio
Asus Xonar DX + Shure SRH840 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Core i5-3570K Gigabyte H61N-USB3 Mini-ITX 2x4GB Samsung 30nm DDR3 Samsung 830 128GB SSD 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
WD Scorpio Blue 500GB Win 7 Pro x64 Antec 90W DC-DC/Delta power brick Antec ISK 110 
  hide details  
post #1484 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvborgh View Post

Hi Kuivimaa,

Seems to me that Stars core on Llano was severely crippled frequency wise... almost like it was done on purpose.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2012/02/06/amd-a8-3870-review/3

compared to this:

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/174632-amd-kaveri-a10-7850k-and-a8-7600-review-was-it-worth-the-wait-for-the-first-true-heterogeneous-chip/3

Notice that 4 core LLano at 3.6 completely outscores the latest A10-7850 Steamroller part running .1 Ghz faster in Cinebench and it took two revs of Steamroller to get even to where it is.

Llano at stock 3 ghz... matches A10-7850k at 3.7 Ghz on Cinebench.

After 3 years of work... that really isn't progress (as far as cores go)...

Llano is almost identical vs say propus clock for clock (it only has a tiny bit more cache), thats what I am saying, the architecture received a shrinking and there were neither performance nor frequency gains. CB 11.5 specifically is an awful benchmark to compare between AMD generations since it is limited to SSE2 for team red. Kaveri has full support for SSE 4.1/4.2 and AVX and has allocated die space for those extensions and it is meant to run relevant code but CB ignores all of these. Stars isn't hindered at all since it doesn't support any of these to begin with. You also forget that for the given die space and price, an A10-7850k not only offers superior performance for new code (not HSA,I mean standard) ,but also better thermals AND a cutting edge iGPU to go with it. This is massive progress. Just not enough to match intel, lagging behind in manufacturing process is a major issue.
Edited by Kuivamaa - 4/7/14 at 10:23am
Mastodon Ryzen
(12 items)
 
HP Z220
(8 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
R7 1800X Asus Crosshair VI Hero Sapphire RX Vega 64 reference Gskill TridentZ 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Pny SSD 240GB Crucial MX100 CM Nepton 280L Win 10 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
Acer Predator XG270HU Freesync XFX 750W Pro HAF XM Logitech G502 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsCooling
i7 3770 HP Quadro K2000 HP 
OSPowerCaseMouse
Win 7  HP 400W HP CMT RAT 7 
  hide details  
Mastodon Ryzen
(12 items)
 
HP Z220
(8 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
R7 1800X Asus Crosshair VI Hero Sapphire RX Vega 64 reference Gskill TridentZ 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Pny SSD 240GB Crucial MX100 CM Nepton 280L Win 10 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
Acer Predator XG270HU Freesync XFX 750W Pro HAF XM Logitech G502 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsCooling
i7 3770 HP Quadro K2000 HP 
OSPowerCaseMouse
Win 7  HP 400W HP CMT RAT 7 
  hide details  
post #1485 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by PachAz View Post

I still dont see what the issue is. People here are only trying to defend their bought components, thats all. Can some one please prove me wrong, why my i5 3570k almost 2 years back was a bad choice, and If you can do that then I will take current AMD cpus for real. What amd cpus were there back then btw? Compare and discuss which would be the best and most future proof purchase. If one would build a gaming system today and have a budget high enough, why should he choose a fx 8350 instead of a i5 4670k. Money is not a issue since the price differance is 30-50 dollars max.

You absolutely make no sense. NO one on this thread has EVER EVER EVER EVER said a 3570K was a bad choice, so why is there any reason to prove you wrong?
post #1486 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by 996gt2 View Post

For those who won't have a Microcenter nearby, Amazon has the Haswell 4670K for $189.99 today:

ssyLXFO.png

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B009O7YU56/?tag=pcpapi-20 And again the 8320 is cheaper. Your point?

Seriously , stop flaming mad.gif
Alienware 15
(11 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i7-4710HQ GTX 970M 3GB 16GB 256GB M.2 SSD 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSOS
250GB m.2 SSD 1TB HDD Fedora 23 Windows 10 
MonitorKeyboardMouse
4k IPS Corsair K95 Corsair K65 
  hide details  
Alienware 15
(11 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i7-4710HQ GTX 970M 3GB 16GB 256GB M.2 SSD 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSOS
250GB m.2 SSD 1TB HDD Fedora 23 Windows 10 
MonitorKeyboardMouse
4k IPS Corsair K95 Corsair K65 
  hide details  
post #1487 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyin15sec View Post

You absolutely make no sense. NO one on this thread has EVER EVER EVER EVER said a 3570K was a bad choice, so why is there any reason to prove you wrong?
Well, they would do that just to defend amd beeing a viable mid range choice. In other words theres no reason to choose amd over intel in mid range, because theres nothing wrong with intel. Amd on the other hand is beeing bashed hard and hence isnt a smart choice in a mid range gaming system.
My PC
(28 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 6700K Asus Z170 Pro Gaming KFA2 GTX 1080 Ti EXOC Corsair LPX 16GB (2x8), 2133Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Western Digital WD15EADS 1.5TB Samsung 840 250GB Crucial MX100 256GB Alphacool Eisblock XPX 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Alphacool ST30 360mm Alphacool ST30 140mm Alphacool Eisbecher 150mm Alphacool VPP655 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Masterkleer (10/13mm) Compression fittings (10/13mm) Corsair SP120 High Performance Phobya 6 Touch 30W 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Aquacomputer Kryographics Titan X (Pascal) Aquacomputer Active XCS backplate Watercool Heatkiller SW-X MB-Set Alphacool Monsta 240mm 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional Retail AOC Agon ag271qx CM Storm Quickfire Rappid-I Fractal Design Newton R3 1000W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Cooler Master Cosmos II Logitech G502 Steelseries QcK Logitech 5:1 
  hide details  
My PC
(28 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 6700K Asus Z170 Pro Gaming KFA2 GTX 1080 Ti EXOC Corsair LPX 16GB (2x8), 2133Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Western Digital WD15EADS 1.5TB Samsung 840 250GB Crucial MX100 256GB Alphacool Eisblock XPX 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Alphacool ST30 360mm Alphacool ST30 140mm Alphacool Eisbecher 150mm Alphacool VPP655 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Masterkleer (10/13mm) Compression fittings (10/13mm) Corsair SP120 High Performance Phobya 6 Touch 30W 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Aquacomputer Kryographics Titan X (Pascal) Aquacomputer Active XCS backplate Watercool Heatkiller SW-X MB-Set Alphacool Monsta 240mm 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional Retail AOC Agon ag271qx CM Storm Quickfire Rappid-I Fractal Design Newton R3 1000W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Cooler Master Cosmos II Logitech G502 Steelseries QcK Logitech 5:1 
  hide details  
post #1488 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by PachAz View Post

Well, they would do that just to defend amd beeing a viable mid range choice. In other words theres no reason to choose amd over intel in mid range, because theres nothing wrong with intel. Amd on the other hand is beeing bashed hard and hence isnt a smart choice in a mid range gaming system.

A product isn't a "smart choice" all because of Intel Fan boys who love to argue bash it? What silly logic is that? rolleyes.gif

Maybe listening to trolls like you isn't a "smart choice" thumb.gif
Edited by LordOfTots - 4/7/14 at 2:16pm
Alienware 15
(11 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i7-4710HQ GTX 970M 3GB 16GB 256GB M.2 SSD 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSOS
250GB m.2 SSD 1TB HDD Fedora 23 Windows 10 
MonitorKeyboardMouse
4k IPS Corsair K95 Corsair K65 
  hide details  
Alienware 15
(11 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i7-4710HQ GTX 970M 3GB 16GB 256GB M.2 SSD 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSOS
250GB m.2 SSD 1TB HDD Fedora 23 Windows 10 
MonitorKeyboardMouse
4k IPS Corsair K95 Corsair K65 
  hide details  
post #1489 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by PachAz View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyin15sec View Post

You absolutely make no sense. NO one on this thread has EVER EVER EVER EVER said a 3570K was a bad choice, so why is there any reason to prove you wrong?
Well, they would do that just to defend amd beeing a viable mid range choice. In other words theres no reason to choose amd over intel in mid range, because theres nothing wrong with intel. Amd on the other hand is beeing bashed hard and hence isnt a smart choice in a mid range gaming system.

There's nothing wrong with the chip you have. But unless you actually try the alternative, I don't think you can say that you wouldn't happy with it .
Ryzen Shine!
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1800X @ 4125mhz 1.432 Volts MSI X370 Titanium   Fury  G.SKILL TridentZ Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) 288-Pin... 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 pro Hp 1260 I liquid unobtanium Koolance 480mm radiator, 39... Win 7 HP/Winspy 10 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
24" hp @ 1900x1200 Logitech G19 PC power and cooling 910 watt silencer Thermaltake P5 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech MX 518 fUnc industries 
  hide details  
Ryzen Shine!
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1800X @ 4125mhz 1.432 Volts MSI X370 Titanium   Fury  G.SKILL TridentZ Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) 288-Pin... 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 pro Hp 1260 I liquid unobtanium Koolance 480mm radiator, 39... Win 7 HP/Winspy 10 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
24" hp @ 1900x1200 Logitech G19 PC power and cooling 910 watt silencer Thermaltake P5 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech MX 518 fUnc industries 
  hide details  
post #1490 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMDATI View Post

that's the funny thing about AMD, the clockrate today is actually worse performing than before.....only these youngins don't realize it because they don't even know anything about previous generations. so they think "Oh I went from 3.5Ghz to 4.7Ghz, it must be blazingly faster!".....turns out, nope.

An 8320 is barely twice as fast as a stock Phenom II x3 720, and it has 5 more cores at 700Mhz higher clock rate per core at stock! And that's a 5 year old chip that only cost $120 at the time.....then 5 whole years later, here comes a $160 chip that only performs twice as well at a much higher clock rate and energy usage.

You know this whole Ghz thing is kind of ridiculous and misleading because it doesn't tell the picture of performance except against other chips based on the same design, but people fall for it everytime. That's why some people actually think AMD's 4Ghz is higher performing than Intels 3.5Ghz.

I honestly wouldn't care about power usage if they delivered more respectable performance, all things considered.

Now I know you can't exactly combine the added up Ghz of a multi core chips to tell real performance, but let's look at how disparate the two are anyways:

8x3.5Ghz = 28Ghz
3x2.8Ghz = 8.4Ghz

combined, that's quite a disparity for the performance.

One thing is clear to see though: an 8 core Phenom II would wipe the floor with the FX series, and overclock just as well if not better if it was done on a 32nm process rather than a 45nm.
My god you are soo funny. I mean really do have any real knowledge of what you speak. I know for a fact that you were told already about the limitations of phenom in the sense of clock. 4.2 was a great OC with 4.4Ghz being rare. With FX 4.8-5.0Ghz is great with 5.2Ghz being rare and anything over. At their best clocks Phenom couldn't touch FX, hence it being EOL. And do you wanna bring in steamroller? AMD is sticking with this arch and many in the industry think it is beginning to look like a good call. And you should try looking for a benchmark that uses all cores to their fullest, that way you can see how inane your Phenomx3 to FX 8320 really is.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD CPUs
This thread is locked  
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › AMD No longer a viable option for mid-high end?