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 150  

post #1491 of 1593
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durquavian View Post

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.

Phenom II came at 45nm process.....FX is 32nm.......smaller fabrication offers considerable power savings. A Phenom II at 32nm would be able to overclock better than it currently does, not to mention it would have been cheaper since there would have been no R&D costs.

And here's the kicker....Phenom II 3Ghz =/= FX 3Ghz. With FX, Ghz are weaker than ever before. Otherwise, clocking a 3.5Ghz chip to 5ghz would offer a more massive increase in performance than it does.


Let's put it this way...a 10 core FX @ 3.5 Ghz would beat an 8 core FX @ 5Ghz.


And In all actuality, no the FX doesn't really overclock 'better' than the Phenom II. Let's look at percentages....

3.5Ghz to 5Ghz = 30% overclock

2.8Ghz to 3.7Ghz = 25% overclock.

Heck the difference in fabrication process alone could make up the majority of the gap.

and most people are only going to get to 4.7 or even less with say an 8320....so let's reanalyze...

3.5Ghz to 4.7Ghz = 26% overclock.

not soo disparate now eh?

and that doesn't even mean anything toward performance. a 25% overclock doesn't necessarily mean 25% more performance.
Edited by AMDATI - 4/7/14 at 3:55pm
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 #1492 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordOfTots View Post

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

Seriously , stop flaming mad.gif

Wow that's an expensive 8320...
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMDATI View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Durquavian View Post

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.

Phenom II came at 45nm process.....FX is 32nm.......smaller fabrication offers considerable power savings. A Phenom II at 32nm would be able to overclock better than it currently does, not to mention it would have been cheaper since there would have been no R&D costs.

Llano is Ph II at 32nm.

It sucks.

In fact, it's ability to OC went DOWN.

Seriously, learn your facts man. redface.gif
Forge
(17 items)
 
Forge-LT
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel i7-5960X (4.625Ghz) ASUS X99-DELUXE/U3.1 EVGA 1080ti SC2 Hybrid EVGA 1080ti SC2 Hybrid 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
64GB Corsair Dominator Platinum (3000Mhz 8x8GB) Samsung 950 Pro NVMe 512GB EK Predator 240 Windows 10 Enterprise x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
2x Acer XR341CK Corsair Vengeance K70 RGB Corsair AX1200 Corsair Graphite 780T 
MouseAudioAudioAudio
Corsair Vengeance M65 RGB Sennheiser HD700 Sound Blaster AE-5 Audio Technica AT4040 
Audio
30ART Mic Tube Amp 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-4720HQ UX501JW-UB71T GTX 960m 16GB 1600 9-9-9-27 
Hard DriveOSMonitor
512GB PCI-e SSD Windows 10 Pro 4k IPS 
  hide details  
Forge
(17 items)
 
Forge-LT
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel i7-5960X (4.625Ghz) ASUS X99-DELUXE/U3.1 EVGA 1080ti SC2 Hybrid EVGA 1080ti SC2 Hybrid 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
64GB Corsair Dominator Platinum (3000Mhz 8x8GB) Samsung 950 Pro NVMe 512GB EK Predator 240 Windows 10 Enterprise x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
2x Acer XR341CK Corsair Vengeance K70 RGB Corsair AX1200 Corsair Graphite 780T 
MouseAudioAudioAudio
Corsair Vengeance M65 RGB Sennheiser HD700 Sound Blaster AE-5 Audio Technica AT4040 
Audio
30ART Mic Tube Amp 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-4720HQ UX501JW-UB71T GTX 960m 16GB 1600 9-9-9-27 
Hard DriveOSMonitor
512GB PCI-e SSD Windows 10 Pro 4k IPS 
  hide details  
post #1493 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by KyadCK View Post

Wow that's an expensive 8320...

I know, just figured using microcenter prices would be halfway cheating thumb.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 #1494 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMDATI View Post

Phenom II came at 45nm process.....FX is 32nm.......smaller fabrication offers considerable power savings. A Phenom II at 32nm would be able to overclock better than it currently does, not to mention it would have been cheaper since there would have been no R&D costs.

And here's the kicker....Phenom II 3Ghz =/= FX 3Ghz. With FX, Ghz are weaker than ever before. Otherwise, clocking a 3.5Ghz chip to 5ghz would offer a more massive increase in performance than it does.


Let's put it this way...a 10 core FX @ 3.5 Ghz would beat an 8 core FX @ 5Ghz.


And In all actuality, no the FX doesn't really overclock 'better' than the Phenom II. Let's look at percentages....

3.5Ghz to 5Ghz = 30% overclock

2.8Ghz to 3.7Ghz = 25% overclock.

Heck the difference in fabrication process alone could make up the majority of the gap.

and most people are only going to get to 4.7 or even less with say an 8320....so let's reanalyze...

3.5Ghz to 4.7Ghz = 26% overclock.

not soo disparate now eh?

and that doesn't even mean anything toward performance. a 25% overclock doesn't necessarily mean 25% more performance.
Then PROVE it if you can. Many of us here know the Phenom to FX positives and negatives of which you seem to be completely devoid of accurate knowledge. Seriously have you made a valid point at all in this thread, I mean do you have any wins? Maybe you should retire before you make any more terribad arguments.
post #1495 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.

I'm sure there are more than 1, uno, single, reason in the mid range. Look at virtualization for example. The AMD FX platform is the better choice over any of i5 K series processor across SB, IB, and Haswell.

FX series has IOMMU for direct IO pass through, none of the i5 K have VT-d, Intel's hardware pass through version for bare metal hypervisors. So say goodbye to any RAID card, GPU, or various other ports if you want to pass them along to the guest OS.

Additionally the extra cores of the FX 8xxx series give you much more leeway into how many VMs you can build with one CPU. The i5, without hyper threading will be bogged down quite fast after only a few VMs.

So before you spew none sense about FX not being a choice at all, learn about the many different uses in the real world, as oppose to just gaming.
post #1496 of 1593
VT-D with RAID cards and the likes on a board with 4 ram slots and "just" 32 free PCIe lanes? If you go that far you'll be better off with the 48 lanes of x79. Sure it's gonna be a 200$ difference, but with a few 600$ RAID cards on top, this is the least of your concerns.

Now, you could just want to use a single RAID card and the likes, with cost being a very high concern. But in that case an overclockable CPU that draws more power than something like an i5 4430 will be of no real use... unless the only things you do on those VMs are to play games and make zip archives. The i5 system will cost less to buy too (literally any x87 LGA1150 board will be fine and will cost less than an AMD board able to handle an overclockable FX 8xxx, plus the intel comes with a cooler).

Of course there's also the slight chance of not needing much CPU power. Well, in that case your best choice will be an FX-4300. The problem is that this is on the low end side of things. tongue.gif
post #1497 of 1593
It did occur to me about that (VT-d)

But then, my remote experience is pretty miserable (Civil3D in a VM = sigh). From what I've heard, IT would need to reconfigure what we have anyway before that even comes into play.

But then again - unless its a blizzard, I'm not remoting in to do actual design.
Main
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 4670K @ 4.7Ghz [1.284v] Z87X-UD4H [F7] MSI GTX 1070 Gaming X 2x4GB Samsung MV-3V4G3; 10-10-10-28 @ 2133Mhz [... 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Samsung 850 Pro 256GB 1x Crucial M500 960GB 1x WD4003FZEX 1x WD30EFRX 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
NH-D14 3x A15s @ 600RPM 2x Phanteks F140SP BBK (front), SFF21E (bottom) Win 10 Pro x64 Catleap 2B @ 119hz +1 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
U3014 eVGA 750G2 Fractal R5 - Blackout Edition MS WMO 1.1a 
Mouse PadAudio
fUnc 1030 Creative Sound Blaster Z 
  hide details  
Main
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 4670K @ 4.7Ghz [1.284v] Z87X-UD4H [F7] MSI GTX 1070 Gaming X 2x4GB Samsung MV-3V4G3; 10-10-10-28 @ 2133Mhz [... 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Samsung 850 Pro 256GB 1x Crucial M500 960GB 1x WD4003FZEX 1x WD30EFRX 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
NH-D14 3x A15s @ 600RPM 2x Phanteks F140SP BBK (front), SFF21E (bottom) Win 10 Pro x64 Catleap 2B @ 119hz +1 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
U3014 eVGA 750G2 Fractal R5 - Blackout Edition MS WMO 1.1a 
Mouse PadAudio
fUnc 1030 Creative Sound Blaster Z 
  hide details  
post #1498 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsyM4n View Post

VT-D with RAID cards and the likes on a board with 4 ram slots and "just" 32 free PCIe lanes? If you go that far you'll be better off with the 48 lanes of x79. Sure it's gonna be a 200$ difference, but with a few 600$ RAID cards on top, this is the least of your concerns.

Now, you could just want to use a single RAID card and the likes, with cost being a very high concern. But in that case an overclockable CPU that draws more power than something like an i5 4430 will be of no real use... unless the only things you do on those VMs are to play games and make zip archives. The i5 system will cost less to buy too (literally any x87 LGA1150 board will be fine and will cost less than an AMD board able to handle an overclockable FX 8xxx, plus the intel comes with a cooler).

Of course there's also the slight chance of not needing much CPU power. Well, in that case your best choice will be an FX-4300. The problem is that this is on the low end side of things. tongue.gif

There are cheap (sub 90 euro) AM3+ boards able to sustain 4.5Ghz+ FX octocores. Cooler? 125W TDP designated vishera processors come boxed with this:

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 #1499 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuivamaa View Post

There are cheap (sub 90 euro) AM3+ boards able to sustain 4.5Ghz+ FX octocores. Cooler? 125W TDP designated vishera processors come boxed with this:


You can't really go far with the stock amd cooler (a locked i5 doesn't need anything else apart from the stock cooler). As for the "cheap" AM3+ boards that can maintain such overclock... they can't really do it for long. The vrms on those use low power parts that literally die if pushed for long.

Those gigabyte UD3 AM3 boards for example, there's a reason why they have like 3-4 revisions. The previous revisions die horribly when pushed since the fets can't keep up with what's needed for an overclocked 8xxx, and the newest ones (that supposedly don't die) are not really on the cheap side.
post #1500 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuivamaa View Post

There are cheap (sub 90 euro) AM3+ boards able to sustain 4.5Ghz+ FX octocores. Cooler? 125W TDP designated vishera processors come boxed with this:
Stock coolers suck on both sides, why would you even consider one for power/enthusiast use?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsyM4n View Post

You can't really go far with the stock amd cooler (a locked i5 doesn't need anything else apart from the stock cooler). As for the "cheap" AM3+ boards that can maintain such overclock... they can't really do it for long. The vrms on those use low power parts that literally die if pushed for long.
Those gigabyte UD3 AM3 boards for example, there's a reason why they have like 3-4 revisions. The previous revisions die horribly when pushed since the fets can't keep up with what's needed for an overclocked 8xxx, and the newest ones (that supposedly don't die) are not really on the cheap side.
A 970 series board is usually a sub $100 board and is the same as a 990FX board aside from less PCI-E lanes,a 990FXA-UD3 R4 is cheap,so is a M5A99X EVO R2.0.
There's 3-4 revisions of the Gigabyte boards because Gigabyte tried to go cheap,Asus did too,thats why there are revision 2 boards.
Edited by Heavy MG - 4/7/14 at 6:28pm
Moar cores!
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX 8320 @ 4.0Ghz/4.2Ghz turbo gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 rev. 4.0 Gigabyte Nvida GTX 770OC 2GB/ Gigabyte 970 G1 G... Gskill Sniper 1866Mhz 8GB (4GB x 2) 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Corsair Neutron GTX 120GB WD Black 1TB Asus 24X CM Hyper 212Evo 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Home X64 HP 22BW 21.5" LED-IPS CM Storm Trigger/MX Brown Corsair TX 650V2 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
CM HAF922 Logitech G500S Steelseries QCK Mini Asus Xonar DX 7.1 
  hide details  
Moar cores!
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX 8320 @ 4.0Ghz/4.2Ghz turbo gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 rev. 4.0 Gigabyte Nvida GTX 770OC 2GB/ Gigabyte 970 G1 G... Gskill Sniper 1866Mhz 8GB (4GB x 2) 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Corsair Neutron GTX 120GB WD Black 1TB Asus 24X CM Hyper 212Evo 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Home X64 HP 22BW 21.5" LED-IPS CM Storm Trigger/MX Brown Corsair TX 650V2 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
CM HAF922 Logitech G500S Steelseries QCK Mini Asus Xonar DX 7.1 
  hide details  
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?