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 49  

post #481 of 1593
There's a reason that there's a patch for removing Intel's compiler, that company indulges in antitrust like no other. Rigged, biased benchmarks and reviewers are what keeps Intel on top.

The i7 does have better performance in certain cases, but the biasness exaggerates so.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Ryzen 5 1600 Gigabyte GA-AB350 Gaming 3 ASUS STRIX GTX 960 2GB 2x8GB (16GB) G.Skill Ripjaws V 3000MHz @ 2933 CL16 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
120 GB ADATA SP 550 SSD 1TB Western Digital Blue LG basic optical drive AMD Wraith Spire 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 x64 LG 23in IPS 1080P Dell Wired Seasonic S12-II 620W 
CaseMouse
CM HAF 912 Dell Wired 
  hide details  
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Ryzen 5 1600 Gigabyte GA-AB350 Gaming 3 ASUS STRIX GTX 960 2GB 2x8GB (16GB) G.Skill Ripjaws V 3000MHz @ 2933 CL16 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
120 GB ADATA SP 550 SSD 1TB Western Digital Blue LG basic optical drive AMD Wraith Spire 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 x64 LG 23in IPS 1080P Dell Wired Seasonic S12-II 620W 
CaseMouse
CM HAF 912 Dell Wired 
  hide details  
post #482 of 1593
My system is an Asus Crosshair V Formula Z, FX 9370($200 from microcenter, stock atm), two 7950's(OC to 1100/1575), two hard drives in RAID 0.

Is my rig mid-high end? Definitely. Is my processor viable? Definitely. Would an i7 be better? Doesn't matter. FX 9590/i7 anything aren't high end anyway, they're enthusiast. High end is Xeon/Opteron.
post #483 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrannocanis View Post

My system is an Asus Crosshair V Formula Z, FX 9370($200 from microcenter, stock atm), two 7950's(OC to 1100/1575), two hard drives in RAID 0.

Is my rig mid-high end? Definitely. Is my processor viable? Definitely. Would an i7 be better? Doesn't matter. FX 9590/i7 anything aren't high end anyway, they're enthusiast. High end is Xeon/Opteron.

I would consider Xeon/Opteron Stable end lol
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 2670 @ 2.8Ghz m4600 m5100 @ 1100c/1500m 16GB DDR3 1333Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
c300 128GB SSD 2TB FireCuda 7mm 2TB Firecuda 7mm 1TB 5400rpm 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
750GB 5400rpm Windows 10 x64  1920x1080 @90hz 150w 
Mouse
Corsair M40 
  hide details  
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 2670 @ 2.8Ghz m4600 m5100 @ 1100c/1500m 16GB DDR3 1333Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
c300 128GB SSD 2TB FireCuda 7mm 2TB Firecuda 7mm 1TB 5400rpm 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
750GB 5400rpm Windows 10 x64  1920x1080 @90hz 150w 
Mouse
Corsair M40 
  hide details  
post #484 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrannocanis View Post

My system is an Asus Crosshair V Formula Z, FX 9370($200 from microcenter, stock atm), two 7950's(OC to 1100/1575), two hard drives in RAID 0.

Is my rig mid-high end? Definitely. Is my processor viable? Definitely. Would an i7 be better? Doesn't matter. FX 9590/i7 anything aren't high end anyway, they're enthusiast. High end is Xeon/Opteron.

uh..I wouldn't consider xeon or opteron "high end"..the word i would use is durable.

An i7 is high end. An fx 9590 is high end as well, but the i7 is a bit better. To an "enthusiast" it does matter. You're only saying it doesn't matter to rationalize your own choice
post #485 of 1593
A processor is top-end/high-end,etc..whatever you call it if you cannot get a significantly higher performance that that, this includes the top-tier of processors from both AMD and Intel. Now answer my question,

What's the performance threshold for a processor to be called as a top-end??

Is it a fixed number?? Definitely not, since at a time Anthlon II and P4 and C2Q used to be top-ends,

Is this number same for both AMD as well as Intel?? No, since the best desktop processors from AMD and Intel are not even comparable,

So would you call the best AMD processor as a mid-level AMD processor?? No, because for AMD that's the most high-end processor,

Will that processor still be the most high-end if compared with Intel's best desktop processor?? Definitely not.

So first let's get the concept of a high-end processor clear and then we can carry on the argument further. Otherwise it'll be just equivalent to fighting a war in total darkness where you don't know what you are striking!
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-8150 ASUS M5A97 R2.0 AMD Radeon HD 6670 Corsair  
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Western Digital Caviar Blue Samsung Super WriteMaster AMD FX-8150 Stock Air Cooler Windows 8 PRO x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Lenovo 17 inches CRT Lenovo Cooler Master Thunder 500W Cooler Master Elite 311 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Lenovo Lenovo Lenovo 
  hide details  
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-8150 ASUS M5A97 R2.0 AMD Radeon HD 6670 Corsair  
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Western Digital Caviar Blue Samsung Super WriteMaster AMD FX-8150 Stock Air Cooler Windows 8 PRO x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Lenovo 17 inches CRT Lenovo Cooler Master Thunder 500W Cooler Master Elite 311 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Lenovo Lenovo Lenovo 
  hide details  
post #486 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by imran27 View Post

A processor is top-end/high-end,etc..whatever you call it if you cannot get a significantly higher performance that that, this includes the top-tier of processors from both AMD and Intel. Now answer my question,

What's the performance threshold for a processor to be called as a top-end??

Is it a fixed number?? Definitely not, since at a time Anthlon II and P4 and C2Q used to be top-ends,

Is this number same for both AMD as well as Intel?? No, since the best desktop processors from AMD and Intel are not even comparable,

So would you call the best AMD processor as a mid-level AMD processor?? No, because for AMD that's the most high-end processor,

Will that processor still be the most high-end if compared with Intel's best desktop processor?? Definitely not.

So first let's get the concept of a high-end processor clear and then we can carry on the argument further. Otherwise it'll be just equivalent to fighting a war in total darkness where you don't know what you are striking!

The "high end" is whatever that is in the top % tier at the current time. Pretty sure that's self explanatory.
The heavyweight champion of UFC is the champion for the specific time. Any ex-champions are irrelevant at this point.

It is not a fixed number, more of a variable that keeps changing. Again you appear to be using some form of logical fallacy in order to rationalize your own ideas about "what is high end, what was the best in the past, is it a specific number". A champion holds on to his title for as long as possible, the "high end" is only about the present, not the past, and not the fluctuating future.

There is no argument at all, also I don't recall the P4 being "top end" since amd had the athlon 64's (for the time period obviously)
post #487 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by an65001 View Post

There's a reason that there's a patch for removing Intel's compiler, that company indulges in antitrust like no other. Rigged, biased benchmarks and reviewers are what keeps Intel on top.

The i7 does have better performance in certain cases, but the biasness exaggerates so.
Somewhat but the facts are real. Intel has the advantage in node size and architecture as far as finfet. So in real terms AMD is behind but that distance isn't huge and like Cssorkinman has said in real world everyday use it would nearly indecernable to reversed. Bias in software is evident ie: ICC but you have to consider that 80%+ of the market is Intel and therefore the target for most software is Intel. The problem is ICC not allowing higher instruction sets to be used by AMD when they can in fact use them. For instance I don't think Phenom has AVX capability but FX does. But in a great deal of software AMD is forced to use say SSE2 or maybe SSE4 ( cinebench 11.5 forced SSE2 for AMD whilst Intel had access to AVX). Bias isn't necessarily inherent by the software but the libraries they are given to compile their software.

As far as benches I have said no matter who won they all suck. Grain of salt is the best I can say. Hence why I said if you want to really know how it runs Ask a USER. There will be a fair amount of fanboys that may inflate the performance but there are a fair share of reasonable users that are honest. Best advice is usually given without even mentioning the other competition. Not much more can be said here. For the most part I agree with you on this.

The fact here is we should be impressed with the performance AMD has given with the FX. According to the naysayers it is a poor design : MODULES, uses too much power (8 cores to most of Intels 4 although overclock their extreme line for Intel and it will put AMDs power draw to shame), Some architecture inefficiencies with how it handles libraries and calls... . But even with all this it is able to show up in the charts even in those not-to-be-trusted reviews. And on occasion it can win a few. I offer that if Intel indeed is so much better then AMD should win NO benchmarks. Winning one or two invalidates the aforementioned issues to some degree.

But there is a shining light one that makes these dark dwelling naysayers cower: HSA. It has been mentioned a few times in here but not one of the naysayers has commented. WHY? Well it is safe to say it throws out the argument. It doesn't change the aforementioned points but it does change the outcome. A lowly 2module/4core APU with HSA is able to topple the X series 6core/12thread Intel. Now why is that? Is it because AMD has the better Architecture? Not really though the argument can be made for the FPU design and why it never really mattered. It is in fact the software. Well look at that maybe there is something to the claims about benchmarks and reviews having bias in software.

Anyway you can see that it is never so simple as most may have you believe. I do my best to only speak to what I know. I know FX 8350 and I don't usually feel the need to speak of Intel when I am giving my experience with it. As I said before it is because I don't own/use (had to add use for a certain owner that makes excuses for not using one he owns) one. If you wanna know about how intels runs a particular program/game ask a user, I have no right or reason to tell you anything other than Phenom/FX because that is all I own. Well except for a tegra tablet.
post #488 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by KyadCK View Post

Now you do. Hi.

VT-x/AMD-v is a RAM virtual addressing space that allows for VMs to wall off their own area of RAM, as well as some basic instructions for VM work.

VT-d/IOMMU is a System virtual addressing space that allows you to directly pass any PCI-e device or system device (storage controller, etc) directly to a VM, bypassing the host OS completely during the boot stage.

In Enterprise, VT-d is used for many things as it's mostly a virtual environment. For us... I can add a pair of USB 3.0 card to my computer, put ESXi on it, make 2 VMs, and give each VM 4 cores, 16GB, one of my GPUs, and one USB card. I can then plug screens/keyboards/mice into the relative monitor/USB ports and quite literally split my badass rig into two respectable rigs. If I wanted, I could dedicate HDDs to either side, or they could share an OS SSD and each have a program SSD to themselves. They would share the on-board gigabit port, or I could add my own to give to the VM directly.

Since the VM has direct access to the PCI-e devices, the peripherals are not filtered through the host OS, removing that source of input lag. Since the OS has direct access to the GPUs, they would run drivers as normal, and output to displays as normal. If using Win8, they can be RDP'd to and RemoteFX will work. Since they are VMs, I could shut one down without the other to make changes. I could move them from computer to computer without a care in the world. Motherboard upgrade? Who cares, it's a VM.

Basicly VT-d and IOMMU are the next stage in virtualization, which blurs the line so hard people wouldn't be able to tell what's up.

It's worth noting that the $500-1200 SB-e and Ivy-E chips DO supports both overclocking and VT-d, if you buy the correct revision. There is no reason to disable it aside from Intel not wanting people to OC a 4770k to 5Ghz and then ignore their Xeon options.

Thanks for explanations
Insert Name Here
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6700k Asus Maximus VIII Hero Gigabyte Aorus Xtreme 1080ti Corsair LPX 2x8GB 3200c16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Old Seagate HDD Samsung 850 EVO Thermalright Silver Arrow SB-E SE Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus PG258Q (240hz + Gsync) WASDKeyboards.com v1 semi custom w/ mx browns, ... Superflower Golden Green HX550 Air540 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G Pro Qck+ 
  hide details  
Insert Name Here
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6700k Asus Maximus VIII Hero Gigabyte Aorus Xtreme 1080ti Corsair LPX 2x8GB 3200c16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Old Seagate HDD Samsung 850 EVO Thermalright Silver Arrow SB-E SE Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus PG258Q (240hz + Gsync) WASDKeyboards.com v1 semi custom w/ mx browns, ... Superflower Golden Green HX550 Air540 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G Pro Qck+ 
  hide details  
post #489 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durquavian View Post

Somewhat but the facts are real. Intel has the advantage in node size and architecture as far as finfet. So in real terms AMD is behind but that distance isn't huge and like Cssorkinman has said in real world everyday use it would nearly indecernable to reversed. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Bias in software is evident ie: ICC but you have to consider that 80%+ of the market is Intel and therefore the target for most software is Intel. The problem is ICC not allowing higher instruction sets to be used by AMD when they can in fact use them. For instance I don't think Phenom has AVX capability but FX does. But in a great deal of software AMD is forced to use say SSE2 or maybe SSE4 ( cinebench 11.5 forced SSE2 for AMD whilst Intel had access to AVX). Bias isn't necessarily inherent by the software but the libraries they are given to compile their software.

As far as benches I have said no matter who won they all suck. Grain of salt is the best I can say. Hence why I said if you want to really know how it runs Ask a USER. There will be a fair amount of fanboys that may inflate the performance but there are a fair share of reasonable users that are honest. Best advice is usually given without even mentioning the other competition. Not much more can be said here. For the most part I agree with you on this.

The fact here is we should be impressed with the performance AMD has given with the FX. According to the naysayers it is a poor design : MODULES, uses too much power (8 cores to most of Intels 4 although overclock their extreme line for Intel and it will put AMDs power draw to shame), Some architecture inefficiencies with how it handles libraries and calls... . But even with all this it is able to show up in the charts even in those not-to-be-trusted reviews. And on occasion it can win a few. I offer that if Intel indeed is so much better then AMD should win NO benchmarks. Winning one or two invalidates the aforementioned issues to some degree.

But there is a shining light one that makes these dark dwelling naysayers cower: HSA. It has been mentioned a few times in here but not one of the naysayers has commented. WHY? Well it is safe to say it throws out the argument. It doesn't change the aforementioned points but it does change the outcome. A lowly 2module/4core APU with HSA is able to topple the X series 6core/12thread Intel. Now why is that? Is it because AMD has the better Architecture? Not really though the argument can be made for the FPU design and why it never really mattered. It is in fact the software. Well look at that maybe there is something to the claims about benchmarks and reviews having bias in software.

Anyway you can see that it is never so simple as most may have you believe. I do my best to only speak to what I know. I know FX 8350 and I don't usually feel the need to speak of Intel when I am giving my experience with it. As I said before it is because I don't own/use (had to add use for a certain owner that makes excuses for not using one he owns) one. If you wanna know about how intels runs a particular program/game ask a user, I have no right or reason to tell you anything other than Phenom/FX because that is all I own. Well except for a tegra tablet.

Exactly smile.gif a lot of us have mentioned some important things previously throughout this thread.

  • Software Support (instructions, programs optimised etc)
  • Company sizes, a.k.a Intel is huge and rich compared to AMD - more money = faster to bring technology out and develop
  • Biased benchmarks vs real world users (a.k.a us guys here at overclock.net)
  • HSA - AMD is making a move in a very interesting area. Innovating for everyone.
  • As Durquavian pointed out, um, power consumption was mentioned - Yes overclock your Ivy or Haswell and tell us your power consumption. It's going to be higher than a stock FX-8320/50 anyway.


A lot of users have said the good and bad about both companies and their products smile.gif I like true to real world comments like this.
post #490 of 1593
Real world experience: Last night I used the ICC patch for the first time and found intel malware all over the place. Cinebench, IBT AVX, OCCT, AMD video card drivers, windoze, most of the games, Steam..............

I have been using the bulldozer Conditioner for some time and it makes a noticeable difference, and now this. It is a wonder AMD is competitive at all with this going against it.
Junkyard Dog
(17 items)
 
Blackie
(17 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Ryzen 1700 Biostar X370 GT7 Sapphire Nitro Fury G. Skill Ripjaws ddr4 3200 16 GB 4x4 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Samsung 850 EVO 500gb SSD Western Digital 500gb  Memorex Lightscribe dvd Thermalright Silver Arrow IB-E Extreme 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Win 10 64bit Pixio 27" 1440P yes Seasonic 850 watt  
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Silverstone Redline RL05 Evoluent vertical mouse yes Creative X-FI  
Other
Sennheiser headphones 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX8370 @ 5 ghz ASUS Sabertooth Sapphire Fury G Skill F3-14900CL9Q-16GBXL 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Western Digital Samsung 850 EVO Memorex Lightscribe dvd Thermalright Silver Arrow IB-E Extreme 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Win X 64 bit Pixio 27" 1440P  yes Seasonic SS-850KM Active PFC F3 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Silverstone Redline RL02b Evoluent VM4 yes Creative Soundblaster Z  
Audio
Sennheiser 428 headphones 
  hide details  
Junkyard Dog
(17 items)
 
Blackie
(17 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Ryzen 1700 Biostar X370 GT7 Sapphire Nitro Fury G. Skill Ripjaws ddr4 3200 16 GB 4x4 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Samsung 850 EVO 500gb SSD Western Digital 500gb  Memorex Lightscribe dvd Thermalright Silver Arrow IB-E Extreme 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Win 10 64bit Pixio 27" 1440P yes Seasonic 850 watt  
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Silverstone Redline RL05 Evoluent vertical mouse yes Creative X-FI  
Other
Sennheiser headphones 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX8370 @ 5 ghz ASUS Sabertooth Sapphire Fury G Skill F3-14900CL9Q-16GBXL 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Western Digital Samsung 850 EVO Memorex Lightscribe dvd Thermalright Silver Arrow IB-E Extreme 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Win X 64 bit Pixio 27" 1440P  yes Seasonic SS-850KM Active PFC F3 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Silverstone Redline RL02b Evoluent VM4 yes Creative Soundblaster Z  
Audio
Sennheiser 428 headphones 
  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?