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 79  

post #781 of 1593
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thready View Post


Since the majority of people build PCs for gaming, I do not know one gamer who needs a 4770k. So if you want the best value for the money spent, you buy what you need. I have an 8350 and there is no reason for me to get anything else. Most games aren't even CPU heavy anyways. I also don't know one gamer who needs liquid cooling. No gamer needs to overclock their CPU to the point where spending money on liquid cooling is worth it. Liquid cooling is just for aesthetics for 99.9% of the people who use it. That is fine and all, but I have a feeling that many people spend money on liquid cooling because they turned their CPU on overdrive to get 1 more frame in (insert GPU intensive game here). Now, if we are all talking about non gaming uses, then the 4770k is probably the better of the 2. But for gaming, there is no need to spend $300 on a CPU.

As far as power consumption, who in the world cares about how much power the CPU is using? Get a CM Hyper 212 like I have and you will never have to worry about heat again. That seems to be the number one complaint about power consumption, the heat output. I even have the fan setting on quiet mode on my Hyper 212 all of the time and my temps never get to 60C even when running Prime95. The low wattage of Intel is of no concern to me. And I am not an AMD fanboy at all. I hate many aspects about AMD including their new APU naming scheme and their idiotic bulldozer design that should have been piledriver from the beginning. I am just glad I got the piledriver variant which fixed a few things. But I am budget minded and I know that AMD is fine for gaming and most computer processes out there. If you spend $300 on a CPU and then play Battlefield, then I don't know what to say to you.

The whole point is future proofing.....a processor that may be decent for todays tasks, will not be within a few years. So maybe you're telling yourself....."I'll cross that road when I come to it." But there's a key factor to take into account: total lifetime spending on PC's. obviously everyone is going to own more than several PC's throughout their life, or more.

Spending less now, may actually translate into spending more overall. The more time you can stick with a given CPU, the less money you spend overall on CPU's.

Let's say I buy a $150 AMD processor, then 2 years later, another $150 for one maybe twice as fast to replace it......I've just spent $300 over a 4 year period. Now let's say there is an intel processor twice as fast or more for $300. Which is the better deal?

Firstly, instead of having to change out processors and possibly even sockets and power supplies and such, you have that extra performance of intel the whole 4 years rather than half as fast the first two years and 'just as' fast the next 2 years with AMD. that alone is more than breaking even, performance wise, before you even begin to consider other costs like energy consumption and other parts.

And it's even worse than that, because at the rate AMD is going, it took them a WHOLE 5 YEARS to come out with a processor barely twice as fast as its Phenom II's. So you're looking at very large gaps in time, with a very slow pace in performance increases. this puts people between a rock and a hard place when it comes to upgrading. shelling money out for newer processors with minimal gains.

I remember the days when going from single core to dual or quad core meant more than 2-4x the performance gained. now we're just seeing a stagnant market based around new tech that is slower or barely faster than tech from years ago. And you actually end up paying more. you're going to pay far more for an AMD FX dual/quad core then you would have payed for a Phenom II dual/quad core when they were selling at their cheapest.

and there's no reason to revolve pc around gaming. even heavy gamers most likely spend more of their time on a PC doing non gaming stuff. we all know that even a dual core with the proper GPU could run any game just fine. gaming primarily relies on the GPU, so you can't exactly take something that relies on GPU and attribute it to CPU arguments. even then, the i7 does actually deliver quite a difference in frame rate, which translates into longevity....i.e. you're going to see frame rates dip quicker with newer games and the same GPU with AM\D, than you will with intel.

For example, the Phenom II 965 vs the FX 4300. the cheapest FX 4300 is around $110. meanwhile, the 965 was probably $50-$80 at its cheapest before it went out of production/stock. the difference between these 2 processors, is minor, maybe around 20% on average. So when it comes to AMD, you'd be better off keeping your old processor and money, than upgrading from Phenom II. or better yet, even today, if you needed just a quad core, you'd be better off buying a used Phenom II. you could even take some of that money and overclock it with liquid cooling, most likely surpassing the performance of the 4300, at a much cheaper cost.

so AMD isn't even cost effective, in a five year time frame, to warrant an upgrade of its own products with substantial enough gains to justify the cost.

So look at it from an AMD owners perspective. Say they bought a 965 Phenom II x4, over 5 years ago, look on the market, and see it's going to cost them about $200 (just for the processor) just for double the performance 5 years later......and then take into account they will also be holding on to that CPU for X many years before upgrading again. So here it is, 2018, and you're still running a PC barely twice as fast as the one you had in 2009!
Edited by AMDATI - 3/20/14 at 3:22pm
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 #782 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by cssorkinman View Post

The truth is all I seek , this should be encouraged/

Well, the moderator who got involved in the situation is not some random guy who boasts about how good Intel is everywhere he goes. Nor does he show an obvious preference towards Intel on his personal information (user title, signature, rig info. etc.).
On the contrary, the guy not only used hardware from both sides, but also took it to the limit with sub-zero cooling and the likes. If that doesn't give him the means to have a global opinion on the matter, I don't know what else could.


Here I currently use an Intel processor solely because of how good it is on what I do. The previous processor I had was again an Intel one, cause it was again good on what I did, and before that it was an AMD for the exact same reason.
I've never bought something due to brand preference, not just when it comes to computers, but on everything. The sole reasoning I use has to do with how good a product is in fulfilling its purchase, as a whole package, with all the potential associated costs and problems.


Back in the early Athlon XP VS Pentium 4 days I was more or less in the same situation once or twice. With a few comparison threads and people arguing on what is best and why. The arguments were all about the GHz and hyper-threading, completely disregarding things like performance per cycle (that's the common IPC thing most enthusiasts use nowadays) and cache speed.
No matter how valid a point was, it'd be blatantly ignored by the Intel white knights. No matter what you did, Intel would always be better in their eyes. It couldn't be helped.

What happens in this thread is very similar to the situation back then. The only difference is that AMD and Intel switched places.


It seems that my replies here were quite misunderstood (to say the least) so let me explain myself for a moment.

Whatever I wrote so far was based on actual evidence. This includes the stuff about performance, prices, the power consumption, and the likes. Now, I could have made a mistake or miscalculation somewhere, and it's not really applicable to feed everyone disagreeing with more and more evidence (I can't sit 24/7 in front of a thread replying to every post I see just to prove a point), so excuse me in advance for not being perfect.

The TDP and power draw stuff I wrote at some point for example, I actually calculated them. I've read the associated processor specifications in the past, the actual thermal design, the power needs, etc.

When presented with a random image some pages earlier (http://www.overclock.net/t/1470614/lightbox/post/21974756/id/1938987), I actually went to the page where the image originated from, saw how the measurements were made, calculated the power usage again and posted the results.

Well, the end result was those exact words by the one who posted the image in the first place: "And you are assuming seeing how the chart does not specify whether it is total or just CPU."
The one who posted the image in the first place did not know how the measurements he posted were made, then pretty much said that whatever I write is more or less made up.
For the record, the image came from here: http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx9590-5ghz-review-w-gigabyte-990fxa-ud5/25/

Now, there's something really wrong with this picture. How can you take an argument seriously If the ones presenting the data do not take the time to actually consult the said data?

The whole situation feels like having kids arguing over their favorite gaming system. tongue.gif


Seriously though, some of the ones involved in the discussion take the associated criticism to AMD a little too personally. I do understand the need to justify a purchase but if this goes on it will eventually go out of hand.
post #783 of 1593
You guys need to really need to drop the victimization of "well...a moderator said this in X debate".

He is a member as well, who also has job functions within the forum. Just because they have a moderator function on the forums doesnt mean they arent entitled to participate said forums.
    
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 #784 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stay Puft View Post

It does until you want to run a pair of video cards in SLI or crossfire

This is what I've been saying for years.
post #785 of 1593
AMD is trying to break the mold a bit because they can't compete in tradition sheer threading power to Intel, but that doesn't mean what they're trying to do isn't innovative and ground breaking. Eventually if you keep designing a processor with the same architecture in mind you'll hit a wall. AMD now is looking to bring the concept of clusters cores, like in GPUs, to CPUs. Theoretically if AMD manages to get HSA behiind many products we'll see a performance out of this world. In all ways better than Intel's current Architecture. However may take years.
Power Tower
(22 items)
 
SteamBox
(9 items)
 
Doge Miner
(7 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1700X AX370-Gaming 5 AMD Radeon R9 200 Series G.Skill DDR4-2400 
RAMRAMRAMHard Drive
G.Skill DDR4-2400 G.Skill DDR4-2400 G.Skill DDR4-2400 Samsung 840 Pro 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
CX300 Crucial 480GB Toshiba 4TB Toshbia 4TB Western Digital Black 1TB 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
h110i Windows 10 42" LG TV 20" Digitizer ASUS 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Corsair Vengeance Mechanical Keyboard  850watt Vampire Gold Rated NZXT S340 Elite Corsair RGB FPS Mouse 
Mouse PadAudio
Borderlands Mousepad Realtek HD 
  hide details  
Power Tower
(22 items)
 
SteamBox
(9 items)
 
Doge Miner
(7 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1700X AX370-Gaming 5 AMD Radeon R9 200 Series G.Skill DDR4-2400 
RAMRAMRAMHard Drive
G.Skill DDR4-2400 G.Skill DDR4-2400 G.Skill DDR4-2400 Samsung 840 Pro 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
CX300 Crucial 480GB Toshiba 4TB Toshbia 4TB Western Digital Black 1TB 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
h110i Windows 10 42" LG TV 20" Digitizer ASUS 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Corsair Vengeance Mechanical Keyboard  850watt Vampire Gold Rated NZXT S340 Elite Corsair RGB FPS Mouse 
Mouse PadAudio
Borderlands Mousepad Realtek HD 
  hide details  
post #786 of 1593
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedyVT View Post

AMD is trying to break the mold a bit because they can't compete in tradition sheer threading power to Intel, but that doesn't mean what they're trying to do isn't innovative and ground breaking. Eventually if you keep designing a processor with the same architecture in mind you'll hit a wall. AMD now is looking to bring the concept of clusters cores, like in GPUs, to CPUs. Theoretically if AMD manages to get HSA behiind many products we'll see a performance out of this world. In all ways better than Intel's current Architecture. However may take years.



I think many people are confused about HSA. The most HSA does is share memory space. The chip does not do any functions a normal GPU wouldn't be able to do, and not really any better either. Anything you can do with HSA, you can already do with OpenCL or CUDA or Directcompute. Most of HSA has to do with scheduling to get around the issues faced when combining CPU/GPU. HSA is essentially a front end for dealing with making CPU/GPU compute the things they are already meant to compute. HSA just offers developers a slightly easier path to take advantage of using the GPU to handle non graphical calculations....but even this can only go so far. HSA doesn't for instance, run x86 code on a GPU. HSA may offer improvements for CPU/GPU combination chips, but nowhere in the near future will they be able to remotely compete with even mid range standalone CPU and GPU chips.

The main reason why is memory bandwidth. you could put a million gigahertz processor with a million core GPU into play, and with only a 10-20GB/s memory bandwidth, you're still going to be bottle necked.

The problem is, I highly doubt they'll be putting onboard memory like a videocard does anytime soon, for a plethora of reasons. one being, it'd be difficult to ascertain how much memory to put into each chip. a person with a quad core might need 16GB of RAM, and a person with an octa core might only need 4GB or 8GB of RAM.....and you can't exactly build different RAM varieties for every iteration of a new chip, your only chose is to limit options or almost certainly end up with a lot of unsold product. That's exactly why GPU options are soo limited....because there's too many different varieties of GPU power to choose from to put in each chip. On top of that, there are tons of RAM manufacturers, and only ONE brand can go into a CPU/GPU combo chip. This presents quite a few problems for the market, too much to explain here anyways. So really, I couldn't see all of this happening in even the next 5 years, it's pretty much out of the question, especially considering how little the last 5 years brought us.

Now you could think of ways around this, like say, every chip coming with only 1 or 2GB of memory for core CPU/GPU functions only, while traditional memory remains as an 'extension'.....but that would defeat the point of HSA allowing the CPU/GPU to use the same memory space, if you put them on different memories altogether. So the only obvious workable solution is to have ALL of the memory built onboard.....then you're back to the problem I covered in the former paragraph.

I don't think anyone is questioning the potential power of CPU/GPU combo chips.....but without onboard memory it will never be able to compete. even a $50 GPU has better memory bandwidth. and with the difficulties surrounding adding onboard memory, that change isn't going to happen anytime soon.

I think the problem with AMD's strategy is they should have either pushed it farther faster, (i.e. more powerful GPU and onboard memory) or would have at least not abandoned the CPU only segment until it was more developed.

Now back to the configuration problem, just to point out how big it is. someone needs 2/4/8 or 16GB of RAM, and a low, med or high end GPU, and a 2/4/8 or 16 core CPU. it's virtually unfeasible from a profit standpoint to offer all of the possibilities on one chip, in one generation. there's even more branching implications, such as most memory companies going out of business (remember, only one memory brand can be in a single chip or generation or chips even).

I don't think anyone can argue that fusion isn't the future, I predicted as much before we even had mutli core systems. But the problem that we face today is it isn't fusion enough yet, and there's soo many things at play that it won't happen anytime soon.
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 #787 of 1593
@AMDATI, HSA is much larger than you think. The way it is right now, if you want to use GPGPU, you have to transfer the entire contents of the program into VRAM. And you have to do this over PCIe bus, which is slow, even with PCIe 3.0 16x.

Now, the big problem, is if the GPU changes data (which happens all the time), then the entire copy must be moved back to the CPU.

So GPGPU right now is only used in situations where something can be done on the GPU 100% as it kills performance to have to have the CPU and GPU talk to each other and tell them what they've done to data in memory.

HSA lets them share memory.

Think of it this way.

Without HSA, there is a book that the CPU and the GPU is writing. The GPU makes a change to the book, something small, like a punctuation change. Without HSA, it's like the GPU must give the CPU the entire book.

With HSA, it is like the CPU and GPU are working on the same book, and the GPU can just go "hey, I changed character 54 on page 543" and that's all that happens. There is no having to give the CPU an entire book.

As you can guess, that's significantly faster than the other way. Specially when you consider it is difficult to transfer an entire book in a slow way.
Tyrant Kuma
(13 items)
 
Starscythe
(13 items)
 
Mobility
(6 items)
 
CPUCPUCPUCPU
Opteron 8431 Opteron 8431 Opteron 8431 Opteron 8431 
MotherboardGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Super Micro h8qme-2+ Sapphire 4870 Samsung DDR2 ECC 667mhz western digital caviar blue 
CoolingCoolingOSPower
FX 8350 stock cooler FX 6300 stock cooler Gentoo Linux 2x Silverstone PSU 
Case
Custom Fabbed Steel Case 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX 8350 gigabyte 990FXA-UD5 7970 Mushkin Enhanced Blackline 16GB 
OSOSMonitorKeyboard
Gentoo Linux Windows 7 x64 Yamakasi Catleap Q270 Corsair K90 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Silverstone Strider Gold Evolution 850W 80 PLUS... Antec 1200 Logitech G9x Asus Xonar D2X 
Other
XSPC RS360 Raystorm with custom radiator mounts 
CPUGraphicsRAMOS
a4 5000 Radeon HD 8330 8GB G. Skill DDR3 1600 9-9-9 Gentoo Linux 
OSOther
Windows 7 Lenovo Thinkpad x140e 
  hide details  
Tyrant Kuma
(13 items)
 
Starscythe
(13 items)
 
Mobility
(6 items)
 
CPUCPUCPUCPU
Opteron 8431 Opteron 8431 Opteron 8431 Opteron 8431 
MotherboardGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Super Micro h8qme-2+ Sapphire 4870 Samsung DDR2 ECC 667mhz western digital caviar blue 
CoolingCoolingOSPower
FX 8350 stock cooler FX 6300 stock cooler Gentoo Linux 2x Silverstone PSU 
Case
Custom Fabbed Steel Case 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX 8350 gigabyte 990FXA-UD5 7970 Mushkin Enhanced Blackline 16GB 
OSOSMonitorKeyboard
Gentoo Linux Windows 7 x64 Yamakasi Catleap Q270 Corsair K90 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Silverstone Strider Gold Evolution 850W 80 PLUS... Antec 1200 Logitech G9x Asus Xonar D2X 
Other
XSPC RS360 Raystorm with custom radiator mounts 
CPUGraphicsRAMOS
a4 5000 Radeon HD 8330 8GB G. Skill DDR3 1600 9-9-9 Gentoo Linux 
OSOther
Windows 7 Lenovo Thinkpad x140e 
  hide details  
post #788 of 1593
I really think HSA is pretty far out there in terms of wide spread use by games or programs. Anyone here remember 3DNow in the old phenoms? It was another one of amds game changers that never took off. But hey at least they try to innovate.
Cable box
(24 items)
 
Phat Bits
(16 items)
 
Lament Box
(16 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-4790K 4.8ghz @ 1.245v Asus Maximus Hero VI 4GB Asus Strix GTX 980 Gskil Trident 2400 CL10 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
128GB sandisk extreme SSD 2 tb Western digital media intel 530 128 gb SSD External LG BD RW 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
EK Coolstream 360mm PE Rad  Gentle typhoon AP-15 X 3 Fractal Design 140mm 1000RPM X3 Fractal Design Venturi High Flow Series 140mm F... 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Bitspower DDC Heatsink Black EK Coolstream XTC 140mm Rad EK Supremecy MX  EK FC980 Strix Water Block 
CoolingCoolingOSKeyboard
swiftech MCP-35X EK XRES 140 DDC Top WIN 7 ULTIMATE smk link 
PowerCaseMouseOther
Seasonic G-750  Fractal Design R5 G700s HDHOMERUN 3 TUNER CABLE CARD 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4770k 4.5ghz @1.29v asus z87-A EVGA 4gb GTX 970 FTW 1510mhz 8000mem 1.23v Adata XPG 8GB @ 2400mhz 11-13-13-35-1 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
OCZ VERTEX 3 90GB 1tb 7200 Seagate hybrid  D5 vario Primo chill 120mm D5 Compression Res 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Swiftech MCR-320 XP 360mm rad Swiftech MCR-320 XP 120mm rad EK Supreme LTX Cpu block Biitspower ACX GTX 970 Water block 
OSKeyboardPowerCase
win7 64bit ultimate G13 Seasonic M211 620 watt Nzxt Guardian 
  hide details  
Cable box
(24 items)
 
Phat Bits
(16 items)
 
Lament Box
(16 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-4790K 4.8ghz @ 1.245v Asus Maximus Hero VI 4GB Asus Strix GTX 980 Gskil Trident 2400 CL10 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
128GB sandisk extreme SSD 2 tb Western digital media intel 530 128 gb SSD External LG BD RW 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
EK Coolstream 360mm PE Rad  Gentle typhoon AP-15 X 3 Fractal Design 140mm 1000RPM X3 Fractal Design Venturi High Flow Series 140mm F... 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Bitspower DDC Heatsink Black EK Coolstream XTC 140mm Rad EK Supremecy MX  EK FC980 Strix Water Block 
CoolingCoolingOSKeyboard
swiftech MCP-35X EK XRES 140 DDC Top WIN 7 ULTIMATE smk link 
PowerCaseMouseOther
Seasonic G-750  Fractal Design R5 G700s HDHOMERUN 3 TUNER CABLE CARD 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4770k 4.5ghz @1.29v asus z87-A EVGA 4gb GTX 970 FTW 1510mhz 8000mem 1.23v Adata XPG 8GB @ 2400mhz 11-13-13-35-1 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
OCZ VERTEX 3 90GB 1tb 7200 Seagate hybrid  D5 vario Primo chill 120mm D5 Compression Res 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Swiftech MCR-320 XP 360mm rad Swiftech MCR-320 XP 120mm rad EK Supreme LTX Cpu block Biitspower ACX GTX 970 Water block 
OSKeyboardPowerCase
win7 64bit ultimate G13 Seasonic M211 620 watt Nzxt Guardian 
  hide details  
post #789 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdlvx View Post

@AMDATI, HSA is much larger than you think. The way it is right now, if you want to use GPGPU, you have to transfer the entire contents of the program into VRAM. And you have to do this over PCIe bus, which is slow, even with PCIe 3.0 16x.

Now, the big problem, is if the GPU changes data (which happens all the time), then the entire copy must be moved back to the CPU.

So GPGPU right now is only used in situations where something can be done on the GPU 100% as it kills performance to have to have the CPU and GPU talk to each other and tell them what they've done to data in memory.

HSA lets them share memory.

Think of it this way.

Without HSA, there is a book that the CPU and the GPU is writing. The GPU makes a change to the book, something small, like a punctuation change. Without HSA, it's like the GPU must give the CPU the entire book.

With HSA, it is like the CPU and GPU are working on the same book, and the GPU can just go "hey, I changed character 54 on page 543" and that's all that happens. There is no having to give the CPU an entire book.

As you can guess, that's significantly faster than the other way. Specially when you consider it is difficult to transfer an entire book in a slow way.
Very informative and unfortunately probably gonna fall on deaf ears. Another thing to consider is that HSA adoption also get AMD friendly libraries into the wild, finally software that more adequately uses AMDs architecture to the fullest. And for those that doubt HSA adoption, look at the list of companies involved. And imagine this scenario:

Say a company wants to take on Adobe (For the argument Adobe isn't using HSA) and they want an edge. In all honesty Adobe has the funds to keep their product up to snuff. So what does a company do? Adopt HSA. Get extreme performance on a low budget system with extreme efficiency. The benchmarks alone will net you some hefty news worthiness. Easy to see how this works.

We have already seen HSA take a 4 core<$200 and trounce the 6core~$1000. That is huge. This is more than some petty DDR3 GDDR5 issue that some wish to cling to. Not to mention that sdlvx mentioned a very good reason to love HSA.
post #790 of 1593
The question here is if (or even when) AMD is going to use a common instruction set for the GPU part of their APUs on their HSA design. As an extension to x86 and such.
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?