Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD - General › An interesting article from someone who researched AMD
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

An interesting article from someone who researched AMD - Page 5

post #41 of 71
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagrant Storm View Post

AMD made an official statement a long time ago that they are trying to cut the R&D back...to have more overlap and reuse technologies across different products. That whole "Fusion" thing.

So this has been known about for a long time. What does it mean? It means that AMD is going to be picking their horses wisely and when they get something that works they will apply it to as many places as they can. There will be less innovations, but when they do get something they will probably perfect it rather than take three iterations to get something right. So I think we can expect good things out of AMD yet.

I hope it means that.
 
Thuban Powah!
(14 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon X5650 Asus P6X58D-E Sapphire HD 7950 G.Skill Trident-X 2600 CL10 
Hard DriveCoolingPowerCase
Samsung 840 pro Bong cooler / RASA waterblock Rosewill Capstone Gold 750 None 
MouseMouse PadAudio
cheap! Newegg box panel ibeats with onboard. 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II X6 1075T w/2 cores locked @ 4.2+ M4a89GTD-Pro XFX Radeon HD 5870 8gb Samsung ddr3 1600 11-11-11-28@ 8-8-8-24 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
OCZ Agility2 40gb WD Blue 500GB Lite-On RASA waterblock 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows & Linux Samsung 1080p 2 ms Dell Thermaltake TR2-800 
CaseMouse
Cooler Master Elite 330 (was) cheap 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Thuban Powah!
(14 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon X5650 Asus P6X58D-E Sapphire HD 7950 G.Skill Trident-X 2600 CL10 
Hard DriveCoolingPowerCase
Samsung 840 pro Bong cooler / RASA waterblock Rosewill Capstone Gold 750 None 
MouseMouse PadAudio
cheap! Newegg box panel ibeats with onboard. 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II X6 1075T w/2 cores locked @ 4.2+ M4a89GTD-Pro XFX Radeon HD 5870 8gb Samsung ddr3 1600 11-11-11-28@ 8-8-8-24 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
OCZ Agility2 40gb WD Blue 500GB Lite-On RASA waterblock 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows & Linux Samsung 1080p 2 ms Dell Thermaltake TR2-800 
CaseMouse
Cooler Master Elite 330 (was) cheap 
  hide details  
Reply
post #42 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by nill View Post

There goes the AM3+ socket. But will APU sales for the casual gamers be enough?

APU sales are one of the reasons why AMD isn't focusing on FX (descendents of server processors just like all of their previous processors ever since the Opteron). AMD previously said that 70%+ of their shipments were APU's, and the rest was FX CPU's. FX CPU's weren't wildly popular by any means, with APU's easily outselling them. Just like how Intel sells many more Pentiums, Celerons and i3's than they do anything else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toyz72 View Post

is there proof of an fx cpu for 2015? if so.....link it plz. i was pretty sure amd was done with fx.

No, there's no proof of any future FX CPU's. AMD hasn't mentioned anything beyond the Vishera and Centurion CPU's. There's also nothing pointing towards any new FX chips, even into 2015.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMack70 View Post

An i7 is superior to anything from AMD for gaming, therefore it's probably fair to classify it as "extreme". The only higher standard you could have would be to further delimit that and ONLY count Intel's hex core chips as "extreme".

Calling any old i7 "extreme" performance seems silly to me, in terms of gaming anyway. Hardly any games even take full advantage of an i7, which would make its supposed "extreme" performance totally moot, which would undermine the "extreme" tag completely. I'd say an i7 hexacore would be extreme, but only in apps that take full advantage of it, and of course that all comes with an extreme price tag, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nitrubbb View Post

AMD has clearly stated that FX is not dead.

"FX" is nothing more than a brand name. They ressurected it from the original Athlon 64 "FX" CPU's which were targeted towards gamers. The difference between the current FX and the classical FX is that the original one was the top performance part at the time. Things are the exact opposite today, as we all know.

All that really happened is that some roadmaps got leaked which clearly stated that there aren't any new FX CPU's beyond Piledriver-based ones, and some sites claimed that AM3+ and FX were dead, then AMD'er James Prior said that it was all bollocks and he'd never seen the maps before.

In reality, it's obvious to everyone that AM3+ and FX are both "dead" in the sense that they're both dead-end products, meaning that there is no upgrade path for AM3+ and no future for the socket, and the maps show that Warsaw extends into 2015, which means no new FX processors could be derived from them.

When AMD says "FX is not End-of-Line", they really mean that they will simply continue producing and selling Vishera's and Centurions as well as ensuring that AM3+ MOBO's are available. APU's are the focus now, because they get them the most revenue, and the HSA push is still a thing.
post #43 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultracarpet View Post

My lord you don't quit. All semantics.

I said extreme/high END. which I then narrowed down to my point pertaining to just HIGH END. NOT PERFORMANCE like you were trying to push on me.

You are COMPLETELY missing the point and are busy arguing semantics of things that I wasn't even talking about.

Numbers from a test don't lie or change. They are concrete. It is the benchmarks and tests themselves that vary WIDELY. The performance of a processor in one software may be different than another. Thus if a person is only using one said software, and their processor, say a 9590, is just as good as say, a I7 4770k (that no one would argue as being a high end consumer product), in that it performs the same in that said software; you cannot call one high end and the other not.

You know what? I'll use your ridiculous car analogy. A BMW 7 series is considered "High End" and a Ferrari is considered "High End". If a stranger walked up to you and said "I want a high end car." You would naturally ask them "what do you mean by high end? Fast, economical, luxurious etc.?" This is the essence of my point. The figures of performance within each of these benchmarks do not change, it is the fact that there are many factors that matter.

This is like software in that there are games like... shooters, mmos, rts games and tons more; that all utilize hardware differently. Same goes with video editing software, 3d modeling, compiling, music creation... If people only use their computers for a few of these things, and the performance in them is that of a processor that no one could deny being high end, then it can be determined that their rig is in fact "High End".

You aren't even disputing the argument, and I don't know how you possibly could. Other than to say that High End should simply be the average of all of benchmarks added up and have it be a certain level of performance that would be in a percentage relative to everything else currently on the market. Which, if using your car analogy, would be ridiculous; adding together the luxury status of how fast a car can get to 60 to determine the overall "High End" status of something is using two things completely unrelated.

When did this become an AMD vs Intel thing? I never made it such... I already stated I think it's fair to understand AMD's higher end CPUs as "extreme performance" chips.

Also, if the bold is the "essence of your point", then your point is NOT "high end is completely subjective" as many of your posts have argued. Your point is that each user has different needs and thus not everyone needs the fastest CPU out there. This again is something I have affirmed repeatedly, so I don't know why you are trying to argue with me. Again, the difference here is in the general vs the particular. Saying "high end is completely subjective" is a general statement which is untrue. Saying "what will be fast enough for a user is subjective based on that user's needs" is true, but is a different statement.

But I digress... this thread has gotten off topic enough already.
Quote:
Calling any old i7 "extreme" performance seems silly to me, in terms of gaming anyway. Hardly any games even take full advantage of an i7, which would make its supposed "extreme" performance totally moot, which would undermine the "extreme" tag completely. I'd say an i7 hexacore would be extreme, but only in apps that take full advantage of it, and of course that all comes with an extreme price tag, too.

I see the point, but isn't part of something being "extreme" the fact that it's beyond what is necessary or even practical?
Glorious 4K
(23 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-5930k @ 4.625 GHz ASUS X99-A USB 3.1 EVGA GTX 1080 Ti @ 1950/12200 Corsair Vengeance LPX 32GB DDR4-2666 C15 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
OCZ Agility 3 240GB Seagate 600 Pro 240 GB WD Black 4TB Corsair H110 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Noctua NF-A14 x2 Corsair SP140 x2 Corsair AF120 x1 Corsair SP120 x4 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
EVGA Titan X Hybrid AIO Windows 10 Professional x64 Sharp Aquos 4K LC-60UD27U Logitech K520 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Corsair AX1200 Corsair Obsidian 450D Logitech Wireless Gaming Mouse G700 Sound Blaster Z Sound Card 
AudioAudioOther
Logitech Z906 Speakers Razer Chimaera 5.1 Headphones Sunbeam Rheosmart 6 fan controller 
  hide details  
Reply
Glorious 4K
(23 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-5930k @ 4.625 GHz ASUS X99-A USB 3.1 EVGA GTX 1080 Ti @ 1950/12200 Corsair Vengeance LPX 32GB DDR4-2666 C15 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
OCZ Agility 3 240GB Seagate 600 Pro 240 GB WD Black 4TB Corsair H110 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Noctua NF-A14 x2 Corsair SP140 x2 Corsair AF120 x1 Corsair SP120 x4 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
EVGA Titan X Hybrid AIO Windows 10 Professional x64 Sharp Aquos 4K LC-60UD27U Logitech K520 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Corsair AX1200 Corsair Obsidian 450D Logitech Wireless Gaming Mouse G700 Sound Blaster Z Sound Card 
AudioAudioOther
Logitech Z906 Speakers Razer Chimaera 5.1 Headphones Sunbeam Rheosmart 6 fan controller 
  hide details  
Reply
post #44 of 71
Quote:
I see the point, but isn't part of something being "extreme" the fact that it's beyond what is necessary or even practical?

It would depend on how one would choose to define 'extreme'. If viewed from the idea that 'extreme' simply means far and beyond what is necessary, then yes. It would be like using a BFG 9000 to eliminate a rat infestation. Not very practical, but kickass regardless.
post #45 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultracarpet View Post

You know what? I'll use your ridiculous car analogy. A BMW 7 series is considered "High End" and a Ferrari is considered "High End". If a stranger walked up to you and said "I want a high end car." You would naturally ask them "what do you mean by high end? Fast, economical, luxurious etc.?" This is the essence of my point. The figures of performance within each of these benchmarks do not change, it is the fact that there are many factors that matter.

My god. This is the -perfect- boomerang response.

I can't fathom how this doesn't make sense to some people.

Carpet, you might as well give up. You have posted in a veiled AMD-vs-Intel thread, and you won't ever hear the end of it. People don't like seeing benchmarks or hearing that ANY AMD processor can be considered high-end or match an i7's performance. And most of these guys talking about gaming: Know where your bottleneck falls 90% of the time? Your GPU. That takes the CPU right out of the equation.
Black Sunshine
(14 items)
 
Trinity
(11 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
AMD A10-5800k MSI FM2-A75IA-E53 Corsair Vengeance 1866mhz DDR3 Seagate Barracuda 2TB 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
LG DVD Burner DLF-91D Windows 2008 R2 40" Samsung LED HDTV 
KeyboardCaseAudio
Logitech K400 CoolerMaster Elite 120 Sony Home Theatre 5.1 System 
  hide details  
Reply
Black Sunshine
(14 items)
 
Trinity
(11 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
AMD A10-5800k MSI FM2-A75IA-E53 Corsair Vengeance 1866mhz DDR3 Seagate Barracuda 2TB 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
LG DVD Burner DLF-91D Windows 2008 R2 40" Samsung LED HDTV 
KeyboardCaseAudio
Logitech K400 CoolerMaster Elite 120 Sony Home Theatre 5.1 System 
  hide details  
Reply
post #46 of 71
So what we've basically gotten into is, AMD reduced R&D while still making (even though they denied it) high end/extreme processors for the PC "gamer" crowd in this generation? That's the gist I've gotten reading all these posts. While some people want to argue the semantics of "extreme/high end".

I always thought "extreme" was over the top. As a gaming rig that's powerful enough to play release games, as it's got power above and beyond anything currently released. You know, it's extreme, hence the tag. Where high end was good enough to play anything currently out, debatable about upcoming releases. As it's not extreme but it's in the top tier of gaming rigs. Since we define tiers as low/mid/high, right? Four tiers effectively if you include extreme. I didn't think we bothered with low range, low mid range, mid range, high mid range, low high range, high range, ect... You get my point.

We could say the low end of the high range but wait, what game does an 8350 fail to play at a solid FPS? Crysis3? 8350 at 4.0 gets about 60FPS? BF4? Aren't those benchmarks mainly GPU limited? So waiiiiiiiiit a minute. What major game does an 8350 fail to play well? Especially since I got a pretty cheap WC loop for $65, got it to 4.7, still under what a 4770k runs. What game do I look at and go "this is unplayable".

Think that's the point, we are using these terms honestly off synthetics. In synthetics an 8350 isn't a high end rig, not compared to Intel but in real gaming benchmarks? Where am I CPU limited with my purchase. I run whatever comes out on release day, gee that seems pretty slick too me.

In the end, what we get out of this entire thread would probably be more towards the idea that AMD cut R&D to focus on what is in demand. Right now I don't really plan on getting a new CPU even if it's released. For what? I ran my PHII too the ground, a solid 4-5 years. It still got me 45FPS in Crysis 3, which was perfectly playable. BF4? Probably not but for 4-5 years I didn't worry about CPU performance a bit and oddly came out fine. So if the software doesn't push the hardware, why spend the money on new hardware. AMD saw that, they made a decision, that's about what we get out of this.
Current Rig
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350 4.6GHz@1.44v GA-990FXA-UD3 R4.0 HD 7950 (1100/1450) 8G Muskin DDR3 1866@8CLS 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1TB WD LiteOn DVD-RW DL Linux/Windows 19" Phillips TV 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
OCZ 600W Generic Junk Logitech MX400 Generic Junk 
Audio
SBL 5.1 
  hide details  
Reply
Current Rig
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350 4.6GHz@1.44v GA-990FXA-UD3 R4.0 HD 7950 (1100/1450) 8G Muskin DDR3 1866@8CLS 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1TB WD LiteOn DVD-RW DL Linux/Windows 19" Phillips TV 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
OCZ 600W Generic Junk Logitech MX400 Generic Junk 
Audio
SBL 5.1 
  hide details  
Reply
post #47 of 71
Miss my old socket A CPU from 2.6ghz to 3.2ghz, the good old days. I'm sure AMD will have their moments in the future, and also its good price competition for Intel and stops things going completely price crazy. I hope we're not in denial about a new high end CPU in the future and they can pull something off next year thumb.gif
Desktop
(13 items)
 
   
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Dual-core 1 GHz Cortex-A9 ULP GeForce 1 GB RAM 32GB Storage 
OSMonitor
Android OS, v3.0 (Honeycomb) 800 x 1280 pixels, 8.9 inches PLS TFT 
  hide details  
Reply
Desktop
(13 items)
 
   
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Dual-core 1 GHz Cortex-A9 ULP GeForce 1 GB RAM 32GB Storage 
OSMonitor
Android OS, v3.0 (Honeycomb) 800 x 1280 pixels, 8.9 inches PLS TFT 
  hide details  
Reply
post #48 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by VENAXIS View Post

I got a headache after reading some of the comments, specially the cliche "Intel is extreme AMD is budget" ones. It really and almost entirely depends on the applications/games. Also, if you want to see real-life gaming & XSplit streaming benchmark tests of the FX-8350, for example, then check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

Both companies make solid quality chips. The price isn't a factor for quality rate.

"Extreme". I'll tell you what is extreme. The value for money for a 4/8 threaded Intel processor nowadays (i7). You get practically the performance of 6-7 cores on insanely good single threaded performance. AMD is simply bad lately, and it's not the design, it's the foundry technologies involved, they are all good designers here, the ones that matter for the PC. You get AMD users claiming multithreading will win in the end but in reality single threaded performance will always be critically important, you simply have to be limited to the speed of the fastest thread, you can't delegate to 999 threads that all are abysmally slow, all will be slow that way, it's not a GPU, nor it is off line video rendering only. Let alone, even if you go to multithreading Intel would still win, because guess what, AMD is not doing anything better, they just desperately try to go to the extremes of multithreading because it simply only benefits over Intel a ridiculous small niche (video encoders, that do it off line), and Intel would lose a lot of the advantages by going that route.
PC
(9 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4790K 4.6G 1.24v/1.74v, 5.1G 1.35v validation. GA-Z97X-Gaming 7 Tri-X R9 290 1100/1350 +0.012v G.Skill 2400 c10 
CoolingMonitorPowerCase
Noctua NH-D15 24EA53 IPS 76Hz OC EVGA 1000 G2 Phanteks Enthoo Pro 
Audio
SoundMagic E10 
  hide details  
Reply
PC
(9 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4790K 4.6G 1.24v/1.74v, 5.1G 1.35v validation. GA-Z97X-Gaming 7 Tri-X R9 290 1100/1350 +0.012v G.Skill 2400 c10 
CoolingMonitorPowerCase
Noctua NH-D15 24EA53 IPS 76Hz OC EVGA 1000 G2 Phanteks Enthoo Pro 
Audio
SoundMagic E10 
  hide details  
Reply
post #49 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by fateswarm View Post

"Extreme". I'll tell you what is extreme. The value for money for a 4/8 threaded Intel processor nowadays (i7). You get practically the performance of 6-7 cores on insanely good single threaded performance. AMD is simply bad lately, and it's not the design, it's the foundry technologies involved, they are all good designers here, the ones that matter for the PC. You get AMD users claiming multithreading will win in the end but in reality single threaded performance will always be critically important, you simply have to be limited to the speed of the fastest thread, you can't delegate to 999 threads that all are abysmally slow, all will be slow that way, it's not a GPU, nor it is off line video rendering only. Let alone, even if you go to multithreading Intel would still win, because guess what, AMD is not doing anything better, they just desperately try to go to the extremes of multithreading because it simply only benefits over Intel a ridiculous small niche (video encoders, that do it off line), and Intel would lose a lot of the advantages by going that route.

Thanks for your input. I agree with most of what you mentioned, still though, in Gaming I've been able to notice no difference in AMD's FX-8350 in Battlefield 4, for example, opposed to Intel extreme chips. This is because Battlefield 4 utilizes all 8 cores.

Now since a $169 AMD processor (not AMD's best) can match the performance of a +$1,049 (i7-4960X in this case) in Battlefield 4, then I can definitely say that the AMD FX-8350 is an extreme gaming processor (benchmark source: http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html). The benchmarks were using DirectX 11 API, not Mantle, by the way.
Not to mention when overclocked, the FX-8350 gains huge performance boost in multi-threaded benchmarks, and not-so-bad boost in single-threaded ones. I believe the FX-8350 is meant to be overclocked, most would agree with that.

Of course this isn't a fair comparison. I'm only saying that to many people, it doesn't always come to single threaded performance, specially in the gaming department since they are heading to multi-threaded technology. But yes, I really hope AMD would do better in their upcoming performance/gaming CPUs as they haven't been doing so recently.
Edited by VENAXIS - 4/16/14 at 7:25am
post #50 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by VENAXIS View Post

Thanks for your input. I agree with most of what you mentioned, still though, in Gaming I've been able to notice no difference between AMD's FX-8350 and Intel's extreme in Battlefield 4, for example, opposed to Intel chips. This is because Battlefield 4 utilizes all 8 cores.

Now since a $169 AMD processor (not AMD's best) can match the performance of a +$1,049 (i7-4960X in this case) in Battlefield 4, then I can definitely say that the AMD FX-8350 is an extreme gaming processor (benchmark source: http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html). The benchmarks were using DirectX 11 API, not Mantle, by the way.
Not to mention when overclocked, the FX-8350 gains huge performance boost in multi-threaded benchmarks, and not-so-bad boost in single-threaded ones. I believe the FX-8350 is meant to be overclocked, most would agree with that.

Of course this isn't a fair comparison. I'm only saying that to many people, it doesn't always come to single threaded performance, specially in the gaming department since they are heading to multi-threaded technology. But yes, I really hope AMD would do better in their upcoming performance/gaming CPUs as they haven't been doing so recently.

Well, AMD aren't totally abysmal. There are limits. That game did it. It handled it with that single threaded performance. But that doesn't mean the underlying limitation isn't there for it to happen for other games or new games. The fundamental factor is that you can't really make live-interaction software without relying on a "parent" thread because simply you have to have synchronicity, it's not off line video rendering that you can just split something to 999 pieces and don't care if each core is abysmally slow. In gaming threads have to report to their parent and if the parent is slow enough, the whole game will be slow enough (including the other system overheads during the process, it's simplified here). You can be a good programmer and refine it and refine it and refine it even more, but at the end of the day, you can't be only parallel, you have to report to the core, you got to give something concise to the gamer, you have to put the pieces together and total parallelism can not do it.
PC
(9 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4790K 4.6G 1.24v/1.74v, 5.1G 1.35v validation. GA-Z97X-Gaming 7 Tri-X R9 290 1100/1350 +0.012v G.Skill 2400 c10 
CoolingMonitorPowerCase
Noctua NH-D15 24EA53 IPS 76Hz OC EVGA 1000 G2 Phanteks Enthoo Pro 
Audio
SoundMagic E10 
  hide details  
Reply
PC
(9 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4790K 4.6G 1.24v/1.74v, 5.1G 1.35v validation. GA-Z97X-Gaming 7 Tri-X R9 290 1100/1350 +0.012v G.Skill 2400 c10 
CoolingMonitorPowerCase
Noctua NH-D15 24EA53 IPS 76Hz OC EVGA 1000 G2 Phanteks Enthoo Pro 
Audio
SoundMagic E10 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD - General
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD - General › An interesting article from someone who researched AMD