[AMD] AMD Financial Analyst Day 2015 - Page 29 - Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community

Forum Jump: 

[AMD] AMD Financial Analyst Day 2015

Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #281 of 283 (permalink) Old 05-20-2015, 11:22 AM
OG AMD
 
Redwoodz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 8,223
Rep: 580 (Unique: 458)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alatar View Post

Realistically performance/watt of a CPU architecture / node combo at desktop/server clocks is basically the same thing as absolute performance.

If you have better perf/watt you can just keep adding cores and clocks until the competing architecture with worse perf/watt can't keep up anymore.

This is especially true for servers where due to the prices big dies aren't as much of an issue.

Correct. I think AMD is going for performance per watt. I'm fine with a 2.8GHz chip that is 40% faster.

https://valid.x86.fr/cache/banner/4d8m5e-6.png
AMD Athlon II 450 @4.74GHz http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2204588
AMD MaxxMemm Rankings
960T @ 4.6GHz http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2171450
RedwoodCustomPC
AM4
(4 items)
RCPC#1
(17 items)
Professional
(13 items)
CPU
Ryzen 2200G
Motherboard
ASRock X470 Taichi
GPU
MSI RX570 Armor MKII 8GB
Power Supply
GSKill Ripjaws PS850G
CPU
AMD Phenom II X6 960T
Motherboard
Asus M4A88T-VEVO
GPU
Asus Strix R7 370
RAM
SuperTalent Perfomance
RAM
GSkill Snipers
Hard Drive
Monster Daytona
Hard Drive
Seagate Barracuda 500GB 7,200 RPM 16Mb cache
Optical Drive
Memorex DVD/RW
Power Supply
Corsair GS500
Cooling
Corsair H60
Case
In Win H-Frame
Operating System
Windows 8N
Monitor
IBM 9494 19" LCD
Keyboard
IBM
Mouse
OCZ Behemoth
Mouse
Wolfking
Audio
JBL Creature
CPU
Phenom II X6 1100t
Motherboard
MSI 890FX GD65
GPU
MSI Radeon HD5670
RAM
GSkill RipjawsX DDR3 PC3 12800 2x4GB CL8
Hard Drive
WD Black 1TB SATA III
Optical Drive
Samsung BD
Power Supply
Kingwin Lazer Platinum 500w
Cooling
Zalman 9900MAX
Case
Fractal Design R3
Operating System
Windows 7 64 Professional
Monitor
AOC 22" LED
Keyboard
Logitech
Other
Samsung 470 SSD 128GB
▲ hide details ▲


Redwoodz is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #282 of 283 (permalink) Old 05-20-2015, 12:04 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
deepor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 4,714
Rep: 472 (Unique: 318)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redwoodz View Post

Correct. I think AMD is going for performance per watt. I'm fine with a 2.8GHz chip that is 40% faster.

AMD are also the ones that still might sell a CPU using their FX brand without any integrated graphics for a price that competes with the Intel CPUs for the LGA1150 socket. The integrated graphics eat up a lot of space on the die of those Intel CPUs. A competing product that comes close to the performance of the individual cores of those CPUs, but then has six cores or eight cores instead of just max. four would have been a very attractive CPU for me personally.

I think a product like that would compete very well while manufacturing costs would be good for AMD's profit. The added cores compared to Intel would not increase the cost for them because they would be missing the graphics part. For me, 16 threads for the price of an LGA1150 i7 sounds like a pretty sweet deal even if the cores are only roughly similar performance.
deepor is offline  
post #283 of 283 (permalink) Old 05-20-2015, 06:27 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Tojara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Finland
Posts: 771
Rep: 53 (Unique: 44)
Quote:
Originally Posted by deepor View Post

AMD are also the ones that still might sell a CPU using their FX brand without any integrated graphics for a price that competes with the Intel CPUs for the LGA1150 socket. The integrated graphics eat up a lot of space on the die of those Intel CPUs. A competing product that comes close to the performance of the individual cores of those CPUs, but then has six cores or eight cores instead of just max. four would have been a very attractive CPU for me personally.

I think a product like that would compete very well while manufacturing costs would be good for AMD's profit. The added cores compared to Intel would not increase the cost for them because they would be missing the graphics part. For me, 16 threads for the price of an LGA1150 i7 sounds like a pretty sweet deal even if the cores are only roughly similar performance.
The platform will probably be rather cheap as well, if it really has integrated north+southbridge. There isn't all that much left on the motherboard at that point.
Tojara is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off