Overclock.net banner

281 - 283 of 283 Posts

·
OG AMD
Joined
·
8,884 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,981 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
771 Posts
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.
 
281 - 283 of 283 Posts
Top