Production of AMD "Piledriver" FX Processors Begin Q3 2012

[eidairaman1]

Originally Posted by techtard

AMD fans should learn from the Bulldozer/FX launch. Don't get your hopes up. Too much hype will start another massive troll fest and flame war.

For most average computer users AMD CPUs are perfectly fine, all they need to do is power the OS, web-browser and e-mail client.

'Enthusuiasts' need to realize that they are not the only computer users, and not everyone needs the absolute best PC.

to me sounds like youre already trying to start one

just my 2 cents

[Fourstaff]

Originally Posted by theoneandonlymrk

beguiles me when i here this?

im the average user ,my rigs listed ,my pc is folding for Tpu in the chimpchallenge(last ditch promotion) and is running 1520 threads at the minute, not gameing is doing my nut by the way, ive not been off ere at all>

No, the moment you start folding you become a power user. In fact, if use your pc more than interwebs, microsoft office, games, music and watching "good stuff" you are a power user.

[ensabrenoir]

........naaah we've all ridden this bus before.... wake me when we have some software that makes the solder on the back of my motherboard weep

[theoneandonlymrk]

Originally Posted by Fourstaff

No, the moment you start folding you become a power user. In fact, if use your pc more than interwebs, microsoft office, games, music and watching "good stuff" you are a power user.

ok but an average users still, allways going to have hundreds of threads running ,not one. though the one thread on BD does work slower then equivalent cpu's its allways multi tasking anyway unless you force the process to run one thread on one paticular core or optimisations make that happen

never office though, no no that wouldnt do

[suraswami]

Originally Posted by techtard

AMD fans should learn from the Bulldozer/FX launch. Don't get your hopes up. Too much hype will start another massive troll fest and flame war.

For most average computer users AMD CPUs are perfectly fine, all they need to do is power the OS, web-browser and e-mail client.

'Enthusuiasts' need to realize that they are not the only computer users, and not everyone needs the absolute best PC.

So you mean to say only high end Intel CPUs can compile video and play games, AMD CPUs will fart and die in the middle of such hard session?

In that case I want to see one in such action

[Vinska]

Originally Posted by techtard

For most average computer users AMD CPUs are perfectly fine, all they need to do is power the OS, web-browser and e-mail client.

'Enthusuiasts' need to realize that they are not the only computer users, and not everyone needs the absolute best PC.

Hehe, for such users, even the weakest AMD Fusion chip would be way more than what they need 99.999% of the time.

./non_serious_mode
...unless they never find out about those mythical "ad-blockers". In that case even the fastest CPU on the market would be Not Quite Enough™.

[Prima.Vera]

Originally Posted by Dent1

Dude read my post again. As far as Phenom II and Bulldozer you just agreed with me



Also, if we are in agreement the 9650, Phenom II and Bulldozer perform about the same (atleast in single threaded games) That means it's impossible for Phenom II to be 15% faster than Bulldozer as Hustler suggested

The only problem is that the Q9650 was made in 2007...5 fracking years ago!

[Syborfical]

Originally Posted by theoneandonlymrk

its sad someone taught you to use a keyboard

Taught? It just happened.

I use to be a hardcore AMD nut.
Now days I don't give a flying f...

But the FX74 and the FX72 where nice processors in there day.
FX where like the muscle car but in a CPU.

Now days AMD has dragged the FX name through the mud.
Maybe they meant MX like the MX range of Geforce Video cards.

Either way AMD still make CPU's they suck at marketing....

[Vinska]

Originally Posted by Syborfical

Either way AMD [...] suck at marketing....

Even though I'm a massive AMD CPU fanboy, I fully agree with that.

[techtard]

Wow reading comprehension is lacking in this thread.
Nowhere did I state that the AMD cpus are lacking for gaming or bad at encoding.

I just came from an AM2+ platform that lasted about 4 years. I was and still am impressed by the performance I got out of the setup.

I was simply stating that AMD is fine for most of the computing population, and somehow people took that to be an attack on AMD or enthusiasts.

It's shameful how fanboy-ism ruins threads.

[Dent1]

Originally Posted by Prima.Vera

The only problem is that the Q9650 was made in 2007...5 fracking years ago!

Phenom II was released in 2009. What is your point.

Your point had no relevance to anything I was saying prior in regards to the OPs upgrade choice.

[babash*t]

People still waste time on this AMD-hate argument?? Jeez, Intel fanbois and their insecurity issues.

[Aquinus]

You know, I keep saying this and I seem to have to remind everyone of this when people start hating on BD and PD. The simple fact is there is less and less single-threaded software now and software companies tend (if they're smart,) to make software to be multithreaded when it needs that extra compute power. If AMD increases the IPC on PD, you're not just increasing it on 4 cores, but rather 8. I would like to see an Intel chip for the same price as the 8120 that can encode video, play a video game, and be updating Windows and still have some kick to do something else as well. Intel's HyperThreading is nice, but it doesn't scale well and only does so good on selective workloads since it's only used unused portions of the CPU where BD/PD has dedicated extra hardware to running those extra threads so scaling is much more linear on multi-threaded workloads.

Is AMD slower than Intel thread for thread? YES! Only an idiot would try to dispute that because AMD's IPC isn't up to par and quite frankly neither is AMD's IMC (now, it used to be good but they haven't changed a whole lot to it, also having a SB-E with quad-channel memory, it won't help you until you start running the CPU (all cores,) over 50% and even that is dependent on the workloads.)

Is AMD, as a multi-threaded platform, better than Intel? With SB, sure was. Only problem is the majority of users don't use that kind of software and it isn't widely available for most tasks.

As I see it the following will happen with PD gets released in comparison to IVB. IPC will be improved but will still trail IVB and maybe even still SB. Clocks on PD will be increased for the FX processors and power consumption will be moderated with the use of RCM. However where the IPC improvement will really shine is multi-threaded workloads (once again,) since that IPC improvement will be across all logical threads and not just the physical modules. With that said I once again believe we will see AMD demolishing multi-threaded workloads and being just good enough on single-threaded workloads. So a mixture of IPC improvements and clock speed bumps I think we should see a decent product.

I think a lot of people need to realize that AMD and Intel have two different goals in mind with their CPUs and I think AMD has the right idea even if it isn't proving to be the right one as it stands right now. Don't get me wrong, I like both AMD and Intel as companies, it's why I've been bopping between the two for the last several years, but right now Intel has the crown so I went with SB-E. AMD is making their architecture so it will scale nicely, Intel on the other hand is still squeezing performance out of their same architecture, which isn't a bad move, but I bet you that Intel will find that there will come a point where you can only improve the architecture so much. Keep in mind that a BD module is only like, what, 20% larger than a Phenom II core? As far as raw performance for the size of the module's die size, that's pretty impressive and if AMD keeps going that route we could see CPUs with a lot more cores and a lot more multi-threaded horsepower while Intel is still leading single-threaded tasks.

Additionally, for the cost, I would jump on an Interlagos 16-core CPU for servers rather than an 8-core Xeon, mainly because the 8-core Xeons run really hot and don't have as much kick for server applications and costs half as much.

I just thought that pointing out both Intel and AMD's strong points would be better than saying what each of them sucks as doing because honestly, they're both good chips, just Intel does some things better than AMD and AMD does some things better than Intel, simple as that.

[Dent1]

Originally Posted by babash*t

People still waste time on this AMD-hate argument?? Jeez, Intel fanbois and their insecurity issues.

Says the person the revives a month old thread!