1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD Readies 16-core Processors with Full Uncore

Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Jan 17, 2014.

  1. lilhasselhoffer

    lilhasselhoffer

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,657 (1.27/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,013
    Location:
    East Coast, USA

    Did you read the original post? You claim that the post is 100% stupid, but you don't even bother to read.

    I stated that AMD is increasing core count, and that's not an optimal strategy for the consumer CPU market. More cores are bringing us closer to a true fusion of GPU and CPU. I stated that the core count increase is detrimental to consumers, because they are fusing the tablet, desktop, and server market. At no point in time did I reference graphical performance numbers. The point of this article was not graphics, but a CPU with a monstrous core count more akin to what you might see in a GPU.

    If you need to stick your foot in your mouth, please do so without calling someone else an idiot. Every person eventually commits a stupid act (I've had my fair share); but missing the point of a post, the point of the thread, and then calling someone else stupid is an act of either brazen ignorance or willful trolling. I have no love or hate for AMD, Nvidea, or Intel. I find it interesting that they are so blatantly leaving the consumer CPU market. Either their vision is so forward thinking that they will have the last laugh, or they have just run full speed into a brick wall. It will be interesting to see what comes of this, and how it hopefully influence desktop computing.
     
  2. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,158 (1.94/day)
    Thanks Received:
    915
    What makes you think AMD care about competing with Intel on a performance level? The objective is to capture a larger market share and thus increase revenue for share holders. No point having the best performing product if nobody buys it.

    AMD is probably doing whatever is cost effective for them and the most beneficial to them in the long term, although we probably can't see it now their key shareholders sat in a meeting and agreed this strategy, and right or wrong this was their best solution.


    I agree. Improving single threaded performance should be secondary. There isn't a single game or application that the average desktop user can't do.

    When the need for more cores becomes necessary the work AMD did on their multiple module design will pay off. Even Intel's hyper threading wasn't successful at first, it took lots of trial and error and a decade later we all see the benefits. Same thing with AMD module principle.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2014
    Vinska says thanks.
  3. Vinska

    Vinska

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    1,419 (1.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,259
    Location:
    Kaunas, Lithuania
    I need. Most of the workloads I do are very heavily threaded. So I would trade my 8-core to, for example, a [hypothetical] CPU of the same architecture with 16 cores while having 35% lower clocks anytime.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  4. Eukashi

    Eukashi

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2013
    Messages:
    4 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Please 4GHz 4M/8C 256SP-GCN APU on Socket FM2+.
    When I record PC games, more CPU core is required for x264VFW.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2014
  5. Lionheart

    Lionheart

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Messages:
    4,065 (1.71/day)
    Thanks Received:
    812
    Location:
    Milky Way Galaxy
    Every thread I see you in you're always bashing AMD, give it a rest o_O
     
    fullinfusion says thanks.
  6. eidairaman1

    eidairaman1

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    13,075 (4.88/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,652
    This is definitely a preview of what AMD has in store, first Kaveri, now Hexadecimal Core- maybe the introduction of it to AM3 or an 8 core model Steamroller for AM3+ then Hexadecimal core on the next Desktop socket
     
  7. TRWOV

    TRWOV

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    3,583 (3.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,151
    Location:
    Mexico
    More like 150w, if done on 28nm.


    According to AMD's roadmap, Vishera 32mn is as far as AM3+ gets.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  8. arbiter

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    231 (0.27/day)
    Thanks Received:
    31
    AMD single thread is good enough? Yea really? How many games at this point in time for example uses more then 4 threads? Heck even a lot of programs don't really use much more then 2. Less you get in to encoding graphic design kinda stuff that really helps a ton in. AMD really should put some R&D in to increasing performance cause don't think to many games will span much past 4 cores on best top side which puts AMD behind a bit, on top of that they use 50% more power then the competitors cpu. Yea AMD cpu looks good cause initial cheaper cost but over year or 2 that cost even's out when it add's up in an eletric bill. AMD needs to get i would say either same performance with lower wattage or same wattage with say around 30% boost in single thread work loads. But that game seems to change quick when the 6/8core haswells come out in next 6ish months.
     
  9. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    20,064 (6.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,123
    The current 16-Core parts are 115w on 32nm, so I'm guessing these would likely be similar but with higher clocks.

    There isn't anything that relies on single threaded performance, games included, that don't run well on AMDs. There was a time when software was outpacing hardware, but we've reached a point where the hardware has caught up and software has sat stagnant. There are a lot of people still running modern games on Core 2s(heck one of my gaming rigs is a Celeron E3300) and they are still working just fine. And the FX series is beyond Core 2 in single threaded performance. So, yes, AMD's single threaded performance is good enough.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2014
    eidairaman1 and Vinska say thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU 50 Million points folded for TPU
  10. RCoon

    RCoon Gaming Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    7,483 (8.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,623
    Location:
    Gypsyland, UK
    I own an 8350, I can 'opinion away' all I like. I was an amd fan through and through, then they messed up and completely disappointed me and everyone else.
     
  11. Frick

    Frick Fishfaced Nincompoop

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10,809 (3.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,353
    That is because you let yourself believe the hype. You're blaming AMD for your personal failures!

    Seriousy though, newtekies idea with a unified socket is great. I'd buy into that.
     
    AsRock, james888, Vinska and 2 others say thanks.
  12. Ravenas

    Ravenas

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,690 (1.73/day)
    Thanks Received:
    349
    Location:
    Tennessee
    Are you telling me that I am completely disappointed with my 8350? Ha ha ha. Please stop trying to speak for people on this thread.
     
    Vinska says thanks.
  13. Mindweaver

    Mindweaver Moderato®™ Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Messages:
    5,270 (2.60/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,748
    Location:
    Statesville, NC
    I'll take a 16 core desktop! :toast: These should make great crunchers/folders.
     
    james888, Vinska, Norton and 1 other person say thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  14. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,158 (1.94/day)
    Thanks Received:
    915
    I'm happy with my 2009 Athlon II X4. Still waiting for games to take advantage of it. Can't say I'm disappointed with AMD. Actually I'm happy that I didn't have to change boards and I was able to drop in this fantastic piece of circuitry and its lasted 4 years and going strong.

    No need to feel disappointed for me. You can have your disappointment back. Here.
     
    Vinska says thanks.
  15. Vinska

    Vinska

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    1,419 (1.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,259
    Location:
    Kaunas, Lithuania
    Okay, most games use 4 threads or even less. But that doesn't mean other cores are useless. I can play games with at worst case negligible (due to no turbo) and at best case no performance loss while recording gameplay at 1920x1080@40 (or more) with superb quality straight into h264 with enough compression to keep the filesize relatively tiny (using ffmpeg+libx264). Meanwhile, a friend with a 4-core Intel said it becomes a bit lacking, reducing performance and making him record at slightly lower video framerates for it to keep up. Video transcoding speed is also very good, as long as using sane software. As @Mindweaver already mentioned, for crunching/folding – more cores, the better. Very important for me – compiling. Compiling benefits greatly from increased core count and pretty much scales linearly. [Re]Compiling larger projects can take very long on just a few cores. As a software engineer / programmer, I often need to recompile large projects several times a day. Especially when doing regression tests, where it can easily need a over dozen recompiles. Thus, when I moved from my dual-core to a octa-core, there was much rejoicing due to reducing compile time of a certain project I work on from ~ one hour to less than five minutes. Also, it is disappointing that in the Windows world a lot of software is still poorly threaded. While on Linux (the OS I use 99% of the time), things tend to be more threaded.

    Sure, I can get the same or even better MT performance with a 6-core HT'ed Intel. But for what? 2x the price or even more? Thanks, but no thanks.

    P.S. +1 to what newtekie1 said

    Okay, I kept deciding on not pointing this out, but I will. Since people tend to needlessly bash AMD for inefficient design when it comes to power consumption.
    Example, sorted from most to least watts allocated to a single core:
    Code:
    i7-3820  – 4 cores, 130W TDP; 130 / 4 =   32.5W per core
    FX-4350  – 4 cores, 125W TDP; 125 / 4 =  31.25W per core
    FX-9590  – 8 cores, 220W TDP; 220 / 8 =   27.5W per core
    i7-3970X – 6 cores, 150W TDP; 150 / 6 =     25W per core
    i7-2600K – 4 cores,  95W TDP;  95 / 4 =  23.75W per core
    FX-4320  – 4 cores,  95W TDP;  95 / 4 =  23.75W per core
    i5-2450P – 4 cores,  95W TDP;  95 / 4 =  23.75W per core
    i7-4770K – 4 cores,  84W TDP;  84 / 4 =     21W per core
    FX-6350  – 6 cores, 125W TDP; 125 / 6 =  20.83W per core
    i5-3550  – 4 cores,  77W TDP;  77 / 4 =  19.25W per core
    i3-2330M – 2 cores,  35W TDP;  35 / 2 =   17.5W per core
    FX-6300  – 6 cores.  95W TDP;  95 / 6 =  15.83W per core
    FX-8350  – 8 cores, 125W TDP; 125 / 8 = 15.625W per core
    OH SNAP it appears that if we consider how much TDP is allocated to a single core, it doesn't look like AMD CPUs are inefficient – the power per core is quite low, relatively. Which is only possible if the cores are efficient enough.

    >completely disappointed me and everyone else
    >implying
    >implying


    You are implying too much, sir.
    P.S. I totally love it.

    Yeah, what He said. When You, @RCoon, say "and everyone else", You take on quite a bit of responsibility, Ya know...
     
    Dent1 and Mindweaver say thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  16. RCoon

    RCoon Gaming Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    7,483 (8.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,623
    Location:
    Gypsyland, UK
    Seems like there's a lot of people kidding themselves in this forum. Waste of my time.
     
  17. TRWOV

    TRWOV

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    3,583 (3.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,151
    Location:
    Mexico
    I'm so disappointed that I went and bought only 4 of them.




    Intel's TDP isn't calculated in the same way as AMD's TDP. Intel's TDP is rated higher than the actual value because it's a worst case scenario. AMD's TDP is the average power draw during a set of test workloads.


    Let's not kid ourselves. Intel CPUs are more energy efficient than AMD CPUs, that's a given, but AMD CPUs aren't terribly inefficient considering their core count.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2014
    Crunching for Team TPU
  18. fullinfusion

    fullinfusion 1.21 Gigawatts

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    8,352 (3.36/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,142
    Then leave Mr downer! o_O
     
    AsRock and Prima.Vera say thanks.
  19. Vinska

    Vinska

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    1,419 (1.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,259
    Location:
    Kaunas, Lithuania
    LOL. I thought it was the other way round.
    And my FX-8320 only goes close to TDP when overclocked, where it hovers around 120-123 W on full load, as reported by internal sensors or whatever sh*t.
    And when I overclock More Than I Should™, it appears to drop my voltage on load to zealously keep the power consumption below 124.75W no matter what. Unless I disable lotsa stuff and turn on several overrides (can't find a better word) that my previous mobo didn't even have. (So my previous mobo was zealously keeping the power draw like this all the time)
    So, from what I saw with my own eyes, saying that AMD's TDP is "average power draw" must be very much false.

    Real smooth. That just shows You are out of arguments and don't have anything genuinely useful to say. Aww well...
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  20. TRWOV

    TRWOV

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    3,583 (3.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,151
    Location:
    Mexico
    AMD themselves say that it's an average:

    http://www.amd.com/us/Documents/43761D-ACP_PowerConsumption.pdf

    EDIT: That being said, AMD tests with lower binned parts so you could say that it's TDP is an average of the lowest binned CPUs.



    It could be that your motherboard is undervolting your CPU, my GA-880GM-USB3 undervolts my 8350 to 1.28v when I set voltage on AUTO.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2014
    HTC and Vinska say thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  21. Vinska

    Vinska

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    1,419 (1.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,259
    Location:
    Kaunas, Lithuania
    isn't that just for Opterons?
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  22. micropage7

    micropage7

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    5,985 (3.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,394
    Location:
    Jakarta, Indonesia
    yeah, one major problem ofAMD is power consumption
    come on AMD
     
  23. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,158 (1.94/day)
    Thanks Received:
    915
    So your saying this forum only makes good use of your time when we share your views and agree with you?
     
  24. theoneandonlymrk

    theoneandonlymrk

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    3,412 (2.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    572
    Location:
    Manchester uk
    I feckin love the power consumption card, really funny.
    On Tpu most ardent members in actuality smash efficiency to the kerb in favour of Ghz or even Mhz gains , this is not Eco power up that's elsewhere and to the likes of me a few watts means nothing get over it.
    Sdp is coming to Amd parts soon enough mark my words as intels subterfuge seams to have blinded their fans.
    Far to busy kidding myself to rise to Rcoons Bs.
     
    eidairaman1 says thanks.
    More than 25k PPD
  25. NeoXF

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Messages:
    615 (0.80/day)
    Thanks Received:
    80
    As much as I'd like to see a (very plausible) 6M/12T/12 core Steamroller w/ L3 and PCI-Express 3.0 (that admitedly, currently would be platform-less)... I'm still rooting for APUs, now more than ever. Software developers and open sources projects need to get their shit together and cook us some HSA magic tho. So far we've only got 2-3 actual previews and a handful of promises from developers X and Y.

    IMHO, HSA needs to be pushed from the ARM front too if it wants get full-scale traction.
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page