Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Sep 18, 2012.
tdp 125 watts? i expect lower than that
Yes there is also a 95W too.
Yes me too. With enough tweaking it should be more than enough to put Bulldozer behind us.
Hopefully, Steam Roller should literally make it disappear.
I'm in. I can run it at this speed on air. Like its purpose, it'll be stop gap till steamroller, for me.
At this clock is where the limitations in BD start to break down. It scales better than 100%.
With the fixes in steam roller and even higher clocks, it should do well.
I'm just hoping the fx-8350 is faster than my x6 so I can finally upgrade my cpu...now just waiting for reviews.
If some guy at an event asked me to go to his hotel room to look at his new cpu I would run the other way.:shadedshu
My thinking is AMD "Vishera" will supply more of an overall gain than Intel provided with Ivy Bridge. So they will gain some ground.
Where Intel got better with Ivy Bridge is they appear to have afforded slightly more aggressive price points. If AMD can/will come in at even better pricing (is yet to be seen) it would have merit. What is apparent they can't come with the obstinate pricing levels they thought they could run with at Bulldozers' release... it won’t fly.
It will be faster than that. Look at the Trinity Mobile APU reviews, It's more than 5% faster than BD already. Desktop Piledriver will have more cache than Trinity and is an enthusiast chip so it goes without saying that it'll be even faster. But I agree Steamroller is where AMD should gain it's biggest momentum.
That was back in April of 2012. It very clear that the desktop Piledriver are going to be beasts in performance and priced very well. In this respect, AMD really has no choice but to offer better price/performance vs anything Intel has out. AMD need to sell and keep selling real bad.
Some crazy rumour about Piledriver is really a Bulldozer but higher clocked is garbage talk. Dont remember where I read this, but this will not be the case, we r talking about the same design but greatly tweaked with added MMX instructions for Piledriver.
Piledriver IMO will not be a slouch, it's should perform very well and finally outperform any Phenom II's out.
Well, you'd hope so...but AMD have spent more time and resources telling the world+dog about Steamroller than Piledriver. In fact, AMD have been downright reticent regarding Piledriver publicity....no bombast and WR's under LN2/LHe...no new AMD chipset boards announced - even AMD's technology seems to have bypassed Piledriver desktop
Intel's 3770K represents a ~11% raw performance (CPU only) lift over the 2700K -i.e. clock-for-clock, without power saving taken into account. The FX-8350 would need to beat that if your view is correct
That's fine there's a ton of time, they can lay low it's more rousing that way when it does hit. All that irresponsible crap builds expectancy and stupid gossip. AMD on the graphic side has work with "the fly low and avoid the radar", that approach concisely provides one little thing here, a good tid-bit a few weeks later. The less boisterous the better. All that stuff was what I thought hurt the Bulldozer release more than disappointing performance. And we wonder why folks where let go and Rory can to town.
My Phenom II is faster at cine bench and most applications that Bulldozer is clock for clock.
I have proven it with scores. Should I be banned?
Lol, they are both based on different micro architectures. Clock for clock comparisons are 1000% completely pointless. You should know this, but I understand you were making a point.
Now comparing Piledriver to Bulldozer is a different story. Both must be benched Clock for Clock regardless of price so long as they are based on a similar design.
Clock for clock is a well known comparison that has been used for as long as processors have been around. How else are you supposed to compare performance?
probly because it won't pass a 3DMark11 run =/
so it runs at 5Ghz and still gets beat by a core i3 running at 3.5
AMD is Disappoint
perhaps they will learn and throw bulldozer in the trash and hire some fresh talent and start over sad to see AMD like this
they need to realise that clock speed is no longer relevant
The same thing with the Pentium 4 vs. Athlon 64. The 64 blew away the P4 clock for clock. But they were both different designs. Not a fair comparison. The P4 relied on higher clocks, just like today's Bulldozer.
Nonsense lol, Excavator will resolve the current Bulldozer issues. I can see AMD revising the pipes and shortening them.
Intel didnt realize their problem till they launched preshott. Hopefully AMD realized that with BD
I would say that's is a measurement of architecture efficiency rather than a meaningful comparison between CPUs. If a CPU with 12IPC @ 2.4Ghz goes agaisnt an 8IPC CPU @ 4Ghz it's going to lose anyway.
heat/voltage and power draw are the biggest issues of chips running at higher clocks, everyone else the chip has to be as efficient as it can be to meet space requirements
the only comparison im interested in is:
Maximum Daily clock (PD on Water) vs. Maximum Daily clock (PII on Water)
i've got my PII @ 4.0Ghz with water cooling because that is about as high as i can go as a daily clock. when i upgrade i will do the same thing, i will clock it as high as i can for a dailey on water and see how it compares... clock to clock makes no difference to me if one clocks way past the other on the same cooling system
clock speed != performance
it no longer matters how fast the core is clocking the only thing that _matters_ is how fast it can process data how many frames it can render how many numbers it can crunch the rest is just marketing Bullshit
if CPU A: clocks @2.66Ghz and scores 226000
and CPU:B clocks 3.8Ghz and scores 128000
Cpu A: is still faster period end of discussion gameover
overclocking is no longer a marketable thing it won't be long before they toss the "rated speed" right out the window and simply let the cpu decide what frequency it can/needs to run at and I wish they would
ill add a Prime example a Athlon II X4 gets beat across the board by a i3(YES even in apps that can use the 2extra cores the i3 is still faster by a margin) thats how much better intels tech is sorry but the benchmarks don't lie and in some cases it even bests a Phenom II x4 I am not even gonna mention the slower but newer FX chips
*selling a inferior product at a lower price != good way to stay competitive
Running a CPU in Async Mode doesnt help it because at one moment it can be at its best performance then at another moment it can be at its worst and it wouldnt even care what data there is, it be worst when you have a large amt when it needs to be at its best. Troubleshooting issues is unpredictable too
So if OCing wasnt marketable why does both Intel and AMD have Unlocked Multiplier CPUs then? Intel part a K Model runs for several bux more (I recall seeing them be 100 dollars more than non K parts)
Let me guess Anandtech?
Because this review here shows the Athlon II X4 beating the i3 in most benchmarks at a lower clock speed.
you question Anandtech and then quote guru3d lol funny Guy.
Hilbert is a idiot and his methods are questionable at best. why do you think the vendors almost completely ignore him.and his site. hes has burned to many bridges made to many bad calls and thanks to all his politics has the creditably of a Nigerian scammer
O yea here a page from TPU's review http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i3_540_530/10.html
*notice that it performs within 1FPS of the faster clocked + extra core'd Phenom II (1FPS = within the error margin)
need I continue ?
at this point I am just bashing AMD because they need a wakeup call ... or intel is gonna take the market and run
Same can be said about anandtech your point is?
And all you have posted to me are gaming FPS yea great way to show off how much more powerful a CPU is then the other :shadedshu
They need quite a sizeable (10%+) performance gain with PD to remain competitive. I want AMD to be good, but I cannot justify getting a new CPU every year or so and still being behind Intel's curve. I can buy an Intel CPU like the Q6600 (which I did) and have it for 3 years (which I did) and it was still running fine, then upgrade to a new Intel CPU like the i5-2500k (did that too) and I guarantee it will be good for another 2 years at least. In that same time frame I would have had to upgrade my AMD CPU like 3 times and would still be behind in performance (would have had to go Phenom I->Phenom II->FX and probably gotten new motherboards). I'll take 2 purchases over 5-6.
Separate names with a comma.