Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Is AMD Ever Gonna Make A Great CPU? - Page 2

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • AMD
  • Intel
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 3, 2012 2:40:36 AM

radnor said:
For 160 Euro, MB + CPU + 8 GB RAM in a Mini-itx format with USB3, SATA3, 64 Bits and Hyper-V/VT-X, Intel can't touch it. Really. For a home lab VMware, you really dont need a Hyper Powerful CPU, it is mostly about RAM and HDD. And x64 CPU with VM microcode.

Gaming wise, it is a 4850 CF. With 2 and half years or so. Intel at the time had nothing on it price point.Even at this point the CPU is

Is BD crap ? So far i didn't had the opportunity to test in a ...DNS Cluster ? IIS/Apache/Tomcat machine ? AD DS system ? LDAP server ?

So, BD is a server chip, so is Nehalem. We gamers are a small part of the pie. Very small. Server is another business.
CPU is for working GPU is for gaming, for now.


It would be for those types considering it has a power draw of almost 50% more than a 2600K and overall less performance.

Still you don't get good vs great. I don't consider BD crap, its just not great. Not even sure if I would call it good. Phenom was not good either. Low clocks, low IPC and high power draw. Phenom II was/is good but its still not great as it put its performance to where Phenom I should have been, or at least where it should have been per AMD.

Core 2 was a great CPU as it came in and beat AMD in everything Pentium 4 did not; power usage, IPC and performance.
Score
0
a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
March 4, 2012 6:53:50 AM

Now what if you are an intel enthusiast^^
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2012 4:28:07 PM

Quote:
AMD will not go bankrupt .. they bought ATI for like a billion or more dollars not long ago, they have some cash, Intels scare mongering just seems to effect the less knowledgable :) 


Try $5.4BN for the ATI purchase. With the senior notes interest, it came out to nearly $6BN. Of that, AMD has written off nearly the entire amount as "goodwill" loss. Not that they are planning to donate ATI to Goodwill :p , but that the actual current book value of ATI is much, much closer to zero than to $5.4BN.. If AMD had waited as little as 6 months they could likely have paid half that amount..

Quote:
PCs are a hobby of mine and thats one reason why I choose AMD - to getter better results with my AMD compared to the equivalent Intel product. I choose to fiddle with o/c and voltage/cooling etc.. and .. I really really like doing that and it doesnt cost a great deal :) 

So AMD do make a great cpu, you just have to be an enthusiest to get the most out of them :) 

Happy Computing !


Most of us here are enthusiasts, as are all the benchmarking sites like Anandtech, Tom's, and a couple dozen other sites. And most of those reviews show signficantly worse results for BD than for the lower priced 2500K in gaming and the higher-priced 2600K in video/audio/photoshop stuff.
Score
0
Related resources
a b à CPUs
March 11, 2012 1:34:09 AM

netops07 said:
The company has all but secured the gpu market for all next gen consoles and they are putting a ton of focus into their APU. You have to think about something than the high end power user which is the minority. I was quite critical of AMD after the BD release, but if you look at what they are doing it all makes sense and could lead to some pretty sweet solutions in the not so distant future.

No NVIDIA seems to be winning in the gpu stuff.
Score
0
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 11, 2012 6:02:52 AM

melikepie said:
No NVIDIA seems to be winning in the gpu stuff.


Right now AMD has the crown with the HD7900 series. It may change with Keplers release. Hell we had a customer wanting a system built with a GTX680, which isn't out till at least next month.

On DT nVidia is winning but AMD is supposed to be getting the next gen consoles and I can see why. Its cheaper to have a single company make the parts than multiple. And it will save power if you can have it as a SoC instead of multiple parts. Right now Intels IGP is not powerful enough and nVidias CPUs are ARM based and very weak. AMD is the only logical solution for consoles.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 11, 2012 6:56:22 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Right now AMD has the crown with the HD7900 series. It may change with Keplers release. Hell we had a customer wanting a system built with a GTX680, which isn't out till at least next month.

On DT nVidia is winning but AMD is supposed to be getting the next gen consoles and I can see why. Its cheaper to have a single company make the parts than multiple. And it will save power if you can have it as a SoC instead of multiple parts. Right now Intels IGP is not powerful enough and nVidias CPUs are ARM based and very weak. AMD is the only logical solution for consoles.

Who says AMD will be used for the new consoles?
Score
0
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 11, 2012 7:16:33 AM

melikepie said:
Who says AMD will be used for the new consoles?


Its just a rumor for now as MS wont confirm anything but as I said, it makes sense. Also considering that IBM is no longer producing the Cell CPU, I can see why Sony would also go with AMD.

Logically they are the best to go with for a overall decent system. Sure they could go with a AMD GPU and Intel CPU or some other but why when you can have a SoC that costs less and is easier to work with than something like Cell?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 11, 2012 7:18:41 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Its just a rumor for now as MS wont confirm anything but as I said, it makes sense. Also considering that IBM is no longer producing the Cell CPU, I can see why Sony would also go with AMD.

Logically they are the best to go with for a overall decent system. Sure they could go with a AMD GPU and Intel CPU or some other but why when you can have a SoC that costs less and is easier to work with than something like Cell?

Wait... IBM made the 360 and ps3 cpu?
Score
0
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 11, 2012 7:23:39 AM

melikepie said:
Wait... IBM made the 360 and ps3 cpu?


Yes. IBM made both. PS3 uses Cell, 360 used a PowerPC based 3 core CPU.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 11, 2012 7:25:34 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Yes. IBM made both. PS3 uses Cell, 360 used a PowerPC based 3 core CPU.

wow why did'nt ibm flaw the cell so 360 would be epic
which is better cell or powerpc x3?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 11, 2012 2:00:36 PM

The cell is a more powerful cpu, but harder to program for.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 11, 2012 2:25:27 PM

jimmysmitty said:
Yes. IBM made both. PS3 uses Cell, 360 used a PowerPC based 3 core CPU.


i've actually visited the facility IBM has to make them.
Score
0
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 11, 2012 6:12:49 PM

melikepie said:
wow why did'nt ibm flaw the cell so 360 would be epic
which is better cell or powerpc x3?


grumbledook said:
The cell is a more powerful cpu, but harder to program for.


Actually that can be argued. You see the PowerPC 3 core is three PPe CPUs while the Cell is one PPE with 7 SPEs, one in reserve and one as a backup so in reality its one PPE with 5 SPEs.

Overall a PPE is much more powerful than a SPE, a SPE can be though of like SMT just weaker than a full core.

dirtyferret said:
i've actually visited the facility IBM has to make them.


Fun. I have only toured a Ti facility here in town. And Raytheon. And Hughes before it became Raytheon.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 11, 2012 6:29:52 PM

jimmysmitty said:
Actually that can be argued. You see the PowerPC 3 core is three PPe CPUs while the Cell is one PPE with 7 SPEs, one in reserve and one as a backup so in reality its one PPE with 5 SPEs.

Overall a PPE is much more powerful than a SPE, a SPE can be though of like SMT just weaker than a full core.



Fun. I have only toured a Ti facility here in town. And Raytheon. And Hughes before it became Raytheon.


Cool then we might be living in the same state, I had family that worked for Raytheon.
Score
0
March 11, 2012 6:56:24 PM

why isn't AMD as good anymore? When I bought this AMD X2 6000+ weren't they the time?

I also use to have an AMD 64 3400+. I think it was one of the best during it's time.

How did Intel become the best?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 11, 2012 10:11:32 PM

zyzz said:
why isn't AMD as good anymore? When I bought this AMD X2 6000+ weren't they the time?

I also use to have an AMD 64 3400+. I think it was one of the best during it's time.

How did Intel become the best?

Well the core 2 could have more cores at higher clock speeds and so the old athlons were not as good and amd kept the same performence per core while intel kept getting better and better chips so intel is much better, amd is currently at bulldozer which the fx-4100 is almost the same as the core 2 quad so there kinda late. Who knows if amd will ever catch up to intel since to make something the same as IB at amd's rate it's gonna take years, by then intel will still be the best.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 11, 2012 10:33:13 PM

melikepie said:
well they might not do so well with all the money they spend on there CPUs and i think they need to fix that before they can move on and im hoping for an am3+ cpu or all the sad people like me who baught one



I believe in the saying: "You GOT what you've PAID for"
Score
0
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 11, 2012 11:10:17 PM

nforce4max said:
Cool then we might be living in the same state, I had family that worked for Raytheon.


You could be in Cali. Or Arizona. Thats all I know of after Hughes got bought out.

zyzz said:
why isn't AMD as good anymore? When I bought this AMD X2 6000+ weren't they the time?

I also use to have an AMD 64 3400+. I think it was one of the best during it's time.

How did Intel become the best?


They were. But as to how, Intel took the Pentium III Coppermine arch, redesigned it a bit and got higher clocks with higher IPC and lower thermals. The thermals was mainly due to a better process.But the IPC allowed for Core 2 to take back the performance crown and Intel has been just tweaking and enhancing the arch ever since.

Sandy Bridge is the biggest change from Core 2 since core 2 hit.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 11, 2012 11:33:18 PM

jimmysmitty said:
You could be in Cali. Or Arizona. Thats all I know of after Hughes got bought out.



They were. But as to how, Intel took the Pentium III Coppermine arch, redesigned it a bit and got higher clocks with higher IPC and lower thermals. The thermals was mainly due to a better process.But the IPC allowed for Core 2 to take back the performance crown and Intel has been just tweaking and enhancing the arch ever since.

Sandy Bridge is the biggest change from Core 2 since core 2 hit.


Coppermine had issues with it's L1 cache when going over 1.133 ghz. Tualatin on the other hand was overclock able to around 1.6ghz or more on a good board when fsb didn't become an issue.
Score
0
March 12, 2012 12:02:25 AM

melikepie said:
well at this rate i think that intel gonna do just that and then lets see what happends

i really think amd is a failure they really need to look at what intel is doing with ivy bridge and future CPUs and just put all that in a nice really overclockable smaller then 22nm cpu and i will be happy but what exactly matters how small like what does it change and whats 22nm all the prossesers are the same size


You really don't know enough about the computer industry to make the statements you have. Due to laws, Intel has very little control over the total cost of a computer (Anti-Trust and consumer protection laws). Intel can't "completely destroy" AMD as they are the only processor companies competing in the desktop market. Intel also competes against VIA in the embedded market, where AMD used to compete as well, but VIA has no effect on the desktop market. Until ARM processors or VIA enter the desktop market, Intel legally can't do anything to "completely destroy" AMD. In other words, Intel has to make sure AMD can compete in some capacity....

Star72 said:
Really? Then why is this chip almost $30 more than what I paid for it? It doesn't look like Intel wants to keep prices low at all.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Also, if I'm not mistaken (& please correct me if I am) this chip used to be $200: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


Personally I don't believe for a second that prices would lower if AMD was gone, since they seemed to have gone up since Bulldozer's release.

AMD will stick around because they can make a good cpu. In addition to that they make a very good apu, & a great gpu. Plus they seem to have a pretty realistic game plan. It doesn't look like they will be disappearing any time soon.

I've never seen the i7 2600K below $300.....and the i5 2500K has never been $200. The i7 2600 was $300 and the i5 2500 was around $200 at one point, but the "K" series processors are at the same price they've been at for the last year.

melikepie said:
Well the core 2 could have more cores at higher clock speeds and so the old athlons were not as good and amd kept the same performence per core while intel kept getting better and better chips so intel is much better, amd is currently at bulldozer which the fx-4100 is almost the same as the core 2 quad so there kinda late. Who knows if amd will ever catch up to intel since to make something the same as IB at amd's rate it's gonna take years, by then intel will still be the best.

The Conroe architecture had shorter pipelines and higher IPC than the K8 (9-12IPC) or K10 architecture. Conroe had lower clocks speeds compared to the Northwood or Prescott architectures based on NetBurst. NetBurst had long pipelines, which catered to high clock speeds but suffered from low IPC (4-6) as a result. AMD's "Bulldozer" architecture is very similar to Intel's NetBurst architectures in that is has long pipelines and thus, low IPC.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 12, 2012 11:40:26 AM

sykozis said:
You really don't know enough about the computer industry to make the statements you have. Due to laws, Intel has very little control over the total cost of a computer (Anti-Trust and consumer protection laws). Intel can't "completely destroy" AMD as they are the only processor companies competing in the desktop market. Intel also competes against VIA in the embedded market, where AMD used to compete as well, but VIA has no effect on the desktop market. Until ARM processors or VIA enter the desktop market, Intel legally can't do anything to "completely destroy" AMD. In other words, Intel has to make sure AMD can compete in some capacity....


I've never seen the i7 2600K below $300.....and the i5 2500K has never been $200. The i7 2600 was $300 and the i5 2500 was around $200 at one point, but the "K" series processors are at the same price they've been at for the last year.


The Conroe architecture had shorter pipelines and higher IPC than the K8 (9-12IPC) or K10 architecture. Conroe had lower clocks speeds compared to the Northwood or Prescott architectures based on NetBurst. NetBurst had long pipelines, which catered to high clock speeds but suffered from low IPC (4-6) as a result. AMD's "Bulldozer" architecture is very similar to Intel's NetBurst architectures in that is has long pipelines and thus, low IPC.



You can buy i5 2500K for $179.99 in Micro Center, but they only sell in-store only.
Score
0
March 17, 2012 7:38:22 PM

aqe040466 said:
You can buy i5 2500K for $179.99 in Micro Center, but they only sell in-store only.

Their closest store is about 3hrs from me....although, I do get a laugh from them comparing their in-store prices to Newegg's more convenient online price. Only way I could possibly get a processor from them is on our yearly family trip to McHenry, MD.
Score
0
a c 102 à CPUs
March 18, 2012 5:15:22 PM

sykozis said:
You really don't know enough about the computer industry to make the statements you have. Due to laws, Intel has very little control over the total cost of a computer (Anti-Trust and consumer protection laws). Intel can't "completely destroy" AMD as they are the only processor companies competing in the desktop market. Intel also competes against VIA in the embedded market, where AMD used to compete as well, but VIA has no effect on the desktop market. Until ARM processors or VIA enter the desktop market, Intel legally can't do anything to "completely destroy" AMD. In other words, Intel has to make sure AMD can compete in some capacity....


Intel actually has a pretty large amount of control over the price of a standard computer as the CPU is one of the most expensive parts of the computer, and it is the only piece of computer hardware that is not essentially a commodity. You have Microsoft to thank for that one as the Windows monopoly locked in Intel's x86 architecture as THE only CPU architecture anybody wanted for consumer machines. It takes access to Intel's patents to make an x86 CPU and Intel holds onto those with a death grip. Only Intel, AMD and VIA make x86 CPUs, and AMD and VIA were embroiled in massive, recurrent lawsuits to be able to do so. And even with that, VIA's licensing term will be up soon and the only reason Intel let VIA make x86 CPUs is that Intel needed some of VIA's patents. Apparently those VIA patents will expire soon and I predict VIA will be up a creek without a paddle when the current x86 licensing term is up.

What will break Intel's monopoly is the Windows-x86 hegemony breaking. As much as they suck, smartphones and tablets running non-x86/non-Windows and/or Web-based programs is what is going to do this. Once "Windows" and "computing" are no longer synonymous, Intel will be forced to compete with the multitude of non-x86 CPU makers instead of just AMD and VIA. I'd love to see Intel take on somebody more their own size like Samsung. That would be a good battle, I'll bring the popcorn!

Quote:
The Conroe architecture had shorter pipelines and higher IPC than the K8 (9-12IPC) or K10 architecture. Conroe had lower clocks speeds compared to the Northwood or Prescott architectures based on NetBurst. NetBurst had long pipelines, which catered to high clock speeds but suffered from low IPC (4-6) as a result. AMD's "Bulldozer" architecture is very similar to Intel's NetBurst architectures in that is has long pipelines and thus, low IPC.


Conroe actually had a longer pipeline than K8 and K10. Conroe and Nehalem had 14 stages and K8/K10 had 12 stages. We don't know how many Bulldozer has, except that it is more than 12. I'd bet somewhere around 20 based on its frequency and behavior in certain applications. I've also seen no figures given for Sandy Bridge, except that it has more than Conroe/Nehalem. My guess is 15-17.

Also, the actual IPC of any of those CPUs is well under 3, generally on the order of 1.0-1.5. You never get to keep the pipeline 100% full all of the time and retire the maximum theoretical number of instructions every clock cycle. Pipeline stalls due to dependencies, branch mispredictions, and cache misses prevent you from reaching maximum performance. Otherwise, we'd all be using massively wide, in-order units like Itanium. It has a maximum IPC of 8 compared to 3-4 for current x86 CPUs. The reason that long pipeline can hinder performance is that you may have to completely flush it and then refill if you mispredict a branch, etc. Your 20-stage 4.0 GHz CPU takes longer to refill the pipeline and finish operations than a 10-stage 2.5 GHz CPU. However, pipelining is not all bad, you can run the CPU much faster and get much greater throughput with a full pipeline with a long-pipelined, high-clocked CPU than a short-pipelined, low-clocked one. It's just that delicate balance that you have to reach, and it keeps changing. The better you get at minimizing stalls and misses (better branch prediction, bigger/better caches), the longer you can make the pipeline without seriously degrading performance in less than optimal code and the higher peak performance your CPU can attain. That's why we are seeing the number of stages slowly increase, from 10 in the PIII/Athlon to closer to 20 in Sandy Bridge without going the way of the P4's poor performance.
Score
0
March 18, 2012 5:25:09 PM

jimmysmitty said:
Sandy Bridge is the biggest change from Core 2 since core 2 hit.

Why do you say this?

I would have thought the IMC and point-to-point processor interconnect of Nehalem is a bigger jump than anything being done in SB.
Score
0
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 18, 2012 5:40:50 PM

Chad Boga said:
Why do you say this?

I would have thought the IMC and point-to-point processor interconnect of Nehalem is a bigger jump than anything being done in SB.


The IMC was a big change, but I meant in terms of the actual core arch. Overall Nehalem was the Cor 2 arch with tweaks and a IMC. SB on the other hand was redesigend, the OoO engine was changed a lot, same with the cahce system and the new ring bus CPU connection.

Either way though Intel is still using the base Core design and I doubt they will change that unless they find something beter.
Score
0
a c 102 à CPUs
March 18, 2012 8:35:12 PM

Chad Boga said:
Why do you say this?

I would have thought the IMC and point-to-point processor interconnect of Nehalem is a bigger jump than anything being done in SB.


jimmysmitty said:
The IMC was a big change, but I meant in terms of the actual core arch. Overall Nehalem was the Cor 2 arch with tweaks and a IMC. SB on the other hand was redesigend, the OoO engine was changed a lot, same with the cahce system and the new ring bus CPU connection.


The ring bus actually made its debut in the Nehalem-EX Xeon 6500/7500 CPUs. I do agree though, Nehalem is essentially Core + IMC + HyperThreading, while Sandy Bridge makes a few more tweaks to the underlying microarchitecture.

Quote:
Either way though Intel is still using the base Core design and I doubt they will change that unless they find something beter.


It goes even farther back than that. Core (as in Core 2) is the Pentium M/Core (Core as in the original "Yonah" Core Duo) P6+ design modified a bit to handle 64-bit operation, beef up FPU power, and the ability to issue a fourth instruction per clock. P6+ is the original Pentium Pro/PII/PIII P6 design changed to add updated SIMD, op fusion, and the P4's QDR FSB. So in essence, Sandy Bridge is a (highly) tweaked Pentium Pro.

As far as going with something entirely new, I wouldn't bet on it. The last three attempts Intel had at that turned out fairly poorly. Itanium sunk. NetBurst flamed out. Atom wasn't intended to be a very powerful chip, but it didn't even hit those targets very well and gets its butt kicked by AMD's Bobcat and isn't even all that much better than far cheaper and cooler-running ARM CPUs. I'd suggest Intel stick with continuing to modify their tried and true P6+++ architecture ;) 
Score
0
March 18, 2012 10:21:27 PM

jimmysmitty said:
The IMC was a big change, but I meant in terms of the actual core arch. Overall Nehalem was the Cor 2 arch with tweaks and a IMC. SB on the other hand was redesigend, the OoO engine was changed a lot, same with the cahce system and the new ring bus CPU connection.

Either way though Intel is still using the base Core design and I doubt they will change that unless they find something beter.


MU_Engineer said:
The ring bus actually made its debut in the Nehalem-EX Xeon 6500/7500 CPUs. I do agree though, Nehalem is essentially Core + IMC + HyperThreading, while Sandy Bridge makes a few more tweaks to the underlying microarchitecture.


It is a strange thing though when the clock per clock advantage Nehalem has over C2Q, is bigger than the clock per clock advantage SB holds over Nehalem.



Score
0
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 18, 2012 11:05:38 PM

MU_Engineer said:
The ring bus actually made its debut in the Nehalem-EX Xeon 6500/7500 CPUs. I do agree though, Nehalem is essentially Core + IMC + HyperThreading, while Sandy Bridge makes a few more tweaks to the underlying microarchitecture.

Quote:
Either way though Intel is still using the base Core design and I doubt they will change that unless they find something beter.


It goes even farther back than that. Core (as in Core 2) is the Pentium M/Core (Core as in the original "Yonah" Core Duo) P6+ design modified a bit to handle 64-bit operation, beef up FPU power, and the ability to issue a fourth instruction per clock. P6+ is the original Pentium Pro/PII/PIII P6 design changed to add updated SIMD, op fusion, and the P4's QDR FSB. So in essence, Sandy Bridge is a (highly) tweaked Pentium Pro.

As far as going with something entirely new, I wouldn't bet on it. The last three attempts Intel had at that turned out fairly poorly. Itanium sunk. NetBurst flamed out. Atom wasn't intended to be a very powerful chip, but it didn't even hit those targets very well and gets its butt kicked by AMD's Bobcat and isn't even all that much better than far cheaper and cooler-running ARM CPUs. I'd suggest Intel stick with continuing to modify their tried and true P6+++ architecture ;) 


I know all about the Core history. Its a good design overall, and I know Intel probably wont move from it. As I said its only if they find another arch that is more efficient/powerful. It could happen but I doubt it anytime soon.

As for Atom, I think it met its goal easily. It was meant to be cheap and low power, and it does that very well. Bobcat may have the IGP advantage but in terms of power, our AMD ITX has a fan while our Intel ITX does not. The AMD ITX uses a standard ATX PSU, the Intel uses a laptop style outer adapter.

Now its being put into smartphones and looks to have about the same power draw overall as ARM based CPUs while providing equal to or better performance (last performance rumor I saw was showing it more powerfull than the Samsung GSII which is one of the top phones currently.

Thats not even with 22nm. I think Atom will do fine.

Chad Boga said:
It is a strange thing though when the clock per clock advantage Nehalem has over C2Q, is bigger than the clock per clock advantage SB holds over Nehalem.


I think the per clock is dependant. Nehalem did have some minor tweaks but it still wasn't a major change arch wise from Core 2. SB however is and performance wise, its actually quite a bit more than some think.
Score
0
a c 102 à CPUs
March 19, 2012 8:57:03 PM

jimmysmitty said:



I think the per clock is dependant. Nehalem did have some minor tweaks but it still wasn't a major change arch wise from Core 2. SB however is and performance wise, its actually quite a bit more than some think.


Intel putting the IMC in Nehalem gave a pretty decent bump in performance, despite there being very few changes to Core's microarchitecture. Platform and CPU layout can play a big role in performance too.
Score
0
a c 83 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
March 20, 2012 3:14:02 AM

congrats jimmy, amdfangirl and mu_engineer on making moderator :love: 
Score
0
a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
March 20, 2012 4:04:32 AM

de5_Roy said:
congrats jimmy, amdfangirl and mu_engineer on making moderator :love: 

What amdfangirl is now a mod!!! :fou:  I want to be a mod... :(  BTW did all the community reporters suddenly become moderators? I see that rubix is now a mod.
Score
0
a c 83 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
March 20, 2012 8:30:20 AM

^^ i read it.
you hijacked a done thread and trolled for a long time. :non: 
Score
0
a c 480 à CPUs
a c 122 À AMD
a c 119 å Intel
March 20, 2012 10:51:24 AM

@JimmyBean, all you are doing is comparing a single synthetic benchmark (3DMark11) for the various CPUs.

Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2012 12:47:49 PM

melikepie said:
well first off look at this
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/computers/intel-says-future-a...

well i guess intel is getting better every year but amd is getting worse every year but i really dont know what there gonna do next like they have a great gpu buisness and they have a lot of people helping them by buying a lot of GPUs and i think there great priced and there 7000 series offers tons new things and i think there doing well but while there doing that the CPU stuff is really gonna make them go bankrupt. amd does best at going bankrupt and there spending more and more money on bulldozer when basicly there gonna be spending more money then they are getting and i think some people should get fired. i really think that they hired rats for there marketing or intel workers got hired at amd either way they are probaly gone soon and im wondering i amd will EVER make a cpu that will work as well as intels but if it is as good as ivy bridge... they better be sure thats when ivy bridge is the best intel can offer at that time.



Well I guest all the best computer engineers around the world are hired by Intel, that is why AMD can't make a great CPU anymore.
Score
0
a c 83 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
March 20, 2012 12:57:52 PM

Quote:
also, the overclocked fx 4100 of mine had a lower cpu clock speed of the overclocked intel i5 2500k cpu

so like i said..

the fx4100 beat the stock/overclocked intel i5 2500k


what is hard to understand ?

yes the i5 gpu isnt overclocked and that helps a lot,,, what it shows is for an i5 2500k to beat the fx 4100, a higher cpu clockspeed alone wont do it

i have never said when both fx 4100 and intel i5 2500k are pushed to the limits the fx won

but still.. cpu o/c 2500k with stock gpu speed lost to an over clocked fx 4100

why and where is the argument point ?


for what it is, the fx 4100 is awesome

strong is cluelessness with this one. ipc heard he never of.
ahem...
even reviewers who use synthetic benchmard like 3dmark and futuremark don't use it as an absolute measure of performance.
ghz numbers mean nothing.
fx4100 gets defeated by a mere dual core sandy bridge pentium, for gaming.
fx4100 is better for encrypting compared to core i3 and pentium, but one would be better off with an fx8150 or core i7 2600/2600k for all day encrypting workload.
core i5's igpu has nothing with it beating the fx4100. it's just another advantage it has against the 4100.
only one here who understand does not, is you. you're simply another guy who feels threatened by other cpus. you're only defending your purchase, so you have a strong bias towards the fx 4100. :D 
ps: i looked at your config and your vcore is ridiculously high. zambezi lineup is really power inefficient.
Score
0
March 20, 2012 3:46:36 PM

i think amd is good but isnt quite as good as intel at the moment. i think amd radeon graphics are better then nvidia because there technology is better at the moment.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2012 4:10:53 PM

zyzz said:
why isn't AMD as good anymore? When I bought this AMD X2 6000+ weren't they the time?

I also use to have an AMD 64 3400+. I think it was one of the best during it's time.

How did Intel become the best?

Intel (illegally) paid vendors not to buy AMD products. This in turn strangled AMD of R&D budget. In the mean time Intel dumped billions into R&D.

Well, the outcome is obvious, BD and AMD Fusion APUs got delayed 3-5 years. Time can never be regained, the damage done is permanent. Yes, they settled out of court, doesn't change anything, doens't get AMD back into the game because there was no time given back, only some money.

Score
0
March 27, 2012 6:44:23 PM

noob2222 said:
Intel (illegally) paid vendors not to buy AMD products. This in turn strangled AMD of R&D budget. In the mean time Intel dumped billions into R&D.

Well, the outcome is obvious, BD and AMD Fusion APUs got delayed 3-5 years. Time can never be regained, the damage done is permanent. Yes, they settled out of court, doesn't change anything, doens't get AMD back into the game because there was no time given back, only some money.

wow talk about doing anything to get the edge :ouch: 
Score
0
May 24, 2012 9:33:01 AM

Interesting thread :) 

I changed from my 486 to a 75 Mhz K5 (without really knowing what AMD was) and I really liked it. My next upgrade was to a 400 Mhz K6-II, which I managed to overclock to 450 Mhz :)  (messing with the motherboard.. back then there was no BIOS stuff).

Then I upgraded to an Athlon XP 2000+, which was just great at that time. Much better than Intel CPUs.. after that I left the desktop world for laptops, one of them having a Turion 64x2 CPU, which wasn't bad.

Now I'm back to the desktop business with a high-end computer, and it's an Intel CPU. It must be because I really have high-end needs, and AMD doesn't really fulfill them, unless the price was exceptionally low.

Anyway, the bottom of the line is that AMD could make a "great CPU" (meaning something that at least will compete with Intel on the high-end market) anytime in the following few years.. things change all the time and you can't predict that AMD is not going to catch up. I remember people saying similar stuff when I got the K5, that AMD is worse and cannot compete with Intel. Then Athlon came..

I guess that's what the OP means in the thread about "great cpu". If you broaden your point of view, then "great" could mean what AMD is actually planning to do (and starting already): aim for the mass market of low to mid-range computers with great CPUs that do what they need to do at the correct price. If you add to that the HSA plans then AMD will be in a very good position in the forthcoming years I guess.
Score
0
May 24, 2012 10:29:56 AM

so I was going to post something else but a remark on AMD having next gen consoles really hit my brain.

Think about this. The last console generation (PS2, Gamecube, Xbox) everyone counted Nintendo out of the game. They said PS3 was going to be the king of the consoles and or Xbox 360, because their hardware was far more advanced.

The Wii came out and changed how consoles were played with, a system that didn't fight for the top spot in power, but went in a different direction, mainstream.

I think with AMD APU's they have a chance not to fight for the top spot in CPU power, but right where MOST people want them to be. In their laptops or cheaper desktops giving them the right balance of CPU and GPU performance to make their overall experience enjoyable.

That has a bright future for AMD and I think Trinity is going to make it even better.
Score
0
June 19, 2012 9:13:21 AM

wr6133 said:
Theres laws and rules in place about monopolies so its in Intels interest to not actually utterly destroy AMD.


'Fraid it don't work that way, ray. Before I wised up, dropped out, and slacked off, I was a programmer for DOJ antitrust in the Microsoft case. Contrary to popular belief, the antitrust laws do NOT prevent monopolies. They prevent a monopoly company from leveraging that to prevent new competition. Example: MS can screw windows users over as much as they want (it's legal), but they strongarmed OEMs by telling them that if they sold a Linux PC, they had to buy a copy of windows for it anyway, or they'd raise the price of windows for that OEM (illegal).

Reminds you of the Mafia?

Also illegal: paying websites not to support netscape, rigging your media player so it will play all music formats except Apple's, and forcing windows users to run IE by denying the API to other browser manufacturers (which they're trying to again now that their probation for being an evil monopolist has expired).

Basically, you can do anything you want if you're a computer monopoly, including charging obscene prices and hurting people because you're evil. But you can only do things that make YOUR product better, you can't take actions that suppress someone else's product.

Surprisingly, unless they're being bribed by a monopoly, republican lawmakers generally support antitrust laws, because those laws don't protect individual people, they protect other businesses. When a law only benefits the citizens at the expense of evil corporations, they will oppose it every time. That's why you can't do your taxes by filling a form on the IRS web site, and you can't file electronically yourself—you have to do it at some business' web site, even though that's worse for the citizens.

HP includes a chip in their ink cartridges that kills the cartridge after a fixed number of prints even if there's plenty of ink in it, to force you to buy another one when you don't actually need it yet. And they won't let anyone else produce those chips. As ugly as that is, crippling their own cartridges is legal because it only hurts people who buy an HP printer. But they CAN'T make the printer accept only HP cartridges because that hurts competition (i.e., other businesses).

The government will let AMD die as long as Intel doesn't strangle it in its hospital bed.

-- faye kane homeless brain
Score
0
June 19, 2012 9:16:25 AM

cyansnow said:


Oh amd did make a good CPU FYI, it's called the Athlon.


Yes, the 7750 was truly amazing. But what's the matter with the chip I got after that, the 6-core Phenom II 1100 black ed? It's fast as all-to-be-damned. I can O/C it almost (but not quite) to 4 GHz with a modified window air conditioner as the CPU cooler.

Is it the price of AMD chips? They're cheaper! And I don't care about price as long as the chip is worth the price. Intel is WAAAY overpriced, at least when I bought the Phenom.

Sure, intel owns the high-end 16-core server CPUS, but I don't want one of those.

Whaddya got against the phenom II?

Whatever it is, I'm sure it's legitimate. I just can't imagine what you don't like about it.

-faye
Score
0
a c 78 à CPUs
June 19, 2012 12:55:57 PM

amuffin said:
I am elaborating on people saying "without amd, intel processors will jump from a $200 dollar cpu to a $500 dollar cpu"

I think you're very young and while clearly a very intelligent young man, you have much to understand about how the real world works.

Corporations are not human beings with morals and a sense of ethics, they are a cold, calculating primal animal who will do anything they can get away with to serve their own purpose, they will feed on their own offspring if it suits them. Intel has already displayed a willingness to cross the legal line, and they have FTC and European Union fines for antitrust practices to prove it.

As far as laws in place to prevent monopolies, this assumes we live in a perfect world with no special interest group lobbyists and a world where congressmen are not for sale.
Score
0
a c 78 à CPUs
June 19, 2012 1:00:13 PM

Faye_Kane_girl_brain said:


Whaddya got against the phenom II?

-faye

Being the owner of both a Phenom II rig and a more expensive i5-2400, absolutely nothing. Contrary to popular beliefs there are no fancy magic tricks the i5 can do that the Phenom II can't do, it doesn't walk on water, cure cancer or even solve world hunger.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 19, 2012 1:31:46 PM

The question of this thread is flawed anyway AMD still make great processors for people building cheap boxes for home/htpc use or light office use...... this is the MORE PROFITABLE route for them high performance make a very small segment of the total market and a segment that costs a vast amount in R&D then if your high performance CPU isn't as good as the competition it will flop amongst the small group that would have paid top whack for it. Making cheap and cheerful (llano) aimed at the larger bulk of the market just makes better sense if your a smaller company dwarfed by a giant with R&D budgets that you can only dream of. It may be nice for us in terms of price if AMD could compete with the highest Intel offerings but it wouldn't be so nice for AMD especially as I doubt they could maintain a price war with Intel were that to happen.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 19, 2012 1:46:57 PM

amd is cheap than intel and also crap to oc well the old one but i think the amd phemon II x4 cpu are good
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 19, 2012 2:39:47 PM

This topic has been closed by REYNOD
Score
0
      • 1
      • 2 / 2
!