Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Piledriver rumors vs Ivy Bridge

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 4, 2012 11:07:25 AM

Will the rumored Piledriver's performance compare to the new Ivy Bridge? Per core or not? I am willing to postpone my new PC build to Sep. if I knew I could get about the same performance as the IB, but cheaper.
a c 169 à CPUs
August 4, 2012 11:16:11 AM

Doubtful. Intel's Sandybridge architecture currently has a 2.5 fold instruction per clock per core advantage over Bulldozer. Even if the second generation FX platform meets its performance goals it will still be behind Sandybridge by an appreciable margin. What I'm more interested in is the power efficiency improvements which should reduce waste heat and make it more attractive for its intended purpose, high precision computing.

Piledriver is not for performance desktops, it's for the APU market.
Related resources
August 4, 2012 2:14:51 PM

Dude.Go with ivy...PD is going to flop more than likely...Im switching to intel from a 6100...Sooo yeah..The 3570k beats my 6100 in video rendering at stock clocks and im at 4.6ghz...
August 4, 2012 2:22:49 PM

Quote:
Doubtful. Intel's Sandybridge architecture currently has a 2.5 fold instruction per clock per core advantage over Bulldozer. Even if the second generation FX platform meets its performance goals it will still be behind Sandybridge by an appreciable margin. What I'm more interested in is the power efficiency improvements which should reduce waste heat and make it more attractive for its intended purpose, high precision computing.

Piledriver is not for performance desktops, it's for the APU market.


This, no one has a crystal ball, but you would be postponing your purchase on a longshot...

On the other hand, prices for the current hardware would only drop over time so it wouldn't be all bad....
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2012 2:30:48 PM

edtheguy said:
This, no one has a crystal ball, but you would be postponing your purchase on a longshot...

On the other hand, prices for the current hardware would only drop over time so it wouldn't be all bad....


yeah, but then the Haswell rumors will be starting and he would have to wait again!
August 4, 2012 2:40:12 PM

mindless728 said:
yeah, but then the Haswell rumors will be starting and he would have to wait again!


Good point!
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2012 2:58:27 PM

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-5800k-a8-5600k-...
The desktop version will have L3 cache too.

Piledriver is going to be a LOT faster than Bulldozer per clock.But still nowhere near Ivy Bridge.If you're going to build a gaming system Ivy Bridge will still have the advantage, but if you want more threaded performance, then Piledriver will likely be the superior choice.
a c 471 à CPUs
August 4, 2012 3:20:28 PM

As of now I would say that PileDriver will be approximately 10% faster than Phenom II / FX. I believe that is a reasonable assumption based on AMD's statement of a 5% - 15% increase in performance over prior generation CPUs.

In order for AMD to bridge the between their current CPUs and Intel's Ivy Bridge, PileDriver needs to increase performance by about 30%. If AMD can only manage a meager 5% increase in performance for each new architecture, then they are basically 5 generations behind Intel. This is a bit unrealistic. On the other hand expecting a 15% increase in performance with each new CPU architecture is a bit unrealistic too given AMD's more limited R&D budget and the fact that the PileDriver is is based on modular CPU packages where every two CPU core shares resources between each other. If this were true though, then PileDriver will be 1 generation behind Ivy Bridge.

A 10% improvement is a more conservative and reasonable estimate of performance increase for every new CPU architecture. If this is the case then when PileDriver is released, then AMD will only be 2 generations behind Ivy Bridge since the performance gap will be approximately 20%.

This is all speculation. If you want a real answer then you need to wait for an actual review of PileDriver.
August 4, 2012 3:36:04 PM

Think I'm just gonna go for the IB. I'll be using the PC mostly for gaming, school and home entertainment, so a bunch of cores wont really do me much good. Thanks for the replies!
a c 169 à CPUs
August 4, 2012 4:23:41 PM

Kongzvik said:
Think I'm just gonna go for the IB. I'll be using the PC mostly for gaming, school and home entertainment, so a bunch of cores wont really do me much good. Thanks for the replies!


That's a very good decision. The stronger per core performance of the Sandybride/Ivybridge architecture makes it better for everything except extremely heavily threaded applications and even then it still beats Bulldozer by a small margin
a c 78 à CPUs
August 4, 2012 5:24:45 PM

Kongzvik said:
Think I'm just gonna go for the IB. I'll be using the PC mostly for gaming, school and home entertainment, so a bunch of cores wont really do me much good. Thanks for the replies!

In that case, buy a Sandy Bridge, because for gaming Ivy Bridge has absolutely zero advantage over Sandy, and yet it costs more. Aside from CPU performance, PCI 3.0 does not have a measurable advantage over PCI 2.0, so thats not a valid reason to get Ivy for gaming either.
August 4, 2012 11:19:11 PM

This is why I say no to ivy cpu’s:

http://giatrakis.wix.com/john-giatrakis#!home/mainPage

Many people had problem figuring out why it runs much hotter and why everything they do they can’t cool these cpu’s so I hope I made it clear ehough for them.
August 5, 2012 2:48:33 AM

this may be an outlier suggestion...but do check out reviews for the quad core fx processors like 4100 (if you overclock it) and 4170. if you are gaming at 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 or (i think) above, they perform equal to a 2600k. I remember seeing such a review somewhere.

also, since this is going to be mainly for gaming why not the core i3-21xx. a lot me testing by toms has shown that this i3 cpus perform equal to the fx.

just suggesting these two routes as they'll leave a lotmore financial room for buying a faster gpu
August 5, 2012 2:49:46 AM

this may be an outlier suggestion...but do check out reviews for the quad core fx processors like 4100 (if you overclock it) and 4170. if you are gaming at 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 or (i think) above, they perform equal to a 2600k. I remember seeing such a review somewhere.

also, since this is going to be mainly for gaming why not the core i3-21xx. a lot me testing by toms has shown that this i3 cpus perform equal to the fx.

just suggesting these two routes as they'll leave a lotmore financial room for buying a faster gpu
August 5, 2012 2:54:51 AM

this may be an outlier suggestion...but do check out reviews for the quad core fx processors like 4100 (if you overclock it) and 4170. if you are gaming at 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 or (i think) above, they perform equal to a 2600k. I remember seeing such a review somewhere.

also, since this is going to be mainly for gaming why not the core i3-21xx. a lot me testing by toms has shown that this i3 cpus perform equal to the fx.

just suggesting these two routes as they'll leave a lotmore financial room for buying a faster gpu
a c 78 à CPUs
August 5, 2012 3:04:46 AM

Quote:
this may be an outlier suggestion...but do check out reviews for the quad core fx processors like 4100 (if you overclock it) and 4170. if you are gaming at 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 or (i think) above, they perform equal to a 2600k.

In many games this can be technically true. Since most games are limited by the video card. Diablo III for example will not care what CPU you use, because its GPU bound. However, the problem with the FX (Bulldozers) is that when you run a game (or any application really) that calls the CPU to actually break a sweat, they crumble and fail to not only perform on par with similarly priced Intel CPUs like the i3, but they even fail to match AMD's own prior Generation CPUs (Phenom IIs).
!