Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

PileDriver > Ivy bridge?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 26, 2012 11:30:31 AM

hello,

title is saying everything ; is PileDriver better than Ivy Bridge? which is the best CPU ?

More about : piledriver ivy bridge

a b à CPUs
September 26, 2012 12:43:31 PM

No it's not. Steamroller will be better hopefully.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2012 2:28:14 PM

Most here expect PD to maybe match pre-SandyBridge CPUs. At best, SandyBridge level performance.
Related resources
September 26, 2012 2:33:28 PM

For what purpose, and which SKUs.

If referring to games, Ivybridge in almost all circumstances.
September 26, 2012 2:38:42 PM

geekapproved said:
No it's not. Steamroller will be better hopefully.



^^^ I can't believe your able to answer this question with the system specs you have...


No one can really answer this question. Its not out yet and testing ESs isn't the greatest to go by considering they are usually fake articles with adobe altercations. Give it a few more weeks.


I would hope that PD is within a few percent of IVY in most applications. We will find out.
a c 83 à CPUs
September 26, 2012 2:52:28 PM

With the expected 10-15% performance gain over Bulldozer, Piledriver won't be able to out perform Sandy Bridge much less Ivy Bridge, but the 8 core should come close to an I5 in multithreaded workloads.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2012 3:00:18 PM

zloginet said:
^^^ I can't believe your able to answer this question with the system specs you have...


So your point about no one knowing is valid -- however this an extremely inappropriate comment to direct at another user. The value of his system has absolutely no bearing on his technical knowledge of CPU design.

Edit: Also - you meant to write "you're" not "your."
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2012 3:05:15 PM

viosteaua98 said:
hello,

title is saying everything ; is PileDriver better than Ivy Bridge? which is the best CPU ?



Apparently you missed the memo. AMD announces several months ago that they would no longer compete with Intel for new desktop CPU business. If they don't think their CPUs are competitive why would you?
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2012 3:10:54 PM

Piledriver will be a pretty significant upgrade over Zambezi and will likely outperform Intel's Core i7 processors at some highly multithreaded applications but it will still have bad single-threaded performance so overall it will likely perform worse than a Core i7.
September 26, 2012 3:17:25 PM

ram1009 said:
Apparently you missed the memo. AMD announces several months ago that they would no longer compete with Intel for new desktop CPU business. If they don't think their CPUs are competitive why would you?


With regards to performance they do not plan to compete, but there is a range of processors with each new architecture and they will likely be able to compete on price with some of the lower end modules.

I don't expect the high end PD chip (the 260$ìsh one) to beat out the 3570k though.
a c 146 à CPUs
September 26, 2012 4:17:22 PM

Unless you find a way tp cripple the IB's performance I doubt the Piledriver will beat it out. More than likely it will perform on the level of first generation I5's and I7's still pretty far behind Intel.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2012 4:41:30 PM

viosteaua98 said:
hello,

title is saying everything ; is PileDriver better than Ivy Bridge? which is the best CPU ?



Piledriver is not better than Ivy. Ivy is the better CPU.

Having said that there are some pretty good improvements in PD. As usual it will have its market.
Which CPU someone should get is usually more complicated than which CPU is the better CPU. Usage and budget are usually the defining influences that decide which CPU people end up going with.
Also New build or upgrade ? that makes a huge difference as well.

So its not quite as cut and dry as base specs would make it seem.

Mactronix :) 
September 26, 2012 6:34:44 PM

deadlockedworld said:
So your point about no one knowing is valid -- however this an extremely inappropriate comment to direct at another user. The value of his system has absolutely no bearing on his technical knowledge of CPU design.

Edit: Also - you meant to write "you're" not "your."



Excellent reply but you forgot to place a comma after "however".

A system "sig" goes a long way when responding to an already weird question. You know it and I know it, nobody can make a point on which is "better".
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2012 6:39:59 PM

joedjnpc said:
With regards to performance they do not plan to compete, but there is a range of processors with each new architecture and they will likely be able to compete on price with some of the lower end modules.

I don't expect the high end PD chip (the 260$ìsh one) to beat out the 3570k though.



I fail to see why price is an issue. You can't get the performance of an Intel chip no matter how much you spend on an AMD chip. There simply isn't another viable way to judge a CPU other than performance. The more performance you get out of every build the longer it will be to replacing it.
September 26, 2012 6:59:05 PM

ram1009 said:
I fail to see why price is an issue. You can't get the performance of an Intel chip no matter how much you spend on an AMD chip. There simply isn't another viable way to judge a CPU other than performance. The more performance you get out of every build the longer it will be to replacing it.


I would agree just a bit on this.

1) Best Buy pc's are cheap and are 95% overkill for any user that walks through the door. Customer's are able to choose either Intel or AMD and what do you think is cheaper? I bet you everything you got, the AMD system will last them just as long and do the same for them.

2) "You can't get the performance of an Intel chip no matter how much you spend on an AMD chip", depends on how much you spend. Take a 1100t against a P8400. Amd wins, take my 8150 @ 5.0 and put it against a stock clocked 2500k. Etc etc...

When you compare the top of each manufacture you are correct.



What car do you drive? You realize yours doesn't compare to the majority of the higher end cars. I bet its cheaper and can last as long.

However, I totally agree, Intel is better. I really don't care though. My system is ridiculous even if your Intel system is faster. And it WAS CHEAPER TO build then a comparable Intel top system.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2012 7:14:22 PM

There are two metrics of note:
1) Bang for your buck
2) Most powerful regardless of cost

Intel has historically usually been ahead of AMD on #2 and I don't think anyone really disputes that it is that way now too.

As for #1, some of it depends on which budget range you are talking about and some of it depends on which programs you are talking about using, but regardless AMD can usually only compete for the most highly threaded applications. Anything lightly threaded usually automatically gets handed to Intel.

When discussing the absolute highest threaded applications, sometimes the FX-8000 series high end chips come out ahead and usually it is not by much when measured against mid-range Intel quads.

The high end AMD 8 core chips really don't try to compete with anything more than mid range Intel quads. Nobody ever seriously tries to compare FX-8150s vs 3770ks or 3960Xs that I have seen. They both cost a lot more than the FX 8000s cost and should be expected to perform better on that basis.

- Edit - AMD expects a 15% or less improvement over BD with the PD release, that isn't going to change any of the above.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2012 7:43:27 PM

zloginet said:
I would agree just a bit on this.

1) Best Buy pc's are cheap and are 95% overkill for any user that walks through the door. Customer's are able to choose either Intel or AMD and what do you think is cheaper? I bet you everything you got, the AMD system will last them just as long and do the same for them.

2) "You can't get the performance of an Intel chip no matter how much you spend on an AMD chip", depends on how much you spend. Take a 1100t against a P8400. Amd wins, take my 8150 @ 5.0 and put it against a stock clocked 2500k. Etc etc...

When you compare the top of each manufacture you are correct.



What car do you drive? You realize yours doesn't compare to the majority of the higher end cars. I bet its cheaper and can last as long.

However, I totally agree, Intel is better. I really don't care though. My system is ridiculous even if your Intel system is faster. And it WAS CHEAPER TO build then a comparable Intel top system.


Not cheaper. After you consider the cost of a good heatsink, a nice overclocking motherboard and the power cost of running a 8150 @ 5GHz vs a 3570k @ stock, the 8150 will end up costing more... much more.
September 26, 2012 8:51:36 PM

Blandge said:
Not cheaper. After you consider the cost of a good heatsink, a nice overclocking motherboard and the power cost of running a 8150 @ 5GHz vs a 3570k @ stock, the 8150 will end up costing more... much more.



You are correct, but your reply bundled 2 answers together.

Pertaining to what you replied on please read what I typed... "And it WAS CHEAPER TO build then a comparable Intel top system". Meaning, heavily overclocked with after market this and that.

Example, AMD's top board is around $229.99, Intel's is around $389 within reason. Top chip again within reason is their 3770k I believe vs the fx 8150 etc etc.

Lets talk cost now?


When I put the @ 5.0 vs the stock 2500k I was comparing having similar performance. (See # 2) You kind of took both of those and put it together. Yes, my cost is more when comparing to stock clocked. But if I took a similar system intel wise and did what I did with mine, it would be easily a lot more.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2012 9:09:52 PM

zloginet said:
Excellent reply but you forgot to place a comma after "however".

A system "sig" goes a long way when responding to an already weird question. You know it and I know it, nobody can make a point on which is "better".


Actually...... lol.

When "however" is used in a compound sentence. It would be written as such.

"So your point about no one knowing is valid; however, this an .... "

Comma's would be used to interrupt a sentence. > "It is, however, extremely difficult to identify all the relevant variables"

Sorry had to :)  lol.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2012 10:25:35 PM

zloginet said:
You are correct, but your reply bundled 2 answers together.

Pertaining to what you replied on please read what I typed... "And it WAS CHEAPER TO build then a comparable Intel top system". Meaning, heavily overclocked with after market this and that.

Example, AMD's top board is around $229.99, Intel's is around $389 within reason. Top chip again within reason is their 3770k I believe vs the fx 8150 etc etc.

Lets talk cost now?


When I put the @ 5.0 vs the stock 2500k I was comparing having similar performance. (See # 2) You kind of took both of those and put it together. Yes, my cost is more when comparing to stock clocked. But if I took a similar system intel wise and did what I did with mine, it would be easily a lot more.


I can understand overlcocking as a hobby, but if you overclock because you need the performance then it's a much better solution to run a better part at stock speeds. Stock speeds provide cheaper, quieter surrounding components such as motherboard, case, heatsink, fans, powersupply etc. I would never suggest that somebody buys a cheaper part and overclock as opposed to a slightly more expensive part at stock speeds.

Overclocking only saves money if you don't have to buy or upgrade additional components to make up for extra heat and power.

Again, I understand most people overclock as a hobby, and these factors don't really influence their decision much.

a b à CPUs
September 26, 2012 10:38:15 PM

that awkward moment when piledriver outperforms the 3960x lol
a c 146 à CPUs
September 26, 2012 10:58:31 PM

robthatguyx said:
that awkward moment when piledriver outperforms the 3960x lol


Sure in one whole program when being benchmarked.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2012 11:06:52 PM

Unless the Piledriver 8000 has hyper threading, I would be surprised if it beats the 3960X even still.

In nearly every benchmark the 3960X absolutely destroys the 8150, and the PD 8150 is only set to be like 15% better which generally will mean that it doesn't get quite so thoroughly destroyed as it used to.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2012 11:11:18 PM

i know guys i was joking lol
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2012 11:17:51 PM

Raiddinn said:
Unless the Piledriver 8000 has hyper threading.


This makes me feel like you have no idea what you're talking about.
a c 146 à CPUs
September 26, 2012 11:18:11 PM

robthatguyx said:
i know guys i was joking lol


Yes I know.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2012 11:35:16 PM

I really don't know if the Piledriver 8000 will have hyper threading.

I focus on the here and now and afaik that excludes the Piledriver 8000.

My gut feeling is that PD is not even worth anticipating, so that gives me even less reason to spend my time reading speculation about it.

If it gets here and I hear good things about it, then I will care about what PD can and can't do.
September 27, 2012 12:00:13 AM

Blandge said:
I can understand overlcocking as a hobby, but if you overclock because you need the performance then it's a much better solution to run a better part at stock speeds. Stock speeds provide cheaper, quieter surrounding components such as motherboard, case, heatsink, fans, powersupply etc. I would never suggest that somebody buys a cheaper part and overclock as opposed to a slightly more expensive part at stock speeds.

Overclocking only saves money if you don't have to buy or upgrade additional components to make up for extra heat and power.

Again, I understand most people overclock as a hobby, and these factors don't really influence their decision much.




Very well put... But, please know that a ton of cpu's can overclock like heck with stock voltages while on the stock heatsink creating almost no issues nor differences then stocked clocked. So that means, if you buy the cheaper cpu you can put the money elsewhere while still receiving the same performance as the more expensive parent.
a c 146 à CPUs
September 27, 2012 12:08:58 AM

zloginet said:
Very well put... But, please know that a ton of cpu's can overclock like heck with stock voltages while on the stock heatsink creating almost no issues nor differences then stocked clocked. So that means, if you buy the cheaper cpu you can put the money elsewhere while still receiving the same performance as the more expensive parent.


Go back and read what Blange wrote.

Blandge said:
I can understand overlcocking as a hobby, but if you overclock because you need the performance then it's a much better solution to run a better part at stock speeds. Stock speeds provide cheaper, quieter surrounding components such as motherboard, case, heatsink, fans, powersupply etc. I would never suggest that somebody buys a cheaper part and overclock as opposed to a slightly more expensive part at stock speeds.

Overclocking only saves money if you don't have to buy or upgrade additional components to make up for extra heat and power.

Again, I understand most people overclock as a hobby, and these factors don't really influence their decision much.
a c 478 à CPUs
September 27, 2012 1:31:11 AM

I would say that PD will be around a powerful as the Clarkdale / Nehalem Core i3/i5/i7 CPU series.

At this point in time though it's just a matter of waiting for reviews to come out
September 27, 2012 5:30:29 AM

Nehalem IPC with high stock clock speed. Not bad :) 
a c 186 à CPUs
September 27, 2012 7:24:16 AM

So, we can conclude IB by default is faster than PD? I feel like PD will be in the middle of Clarkdale/Nehalem and Sandybridge.
a b à CPUs
September 27, 2012 2:51:29 PM

Yup slits the devides, the problem that I got with PD is that it feels much like a discard. What I have heard about steam roller is that it employs different module architecture and superior front side, this again leads me to feel like it is a discard a last horah perse. It makes more sense to a end user depending on budget and platform. As to production and professional based systems, if BD was already good, PD is better.

Ultimately it is how you look at it. If BD was the chick you really don't get attracted to, the PD is the normal chick you end up marrying but you know a better chick is out there namely Steam Roller. If you don't mind the plunge until mid next year then PD will still be an interesting proposition to carry you over to steamroller.
a b à CPUs
September 27, 2012 4:14:43 PM

Why even bother speculating about Steamroller when its still 2 whole generations away?

People should be upgrading every 2nd generation anyway, so anyone looking forward to Steamroller might as well just buy something now.

We don't even know if Steamroller will ever even see the light of day since AMD said its going to quit competing with Intel for PC processors.
a c 146 à CPUs
September 27, 2012 4:47:51 PM

Quote:
Would love piledriver to be a massive success, i traveled to the dark side when i upgraded from my Phenom II (still have him, a beast to behold).

FX left nothing for me, and so i continued my journey into the hands of intel, with oh so sweet sandy.


However, if Piledriver is "amazing" i will be interested.

I am upgrading fairly soon anyhow.


I wouldn't count on it being AMAZING if it has the performance AMD is claiming it will put it on the level of the first generation I3, I5, and I7's. That will still be behind Intel by a good bit.
a b à CPUs
September 27, 2012 5:19:21 PM

AMD has been pulling up the rear for almost the whole last 10 years, so I don't know why anyone would expect them to surge ahead now. Especially since they said they are getting out of the desktop processor business.
a b à CPUs
September 27, 2012 7:06:28 PM

Raiddinn said:
Why even bother speculating about Steamroller when its still 2 whole generations away?

People should be upgrading every 2nd generation anyway, so anyone looking forward to Steamroller might as well just buy something now.

We don't even know if Steamroller will ever even see the light of day since AMD said its going to quit competing with Intel for PC processors.


Yeah you are so out of the loop but anyways I may as well tell you that;

1] Steamroller is due Q2 2013 and it is definitely happening.

2] Official from AMD themselves that after Excavator in 2014 they have further roadmaps due, basically AMD is not stopping their CPU production anything otherwise and this again from AMD is speculation to which they don't respond to.

3] Its funny how SB, IB and soon to be haswell on the DT are conceived from notebooks, put into DT trim, now who is serious about DT processors?

Maybe you should stop looking at AMD in negative light, they did things clean and with a lot less cash, when you look at what you get with AMD products, you can at least say they are not skimping on you.

a b à CPUs
September 27, 2012 7:46:00 PM

sarinaide said:
Yeah you are so out of the loop but anyways I may as well tell you that;

1] Steamroller is due Q2 2013 and it is definitely happening.

2] Official from AMD themselves that after Excavator in 2014 they have further roadmaps due, basically AMD is not stopping their CPU production anything otherwise and this again from AMD is speculation to which they don't respond to.


This is exactly right. Raiddin, I think you misunderstood AMD when they said they would stop competing in the extreme desktop performance race. They in no way meant that are stopping production of desktop parts.

sarinaide said:
3] Its funny how SB, IB and soon to be haswell on the DT are conceived from notebooks, put into DT trim, now who is serious about DT processors?


Not true, all desktop features and technologies are actually server technologies from previous generatinos that have trickled down to desktop parts. Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge and Haswell (and all future microarchitecures) are designed for servers first, then notebook power saving technologies are applied to the notebook and ULV SKUs. The desktop SKUs are the easiest because they can just pick features from server and implement them in the consumer space without having to worry about power contraints in notebooks. The new ULV push isn't at the expense of desktop, it's in addition. The reason you don't see huge performance gains on desktop is because Sandy Brdige was already such an efficient architecture, and Intel couldn't just add more cores to the platform like they can in servers.

BD was such a lackluster implementation (of a theoretically excellent microarchitecture) that AMD has a lot of headroom for improvement. That's why PD shows so much performance gain compared to BD.
September 28, 2012 8:25:17 AM

oh how i love the amd vs intel debate!

$$$

volkswagen vs ferrari

if you cant afford the ferrari, dont expect the volkswagen to keep up!
a b à CPUs
September 28, 2012 10:32:07 AM

Except the comparison is more Ferrari vs Konigsegg. One has a reputation for long standing sports car design, reputation and produce line to match (intel), the other is more limited, good at enough things not so in others but remains a novalty (AMD)
September 29, 2012 2:41:48 AM

sarinaide said:
Except the comparison is more Ferrari vs Konigsegg. One has a reputation for long standing sports car design, reputation and produce line to match (intel), the other is more limited, good at enough things not so in others but remains a novalty (AMD)



+1!! :sol: 
October 1, 2012 6:15:29 PM

viosteaua98 said:
hello,

title is saying everything ; is PileDriver better than Ivy Bridge? which is the best CPU ?

Likely answer is NO.
a b à CPUs
October 1, 2012 6:25:05 PM

There are factors that go beyond the mere question of which is better, each company produce options for various users in various circumstances.
!