PileDriver > Ivy bridge?

[viosteaua98]

hello,

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

 

[geekapproved]

No it's not. Steamroller will be better hopefully.

 

[gamerk316]

Most here expect PD to maybe match pre-SandyBridge CPUs. At best, SandyBridge level performance.

 

[noise]

For what purpose, and which SKUs.

If referring to games, Ivybridge in almost all circumstances.

 

[zloginet]

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.

 

[loneninja]

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.

 

[deadlockedworld]

^^^ 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."

 

[ram1009]

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?

 

[Kamen_BG]

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.

 

[joedjnpc]

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.

 

[rds1220]

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.

 

[mactronix]

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

 

[zloginet]

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".

 

[ram1009]

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.

 

[zloginet]

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.

 

[Raiddinn]

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.

 

[Blandge]

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.

 

[zloginet]

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.

 

[unoriginal1]

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.

 

[Blandge]

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.

 

[robthatguyx]

that awkward moment when piledriver outperforms the 3960x lol

 

[rds1220]

that awkward moment when piledriver outperforms the 3960x lol

Sure in one whole program when being benchmarked.

 

[Raiddinn]

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.

 

[robthatguyx]

i know guys i was joking lol

 

[Blandge]

Unless the Piledriver 8000 has hyper threading.

This makes me feel like you have no idea what you're talking about.