Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Do you think steamroller will be at least on par with sandy?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 19, 2013 6:53:51 AM

I mean its going to take them 2 years in total... if its not at least on par with sandy by the time its released im going to go to intel and never look at amd ever again.

on the other hand, if it does xcatch up to sandy amd might be back in the game

More about : steamroller par sandy

a b à CPUs
January 19, 2013 7:38:26 AM

Hmm i hope so. i recently bought the 6300 am3+ hoping to upgrade to steam roller since if i got lga 1155 its a dead socket. who the hell wants to buy a dead socket lmao.

Anyway i think it should considering the 8350,6300 in the
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...
toms hardware cpu chart is on par with the core i7 980,970,960 in gaming im 99% sure that steam roller will be at least on par with sandy. however im expecting it to surpass ivy in gaming
a c 184 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 19, 2013 8:12:10 AM

I doubt it, and Steamroller might not even come out.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2013 8:42:38 AM

nah its coming out in 2014 1or 2 half
a c 78 à CPUs
January 19, 2013 8:54:57 AM

In what? PileDriver already exceeds Sandy AND Ivy in many multithreaded metrics, both synthetic and practical. Are you talking about single core performance? Games? What?
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2013 9:21:00 AM

i think hes talking about single core performance
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2013 9:25:17 AM

nekulturny said:
In what? PileDriver already exceeds Sandy AND Ivy in many multithreaded metrics, both synthetic and practical. Are you talking about single core performance? Games? What?

did you finish your homework? :non: 
January 19, 2013 9:35:08 AM

stantheman123 said:
Hmm i hope so. i recently bought the 6300 am3+ hoping to upgrade to steam roller since if i got lga 1155 its a dead socket. who the hell wants to buy a dead socket lmao.


At the moment, most people view all AMD sockets as "dead". It's a shame, but it's not 2006 anymore.
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2013 10:23:40 AM

svengeguttensen said:
At the moment, most people view all AMD sockets as "dead". It's a shame, but it's not 2006 anymore.


You sir are extremely confused
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2013 10:25:13 AM

hahahahha
January 19, 2013 10:32:52 AM

amd is a crap regarding the cpu...however i like their graphic cards range,with good prices and decent performace...but amd cpu it's just a crap...people says that 8 core 8350 is o par...with who exactly?they are struggling to compete with an i7 quad core!my i7 3930k 6 core would destroy any amd cpu out there at least for the next few years to come!unless you are on budget,i would'n reccomend purchasing an amd cpu...the best budget intel cpu for now i believe is i7 3820 on lga 2011,speaking of the new sockets...which will destroy any amd cpu out there...having more cores doesn't mean it's better...they are 8 cores,they are just very very weak!
January 19, 2013 4:07:44 PM

gigi_ro said:
amd is a crap regarding the cpu...however i like their graphic cards range,with good prices and decent performace...but amd cpu it's just a crap...people says that 8 core 8350 is o par...with who exactly?they are struggling to compete with an i7 quad core!my i7 3930k 6 core would destroy any amd cpu out there at least for the next few years to come!unless you are on budget,i would'n reccomend purchasing an amd cpu...the best budget intel cpu for now i believe is i7 3820 on lga 2011,speaking of the new sockets...which will destroy any amd cpu out there...having more cores doesn't mean it's better...they are 8 cores,they are just very very weak!


Why don't you compare CPU's in the same price range lol
January 19, 2013 4:33:11 PM

sheepsnowadays said:
Why don't you compare CPU's in the same price range lol


with all the respect dude,amd cpu sux...smell a fanboy to me...as i sad,a quad core i7 3820 on lga 2011 would destroy any amd cpu...8 cores doesn't mean it's always better...an i7 3820 it's around 200 pounds in uk,so that's not the end of the world i think!it's true that my i7 3930k it's expensive...but it's 6 core and not 8 core like fx 8350...and still 6 core would absolutely destroy 8 cores amd!

PS: MORE CORES DOESN'T MEAN BETTER PERFORMANCE!
I WENT FROM 1055T TO I73930K...AMD CPU SUX AND THAT'S IT!
January 19, 2013 4:40:36 PM

gigi_ro said:
with all the respect dude,amd cpu sux...smell a fanboy to me...as i sad,a quad core i7 3820 on lga 2011 would destroy any amd cpu...8 cores doesn't mean it's always better...an i7 3820 it's around 200 pounds in uk,so that's not the end of the world i think!it's true that my i7 3930k it's expensive...but it's 6 core and not 8 core like fx 8350...and still 6 core would absolutely destroy 8 cores amd!

PS: MORE CORES DOESN'T MEAN BETTER PERFORMANCE!
I WENT FROM 1055T TO I73930K...AMD CPU SUX AND THAT'S IT!


You just compared a i7 3930k ($600 insane amount to spend on a cpu) and i7 3820 ($300) to a 8350 ($200) and i posted a link showing a ivy and piledriver at the same price having similar performance that you just ignored. I think i smell a fanboy.
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2013 4:49:01 PM

Not to mention that 2011 MOBOs are super expensive
January 19, 2013 5:15:24 PM

LOL.a x79-ud3 was 100 ponds after rebate here for a period of time...i would say acceptable...however,i will leave you folks to debate regarding the glorious amd cpu on the market and next to come...i had amd for years i would never come back to them regarding cpu...one more time...AMD CPU SUX...

PS: YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY!
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2013 5:41:42 PM

An old Nehalem based Core i5 760 beats out the FX 8350 in a lot of benchmarks, from what I've seen.. I'll be surprised if they top Nehalem!
a c 78 à CPUs
January 20, 2013 12:51:49 AM

hafijur said:
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processo...

look 3770k 4.3 takes nearly half the kilojoules to complete a task then fx8350 8.2.

Also look at i3 3225 takes 6 kilojoules vs 12.6 for fx4170 and the apu a10 5800k takes 11.8 kilojoules.

To make it fair 2600k takes 5.6 kj vs fx8350 8.2. That is still a good chunk less on same 32nm. Miles behind.

I'm pretty sure I remember you from before, you're pretty much just a troll as I recall.. Why you insist on shaming a $200 CPU for not performing on par with a $330 one is beyond me, but whatever trips your trigger. I'm not really that interested in discussing power consumption, its a straw grasp. Yes, AMD uses more juice, don't care personally. The question asked by the OP was regarding performance. In terms of multi-threading the FX-8350 priced at $200 is a better buy than the i5-3570K @ $200-230 depending on where you buy it from.

The article you cited from tech report even says the FX-8350 is a better buy for this purpose than the i5 Ivy Bridge, perhaps you should vet your sources more thoroughly before you open your mouth and make yourself look like an idiot.

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processo...

Anonymous said:
did you finish your homework? :non: 

Apparently not bud, I see the trolling and fanboyism is just as strong as it always was. LOL, come to think of it, I do have homework that needs done. :love: 
a b à CPUs
January 20, 2013 1:23:56 AM

Intel mainly only wins the game benchmarks, which admittedly is important for a lot of forum members. But there are plenty of applications now that favor Vishera at any given price point vs Ivy Bridge, so I guess the answer to the OP depends on what you want your computer to do.

beats all i5's in every test on this page:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...

and this one: http://media.bestofmicro.com/X/P/357613/original/7zip.p...

Edges out the i7's in Photoshop: http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/F/357639/original/photos...

Handbrake likes Vishera: http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/3/357627/original/handbr...

And this one is pretty telling. Add up all the tests and 8350 beats the ivy bridge i5 by a few percent. http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/V/357655/original/time%2...

I guess I see this as a good thing. Both brands seem to excel at different kinds of workloads. Meaning you can pick what suits your needs for any given budget.

We all know the cons for AMD, but you can't dismiss the pros for certain workloads. "On par" doesn't mean exactly the same. In golf, You can still make par even if you get a few bad holes as long as you make up those extra strokes elsewhere. I think AMD does that.


a b à CPUs
January 20, 2013 2:19:22 PM

Power is a different topic altogether, I thought we were talking about performance?
a c 78 à CPUs
January 20, 2013 5:10:21 PM

hafijur said:
twelve225 the only reason amd get close even though it is 32nm vs 22nm is because of power consumption. Sandy bridge barely took more then ivy bridge probably another 10w. To make it fair compare the latest tech of each company at same watts forget price and you will see the difference. There is a reason why intel charge more and sell more, its because they are miles in front. Haswell gonna make this another big leap. Amd can't just keep selling high power hungry stuff.

The irony is i3 takes near half the power of an fx4300 cpu. 3770k takes less then an fx4300 cpu by 12w's.

That means probably a 4.5ghz i7 3770k vs amd fx4300 will show the difference of performance per watt between the two cpu's. Considering the i3 is faster then the fx4300 on a lot of things is just amazing difference ivy bridge is over amd line of vishera cpu's.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/fx-8350-83...


We're not talking about power consumption here, we're talking about performance. A 2013 Dodge RAM truck with a gets all of about 10mpg in the city driving, it can do a quarter mile in 14.8 seconds (which is pretty hellacious for a pickup truck), my Acura RSX Type S gets about 25mpg in the city and does a quarter mile in about the same. People still buy both, they don't refuse to buy the truck because it gets bad gas mileage, different strokes for different folks.

Back to your insistent focus on power usage, in terms of what the power differences actually translate to on an electricity bill, unless your computer is running under heavy load 24/7 you're talking a few dollars a YEAR. Intel charges more because they put more into Research and Development than AMD, they're also greedy pigs, don't kid yourself into thinking theres some sort of nobility to their products being more expensive.

As far as Haswell being a "big leap", AT BEST Haswell will be about 10% improvement over Ivy, hardware design doesn't come in great leaps, its done in baby steps. This is true for both AMD and Intel.
a c 78 à CPUs
January 20, 2013 5:27:48 PM

Quote:

Look at this 32nm vs 32nm. the graphics will leap 2x at same watt or same performance at half watt. Amd apu game changer now is under threat.


What are you talking about? This article is from October 2011, it says nothing about what Haswell will be, nothing about what the graphics will do. Intel is years away from their APUs being taken seriously in terms of the enthusiast market.

Quote:
Efficiency is massive for big business imagine, 100 computers used takes double the electricity to complete the same task and slower or faster computer takes half electricity to complete same task. No brainer really


Actually, have you worked in businesses? LOL, I've yet to meet a corporate hack who could find their own ass with a flashlight if not for their IT department to tell them where it is. Businesses that actually need strong computer equipment are going to focus on performance, not power consumption.

Most computer tasks that employees do don't actually require much CPU power at all, warehouse associates for example, secretaries, sure there are some companies which have the bulk of their employees working on nothing but CPU intensive tasks like video editing or CAD design, but the vast majority of business computer users are doing things like running simple software applications, Office, etc. As such, the company is not going to waste money buying them top of the line machines, they'll buy the cheapest thing they can get that will do the job regardless of anything else.

Quote:
Nvidia CEO Jen-Hsun Huang focuses on performance per watt as main objective.

Not sure what Nvidia has to do with this...
a b à CPUs
January 20, 2013 5:41:19 PM

I guess people have different criteria for what "par" is. AMD v Intel debates always end up more religious than logical for most anyway.
a c 78 à CPUs
January 20, 2013 5:41:42 PM

That may very well be, but thats not really enough information to judge why the room is warmer lol. Theres other factors that go into it, to say the cooling is the same doesn't speak to whether or not one room has more windows facing the sun, the computer tower design, just because he says the cooling system in the room is the same doesn't make it so. We have a computer lab at my school full of old Core2Quads, the room is hot as an oven, it also doesn't have any windows. Would I blame that on the computers? To an extent, but theres too many variables to make a real comparison.
a c 78 à CPUs
January 20, 2013 5:50:57 PM

twelve25 said:
I guess people have different criteria for what "par" is. AMD v Intel debates always end up more religious than logical for most anyway.

Well yes, thats kinda why I stopped posting here to be honest, someone resurrected a dead thread the other day and I got an email notification, thats why I made my brief cameo here.

I've never really hid my preference for AMD processors or my reasons for doing so. I still have always done my best to give objective information on both. My main motivation is moral/ethical for buying AMD. To some that is ridiculous. But having owned Intel systems myself, including an i5 Sandy Bridge machine that my ex had, I don't really feel I'm missing out on any performance for not buying an Intel rig for myself. There is no game I play on my machine that I feel is underperforming, there is no task I do with my computer that I feel is "too slow" to be acceptable. I simply don't like the idea of AMD going bankrupt and Intel being the only mass producer of CPUs for desktops/laptops. Its an undisputed fact that Intel has engaged in illegal business practices to establish a monopoly on that market (Fined both by the American Government and the European Union for this).

I hate shopping at Walmart personally, Walmart has done horrible things to this country in my opinion, cheaper-made, inferior Chinese products, and every other business has had to sell these things as well to even stand a chance. I'm a poor college student however, I can't really afford to shop anywhere but Walmart, which fuels my resentment of them even more. At least for now I still have a choice in buying my CPUs. I think its inevitable at this point that AMD files bankruptcy, I hope everyone who takes glee in AMD's impending failure enjoys paying Intel outrageous prices for central processors. I know I wont. $500s for an i5? You wont have a choice.
a c 448 à CPUs
a c 111 À AMD
January 21, 2013 12:59:08 AM

I think it is just too early to say. I will just make a general assumption that it will be about 10% more powerful than pile driver at the same clockspeed. That is the midpoint of the 5% - 15% performance increase AMD expects to gain with every new architecture design.

For people who have already invested into socket AM3+ for Bulldozer/Piledriver, the performance of Steamroller is rather moot. You already have the AM3+ motherboard. If Steamroller does not meet your expectations then you will either switch over to Intel or simply buy a Steamroller CPU because 1) you don't want to spend more money to switch platforms, or 2) stick with AMD out of brand loyalty.

For people who are contemplating now about going with AMD or Intel at this point in time... You can simply buy an Intel Ivy Bridge CPU and enjoy the performance right now knowing that socket 1155 is basically dead since Intel Haswell's CPUs will be socket 1150. Or, go with AMD now and hope that you will get Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge level performance when Steamroller is released in 2014.

Hopefully AMD can cut down on their CPU's power consumption much like they have with their GPU's power consumption.
January 21, 2013 1:07:02 AM

Well, hopefully with AMD's restructuring, they can find some new talent as opposed to the old guys that rolled out the best years ago.
As far as AMD goes, their graphics industry will be enough to keep the company afloat, at least until a few months after the release of the 8000 series.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 21, 2013 5:58:35 AM

jaguarskx said:

For people who are contemplating now about going with AMD or Intel at this point in time... You can simply buy an Intel Ivy Bridge CPU and enjoy the performance right now knowing that socket 1155 is basically dead won't be supporting newer technolgy since Intel Haswell's CPUs will be socket 1150. Or, go with AMD now and hope that you will get Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge level performance when Steamroller is released in 2014.

:welcome:  fixed that for ya
a b à CPUs
January 22, 2013 1:17:20 AM

The last time I updated my motherboard it was because all the I/O ports were outdated, not the socket. You think all those people with AM3+ boards they bought during the Phenom days, are excited to be rebuilding with Vishera and Steamroller on boards that only run USB 2.0 and Sata II? Not to mention NO AMD boards run PCI 3.0 yet. So in 3-4 years you can upgrade on a board that would sell for $40 on newegg closeout anyway (by that time). Super!

9/10 what happens is that by the time you have a worthwhile upgrade to a new processor family, the rest of the hardware is due for replacement, too. So the compatibility of the socket is of little value.



January 29, 2013 7:25:46 AM

I think it's impossible for AMD to go bankrupt at this point, with Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo pouring money into their pockets for console cpu and gpu's for the next 6-7 years...
February 21, 2013 3:03:54 AM

gigi_ro said:
with all the respect dude,amd cpu sux...smell a fanboy to me...as i sad,a quad core i7 3820 on lga 2011 would destroy any amd cpu...8 cores doesn't mean it's always better...an i7 3820 it's around 200 pounds in uk,so that's not the end of the world i think!it's true that my i7 3930k it's expensive...but it's 6 core and not 8 core like fx 8350...and still 6 core would absolutely destroy 8 cores amd!

PS: MORE CORES DOESN'T MEAN BETTER PERFORMANCE!
I WENT FROM 1055T TO I73930K...AMD CPU SUX AND THAT'S IT!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ahh the old PII based amd six core cpus last of the good amd chips
* sad face * I has the FX-8350 cpu. Great in a few things crap in almost everything else. When you utilise all cpu cores to its full then you have an I7 for the price of an I5. Just be prepared for the power bill! They are damn thirsty. The prob is that amd were too quick to jump into heavy multi thread. they need to work on IPC per core (which im lead to believe thats what they are doing) the market is all about single thread apps. Amd say approx 15% ipc per year. Cmon guys pull your head in! Intel's new Haswell will have approx 30% IPC with further power reductions and a gpu now apparently equiv to a dedicated 540m or something like that. Intels not just pulling ahead, they are just raping them. Steam roller will be the deciding factor of wether i switch to intel or not.

February 21, 2013 7:44:37 AM

Best answer selected by Timil.
February 24, 2013 10:30:38 PM

I think AMD just secured their future with the PS4 and next gen Xbox both using AMD chips. They are going to be using some custom 8 core underclocked APU. With the PS4 and Xbox both using AMD CPUs that not only means a lot of revenue for AMD to put into R&D but it also means that software studios are going to have to optimize games to run on AMD architecture and may mean that the games are going to rely less on independent core power and more on HT (especially considering the PS4 APU is going to only run at 1.8GHz). So the future of gaming may indeed be more cores not how powerful each core is.

Another thing to keep in mind is who the heck cares if an i7 (or whatever Intel has around in 2014 when Steamroller releases) benchmarks higher than the AMD processor if both can play a game on all ultra settings with no difference in fps or performance? Especially considering that the Intel processor will be more expensive than the AMD processor. The furture of video gaming has been answered with with PS4 and Xbox using AMD APUs. If the program (game) limits you to being able to run at certain levels its doesn't matter if the Intel chip can go higher if the program won't allow it to. Its like having a Ferrari on a windy Pennsylvania highway- yes the car can go more than 200 mph but if the road wont allow you to go more than 45-65 mph then all that extra power doesn't matter one darn bit.

Now I know a lot of Intel fan boys that paid WAY too much for their hardware are going to say that game producers could optimize the the PC versions so the more powerful Intel chips showcase their potential (as current games have done). In reality though why would they? To optimize the PC version of a game to run at its fullest potential would be more time programming and more expense for the the the studio, whereas porting the PS4 and Xbox game directly to PC would maximize their profits.

Long story short AMD is going to be around for a long, long time to come, and may (note I said may- not for certain) may have just made the impressive processing power of the Intel core i series (core for core) not as important as multi core HT in gaming.
March 15, 2013 6:00:30 AM

From all the articles and forum threads I've read since even before Bulldozer was released, until now, it seemed as though Bulldozer was an attempt at a rather new architecture. Innovation is often accompanied by high risk. Bulldozer was somewhat improved upon with Piledriver. Many of us keeping an open mind expect this Steamroller business to show a very significant improvement over the 2 previous families.
My point really sums down to 2 factors: 1) Don't be so quick to punish innovation. It doesn't always produce awesome benefits from the get-go. Keep in mind that AMD's CPUs are indeed competitive for their price ranges. It's unfortunate that they consume significantly more power, but it's up to consumers to demand better efficiency. This is not a reason to totally neglect AMD unless they show consistent disregard to consumer demand across several generations of CPUs. There haven't been several generations yet.
2) Lastly, and this should be relatively obvious to almost everyone here. If AMD were to go out of business in the CPU market... Well, there would be no competition left for Intel. You do know what that means right? Stagnated innovation and high, high, high prices. Just look at Intel's extreme CPUs priced at $1000+. Pathetically absurd prices and all because AMD has nothing to offer in that performance range. So I suggest you strive to support AMD or you will pay for it, literally.
Personally I haven't the slightest intention of paying even over $500 for a CPU. Maybe some of us have too much money to spend and fall to the temptation of getting more, more, always more. But there is such a thing called moderation. I like to do my homework, like a boss, then get what I need rather than waste my resources. Lets be realistic, less than 1% of us actually need $500+ CPUs, and that considering future proofing.
March 15, 2013 9:48:11 AM

the power consumption has been solved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc

They figured out if fx-8350 is overclocked it only costs little over 20 dollars for 3 years of running.
If you leave it stock it will actually save you money over a I5.... In my opinion this isn't and issue. I'm not a fanboy of either. I haven't been a fanboy since Cyrix chips were out. To me multithreading is the future. PS4 is going to be using 8cores. More game companies are going to be optimizing their games for more cores. So you could logically spend 200 dollars on 8 cores today or buy 2011 board and hope that intel goes to 8 cores at the premium price. 569 for six core so add 2 more cores to that divide 569 by 6 you get 94.83 per core, Multiply that by 8 and you get 758.67. yeah it may outperform the fx8350. That's like putting a Ferrari against a chevy Camero. Also by that time amd may add 16 core support for the FX series instead of the opteron.
March 20, 2013 8:00:28 PM

According to Wikipedia Intel's total assets as of 2012 were over 84 billion dollars , Amd's were just a measly 5 billion. The fact that Amd is even coming close to Intel in comparable price ranges let alone undercutting Intel on price is absolutely amazing to me. Price to performance is where I am at. I recently upgraded from a 785g chipset and a Phenom 9500 I have used 8 plus hours a day on the stock cooler and fan since feb 2008 with no problems. For $505 I got a Gigabyte 990fxa-ud3 , FX-6300 , 8 gigs of rucial ballistix ddr3 1866 , hyper 212 evo , and a samsung 840 series 120gb ssd. I can oc the FX-6300 to 4821 mhz just by upping to 1.425v and upping the multiplier. Running benchmarks at 4821 mhz it topped out at 47c with 19c idle temp and scored a 8275 cpumark. I don't care what the gap is in performance , its the gap in price that is laughable. I have a Radeon 6770 1gb gddr5. With the cpu at total stock settings it plays anything on max settings at no less than 35 fps , Dirt 3 benchmarked at 75 fps max settings. If I need more than that I will upgrade my vid card. Not that WEI is a strong indicator , but the cpu stock is 7.4 , ram 7.8 , graphics 7.4 , hdd 7.9 out of a possible 7.9 max.
March 20, 2013 8:10:26 PM

I can't figure this one out....
March 20, 2013 10:06:24 PM

wow, if a 6670 plays everything at max, im going to upgrade from the crappy 6950 I have and rock crysis 3!
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 21, 2013 2:04:48 PM

If you're going to game and run anything in the background...get the 8350...you will run more efficiently. Plus, new benchmarks from teksyndicate show that on equal footing, the 8350 is not nearly as bad as all these intel fanboys keep saying...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgHEgqqaas...

The 1080 and 1440 are referring to 1080p and 1440p resolution, not display size.
March 21, 2013 5:19:37 PM

I'm no AMD fanboy, neither am I an Intel fanboy.. I do have a preference for AMD because i like performance for price...

Now, me and my friend have similar rigs, he has an i5 with a HD7850... I have an fx-4100 with a HD7770... We both play the same games at the same settings, just at different resolutions... He plays at 1920x1080, i play at 1280x1040.. We both get almost the same FPS, sometimes mine exceeds, sometimes his exceeds.

When we talk about our rigs and we discuss price, he doesnt like to talk about how much he paid for his i5 (£200) compared to my fx-4100 (£60). He agrees that Intel are overpriced and agree that intel is better in overall performance if you pay the extra money.. But for performace and price, AMD is better in this department...

Now im not trying to say AMD is better, Intel is better.. But more expensive.. My point is that on a tight budget, AMD ia the best option, whether you go for an FX or you go for an APU... You will always get similar performance for around half the price. Now im not on either side, neither am i saying one is better than the other, im simply saying that depending on the situation, they both have their pros and cons.. If you have a budget of £500 go AMD, if you habe a budget of £1000 go Intel. This was typed on my phone so i appologize for any typos or spelling mistakes :) 
March 30, 2013 3:21:06 AM

It has become completely ridiculous how people argue about AMD vs Intel. BOTH CPU's perform well. Intel wins in some categories, AMD wins in others. The debate about which CPU is best factually depends on the workload.

Keep in mind that AMD's "8-core" CPU, such as the FX-8350 isn't truly an 8-core CPU. It's a quad module CPU, with each module containing basically two half-cores. I personally consider a single AMD module as being the counterpart to a single Intel core.

Also, the FX-8350 is currently $189 vs the i5-3570K which is $219 and the i7-3770K which is $329.

As far as power consumption goes, Intel is hands-down the winner, using less power, but it must be understood that amount of power savings one might find from running an Intel CPU is negligible in the real world. Sure, Intel might use half the power of an AMD part, but at the end of the year, having run both PC systems equally, you will have only saved $10 dollars on the year using an Intel part over AMD, so it's not this crazy power savings that people seem to think it is. Power consumption concerns should only be for mobile users (battery life).

Now, back to the OP's question, yes I do think that Steamroller will be at least on par with Sandy Bridge if not Ivy Bridge. I think that Haswell single core performance will no doubt be better, however, now that AMD has won the PS4 and new XBOX designs, I predict that game developers will start designing around AMD architecture and over the next few years we'll see AMD parts start to close the gap in terms of gaming performance, which is really the only area that I feel AMD parts could use a boost. Other than that. AMD parts are just fine. Anyone that says otherwise is absolutely ridiculous.

And for anyone that will call me an "AMD Fanboy" - Hell yes, I'm an AMD fanboy...for them to stay competitive with Intel when their total annual profit is less than Intel's R&D budget, how can you not give them support? However, I am also an "Intel Fanboy" - I love that Intel continues to innovate and improve on their design, regardless of having the lead on which they could sit back and relax if they wanted to. I'm excited by the Haswell improvements and look forward to Broadwell and Skylake and Skymont. AMD doesn't have anything listed on their roadmap beyond Excavator, but whatever it is, I truly hope they call it Devastator. I would have to buy it for the name alone.
April 1, 2013 5:41:11 PM

AMD: We Are On Track With Steamroller Micro-Architecture in 2013.
http://

Quote:
Don't confuse Steamroller with Excavator. Steamroller will offer some design changes and very nice performance bumps over the original Bulldozer. Excavator on the other hand is said to be a complete re-design with major architectural modifications. Excavator represents what Bulldozer should have been. According to internal sources, Excavator will not only be on par with Intel’s newest CPU’s in 2014, but may even surpass them by far in massive multi-threading based applications and games.
Expect Excavator to be based on a new Socket AM4+ with a Quad-Channel IMC, not to mention double the Hyper Transport Technology bus speed versus today’s Bulldozer. I cannot reveal anymore, though things do change depending on unforeseen circumstances such as manufacturing processes for instance.
In this respect, Steamroller is quite positive and should (will) provide some substantial performance improvements over Bulldozer in a clock for clock scenario.
April 1, 2013 5:41:11 PM

AMD: We Are On Track With Steamroller Micro-Architecture in 2013.
http://

Quote:
Don't confuse Steamroller with Excavator. Steamroller will offer some design changes and very nice performance bumps over the original Bulldozer. Excavator on the other hand is said to be a complete re-design with major architectural modifications. Excavator represents what Bulldozer should have been. According to internal sources, Excavator will not only be on par with Intel’s newest CPU’s in 2014, but may even surpass them by far in massive multi-threading based applications and games.
Expect Excavator to be based on a new Socket AM4+ with a Quad-Channel IMC, not to mention double the Hyper Transport Technology bus speed versus today’s Bulldozer. I cannot reveal anymore, though things do change depending on unforeseen circumstances such as manufacturing processes for instance.
In this respect, Steamroller is quite positive and should (will) provide some substantial performance improvements over Bulldozer in a clock for clock scenario.
April 1, 2013 5:41:11 PM

AMD: We Are On Track With Steamroller Micro-Architecture in 2013.
http://

Quote:
Don't confuse Steamroller with Excavator. Steamroller will offer some design changes and very nice performance bumps over the original Bulldozer. Excavator on the other hand is said to be a complete re-design with major architectural modifications. Excavator represents what Bulldozer should have been. According to internal sources, Excavator will not only be on par with Intel’s newest CPU’s in 2014, but may even surpass them by far in massive multi-threading based applications and games.
Expect Excavator to be based on a new Socket AM4+ with a Quad-Channel IMC, not to mention double the Hyper Transport Technology bus speed versus today’s Bulldozer. I cannot reveal anymore, though things do change depending on unforeseen circumstances such as manufacturing processes for instance.
In this respect, Steamroller is quite positive and should (will) provide some substantial performance improvements over Bulldozer in a clock for clock scenario.
April 3, 2013 11:44:00 AM

nt300...a triple post of a rumor, really? The quote you posted isn't a quote from AMD, it's a quote from some random person suggesting that he heard someone (supposedly an AMD insider) say these things about Exacavator. This same person also suggested that he's personal friends with Jim Keller. I trust this information about as much as I trusted the Mayan doomsday prophecy.
a b à CPUs
April 5, 2013 8:24:14 AM

Because intel is the best now they may say "lets try something new" and the new thing may fail like the p4 architecture did and then amd was beating them hard core with there athlon 64. This thing may happen again when intel is finding itself to good. i just hope that steamroller will be a good thing because amd was really awesome in the past but now intel is the way to go.
April 10, 2013 9:05:16 AM

hafijur said:
nekulturny said:
In what? PileDriver already exceeds Sandy AND Ivy in many multithreaded metrics, both synthetic and practical. Are you talking about single core performance? Games? What?


lol, piledriver is not even close to sandy bridge its like the biggest gap in the history of amd and intel at the moment. Anyway intel lowest end cpu being compared to amd extreme high end products. Its like the way things are going intel 17w haswell cpu will outperform the fastest amd desktop cpu and gpu integrated on.

I find it funny that amd systems take 2x more kilojoules just to get the same job done. Do you know an i7 3770k takes less power to run then the slowest amd fx4300 cpu's. heck a 4.5ghz i7 3770k would take probably less power to run and of course 3770k destroys the fx8000 series. heck even old sandy bridge 2600k destroys fx8350's and takes less power to run then the fx4300 cpu.


TRUE!! BUT IVY IS 22nm AND FX IS 32nm. YOU HAVE TO TAKE THAT IN TO ACCOUNT.
April 13, 2013 9:37:18 PM

nekulturny said:
twelve25 said:
I guess people have different criteria for what "par" is. AMD v Intel debates always end up more religious than logical for most anyway.

Well yes, thats kinda why I stopped posting here to be honest, someone resurrected a dead thread the other day and I got an email notification, thats why I made my brief cameo here.

I've never really hid my preference for AMD processors or my reasons for doing so. I still have always done my best to give objective information on both. My main motivation is moral/ethical for buying AMD. To some that is ridiculous. But having owned Intel systems myself, including an i5 Sandy Bridge machine that my ex had, I don't really feel I'm missing out on any performance for not buying an Intel rig for myself. There is no game I play on my machine that I feel is underperforming, there is no task I do with my computer that I feel is "too slow" to be acceptable. I simply don't like the idea of AMD going bankrupt and Intel being the only mass producer of CPUs for desktops/laptops. Its an undisputed fact that Intel has engaged in illegal business practices to establish a monopoly on that market (Fined both by the American Government and the European Union for this).

I hate shopping at Walmart personally, Walmart has done horrible things to this country in my opinion, cheaper-made, inferior Chinese products, and every other business has had to sell these things as well to even stand a chance. I'm a poor college student however, I can't really afford to shop anywhere but Walmart, which fuels my resentment of them even more. At least for now I still have a choice in buying my CPUs. I think its inevitable at this point that AMD files bankruptcy, I hope everyone who takes glee in AMD's impending failure enjoys paying Intel outrageous prices for central processors. I know I wont. $500s for an i5? You wont have a choice.


!