AMD huge disappointment with kaveri

[st379]

i can't believe that kaveri is even slower than richland.
another disappointment from AMD no wonder the reviews are hidden.
where are the 20% cpu increase?
another lie from amd according to anandtech unless you are willing to overclock it, i can't believe they did it again i'll guess i am going with intel after this huge disappointment i don't care about all the bs of hsa and on board gpu, it is even slower than richland!!!
AMD stop with the lies already!!!
say the truth for once for example : "unless you are willing to oc the hell out of the cpu, you will not see the 20% increase. "

 

[Danzas4321]

the 20% CPu increase is in IPC. they can then lower clock therefore lowering TDP but keep same performance due to the IPC increase

 

[Gaidax]

Well what did you expect really? APUs' are all about value and not performance. It's not slower than Richland, it's about on par or a bit better with an improved iGPU. It was never meant to be a miracle chip really.

It's good for what it does and that's it. It's like Mazda 3 of CPU's - it's a good all in one car for an average joe, but it's not a Porsche 911.

 

[st379]

AMD promised 20% increase in the cpu performence. they really need to fire the people in their marketing department enough with the lies it is even slower than richland.
i don't care about tdp or decrease of the clock, i care about the lies they are selling every time, they promised an increase in cpu performence and did not deliever like always.

 

[rmm03]

Ok first off. Kaveri IS 20% faster than Richland at stock speeds. It will do 20% more work just because the clock speed is lower doesn't mean the cpu is slower... it's in the architecture. Clock speed is more like rpms in a car not the actual horsepower it produces... do more research. I have had trinity Richland and now kaveri. And yes its not a huge leap that would close the gap between intel cpus. Essentially these apu are 2 core processors with hyper threading or 4 core without. However u wanna slice it. But know this. If u expect i7 4770k performance out of an apu for 1/2 of the price ur insane. Realize what the chip is intended for and not complain or slam amd for creating the first true hsa chip or cramming 512 stream processors into a small die. Appreciate the chip for what it is... revolutionary. Not performance leading for pennies. Performance cost money and Ur not gonna get it when 60% of the die is a gpu.

Bottom line kaveri at stock speeds with generic ram speed (1333mhz) is an entry level light gaming product. To truly see its potential u need to have an enthusiasts mindset by overclocking the cpu the gpu and the ram in order to get a lower mid ranged gaming rig. There aren't too many things that can compete with it ( of equal cost to build or purchase from a vendor)
I'm a proud owner of a kaveri and am quite impressed with my performance gains over Richland. About 18% single threaded performance and equal multi threaded tasks and about 60% on the gpu side. Over clocked obviously, but still, better than hd 7750 performance and in between an i5 and i3 cpu performance... (3xxx series)

My 2 pennies

 

[maxalge]

Ok first off. Kaveri IS 20% faster than Richland at stock speeds. It will do 20% more work just because the clock speed is lower doesn't mean the cpu is slower... it's in the architecture. Clock speed is more like rpms in a car not the actual horsepower it produces... do more research. I have had trinity Richland and now kaveri. And yes its not a huge leap that would close the gap between intel cpus. Essentially these apu are 2 core processors with hyper threading or 4 core without. However u wanna slice it. But know this. If u expect i7 4770k performance out of an apu for 1/2 of the price ur insane. Realize what the chip is intended for and not complain or slam amd for creating the first true hsa chip or cramming 512 stream processors into a small die. Appreciate the chip for what it is... revolutionary. Not performance leading for pennies. Performance cost money and Ur not gonna get it when 60% of the die is a gpu.

Bottom line kaveri at stock speeds with generic ram speed (1333mhz) is an entry level light gaming product. To truly see its potential u need to have an enthusiasts mindset by overclocking the cpu the gpu and the ram in order to get a lower mid ranged gaming rig. There aren't too many things that can compete with it ( of equal cost to build or purchase from a vendor)
I'm a proud owner of a kaveri and am quite impressed with my performance gains over Richland. About 18% single threaded performance and equal multi threaded tasks and about 60% on the gpu side. Over clocked obviously, but still, better than hd 7750 performance and in between an i5 and i3 cpu performance... (3xxx series)

My 2 pennies

It takes an overclocked 6300 to just about beat a i3 3220.

The 6300 is 10% better than an kaveri at equal clocks.

Gpu wise it's about equal to a 7750, as that can be overclocked as well.

 

[st379]

Amd is still my favorite choise when building a PC without gpu But... I just feel disappointed because of their lies once again. I was expecting it to be much better and not slower than last generation and I am not the only one who thought it will beat the core i3 and maybe even will give a decent fight to the sandy bridge core i5 . I was a little angry when I saw the benchmarks because of amd lies once agaon . I guess we are in the happy Pentium 4 days and it will be a while until we see an eight core CPU although my cellphone will probably see it next year. I am guessing at least five years until an eight core will become a mainstream maybe even more if the first quad core was released in 2006 and it is still costing quite a lot of money after almost 10 years.

 

[Pinhedd]

Amd is still my favorite choise when building a PC without gpu But... I just feel disappointed because of their lies once again. I was expecting it to be much better and not slower than last generation and I am not the only one who thought it will beat the core i3 and maybe even will give a decent fight to the sandy bridge core i5 . I was a little angry when I saw the benchmarks because of amd lies once agaon . I guess we are in the happy Pentium 4 days and it will be a while until we see an eight core CPU although my cellphone will probably see it next year. I am guessing at least five years until an eight core will become a mainstream maybe even more if the first quad core was released in 2006 and it is still costing quite a lot of money after almost 10 years.

Huh? Intel released 8 core CPUs in 2012, and just released a 15 core behemoth recently.

 

[sapperastro]

"It takes an overclocked 6300 to just about beat a i3 3220."

I beg to differ. Not sure where all these i3 fanboys are popping up from lately, but you can smell the bs in Brazil.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/699?vs=677

And that is stock vs stock. Fx 6300 still beats i3 in most benchmarks and software uses. And only one of them overclocks...

As for the Kaveri, it doesn't have anything for the power enthusiast. Once it drops price a little, it will make a fine light/older gaming machine on the cheap, or a good solution for the average pc user, but it doesn't have the power on either side to make it a player for the power user. Big mistake not rolling out one last hit for AM3+ with the steamroller imo. FX 6400? 8420? 8460? with the same clockspeeds and 20% ipc improvement they would be back on the map for another year or two.

Still good bang for the buck at the moment, but as time goes by...

 

[maxalge]

"It takes an overclocked 6300 to just about beat a i3 3220."

I beg to differ. Not sure where all these i3 fanboys are popping up from lately, but you can smell the bs in Brazil.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/699?vs=677

And that is stock vs stock. Fx 6300 still beats i3 in most benchmarks and software uses. And only one of them overclocks...

As for the Kaveri, it doesn't have anything for the power enthusiast. Once it drops price a little, it will make a fine light/older gaming machine on the cheap, or a good solution for the average pc user, but it doesn't have the power on either side to make it a player for the power user. Big mistake not rolling out one last hit for AM3+ with the steamroller imo. FX 6400? 8420? 8460? with the same clockspeeds and 20% ipc improvement they would be back on the map for another year or two.

Still good bang for the buck at the moment, but as time goes by...

yeah...

Before you say anything about the resolutions, low resolution benching tests the cpu by removing the gpu from the equation.


Notice how close they are in actual games, it takes overclocking for the 6300 to beat the 3220.

I thought brazil was a nice place... Guess it has sewer issues?

Tell Mr Machida I look forward to his next match.

 

[sapperastro]

It doesn't matter.

1) you won't remove your gpu to play games.

2) the FX can be overclocked.

The FX 6300 wins.

 

[st379]

Huh? Intel released 8 core CPUs in 2012, and just released a 15 core behemoth recently.

if the fx8350 cost only 200$ intel can release 8 core cpu for around 200$ but as long as AMD is out of the equation intel will release their cpu for a premium price.
read before you answer i said for mainstream not for 600$.

 

[Pinhedd]

Huh? Intel released 8 core CPUs in 2012, and just released a 15 core behemoth recently.

if the fx8350 cost only 200$ intel can release 8 core cpu for around 200$ but as long as AMD is out of the equation intel will release for a premium price.
read before you answer i said for mainstream not for 600$.

There's no need to have a hostile attitude.

Hardware wise, Intel's Haswell core is approximately twice the size as a single AMD bulldozer core. The capabilities of a single Intel Haswell core are very similar to an entire Bulldozer module. Take hyperthreading into account and they trade blows clock for clock, but Intel maintains a dominant power efficiency position. Intel's performance advantage is in large part derived from the fact that Hyperthreading allows for resources to be allocated dynamically between threads, whereas AMD's modular architecture does not.

Intel's 6 and 8 core microprocessors are roughly equivalent in performance to similarly clocked 12 and 16 core AMD microprocessors.

 

[maxalge]

It doesn't matter.

1) you won't remove your gpu to play games.

2) the FX can be overclocked.

The FX 6300 wins.

1. Flew over your head eh? Of course you don't remove the gpu, the point was to show the cpu's performance. THAT doesn't magically change even if you have a gpu, in fact you are ADDING overhead.

2 Yes, like I said that's what it takes for the 6300 to beat the 3220.

Which is not even in the same league as an i5, don't kid yourself.

Reading comprehension.®

 

[st379]

According to Amd their new architecure is something between ht to real core so it is suppose to be more expensive than the core i7 but less expensive than real 8 cores.
So once again intel can easily sell 8 core cpu around 200$ without the onboard gpu, but intel is going to make haswell refresh and maybe in skylake they will introduce us to 6 core cpu and than another 10 years with 6 core cpu unless amd is going to make some pressure on them, we really need some competition at least in the mobile market intel is failing big time and we can see how fast this market is developed when intel is not dominating, 8 core are coming this year.
i really hope intel will continue to fail and we will continue to enjoy the mobile rapid advancement.

 

[Pinhedd]

According to Amd their new architecure is something between ht to real core so it is suppose to be more expensive than the core i7 but less expensive than real 8 cores.
So once again intel can easily sell 8 core cpu around 200$ without the onboard gpu, but intel is going to make haswell refresh and maybe in skylake they will introduce us to 6 core cpu and than another 10 years with 6 core cpu unless amd is going to make some pressure on them, we really need some competition at least in the mobile market intel is failing big time and we can see how fast this market is developed when intel is not dominating, 8 core are coming this year.
i really hope intel will continue to fail and we will continue to enjoy the mobile rapid advancement.

Core count is a horribly misleading metric used my marketing departments to make mobile devices appear more powerful than they really are. Cores are hard to design but very easy to duplicate. The mobile market is still at least a full order of magnitude below the desktop market in scalar performance and does not appear to be closing that gap any time soon. High end Qualcomm ARM cores pull about 3.3 Dhrystone MIPS per cc per core whereas Haswell pulls just under 12. That's a 3.5 fold spread per clock cycle, and Intel chips have a one and a half to two fold lead in clock frequency in general as well; all on a single thread domain. That's scalar math only, code that is optimized for x86 vector extensions will simply scream along at a much higher rate.

Mobile vendors continue to crank out more cores at an alarming rate, yet trivial tasks such as running basic javascript or rendering PDFs still chugs along on mobile devices. 8 cores, 16 cores, won't matter until the cores themselves catch up. As it stands, it appears that Intel is having an easier time scaling down their architecture and manufacturing processes to meet ARM on the power efficiency front than ARM and its affiliates are at scaling up the performance of their microarchitectures to meet Intel on the instruction throughput front.

 

[st379]

i know that you can't put a 95W chip in a cellphone, but you can't ignore the rapid advancement in the last 3 years look at the galaxy s1 compare to the galaxy s4 in terms of ram, screen, faster storage, faster graphic, everthing is almost 4 times faster.
On the other hand an overcloced q6600 to 4.0 ghz can play all games and i7 920 with 4.5 ghz i believe it can beat haswell i5 4440 3.3ghz, so the performence gain in the last 10 years is pathetic.
All i am saying that if intel was dominating the mobile the galaxy s4 would have 1 core, that why i would never buy an intel chip in my cellphone because without Arm we would have their pathetic single core atom architecture at least for another 5 years.

 

[Pinhedd]

i know that you can't put a 95W chip in a cellphone, but you can't ignore the rapid advancement in the last 3 years look at the galaxy s1 compare to the galaxy s4 in terms of ram, screen, faster storage, faster graphic, everthing is almost 4 times faster.
On the other hand an overcloced q6600 to 4.0 ghz can play all games and i7 920 with 4.5 ghz i believe it can beat haswell i5 4440 3.3ghz, so the performence gain in the last 10 years is pathetic.
All i am saying that if intel was dominating the mobile the galaxy s4 would have 1 core, that why i would never buy an intel chip in my cellphone because without Arm we would have their pathetic single core atom architecture at least for another 5 years.

The bulk of the advances in SoCs have come from ARM finally adopting technologies that have been mainstays of the microprocessor industry for decades such as speculative execution, out-of-order execution, and multiple issue ports. Adopting these before was prohibitive on a low-power system, but this constraint has been relieved due to improvements in manufacturing processes. Moore's law, which has guided manufacturing processes for over 40 years, is on a collision course with the laws of physics.

ARM has had an easy time closing the performance gap up until now because Intel hasn't been focusing on the embedded market. The same behaviour was exhibited in the early 2000s when Intel was focusing on Itanium as a full replacement for x86. AMD came from behind and bit Intel in the rear with a very strong Athlon lineup. Intel shifted their focus back to x86 and look at where both parties are now. With Bay Trail making a strong showing in the performance charts it's clear that Intel is starting to show it's incredibly sharp R&D teeth.

EDIT: Don't mistake my analysis for dislike. I absolutely love ARM and work with it professionally.

 

[st379]

You really are an intel fanboy don't you? where is the preformence increase in the desktop market if q6600 and core i7 920 after an overclock can reach to the performence of haswell?.
today benchmarks still show that i7 920 overclocked can be as good as the low quad core haswell and the core i7 920 was released in 2008 we are in 2014 and until 2016 almost 8 years after! we will not see any improvement.
maybe skylake will be an improvement but i doubt that they are just going to put some higher clock and a better igpu.

 

[ewok93]

I think you believe the only thing to a CPU is cores and clock speed. This is not true. At all.

 

[st379]

i believe in benchmarks.
i dont care if the power consumption would be 95w or 1w if a core i7 920 after overclocked can beat haswell i don't really care what is the power consumption as long as i can cool it with a normal cooling.

 

[ewok93]

Power consumption is not just heat, it's efficiency. You're saying just because your classic let's say Mustang is a nice car, automobile technology has not progressed in the past 40 years because you hate your Ford Fiesta. I'm not going to change your mind, of course, so I'm just going to sit back and watch you argue with other people. Have fun.

 

[st379]

It is nice to see a better performence per watt but if you are making it more efficient and than cripple the cpu and adding a more powerfull igpu this efficenty is going to the wrong direction, at least in my opinion.
All i am saying that i would excpect that after 8 years the core i7 920 would be at least 2 times les powerful than haswell if not more.
Look how the gpu is progressing from 2008 it was 8800gt and now we have gpu with more than 4 times more power, and maxwell is suppose to be 2 times more powerful than kepler.

 

[ewok93]

Wait, now you're comparing old CPUs to current APUs? And you're pointing out lower end chips compared to an older high end chip.

 

[st379]

do you even read?
is it my fault that haswell has an onboard gpu on it? i did not ask for one and i have no other choice unless i am going with xenon.
and what about the gpu advancement during the last 8 years compare it to what ever high end gpu that was in that time it still not touching the gtx780 and at least 4 times less powerfull.