31 replies to this topic

[Kuronin]

 

 

 

However when you go to buy a chip the common thinking is that you can get an Intel chip for the same price as the 8350 and have something that in core to core testing is faster and uses less power. 

This is the real rub. The equivalent Intel chip will use less power, clock higher (usually), and perform better at the same price point.

 

true that, i think amd basically gave up trying to compete like that with intel, knowing that they will always be beat out by intel's tech and strategy, so that's why they're advancing the apu market, and finding new ways to convince the world that this is needed and worthwhile...

 

Not sure I agree with this but the end result is the same. The APU is the future of the desktop market as well as mobile. It make sense for AMD to shift it's focus now while it has an edge is this area. The edge here is the video side for AMD, they are miles ahead of Intel.

 

 

I think this is right on, with the portable device market becoming increasing popular with tablets, phones, and netbooks, AMD is in a unique position to deliver the greatest performance in one chip, at an amazing price point. 

 

I will continue to maintain that AMD isn't as far behind Intel as people think, but ATI is going to have a tough long tough road to compete with Nvidia.

[vandreadstriker]

It still has an effect, and it doesn't warrant shelling out the extra cash for a 3820 and a X79 board, unless you need it for work.

 

This is true and has always been. It's also a reason why Phenom IIs were eyed by many people before, including myself. Those Core 2 Quads may have the performance, but not value. Phenom IIs came with good performance (more than enough for most users at the time) while coming in as low as 50% the price of Intel's offerings.

 

But when you're talking about gaming, CPU doesn't count much. As long as it doesn't bottleneck your GPU, you'll get similar results between a system using the lowest-end CPU possible or the highest-end CPU. Sure it has an effect, but you're talking a difference of 2-3FPS at best; something that won't end the world if you already have playable framerates to begin with..

 

 

I don't understand why you guys are being critical of AMDs FX series, the 8350 is neck to neck against the 3820 in general gaming and actually beat out the 3820 in 3Dmark at 1080p.

 

source: http://www.overclock...d_fx8350/11.htm

 

I may just skip the Richland and wait to see what the Kaveri has to offer.

I think a lot of the critical comments and feelings come from frustration with AMD as a company. They really over hyped the FX line as they built to it and to get a chip that is not much of an improvement over the existing line (Phenom II) and even worse in some cases was a HUGE let down after all the hype they pumped into us. I also think a lot of the reason comes from the fact that core for core the FX is NOT as fast as Intel in most tests. You are correct in general gaming there is not enough difference to matter.

 

However when you go to buy a chip the common thinking is that you can get an Intel chip for the same price as the 8350 and have something that in core to core testing is faster and uses less power.In fact if you go to a Microcenter you can actually buy an i5 for less than the 3850. 

 

As for the 3820, I totally agree. Unless you are picking up one very cheap there is just no reason to get it over an i5 or even an FX for a gaming system. Well other than bragging rights. 

 

 

Uhh.. Who was it that made all this hype? Oh right, its us. Yeah they didn't meet our expectations, but it's not completely unreasonable. IIRC AMD has been second to Intel in terms of core-per-core performance since Socket 939 came out (probably even before that). Come AM3 and still they were behind Intel by quite a length. And here we were all expecting them to beat Intel out of the blue? I admit, I'm one of those who were disappointed as well. But I don't think its right for us to blame them for not meeting the Hype that we, ourselves made.

 

The problem now is, like you and Waco said, it ain't worth the price. For the same price you can get a better performing, lower power i5. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if the (then just released) 8150 was priced at $160-180 price (Thuban prices), I'd get one over the 2500K ($220) any-day.

 

true that, i think amd basically gave up trying to compete like that with intel, knowing that they will always be beat out by intel's tech and strategy, so that's why they're advancing the apu market, and finding new ways to convince the world that this is needed and worthwhile...

 

I thought AMD did say that they're going to focus more on the APUs and less on competing with Intel on the high-end chips.. And when you follow their progress, they're slowly catching up with i3 performances (which is enough for gaming) with discrete graphics capabilities. All they need is an integrated 89xx like you said earlier and it'll be the perfect little mean gaming system.

[cjloki]

quote "— in a Llano-powered laptop, for example — the CPU and GPU hardly talk to each other; the CPU does its thing, and the GPU pushes polygons. What the researchers have done is to marry the CPU and GPU together to take advantage of each core’s strengths." unquote

 

when amd gets this straightened out amazing things are going to happen the third paragraph grabbed me

[ComputerEd]

I think a lot of the critical comments and feelings come from frustration with AMD as a company. They really over hyped the FX line as they built to it and to get a chip that is not much of an improvement over the existing line (Phenom II) and even worse in some cases was a HUGE let down after all the hype they pumped into us. I also think a lot of the reason comes from the fact that core for core the FX is NOT as fast as Intel in most tests. You are correct in general gaming there is not enough difference to matter.

Uhh.. Who was it that made all this hype? Oh right, its us. Yeah they didn't meet our expectations, but it's not completely unreasonable. IIRC AMD has been second to Intel in terms of core-per-core performance since Socket 939 came out (probably even before that). Come AM3 and still they were behind Intel by quite a length. And here we were all expecting them to beat Intel out of the blue? I admit, I'm one of those who were disappointed as well. But I don't think its right for us to blame them for not meeting the Hype that we, ourselves made.

 

The problem now is, like you and Waco said, it ain't worth the price. For the same price you can get a better performing, lower power i5. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if the (then just released) 8150 was priced at $160-180 price (Thuban prices), I'd get one over the 2500K ($220) any-day.

 

The who was actually just as much AMD as the geek community. AMD promised us this would be the next big chip and it was not anything but a side shift, no real upgrade. Those expectations BTW where NOT about them beating Intel, most of us thought at best they would pull even and that was a stretch. However we did expect, and AMD led everyone to believe that the Bulldozer would be a huge improvement over the Phenom II and that was not the case. IF the FX had come in with a 20% performance boost over the Phenom II then I do not think there would have been any crying. However they did not get 20%, 10% or even a gain, in fact at release the FX core to core and clock to clock was about 5% SLOWER than the Phenom II.

 

Now if this was hype we had made then I would agree with you but AMD really did spend a lot of time telling us how this was a new chip that going to change everything for AMD< well it did but not in the way they wanted.

[ohldboy]

At release price, performance, and power usage was against AMD.

APUs are limited by TDP and memory, a niche market. Intel Haswell may outperform Richland. A possibility.

Putting more cores on an A10 and maintaining TDP is improbable.

Integrating CPU/iGPU Architecture may have considerable gains, off chip memory remains a factor.

 

For future "proofing" AMDs lack of PCIe3.0x16 is a difficulty.

 

Balancing the cost of fast memory (still DDR3) vs a discrete card with DDR5 and a remove and resell capability is a factor.

It is also annoying (both AMD and Intel) that there is not better integrated video on lower cost chips. Though better than motherboard video.

 

It is also annoying FX TDP appears to preclude on chip video. Which Inttel has.

[cjloki]

 

It is also annoying FX TDP appears to preclude on chip video. Which Intel has.

that's why the amalgamation of the fx8350 into the trinity f2 apu line is so darned interesting,..but i'm sure intel has things in the works too

HSA

[DanTheGamer11]

Can't wait to see what Kaveri brings to the table Richland is just a refresh, right?

[cjloki]

Can't wait to see what Kaveri brings to the table Richland is just a refresh, right?

yup, and i think i'll get into it since it's f2 backwards compatible as kaveri supposedly will be...all very interesting stuff