Quantcast

Maximum PC

It is currently Thu Sep 18, 2014 8:19 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Venting on Vishera
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:19 am 
Clawhammer
Clawhammer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:22 pm
Posts: 4406
Location: In the closet

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/t...-fx4300-tested

"Vishera is a step in the right direction for AMD, it manages to deliver tangibly better performance than last year's disappointing FX processor without increasing power consumption. Thanks to architectural and frequency improvements, AMD delivers up to 20% better performance than last year's FX-8150 for a lower launch price, while remaining within the same thermal envelope."

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/...c_overclocking

"Is Vishera a better part than Intel's Ivy Bridge or previous Sandy Bridge processors? No it is not, not even close. Intel still has a healthy lead in both Performance per Watt, and Instructions per Clock. AMD cannot best or match Intel on the desktop and keep in mind that AMD brings 4 more processing cores to the table than the Intel processors compared here today."

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...view,3328.html

"I’m going to have to resign myself to forgetting what the FX brand once meant, though. Almost a decade ago, an FX was something that made Intel scramble to respond. It represented cutting-edge. And it set you back more than $700 bucks. Today, we have to ooh and aah over performance victories against the middle of Intel’s desktop line-up—its Core i5-3470 and -3570K—all the while shrugging off fairly severe discrepancies in energy efficiency. There. I’m done. Back to 2012."


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Venting on Vishera
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 4:54 pm 
Smithfield
Smithfield

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:37 pm
Posts: 5248
Maximum PC had some interesting results, which made me think that AMD might be a viable solution for areas where CPU is more important than GPUs.

But the fact remains as a consumer level part, AMD's plans are flawed and they really need to rethink what they're doing.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Venting on Vishera
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:31 pm 
Team Member Top 500
Team Member Top 500
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 10:45 pm
Posts: 3026
Location: Central Florida
LatiosXT wrote:
Maximum PC had some interesting results, which made me think that AMD might be a viable solution for areas where CPU is more important than GPUs.


Not really, even the 3570K with 4 less threads to work with & a 600MHz dissadvantage still holds it's own against the 8350 while using less power. Spend $100 more & the 3770K wipes the floor with the 8350 & still uses about 53 Watts less power. Sadly, the 8350 is a generation to late... it is what the 8150 should have been.

BTW... that extra $100 for the 3770K on a machine running 24/7 (for example a dedicated folding @ home box) at $0.12 per KWh would be made up in just over 18 months. So if you build a dedicated folder with the 8350 at a lower cost now, at the end of a 4 year run it would end up costing you a good bit more (possibly hundreds more depending on your cost per kWh) than a 3770K system despite the lower intial cost.

Chris (Toms Hardware review) is right, the old "FX" processors used to raise Intel's eyebrows, but the new "FX" is just something for Intel to laugh at.

I could have waited & gave the 8350 a try, but this is pretty much what I expected to see from it. This is why I chose to drop $900+ on a new LGA-2011 mobo & 3930K processor instead of spending just $220 to drop an 8350 into my old 990FX board.

Don't get me wrong, this is a step in the right direction, but AMD is barely taking baby steps when they need to be taking leaps.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Venting on Vishera
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:42 am 
Clawhammer
Clawhammer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:22 pm
Posts: 4406
Location: In the closet
So right, but the chilling reality is that they are incapable of leaps. They will never challenge Intel again, ever. With the like of Haswell, 14nm Broadwell and Skylake and eventually 10nm Skymont in the pipe, AMD has no option but to unfocus, gracefully ignore and simply run away from the performance desktop and workstation market. They call it a strategy, but we all need to laugh, since it's nothing more than a desperate Hail Mary to find revenue on the low-end, tablet and mobile markets. The sad ending of this story will be Intel punching them in the neck here too and ARM stomping on their forehead. AMD is a lost sheep pumping out late products that suck and nobody wants.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Venting on Vishera
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 9:20 am 
Team Member Top 500
Team Member Top 500
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 10:45 pm
Posts: 3026
Location: Central Florida
kleinkinstein wrote:
So right, but the chilling reality is that they are incapable of leaps. They will never challenge Intel again, ever. With the like of Haswell, 14nm Broadwell and Skylake and eventually 10nm Skymont in the pipe, AMD has no option but to unfocus, gracefully ignore and simply run away from the performance desktop and workstation market. They call it a strategy, but we all need to laugh, since it's nothing more than a desperate Hail Mary to find revenue on the low-end, tablet and mobile markets. The sad ending of this story will be Intel punching them in the neck here too and ARM stomping on their forehead. AMD is a lost sheep pumping out late products that suck and nobody wants.


The stink of it is... if Bulldozer & now Piledriver had been true 8-core products instead of the shared FP bullshit they're crawling behind, they would have been competitive CPU's. True, they still would have lagged behind in IPC, and probably would have increased the power usage a bit, but they would have had an 8350 that would probably have fallen somewhere between the 3770K & the 3930K.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Venting on Vishera
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:44 pm 
Clawhammer
Clawhammer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:22 pm
Posts: 4406
Location: In the closet
chaosdsm wrote:
...but they would have had an 8350 that would probably have fallen somewhere between the 3770K & the 3930K.


Indeed. And that would have been the such a sweeeeet spot of a proc for roundabout $335!


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Venting on Vishera
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:12 am 
8086
8086

Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 6:48 am
Posts: 82
Location: NEW JERSEY
i am looking at the benchmarks now(btw thx for links). i still have a amd+ mobo getting dusty, this will prob. b my last amd build.

i was expecting a 15-20% improvement, after a year wait, im very disappointed.

still if i can find a 8350 for $195 ill go for, if only to utilize my mobo.

amd, if your watching this, get a stick and beat yourself with it, you need 2b punished.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Venting on Vishera
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:25 am 
Smithfield
Smithfield

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:37 pm
Posts: 5248
I'm wondering something here, the overall performance of AMD's processors is low because of the IPC performance. I'm wondering why. The whole modules vs. core things shouldn't matter, because a lot of benchmarks in use tend to favor integer operations than floating point ones (Anandtech made this a point to test integer and floating point performance).

What's the flaw here? How can AMD be even more inefficient with their processors? The IPC performance of Bulldozer can be seen as worse at times compared to Phenom II.

Does AMD need better engineers? How can they still excel at GPUs, but suck at CPUs?


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Venting on Vishera
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:58 am 
Team Member Top 10
Team Member Top 10
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 2:55 pm
Posts: 9231
Location: back on the right side of the middle of the left side YES i'm folding
because they bought their gpu division and stayed out of its engineering department. amd has always missed the boat in some things, consider cache, they never use enough, and never have. Intel learned long ago that more cache=faster.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Venting on Vishera
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 7:13 am 
Smithfield
Smithfield

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:37 pm
Posts: 5248
g.m.waters (red ranger3) wrote:
because they bought their gpu division and stayed out of its engineering department. amd has always missed the boat in some things, consider cache, they never use enough, and never have. Intel learned long ago that more cache=faster.

Uh. No. Intel needed more cache back in the day for two reasons (possibly)

  • Prescott's jaw-dropping 36 or something stage pipeline. If you missed anywhere in predictions, that's a massive penalty to take versus the 20 some stages found elsewhere.
  • Intel didn't have an on-die memory controller

Also, AMD has 8MB of L2 and L3 cache in Bulldozer. Intel only has 6MB in L3 and 256KB L2 for each core.

Not to mention, if you add more cache, eventually your latency for looking through it will be greater than just looking it up in RAM. Remember: you don't know if the data you need is in cache. However, it's always in RAM (well, usually).


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Venting on Vishera
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 10:39 am 
Clawhammer
Clawhammer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:22 pm
Posts: 4406
Location: In the closet
AMD problem is something called Intel. If there was no Intel or Intel wasn't as adept, AMD wouldn't suck so much. Look at the 3rd column from the right - 2011 R&D ($M). Notice what Intel's R&D budget is like. $8.4B. Now look way down the list at #9 and see what AMD's R&D budget is like. $1.5B and to get some idea as to how much of Intel's R&D budget is going into process node development, just look at TSMC at position 10 on the list.

Now what I really wonder is Why are Intel procs below $500 so crippled in features like AES, ECC, locked multipliers and so on? With the answer "because they can be". Thanks for nothing Intel.


Image


Top
  Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group