AMD vs. Intel

[spaceelf]

Sure, there arent any Haswell to 9590 comparsions out there. :(

 

Didn't want to include APU's aswell, even Kaveris. While the iGPU is far better than Intel's (excluding Iris Pro just for the fact the CPUs that that cost a arm and a leg) the CPU itself is pure garbage.

Wait, so Kaveri is pure garbage but Richland, Trinity, and Llano are on there?

 

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say there.  Heh.

 

Kaveri is fantastic, its just better with HSA code, TrueAudio and Mantle so is swept under the rug by people who aren't intertested in those.  I can't wait to see 2015s APUs...but I'm sure I can wait til 2016 to buy more kit.

[Alwaysonacoffebreak]

Wait, so Kaveri is pure garbage but Richland, Trinity, and Llano are on there?

 

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say there.  Heh.

 

Kaveri is fantastic, its just better with HSA code, TrueAudio and Mantle so is swept under the rug by people who aren't intertested in those.  I can't wait to see 2015s APUs...but I'm sure I can wait til 2016 to buy more kit.

 

Steamroller cores are fantastic but not when there's just two of them (Okay 4 by AMD's count). AMD made a VERY big mistake not releasing a big-core SR out the door... HSA...it hasn't catched on just yet and we can't be sure it will.

 

And yes, for enthusiasts, Kaveri is garbage.

[spaceelf]

Steamroller cores are fantastic but not when there's just two of them (Okay 4 by AMD's count). AMD made a VERY big mistake not releasing a big-core SR out the door... HSA...it hasn't catched on just yet and we can't be sure it will.

 

And yes, for enthusiasts, Kaveri is garbage.

I am an enthusiast, and I very much disagree with that sentiment.

 

And the HSA one.  It will definately catch on, since it makes a lot of sense on APUs and SoC procs.  Might take a while though.

[Alwaysonacoffebreak]

The thing is, in its current state APU's cant compete with any of the higher end Intels but the 9590 does. AMD needs to release an SR based 9xxx soon. We can't just sit around and wait 4 years for a new high-powered arch... (2 years PD been out + 2 that we were promised)

[spaceelf]

The thing is, in its current state APU's cant compete with any of the higher end Intels but the 9590 does.

The higher end Intels are all APUs, so I'm pretty sure that's inaccurate (yes, I know what you meant heh.)

[spaceelf]

The thing is, in its current state APU's cant compete with any of the higher end Intels but the 9590 does.

I know it's irrelevant to most current workloads, but the HSA benches at the bottom show why I'm still very positive on this proc.  I'm sure you've seen em before but hey.

 

Yes, it depends on developer adoption, but so did AMD64 and guess what?  It got it.

 

http://wccftech.com/amd-kaveri-i54670k-benchmarks-showdown-continued-hsa-features-test/

[Noir Angel]

Having a high TDP isn't just about saving electricity, it will also reduce the strain on your PSU and make heat management within your case a lot easier. Quite simply the TDP of AMD's processors is poor and the manufacturing process isn't responsible either, Intel's 32nm quads only have TDP's of 90 watts.

[Alwaysonacoffebreak]

Having a high TDP isn't just about saving electricity, it will also reduce the strain on your PSU and make heat management within your case a lot easier. Quite simply the TDP of AMD's processors is poor and the manufacturing process isn't responsible either, Intel's 32nm quads only have TDP's of 90 watts.

 

Sure, while Intel Quads also have only 4 cores. While AMD has 8 cores. Like it or not, those are real cores, just weak.

[spaceelf]

I still don't get why people act like every proc runs at full tilt all the time.

 

Having a high TDP does not mean it's using that every moment the machine is on.  Heh.

[Noir Angel]

Given that Intel's 12 core xeons only have a TDP of 95 watts I call nonsense on that excuse.

[spaceelf]

Given that Intel's 12 core xeons only have a TDP of 95 watts I call nonsense on that excuse.

What excuse?  It's called reality.

 

Those 12 core Xeons are not using 95 watts every moment they're on either.

[Noir Angel]

Sure, while Intel Quads also have only 4 cores. While AMD has 8 cores. Like it or not, those are real cores, just weak.

 

My comment was in reference to this post, though generally high TDP processors will generally consume more power when idle as well.

[Alwaysonacoffebreak]

Given that Intel's 12 core xeons only have a TDP of 95 watts I call nonsense on that excuse.

 

And? 16 core Opterons are also 90W TDP? (Edit: My bad, the 16 core is 140W)

[spaceelf]

My comment was in reference to this post, though generally high TDP processors will generally consume more power when idle as well.

True, I was just pointing out that only looking at the TDP for power usage is silly.  Generally, the other components in the system will use enough to overshadow any gains on a processor alone.

[Noir Angel]

115W actually. And my point was that your argument is wrong because TDP doesn't scale with amount of cores.

 

http://www.scan.co.uk/products/amd-opteron-6272-interlagos-16-core-s-g34-(lga-1944)-clock-speed-21ghz-32mb-total-cache-115w-retail-

[Alwaysonacoffebreak]

I edited my last post. I never said cores=TDP. TDP is no measure of an actual power usage of an CPU in the first place. Leave the 220W 9590 on idle and you can easily see it stis around 60W and 220W. People who take the TDP too seriously have no clue what it actually means.

[Noir Angel]

Given that AMD's FX processors do use more power, it's clear the problem of power consumption is still a relevant one regardless of how you excuse it.

[Alwaysonacoffebreak]

I am not excusing it? What? I said in the first post already that FX's do take more power. I just said that TDP does not equal to the real power consumption. Nor will it ever, how ever Intel tries to push it.

[Crisp]

Xeon E5-2667, 8 core... 130W

 

Xeon E5-2687, 8 core... 150W

 

i7-3820, 4 core... 130W

[spaceelf]

Either way AMDs current lineup is not very strong.  I'm not saying it's entirely bad, but I think they're on track for a much stronger lineup 2015 and onward.  I hope they can keep the competition going from then on, as I just haven't really seen it until now.

[MFH]

alwaysonacoffebreak, on 15 Jun 2014 - 15:21, said:

Sure, while Intel Quads also have only 4 cores. While AMD has 8 cores. Like it or not, those are real cores, just weak.

 

If AMD's "CMT cores" are real cores, than Intel's "SMT cores" are also real cores?

So both of them have 8 cores, but only 4 of those are strong?

[Alwaysonacoffebreak]

AMD's CMT are actually real cores since Intel's SMT is just threading one core to two. AMD's CMT can boost all eight cores. Intel's SMT can't.

[giantpotato]

These benchmarks are nice and all, but I don't use my PC to run 8-core hashing algorithms all day. What matters to me is gaming, and the i7 4770k wins in almost every gaming benchmark. http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz-11.html

 

The 9590 might win in benchmarks specifically designed to use as many cores as possible, but most real-world programs can't make use of 8 cores. I would gladly choose a 50% improvement in single threaded performance and low power consumption instead of a minor performance improvement for applications using all cores.

 

To top it off the 9590 runs so hot you can barely overclock it by more than 200Mhz.

[Alwaysonacoffebreak]

These benchmarks are nice and all, but I don't use my PC to run 8-core hashing algorithms all day. What matters to me is gaming, and the i7 4770k wins in almost every gaming benchmark. http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz-11.html

 

The 9590 might win in benchmarks specifically designed to use as many cores as possible, but most real-world programs can't make use of 8 cores. I would gladly choose a 50% improvement in single threaded performance and low power consumption instead of a minor performance improvement for applications using all cores.

 

To top it off the 9590 runs so hot you can barely overclock it by more than 200Mhz.

 

While all of this is ture... Why in the world would you even overclock it any more? It can easily run turbo at 5Ghz... While on water it's still more than an 4770k can do water. (Source: http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_4770k/)

 

Also there are plenty of programs that take use of as many cores as you can throw at it.

[giantpotato]

While all of this is ture... Why in the world would you even overclock it any more? It can easily run turbo at 5Ghz... While on water it's still more than an 4770k can do water. (Source: http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_4770k/)

 

Also there are plenty of programs that take use of as many cores as you can throw at it.

 

Comparing clock-rates tick-for-tick to intel is pointless since Intel gets more done in a single clock-tick. The point is you can get ~25% more performance for the same price overclocking with Intel, vs. ~5% more performance overclocking with AMD.

 

Why would you not want extra performance for free?