Discussion for AMD CPU/APU owners

[Site Lab]

Finally, someone else sees that AMD cpu's are just as good as the Intel equivalents :p

[Alwaysonacoffebreak]

Darn. where's the delete button :)

[Site Lab]

Also, PRICE!

Cheapest FX AMD Motherboard, Ram + CPU vs Similar Priced Intel Motherboard, Ram + CPU. (i3)

GIGABYTE GA-970A-DS3 AMD 970A (Socket AM3+) DDR3 PCI-Express ATX Motherboard ? 44.99

AMD Bulldozer FX-4100 3.60GHz (3.80GHz Turbo) Socket AM3+ 4-Core Processor ? 70.79

8GB Exceleram Value Series (1x8GB) DDR3 PC3-10666C9 1333MHz 1.5v SODIMM Memory - E30804S ? 27.99

?172.52 w/VAT

Intel Core i3-2100 3.10GHz (Sandybridge) Socket LGA1155 Processor - Retail ? 69.95

MSI Z68A-G43-G3 Intel Z68 (REV B3) Socket 1155 DDR3 PCI-Express Motherboard ? 59.99

8GB Exceleram Value Series (1x8GB) DDR3 PC3-10666C9 1333MHz 1.5v SODIMM Memory - E30804S ? 27.99

?189.52 w/VAT

FX-4100 is a quad-core, 3.60GHz processor. The i3-2100 is a dual core, 3.10Ghz processor.

In passmark benchmarks, the i3 scores 3851 points and the FX scores 3988 points. The FX-4100 system is also ?17 cheaper.

And the best bit is LINUX BENCHMARKS :p.

WINDOWS

This is all without the Bulldozer Patch that will hopefully increase the gap :)

[Alwaysonacoffebreak]

Thankfully Linux is more friendlier to FX then Windows is :)

[Arceles]

Intel fanboys bashing amd, nothing new indeed... but they are indeed very mad because ivy bridge line up turned to be not quite good... and they can't even overclock because it heats like hell. To bad for them.

[CentralDogma]

Really? Whatever the scenario? I got alot of results that say otherweise. As soon as it comes to multithreading AMD's FX will pull ahead, I'm not even going to talk about Linux benchmarks as thats a different story, FX has a whole new life over there.

Whoever was comparing IB to FX (Currently bulldozer) should look up when BD was release and when was IB released.

Anyway to the people who plan to buy Piledriver, there are some big changes.

Quad-channel DDR3

Up to 10 cores

HT

Dynamic scheduling and speculative execution

8 CUs with two cores per a CU.

AMD released a software optimization guide for Piledriver in January. You can read more about it here.

http://support.amd.c...w_opt_guide.pdf

That PDF you linked to is not what you think it is. It's a very technical rundown of architecture improvements(not specs). It's covering things like fetch-decode optimizations. That's a good thing though. Things like quad channel and 16-cores are nice back of the box features, especially for high end buyers, but architecture improvements is really what AMD needs to do now and it's something every consumer is going to benefit from. I mean, if you throw in an extra 2 Bulldozer cores that's going to help you boost performance when every other core becomes saturated, but if you manage to shave .0001 billionth of a second off of fetch-decode, that's time off of every single operation executing and that adds up to large performance gains.

From my understanding AMD is starting to focus its attention on the low end/portable market. Hopefully they take some of the optimizations they make there and translate them in to performance on the high end.

Anyway, I'm hoping AMD starts leveraging their APU line into their high end in their second Bulldozers. GPGPU is starting to become a big thing and having the GPU and CPU on the same chip could really be leveraged into something big.

[hagjohn]

I'm going to be buying an FX chip here soon. I think I'll get a good 6 core. I don't think I need an 8 core.

[Alwaysonacoffebreak]

That PDF you linked to is not what you think it is. It's a very technical rundown of architecture improvements(not specs). It's covering things like fetch-decode optimizations. That's a good thing though. Things like quad channel and 16-cores are nice back of the box features, especially for high end buyers, but architecture improvements is really what AMD needs to do now and it's something every consumer is going to benefit from. I mean, if you throw in an extra 2 Bulldozer cores that's going to help you boost performance when every other core becomes saturated, but if you manage to shave .0001 billionth of a second off of fetch-decode, that's time off of every single operation executing and that adds up to large performance gains.

From my understanding AMD is starting to focus its attention on the low end/portable market. Hopefully they take some of the optimizations they make there and translate them in to performance on the high end.

Anyway, I'm hoping AMD starts leveraging their APU line into their high end in their second Bulldozers. GPGPU is starting to become a big thing and having the GPU and CPU on the same chip could really be leveraged into something big.

Actually I do know exactly what that .pdf is about. I also know that major architectual changes come in Steamroller in 2013. But its good to know that they are atleast doing some changes in some levels with PD to keep up.

[Emn1ty]

Got this from Legitreviews review of the i7-3770k and Techspot's review of the Core i7 3770k You should compare whatever is the latest/greatest from Intel with whatever is the latest/greatest from AMD

No, you should compare at similar price points. It's about what you can get for X amount of money. We aren't all premium buyers. Just becuase Honda released a new Civic within a week of a new Shelby GT from Ford doesn't mean the two should be directly compared.

Edit: Ever since I started working in the automotive industry everything has become car analogies...

[Alwaysonacoffebreak]

I'm going to be buying an FX chip here soon. I think I'll get a good 6 core. I don't think I need an 8 core.

I suggest wait for Piledriver in Q3 if you're not in a hurry. As much as I've heard they are going to fix somewhat the glitches in Bulldozer. Or go with an Trinity APU, they seem to be good :)

Edit: Q3 - Well they are hoping to release it in that timeframe but might take longer, we all know how long we had to wait for BD :D

[Emn1ty]

I suggest wait for Piledriver in Q3 if you're not in a hurry. As much as I've heard they are going to fix somewhat the glitches in Bulldozer.

If you have an AM2+ slot processor you can upgrade to an AM3+ board and transfer the processor over in preparation. Of course, I tried that and my Phenom didn't want to let go of the heatsink :cry:

[Alwaysonacoffebreak]

Aww I really wanna delete my posts sometimes.

[TruckWEB]

You should compare whatever is the latest/greatest from Intel with whatever is the latest/greatest from AMD - these are recently released CPU's from both companies. What more do you want

What about price? If you want to compare apple-to-apple, you should include the price. So, check the current price of the AMD FX CPU, find a comparable Intel CPU and check the performance.

[Alwaysonacoffebreak]

What about price? If you want to compare apple-to-apple, you should include the price. So, check the current price of the AMD FX CPU, find a comparable Intel CPU and check the performance.

Sure. 8150 = 2500k/2600k

There you go.

*Newegg prices. In Estonia both Intels are even more expensive.

Eh let me refrase myself. In Estonia the 8150 is 198$ whereas the 2500k is 230 :)

[Site Lab]

i7-2600k = ?215.94 -> No AMD Processor at this price range.

i5-2500k = ?158.34 -> FX-8150 ?185.99

i3-2100 = ?83.94 -> FX-4100 ?84.95

There ya go :p

[ShiFteDReaLitY]

I was tied between a FX series and a 2500k, the late release of the FX is one reason I decided to go with the 2500k. I do mostly gaming, which the 2500k is faster in most of the time. I also do Encoding/encoding of HD video which most of the time the FX 8150 is faster in but i do more games then anything else. It comes down to buying what you want and whatever makes you happy.

Also, comparison should be done by price not flagship status etc.

[Andre S. Veteran]

First of all, 3770k is a newer CPU then Bulldozer is so I can't understand why do you keep comparing them?

Because they're both the newest and greatest from their respective manufacturers. It's not the consumer's problem if AMD hasn't updated their line for a while.

Secondly.

SPECviewperf is a synthetic performance benchmark tool. C-Ray is a synthetic performance benchmark tool. SiSoft Sandra 2011 is a synthetic performance benchmark tool. Anandtech's "7-zip benchmark" is a synthetic performance test. The only real-world test you've provided is Adobe Photoshop, where FX performed a whopping 12% faster than previous-generation i7. You also didn't mention that for every one of these, there were 10 others where FX was much slower, including in heavily threaded scenarios. So your claim that FX does better in multi-threaded scenarios is bogus.

I love the fact that when ever FX is better in a benchmark it will be labled syntetic instantly but untill then its the most widley used benchmark. Typical.

The usefulness of a CPU comes from its performance in real-world application, not synthetic benchmarks. That a benchmark is used widely doesn't make it any more indicative of real-world performance.

[Alwaysonacoffebreak]

Because they're both the newest and greatest from their respective manufacturers. It's not the consumer's problem if AMD hasn't updated their line for a while.

SPECviewperf is a synthetic performance benchmark tool. C-Ray is a synthetic performance benchmark tool. SiSoft Sandra 2011 is a synthetic performance benchmark tool. Anandtech's "7-zip benchmark" is a synthetic performance test. The only real-world test you've provided is Adobe Photoshop, where FX performed a whopping 12% faster than previous-generation i7. You also didn't mention that for every one of these, there were 10 others where FX was much slower, including in heavily threaded scenarios. So your claim that FX does better in multi-threaded scenarios is bogus.

The usefulness of a CPU comes from its performance in real-world application, not synthetic benchmarks. That a benchmark is used widely doesn't make it any more indicative of real-world performance.

LOL! Do you even know how many people laughed at this?

You more or less labeled 3 of the biggest benchmarks in the world as usless just because your fanbois is too strong, jesus. This s*it is getting hilarious.

Like previously stated, you don't compare CPU's by their "flagship" status, by that logic maybe we should compare something from VIA with 3770k?

[Andre S. Veteran]

You more or less labeled 3 of the biggest benchmarks in the world as usless just because your fanbois is too strong, jesus. This s*it is getting hilarious.

Unless what you plan on doing with your CPU is run synthetic benchmarks all day and salivate at the results, basing a purchase on synthetic performance doesn't make sense.

Like previously stated, you don't compare CPU's by their "flagship" status, by that logic maybe we should compare something from VIA with 3770k?

Well... yes you do. The consumer chooses the best CPU for the price. He doesn't care when they were released. Again, if AMD didn't update their line in a while, it's their problem, not the consumer's.

[Alwaysonacoffebreak]

Unless what you plan on doing with your CPU is run synthetic benchmarks all day and salivate at the results, basing a purchase on synthetic performance doesn't make sense.

Well... yes you do. The consumer chooses the best CPU for the price. He doesn't care when they were released. Again, if AMD didn't update their line in a while, it's their problem, not the consumer's.

Indeed, you choose by the price where the FX series (lower then 8150 or not,doesn't really matter) wins over Intel, and that few % of a change you get in Photoshop doesn't really count does it now.

Also like I said before, by your logic please get an VIA C7, it's cheap and for that money good enough of an CPU. See the flaw in that?

Anyway I'm done arguing about whos better in what and where. Not really the topic I was hoping this would be :(

[Andre S. Veteran]

Indeed, you choose by the price where the FX series (lower then 8150 or not,doesn't really matter) wins over Intel, and that few % of a change you get in Photoshop doesn't really count does it now.

Agreed, the question is, where does FX win for the price in real-world performance?

[Alwaysonacoffebreak]

I will agree on that in single-threaded apps it takes an ass-beating from the i-series but I'll stand my ground that in Multi-tasking FX is better.

I use C4D and AE, in those programs it's better then the 2500k as I had an machine to compare it with. Is that real world performance enough for you?

Anyway as I'm at work I should actually do some :rofl:

[abysal]

Back in October 2011, I picked up an AMD 999FX Sabertooth board from ASUS in preparation to upgrade mine or my brothers system to the new FX-8150 (I have a i7 920 - OC to 3.6, he has a Phenom II 956 BE - OC to 3.5). Unfortunately I ended not going with any of the new FX chips, mainly because their single threaded performance was worse than AMD's prior Phenom II generation of chips. It was also not any faster then my OC'd i7 920.

I admit I was disappointed with the FX launch, it was way over hyped and set very high expectations. However the chips are priced reasonably and they offer a tremendous value for gamers. If you look purely at the gaming benchmarks, you will see that Phenom II (AMDK10), Sandy Bridge, and Bulldozer all are virtually even in most games.

Right now you're choices for gaming (not including the new Ivy Bridge) are Phenom II X4 980, i5 2500k, or FX-4170.

Other that I don't consider the FX-4170 a quad core, I think it would be the best choice for gamers on a budget.

[dr_crabman]

I will agree on that in single-threaded apps it takes an ass-beating from the i-series but I'll stand my ground that in Multi-tasking FX is better.

I know you're all talking strictly about performance and yes the FX-8150 has the advantage in some scenarios, price is now ok too. But when I buy a CPU I look at every aspect and where AMD loses horribly is the power consumption, an area where Intel excels nowadays, especially with Ivy Bridge. Was the other way around a few years ago and unfortunately it shows that while Intel has a lot of headroom left if they need it AMDs processors are working at their limits. Not a good sign for the near future.

[chris_h449]

i bough myself a fx8120 today (almost the 8150), i thought it was a bargain @ ?128, i looked up what a nice intel cpu would set me back and while lntel does have a great performing cpu lineup i just coudlnt justify the price for intel as you only get 10-15% performance, sometimes abit more, sometimes abit less, depends what ya wanna do, but you gotta pay 60% more for the I7 2600k and about 30% more for a I5 2500k its just not woth it for half a frame here 2 seconds there( when ya doing 100fps+ does 1 more really matter), i just felt that amd offered the best bang for buck as they did with the phenon II, intel cpus are good and are better but not better enough and not by enough for me to buy one. but thats just me.

3 2 1 cue fur flying