# Intel Core i7-3610QM Tested



## btarunr (Mar 20, 2012)

Several next-generation performance-segment notebook models across brands, will be driven by Intel's Core i7-3610QM, a quad-core chip based on the 22 nm Ivy Bridge silicon, clocked at 2.30 GHz (3.30 GHz Turbo), featuring 6 MB L3 cache. The chip features the complete instruction-set of Intel's third-generation Core processor family. DonanimHaber got to test a Samsung notebook that's based on this chip (which also uses NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M graphics), the chip was put through SuperPi 1M and 2M; and Cinebench R11. The chip crunched Pi 1M in 11.66 s, and 2M in 26.67 s. It scored 6.09 pts in Cinebench, which is a higher score than that of AMD FX-8150, DonanimHaber notes. 



 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Hayder_Master (Mar 20, 2012)

btarunr said:


> It scored 6.09 pts in Cinebench, which is a higher score than that of AMD FX-8150



it's the most funny thing


----------



## (FIH) The Don (Mar 20, 2012)

i have lost all faith in AMD's cpu segment 

if they will focus on their smaller cpu's/apu's or wutdafuq its called and their graphics it will be good

oh yeah, the new i7 looks mighty good :O


----------



## Mulderer (Mar 20, 2012)

OMG an Intel _mobile_ chip beats AMD's monster desktop..?


----------



## radarblade (Mar 20, 2012)

Damn! Those are like desktop 2600K scores! Ivy is packing a serious punch in it's mobile department.


----------



## D4S4 (Mar 20, 2012)

the 3.3ghz turbo might have had something to do with it. i wonder what kind of clock speeds will the desktop variations run


----------



## Assimilator (Mar 20, 2012)

AMD's fastest desktop CPU beaten by Intel's fastest laptop CPU... that's sad any way you slice it.


----------



## NHKS (Mar 20, 2012)

& this isnt even the 'extreme'(i7-3???XM) edition..


----------



## bear jesus (Mar 20, 2012)

Mulderer said:


> OMG an Intel _mobile_ chip beats AMD's monster desktop..?





Assimilator said:


> AMD's fastest desktop CPU beaten by Intel's fastest laptop CPU... that's sad any way you slice it.



The old mobile 6 core I7s beat the desktop phenom IIs, i am willing to bet this has been happening for many generations thus nothing has changed.


----------



## CAT-THE-FIFTH (Mar 20, 2012)

The score is higher than a Core i7 975 Extreme Edition:

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/Cinebench-11.5-Multi-threaded,2407.html


----------



## AvonX (Mar 20, 2012)

*LoL*

I can't wait for pile of sh*t to come out.


----------



## trickson (Mar 20, 2012)

Intel just keeps pounding them Nails into the coffin of AMD!

[URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/204/nailincoffin300x241.jpg/]
	
  Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/URL]

Take that  AMD!


----------



## Delta6326 (Mar 20, 2012)

Do want!


----------



## pjladyfox (Mar 20, 2012)

Guess I was the only one who was more interested in scores for the NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M than the CPU score. I mean, I like AMD but the entire Intel beating an AMD CPU at this point is like the local school jocks giving a swirlie to one of the nerds; sad it happens but not really a surprise anymore.


----------



## dieterd (Mar 20, 2012)

and this is only the weakest quadcore mobile processor, what preformance will i7-38xx QM and i7-39xx XM show.... those quad i7-26xx are very affordable so i7-36xx should make no difference, but to bad that real buyable products of thease will apear in the end of Q3


----------



## trickson (Mar 20, 2012)




----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Mar 20, 2012)

bear jesus said:


> The old mobile 6 core I7s beat the desktop phenom IIs, i am willing to bet this has been happening for many generations thus nothing has changed.



It doesn't make it any less pathetic, regardless of if it's SOP or not.


----------



## mastrdrver (Mar 20, 2012)

Mulderer said:


> OMG an Intel _mobile_ chip beats AMD's monster desktop..?



In the Cinebench it beats the desktop Intel i7 970. What's that say about Intel's desktop parts?

So when is the leak going to happen with Wprime instead of the dated Super Pi that uses expired and non supported code path? (SSE vs x87 respectively)

I love how all the Intel leaks always use absolutely worthless benchmarks to tell us any potential (or lack of) that the CPU has. :shadedshu


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Mar 21, 2012)

mastrdrver said:


> In the Cinebench it beats the desktop Intel i7 970. What's that say about Intel's desktop parts?
> 
> So when is the leak going to happen with Wprime instead of the dated Super Pi that uses expired and non supported code path? (SSE vs x87 respectively)
> 
> I love how all the Intel leaks always use absolutely worthless benchmarks to tell us any potential (or lack of) that the CPU has. :shadedshu



LOL could you be more transparent, only an AMD fanboy would claim tests to be pointless that make AMD look bad, yet if it looked good for AMD they would be very important.

The chip performs well, very well apparently, deal!


----------



## MikeMurphy (Mar 21, 2012)

mastrdrver said:


> In the Cinebench it beats the desktop Intel i7 970. What's that say about Intel's desktop parts?
> 
> So when is the leak going to happen with Wprime instead of the dated Super Pi that uses expired and non supported code path? (SSE vs x87 respectively)
> 
> I love how all the Intel leaks always use absolutely worthless benchmarks to tell us any potential (or lack of) that the CPU has. :shadedshu



Its a good thing Intel doesn't compete with Intel.

Also, SuperPi doesn't need to be optimized because its not a tool to compare different architectures.


----------



## MikeMurphy (Mar 21, 2012)

bear jesus said:


> The old mobile 6 core I7s beat the desktop phenom IIs, i am willing to bet this has been happening for many generations thus nothing has changed.



Since when did Intel produce a mobile 6 core part?


----------



## trickson (Mar 21, 2012)

MikeMurphy said:


> Since when did Intel produce a mobile 6 core part?



No need to, A quad is still better than any thing AMD has. 
J/K  but seriously yeah


----------



## bear jesus (Mar 21, 2012)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> It doesn't make it any less pathetic, regardless of if it's SOP or not.



In no way was i denying that, i was just trying to point out this is not a new thing since bulldozer, really it is just AMD getting it's ass kicked in the CPU market as usual for recent years. 


MikeMurphy said:


> Since when did Intel produce a mobile 6 core part?



I may possibly be wrong  but if so i blame Eurocom for selling 6 core i7's in laptops.


----------



## mastrdrver (Mar 21, 2012)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> LOL could you be more transparent, only an AMD fanboy would claim tests to be pointless that make AMD look bad, yet if it looked good for AMD they would be very important.
> 
> The chip performs well, very well apparently, deal!



Explain an AMD fanboy that spends $500 on an Intel part? I'd love to hear it.



MikeMurphy said:


> Its a good thing Intel doesn't compete with Intel.
> 
> Also, SuperPi doesn't need to be optimized because its not a tool to compare different architectures.



The problem is that nothing runs x87 code anymore, so why use it in a leak?

Plus support for it was dropped in BD which is why Stars is faster in Super Pi. The majority of code is SSE in some version which is why I suggested wPrime but there is also y-cruncher.


----------



## trickson (Mar 21, 2012)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> LOL could you be more transparent, only an AMD fanboy would claim tests to be pointless that make AMD look bad, yet if it looked good for AMD they would be very important.
> 
> The chip performs well, very well apparently, deal!



I agree . 

Funny how AMD fanboys hand pick a benchmark and say the rest mean nothing! Oh that one is too old or that one doesn't count! GIVE ME A BREAK!


----------



## GoFigureItOut (Mar 21, 2012)

I'm not surprised one bit. Even though it's a laptop CPU, it is based on Ivy Bridge. After seeing the score from their Cinebench, I got curious, and decided to test out my machine. My results, a whopping 1.34!


----------



## BeepBeep2 (Mar 21, 2012)

Hayder_Master said:


> it's the most funny thing


It really is. It also beats a 2500K.


(FIH) The Don said:


> i have lost all faith in AMD's cpu segment
> 
> if they will focus on their smaller cpu's/apu's or wutdafuq its called and their graphics it will be good
> 
> oh yeah, the new i7 looks mighty good :O


No reason to lose (more than 99.9%) faith in AMD's CPU segment, Trinity will be the last hope with Piledriver  


Mulderer said:


> OMG an Intel _mobile_ chip beats AMD's monster desktop..?


Yeah, it's crazy. It also beats the 2500K, what those AMD parts compete with.


Assimilator said:


> AMD's fastest desktop CPU beaten by Intel's fastest laptop CPU... that's sad any way you slice it.


It also beats the 2500K. I guess you didn't know that.


radarblade said:


> Damn! Those are like desktop 2600K scores! Ivy is packing a serious punch in it's mobile department.


Yeah!


D4S4 said:


> the 3.3ghz turbo might have had something to do with it. i wonder what kind of clock speeds will the desktop variations run


Yeah, that's exactly what it is. Ivy Bridge is ~10% faster in single thread than Sandy Bridge, 3.3 GHz will compete nicely with the upper desktop SB parts.


NHKS said:


> & this isnt even the 'extreme'(i7-3???XM) edition..


You mean the $1000 parts sold in $3000 laptops that carry the Extreme Edition label and have 3.4% more performance for 340% the price?


bear jesus said:


> The old mobile 6 core I7s beat the desktop phenom IIs, i am willing to bet this has been happening for many generations thus nothing has changed.


You are talking about a product that never existed.


CAT-THE-FIFTH said:


> The score is higher than a Core i7 975 Extreme Edition:
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/Cinebench-11.5-Multi-threaded,2407.html


You're absolutely right.


trickson said:


> Intel just keeps pounding them Nails into the coffin of AMD!
> 
> [URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/204/nailincoffin300x241.jpg/][url]http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/7204/nailincoffin300x241.jpg[/URL]  Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/URL]
> 
> Take that  AMD!


You are an Intel fanboy, and you don't even have any idea of how an intel CPU performs 


pjladyfox said:


> Guess I was the only one who was more interested in scores for the NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M than the CPU score. I mean, I like AMD but the entire Intel beating an AMD CPU at this point is like the local school jocks giving a swirlie to one of the nerds; sad it happens but not really a surprise anymore.


You're right too. The problem is, everybody is so mis/non-informed that they make stupid comments kind of like the ones made by trickson.


trickson said:


> http://cetidiving.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Bulldozer3.jpg


You got a laugh out of me there.


[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> It doesn't make it any less pathetic, regardless of if it's SOP or not.


It isn't really pathetic, I mean, feel free to call Sandy Bridge desktop pathetic too.


mastrdrver said:


> In the Cinebench it beats the desktop Intel i7 970. What's that say about Intel's desktop parts?
> 
> So when is the leak going to happen with Wprime instead of the dated Super Pi that uses expired and non supported code path? (SSE vs x87 respectively)
> 
> I love how all the Intel leaks always use absolutely worthless benchmarks to tell us any potential (or lack of) that the CPU has. :shadedshu


At least you have _SOME_ idea of what's going on.


[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> LOL could you be more transparent, only an AMD fanboy would claim tests to be pointless that make AMD look bad, yet if it looked good for AMD they would be very important.
> 
> The chip performs well, very well apparently, deal!


AMD and how pathetic they are have been mentioned SO MANY TIMES in this thread. Had the article said FX-8150 AND 2500K, there would not have been a single comment.


MikeMurphy said:


> Its a good thing Intel doesn't compete with Intel.
> 
> Also, SuperPi doesn't need to be optimized because its not a tool to compare different architectures.


It really is a good thing, because Intel would be kicking Intel's ass apparently.


MikeMurphy said:


> Since when did Intel produce a mobile 6 core part?


Hey, that's what I said.


trickson said:


> No need to, A quad is still better than any thing AMD has.
> J/K  but seriously yeah


"J/K but seriously"...Phenom II X6 was extremely competitive with Quad-Core Bloomfield i7 9xx and Lynnfield i7 8xx.


bear jesus said:


> In no way was i denying that, i was just trying to point out this is not a new thing since bulldozer, really it is just AMD getting it's ass kicked in the CPU market as usual for recent years.
> 
> 
> I may possibly be wrong  but if so i blame Eurocom for selling 6 core i7's in laptops.


It wasn't a new thing since Bulldozer, but AMD was close enough to compete (really well) before Sandy Bridge came out. BD just made it worse for them.

Yeah, those were 6 core _desktop_ parts in laptops. 


mastrdrver said:


> Explain an AMD fanboy that spends $500 on an Intel part? I'd love to hear it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


+1



trickson said:


> I agree .
> 
> Funny how AMD fanboys hand pick a benchmark and say the rest mean nothing! Oh that one is too old or that one doesn't count! GIVE ME A BREAK!


SSE is not "handpicked". By the way, I don't know ANYONE that complains about the things like that. You really need to understand what you are talking about before you talk about it.

You wanna know handpicked? The guy like you complaining when someone wants to take SuperPi (which is in NO WAY an indicator of any type of performance outside SuperPi, which is used as an overclockers benchmark to compare with similar hardware) out of the equation.


GoFigureItOut said:


> I'm not surprised one bit. Even though it's a laptop CPU, it is based on Ivy Bridge. After seeing the score from their Cinebench, I got curious, and decided to test out my machine. My results, a whopping 1.34!


What CPU do you run?


----------



## AvonX (Mar 21, 2012)

I see this is turning out nicely for AMD  
Well it looks like they will still be on the waiting list: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhUbrBe5o-A


----------



## trickson (Mar 21, 2012)

BeepBeep2 said:


> Phenom II X6 was extremely competitive with Quad-Core Bloomfield i7 9xx and Lynnfield i7 8xx.



Yeah that is great a 6 core CPU keeping up with and at times beating a Quad core. Man that is a big achievement there, Way to go AMD! 



BeepBeep2 said:


> SSE is not "handpicked". By the way, I don't know ANYONE that complains about the things like that. You really need to understand what you are talking about before you talk about it.
> 
> You wanna know handpicked? The guy like you complaining when someone wants to take SuperPi (which is in NO WAY an indicator of any type of performance outside SuperPi, which is used as an overclockers benchmark to compare with similar hardware) out of the equation.


Yeah if this BM was on the BD and it beat  Intel or Ivy bridge you AMD fanboys would be holding up in our face as the FUCKING holy grail!



BeepBeep2 said:


> You are an Intel fanboy, and you don't even have any idea of how an intel CPU performs


I love how you make it sound as if you are the only one that knows any thing! I think they call that a KNOW IT ALL! What do you know about me? I would ask you keep your person digs to your self! 
I am a Fanboy of performance. Top dog's get praise bottom feeders get the scraps! You do not like that? Go cry to mommy!



BeepBeep2 said:


> AMD and how pathetic they are have been mentioned SO MANY TIMES in this thread. Had the article said FX-8150 AND 2500K, there would not have been a single comment.


If the Bulldozer wasn't so Pathetic to start with then there would be no need to talk about them. We would be using them as the standard to compare every thing else against. 
Yes looks like Intel has to really compete against it's self as Intel has set the standard for top performance Power consumption and TDP! Bulldozer has a what 125W TDP and Ivy bridge has a TDP of 77W OMFG! Again Intel sets the BAR! Yet you are saying????









BeepBeep2 said:


> You're right too. The problem is, everybody is so mis/non-informed that they make stupid comments kind of like the ones made by trickson.



Again, You make personal digs at me, I make stupid comments. How mature are you? 
I am misinformed? I wonder how that could be true.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/8

Now here is the rub, The Bulldozer is an 8 core 8 thread CPU the sandy bridge is a 4 core 4 thread and the phenom II is a 6 core 6 thread CPU. When I use commonsense here and reasoning, I can see that in many ways the Bulldozer and Phenom II are on par with the Sandy bridge and well this tells me that not only does it take less cores with less threads and less TDP to do the same thing an 6-8 core AMD CPU can do but that the one with less cores is also the better performer! Miss informed? Just how is having more cores more speed and more TDP better than one with less cores less speed and less TDP With better overall performance? When every thing shows that it is NOT. No you are the one mislead! BTW. Notice I did not even say any thing about the Ivy bridge in this part of my quote.


----------



## GoFigureItOut (Mar 21, 2012)

BeepBeep2 said:


> What CPU do you run?




AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ 3.0ghz, baby!!

I hope this gets posted correctly... I'm still a noob


----------



## BeepBeep2 (Mar 22, 2012)

trickson said:


> Yeah that is great a 6 core CPU keeping up with and at times beating a Quad core. Man that is a big achievement there, Way to go AMD!
> 
> 
> Yeah if this BM was on the BD and it beat  Intel or Ivy bridge you AMD fanboys would be holding up in our face as the FUCKING holy grail!
> ...





> Yeah that is great a 6 core CPU keeping up with and at times beating a Quad core. Man that is a big achievement there, Way to go AMD!



AMD Phenom II on 45nm was able to beat out Core 2 Quad, so at one point AMD's first 45nm product = Intel's first 45nm product. Both shrinks would have been considered "tocks".

AMD has a lot less of a foundry to work with. Intel has made great strides with transistor shape, optimizing their HKMG 32nm bulk process. GlobalFoundries, and even when AMD owned the fab in Dresden, has always struggled to keep up.

Bulldozer materialized as a horrible product. It is a horrible product that looks okay on paper. It is a combination though, of the product and the fab. I'm not going to blame either one here. When you realize that AMD is 25x smaller than intel, they run a pretty efficient operation.

By the way, how the fuck am I an AMD fanboy? I talk about how bad Bulldozer is on a daily basis.

You're pretty fucking retarded.

As far as this:


> "Yeah if this BM was on the BD and it beat  Intel or Ivy bridge _you AMD fanboys would be holding up in our face as the FUCKING holy grail!_"


Well, I'm not a fanboy, like you are a fanboy, so I don't do those kind of things. I am an overclocker, and use both intel and AMD parts. My next CPU will be 3 2600K to bin for DICE/LN2 runs for points on HWBOT. I'm not a partial, biased waste of space like you unfortunately.



> I love how you make it sound as if you are the only one that knows any thing! I think they call that a KNOW IT ALL! What do you know about me? I would ask you keep your person digs to your self!
> I am a Fanboy of performance. Top dog's get praise bottom feeders get the scraps! You do not like that? Go cry to mommy!


Really? You're gonna go tell me to cry to mommy? Hahahahaha 
I'm sure you wish you were one of those "Top dog's" in life. I doubt many of us will ever be 



> If the Bulldozer wasn't so Pathetic to start with then there would be no need to talk about them. We would be using them as the standard to compare every thing else against.
> Yes looks like Intel has to really compete against it's self as Intel has set the standard for top performance Power consumption and TDP! Bulldozer has a what 125W TDP and Ivy bridge has a TDP of 77W OMFG! Again Intel sets the BAR! Yet you are saying????
> 
> http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4955/41715.png


You're absolutely right about Bulldozer being pathetic.

However I've already said it, I dunno, 10 times in this thread...quad core intel mobile part beats high end intel desktop part too. Just because the article said "AMD FX-8150" and not "AMD FX-8150, 2500K and 6% behind 2600K" you went on your little intel fanboy happy stint, making stupid, worthless, biased comments as far as the Cinebench score being our subject, *and* *it is* our subject.

LOLDUHOMFG IVY HAS A TDP OF 77W? WOAH NO WEY ITS ON 22NM WITH INTELSENHANCEDFINFET3DGATEDESIGN ANDTHEYSPENT20xTHER&DMONEY!

Did I ever make Bulldozer out to be even a _good_ product in this thread here? I simply mentioned that it beat out a similarly priced Intel desktop product and you're all asshurt on the other side of your computer about imaginary "AMD fanboys" and how much they suck. I am not acting like a fanboy. 



> Again, You make personal digs at me, I make stupid comments. How mature are you?
> I am misinformed? I wonder how that could be true.


How mature am I? You resorted to telling me to "cry to my mommy" because I'm the big bad "fanboy" here despite being neutral.

You do make stupid comments. Lets look at what you've said in words so far this thread:
1


trickson said:


> Intel just keeps pounding them Nails into the coffin of AMD!
> 
> *some stupid fanboy images*
> 
> Take that  AMD!


2


trickson said:


>


3


trickson said:


> No need to, A quad is still better than any thing AMD has.
> J/K  but seriously yeah


4


trickson said:


> I agree .
> 
> Funny how AMD fanboys hand pick a benchmark and say the rest mean nothing! Oh that one is too old or that one doesn't count! GIVE ME A BREAK!


*1.* Intel will not let AMD die. Actually, government won't even let that happen. What will be created is a monopoly. Do you know what a monopoly is? There have already been several investigations about it already being that way, because *AMD is too incompetent to keep up.*

In case you need a definition:
in·com·pe·tent/inˈkämpətənt/
Adjective:	
Not having the necessary skills to do something successfully.

*2.* That really shows the extent of your knowledge.

*3.*That largely depends on what you're doing. If you're running an 33 year old instruction set designed for Intel 8087 *or* SSE, the only thing Pentium 4 could do right, but hardly existed at the time. 

Are you running cinebench or superpi when "any intel quad beats anything AMD has"? Or encoding videos? Making archives?...nobody gives a shit how many cores you need to match the performance in a multithreaded program that allows for 32+ threads. In fact, you can be a lot more efficient when you make a thousand slow cores work in harmony. (Think "GPU")

4. Throwing SuperPi out of the equation is not "handpicking one benchmark". That does not make someone an AMD fanboy, oh loyal Intel fanboy overlord.  



> Again, You make personal digs at me, I make stupid comments. How mature are you?
> I am misinformed? I wonder how that could be true.
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/8
> ...


I'm sorry, I said you make stupid worthless comments. In fact, you neglected to note that Ivy Bridge mobile beats out Intel's $220 desktop part and almost matches their $320 part yet spend every moment you can making sure everyone knows it beats out AMD's $240 desktop part. Nice one, fanboy 






Now, if you'd like to know my thoughts on Bulldozer, here are a collection of posts from XtremeSystems.org about what I think of AMD's current lineup.

Some of these are funny, so feel free to get a laugh out of them.
@ XS 


> Someone needs to run benches with 2 threads at 3.2 to see if we really are behind K8 and into K7 territory





> I'd been saying this since release. To get the same performance with BD that you do with Phenom II you have to use more power and its a node smaller. Essentially, I was told to shut up and the blame was put on GloFo. System power consumption minus ~70w for other components, you're at about 170-175w for CPU power consumption with the Bulldozer CPU and 90-95w for i7 2600K.
> 
> In essence, the BD CPU consumes 90% more power than a 2600K and does not win any tests except for:
> Pov Ray 3.7b by 2.9%
> ...





> But who knows, maybe Bulldozer is only "good" at 16 cores and less than 3GHz, where it is at the server market competing with 2GHz 8 core intel CPUs that do more work with less power than it anyway.





> *in response to an idiot saying you can do 5.2 GHz with BD and only 3.8 with Phenom II*
> 
> No, not really.
> 
> ...





> Because Tom's Hardware told you so?
> They put FX-8150 and Phenom II X4 975/980 in the same category, and Phenom II X6 1090T/1100T in a lower category. That is a fucking joke...
> FX-8150 is an equivalent gaming CPU to a 1100T as long as you can overclock it to 4.6-4.8. Actually, it might still be a little behind in a lot of games.





> Your posts make me laugh. You have a few good points but totally offset by the total AMD fanboism...
> Did I not state that the FX-8 core CPUs were about equal to Phenom II X6 and Phenom II X4?





> polyzp - the fanboy that writes AMDFX.blogspot.com]since when is Tomshardware not a reputable source? Theres no point in arguing over OC numbers said:
> 
> 
> > Upgraded from a X4 @ 4200mhz and i noticed a differance, even when using the FX at stock clocks.
> ...





> The box is pretty photogenic...





> Because Core i7 (Sandy Bridge) is up to 85% faster than Bulldozer in a single thread. (Or, up to 4 threads...) Up to about ~55% over Phenom II. This gap was more like 35% before Sandy Bridge, when we compared Nehalem to Phenom II the FPS difference in games wasn't quite as large.


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Mar 22, 2012)

so is this a quad core or a quad core + HT?  Just a quick question.  

Warning: AMD Fanboyism ahead.

So.... it's I'm guessing a 35w part... compared to the 125-225w *cough cough* FX-8150p 4m/8c/8t 3.6/3.8ghz vs a 2.3/3.3ghz 4c/8t with much better IPC... not really a surprise given that it is technically two generations ahead of AMD as they won't have a 22 (or lower, given that gloflo and tsmc and samsung, etch are jumping past it to 14nm they may go 14 instead then.) until 2014.. the power efficiency isn't really all that surprising.  Not to mention the tri-gate transistors and.. yeah.  

Really, people wonder why AMD can't keep up...
_Yet Intel puts more money into R&D than AMD makes in total income each year, before operating costs and the like._
And yet AMD manages to remain competitive in the mainstream market.  

So tell me which is sadder, AMD or Intel here.  
Also, keep in mind if AMD delivers on Piledriver, if Ivy is clocked the same as current Intel CPUs, 4ghz Trinity will only be ~7% slower than a 3.6ghz IB part CPU wise, and have that nice, many times faster IGP with GPGPU functions and the like.  So if we see a 2.8/3.2ghz A10, that will keep up with the i5's at least (If AMD delivers on it's claims that the IPC will be better than Llano STARS, which to date is the best IPC for any AMD CPU).  Which AMD knows it can't compete on the high end right now.  They're tossing their lot in and doing what the know how to do well, and are putting their remaining dollars into heterogeneous computing architectures.  Which if they can dump the floating point over to the IGP, and manage to get fast enough cache, then perhaps AMD will be able to strike back at Intel and have another Athalon.  I sure hope so.

Anyone who isn't a multi-millionaire also probably hopes so as otherwise CPU prices would skyrocket with a monopoly.


----------



## BeepBeep2 (Mar 22, 2012)

trickson said:


> Intel just keeps pounding them Nails into the coffin of AMD!
> 
> [URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/204/nailincoffin300x241.jpg/][url]http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/7204/nailincoffin300x241.jpg[/URL]  Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/URL]
> 
> Take that  AMD!





trickson said:


> http://cetidiving.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Bulldozer3.jpg





trickson said:


> No need to, A quad is still better than any thing AMD has.
> J/K  but seriously yeah





trickson said:


> I agree .
> 
> Funny how AMD fanboys hand pick a benchmark and say the rest mean nothing! Oh that one is too old or that one doesn't count! GIVE ME A BREAK!





Vulpesveritas said:


> so is this a quad core or a quad core + HT?  Just a quick question.
> 
> Warning: AMD Fanboyism ahead.
> 
> ...


I see you read my last post in full. 

I doubt trickson will


----------



## ensabrenoir (Mar 22, 2012)

That video was hilarious 
Intel costs more because they deliver TODAY AND FUTURE VIABLE performance...not THEORETICAL POTENTIAL performance that will be viable....someday. It is what it is...What ever is in your need /budget  & go with it and forget about the rest.  Buick makes some nice cars...but they dont try to compete with Bmw or lexus.... proper context brings clarity.  Drooling to see what Ivy deskstop can do. Exciting times ...love to see innovation and tech advancement.


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Mar 22, 2012)

ensabrenoir said:


> That video was hilarious
> Intel costs more because they deliver TODAY AND FUTURE VIABLE performance...not THEORETICAL POTENTIAL performance that will be viable....someday. It is what it is...What ever is in your need /budget  & go with it and forget about the rest.  Buick makes some nice cars...but they dont try to compete with Bmw or lexus.... proper context brings clarity.  Drooling to see what Ivy deskstop can do. Exciting times ...love to see innovation and tech advancement.



That will be viable someday?... so games are currently mostly around quad-threaded.  Your desktop uses however many cores you have for multitasking.  So.... yeah.  Which is why average users won't see a difference between an i7-2600k and an FX-8150p.  Because they're not gaming.  And outside of that, quite honestly there's not much difference between the two save for the i7 being more energy efficient and costing more.  

So eh.  We, gamers/overclockers/enthusiasts make up only a small percentage of the market.  And AMD is already moving towards Heterogeneous computing.  What do you think the 'fusion' line is meant for?  lol.  They've already debuted Trinity running 3 monitor eyefinity on it's IGP alone at 5040x1050p with dirt 3 at medium settings forgoing AA.  And that's with test silicon.  720p maxed settings.  

Given that, and a sandy-bridge i3/5 level CPU, in a computer which in whole costs less than $800, isn't really all that bad when you think about it.  Not to mention GPGPU and graphics acceleration for nearly everything now.  And AMD's visual enhancements, etc.  

AMD is looking to make something competitive.  Sure the Intel 4000 graphics is better than the intel 3000... but that's not saying much.  An average consumer is going to be surfing the web, watching videos, and playing a game or two and only caring whether they can play it or not.  Llano is testimony for this, as with all the computers I've sold, I've never gotten a single complaint for any Llano laptop I've sold, save for one Gateway laptop which had a HDD that failed.  

So AMD is quite viable in the mainstream computer market.  

Moving on to the topic, I can't wait to see how Piledriver stacks up against IB.  Hoping AMD delivers on it's promises.

Also tech advancement... other than the tri-gate transistors and 22nm die-shrink, there isn't much in IB vs SB, it only has a 10-20% IPC increase.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Mar 22, 2012)

Vulpesveritas said:


> That will be viable someday?... so games are currently mostly around quad-threaded.  Your desktop uses however many cores you have for multitasking.  So.... yeah.  Which is why average users won't see a difference between an i7-2600k and an FX-8150p.  Because they're not gaming.  And outside of that, quite honestly there's not much difference between the two save for the i7 being more energy efficient and costing more.
> 
> So eh.  We, gamers/overclockers/enthusiasts make up only a small percentage of the market.  And AMD is already moving towards Heterogeneous computing.  What do you think the 'fusion' line is meant for?  lol.  They've already debuted Trinity running 3 monitor eyefinity on it's IGP alone at 5040x1050p with dirt 3 at medium settings forgoing AA.  And that's with test silicon.  720p maxed settings.
> 
> ...





Wow......u second everything I just said.......hope pd hype dont place it in bd shoes


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Mar 22, 2012)

ensabrenoir said:


> Wow......u second everything I just said



I may be an AMD fanboy, but I'm a realistic an honest AMD fanboy.  Who will never buy anything but an AMD chip so long as they remain an ethical company, and they are an underdog in the market.  

If either of those change I might consider other companies.  
But.... the question really is how will the i3 and i5 IB stack up?  Seeing as they are what 85% of consumers will be buying Intel-wise.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Mar 22, 2012)

This is actually bad news. Now Intel will keep even higher the prices for mobile segment...Damn AMD!


----------



## trickson (Mar 22, 2012)

BeepBeep2 said:


> AMD Phenom II on 45nm was able to beat out Core 2 Quad, so at one point AMD's first 45nm product = Intel's first 45nm product. Both shrinks would have been considered "tocks".
> 
> AMD has a lot less of a foundry to work with. Intel has made great strides with transistor shape, optimizing their HKMG 32nm bulk process. GlobalFoundries, and even when AMD owned the fab in Dresden, has always struggled to keep up.
> 
> ...


Okay you win.


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Mar 22, 2012)

trickson said:


> Okay you win. AMD FTW!



... You really are a worse fanboy or a troll based on that by my perspective.  Honestly, all beepbeep was saying is IB beats both Sandy bridge and bulldozer significantly.  
That's all.  Given the mobile part beats most Intel desktop parts as well as all AMD desktop parts, however AMD does need to compete for the sake of us, the consumers.  

Would you disagree?


----------



## trickson (Mar 22, 2012)

Vulpesveritas said:


> ... You really are a worse fanboy or a troll based on that by my perspective.  Honestly, all beepbeep was saying is IB beats both Sandy bridge and bulldozer significantly.
> That's all.  Given the mobile part beats most Intel desktop parts as well as all AMD desktop parts, however AMD does need to compete for the sake of us, the consumers.
> 
> Would you disagree?



No I agree with him. And you. Thanks for calling me that though. 

One thing I can see from the New Intel Mobile chip is that is is fast and really nice. I think now it would be worth looking at saving my pennies to get a laptop. One that can game too!



ensabrenoir said:


> Intel costs more because they deliver TODAY AND FUTURE VIABLE performance...not THEORETICAL POTENTIAL performance that will be viable....someday. It is what it is...What ever is in your need /budget & go with it and forget about the rest. Buick makes some nice cars...but they dont try to compete with Bmw or lexus.... proper context brings clarity. Drooling to see what Ivy deskstop can do. Exciting times ...love to see innovation and tech advancement.



Well said. I am going to adopt this way of thinking from now on. Thank You.


----------

