# AMD FX-8300 Starts Selling, Lower TDP Comes at a Price



## btarunr (Dec 27, 2012)

AMD started selling its FX-8300 eight-core processor, which has been in the news since early-November. The new chip comes with a relatively low TDP of 95W, compared to other eight-core FX "Vishera" processors, which ship with 125W TDP. Despite being slower than the other FX "Vishera" chips, the FX-8320 and FX-8350, its low-TDP appears to have given AMD a big enough selling point, to price the chip around $190. Based on the 32 nm "Vishera" micro-architecture, the AMD FX-8300 ships with a clock speed of 3.30 GHz, 3.60 GHz of TurboCore speed, eight cores spread across four modules, 2 MB L2 cache per module (8 MB total), and 8 MB shared L3 cache. 





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## DarkOCean (Dec 27, 2012)

95w tdp is low nowadays ...eh AMD?


----------



## de.das.dude (Dec 27, 2012)

DarkOCean said:


> 95w tdp is low nowadays ...eh AMD?



"relatively low"


----------



## mypg0306 (Dec 27, 2012)

Still 32nm? You need to catch up.


----------



## Zubasa (Dec 27, 2012)

mypg0306 said:


> Still 32nm? You need to catch up.


Maybe you should invest a few hundred million for the cause


----------



## Inceptor (Dec 27, 2012)

I don't see why someone would pay $190 for it.  If it was bundled in an OEM build, OK, I see it being purchased.  As a standalone? Why? Save a few dollars and buy an 8320, downclock it, and voila, same power envelope, and greater efficiency at higher clocks.
Unless, of course, if it has greater availability than the 8320...


----------



## anubis44 (Dec 27, 2012)

Zubasa said:


> Maybe you should invest a few hundred million for the cause



My sentiments exactly.


----------



## Fx (Dec 27, 2012)

zubasa said:


> maybe you should invest a few hundred million for the cause



+1


----------



## DarkOCean (Dec 27, 2012)

de.das.dude said:


> "relatively low"



not even "relatively".


----------



## HossHuge (Dec 27, 2012)

DarkOCean said:


> 95w tdp is low nowadays ...eh AMD?



True or False

Did btarunr say it was low or did AMD?


----------



## Frick (Dec 27, 2012)

DarkOCean said:


> not even "relatively".



Compared to the other 8xxx CPU's it's pretty low.


----------



## btarunr (Dec 27, 2012)

HossHuge said:


> Did btarunr say it was low or did AMD?



Irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the TDP is lower compared to other FX-83xx series parts, and AMD is monetizing it.


----------



## sergionography (Dec 27, 2012)

Inceptor said:


> I don't see why someone would pay $190 for it.  If it was bundled in an OEM build, OK, I see it being purchased.  As a standalone? Why? Save a few dollars and buy an 8320, downclock it, and voila, same power envelope, and greater efficiency at higher clocks.
> Unless, of course, if it has greater availability than the 8320...



not really true, the 8320 has the same tdp as 8350 but with lower clocks, that means amd will prioritize the better bins for the 8350, and with the 8300 being a 95watt tdp it will probably be the same good bins as the 8350
so if you get a 8300 you are probably more likely to get a good clocker than a 8320


----------



## Lionheart (Dec 27, 2012)

DarkOCean said:


> not even "relatively".





8 cores running at 3.30ghz on 32nm & the TDP is 95W...I find that relatively low


----------



## Prima.Vera (Dec 27, 2012)

Lionheart said:


> 8 cores running at 3.30ghz on 32nm & the TDP is 95W...I find that relatively low



Actually there are only 4 REAL cores...


----------



## NC37 (Dec 27, 2012)

sergionography said:


> not really true, the 8320 has the same tdp as 8350 but with lower clocks, that means amd will prioritize the better bins for the 8350, and with the 8300 being a 95watt tdp it will probably be the same good bins as the 8350
> so if you get a 8300 you are probably more likely to get a good clocker than a 8320



4.5Ghz 8320 here...If that is a bad bin 8350 then I can only imagine what the 8350s do. But in all honesty, any higher than this and you'd want water cooling. Maybe 4.6-4.7Ghz tops on air. 

So if you are running an air system then you might as well save the money.


----------



## sergionography (Dec 27, 2012)

NC37 said:


> 4.5Ghz 8320 here...If that is a bad bin 8350 then I can only imagine what the 8350s do. But in all honesty, any higher than this and you'd want water cooling. Maybe 4.6-4.7Ghz tops on air.
> 
> So if you are running an air system then you might as well save the money.



well yeah the good bins on water cooling ive heard about people reaching 5.2 stable and some even all the way to 5.5ghz but fails when stressed all the way, still runs windows and all tho

the lower bins top out at 4.8-4.9ghz even with water cooling

i know a friend who had  a 8120 with water cooling and it can barely hit over 4.4ghz-4.5ghz stable and when you increase voltage things went gaga, but from the people i know who had an 8150 they easily got 4.8ghz with a bit voltage increase, so definitely when buying the top clocked cpu you are more likely to get the better bins


----------



## ZeroFM (Dec 27, 2012)

DarkOCean said:


> 95w tdp is low nowadays ...eh AMD?


Intel Core i7-3970X 6 core TDP 150W, add 2core = 200W  SHAME


----------



## HossHuge (Dec 27, 2012)

btarunr said:


> Irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the TDP is lower compared to other FX-83xx series parts, and AMD is monetizing it.



I was simply responding to his lack of reading comprehension.......


----------



## Dent1 (Dec 27, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> Actually there are only 4 REAL cores...



Well those additional "fake" cores produce heat and use die space. Thus 32nm at 95W is considered relatively low.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Dec 27, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Well those additional "fake" cores produce heat and use die space. Thus 32nm at 95W is considered relatively low.



Well, Intel also have 4 fake cores and it goes to 77W...


----------



## Supercrit (Dec 27, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> Well, Intel also have 4 fake cores and it goes to 77W...



AMD didn't learn to 22nm


----------



## Prima.Vera (Dec 27, 2012)

yep...


----------



## Frick (Dec 27, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> Actually there are only 4 REAL cores...



No, that would be four modules. Dont start this BS again.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 27, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> Well, Intel also have 4 fake cores and it goes to 77W...





Prima.Vera said:


> Actually there are only 4 REAL cores...



At least AMD has dedicated components for these said "4 fake cores". A module is a whole lot closer to two cores than Intel is, and AMD's performance on those 4 fake cores scales a whole lot better than hyper-threading does. Just keep that in mind. Also keep in mind that they're still on 32nm and they're trying to keep up with 22nm chips. That's not too bad. I suspect when AMD starts producing CPUs on a smaller process that we'll see a lot more than what we're seeing now. Consider the size reduction from 32nm to 22nm. It's very significant, as in, it's almost 50% smaller, so consider for a moment what AMD could do if they had 50% more die space to work with.

So give a break with this "real cores, fake cores" crap. AMD produces a decent CPU and the only difference is Intel makes a better one... and we're not talking about stomping over AMD like its night and day.

So yeah, AMD isn't as fast, but the architecture will scale better for multi-core systems long term. The only part of AMD's CPU that you could call 4 "fake cores" is the fact that each module has one FPU (but if software is compiled correctly with FMA3, that can even be a non-issue for floating point heavy applications). Keep in mind that most of the time a CPU is doing integer math, and there are two integer cores per module. So these "4 fake cores" you speak of are a lot more like real cores than you think.

So instead of trolling and spitting out this crap, look at the CPU for what it is rather than what you think it is because AMD certainly doesn't produce a bad chip despite what you think.



Frick said:


> No, that would be four modules. Dont start this BS again.


+1: Looks like I'm not the only person who knows how to spot a troll.


----------



## sergionography (Dec 27, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> Well, Intel also have 4 fake cores and it goes to 77W...



but then amds fake cores have a scaling of 80% on average, intels fake core barely top out 30% on their best day

soo that being said amd by far has the more sophisticated multi thread advantage, as intel cant go over 6 without running into problems, now if only amd can increase single threaded performance and they will be better than ever.
also as far as the "fake" cores go, steamroller will put that argument to an end once the decoder is dedicated per core, and whatever extra ipc that brings is ever better


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 27, 2012)

sergionography said:


> but then amds fake cores have a scaling of 80% on average, intels fake core barely top out 30% on their best day



I'm not sure if many people saw this, but I was discussing HT scaling in 7-Zip on the benchmark thread for it on the forums here, and HT scaling isn't that good. HT can actually slow you down if you're running 4 threads on a 4c/8t setup with 7-Zip. Here is some data, interpret it how you will, but it clearly shows that HT does not scale well and when you start scheduling things onto the HT cores when they're not needed, you lose performance.






This is on the same exact hardware with cores and ht being disabled and enabled in different ways. If I had a Vishera CPU, I would test with that too. Trust me, AMD has the better idea for multi-threading because at least the modules are more closely symmetric, unlike HT vs a real core.

Edit: Also don't misunderstand what I'm saying. Intel makes a very fast processor, AMD's core just scale better compared to Intel's CPUs with HT.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 27, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> I am not trolling, but obvious you are an AMD fanboy.
> I am looking to this die pic and I can see 4 cores, no 8. Forgive me.



I'm obvious an AMD fanboy because I have a skt2011 rig and I actually did tests that resulted in numbers? Give me a fricken break.

At least I produced data to prove my point, you're just blabbering useless non-sense.

Also, the only thing I see four of from that picture is the L3 caches in the center of the die. 

You obvious don't know what you're talking about, so before you make a fool of yourself maybe you should actually find out what you're looking at.

I've marked the CORES in red (including L2 caches, which are technically shared I think but changes nothing), and the L3 cache in purple...

Edit: Yes, I know. I'm over-simplifying it, but you get the basic idea. The FPU is mixed somewhere in there, but my vision is only 20/20 and the resolution of the picture is kind of small. I can't see the 32nm wires to actually describe what is what, so you shouldn't claim that you can.


----------



## Kreij (Dec 27, 2012)

Let's stop calling people names like fan boy. Okay?
That's not a suggestion by the way.


----------



## Eagleye (Dec 27, 2012)

this looks good, the power usage i mean


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 27, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> I am not trolling, but obvious you are an AMD fanboy.
> I am looking to this die pic and I can see 4 cores, no 8. Forgive me.
> 
> http://hothardware.com/articleimages/Item1923/small_vishera-die.jpg



4 Modules 2 Cores.


----------



## LTUGamer (Dec 27, 2012)

We don't need low performance with many cores. We need few cores with high perfomance per core ratio


----------



## Prima.Vera (Dec 27, 2012)

Kreij said:


> Let's stop calling people names like fan boy. Okay?
> That's not a suggestion by the way.



fool and troll are allowed then?



Aquinus said:


> I've marked the CORES in red (including L2 caches, which are technically shared I think *but changes nothing*)(?), and the L3 cache in purple...
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=49523&stc=1&d=1356619955



Please explain then what happens when you have L2 cache shared and also L3 shared, compared to an individual core, individual cache.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 27, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> fool and troll are allowed then?





Prima.Vera said:


> Please explain then what happens when you have L2 cache shared and also L3 shared, compared to an individual core, individual cache.



1: You know better than to double post. You know how to use multi-quote and the edit button.
2: Intel uses a shared L3 cache as well.
3: AMD shared the L2 cache to save space. The benefits out-weight the costs because you won't see a performance loss on a single thread because nothing else is touching the cache.
4: You're being called a fool and troll because you don't know what you're talking about. Not that I condone it and you started by calling me a fan boy, so I wouldn't go opening that can of worms.
5: The main reason is because the IPC is low due to increased chance of branch mis-predictions due to the length of the pipeline as well as how many instructions each "core" (NOT MODULE) can execute per cycle (which Vishera improved to some extent with the improved branch predictor and added x86 decoders.)

Yeah, AMD hasn't gotten it perfect for single-threaded applications, but it's a multi-threaded beast and as soon as AMD improves the IPC a bit more, it will be a lot more powerful than it already is not even considering the benefits to be had once they start producing it on a smaller process.

Also, if you knew anything about how memory heirarchies work, you would know that shared L2 cache would be the bottleneck when both cores in a module are running full power, not on single-threaded applications. So maybe you need to do a bit more research before you start claiming things that have no relevance considering AMD's multi-core performance is pretty good, despite executing fewer IPC.

So all in all, I don't agree with the labeling and I'm guilty of doing it from time to time (I'm trying not to, I really am. ) but there is a reason why people get frustrated and start resorting to such tactics.

All in all, your comments have no factual backing and you're making a boatload of false assumptions... and you know what they say about making assumptions. 



LTUGamer said:


> We don't need low performance with many cores. We need few cores with high perfomance per core ratio


Or we need to wait for AMD to continue improve how many instructions per clock so all 8 cores run fast. I also don't find many people with Vishera chips complaining about them which usually is a sign that they're not that bad.


eidairaman1 said:


> 4 Modules 2 Cores each you fool


Now now, you don't need to call Prima.Vera a fool, only the pitty is required.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 27, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> You enjoy accusing people over and over and playing smart on forums? You work on AMD that you know so much? That would explain the performance of this CPU...



No, I like correcting people when people don't know how to provide factual information. Now are you going to continue to insult me because I'm trying setting the record straight or are you going to actually do some research so I have someone knowledgeable to debate this with? If you're going to continue to attack me and turn this into an Intel/AMD war, then you need to stop. All you're doing is degrading the quality of this thread for people who actually want to talk about it.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Dec 27, 2012)

ok.


----------



## btarunr (Dec 27, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> Please explain then what happens when you have L2 cache shared and also L3 shared, compared to an individual core, individual cache.



The same thing that happens when L2 is shared between two cores in Core 2 Duo. Squat. With your way of counting cores looking at cache hierarchy, Core 2 Quad must be a dual-core processor.


----------



## 3870x2 (Dec 27, 2012)

btarunr said:


> The same thing that happens when L2 is shared between two cores in Core 2 Duo. Squat. With your way of counting cores looking at cache hierarchy, Core 2 Quad must be a dual-core processor.



each core must have an individual cache to be called a core.  Everyone knows this.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 27, 2012)

3870x2 said:


> each core must have an individual cache to be called a core.  Everyone knows this.



Ever heard of L1 instruction and data cache? Pretty sure that every core has both. So what does that mean? *cough* 8 cores. 


btarunr said:


> The same thing that happens when L2 is shared between two cores in Core 2 Duo. Squat. With your way of counting cores looking at cache hierarchy, Core 2 Quad must be a dual-core processor.


+1: You just became my best friend for the day.


----------



## Dent1 (Dec 27, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> Well, Intel also have 4 fake cores and it goes to 77W...



Hyperthreading is a technique. A technique doesn't exist in the physical, thus it virtually doesn't produce addtional  heat.

AMD's additional cores isn't a technique, it's cores exist in the physical, thus produce heat.

So you want 4 physical cores to produce the same heat as a technique which doesnt exist in the physical?


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 27, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Hyperthreading is a technique. A technique doesn't exist in the physical, thus doesn't produce heat.



Wrong, but the heat produced is minimal. A core with HT will run a bit warmer than one without (assuming both threads are fully utilized,) because it's using the used CPU resources to execute that second thread (hence why gains aren't all the great.)

AMD however has added shared resources in order to run two almost symmetric cores in tandem while saving die space.

Neither are bad, they're just different technologies with different goals in mind. HT adds efficiency to multi-threading sacrificing multi-threaded performance where AMD has something that scales better. Even more so when you improve how many instructions you can execute, because even small gains on an 8-core will scale almost equally across all 8 cores, unlike HT.

Keep in mind, though, I can't emphasize this enough. *Neither technology is bad.*


----------



## Norton (Dec 27, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Hyperthreading is a technique. A technique doesn't exist in the physical, thus doesn't produce heat.
> 
> AMD's additional cores isn't a technique, it's cores exist in the physical, thus produce heat.
> 
> So you want 4 physical cores to produce the same heat as a technique which doesnt exist in the physical?



+1 I'm crunching with an FX-8 and an i7 Hex core (among others) and I just noticed that CPUID HW Monitor reads all 8 cores on the FX but only the 6 physical cores on the i7

OT- very interested in a 95w FX-8 Vishera but the price needs some work..... :shadedshu


----------



## Dent1 (Dec 27, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Wrong, but the heat produced is minimal. A core with HT will run a bit warmer than one without (assuming both threads are fully utilized,) because it's using the used CPU resources to execute that second thread (hence why gains aren't all the great.)
> [/U][/B]



Yes I know this. But I'm comparing hyperthreading to multiple physical cores, not non hyperthreaded processor vs a hyperthreaded of the same physical core count.

I guess I should have said it virtually doesn't produce additional heat, because the additional heat produced is negligible compared to having more cores, to the point where I didn't think it had to be mentioned.


----------



## GSquadron (Dec 27, 2012)

I think that 95w 8 cores is very good, since I have 4 cores for 160w


----------



## Assimilator (Dec 28, 2012)

Given Intel's practice of charging ridiculous cost premiums for slightly-lower-wattage CPUs, I don't see why AMD can't do the same. In fact I'm wondering why AMD isn't making more noise about this - they've now got a CPU that is (on paper, at least) competitive with the i5-2500K in all aspects.

All they need to do now is get the 22nm transition right and improve the IPC and they'll have a winner on their hands. Let's see if Steamroller can pull it off.


----------



## Inceptor (Dec 28, 2012)

sergionography said:


> not really true, the 8320 has the same tdp as 8350 but with lower clocks, that means amd will prioritize the better bins for the 8350, and with the 8300 being a 95watt tdp it will probably be the same good bins as the 8350
> so if you get a 8300 you are probably more likely to get a good clocker than a 8320




A 95W TDP doesn't guarantee a good bin, all it guarantees is that the silicon performs within that power envelope, at the specified frequencies within tolerable limits.  It doesn't guarantee that it will scale in performance and efficiency at higher voltages and clocks just as the 8350s do.  Some_* might*_ perform as well and as efficiently as an 8350, but I would bet it's not many of them.  Unless, of course, the fab is producing super-duper good silicon, more than they need for 8350 skus... I doubt that.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 28, 2012)

sergionography said:


> not really true, the 8320 has the same tdp as 8350 but with lower clocks, that means amd will prioritize the better bins for the 8350, and with the 8300 being a 95watt tdp it will probably be the same good bins as the 8350
> so if you get a 8300 you are probably more likely to get a good clocker than a 8320



TDP doesn't work that way.  The 8320 is labeled as 125w because it is higher than 95w and lower than 126w, it could be anywhere between 95w and 125w.  The 8320 could be 100w, the 8350 could be 120w.   Just because they are both labeled 125w doesn't mean they both actually use the same amount of power.


----------



## cadaveca (Dec 28, 2012)

TDP = cooling needed, not power draw. 

IF AMD is charging more, it's a better chip. I'll believe that, no problem. There is ZERO reason for a higher price, except that the silicon is better. 8350 is 4.0 GHz, 4.2 GHz Turbo.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 28, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> TDP = cooling needed, not power draw.
> 
> IF AMD is charging more, it's a better chip. I'll believe that, no problem. There is ZERO reason for a higher price, except that the silicon is better. 8350 is 4.0 GHz, 4.2 GHz Turbo.



So you don't believe that heat comes from power drawn?  A processor that produces 125w of heat is going to pull more power than a processor that produces 95w of heat.  You know very well that the power draw of two processors in the same family can be compared using TDP, the processor with the higher TDP will pull more power.


----------



## seronx (Dec 28, 2012)

Heat comes from power wasted not power drawn.


----------



## Krazy Owl (Dec 28, 2012)

I'm not into this shit because i understand nothing about threading and stuff but for me you all sounds like school kids fighting over the number of rebound a ball could do only based on it's colour.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 28, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> TDP = cooling needed, not power draw.
> 
> IF AMD is charging more, it's a better chip. I'll believe that, no problem. There is ZERO reason for a higher price, except that the silicon is better. 8350 is 4.0 GHz, 4.2 GHz Turbo.



Might help to re-iterate that TDP stands for "Thermal design power" for those who don't know.


seronx said:


> Heat comes from power wasted not power drawn.


Bingo! TDP measures leakage. Leakage just tends to be higher as you use more power. It's not always the case, but it generally is.



Krazy Owl said:


> I'm not into this shit because i understand nothing about threading and stuff but for me you all sounds like school kids fighting over the number of rebound a ball could do only based on it's colour.


Then you shouldn't have posted just to insult the quality of this thread if you have nothing to contribute because you're post just adds to the noise and disorder. I'm pretty sure I've gotten pissed off at one person already. I would like to be able to talk about AMD processors without either someone turning it into an Intel/AMD war or being insulted because of it. Next time you're thinking this, bite your tongue and don't post unless you actually have something useful to contribute. 


Aquinus said:


> All you're doing is degrading the quality of this thread for people who actually want to talk about it.


----------



## Dent1 (Dec 28, 2012)

^Aquinus,

I think you accidentally quoted yourself and argued with yourself in the post above lol


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 28, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> ^Aquinus,
> 
> I think you accidentally quoted yourself and argued with yourself in the post above lol



No no, I was using it as an example that there has already been another user spitting out useless posts to degrade the quality of this thead and that I called them out on it and I'm doing the same thing to Krazy for adding to the noise. Let me rearrange the quotes. Fixed. Thanks, Dent.


----------



## Tonim89 (Dec 28, 2012)

This thread has a lot of info, and destroying it with useless posts is like set fire on a library lol

I trully believe in this AMD archtecture, as we say here in Brazil, "has some fuel to burn". It clearly is a step ahead its time, but it IPC MUST be improved.

Even with worse IPC, the multi thread scales so well that it matches an Hyper-Threaded Ivy bridge. Imagine this thing with Sandy Bridge IPC... It would destroy anything.


----------



## Krazy Owl (Dec 28, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Might help to re-iterate that TDP stands for "Thermal design power" for those who don't know.
> 
> Bingo! TDP measures leakage. Leakage just tends to be higher as you use more power. It's not always the case, but it generally is.
> 
> ...




That's why I say it's like a kindergarden here. As soon as you express different opinion then some retards comes to "bully" you. The last time I saw this attitude was when I was at kid school. I did not mean to insult the quality of this thread but the lack of quality of some retards.  I am an AMD guy but due to lack of budget I got an Intel setup. Fuck me right?


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Dec 28, 2012)

Tonim89 said:


> This thread has a lot of info, and destroying it with useless posts is like set fire on a library lol
> 
> I trully believe in this AMD archtecture, as we say here in Brazil, "has some fuel to burn". It clearly is a step ahead its time, but it IPC MUST be improved.
> 
> Even with worse IPC, the multi thread scales so well that it matches an Hyper-Threaded Ivy bridge. Imagine this thing with Sandy Bridge IPC... It would destroy anything.



it only scales with programs that can use 8 cores. look at any game, or any program not meant for 8 threads, and the fx falls in line with the core i3, not the i7. it would be nice if more games used those cores, but that probably wont happen for another 5 years at least. heck every game out today will still run on a dual core.....


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 28, 2012)

seronx said:


> Heat comes from power wasted not power drawn.



That wasted power has to come from somewhere.


----------



## Krazy Owl (Dec 28, 2012)

Work = Energy expense = Heat = Energy expense

Same with human muscles. If you don't cool the muscles down the work will produce energy and convert it in heat making you expense more energy to compensate the heat. 

Something like that.


----------



## GSquadron (Dec 28, 2012)

This might mean that for the same GHz, your cpu can do more work


----------



## bogmali (Dec 28, 2012)

Let's keep this thread going without the kindergarten behavior shall we?


----------



## 3870x2 (Dec 28, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Ever heard of L1 instruction and data cache? Pretty sure that every core has both. So what does that mean? *cough* 8 cores.
> 
> +1: You just became my best friend for the day.


FYI that was a joke 


bogmali said:


> Let's keep this thread going without the kindergarten behavior shall we?



Great, now what am I going to do with the rest of my day.


----------



## sergionography (Dec 28, 2012)

Tonim89 said:


> This thread has a lot of info, and destroying it with useless posts is like set fire on a library lol
> 
> I trully believe in this AMD archtecture, as we say here in Brazil, "has some fuel to burn". It clearly is a step ahead its time, but it IPC MUST be improved.
> 
> Even with worse IPC, the multi thread scales so well that it matches an Hyper-Threaded Ivy bridge. Imagine this thing with Sandy Bridge IPC... It would destroy anything.



the architecture is very good actually and very future proof, the only 2 downsides that need to be fixed is ipc for single thread, and multithread is excellent but still has more room for improvements. amd is targetting for perfect scaling with having dedicated decoders, so that is a 20% increase in multithread performance considering now scaling is around 80%
and add to that 20% ipc increase and you got urself a monster
I have been going through reviews lately and checking the multi thread reviews on the fx4300, and everytime you add 20% for ipc and another 20% for scaling you get yourself i5 2500k performance with the stock 4300 clocks, but then you also have the clock advantage to play with which amd has the upper hand on right now
so 20% IPC puts amd back in the game against ivy bridge, single thread would still be a bit lower, but then fx4000 would go against i5s, fx6000 against i7s, and fx8000 would then be competing with the six core intel extremes.
however if steamroller is what the rumors are saying with up to 45% improvements based on simulation, i will assume that is 20% better multicore scaling + 25% better ipc, that would sure would be competitive with haswell, again probably not in single thread, but if multithread is that good it will make up for it, aslong as the gap in single thread isnt as big as it is now


----------



## Super XP (Dec 29, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> Well, Intel also have 4 fake cores and it goes to 77W...


Interesting, let's compare the 800 pound Garilla versus a skinny undernurished Monkey. Yet the monkey's been leading the way for many years which as of late have ever run into issues do to ridiculous management piss-poor desicions.


----------



## tastegw (Dec 29, 2012)

Just how low would you guys like it? The TDP that is.

It's an 8 core (true or not). Neither AMD or Intel has anything lower on their 8 core lineups, desktop or server.  

I remember packing a 125w dual core  that could not OC past 3.5 and nobody complaining about how high that TDP was, the chip also costed as much as this one here in the OP.

Give it time, the TDP's will drop for both companies on these hex/oct chips, but first we need more software that takes full advantage of them.


----------



## anubis44 (Dec 29, 2012)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> it only scales with programs that can use 8 cores. look at any game, or any program not meant for 8 threads, and the fx falls in line with the core i3, not the i7. it would be nice if more games used those cores, but that probably wont happen for another 5 years at least. heck every game out today will still run on a dual core.....



Games that use as many cores/threads as you can throw at them have been out for at least a couple of years already. Virtually every new game being released right now is multi-core optimized, and many are even AVX/FMA & GPU-accelerated. The 'future' has already arrived for the FX architecture. I already get awesome performance out of my FX-8350 today.


----------



## anubis44 (Dec 29, 2012)

Super XP said:


> Interesting, let's compare the 800 pound Garilla versus a skinny undernurished Monkey. Yet the monkey's been leading the way for many years which as of late have ever run into issues do to ridiculous management piss-poor desicions.



So true, but hold on to your faith in AMD though, Super XP. Jim Keller is now back at AMD and is now 'Chief of Processor Group' and a senior Vice-President:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6129/apple-a4a5-designer-k8-lead-architect-jim-keller-returns-to-amd

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2012/08/02/amd-jim-keller/1

This guy coming back to AMD is kinda of like Luke Skywalker joining the Rebel Alliance. Without him, they probably don't stand a chance. With him, however, they actually have a very good shot at pulling themselves back up to the levels they were once at in 1999-2005. We may yet see another AMD Athlon/Athlon 64 vs. Pentium IV scenario play out, not to mention some likely very high performing 64 bit ARM-based Opterons. In fact, I picked up shares of AMD recently after it fell to $2.00/share, so I'm betting on it!


----------



## sergionography (Dec 29, 2012)

anubis44 said:


> So true, but hold on to your faith in AMD though, Super XP. Jim Keller is now back at AMD and is now 'Chief of Processor Group' and a senior Vice-President:
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/6129/apple-a4a5-designer-k8-lead-architect-jim-keller-returns-to-amd
> 
> ...




i wont say athlon 64 vs pentium since that was mostly due to a major intel screw up, but aslong as amd has competitive products scaling from the low end all the way to the intel extremes then we might very well have price wars similar to those on gpus with performance doubling every other year.


----------



## Ravenas (Dec 29, 2012)

AMD is about to file bankruptcy or be bought. Not sure if these processors are worth investing in.

Probably bankruptcy. Buying AMD would be a nightmare of litigation with Intel.


----------



## Dent1 (Dec 29, 2012)

Ravenas said:


> AMD is about to file bankruptcy or be bought. Not sure if these processors are worth investing in.
> 
> Probably bankruptcy. Buying AMD would be a nightmare of litigation with Intel.



Even if this was true (which it probably isnt). For the accountants, lawyers and shareholders from both companies come to a price they agree with could take years. So I don't see how this affects your purchase today.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 30, 2012)

Ravenas said:


> AMD is about to file bankruptcy or be bought. Not sure if these processors are worth investing in.
> 
> Probably bankruptcy. Buying AMD would be a nightmare of litigation with Intel.



any proof of this?


----------



## Thefumigator (Dec 30, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> Actually there are only 4 REAL cores...



But you can spot 8 real cores in the lithography pic, and their shared resources.

Also, the thing is faster than a core i7 in encoding, something that would be impossible with 4 real cores, specially AMD cores...


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 30, 2012)

Has anyone actually found these for sale anywhere yet?  I just don't believe the street price is going to be $190, newegg currently has the 8350 at $190 and I can't see this processor selling for the same price.  Lower TDP or not, the processor just isn't worth that compared to the 8350.


----------



## Norton (Dec 30, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> Has anyone actually found these for sale anywhere yet?  I just don't believe the street price is going to be $190, newegg currently has the 8350 at $190 and I can't see this processor selling for the same price.  Lower TDP or not, the processor just isn't worth that compared to the 8350.



cpu world shows this model as an oem only processor atm?
Link:
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series FX-8300.html


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Dec 30, 2012)

rather than making low wattage models of their 8 core cpu, amd should focus on making their new apu, kaveri. it was supossed to come out in q1 2013, but is now a 2014 release..... c'mon amd. give us something to really drool about. like a 95 watt 8 core that still runs at 4 ghz


----------



## Super XP (Dec 30, 2012)

Ravenas said:


> AMD is about to file bankruptcy or be bought. Not sure if these processors are worth investing in.
> 
> Probably bankruptcy. Buying AMD would be a nightmare of litigation with Intel.


Nonsense. Since when do companies head for bankruptcy just because they are struggling a little? AMD's share price was $1.50 at one point, and they turned the company around and it hit over $40+. 

AMD will be inside both next gen consoles, not to mention Trinity's replacement is coming along with the HD 8000 series. Then soon after we will see Steamroller which is suppose to be a game changer.


TheinsanegamerN said:


> rather than making low wattage models of their 8 core cpu, amd should focus on making their new apu, kaveri. it was supossed to come out in q1 2013, but is now a 2014 release..... c'mon amd. give us something to really drool about. like a 95 watt 8 core that still runs at 4 ghz


2014 Release? Umm, no its scheduled for Q1 2013 based on the official road maps. You probably mean Steamroller is delayed till 2014. Well AMD did not confirm this, so that is not official. Kaveri is coming in early 2013 to replace Trinity.


----------



## anubis44 (Dec 30, 2012)

3870x2 said:


> each core must have an individual cache to be called a core.  Everyone knows this.



Alright, you asked for it. There are all kinds of things you can do to optimize a CPU for the software workloads you want. It's true that the 8 cores in the FX chips are not full cores in the 'classic' sense, but they are about 80% of the way there. Hear me out.

If you had two employees sharing a telephone, would you call them one employee? Obviously not. The fact that they have to share a telephone might imply that they could be half as productive as a single employee with their own telephone, but in the world of microprocessors, it doesn't work like that. Most of the time, there will not be any significant contention. Yes, you can construct a scenario where the contention will be higher (both employees are telemarketers), but the actual scenario in daily computing is more like two employees who only occasionally want to use the phone at the same time. You can also think of two homes sharing a driveway. If the driveway is badly designed, it will be only one lane wide, and you'll have to wait for your neighbour to move his car for you to get in or leave quite often. However, if the driveway is two lanes wide, you'll never have to contend with your neighbour to use the driveway, but you might have to move your car for your wife to get in or out. If you make the shared driveway 4 lanes wide, you eliminate this problem, etc., so even though there's 'only' 1 driveway shared between two houses, it could be virtually irrelevant depending on how intelligently the shared driveway is designed. So, moving on.

So here's the simplest explanation of what's going on in a CPU. CPUs only really do one thing: add. They add 1s and 0s VERY, VERY, VERY quickly. Furthermore, every mathematical operation ever performed in a CPU (addition, subtraction, multiplication and division) is performed by adding (eg. 6x6 would be 6+6+6+6+6+6=36. 6-2 would be 6+(-2)=4). OK, got your mind around that? Great. 

Next, CPUs can add integer numbers (those without decimals like '24') and floating point numbers (those with numbers after the decimal point like '3.141592658'). If you ask a CPU to add integers, the 'integer' unit(s) do it (and these are what are mainly improved when we look at generational 'core' upgrades - Pentium II to Pentium III, AMD K6-2 to K7, etc.). However, if you ask a CPU to add floating-point numbers, several possible things can happen. In the past (since the 386DX - before the 386DX, you'd need a separate x87 co-processor chip, or your integer-only CPU would have to emulate an x87!), a floating-point calculation would be done by the x87 floating point unit inside the CPU. However, CPU engineers came up with all kinds of different ways to speed up floating-point calculations, depending on what kind of sequence of calculations you were wanting to perform. AMD came up with 3DNow! and Intel came up with SSE to supplement the old x87 unit. Nowadays, programs can be designed to package floating-point calculations as SSE/AVX/FMA or even GPU-coded (Direct Compute, PhysX) operations, completely bypassing the x87 unit. At first, this was done for games, heavy math and scientific computing programmes, but now, with tools like OpenCL, etc. just about any floating-point can be directed to the fastest hardware available on a given computer. The programme detects OpenCL-compatible hardware, and installs the OpenCL version of the code. In short, only older programmes rely solely on the legacy x87 unit, and that's why AMD decided to cut down the number of x87 units to 4 in an 8 integer core CPU so they could add more integer cores - cores that are still the best way to add integers! Any decent programmer worth his salt writing fresh code today that's performance-sensitive will be coding the floating-point to execute as AVX/FMA or GPU-accelerated code, unless they absolutely can't (very rare). Otherwise, they're coding for a 15 year old processor. Period.

I know it's hard because AMD's module design doesn't cleanly fall into a single or dual core classic case design scenario, but really, we've got to learn to accept a little bit of complexity and stop trying to over-simplify everything, even when it means we end up being highly inaccurate. Simple bottom line, AMD's 8 integer core CPUs, based on contemporary, multi-core optimzed code, is much more like an 8 core CPU than a 4 core CPU, most of the time, in most use cases. End of story.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Dec 30, 2012)

anubis44 said:


> If you had two employees sharing a telephone, would you call them one employee? Obviously not. The fact that they have to share a telephone might imply that they could be half as productive as a single employee with their own telephone, but in the world of microprocessors, it doesn't work like that. Most of the time, there will not be any significant contention. Yes, you can construct a scenario where the contention will be higher (both employees are telemarketers), but the actual scenario in daily computing is more like two employees who only occasionally want to use the phone at the same time.



OK. But using the same logic, if the other employee cannot perform his job because the phone is occupied, is like he is not there, right? Useless employee.


----------



## Super XP (Dec 30, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> OK. But using the same logic, if the other employee cannot perform his job because the phone is occupied, is like he is not there, right? Useless employee.


Luckily for Piledriver this is not the case, while the one employee is on the phone, the other is preparing themselves. As soon as the other is off the phone, this one jumps in and takes the phone. This process repeats itself in a fast efficient way. Hopefully Steamroller with have these employees on steroids


----------



## Prima.Vera (Dec 30, 2012)

Super XP said:


> Luckily for Piledriver this is not the case, while the one employee is on the phone, the other is preparing themselves. As soon as the other is off the phone, this one jumps in and takes the phone. This process repeats itself in a fast efficient way. Hopefully Steamroller with have these employees on steroids



Agree. But in other words, one cannot perform if the other is busy, right? ...


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 30, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> Agree. But in other words, one cannot perform if the other is busy, right? ...



It's a bad analogy for AMD processors because they do both run at the same time. Think of it more as two people at the same desk with two computers sharing a switch. You have 100Mbit, and when one person is using it they have the full 100Mbit. So the other person starts using the second computer on the shared 100Mbit. It still works and the person can work, but unless the person decides to copy a movie or something big from the server, it won't slow down, and even if it does slow down it balances the load and prioritizes it as needed. AMD's processors are no different.

So yes, AMD runs in parallel, yes there could be performance losses in special cases, but no, it doesn't bottleneck on shared components like you're suggesting. Using that argument, you could say, "Intel CPUs are slow because hyper-threading is sharing the entire core," as opposed to AMD's sharing only part of the "module" (mainly decoders, branch prediction, and cache) because the entirety of the integer cores and FP cores themselves are not shared.


----------



## Thefumigator (Dec 31, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> It's a bad analogy for AMD processors because they do both run at the same time. Think of it more as two people at the same desk with two computers sharing a switch. You have 100Mbit, and when one person is using it they have the full 100Mbit. So the other person starts using the second computer on the shared 100Mbit. It still works and the person can work, but unless the person decides to copy a movie or something big from the server, it won't slow down, and even if it does slow down it balances the load and prioritizes it as needed. AMD's processors are no different.
> 
> So yes, AMD runs in parallel, yes there could be performance losses in special cases, but no, it doesn't bottleneck on shared components like you're suggesting. Using that argument, you could say, "Intel CPUs are slow because hyper-threading is sharing the entire core," as opposed to AMD's sharing only part of the "module" (mainly decoders, branch prediction, and cache) because the entirety of the integer cores and FP cores themselves are not shared.



To add something more, despite being much slower core for core, when encoding the FX runs really fast, not possible with 4 real cores as mentioned.

The "one phone two employees" analogy is ok, if you add something else to the analogy. Suppose each employee answers the phone and an equation is given to him to solve. then he calls back to give the answer to the problem. 

In this case even if the phone is busy, the employee would be breaking his brain trying to solve the equation. Once solved the employee waits for the phone to be available to call back and give the answer.


----------



## btarunr (Dec 31, 2012)

3870x2 said:


> each core must have an individual cache to be called a core.  Everyone knows this.



No.


----------



## Super XP (Dec 31, 2012)

btarunr said:


> No.


AMD changed the definition of a core. 
Today a CPU can be considered A core and/or a Quad-Core and/or a 8-Core depending on the design. INTEL approaches this differently than AMD. Both are not right and both are not wrong. 

This notion about AMD's 8-Core CPU's are not 8-Cores is getting rather old. It's as much an 8-Core as any other 8-Core CPUs.


----------



## Frick (Dec 31, 2012)

Are there set definitions of what a "core" is anyway?


----------



## Ravenas (Dec 31, 2012)

Super XP said:


> Nonsense. Since when do companies head for bankruptcy just because they are struggling a little? AMD's share price was $1.50 at one point, and they turned the company around and it hit over $40 .
> 
> AMD will be inside both next gen consoles, not to mention Trinity's replacement is coming along with the HD 8000 series. Then soon after we will see Steamroller which is suppose to be a game changer.



AMD is cutting 15% of their work force. This is their so called "restructering". We'll see how that pans out over 2013.

Next AMD has hired an investment bank to "explore options". Hmm... wonder what those options could be.

AMD is currently lagging far behind Intel in production cost due to old technology. Furthermore, they are so far away from full fledged 22nm production. They don't even have money to invest in further R&D.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 31, 2012)

Super XP said:


> AMD changed the definition of a core.
> Today a CPU can be considered A core and/or a Quad-Core and/or a 8-Core depending on the design. INTEL approaches this differently than AMD. Both are not right and both are not wrong.
> 
> This notion about AMD's 8-Core CPU's are not 8-Cores is getting rather old. It's as much an 8-Core as any other 8-Core CPUs.


I agree to an extent. So long as you keep FPUs off the AMD, it will perform like a 'true' 8 core CPU. If you beat on it with FPU's its no better than an Intel quad with HT (and we know there, its worse clock for clock). That is part of the problem with the shared architecture.

At least, that is what I recall from some review on it, LOL!


----------



## Super XP (Jan 1, 2013)

Ravenas said:


> AMD is cutting 15% of their work force. This is their so called "restructering". We'll see how that pans out over 2013.
> 
> Next AMD has hired an investment bank to "explore options". Hmm... wonder what those options could be.
> 
> AMD is currently lagging far behind Intel in production cost due to old technology. Furthermore, they are so far away from full fledged 22nm production. They don't even have money to invest in further R&D.


There is no denying AMD's BOD really screwed up, not to mention going fabless, and gutting its R&D i.e., Bulldozer was suppose to be a lot more efficient for instance. 

But I don't buy all the DOOM & Gloom. They should recover, and so long as they continue to pump out products, they will. You also cannot compare AMD with INTEL, even in the past with AMD's great Hammer Architecture, they were always behind INTEL by at least 18 Months, and they continue to fall behind, there is no question about this fact, and this is all due to the FACT INTEL can afford to make mistakes, where as AMD really cannot. 

Is Bulldozer a mistake? Well yes and no, if only the BOD would have listened to the CTO in charge of CPU design, Bulldozer would have been implemented differently with a substantial performance boost in both speed and energy efficiency while making it easy to add new cores.

Right now AMD is back-peddling and trying to make things right because of the past messup(s). All we can do now is buy the best price/performance products regardless of company. For me anyway, I find great value and longevity with AMD hands down. 

I rather buy a ASUS ROG high end mobo ($250) based on AMD versus an INTEL based that costs $200-$300 more. An equivalent priced INTEL mobo for $250 sux IMO.


----------



## Ravenas (Jan 1, 2013)

Super XP said:


> There is no denying AMD's BOD really screwed up, not to mention going fabless, and gutting its R&D i.e., Bulldozer was suppose to be a lot more efficient for instance.
> 
> But I don't buy all the DOOM & Gloom. They should recover, and so long as they continue to pump out products, they will. You also cannot compare AMD with INTEL, even in the past with AMD's great Hammer Architecture, they were always behind INTEL by at least 18 Months, and they continue to fall behind, there is no question about this fact, and this is all due to the FACT INTEL can afford to make mistakes, where as AMD really cannot.
> 
> ...



AMD is the best price/performance option. They make quality products and currently own about 19% of the PC market. This competiveness exists not by mistake but because their user base is focused mainly on price. The hardcore base understands this performance, and also appreciates the price. The weak economy is putting AMD in a very bad spot. Internal AMD investing has quite literally plummeted. Their stocks are currently hovering based on hopeful optimism for next generatin products set to roll out around August 2013. AMD is hanging on by a thread quite honestly. Instead of making current products miles better, they are rehashing them or just looking for new buisiness markets.


----------



## xenocide (Jan 1, 2013)

Super XP said:


> There is no denying AMD's BOD really screwed up, not to mention going fabless, and gutting its R&D i.e., Bulldozer was suppose to be a lot more efficient for instance.



These are all things that were a result of AMD doing poorly.  They had to get rid of their fabs because they were bleeding money, they had to gut R&D because it was too costly, and Bulldozer was less efficient than planned because after the above they had to cut corners.



Super XP said:


> But I don't buy all the DOOM & Gloom. They should recover, and so long as they continue to pump out products, they will. You also cannot compare AMD with INTEL, even in the past with AMD's great Hammer Architecture, they were always behind INTEL by at least 18 Months, and they continue to fall behind, there is no question about this fact, and this is all due to the FACT INTEL can afford to make mistakes, where as AMD really cannot.



Define behind, during the Athlon 64 era they were crushing Intel in just about every way, and that carried over to the Athlon 64 X2's.  It wasn't until Core2Duo came out that Intel even caught up.  That was 2-3 years where AMD was ahead of Intel, and they priced their products accordingly ($1200 FX CPU's say whatttt) and were selling in decent amounts.  It wasn't until Phenom that AMD started to drop the ball, and they spent a lot of time developing Phenom, and rushed it out the door with tons of problems and subpar performance to boot.



Super XP said:


> Is Bulldozer a mistake? Well yes and no, if only the BOD would have listened to the CTO in charge of CPU design, Bulldozer would have been implemented differently with a substantial performance boost in both speed and energy efficiency while making it easy to add new cores.



You can't live with the "what if" mentality.  The bottom line is AMD made a lot of bold claims with BD, and failed to deliver on them.  It guzzled power, featured lower IPC than their previous line, and it wasn't until PD that they even became a respectable option.  There's no way they didn't know BD was going to be painfully mediocre.  I'm sure Intel has plenty of tricks up its sleeve as well, but why bother when they are still offering competitive products?  I honestly think just about everyone at AMD should have been let go.  Bulldozer is only acceptable if you can max the number of threads used, and even then it was not enough of an improvement over Intel (or even Phenom II) to warrant an upgrade.



Super XP said:


> All we can do now is buy the best price/performance products regardless of company. For me anyway, I find great value and longevity with AMD hands down.



Anyone who doesn't do that is an idiot... the fact is Intel offered the products that fit that bill perfectly up until Piledriver.  That's probably not a good idea since they are restructuring the company in a way that all but explicitly says they are seeking a buyer.



Super XP said:


> I rather buy a ASUS ROG high end mobo ($250) based on AMD versus an INTEL based that costs $200-$300 more. An equivalent priced INTEL mobo for $250 sux IMO.



Yea look at this piece of shit, who would want that thing?  Oh god, it gets worse, check this waste of matter, might as well use it as a paperweight... Or this giant piece of crap, who would reccomend someone buy that pile of shit???  Oh wait, there are plenty of cost-effective Intel solutions in the price range you mentioned, most of which feature similar or even better features.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 2, 2013)

btarunr said:


> No.



considering cache back in the day was off die.


----------



## Super XP (Jan 2, 2013)

Too much to quote. 
Great points, to sum it all up AMD's upper management throughout the years have F'ed up. And now we all hope AMD pulls a bunny out of its hat and gets back into strong competition for the sake of competition and prices.


----------



## Aquinus (Jan 2, 2013)

eidairaman1 said:


> considering cache back in the day was off die.



Higher level caches. L1 caches IIRC have usually been on the die. When L2 was first getting introduced it was off-die, usually at half speed.


----------



## Dent1 (Jan 2, 2013)

xenocide said:


> Define behind, during the Athlon 64 era they were crushing Intel in just about every way, and that carried over to the Athlon 64 X2's.  It wasn't until Core2Duo came out that Intel even caught up.  That was 2-3 years where AMD was ahead of Intel



Think you are underestimating AMD.

AMD was crushing Intel since 1999, during the original Athlon, Athlon Thunderbird, Duron, Sempron, Athlon MP, and Athlon XP (Palomino, Thoroughbred, Thorton and Barton).


----------



## anubis44 (Jan 3, 2013)

xenocide said:


> Yea look at this piece of shit, who would want that thing?  Oh god, it gets worse, check this waste of matter, might as well use it as a paperweight... Or this giant piece of crap, who would reccomend someone buy that pile of shit???  Oh wait, there are plenty of cost-effective Intel solutions in the price range you mentioned, most of which feature similar or even better features.



Point taken, but I don't only buy AMD because of cost savings, I buy AMD because the performance is there, and because I despise Intel. That cheating piece of shit company will NEVER get a penny from me again. After reading about how they screwed AMD for over a decade, and also threatened their own customers with chip shortages if they sold AMD products, and the kickbacks sent to Dell:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/26/after_the_dell_settlement/

for years and years to not sell AMD, I'd just rather not support a company like that. Intel 'denies any wrongdoing' and then gives AMD a billion dollars out of court (which doesn't begin to make up for what AMD lost in terms of opportunities) and we're supposed to believe they didn't do anything wrong? NO COMPANY PAYS OUT A BILLION DOLLARS WHEN THEY HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING WRONG. They can have the best goddam CPUs in the universe, and I will not buy them. I'm voting with my $$ for a more ethical company, thank you very much. I'm not going to pay a company that uses mafia-style extortion tactics to compete. Forget it.

On another note, actually, ECS _is_ a big pile shit. The very, very, very worst motherboards of all time. I had one that died within a week or so of buying it. Subtle corruption and then capacitors that started to burst not years, but days later. I don't care if TechPowerUp recommended it or not. I will never buy another ECS motherboard as long as I live.


----------



## Super XP (Jan 3, 2013)

anubis44 said:


> Point taken, but I don't only buy AMD because of cost savings, I buy AMD because the performance is there, and because I despise Intel. That cheating piece of shit company will NEVER get a penny from me again. After reading about how they screwed AMD for over a decade, and also threatened their own customers with chip shortages if they sold AMD products, and the kickbacks sent to Dell:
> 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/26/after_the_dell_settlement/
> 
> ...


Well said 

In other words, if INTEL played fair and did not commit to these blasted shenanigans, AMD today would have most likely been a different company. Perhaps a stronger competator, stronger more vibrant R&D etc., INTEL not only played unfair, they copied AMD's progression in CPU enhancements such as the IMC, HTT, 64-bit, on die L2 cache etc. 

The only difference was INTEL had the massive resources, budget & huge R&D.

I guess we should thank AMD for the Core Architecture INTEL devised, by screwing AMD.


----------



## suraswami (Jan 3, 2013)

anubis44 said:


> Point taken, but I don't only buy AMD because of cost savings, I buy AMD because the performance is there, and because I despise Intel. That cheating piece of shit company will NEVER get a penny from me again. After reading about how they screwed AMD for over a decade, and also threatened their own customers with chip shortages if they sold AMD products, and the kickbacks sent to Dell:
> 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/26/after_the_dell_settlement/
> 
> ...



May be you had one unlucky one that died, I have had and have few ECS boards that have worked faithfully for more than 3 yrs now.  Other companies equally had their bad batch.  Now a days almost all the mobo companies are making better products.

I buy 95% AMD CPUs/GPUs to support them and also best value for money.  If somebody is stealing food from my plate I will be aggresive not cry like a baby.  Part of the blame is on AMDs part too.

Anyway 95W 8 core CPU is interesting, tho I would just underclock and undervolt to conserve energy if I don't need that much power (I do on my servers).

yay, 5K+ posts


----------



## anubis44 (Jan 3, 2013)

suraswami said:


> May be you had one unlucky one that died, I have had and have few ECS boards that have worked faithfully for more than 3 yrs now.  Other companies equally had their bad batch.  Now a days almost all the mobo companies are making better products.
> 
> I buy 95% AMD CPUs/GPUs to support them and also best value for money.  If somebody is stealing food from my plate I will be aggresive not cry like a baby.  Part of the blame is on AMDs part too.
> 
> ...



Good on you for supporting AMD as well. 

Glad to hear you've had good luck with ECS. You're right that practically every company has ba batches. I once had 3 defective Asus boards in a row back in 2004. Right now, I'm sticking with Gigabyte, although their 990FX-UD3 was disappointing due to the ridiculously inadequate north bridge cooling. I went with a UD7 Rev. 1.1 and it's stellar in every respect.

As far as being aggressive with somebody stealing food from your plate, that's easy to say, but what could AMD really do? Send a covert ops team into Intel headquarters and kidnap some execs and hold them hostage until Intel stopped bribing Dell and threatening Toshiba and all the other computer manufacturers? The legal response took years and in the meantime, the damage was being done. Face it, sometimes WE as people have to notice an injustice and DO something about it when the 'normal' channels can't/won't work.


----------

