# AMD hints at high-performance Zen x86 architecture



## natr0n (Sep 14, 2014)

*AMD has admitted that its Bulldozer microarchitecture was a misstep but claims that its next-generation replacement, Zen, will deliver the performance improvements required to become competitive with Intel once more.*

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2014/09/11/amd-zen/1


----------



## Frick (Sep 14, 2014)

I'll just post this now so I don't have to later.








Seriously thuogh, it would be amazing if they could pull a rabbit out of their hat, but I'm not holding my breath. I mean about competing with Intel on power, the APU stuff I like.


----------



## arbiter (Sep 14, 2014)

Frick said:


> I'll just post this now so I don't have to later.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just like when AMD claimed their a10 mobile parts matches Intels i7 mobile part in performance, It does when GPU is used to do some cpu work. That is limited in real world use.

I've lost track how many times AMD made claims of xxxx just to not live up to them when product comes out, SO AMD til you have to BACK UP what you claim before anyone will believe it.
I know there will be AMD fanboyz gonna rip on me for saying that but it has been the truth, AMD hasn't really backed their claims lately when it comes time to prove it.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 14, 2014)

Frick said:


> I'll just post this now so I don't have to later.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Love the comic. 


Anyway, the truth, to me, is that AMD is very capable of pulling this off. The striking difference in performance, from where I sit, is that AMD has a much slower cache design. Or at least, there's a bottleneck in the CPU/CACHE interface that causes poor performance. Fixing that alone would bring them very competitive to Intel, but the fact still remains that the biggest thing holding AMD back is the silicon toolset they use, and the quality of the chips. Intel is pulling slightly better performance, with nearly half the power consumption. I remember hearing that Intel offered AMD some fab time. I'd really like to see Intel also transition into a better process for GPUs, and a partnership in this area might be a perfect match for both companies, provided shared liscensing.  That's where the big issues are, to me... AMD is under tight constraints as to what they can do with the intellectual property that they own, so whose to say they really can make a true difference?


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 15, 2014)

LoL that comic made my day 
if AMD releases a chip that is clock for clock/watt for watt  competitive with intel I won't post on TPU for a month
AMD needs to get on current gen fab and re-hire all proc design staff they fired


----------



## Nordic (Sep 15, 2014)

Release date 2016. I just don't see an improved amd architecture competing with intels. Intel will still have the better process node even if amd manages to have better architecture. Still though, they do have some great minds designing zen.


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 15, 2014)

arbiter said:


> Just like when AMD claimed their a10 mobile parts matches Intels i7 mobile part in performance, It does when GPU is used to do some cpu work. That is limited in real world use.
> 
> I've lost track how many times AMD made claims of xxxx just to not live up to them when product comes out, SO AMD til you have to BACK UP what you claim before anyone will believe it.
> I know there will be AMD fanboyz gonna rip on me for saying that but it has been the truth, AMD hasn't really backed their claims lately when it comes time to prove it.





Lionheart said:


> Do you ever stop trashing on AMD articles? It's all you seem to do lolz


http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/t...-vs-a10-7850k-benchmarks.204850/#post-3160528


I thought Lionheart was only joking in that other thread...but its actually true.


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 15, 2014)

AMD need to get there collective heads out of there anus's because its not  only intel they need to be worried about
qualcomm
nvidia
ARM
ARM/qualcomm are particularly  interesting


----------



## arbiter (Sep 15, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/t...-vs-a10-7850k-benchmarks.204850/#post-3160528
> 
> 
> I thought Lionheart was only joking in that other thread...but its actually true.



.... point I mean is AMD has made so many claims of crap over the years to end up not living up to them, They claim their new cpu will put them back in right with Intel, well Til they put the part out and prove it well I won't believe any their marketing bull. Yet everyone gives me crap for basically say AMD needs to stop with the talk and do something.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 15, 2014)

Your rants put me to sleep... beating a dead horse is only fun once then its boring,like a broken record


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Sep 15, 2014)

Wonder if the chip design will be less automated this time.


----------



## kn00tcn (Sep 15, 2014)

OneMoar said:


> AMD need to get there collective heads out of there anus's because its not  only intel they need to be worried about
> qualcomm
> nvidia
> ARM
> ARM/qualcomm are particularly  interesting


how is ARM interesting? AMD is going to have ARM+x86 cores on a single chip... they are safe in this regard



arbiter said:


> .... point I mean is AMD has made so many claims of crap over the years to end up not living up to them, They claim their new cpu will put them back in right with Intel, well Til they put the part out and prove it well I won't believe any their marketing bull. Yet everyone gives me crap for basically say AMD needs to stop with the talk and do something.


the problem is repeating the same old comments, it's not needed, do you think amd fans are happy with the claims? why cant we all be disappointed without repeating

so until they come out with the next killer cpu, quietly enjoy the fast intel parts while waiting

bringing up the word 'fanboy' is exactly that, a fanboy, because normal people dont care about winning or losing, they just want improvements (not to mention, it's insulting & causes instinctive reflexes to whoever reads it, regardless of the facts, you should not trigger human emotions)


----------



## suraswami (Sep 15, 2014)

OneMoar said:


> LoL that comic made my day
> if AMD releases a chip that is clock for clock/watt for watt  competitive with intel I won't post on TPU for a month
> AMD needs to get on current gen fab and re-hire all proc design staff they fired



AMD fired them for a reason - all fat is gone, why would they want them back?


----------



## Steevo (Sep 15, 2014)

cadaveca said:


> Love the comic.
> 
> 
> Anyway, the truth, to me, is that AMD is very capable of pulling this off. The striking difference in performance, from where I sit, is that AMD has a much slower cache design. Or at least, there's a bottleneck in the CPU/CACHE interface that causes poor performance. Fixing that alone would bring them very competitive to Intel, but the fact still remains that the biggest thing holding AMD back is the silicon toolset they use, and the quality of the chips. Intel is pulling slightly better performance, with nearly half the power consumption. I remember hearing that Intel offered AMD some fab time. I'd really like to see Intel also transition into a better process for GPUs, and a partnership in this area might be a perfect match for both companies, provided shared liscensing.  That's where the big issues are, to me... AMD is under tight constraints as to what they can do with the intellectual property that they own, so whose to say they really can make a true difference?




Yes, the cache latentcy issues is where they have been getting killed in performance by Intel, it shows up when you need low latency data processed, like games to a large degree, small in place applications, and fast branching data. The other 80% of the workload AMD is as fast and sometimes faster than Intel based on hardware threads and RAM performance. 

I have no idea why and what has taken them so long to fix it either, assuming it has something to do with tying the data transfer between RAM and the L1 cache perhaps they had issues with engineering understanding how to make it happen, not that I am saying they should have, but they very well could have done some RE on newer Intel chips to compare and see where they screwed up.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 15, 2014)

They were focusing on the market that brings them the most funds namely mobility and mainstream desktop. Now they have the funds they learned their lesson about the bulldozer arch and will improve.



Steevo said:


> Yes, the cache latentcy issues is where they have been getting killed in performance by Intel, it shows up when you need low latency data processed, like games to a large degree, small in place applications, and fast branching data. The other 80% of the workload AMD is as fast and sometimes faster than Intel based on hardware threads and RAM performance.
> 
> I have no idea why and what has taken them so long to fix it either, assuming it has something to do with tying the data transfer between RAM and the L1 cache perhaps they had issues with engineering understanding how to make it happen, not that I am saying they should have, but they very well could have done some RE on newer Intel chips to compare and see where they screwed up.


----------



## anolesoul (Sep 15, 2014)

_*Well...after INTEL took the ball and ran with it(X99 chip-set),to support DDR4 ram...It's about time that AMD is finally throwing some "crumbs " at us(their faithful,and committed---(financially)  followers).
              Although, we have to "hold" our breaths till...maybe 2016?

                                                              NOT a happy camper...on that one!*_


----------



## d1nky (Sep 15, 2014)

I expect to see DDR4 APU's soon and improved chipset/cpu arch. for crossfire configs. 

They really are creating cheap powerful gaming rigs, good things come to those that wait!


----------



## anolesoul (Sep 15, 2014)

All we can do..is "hope".  And trust me,after seeing the prices of those Intel Motherboards and the cost of a 32 gig DDR4 ram set(the mb's support 64 gig on boot).
                                                Trust me....I can "wait"!


----------



## Durvelle27 (Sep 15, 2014)

Excited


----------



## RejZoR (Sep 15, 2014)

Well, i sure hope I'll have an AMD in my system again. Had Thunderbird and Thorougbred-B and i was really impressed by them. So, i really hope AMD Zen/K12 will be a game changer. CPU market needs some more competition going on.


----------



## xBruce88x (Sep 15, 2014)

I hope AMD can pull it off... I miss my Athlon XP system


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 15, 2014)

anolesoul said:


> _*Well...after INTEL took the ball and ran with it(X99 chip-set),to support DDR4 ram...It's about time that AMD is finally throwing some "crumbs " at us(their faithful,and committed---(financially)  followers).
> Although, we have to "hold" our breaths till...maybe 2016?
> 
> NOT a happy camper...on that one!*_


For the love of god. This is the third time I've seen a post like this from you. We all get it, Intel is ahead, but stop being a tool about it. Unless you have something worth while to contribute, you need to stop posting and read our exchange the last two times. Here you go again for a *third* time.



anolesoul said:


> _*Intel....as always taking the latest tech,and WAY "over-charging";because, they "know" that their the only kid on the block---that is finally going to have motherboards and CPU's, that will support the latest DDR4 ram.
> Brother!!! Here we go...again!?!!*_ _*I just knew...that they would "pull" this!
> "Corporate "GREED"....just plain "typical".*_
> 
> *The VERY* *"wealthy"...will love this puppie!*





Aquinus said:


> Are you trying to be a tool? Intel's high-end line has always been more expensive than their mainstream counterparts. As far as I can tell, Intel hasn't made much changes to their pricing because their is no competition, but coincidentally we haven't seen prices spike either, they've stayed about the same. So while I agree that they're greedy, they're not taking full advantage of it because that would push customers away. All in all, I think you're over reacting. Intel also has the resources to do DDR4 first, unlike AMD, so they will be.





anolesoul said:


> Every body's...got their "own" opinion,man. JUST..like you.





Aquinus said:


> It's not an attitude either. It's facts. I know a lot about software because I write it for a living. I don't work for a big business, I just have a degree in Computer Science as well as a job as a senior software developer (...and about to get a promotion I might add.) So I'm sorry if I burst your bubble, but how about growing up and not acting like a 12 year old when your argument gets debunked. If all you can do is attempt to insult me but yet you can't even defend your own points, you shouldn't even bother posting.





anolesoul said:


> Hay...what goes around...comes around. Don't give it(disrespect) ..if you don't like "getting" it back in spades--in return,man.





Aquinus said:


> Then how about making your point instead of spitting out rhetorical nonsense.



Once again. Will you stop already with the fanatic-like attitude? I'm getting sick and tired of seeing it.

With this all said, I hope AMD plans on making the CPU pipeline shorter. I think one of the biggest issues with FX is that branch-mispredictions have a much higher costs because the pipeline is twice as long as Intel's on the Core series CPUs. Intel used to have a long pipeline on their P4s, they ditched it because it sucked. So I'm hoping that we'll see something more like Jaguar's 16-stage pipeline or Intel's 14-stage instead of the FX', what? 28-stage pipeline?


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Sep 15, 2014)

Article is fluff, and without any real proof this is basically stating what we already know.  If you want power you go Intel, if you want budget you go AMD.

Having no strong ties to either manufacturer, I wish AMD had started to move on this revelation two years ago.  Intel without competition is a lumbering giant that breaks as much as it fixes.  The X79 platform showed a crass lack of regards, without anything AMD out there to compete with it.  The socket 1155 and 1150 offerings often outpaced the "enthusiast" offerings by 6-12 months.


All of this said, AMD needs to find a lot of chutzpah to actually compete with Intel.  Synthetic benchmarks are great and all, but actual performance in applications is what matters to most consumers.  AMD has been able to deliver that on low cost platforms (as well or better than Intel), but they've not really been a competitor at the high end since Thuban,  I'd love to see that change, but they'd have to prove it to me before I give up on my 2600k.  That little chunk of silicon is still surprisingly competitive nearly five years after release, and I don't see it being relegated to the slow lane in the next 18-24 months.  

If AMD can pull a new solution that is 90% as effective as Intel at 80% of the cost then we've got a real chance at competition.  As it stands, the gap between Intel and AMD on middle to high end processors is just too much.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 15, 2014)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> If AMD can pull a new solution that is 90% as effective as Intel at 80% of the cost then we've got a real chance at competition.  As it stands, the gap between Intel and AMD on middle to high end processors is just too much.



Not just that, but AMD's AM1 APUs just took a warning shot. Intel's Celeron J1900 is a quad-core SoC with a 10-watt TDP. I suspect it can keep up with AM1 CPUs just fine consuming half of the power all the while.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Sep 15, 2014)

Aquinus said:


> Not just that, but AMD's AM1 APUs just took a warning shot. Intel's Celeron J1900 is a quad-core SoC with a 10-watt TDP. I suspect it can keep up with AM1 CPUs just fine consuming half of the power all the while.



That's depressing, but not surprising.  Whenever the Intel integrated graphics get to a more passable level (read: direct competition with the APU offerings) AMD is in hot water.  They don't have the power to performance ratio of Intel, they've got at least a generation of delay in Fab technology with Intel due to not owning their own fabs, and they've got an architecture that is admittedly a miss-step.  

While I give AMD respect for offering the APUs first, I'm afraid that Intel is going to swoop in and steal their market.  Tablets running an APU offer pretty reasonable performance and battery life, but effectively doubling battery life and increasing performance would mean the APU no longer has a home.


I have high hopes for Zen, but metered expectations.  The love for Intel or AMD is foolish, as dominance of one or the other hurts consumers.  I'd love to once again be torn between a $200 Intel chip and a $200 AMD chip.  That hasn't happened for the better part of a decade.  If Zen changes this, then it needs to be lauded, but without anything but a press release it's like hoping for world peace.  I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## erixx (Sep 15, 2014)

Why they say "wear a wire" when it is a cable? As in Cablegate


----------



## anolesoul (Sep 15, 2014)

suraswami said:


> AMD fired them for a reason - all fat is gone, why would they want them back?


Completely..agree!


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 15, 2014)

anolesoul said:


> Completely..agree!


neither of you know enough about the topic at hand to agree or disagree with anything
get educated
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...x_AMD_Engineer_Explains_Bulldozer_Fiasco.html


----------



## Melvis (Sep 15, 2014)

lol that comic strip reminds me of Intel P4 days haha


----------



## Jhelms (Sep 15, 2014)

Aquinus said:


> Not just that, but AMD's AM1 APUs just took a warning shot. Intel's Celeron J1900 is a quad-core SoC with a 10-watt TDP. I suspect it can keep up with AM1 CPUs just fine consuming half of the power all the while.



Ehhhh wrong. For slow vs slower comparisons, the 5350 wipes the floor with the J1900 in most areas. And also has a comphy / minimum 400mhz of overclocking headroom without touching the voltage - on the stock cooler and is a socketed platform. Also the J1900 does not even support sata 6Gb/s. In this very small segment, AMD wins. Definitely not a warning shot... maybe a nerf dart at best while yelling... JUST KIDDING!

Oh.. and definitely not 1/2 the power despite the ratings... A small difference for a large (if you can call it that) performance increase.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/athlon-5350-am1-platform-review,3801-9.html

(oh dear lordy- someone was wrong on the internets and I just felt I had to correct them - shame on me lol)

Ah I remember the days when Intel had nothing on AMD and the barton cores were pissing all over the polished shoes of Intel execs. But that has been many moons. I still support AMD even (buy and build) though I have many intel based PC's. All one can do is hope - for another run!


----------



## Recus (Sep 15, 2014)

With new AMD's architecture we will see old guy JF-AMD, old promises and old end.


----------



## suraswami (Sep 15, 2014)

OneMoar said:


> neither of you know enough about the topic at hand to agree or disagree with anything
> get educated
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...x_AMD_Engineer_Explains_Bulldozer_Fiasco.html



Thanks for the article.  In the article the ex-engineer quotes this "That changed before I left".  So he didn't get fired, he got tired of incompetent fat asses and left.

That story is only one part of it.  There are basic design flaws (I am no expert), they went out with less IPC than Thuban and compensated with more clock speed.

Let me ask this, how is the graphics processor team designing?  Are they following same auto design flow or something else?  I know GPU and CPU are different, but application might be same within same company?

I am not arguing, just trying to understand.


----------



## 64K (Sep 15, 2014)

I would love to see AMD compete with Intel on all levels. Competition is good for all of us. They spent too many years selling their chips cheap. Customers love them for it but it's put them in between a rock and a hard place. They haven't had enough profit to keep pace with Intel's R&D. I don't see how they will catch up with Intel. Intel showed a profit margin of 19.11% on 53.9 billion dollars in sales and AMD showed a 1.39% profit margin on 5.89 billion dollars in sales. (source MSN Money)


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 15, 2014)

64K said:


> I would love to see AMD compete with Intel on all levels. Competition is good for all of us. They spent too many years selling their chips cheap. Customers love them for it but it's put them in between a rock and a hard place. They haven't had enough profit to keep pace with Intel's R&D. I don't see how they will catch up with Intel. Intel showed a profit margin of 19.11% on 53.9 billion dollars in sales and AMD showed a 1.39% profit margin on 5.89 billion dollars in sales. (source MSN Money)


its not about RND amd already has the KNOW-HOW to make a faster chip they just didn't


----------



## agent00skid (Sep 15, 2014)

OneMoar said:


> its not about RND amd already has the KNOW-HOW to make a faster chip they just didn't



And why do you believe that? The article from 1 ex-employee? What proof do I have that he's not just some disgruntled person looking for attention?


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 15, 2014)

agent00skid said:


> And why do you believe that? The article from 1 ex-employee? What proof do I have that he's not just some disgruntled person looking for attention?


Google it seriously I have no time to educate fan boys and trolls 
the information I linked has been known for YEARS and if you ask anybody that knows about the subject they will tell you the same thing AMD went to AUTOMATED  chip-design process and the result was bulldozer there GPU's how ever are still hand-laided


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Sep 15, 2014)

Why are they calling this x86 when their CPUs have been x64 for some time?


----------



## Nokiron (Sep 15, 2014)

Frag Maniac said:


> Why are they calling this x86 when their CPUs have been x64 for some time?


x64 is an 64-bit extension of x86. The full name is x86-64.


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 15, 2014)

OneMoar said:


> its not about RND amd already has the KNOW-HOW to make a faster chip they just didn't



Agreed. This is what I've been saying for years. Both AMD and Intel already have the R&D to keep releasing the next fastest processor which counters one another for the next decade. It comes down to whether its financial and operational  feasible and fits with their long term vision of the company.



agent00skid said:


> And why do you believe that? The article from 1 ex-employee? What proof do I have that he's not just some disgruntled person looking for attention?



OneMoar is correct, AMD is a multi-billion dollar, multi national company.  They have engineers and scientists working around the clock worldwide in R&D, it stands to reason that they are sitting on a few potential architectures which could be ready to implement with the right backing.


----------



## fullinfusion (Sep 15, 2014)

IMG if this is true I'll totally welcome going back to AMD


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 15, 2014)

It's all good as far as I can see , Amd are likely to design zen for a node that can compete on a reasonable footing with intel ,, im hoping they skip pciex 3 for four given the 2016 timetable.

Oh and I think that article written by a ex amd employee is Bs

Automated design tools would reduce area not increase it as several other sources have adequately shown over the years.
I remember seeing amds core in handmade and auto design form(admittedly on the reliable interwebz) and the hand made ic was 30% bigger


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 15, 2014)

for all there faults and problems AMD has demonstrated a ability todo a about-face-forward -mARCH= WIN 
at the drop of a hat
*see what I did their I is phunny


----------



## d1nky (Sep 15, 2014)

just seen this on ocn.... I LOL'd! 

*Crashing The Party -- AMD's 'Red Team' To Infiltrate Nvidia's Game24 Event To Celebrate PC Gaming*




(Someone care to make a seperate thread for comments?!)


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Sep 15, 2014)

OneMoar said:


> for all there faults and problems AMD has demonstrated a ability todo a about-face-forward -mARCH= WIN
> at the drop of a hat
> *see what I did their I is phunny



You really need to get the trolling out of your system.  If it isn't trolling, I've got to assume you are drunk.

I assume both of these points because you can't seem to spell, can't construct complete sentences, and link to articles with the same problems.  

That article indicates that a potentially computer designed chip is potentially less efficient than a human designed one.  The OP has linked to an article that said the Bulldozer architecture, and not the chip design, has been problematic.  Assuming the issue was just chip layout issue, there'd have been absolutely no reason for Piledriver not to shine.  If there was somehow an outstanding issue specific to interfacing and design AMD could have easily just redesigned poorly performing sections, and replaced them with more efficient ones.  I don't remember Piledriver suddenly being absolutely amazing, and that would be the only justification for automated design being a dead end.


Perhaps then, your argument is that people should be involved with the design process.  I'd hazard that you've somehow forgotten Netburst if that's the point you're making.  That was human designed, and was a massive flop.  Unless history is being rewritten, Intel released Netburst.  I guess that means a BS article conjecturing about nothing has very little real world relevance.


The fact of the matter is clear, AMD has made a large error in pursuing a new paradigm.  Assuming that this was actually proven to be more efficient, you'd be chiding Intel for falling out of technological progress.  AMD made an error, and is finally attempting to fix their mistake.  Intel has done it in the past, MS does it every other operating system, and as a human you should understand that errors don't mean idiocy.  If we were to judge by that logic this forum wouldn't exist, because all of us have asked stupid questions at one time or another.  Move past the trolling, and maybe spend another 20 seconds checking your posts so that they form complete sentences.  It's impossible to argue your point when you can't convey anything but slurred speech and anger.


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 15, 2014)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> You really need to get the trolling out of your system.  If it isn't trolling, I've got to assume you are drunk.
> 
> I assume both of these points because you can't seem to spell, can't construct complete sentences, and link to articles with the same problems.
> 
> ...


whatever you are smoking I want some of it because you are tripping

""That article indicates that a potentially computer designed chip is potentially less efficient than a human designed""  I am sorry WHAT Software is only as Good as the person that Programmed it 

I don't think you have a firm grasp of what this discussion is about is has nothing to-do with what you are calling  "layout" it has everything todo with automated engineering tools not being up to par

and finally the very reason intel is a bit ahead of the curve is that REAL people capable of creativity and logic are the ones designing the chips instead of letting dubious software do most of the transistor layout and pathway optimization and the fact of the matter is AMD fired most of the people that could have fixed these problems
to say nothing of the fundamental flaws of the arch its self ( pipe to long,poor cache performance ect)

also I at no point did I imply or state that a human is superior to a automated bit of software. even tho of coarse I know it is because the bottom line is that no bit of Software is going to have the creativity and genius of a seasoned 
designer  those tools exist as a AIDE nothing more

the only person trolling in this thread is you I get that some people on this board are not my biggest fans SORRY DEAL WITH IT


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Sep 15, 2014)

Nokiron said:


> x64 is an 64-bit extension of x86. The full name is x86-64.


Then why does W7 for instance separate 32 bit programs to Program Files (x86), and 64 bit ones to Program Files? It's kinda misleading. Then again, that's MS.


----------



## erocker (Sep 15, 2014)

d1nky said:


> just seen this on ocn.... I LOL'd!
> 
> *Crashing The Party -- AMD's 'Red Team' To Infiltrate Nvidia's Game24 Event To Celebrate PC Gaming*
> 
> ...




It's going to be the nerd slap fight to end all nerd slap fights.

Anyways. The sooner the better for AMD to get out a competitive desktop CPU.


----------



## RCoon (Sep 15, 2014)

OneMoar said:


> oftware is only as Good as the person that Programmed it



I can program a calculator, but I can't recite more than 25 digits of pi, and probably can't answer multiples of more than 5 digits in length within a nano second, so your point is slightly flawed.


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 15, 2014)

RCoon said:


> I can program a calculator, but I can't recite more than 25 digits of pi, and probably can't answer multiples of more than 5 digits in length within a nano second, so your point is slightly flawed.


ability todo mathematics in your head has relatively little todo with figuring out the best place for transistor-block Y in relation to cache branch X
IC design is all about creativity and foresight and maximizing every transistor you can 
example I need to add some transistors to the iGPU block to interface them with the l3 cache the software may chose to place them in position A3 row 1 layer 3 from the software stand point this could very well be  the most logical

now and bear with me this is taking a fair bit of creative license

 a engineer could take a good look at the layout and go: Hrmm Ya know if I move these transistor;s over here and shuffle this pathway around and tweak the logic a bit, I can kill two birds with one stone here and improve performance,reduce space consumption
that bit of ingenuity is something automated aides will never do


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Sep 15, 2014)

OneMoar said:


> whatever you are smoking I want some of it because you are tripping
> 
> ""That article indicates that a potentially computer designed chip is potentially less efficient than a human designed""  I am sorry WHAT Software is only as Good as the person that Programmed it
> 
> ...



Read the article you link to, before you say something else that is absolutely unjustified.  Trolling is shouting nearly incoherently at detractors, and you've crossed that threshold here.

1) The engineer complains that automated design tools were utilized for designing components of the chips.
2) The engineer complains that all designs were 20% slower and 20% less efficient.  Seems rather hyperbolic, and without real data there's zero proof.
3) The math done by the article writer is rather unglued from fact, and they state so.
4) The article writer seems out of their depth.  An AMD core is directly compared to an Intel core, despite the fact that they aren't equals.

Assuming none of this is a valid point for debate, the article is based upon hear-say from an ex-employee.  What division are they working in?  Why were they fired?  How deep did they actually reach into the design process?  Can't answer any of that, so all you've got is a wild guess about the facts.


I won't concede that AMD is a failure, because things like the APU prove they have some vision.  I agree that Bulldozer was a failure, but hardly think a disgruntled employee is the least biased source for operational information.  While you're welcome to go fondle your love for Intel, I hold out hope for the future of AMD.  I'm loyal only to the better performer, and that isn't AMD right now.  This said, they deserve the opportunity to rectify their Bulldozer issues.



OneMoar said:


> ability todo mathematics in your head has relatively little todo with figuring out the best place for transistor-block Y in relation to cache branch X
> IC design is all about creativity and foresight and maximizing every transistor you can
> example I need to add some transistors to the iGPU block to interface them with the l3 cache the software may chose to place them in position A3 row 1 layer 3 from the software stand point this could very well be  the most logical
> 
> ...




That same computer could determine that placement of an IC within a certain distance of another will generate enough interference to corrupt data flowing along a parallel channel.  It's human design that has allowed things like the SATA port degredation, timing bugs, and a hand-full of crippling errors in the last decade.

Humans are just as imperfect as computers, and creativity isn't always a gift.  Thinking that humanity will always find the best route is stupid.  If that was necessary you'd have something other than a computer running UPS delivery plans.  There's always going to be a better way, no matter who gives you a solution.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 16, 2014)

Garage1217 said:


> Ehhhh wrong. For slow vs slower comparisons, the 5350 wipes the floor with the J1900 in most areas. And also has a comphy / minimum 400mhz of overclocking headroom without touching the voltage - on the stock cooler and is a socketed platform. Also the J1900 does not even support sata 6Gb/s. In this very small segment, AMD wins. Definitely not a warning shot... maybe a nerf dart at best while yelling... JUST KIDDING!
> 
> Oh.. and definitely not 1/2 the power despite the ratings... A small difference for a large (if you can call it that) performance increase.
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/athlon-5350-am1-platform-review,3801-9.html
> ...



While I agree the numbers are closer and at that point really doesn't matter. I think you need to factor in cost. You can get a J1900 embedded board for 70 USD, you're practically paying that for the 5350 alone, plus add the cost for the motherboard to go along with it. For the cost, the J1900 isn't a bad option. That's really my point.

Also with respect to power, that's overall draw in that review. I would call the PSU used into question. They're using an 850-watt PSU to test these boards which are known to run well under 60 watts. Not to rail on Tom's, but a PSU drawing very little current on a huge PSU is going to be highly inefficient and if the load numbers are from draw off the wall, I think they're probably not really useful as any changes in usage would be poorly reflected by a meter on the wall. So I have reservations about the power consumption figures here.

Testing these with a 100-watt PSU or a pico-PSU would have given more realistic results IMHO.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 16, 2014)

I hope Amd learned its lesson after Phenom 1 and Bulldozer. They need a star like 462 And 939/940


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 16, 2014)

eidairaman1 said:


> I hope Amd learned its lesson after Phenom 1 and Bulldozer. They need a star like 462 And 939/940


I would like to see a performance variant of AMD's Jaguar cores. I think they're on to something there, if you keep the CPU core smaller and more simple (with respect to the pipeline) branch miss-predictions won't just hurt you less, they'll occur less often too because you can optimize for a smaller pipeline like Intel did. The single biggest flaw with the Pentium 4 was the huge size of the pipeline under Netburst and it's the problem that's plaguing AMD now with their module design (with respect to single-threaded performance).

Time will tell though. All we're doing is trying to predict the future and I'm sure we'll all be wrong in the end.


----------



## RealNeil (Sep 16, 2014)

I hope that AMD comes out with something competitive. This is only good for us consumers when they do. Without AMD being around, Intel can charge whatever they want for their parts. And we know that they'll hammer us good if they can get away with it,...........for this reason, I wish AMD luck.

Most of my gear is Intel, but I have a few AMD systems too. Nothing wrong with the FX-8350 or the FX-6300 at all.


----------



## ThE_MaD_ShOt (Sep 16, 2014)

Well at least Amd isn't killing off the desktop performance CPU line like so many though they where.  Happy


----------



## Frick (Sep 16, 2014)

TBH I'm more interested in how their line of APU's will shape up before then. Not that it's bad now.


----------



## Nokiron (Sep 16, 2014)

Frag Maniac said:


> Then why does W7 for instance separate 32 bit programs to Program Files (x86), and 64 bit ones to Program Files? It's kinda misleading. Then again, that's MS.


Its not really necessary, just convenient. It has its uses.


----------



## d1nky (Sep 16, 2014)

*This Is FXing Serious*


In their own words...... Ive never see such (looking for a word to match) marketing!


----------



## Jhelms (Sep 16, 2014)

Aquinus said:


> While I agree the numbers are closer and at that point really doesn't matter. I think you need to factor in cost. You can get a J1900 embedded board for 70 USD, you're practically paying that for the 5350 alone, plus add the cost for the motherboard to go along with it. For the cost, the J1900 isn't a bad option. That's really my point.
> 
> Also with respect to power, that's overall draw in that review. I would call the PSU used into question. They're using an 850-watt PSU to test these boards which are known to run well under 60 watts. Not to rail on Tom's, but a PSU drawing very little current on a huge PSU is going to be highly inefficient and if the load numbers are from draw off the wall, I think they're probably not really useful as any changes in usage would be poorly reflected by a meter on the wall. So I have reservations about the power consumption figures here.
> 
> Testing these with a 100-watt PSU or a pico-PSU would have given more realistic results IMHO.



Correct, their numbers are in fact about 10W high across the board with both setups in that review - so good point - but they are still directly comparable as the same supply was used.  Both are power sippers, almost silly to argue over a 10-15w difference between them (at the most). One of my own 5350 systems is averaging 25W since the day it was built.  Very efficient!

http://www.techspot.com/review/806-amd-kabini-vs-intel-bay-trail-d/page8.html

Both are workable for most office / work situations but doing anything with 3D, the 5350 is the clear winner and a better value. Also with the no issue / virtual guaranteed 400mhz overclock minimum - it does put the slow 5350 even further ahead on all fronts (it was already ahead to start with). I cannot with good intentions recommend a J1900 based system over an AM1 5350 based system is all.  Hard to recommend either actually unless someone has a specific need or want as I did. And for my purposes / business - the 5350 rocks!


----------



## BiggieShady (Sep 16, 2014)

AMD cache design is ridiculous - enormous L2/L3 cache with high latency. It takes twice as long to access L2/L3 cache compared to Intel. 
It's ironic to have a huge chip with enormous amount of slow cache that makes it expensive to produce and hinders the performance at the same time forcing them to price them just above the producing cost.
What they need to do is: fast cache in lower amount instead of slow cache in huge amounts, less cache sharing between cores/modules.
...
On the other hand, it's entirely possible that they were unable to produce cache on die that would work with low latencies at desired clock.


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 16, 2014)

RealNeil said:


> I hope that AMD comes out with something competitive. This is only good for us consumers when they do. Without AMD being around, Intel can charge whatever they want for their parts. And we know that they'll hammer us good if they can get away with it,...........for this reason, I wish AMD luck.
> 
> Most of my gear is Intel, but I have a few AMD systems too. Nothing wrong with the FX-8350 or the FX-6300 at all.



Whilst what you say is generally true as far as being good for the consumers.

People have to realise that AMD being around period is good for consumers whether they have more competitive performing processors or not.

We've reached a point where most mainstream processors can fulfill the needs of the majority consumer and enthusiast. This has forced Intel to keep their prices reasonable because consumers are becoming savvy enough to understand that a cheap FX 4xxx will push 60 FPS for half the cost of the i7.

I want to see more competitive performing processors too, but for my own selfish and narcissistic needs.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 16, 2014)

Well in the event AMD does pull a good chip out and 1 or 2 units support AM3+ ill have to see reviews to see if they are like a 3.8L Camaro or a Toyota Prius.


----------



## RealNeil (Sep 17, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> People have to realise that AMD being around period is good for consumers whether they have more competitive performing processors or not.



I agree with you, but if they do well selling, they'll have more resources for R&D.


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 17, 2014)

RealNeil said:


> I agree with you, but if they do well selling, they'll have more resources for R&D.



They can do well selling without a competitive performing processor.  Even Intel will make more money from atoms, i3s and i5 than i7s.

The company with the biggest market share wins. CPUs for tablets, laptops, mobile phones, consoles, servers etc.  concentrating on just high end desktop won't help them.

Because the console market AMD's market share grew 2.6% this year, Intel has fell by 2.4%..


----------



## Super XP (Feb 20, 2015)

*AMD's Zen Architecture - Built from the Ground Up. *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Zen

*14nm AMD Zen CPU Will Have DDR4 and Simultaneous Multithreading*
http://news.softpedia.com/news/14nm...-and-Simultaneous-Multithreading-471401.shtml

Lets not forget AMD has Jim Keller, most likely the greatest CPU architect in the world. Based on Intel, Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia and IBM.

Zen is being designed to not only compete with Intel's future CPU's, its being designed to overtake them. Never underestimate a company that's been backed into a corner for so long.
After his work on K8, Keller left AMD in 1999. That is when the company started to go down hill.

He's been working on this ZEN project for some time now. I can see this completed and available in 2016. Stick to schedule. 2017 is way too far off, and a great opportunity could be lost. 
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6129/apple-a4a5-designer-k8-lead-architect-jim-keller-returns-to-amd


----------



## Dent1 (Feb 20, 2015)

Super XP said:


> *AMD's Zen Architecture - Built from the Ground Up. *
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Zen
> 
> *14nm AMD Zen CPU Will Have DDR4 and Simultaneous Multithreading*
> ...



You waited a year to reply to a dead thread. Couldn't you have started a fresh thread?


----------



## ThE_MaD_ShOt (Feb 20, 2015)

If all comes true I see what my next main rig build is going to be.


----------



## xfia (Feb 20, 2015)

Dent1 said:


> You waited a year to reply to a dead thread. Couldn't you have started a fresh thread?


less than 6 months..  did we adopt some new calender?


----------



## RealNeil (Feb 20, 2015)

Zen sounds good and I hope it works out for them. Jim Keller should be able to make the difference.
I don't think that they have to dominate the market to stay viable. It's a huge, multi-layered market and there is a lot of it to go around.

Without them, we would all suffer with higher prices overall.



ThE_MaD_ShOt said:


> If all comes true I see what my next main rig build is going to be.



I have two decent Intel Gamers now, and I won a FX-9590 and Board over the holidays. (building this one soon) So I'll have that system too.
When AMD releases all of their latest goodies, I'll be reading reviews, and I will buy if it's warranted.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Feb 20, 2015)

Super XP said:


> Lets not forget AMD has Jim Keller, most likely the greatest CPU architect in the world. Based on Intel, Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia and IBM.


ROFL


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 20, 2015)

HumanSmoke said:


> ROFL



I don't know enough either way, but if he designed K8 he certainly doesn't suck.  And as much as I love to bash apple, their ARM CPUs A5 and such aren't that bad either.

Care to elaborate?


----------



## Batou1986 (Feb 20, 2015)

AMD should be barred from using the words "high performance" since that only applies to their CPU's when intel is not in the comparison.


----------



## TRWOV (Feb 20, 2015)

I don't think AMD will ever reach IPC parity with Intel but if they manage to match, IDK, Gulftown and keep TPD in check while offering low prices they could do fine.

Their Jaguar cores already outmatch the old A64 IPC (going by Intel Burn Test results) so if they manage to do something similar for their big cores that would be a good start.


----------



## Ebo (Feb 20, 2015)

I really hope that AMD pulls a rabbit out of the hat. 

Not only have they gotten the right people together in the develop team, but have made det design of the chip, from the ground up. That alone should end the poor singletread preformance and make a more effective CPU. 

I think we can all agree on that AMD has to be there, not only to make a good chip, but also to keep pushing Intel, så they cant sit with their foot up there ass, which their last 2-3 chips has been.

If AMD deliver a very good chip with Zen, I have no problem building another AMD machine again.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 20, 2015)

Batou1986 said:


> AMD should be barred from using the words "high performance" since that only applies to their CPU's when intel is not in the comparison.



Someone forgot about the Pentium 4 era.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Feb 20, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> I don't know enough either way, but if he designed K8 he certainly doesn't suck.  And as much as I love to bash apple, their ARM CPUs A5 and such aren't that bad either.
> Care to elaborate?


Jim Keller didn't design K8.
The original K8 (that Keller was working on) turned into an evolutionary dead end - and Keller then left AMD. The K8 that actually saw the light of day was designed by Fred Weber's team with help from Dirk Meyer's team (who were responsible for designing K7). Here's a copy of part of the introduction Weber made when the K7 was introduced at the 1998 Microprocessor Forum.





And here is the K8 press release from chief architect Fred Weber.

Jim Keller's main claim to fame was in developing HyperTransport from DEC IP (where Keller originally came from). As for Keller's subsequent success in chip designing, would anyone care to name them?


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 20, 2015)

Thanks.  As I said, I didn't know and was going by hearsay largely.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Feb 20, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> Thanks.  As I said, I didn't know and was going by hearsay largely.


No problem, glad to shed some light.

This isn't aimed at you, but I find it a constant source of amazement that Fred Weber and Derrick Meyer (and Chuck Moore for that matter), are almost completely unknown by many of the people that ascribe god-like status on Jim Keller, when Weber and Meyer were responsible for AMD greatest products. It's equally nuts that the same people that deride Pentium hold AMD's K6 in high esteem, when they are largely a product of the same man - Vinod Dham.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 20, 2015)

The only Pentium I saw as truly a POS was the Pentium 4.  I mean the power hungry G5 from apple/IBM pretty much kicked it's ass in every category, including power consumption.  That was a miserly time for Intel...


----------



## Ebo (Feb 20, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> Someone forgot about the Pentium 4 era.



lol exactly, and it was Jim Keller who put Intels pentium 4 to sleep with the Athlon64, so the guy knows what to do. 

My only concirn is, if Global foundries can refine and deliver good yields on the 14nm production method which TSMC allready is doing for Intel.

IF AMD wants to get back in the game, not only for desktop but especially in the servermarket, they have to deliver quite a comeback with a very strong chip.

I use my machine for videoediting and complicated drawings in autocad 3D, and its quite sad to see my old AMD FX-cpu with 8 cores OCed to 4.2Ghz being so far behind comparing with my I7-5820K at stock speed. In gaming the difference isent really there execpt in the Total war series then I see a difference.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 20, 2015)

3 yo arch. Misguidance with phenom 1 and Bulldozer.


----------



## Dent1 (Feb 20, 2015)

xfia said:


> less than 6 months..  did we adopt some new calender?



So the new year didn't start 1st January?

Anyways where are you here? You don't even like AMD go troll a Pro-Intel thread.



Batou1986 said:


> AMD should be barred from using the words "high performance" since that only applies to their CPU's when intel is not in the comparison.



When did high performance become "best performance".


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 20, 2015)

Dent1 said:


> So the new year didn't start 1st January?
> 
> Anyways where are you here? You don't even like AMD go troll a Pro-Intel thread.
> 
> ...



Do they go by fiscal?


----------



## Batou1986 (Feb 20, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> Someone forgot about the Pentium 4 era.


What they did 12 years ago doesn't matter much today AMD is incredibly far behind intel.



Dent1 said:


> So the new year didn't start 1st January?
> 
> Anyways where are you here? You don't even like AMD go troll a Pro-Intel thread.
> 
> ...



When AMD's 8 core 125w high performance cpu's are on par with a budget 54w i3 in most applications


----------



## Toothless (Feb 20, 2015)

Hmm.. I gotta keep my eye open for what AMD has in store. If they get their stuff in check then maybe I'll go back to them when my i7 finishes it's days. Already ran Athlon X4 and FX-6 core processors with a A6 being used, and if they get something good then I might return. 

Though I'm loving the power my i7 is firing out.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Feb 20, 2015)

Ebo said:


> lol exactly, and it was Jim Keller who put Intels pentium 4 to sleep with the Athlon64, so the guy knows what to do.


As I mentioned before, that was due more in part to Fred Weber, Dirk Meyer, and Chuck Moore. You could argue that without Hyper Transport (which Keller was responsible for), and AMD64 (the ISA) that David Cutler and Robert Short worked on, it wouldn't have all come together - but the plaudits go to Fred Weber and DEC's IP and former personnel - Meyer, Cutler, Short, and Keller all formerly worked for DEC.
FWIW, the last time Jim Keller was lead architect on a processor project that actually bore some fruit: DEC's 21264 (EV6) in 1998. No one discounts that the guy has talent, but way too many people are expecting a latter day messiah when the resume doesn't back the assumption up.


Ebo said:


> My only concirn is, if Global foundries can refine and deliver good yields on the 14nm production method


No reason why not. The process isn't GloFo's, it's Samsung's. The license includes all the work Samsung have done to get 14nm-XM up and running.


Ebo said:


> which TSMC allready is doing for Intel.


Eh? TSMC use 16nm and aren't allied with Intel (14nm/10nmFF), and don't compete for the most part in any market. Intel fabs it's own product and some third party FPGA's.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 20, 2015)

Batou1986 said:


> What they did 12 years ago doesn't matter much today AMD is incredibly far behind intel.



They ARE behind now.  But a company backed into a corner can also be a dangerous company to deal with.  I think we should all be hoping they pull something out of their hat, for competitions sake.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 20, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> They ARE behind now.  But a company backed into a corner can also be a dangerous company to deal with.  I think we should all be hoping they pull something out of their hat, for competitions sake.


(Bring in K7/K8 Crew)


----------



## bpgt64 (Feb 20, 2015)

Dear God, please let this be true...please.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 21, 2015)

> As for Keller's subsequent success in chip designing, would anyone care to name them?



I think he designed the Apple A5, but with the assistance of ARM technologies themselves if I recall correctly.  Not sure how much of that was him.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Feb 21, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> I think he designed the Apple A5, but with the assistance of ARM technologies themselves if I recall correctly.  Not sure how much of that was him.


Not a lot. The Apple A5 is a combination of off-the-shelf IP. The processor architecture (ARMv7-A) was actually designed by Gerard Williams, Chris Hinds (FPU), and Raney Southerland. I can't find a short easily accessed (non-PDF) article, but some background is in this A6 article.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 21, 2015)

Sadly, that was my hunch.

I want AMD to win one but I'll agree that his skills are being massively overstated right now.


----------



## xfia (Feb 21, 2015)

Dent1 said:


> So the new year didn't start 1st January?
> 
> Anyways where are you here? You don't even like AMD go troll a Pro-Intel thread.
> 
> ...



obviously you have not seen all the things I have said that support amd on what they do with apu's and help advance the gaming industry..  they currently just don't have that good of a desktop gaming platform to buy into. a game needs to well optimized or a high end gpu gets held back in a middle class area.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Feb 21, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> Sadly, that was my hunch.
> I want AMD to win one but I'll agree that his skills are being massively overstated right now.


Quite possibly, Zen will be a series of successful products. Keller is still one component of a large and talented team. I hope the architecture bears fruit also, but as you say, the unbounded optimism needs tempering. While AMD should make large strides, it will also be a given that Intel's Skylake/Cannonlake (of which little is known at present also) will undoubtedly offer a strong counter.


----------



## Dent1 (Feb 21, 2015)

Batou1986 said:


> What they did 12 years ago doesn't matter much today AMD is incredibly far behind intel.
> 
> When AMD's 8 core 125w high performance cpu's are on par with a budget 54w i3 in most applications



Most applications. Since when?

If you look at any review the 8 core dominates the i3 on almost every page. The only application the i3 has a remote chance in is gaming.

Oh I get it "most applications" means you only read the gaming section of the review. Very clever boy.

Since you are so clever please tell me the applications excluding gaming where the i3 can beat the 8 core.  It shouldn't be hard since they are on par (according to you)


----------



## Frick (Feb 21, 2015)

Dent1 said:


> Most applications. Since when?
> 
> If you look at any review the 8 core dominates the i3 on almost every page. The only application the i3 has a remote chance in is gaming.
> 
> ...



Photoshop. Depending on what you do. Which is the core of the complaint: The performance is inconsistant.

EDIT: Anyway it's exciting. Just the step 32 -> 14nm is a huge one.


----------



## Dent1 (Feb 21, 2015)

Batou1986 said:


> When AMD's 8 core 125w high performance cpu's are on par with a budget 54w i3 in* most* applications



So you honestly think the i3 wins in *MOST* applications?

So are you telling me the i3 can outperform the FX-8 core in Encoding, 3D Rendering, Photo Manipulation, File compressing, Folding, General Multi-tasking etc.

Mr. Batou1986 you have gone quiet!!!!!!



Frick said:


> Photoshop. Depending on what you do. Which is the core of the complaint: The performance is inconsistent.



I personally don't use Photoshop. But I give you the benefit of the doubt. Across most applications not called "gaming" the i3 shouldn't be uttered in the same sentence as the FX 8-core. Really surprised this community accepts what Batou1986 says as fact without a fight.


----------



## RadFX (Feb 21, 2015)

Super XP said:


> *AMD's Zen Architecture - Built from the Ground Up. *
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Zen
> 
> *14nm AMD Zen CPU Will Have DDR4 and Simultaneous Multithreading*
> ...



Thanks for posting this. I missed this thread and didn't know that AMD was evening working on their CPU's.


----------



## 64K (Feb 21, 2015)

Dent1 said:


> So you honestly think the i3 wins in *MOST* applications?
> 
> So are you telling me the i3 can outperform the FX-8 core in Encoding, 3D Rendering, Photo Manipulation, File compressing, Folding, General Multi-tasking etc.
> 
> ...



According to Tom's Hardware even for gaming the i3 is on the same tier as the 8 core AMDs overall. I suppose if you are playing a game that uses a single core only then the i3 might be better.


----------



## RadFX (Feb 21, 2015)

Dent1 said:


> So you honestly think the i3 wins in *MOST* applications?
> 
> So are you telling me the i3 can outperform the FX-8 core in Encoding, 3D Rendering, Photo Manipulation, File compressing, Folding, General Multi-tasking etc.
> 
> ...



I don't accept it, however I don't read much about Intel cpu's because I couldn't care less about them. I have two Fx-8-core cpu's and they were a fantastic upgrade to the Phenom 2's. The bottom line is that most users spout off about Intel being much better when in reality they wouldn't notice the difference regardless which brand cpu they were using.


----------



## Frick (Feb 21, 2015)

Dent1 said:


> So you honestly think the i3 wins in *MOST* applications?
> 
> So are you telling me the i3 can outperform the FX-8 core in Encoding, 3D Rendering, Photo Manipulation, File compressing, Folding, General Multi-tasking etc.
> 
> ...



I don't use PS meself, so I don't really know, I just threw out something there's a bench for. The argument dates back to w1z's granddad (or so it feels). There has been numerous charts thrown around, and I'm surprised it's still a debate at all. 






> We measured the performance in Adobe Photoshop CS6 using our own benchmark made from Retouch Artists Photoshop Speed Test that has been creatively modified. It includes typical editing of four 24-megapixel images from a digital photo camera.



The gist of it is benchmarks shows that Vishera is placed all the way from below the lowest Ivy Bridge i3 to above the fastest Ivy i7. What this means in real life is that FX is awesome depending on what you're doing, whereas just a teeny more bit of money gives you an i5, which is good across the board while using less power. A 8320 is never a bad CPU, it's just that - as has been proven again and again - it's inconsistent. And at this point it's almost three years old.

But I/we digress.


Sledgehammer was an awesome name. They should have called Zen BullHammer.


----------



## Batou1986 (Feb 22, 2015)

See the problem really isn't AMD's CPU's its that most software doesn't use multi threading properly.
Software that I personally use like photoshop games etc benefit much more from better single threaded performance.
The only benefit I occasionally get from my FX is faster encoding times for making .webm's.

So yes the i3 IMO is better in most circumstances because most circumstances are single threaded.
Additionally you always have the option in the future of upgrading to an i5 or i7 whereas with AMD you already have the "high performance" chip.

If AMD wants to catch up to intel they need to make their CPUs better at working with current software and not banking on people making software to play nice with integer cores and other nonsense that never panned out.
That is the only way their new CPU's will be high performance.


----------



## bihboy23 (Feb 22, 2015)

I'm pretty sure AMD is slower than intel on purpose. I mean why would the manufacturer not now the reason for why their chip is slower?


----------



## HumanSmoke (Feb 22, 2015)

bihboy23 said:


> I'm pretty sure AMD is slower than intel* on purpose*. I mean why would the manufacturer not now the reason for why their chip is slower?


Please...


----------



## bihboy23 (Feb 22, 2015)

Yea because the i3 performs better than the "high end" fx's?
Lol, Yeah guys because photoshop benchmarks are very exciting


----------



## xfia (Feb 22, 2015)

if you want to get all conspiracy about it you could say intel figured out how to access information on the crystal skulls and left amd behind haha


----------



## Caring1 (Feb 22, 2015)

xfia said:


> if you want to get all conspiracy about it you could say intel figured out how to access information on the crystal skulls and left amd behind haha


Or Intel conspire with benchmark writers to make Intel appear better


----------



## Batou1986 (Feb 22, 2015)

bihboy23 said:


> Yea because the i3 performs better than the "high end" fx's?
> Lol, Yeah guys because photoshop benchmarks are very exciting


Ok lets end this non debate, the current i3 walks all over anything AMD has to offer except in Cinebench and by a small margin in video encoding.
inb4 bit tech is a lie paid review etc, go find another review site on your time if you care enough to see the same thing
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/11/14/intel-core-i3-4130-haswell-review

Besides its a well known fact that the older Phenom X4 and X6 beat the FX series in single threaded performance.
Like I said previously AMD has only one option and that is to design a CPU arch that works equally as well in multi threaded and single threaded environments with no funny cores that only work fast when the software devs code specifically for it.


----------



## Frick (Feb 22, 2015)

Batou1986 said:


> Ok lets end this non debate, the current i3 walks all over anything AMD has to offer except in Cinebench and by a small margin in video encoding.
> inb4 bit tech is a lie paid review etc, go find another review site on your time if you care enough to see the same thing
> http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/11/14/intel-core-i3-4130-haswell-review



This discussion will not end any time soon will it?  Those results are very far from the definition of "walks all over".


----------



## Batou1986 (Feb 22, 2015)

Frick said:


> This discussion will not end any time soon will it?  Those results are very far from the definition of "walks all over".


Considering the i3 is a 54w? dual core budget CPU and it beats an 125w+ 8 core in anything contributes to my view of it walking all over AMD


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Feb 22, 2015)

Batou1986 said:


> Considering the i3 is a 54w? dual core budget CPU and it beats an 125w+ 8 core in anything contributes to my view of it walking all over AMD


well then you arent being realistic cos at NO POINT will a modern computer ever do 1 thing at any time, your i3 is going to get smashed into the weeds by one game and one virus scan.

my old 8 core might well get pimped on IPC but id bench all day against an i3 and win in tit for tat bench picks, id obv pick a multi core aware test every time, you would pick a single thread using test, but you wouldnt walk over my pc in ANY way bar power consumption so get wise to the real world uses of most and stop filling intel's butt with balls.


----------



## krusha03 (Feb 22, 2015)

I am pretty satisfied with my FX-6300 overclocked to 4.55GHz. I could push more but I want my PC silent. I can crunch 5 tasks at a time and still have enough juice left for watching a movie or youtube in HD or streaming music while surfing the web or working in office. With this i pull 250W from the wall including my monitor and speakers


----------



## Dent1 (Feb 26, 2015)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> well then you arent being realistic cos at NO POINT will a modern computer ever do 1 thing at any time, your i3 is going to get smashed into the weeds by one game and one virus scan.
> 
> my old 8 core might well get pimped on IPC but id bench all day against an i3 and win in tit for tat bench picks, id obv pick a multi core aware test every time, you would pick a single thread using test, but you wouldnt walk over my pc in ANY way bar power consumption so get wise to the real world uses of most and stop filling intel's butt with balls.





krusha03 said:


> I am pretty satisfied with my FX-6300 overclocked to 4.55GHz[/B]. I could push more but I want my PC silent. I can crunch 5 tasks at a time and still have enough juice left for watching a movie or youtube in HD or streaming music while surfing the web or working in office. With this i pull 250W from the wall including my monitor and speakers



Funny how the haters have been quiet for 4 days after you guys said that lol


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 26, 2015)

This may be slightly offtopic, but I'm out of date on AMD's offering and feel like stoking the fire here a bit...

How does a first gen i7 system like mine compare to a cutting edge AMD system, from a 1-core vs 1-core perspective?  Are the i7 cores still more potent?


----------



## xfia (Feb 26, 2015)

o there is still a large gap in per core performance with these new cores even if they go to desktop with a 100w tdp. they have always been good at closing the gap in threaded applications witch it is 2015 and is not jumping through hoops to use a few cores to get the job done. hsa is really about how efficient it can get tasks done with unified memory like reduced cache dependency, not having memory copies and reduced power draw for a given task.
cant go wrong reading about it   http://developer.amd.com/resources/...hat-is-heterogeneous-system-architecture-hsa/
I dont think anyone can speak for the potency of zen cores yet but if recent developments from amd can speak for the future it looks pretty good especially if prices are competitive.


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 26, 2015)

Batou1986 said:


> See the problem really isn't AMD's CPU's its that most software doesn't use multi threading properly.


Please don't reduce this problem to a it to a statement like this. It's not that most software doesn't use multi-threading properly because a lot of software does. It's that most situations don't constitute a speedup by simply using more threads because the task isn't parallel in nature. Depending on the workload, the speedup could be huge or it could be tiny but, for most applications that react to human intervention, there is a good bet that most of it is done in a single thread because tasks that are mostly serial in nature will only run slower when you attempt to divvy them up and the amount of speedup is proportional the amount of the application that can actually be run in parallel.

So please be careful with this statement because a lot of applications aren't conducive to being accelerated by using more threads and running parts of the application in parallel depends on the workload itself. You can't efficiently run tasks in parallel if each tasks relies on output from previous one. *One doesn't simply make an application multi-threaded*.


----------



## Assimilator (Feb 26, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> This may be slightly offtopic, but I'm out of date on AMD's offering and feel like stoking the fire here a bit...
> 
> How does a first gen i7 system like mine compare to a cutting edge AMD system, from a 1-core vs 1-core perspective?  Are the i7 cores still more potent?



http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Xeon-W3690-vs-AMD-FX-8350

tl;dr Clock for clock, a 5-year-old Intel design still outperforms AMD's latest and greatest, _while using less power_. This is why the title of this thread made me laugh hysterically, because "AMD" and "high performance CPU architecture" don't belong on the same continent, let alone in the same sentence. (Before the fanboys accuse me of bias, let me point out the "Intel" and "high performance integrated graphics" don't belong together either.)

If you are looking to upgrade, you should be able to find second-hand Sandy or Ivy Bridge systems going for cheap. Personally though, I'd wait for Skylake and DDR4 later this year.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Feb 26, 2015)

Assimilator said:


> http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Xeon-W3690-vs-AMD-FX-8350
> 
> tl;dr Clock for clock, a 5-year-old Intel design still outperforms AMD's latest and greatest, _while using less power_.


That should come as no surprise to anyone. Mike Butler's Bulldozer/Piledriver architecture attempted to add cores at the expense of overall IPC and caching penalties to the extent that all AMD's hype (mostly in the form of John Freuhe's guerrilla marketing) turned out to well short of actual performance





  ....and fell well short of it's own previous K10 (or 10h) architecture, let alone Intel Nehalem....leading to AMD's excuse wrapped as an almost apology (shades of JHH's GTX 970 letter)
( Quick reference: Opteron 6174 is 10h/K10, Opteron 6276 is Bulldozer, X5670 is Westmere/Nehalem, Xeon 2690 is Sandy Bridge)


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 26, 2015)

Assimilator said:


> http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Xeon-W3690-vs-AMD-FX-8350
> 
> tl;dr Clock for clock, a 5-year-old Intel design still outperforms AMD's latest and greatest, _while using less power_. This is why the title of this thread made me laugh hysterically, because "AMD" and "high performance CPU architecture" don't belong on the same continent, let alone in the same sentence. (Before the fanboys accuse me of bias, let me point out the "Intel" and "high performance integrated graphics" don't belong together either.)
> 
> If you are looking to upgrade, you should be able to find second-hand Sandy or Ivy Bridge systems going for cheap. Personally though, I'd wait for Skylake and DDR4 later this year.



I kind of expected that outcome, ironically I expected the 1st gen intel lead to be larger though, heh.

Still pretty sad.  I don't think I'd be wrong to say you'd think it was positive for the market for AMD to make a good CPU core for a change though, amirite?


----------



## HumanSmoke (Feb 26, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> I kind of expected that outcome, ironically I expected the 1st gen intel lead to be larger though, heh.


Probably depends upon the workloads used for the rating criteria. Anandtech's bench has better transparency.


----------

