# Production of AMD "Piledriver" FX Processors Begin Q3 2012



## btarunr (May 24, 2012)

Production of AMD's next-generation FX processor family, which are based on its "Piledriver" microarchitecture, will commence in Q3 2012, according to industry sources. Some of the first client processor models based on the "Vishera" silicon, will be the eight-core FX-8350, six-core FX-6300, and quad-core FX-4320. The three model names were earlier misinterpreted with an "x" prefix from a roadmap slide.

A few more details are known about these chips. For starters, the chips will be built on the existing AM3+ package, retaining compatibility with current AM3+ platforms. The chips will also retain dual-channel DDR3-1866 MHz integrated memory controllers, and Turbo Core 2.0. The main differences here, are increases in IPC (performance to clock-speed ratio), and the implementation of resonant clock mesh technology, which increases energy efficiency.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## tacosRcool (May 24, 2012)

I wanna see some reviews soon!


----------



## TheLaughingMan (May 24, 2012)

i want to see at my doorstep


----------



## seronx (May 24, 2012)

http://opencompute.org/wp/wp-conten...ompute_Project_AMD_Motherboard_Roadrunner.pdf



> Abu-Dhabi is based on the Piledriver core will be available Q2 2012 and offers drop-in compatible part with 200 MHz performance uplift.



I'm gonna be lenient and say Vishera, Seoul, Abu Dhabi, Delhi... will launch Q2 2012...
http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~kosborn/SEALeR/Papaefthymiou.pdf
^-- stuff about resonant clock meshes


----------



## fullinfusion (May 24, 2012)

I hope AMD can pull the rabbit outta the hat with this cpu 

I'll be watching this one.


----------



## NC37 (May 24, 2012)

fullinfusion said:


> I hope AMD can pull the rabbit outta the hat with this cpu
> 
> I'll be watching this one.



They won't, only projected to be 10-15% over BD. Even if it was more, it still wouldn't be super. It'll be another revision or two before AMD gets the design flaws ironed out.

Keep an eye out for Steamroller, but don't hold your breath.


----------



## seronx (May 24, 2012)

NC37 said:


> They won't, only projected to be 10-15% over BD. Even if it was more, it still wouldn't be super. It'll be another revision or two before AMD gets the design flaws ironed out.
> 
> Keep an eye out for Steamroller, but don't hold your breath.


It's actually a little higher than 10% to 15%... 24% overall lower power consumption(RCM)((4+ GHz while ~3.5 range can see 30% lower power).  I have also seen no signs of increased performance per core with the same clock based on theoretical upscaling from Trinity.

http://ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/sscs/Presentations/2012_01_Doyle.pdf <-- It hasn't been talked about even though this design is already in Orochi B2, so I am not sure if Orochi Revision C(x) would get the 8 Gbit/s interconnect.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 24, 2012)

lets see the final end user testing at the hands of the TPU staff here


----------



## hardcore_gamer (May 24, 2012)

This is is going to be a problem for overclockers. Because of the resonant mesh design, efficiency is maximum at the resonant frequency, and it decreases when frequency increases.

edit:

There are better CMOS energy recovery schemes out there. One example is the adiabatic logic. Most chip companies will be forced to use energy recovery circuits when CMOS scaling reaches its limit.


----------



## Melvis (May 24, 2012)

I hope to see a good increase in IPC and the power use to come, that would be nice, if it gets up around the 2600K id buy one, if not then boo =/


----------



## ZoneDymo (May 24, 2012)

Its messed up the current Bulldozer is not even as fast as previous models of amd sure, but what annoys me the most is that Bulldozer in no area beats Intel other then arguably price.

If the Bulldozer had the performance it currently had but would be a lot more power efficient it would suddenly be appealing to me.


----------



## librin.so.1 (May 24, 2012)

What can I say, I have the same opinion as Homer on flash fryers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9EBhaULToU


----------



## Dent1 (May 24, 2012)

ZoneDymo said:


> but what annoys me the most is that Bulldozer in no area beats Intel other then arguably price.




Might be true with Ivy Bridge. 

But read over the old Bulldozer reviews from Dec 2011 there was a few multi threaded benchmarks which were faster than Nehalem and Sandy Bridge.

The problem with Bulldozer is it's leads were not consistant enough to stand out. But I hear you. Performance was disappointing.


----------



## Hustler (May 24, 2012)

Melvis said:


> I hope to see a good increase in IPC ,if it gets up around the 2600K



Lolz..not a chance.

Given that SB is up to 40% faster clock for clock than Phenom II, combine that with the fact that Bulldozer is up to 15% slower clock for clock than a Phenom II, you can see there is not a chance in hell of these Piledriver CPU's even matching SandyBridge, let alone IvyBridge.


----------



## librin.so.1 (May 24, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Might be true with Ivy Bridge.
> 
> But read over the old Bulldozer reviews from Dec 2011 there was a few multi threaded benchmarks which were faster than Nehalem and Sandy Bridge.
> 
> The problem with Bulldozer is it's leads were not consistant enough to stand out. But I hear you. Performance was disappointing.



In the old reviews where they did benchmarks under linux, bulldozer did really well. There it did beat Nehalem & Sandy Bridge on numerous tests, and was head to head in most where it did not beat 'em, losing in just a few. It did especially well in compiling. That is, IIRC.
So, myeah...


----------



## TheLaughingMan (May 24, 2012)

Wow. People still base their opinions of figures they just make up or rumors there heard from people that just made some figures up.

I reserve my opinion until I see the Piledriver FX chips. Glad to see they are going to stick with AM3+ for at least another generation.


----------



## Prima.Vera (May 24, 2012)

Cannot wait for a CPU that finally can be faster in games than my good ol' Core 2 Quad Q9650....


----------



## HossHuge (May 24, 2012)

So if production begins in Q3, when would they come on sale?


----------



## librin.so.1 (May 24, 2012)

HossHuge said:


> So if production begins in Q3, when would they come on sale?



I also had the same question on my mind.


----------



## dzero (May 24, 2012)

Q3 production mid Q4 release date.

Hopefully they have dealt with some of the heat and power issues. IPC is important but you can't really think there will win there for Piledriver.


----------



## Dent1 (May 24, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> Cannot wait for a CPU that finally can be faster in games than my good ol' Core 2 Quad Q9650....



Urrm,
Athlon II X4, just as fast in singethreaded and multi threaded games
Phenom II X6  in multi-threaded games, just as fast in singlethreaded.
Bulldozer in multi-threaded games, just as fast in singlethreaded.
LLano APU faster in games period.
Trinity APU faster in games period.



Hustler said:


> Lolz..not a chance.
> 
> Given that SB is up to 40% faster clock for clock than Phenom II, combine that with the fact that Bulldozer is up to 15% slower clock for clock than a Phenom II, you can see there is not a chance in hell of these Piledriver CPU's even matching SandyBridge, let alone IvyBridge.



Bulldozer is not 15% slower than Phenom II clock for clock . Please stop spreading misinformation.

Secondly, Anantech already says that the LOW END Trinity APU based on Piledriver is 20-25% slower than Ivy Bridge. So I would assume the HIGH END Piledriver desktop CPU would be even faster than Trinity. My conservative guess would be a 10% improvement from from a low end APU to a high end CPU. So based on that information I would say Piledriver should* be as fast as Sandybridge +/- a few % depending on the benchmark.




> To recap, Trinity is AMD’s continued journey down the path they started with Llano. Both CPU and GPU performance have improved over Llano. The general purpose CPU performance gap vs. Intel is somewhere in the 20—25% range.



http://www.anandtech.com/show/5831/amd-trinity-review-a10-4600m-a-new-hope/9


----------



## Hustler (May 24, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Urrm,
> Bulldozer is not 15% slower than Phenom II clock for clock . Please stop spreading misinformation.



First of all i said 'up to' 15% slower, meaning in some CPU bound benchmarks, 1 Bulldozer core is 15% slower than 1 Phenom II core.

The benchmarks are out there if you look....


----------



## Fourstaff (May 24, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Urrm,
> Athlon II X4, just as fast in singethreaded and multi threaded games
> Phenom II X6  in multi-threaded games, just as fast in singlethreaded.
> Bulldozer in multi-threaded games, just as fast in singlethreaded.
> ...



You can stop spreading misinformation too, 9650 is about as powerful as the Phenom II, and from that we can tell 9650 is more powerful than AII x4 and about as powerful as Bulldozer. Llano is no faster than Phenom II either, and we have yet to see desktop Trinity yet, but judging by the mobile side, should be faster than 9650. As for clock for clock I don't really care between Phenom II and Bulldozer, just that in singlethreaded applications, Bulldozer is not significantly powerful than Phenom II, and the average user cannot take advantage of the superior multitasking by Bulldozer (they do fine in server though). 

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2009/08/17/amd-phenom-ii-x4-965-black-edition-review/6


----------



## librin.so.1 (May 24, 2012)

Fourstaff said:


> [...]just that in singlethreaded applications, Bulldozer is not significantly powerful than Phenom II, and the average user cannot take advantage of the superior multitasking by Bulldozer (they do fine in server though).



me >> average user (sort of) >> [*gasms over bulldozer compiling speed ('is highly MT)]

EDIT: Also, _to me,_ additional modules/cores are pure gold when recording gameplay videos. Encoding with the high compression rates, that is (the processing-intensive, not the quality-reducing type). While the game still runs as smooth as silk. YYY!


----------



## Dent1 (May 24, 2012)

Fourstaff said:


> You can stop spreading misinformation too, 9650 is about as powerful as the Phenom II, and from that we can tell 9650 is more powerful than AII x4 and about as powerful as Bulldozer.



Dude read my post again. As far as Phenom II and Bulldozer you just agreed with me  



> Phenom II X6 in multi-threaded games, *just as fast in *singlethreaded.
> Bulldozer in multi-threaded games, *just as fast* in singlethreaded.



Also, if we are in agreement the  9650, Phenom II and Bulldozer perform about the same (atleast in single threaded games) That means it's impossible for Phenom II to be 15% faster than Bulldozer as Hustler suggested


----------



## Fourstaff (May 24, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Dude read my post again. As far as Phenom II and Bulldozer you just agreed with me
> 
> 
> 
> Also, if we are in agreement the  9650, Phenom II and Bulldozer perform about the same (atleast in single threaded games) That means it's impossible for Phenom II to be 25% faster than Bulldozer as Hustler suggested



That is what I get when I skim through posts :shadedshu

Well, there will always be fanboys everywhere, and aggressive weeding is needed every so often. 

Either way, AMD needs to boost their singlethreaded heavily to compete with Sandy Bridge past the $150 dollar mark, but I think AMD has given up in that segment and focus their resources in server and also low to mid end. Bulldozer while lacking in high end gaming does very well in mid and below, trading blows with the i3 and non-k i5 when overclocked. Power consumption still needs to be improved by 50% to make it truly competitive, no just on benches.


----------



## Dent1 (May 24, 2012)

Hustler said:


> First of all i said 'up to' 15% slower, meaning in some CPU bound benchmarks, 1 Bulldozer core is 15% slower than 1 Phenom II core.
> 
> The benchmarks are out there if you look....




Fair enough. But saying "upto" is misleading. Because upto isnt on average.

Lets say we bench 20 games. Phenom II wins only 5 tests by a 15% lead, and Bulldozer wins 15 test by a 10% lead.  Would it be fair to say Phenom II is upto 15% faster when on average it got spanked?


Fourstaff, no offense taken. With all the fanboys around sometimes we automatically go on the defensive. I've been guilty of it myself.

I agree singlethreaded performance needs to be improved heavily. Trinity is in the right step, as I pointed out earlier, Anandtech suggests a 20-25% gap between Trinity and Ivy in CPU. So hopefully AMD use this time to perfect the Piledriver between now and then to close the gap.


----------



## babash*t (May 24, 2012)

TheLaughingMan said:


> I reserve my opinion until I see the Piledriver FX chips. Glad to see they are going to stick with AM3+ for at least another generation.


Problem with sticking with am3+ is no quad channel memory


----------



## librin.so.1 (May 24, 2012)

babash*t said:


> Problem with sticking with am3+ is no quad channel memory



On the bright side - mobos currently housing our bulldozers won't be obsoleted for a longer time.
[warning! Some philosophical thoughts ahead!]
I know that this has some bad implications, but let us not forget to always also look for the bright side. There is _always_ two ends to a stick.
That means "good" things also carry some "bad" implication. So, let's just be thankful for what we have - as in the first place, we have something ;]


----------



## Dent1 (May 24, 2012)

babash*t said:


> Problem with sticking with am3+ is no quad channel memory



Bingo.

Apparently the server chips will support quad channel. I'd be interested to find out how the dual channel desktop version performs in comparison to the quad channel server variant.


http://www.techpowerup.com/159062/A...nnel-DDR3-IMC-G34-En-Route-Desktop-.html?cp=3


----------



## pantherx12 (May 24, 2012)

My predictions !

4 ghz stock speed ( top end model) 
+20% IPC 

5GHZ on air ( I can nearly do that already) 

Still will run as hot as BS but not AS hot as BS.


----------



## librin.so.1 (May 24, 2012)

pantherx12 said:


> Still will run as hot as BS but not AS hot as BS.



I don't get it.


----------



## Hustler (May 24, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Lets say we bench 20 games. Phenom II wins only 5 tests by a 15% lead, and Bulldozer wins 15 test by a 10% lead.  Would it be fair to say Phenom II is upto 15% faster when on average it got spanked?



Well I'm not really bothered about modern gaming anyway, the GPU is the biggest factor there these days, and when it isn't, your probably talking about the difference between 30fps and 33fps.

I need raw single thread CPU performance because i heavily use emulators, which are usually not very multi core efficient, so IPC is by far the most important criteria for my needs.

As much as i would love Trinity to match a 2600k on a clock for clock IPC, there is just too big a gap for that to happen by Q4 2012.


----------



## babash*t (May 24, 2012)

Vinska said:


> On the bright side - mobos currently housing our bulldozers won't be obsoleted for a longer time.
> [warning! Some philosophical thoughts ahead!]
> I know that this has some bad implications, but let us not forget to always also look for the bright side. There is _always_ two ends to a stick.
> That means "good" things also carry some "bad" implication. So, let's just be thankful for what we have - as in the first place, we have something ;]


True, true


----------



## Dent1 (May 24, 2012)

Hustler said:


> As much as i would love Trinity to match a 2600k on a clock for clock IPC, there is just too big a gap for that to happen by Q4 2012.



Bear in mind Anandtech's assessment was based Ivy Bridge vs Trinity (20-25% CPU difference). The gap between Sandy Bridge and Trinity would be smaller maybe 15-20% taking a conservative guess.  So it's not impossible to think a desktop Piledriver could be 10-15% faster than Trinity. Thus atleast catching upto Sandy Bridge (2600k) or on par. But yet being behind Ivy Bridge somewhat.


----------



## babash*t (May 24, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Bingo.
> 
> Apparently the server chips will support quad channel. I'd be interested to find out how the dual channel desktop version performs in comparison to the quad channel server variant.
> 
> ...



Well if they confirm the 10core vishera for desktop, and have it out and available by Q3/4 I don't think lack of quad channel will be a problem for me


----------



## librin.so.1 (May 24, 2012)

babash*t said:


> Well if they confirm the 10core vishera for desktop,[...] I don't think lack of quad channel will be a problem for me



10 core would mean 10mb L2 cache. I wonder, if the L3 cache would still be 8mb on a 10core/5module die. If handled well, a large L2 & L3 can reduce the amount of situations when 2-chanel memory would be a bottleneck, I think.
That said, I have no idea if bulldozer handles its L2 & L3 caches well. Along with not remembering if cache handling improvements were mentioned in piledriver's improvement highlights. xD


----------



## pantherx12 (May 24, 2012)

Vinska said:


> I don't get it.



The processor runs incredibly hot when over clocked.

I expect the new processor will run hot too.

But not as hot.


----------



## librin.so.1 (May 24, 2012)

Ah, thanks for clearing that ambiguity of Your previous post up.  ^^^^


----------



## cadaveca (May 24, 2012)

btarunr said:


> the implementation of resonant clock mesh technology



Hrm...curious....tell me more, tell me more.


----------



## librin.so.1 (May 24, 2012)

btarunr said:


> [...] the implementation of resonant clock mesh technology[...]





cadaveca said:


> Hrm...curious....tell me more, tell me more.



Each time I hear about something new that sounds like it will be fiddling with the clock speeds behind the user's back, I frown.
Many such things already made overclocking more and more confusing with each such additional technology. If this trend keeps up, in a few years time, overclocking can turn into "I don't even f-ing know if those changes I made affect anything at all". One such "bad" example of a chip getting near (bot not quite there yet) this territory is Nv Kepler.

It will be a sad day, when overclocking becomes a thing comparable to "voodoo magic done by an amateur using a 'cookbook'.". :shadedshu


----------



## pantherx12 (May 24, 2012)

Vinska said:


> Each time I hear about something new that sounds like it will be fiddling with the clock speeds behind the user's back, I frown.



That isn't what it does.

"Electricity passes from the capacitor to the inductor, where it creates a magnetic field. When the capacitor’s charge reaches zero, the current flow reverses — power shifts from the inductor to the capacitor, and the magnetic field dissipates. This process is analogous to the movement of a pendulum or the sloshing of water in a tank, which is where the “tank circuit” moniker comes from.

Here’s the key: It takes significantly less power to keep the pendulum swinging than it does to start over from a neutral position each and every cycle. Cyclos’ design reportedly cuts clock distribution power by “up to 24% while maintaining the low clock-skew target required by high-performance processors.” Cyclos claims that using its technology can cut total IC power by up to 10%. "


Basically a power saving measure.

Saved power also means lower temperatures.


All goes towards them being able to clock BD higher.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 24, 2012)

for a lil easier explaination the inductor is a wire coil wrapped around a core core (the donuts on motherboards are a good example, Magnetic fields are called flux fields (Coils are used to step up or step down voltage/current in Transformers)



pantherx12 said:


> That isn't what it does.
> 
> "Electricity passes from the capacitor to the inductor, where it creates a magnetic field. When the capacitor’s charge reaches zero, the current flow reverses — power shifts from the inductor to the capacitor, and the magnetic field dissipates. This process is analogous to the movement of a pendulum or the sloshing of water in a tank, which is where the “tank circuit” moniker comes from.
> 
> ...


----------



## Widjaja (May 24, 2012)

Can only hope AMD don't make Piledriver the chip which Bulldozer should have been which is a step up from Phenom II


----------



## Syborfical (May 24, 2012)

Vinska said:


> In the old reviews where they did benchmarks under linux, bulldozer did really well. There it did beat Nehalem & Sandy Bridge on numerous tests, and was head to head in most where it did not beat 'em, losing in just a few. It did especially well in compiling. That is, IIRC.
> So, myeah...



Did bench marks under linux means SFA to most people.
People into PC wants raw performance on windows.

The fact of the mater is bulldozer could be a 100 core CPU 
and still fail to deliver performance as it sucks compared to sandy bridge.
It doesn't matter that is has 8 cores it still sucks. Although it may be cheap other than that if you want performance buy intel. Or AMD server chips maybe? Can you even buy them in the shops? 


Maybe AMD should Aim at being 80% as efficient  as ivy bridge.

First think they should do is fire all there marketing staff.
Rename the FX to the Crap X or Cyrix .... Or just phenom 1.2 

Then pull there head out of there backside and make something that is better than the phoenm2 its sad the FX isn't half as good as the phenom 2


----------



## librin.so.1 (May 24, 2012)

pantherx12, eidairaman1 Thanks for clearing that up!

Yeah, I know well enough about those things.
Just from past experience, where companies used flashy (and highly indicating) names for simple things, just to attract as much attention from simple users as possible...

...Simply put, I thought this is one of those flashy sounding things that basically fiddle with the clocks in some clever way, which would prolly be frustrating to OCers.

So, Thanks for saving me the trouble of long and boring Googe'ling (actually DDG'ing) session, and simply clearing things up for me! ;]


----------



## librin.so.1 (May 24, 2012)

Syborfical said:


> Did bench marks under linux means SFA to most people.
> People into PC wants raw performance on windows.



Oh, please...
To me is the reverse - most of my processor taxing tasks, and furthermore, processing intensive work & study related things are on Linux.
So _personally_, bought bulldozer without too much thought because I hardly cared if it is slow on windows according to reviews, as it is fast on linux, according to reviews.

As much as I encountered, people using linux in a serious way usually stay in their own communities and do not venture into places such TPU very often. Yet, they are quite numerous. Thus, I suppose You should fix that into "_Most_ simple users into PC want raw performance on windows." ;]


----------



## techtard (May 24, 2012)

AMD fans should learn from the Bulldozer/FX launch. Don't get your hopes up. Too much hype will start another massive troll fest and flame war.

For most average computer users AMD CPUs are perfectly fine, all they need to do is power the OS, web-browser and e-mail client.

'Enthusuiasts' need to realize that they are not the only computer users, and not everyone needs the absolute best PC.


----------



## Baam (May 24, 2012)

I will be upgrading to this for sure.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 24, 2012)

Come on take my fin money already.....

these should perform closer to sandy and ivy due to Fm3 support also  i hope






Fourstaff said:


> Bulldozer is not significantly powerful than Phenom II, and the average user cannot take advantage of the superior multitasking by Bulldozer (they do fine in server though).







beguiles me when i here this?

im the average user ,my rigs listed ,my pc is folding for Tpu in the chimpchallenge(last ditch promotion) and is running 1520 threads at the minute, not gameing is doing my nut by the way, ive not been off ere at all>



Syborfical said:


> Then pull there head out of there backside and make something that is better than the phoenm2 its sad the FX isn't half as good as the phenom 2



its sad someone taught you to use a keyboard


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 25, 2012)

techtard said:


> AMD fans should learn from the Bulldozer/FX launch. Don't get your hopes up. Too much hype will start another massive troll fest and flame war.
> 
> For most average computer users AMD CPUs are perfectly fine, all they need to do is power the OS, web-browser and e-mail client.
> 
> 'Enthusuiasts' need to realize that they are not the only computer users, and not everyone needs the absolute best PC.



to me sounds like youre already trying to start one 

just my 2 cents


----------



## Fourstaff (May 25, 2012)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> beguiles me when i here this?
> 
> im the average user ,my rigs listed ,my pc is folding for Tpu in the chimpchallenge(last ditch promotion) and is running 1520 threads at the minute, not gameing is doing my nut by the way, ive not been off ere at all>



No, the moment you start folding you become a power user. In fact, if use your pc more than interwebs, microsoft office, games, music and watching "good stuff" you are a power user.


----------



## ensabrenoir (May 25, 2012)

........naaah  we've all ridden this bus before.... wake me when we have some software that makes the solder on the back of my motherboard weep


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 25, 2012)

Fourstaff said:


> No, the moment you start folding you become a power user. In fact, if use your pc more than interwebs, microsoft office, games, music and watching "good stuff" you are a power user.



ok but an average users still, allways going to have hundreds of threads running ,not one. though the one thread on BD does work slower then  equivalent cpu's its allways multi tasking anyway unless you force the process to run one thread on one paticular core or optimisations make that happen

never office though, no no that wouldnt do


----------



## suraswami (May 25, 2012)

techtard said:


> AMD fans should learn from the Bulldozer/FX launch. Don't get your hopes up. Too much hype will start another massive troll fest and flame war.
> 
> For most average computer users AMD CPUs are perfectly fine, all they need to do is power the OS, web-browser and e-mail client.
> 
> 'Enthusuiasts' need to realize that they are not the only computer users, and not everyone needs the absolute best PC.



So you mean to say only high end Intel CPUs can compile video and play games, AMD CPUs will fart and die in the middle of such hard session?

In that case I want to see one in such action


----------



## librin.so.1 (May 25, 2012)

techtard said:


> For most average computer users AMD CPUs are perfectly fine, all they need to do is power the OS, web-browser and e-mail client.
> 
> 'Enthusuiasts' need to realize that they are not the only computer users, and not everyone needs the absolute best PC.



Hehe, for such users, even the weakest AMD Fusion chip would be way more than what they need 99.999% of the time.

./non_serious_mode
...unless they never find out about those mythical "ad-blockers". In that case even the fastest CPU on the market would be Not Quite Enough™.


----------



## Prima.Vera (May 25, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Dude read my post again. As far as Phenom II and Bulldozer you just agreed with me
> 
> 
> 
> Also, if we are in agreement the  9650, Phenom II and Bulldozer perform about the same (atleast in single threaded games) That means it's impossible for Phenom II to be 15% faster than Bulldozer as Hustler suggested




The only problem is that the Q9650 was made in 2007...5 fracking years ago!


----------



## Syborfical (May 25, 2012)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> its sad someone taught you to use a keyboard



Taught? It just happened.

I use to be a hardcore AMD nut.
Now days I don't give a flying f...

But the FX74 and the FX72 where nice processors in there day.
FX where like the muscle car but in a CPU.

Now days AMD has dragged the FX name through the mud.
Maybe they meant MX like the MX range of Geforce Video cards.

Either way AMD still make CPU's they suck at marketing....


----------



## librin.so.1 (May 25, 2012)

Syborfical said:


> Either way AMD [...] suck at marketing....



Even though I'm a massive AMD CPU fanboy, I fully agree with _that_.


----------



## techtard (May 25, 2012)

Wow reading comprehension is lacking in this thread. 
Nowhere did I state that the AMD cpus are lacking for gaming or bad at encoding.

I just came from an AM2+ platform that lasted about 4 years. I was and still am impressed by the performance I got out of the setup.

I was simply stating that AMD is fine for most of the computing population, and somehow people took that to be an attack on AMD or enthusiasts.

It's shameful how fanboy-ism ruins threads.


----------



## Dent1 (May 25, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> The only problem is that the Q9650 was made in 2007...5 fracking years ago!



Phenom II was released in 2009.  What is your point.

Your point had no relevance to anything I was saying prior in regards to the OPs upgrade choice.


----------



## babash*t (Jun 27, 2012)

People still waste time on this AMD-hate argument?? Jeez, Intel fanbois and their insecurity issues.


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 27, 2012)

You know, I keep saying this and I seem to have to remind everyone of this when people start hating on BD and PD. The simple fact is there is less and less single-threaded software now and software companies tend (if they're smart,) to make software to be multithreaded when it needs that extra compute power. If AMD increases the IPC on PD, you're not just increasing it on 4 cores, but rather 8. I would like to see an Intel chip for the same price as the 8120 that can encode video, play a video game, and be updating Windows and still have some kick to do something else as well. Intel's HyperThreading is nice, but it doesn't scale well and only does so good on selective workloads since it's only used unused portions of the CPU where BD/PD has dedicated extra hardware to running those extra threads so scaling is much more linear on multi-threaded workloads.

Is AMD slower than Intel thread for thread? YES! Only an idiot would try to dispute that because AMD's IPC isn't up to par and quite frankly neither is AMD's IMC (now, it used to be good but they haven't changed a whole lot to it, also having a SB-E with quad-channel memory, it won't help you until you start running the CPU (all cores,) over 50% and even that is dependent on the workloads.)

Is AMD, as a multi-threaded platform, better than Intel? With SB, sure was. Only problem is the majority of users don't use that kind of software and it isn't widely available for most tasks.

As I see it the following will happen with PD gets released in comparison to IVB. IPC will be improved but will still trail IVB and maybe even still SB. Clocks on PD will be increased for the FX processors and power consumption will be moderated with the use of RCM. However where the IPC improvement will really shine is multi-threaded workloads (once again,) since that IPC improvement will be across *all logical threads* and not just the physical modules. With that said I once again believe we will see AMD demolishing multi-threaded workloads and being just good enough on single-threaded workloads. So a mixture of IPC improvements and clock speed bumps I think we should see a decent product.

I think a lot of people need to realize that AMD and Intel have two different goals in mind with their CPUs and I think AMD has the right idea even if it isn't proving to be the right one as it stands right now. Don't get me wrong, I like both AMD and Intel as companies, it's why I've been bopping between the two for the last several years, but right now Intel has the crown so I went with SB-E. AMD is making their architecture so it will scale nicely, Intel on the other hand is still squeezing performance out of their same architecture, which isn't a bad move, but I bet you that Intel will find that there will come a point where you can only improve the architecture so much. Keep in mind that a BD module is only like, what, 20% larger than a Phenom II core? As far as raw performance for the size of the module's die size, that's pretty impressive and if AMD keeps going that route we could see CPUs with a lot more cores and a lot more multi-threaded horsepower while Intel is still leading single-threaded tasks.

Additionally, for the cost, I would jump on an Interlagos 16-core CPU for servers rather than an 8-core Xeon, mainly because the 8-core Xeons run really hot and don't have as much kick for server applications and costs half as much.

I just thought that pointing out both Intel and AMD's strong points would be better than saying what each of them sucks as doing because honestly, they're both good chips, just Intel does some things better than AMD and AMD does some things better than Intel, simple as that.


----------



## Dent1 (Jun 27, 2012)

babash*t said:


> People still waste time on this AMD-hate argument?? Jeez, Intel fanbois and their insecurity issues.



Says the person the revives a month old thread!


----------

