vinskawait a sec...
If they are going to make another such kind of cpu from steamroller... They should name it:

Spoiler

fx-9001
img94.imageshack.us/img94/6121/trollfacemorehd.png

VinskaWait a sec...
If they are going to make another such kind of CPU from steamroller... They should name it:

Spoiler

FX-9001
img94.imageshack.us/img94/6121/trollfacemorehd.png

Spoiler

jigar2speedFunny how you don't complain when your Graphic cards eat 200+ Watts for breakfast but you cry out load if the same thing is happening at the CPU end.

JDG1980If Centurion was a 32-core Steamroller-based monster that had IPC equivalent to Sandy Bridge

JDG1980Obviously it would be preferable if graphics cards used less power. And the trend has been towards more efficient GPUs: for example, the Radeon 7750 is nearly as powerful as the 5770 of two generations before, but where the 5770 displaced 108 watts, the 7750 reduced TDP to just 55W, low enough to easily be cooled with a passive heatsink. But the state of the art in graphics cards is that you need 200W+ for a top-tier card. That is true for both AMD and NVIDIA. Still, for most users, a 100-175W card will be more than sufficient at this time. Only a handful of hardcore gamers (or HPC enthusiasts) really need more than that.

The problem with the proposed "Centurion" is that it's a step in the wrong direction. Far worse TDP without even providing competitive performance. It's a regression to the NetBurst space-heater era. Sandy Bridge at 4 GHz would blow away Vishera at 5 GHz on single-threaded and lightly-threaded applications, while using far less power. If AMD actually provided something worthwhile in exchange for this TDP, it wouldn't be nearly as objectionable. If Centurion was a 32-core Steamroller-based monster that had IPC equivalent to Sandy Bridge and totally blew away everything else on most benchmarks, you could justify the TDP on the basis of that performance. If the proposed chip was an APU with GDDR5 support and graphics performance on par with a 7850, then it could easily be justified since the 7850 alone is 130W (and is considered a fairly efficient chip at that). But for a factory-overclocked Vishera? No way.

cdawallOnly time will tell if the FX series really is a one trick pony (P4 was awesome at encoding ironically enough) or if those technologies are utilized in better and better revisions.

Vinska"Who cares!? Just hurry up and release muh steamroller, dangit!" -Me

DinaAngelmy 3930k draws 310 watts atm :rockout: -33 degrees celsius on load :p
valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2728858

Edit: it might be using more tho, powerdraw is peaking on whole system 1,057 watts during full load

suraswamiYup you made the Grandma living next door happy :laugh:

Your PC blew the fuse on her house so she is happy not to pay her electricity bills :roll:

suraswamiYup you made the Grandma living next door happy :laugh:

Your PC blew the fuse on her house so she is happy not to pay her electricity bills :roll:

shovenoseWow, that is ridiculous. This CPU better be 2x fast as an FX-8350!

JDG1980But the state of the art in graphics cards is that you need 200W+ for a top-tier card. That is true for both AMD and NVIDIA. Still, for most users, a 100-175W card will be more than sufficient at this time. Only a handful of hardcore gamers (or HPC enthusiasts) really need more than that.

RavenasThe 8350s being sold now are getting 5.0GHz with a water cooler. I would have rather have seen size reduction.

suraswamiSorry 9000 is on viagara!

de.das.dudeone thing i dont understand is people s hared towards power. cooling is relatively cheap. electricity is cheap (?????).

RavenasThe 8350s being sold now are getting 5.0GHz with a water cooler. I would have rather have seen size reduction.

Prima.VeraElectricity is cheap?? LOL. You should go more often to Europe or Asia...:banghead:

de.das.dudei dont know where the hell i am right now. but last i checked i was still in my room in india.