After sitting through the debacle that was GPU'13, I don't think I will ever participate in another AMD streamed event and will, instead, opt to read the overviews the next day :banghead:

It would be so awesome if they bring back phenom x6 on fm2+, but they won't, hopefully new athlons perform well.

ZetZetIt would be so awesome if they bring back phenom x6 on fm2+, but they won't, hopefully new athlons perform well.

You mean bring back the Phenom name or the Phenom (Deneb/Thuban) architecture?

Dent1You mean bring back the Phenom name or the Phenom (Deneb) architecture?

Bring back TRUE hex cores. As an FM2 guy, I don't want anymore module business. Give me a true quad core without hardware hyperthreading. My 1055t still makes me depressed at how good it is after all these years in comparison to my FM2 setup.

www.sisoftware.eu/rank2011d/show_system.php?q=cea598a99aa393a696b0d7eac7f6d0a29faf89e0ddeccaa29faa8cf4c9f8debbdee3d3f586bb83&l=en
www.planet3dnow.de/cms/?p=3279&preview=true

I think the modules will start to come in to their own now. Want to see how the next generation of console ports fair especially.

SIGSEGVwww.sisoftware.eu/rank2011d/show_system.php?q=cea598a99aa393a696b0d7eac7f6d0a29faf89e0ddeccaa29faa8cf4c9f8debbdee3d3f586bb83&l=en

What am I looking at, talk us through it.

Dent1You mean bring back the Phenom name or the Phenom (Deneb/Thuban) architecture?

Phenom name with 6 actual cores.

ZetZetPhenom name with 6 actual cores.

You do realize that the FX 63XX and 83XX lines beats Phenoms in games and benchmarks (Including SCII which is most single threaded game ever made)

SIGSEGVwww.sisoftware.eu/rank2011d/show_system.php?q=cea598a99aa393a696b0d7eac7f6d0a29faf89e0ddeccaa29faa8cf4c9f8debbdee3d3f586bb83&l=en
www.planet3dnow.de/cms/?p=3279&preview=true

Google Translate:

Benchmark results of AMD on the Internet " Kaveri " chips are being discussed, which have appeared on the Bench portal of Sisofts Sandra . The test results are less interesting than the output hardware configuration :

If the information is correct , it would " Kaveri " remarkable about 13 Compute Units ( CUs ) - which corresponds to 832 shader - can have and would thus view of computing power between a Radeon HD 7770 (10 CUs/640 shader) and a Radeon HD 7790 ( 14 CUs / 896 shaders) .

Overview of graphics performance makes this because of the much lower memory bandwidth (128-bit DDR3 on socket FM2 + vs. 128 -bit GDDR5 on the graphics card ) , which is about a quarter , not much sense. However, the pure computing power with GPGPU beats by eg OpenCL benchmarks. In SiSoft achieved a " Kaveri " in an encryption test thus more than twice the power of a "rich country " A10- 6800K with the Radeon HD 8670D GPU called internal :


The GPU of the " Kaveri " overclocked but with only 600 MHz and accesses DDR3 -1600, while the A10- 6800K system is clocked at 844 MHz and DDR3 -2133 features . The strong growth in terms of GPU later versions with DDR4 would also be declared .


This system scored only 5.8 GB / s, which is exactly the ratio 8/13 to 9.4 GB / s of the 13- CU system. Thus, one would have a strong indication for the 13 CUs . A 100% security but there is not natural. Maybe it was only in May of any performance robbing bug is now fixed , but the CUs are now read wrong. Up to the Windows version ( Windows 7 / Windows 8) and a slightly different version of Sandra ( 19:35 / 19:44 ) the configuration are identical. The same user also has an A10- 5800K system, in which also the graphics part only runs at 600 MHz. This system achieved the benchmark only 2.6 GB / s, which is even less than a third of the putative 13 -CU- Kaveri .



A closer look at the Sandra results , we noticed that when the system information 1 device is shown with 2 threads. This is strange because usually far - even for large cards - only one thread per device is specified . 2 threads there is only Crossfire setups then 2 devices . However, we can not say exactly how a possible linkage of " Kaveri " and " Hainan" GPU ( 5 CUs have the chance ) would be in the system at the moment. In previous hybrid CrossFire setups are indeed always called both crisps and displayed by Sandra , but this could change due to technical reasons (HSA ) or simple marketing considerations ( AMD's new naming scheme) . Coupling of 8 " Kaveri " CUs and 5 " Hainan" CUs would naturally explain the increased benchmark .

The other benchmarks are unspectacular , the measured 15 GB / s memory bandwidth with expectations higher than its predecessor . According to the leaked inside information Kaveri will indeed have an internal 256 -bit bus per module , so that one could expect a higher single-thread memory throughput. Interesting perhaps is that the graphics unit is described as "AMD Radeon R5 M200 Series" :



Because of the sloping number of 13 CUs of course also raises the question to what extent it might not be a read error . Conveniently, the same encryption result a user has already uploaded but in May , which ran on a " Kaveri " with the expected 8 CUs/512 shader according to system info:

buildzoidYou do realize that the FX 63XX and 83XX lines beats Phenoms in games and benchmarks (Including SCII which is most single threaded game ever made)

But to be fair in some apps "beat" translates into a small boost.

buildzoidYou do realize that the FX 63XX and 83XX lines beats Phenoms in games and benchmarks (Including SCII which is most single threaded game ever made)

The 8150 barely beat the Phenom X6's.
www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FX8150/11.html
Sure the 8350 is faster, but it's a slight disgrace at how effectively the Phenom X6's keep up with AMD's current gen of Bulldozer CPU's.

RCoonThe 8150 barely beat the Phenom X6's.
www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FX8150/11.html
Sure the 8350 is faster, but it's a slight disgrace at how effectively the Phenom X6's keep up with AMD's current gen of Bulldozer CPU's.

TBH. As much as I love TPU reviews. Those games were not stressing out any of the CPUs listed. When you're seeing fame rates of up to 214 FPS you know
there is little "stress" in the stress testing.


I don't think the modules were the only problem. Because I made an observation in another thread:
The FX 8150 8 core is actually slower than the FX 6300 6 core in a lot of applications too. In Dawn of War II and Dragon Age Origins 12 FPS and 15 FPS separate the two. The FX 6300 seems faster in some of the non-gaming apps too, despite the 2 core, 2MB L2 and 100Mhz handicap. I can only put this down to the Piledriver refinements outweighing the Bulldozer architecture and both are module based.

www.anandtech.com/bench/product/434?vs=699

buildzoidYou do realize that the FX 63XX and 83XX lines beats Phenoms in games and benchmarks (Including SCII which is most single threaded game ever made)

The 63xx is a hit or miss. In some areas it's better but in some it's just horrible and trails behind the X6. Not really an upgrade from the X6.

RCoonThe 8150 barely beat the Phenom X6's.
www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FX8150/11.html
Sure the 8350 is faster, but it's a slight disgrace at how effectively the Phenom X6's keep up with AMD's current gen of Bulldozer CPU's.

The CPU you should be comparing is the 8350 or 8320 not the old 8150. However you can still find tasks that the X6 does better.

buildzoidYou do realize that the FX 63XX and 83XX lines beats Phenoms in games and benchmarks (Including SCII which is most single threaded game ever made)

Yes, but they use too much power and am3+ mATX boards are terrible.

I hope AMD will equip Kaveri with their exclusive technologies such as high TDP. :laugh:

RecusI hope AMD will equip Kaveri with their exclusive technologies such as high TDP. :laugh:

cs419321.vk.me/v419321846/b9d3/Vxo-sx747dE.jpg

.....ok its early where i'm at and my contacts are fighting me......but is that a waffle iron made out of Amd cpu's?

EPIC :roll:

For those who don't understand the technical aspects of CPU architecture... a dual core module is nothing more than TWO CORES on one segment of a CPU. So if you have a 4 module CPU you have EIGHT genuine CPU cores, contrary to the foolishness perpetuated by some who claim that an 8-core FX processor is really a four core CPU. The fact that the front end decoder was feeding TWO CORES is where those who lack technical understanding went sideways. AMD's CPUs do in fact have exactly the number of cores that they are advertised to have. Steamroller and newer cores will also have more decoders and better fetch and this will increase overall performance.

JorgeFor those who don't understand the technical aspects of CPU architecture... a dual core module is nothing more than TWO CORES on one segment of a CPU. So if you have a 4 module CPU you have EIGHT genuine CPU cores, contrary to the foolishness perpetuated by some who claim that an 8-core FX processor is really a four core CPU. The fact that the front end decoder was feeding TWO CORES is where those who lack technical understanding went sideways. AMD's CPUs do in fact have exactly the number of cores that they are advertised to have. Steamroller and newer cores will also have more decoders and better fetch and this will increase overall performance.

cores =/= modules
Also 8 modules and 4 FPU's means those jazzy doubled up modules mean jack to a great deal of programs.

RCooncores =/= modules
Also 8 modules and 4 FPU's means those jazzy doubled up modules mean jack to a great deal of programs.

Which is why many of us are still sitting here with our X6 running 4ghz and wondering where to go from here except to the blue camp. I built APU systems, Intel, 8350 with 32GB of 21xx RAM.


Until there is a significant CPU performance improvement or I feel the need my X6 will stay.

Constantine YevseyevThe picture says something like "Waffle iron based on all-new AMD FX-8350: 448 cores, 7K Watt TDP". Next phrase is an untranslatable play on words: it's a rude joke on fact that AMD gives you no choice (no more K10-like architecture based CPUs) using Russian slang verb ("to waffle").

Thanks..... Should've had the 9590's in there....then you really could've made waffles..

JorgeFor those who don't understand the technical aspects of CPU architecture... a dual core module is nothing more than TWO CORES on one segment of a CPU. So if you have a 4 module CPU you have EIGHT genuine CPU cores, contrary to the foolishness perpetuated by some who claim that an 8-core FX processor is really a four core CPU. The fact that the front end decoder was feeding TWO CORES is where those who lack technical understanding went sideways. AMD's CPUs do in fact have exactly the number of cores that they are advertised to have. Steamroller and newer cores will also have more decoders and better fetch and this will increase overall performance.

I'm not like what AMD doing in the first FX aka Bulldozer,but know i'm understand AMD is going to "another" direction.Just take a look a blue side,even though their traditional design and advanced 22nm technology doesn't giving them slightly advantage in daily use.Taking example,a $250 i5 + $50 GT 220 + $50 hard drive not slightly faster than $150 6800K + $100 SSD.
First step is to reducing floating point while reserving two integer units.A first batch gimped design,they perform underpar with previous Phenom II X6.After little tweaking,by giving two Decoder to feed Integer Unit and ALU within FPU they finally catch performance of single threading.A traditional concepts were 1+1,so major folks claims AMD didn't gave'em a proper core.With such a modular design,AMD can further tweak like creating more complex Fetch (divider,multiplexer,brancher,shifter),maximizing Decoder with two microCode each,giving more data path for Load-Store I/O within Integer and FP unit,maintain L2 cache coherency for Local Data and implementing eDRAM for Global L3 cache with advanced cache granularity shared with graphics compute unit.Notice this is why AMD "need" HSA to taking further serial and parallel task in one die.
Pretty much i'm delirious,taking nonsense without any proof or link...so take this with a huge grain of salt :p

Good News for Gaming!

Those new APUs are going to be excellent for gaming, especially if developers decide to utilize the GCN logic on 'em through Mantle or open-CL. The high-end APU I believe has 13 GCN vector cores, each with 64 ALUs.
GCN like Vector processors are the natural place to compute physics calculations because, like graphics, physics processing is driven by thousands of parallel and mutually independent vector workloads.
Shared memory access and heterogeneous queuing make those APUs the best gaming CPUs, if utilized the way they should be.

ensabrenoirThanks..... Should've had the 9590's in there....then you really could've made waffles..

funny thing is that as bad as the reputation for the 9590s have been, Intel are no better when clocked to 5Ghz..



With Haswell things are not much better.. +18% clock costs over 60% more power (3900 to 4600mhz).. and that last 400Mhz is going to cost another 50%+ in power consumption to reach 5Ghz.

SteevoWhich is why many of us are still sitting here with our X6 running 4ghz and wondering where to go from here except to the blue camp. I built APU systems, Intel, 8350 with 32GB of 21xx RAM.


Until there is a significant CPU performance improvement or I feel the need my X6 will stay.

In the same boat,.. X6 1100T @ 4.2Ghz, see no reason to upgrade..

AMD needs to address TDP issues for both their CPU and GPU. It's way too high, which is why they are losing to nVidia badly in the mobile market.

dwadeAMD needs to address TDP issues for both their CPU and GPU. It's way too high, which is why they are losing to nVidia badly in the mobile market.

Got any recent data that shows that "they are losing to nVidia badly in the mobile market" ?

John Peddie

(AMD).. APUs declined 9.6% from Q1 and increased an astounding 47.1% in notebooks. The company’s overall PC graphics shipments increased 10.9%.

Nvidia’s desktop discrete shipments were down 8.9% from last quarter; and, the company’s mobile discrete shipments decreased 7.1%