qubitYeah, maybe you're right human, I honestly don't know. These kinds of business/political manouverings always seem to have so many variables, many of them unknown, that I basically have no idea what's going to happen and just watch the news with interest.

It doesn't help when a lot of those variable have confidentiality seals all over them. With a lack of transparency in licencing details ( notice the amount of redacted content in the original Intel - AMD agreement) and the SEC / DoJ's stance regarding foreign ownership - especially with regards to companies that could maintain U.S. military tech contracts (many of which aren't publicly viewable) it remains largely a theoretical discussion based on an incomplete data set.

arbiterI know someone with one those e1 cpu powered laptops, its like 2 years old i think, that cpu is Slow as CRAP. My 8+ year old core duo laptop its not core 2. Its lowest end core duo chip was made matches the thing in performance. Even using his laptop core duo in mine is faster.

You do realize that E class processors (which includes my E-450 and E-1200 along with others) are competition for Intel Atom right? Comparing it to any Core Duo is like comparing apples to oranges...

RejZoRAlso not sure why everyone was shitting over these early APU's. I have a second generation (Zacate) and it's pretty good. CPU is a bit weak, but that was the target anyway. GPU is what allows you to even run games that don't work on any other such CPU.

I think people are pissed because AMD basically ditched enthusiast CPU's for the APU that had crappy performance.
Now 4 years later, the performance CPU is dead in the water with no future plans.
I'm not too happy about it myself..I really loved the phenom II but there's no upgrade.
My computer already heats the house, buying a 220W CPU is not going to happen here.
Also AMD hasn't updated its chipset in 8 years...990 is basically a 790, same HyperTransport and PCI Express 2.0.
Sata III and usb 3.0 are basically a firmware update and a integrated add-on chip.

They lack PCI-E 3.0 support except 1 board that was pulled off the market and the APU boards that have weak CPU's.

It's a dead-end.

Now 4 years later, the performance CPU is dead in the water with no future plans.

Excuse me, but did you intentionally forgot to mention new high end FX processors that are planned for 2016 I think? The ones Jim Keller is working on with his team?

If people stopped this AMD is inferior ideology and read some reviews on 4K, they might just see that the FX 8 cores have some new abilities.

www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/56/amd-fx-8350-powering-gtx-780-sli-vs-gtx-980-sli-at-4k/index.html
www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/58/core-i7-4770k-vs-amd-fx-8350-with-gtx-980-vs-gtx-780-sli-at-4k/index.html


As for the APU's i thought they were doing well when first released, many laptops, OEM's and budget builders used them.

d1nkyIf people stopped this AMD is inferior ideology and read some reviews on 4K, they might just see that the FX 8 cores have some new abilities.

I don't think many would dispute that gaming isn't overly impacted by CPU choice for single or dual GPU. The same TT site has the 4770K besting the 4930K, and even a lowly $70 dual core Pentium acquits itself fairly wellwith a multiplier bump.

d1nkyAs for the APU's i thought they were doing well when first released, many laptops, OEM's and budget builders used them.

Initially it sold well in feature stripped machines in some markets, but once they attempted to expand into mature markets AMD started running into more head-to-head competition with Intel based offerings, and of course OEMs started cheaping out on the BoM ( slow RAM, sometimes even a single stick of the stuff) as is too often the case with OEMs and AMD-based systems. Probably didn't help that Hybrid Crossfire was a bit of a disaster when it sort-of launched. AMD ended up producing a lot, but after the initial flourish many ended up taking up space in warehouses - hence the $100M write-down of unsold Llano inventory.

RejZoRExcuse me, but did you intentionally forgot to mention new high end FX processors that are planned for 2016 I think? The ones Jim Keller is working on with his team?

You mean this new 'first generation' of high end procs that AMD is going to launch?

We know what this means. We have heard and seen it before. They will not be continuing their 1=2 FX core setup so its a new beast. The only reason it has ANY legitimacy is because they can say 'but, we have Jim Keller'.

My prediction: it is going to fail. Where on earth are they going to get all this R&D from to get a killer cpu to market? Magical budgets? Also: who thinks that a high end CPU is going to really 'save' AMD? The market for that has dwindled on the consumer side, and the market for server is drastically changing (ARM). Even IF they make a monstrous CPU; how is any volume of sales of that going to 'carry' the company? I don't see it.

Honestly the best thing that could happen to AMD right now is that they get acquired by someone with big pockets like Samsung. A company capable of realigning the whole business and kicking out all of the rotten apples in one go. AMD has done very little these past years to really change course, they are again late to the party and they are going to repeat past mistakes with this new CPU.

R9 390 is going to be the same story - HBM is pricy so the card will have a much lower margin than its competitors or the old R9 inventory - that old R9 inventory that is getting rebranded for the 4th(!!!) time. Again, I struggle to see how AMD is going to really profit from that release.

Really what AMD should have done, but this is in hindsight of course, is bridge the gap between x86 and ARM in terms of performance/power. Think 'Big.Little' in an x86-ARM cluster. If they would have a sensible way of doing THAT on mobile devices on ARM tech, they would have lead a new market that IS viable. Right now Intel is struggling because of the lack of this bridge, and everything points towards the need for synergy between all devices.

This is ringing all kinds of bells. Some of them in the tune of "amd fanboys laughing at NVidia fanboys over a partition of 512mb of ram." Others in the tune of "AMD is better because it is cheap" Well...?

RejZoRExcuse me, but did you intentionally forgot to mention new high end FX processors that are planned for 2016 I think? The ones Jim Keller is working on with his team?

Well we'll see if that cpu lives up to the hype, i shouldn't have to repeat what history tells us about that. (cough) bulldozer (cough)

d1nkyIf people stopped this AMD is inferior ideology and read some reviews on 4K, they might just see that the FX 8 cores have some new abilities.
www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/56/amd-fx-8350-powering-gtx-780-sli-vs-gtx-980-sli-at-4k/index.html
www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/58/core-i7-4770k-vs-amd-fx-8350-with-gtx-980-vs-gtx-780-sli-at-4k/index.html
As for the APU's i thought they were doing well when first released, many laptops, OEM's and budget builders used them.

Um I would question the legitimacy of those benchmarks as, they don't seem like they are legit. 8350 isn't that great in thread limited uses less you can use all 8* cores on it which most games don't do that.

Why people only remember Bulldozer, but everyone conveniently forget K6, K7, K8 and K9 processors along with many "firsts" like the first to breach 1GHz barrier, the first to utilize faster external bus for data transfer (HyperTransport), the first to make 64bit processor (x86-64), the only one to use triple core design, the first to properly merge CPU+GPU (APU) and many more. I've only had 2 AMD processors (1GHz K7 Tbird and AXP 2400+ Tbred) and I still have great respect for them even though Bulldozer and later were a design decision to be what they are. Then again I know many users with Phenom II X6 1090T still use them because they are still great processors. There is no need to bash them like crazy just because of Bulldozer generation.

RejZoRWhy people only remember Bulldozer, but everyone conveniently forget K6, K7, K8 and K9 processors along with many "firsts" like the first to breach 1GHz barrier, the first to utilize faster external bus for data transfer (HyperTransport), the first to make 64bit processor (x86-64), the only one to use triple core design, the first to properly merge CPU+GPU (APU) and many more. I've only had 2 AMD processors (1GHz K7 Tbird and AXP 2400+ Tbred) and I still have great respect for them even though Bulldozer and later were a design decision to be what they are. Then again I know many users with Phenom II X6 1090T still use them because they are still great processors. There is no need to bash them like crazy just because of Bulldozer generation.

I'd be the last person to say that AMD doesn't make any good products. Hell I think that in terms of the items themselves they have engineered many great things. AMD is good at thinking up new things and we need their 'spirit' in this world. I think that is also what most people refer to between the lines when they 'want AMD to succeed'. Recent stuff like HSA and Mantle are definitely also good steps.

The steps themselves aren't the problem for AMD.

AMD's big and everlasting problem is capitalizing on those design wins and great steps forward. From the acquisition of ATI to their pricing schemes, their market positioning, their timing, the public responses/PR, and in the last couple of years they had on top of all that some bad designs and missed bets in the market (FX & APU). And on top of THAT: debt.

A striking example is the timing of their hiring of Jim Keller and the announcement that they would 'get into ARM'. The rest of the tech world is already ALL OVER ARM and Jim Keller is merely there to inspire nostalgia. Where is the tangible info, where are the projections, WHAT are they going to make? Nobody really knows. They showed a roadmap that said exactly nothing new and moved some existing product groups around. The 'new AMD'. You know what I was thinking? 'ouch...'

RejZoRWhy people only remember Bulldozer, but everyone conveniently forget K6, K7, K8 and K9 processors along with many "firsts" like the first to breach 1GHz barrier....

The thing is, that is the past - and not the recent past at that. Moreover, all those architectures (including 10h) all stem from the same basic design philosophy. AMD's first step away from "tried and true" is somewhat less stellar. While the APUs worked well out of the gate (hybrid crossfire notwithstanding), K5, the original Irongate chipset and the original (canned) K6, the original (canned) Keller-designed K8, and Bulldozer (which even AMD themselves named "an unmitigated disaster") all were problematic - either in execution, in time to market (which affected APUs as well), or both. There is also growing concern that next-gen AMD's architecture is also slipping in its timetable(Phoronix also preface Zen as arriving 2016-2017)

[Source]

Dwelling on the past adds historical context, but it needs to seen as a whole rather than just highlighting the success stories. Past glories also don't automatically translate to future dominance. If they did, IBM, Motorola, RCA, and Texas Instruments would still rule the landscape.

arbiterWell we'll see if that cpu lives up to the hype, i shouldn't have to repeat what history tells us about that. (cough) bulldozer (cough)



Um I would question the legitimacy of those benchmarks as, they don't seem like they are legit. 8350 isn't that great in thread limited uses less you can use all 8* cores on it which most games don't do that.

That said a well balanced fx 8350 system with win 10 and a reasonable gpu is set for years to come

Interestingly I ran performance passmark test a test not endorsed by amd due to its intel bias and scored 4063 beating most intel pcs out there sooo can my bias ass definitely say mines better no but its still not a bad buy a few years ago for 157 £.;-)

I said at the time they were to far ahead of the software curve to show it usefully in products sometimes like mantle and hsa now there's limited actual wares.

E-350 10.6" laptops were an awesome bargain for the Facebooking public at about $199 when a crappy celeron based craptop cost about $299...
I didn't realize that line was such a flop...You'd think that they could have used those chips for education Donations worldwide and come out as a PR hero bringing in some name recognition.

As I see it the only problem here is people looking to make a quick buck are being heard...
Seriously shut the fuck up!
Invest for the long term...it should be law...quick trades, short sales or whatever its called now almost took out all of our economies...giving these people a voice sends the wrong message....which is if you're rich and whine enough you get more money regardless...

theoneandonlymrkThat said a well balanced fx 8350 system with win 10 and a reasonable gpu is set for years to come

Interestingly I ran performance passmark test a test not endorsed by amd due to its intel bias and scored 4063 beating most intel pcs out there sooo can my bias ass definitely say mines better no but its still not a bad buy a few years ago for 157 £.;-)

I said at the time they were to far ahead of the software curve to show it usefully in products sometimes like mantle and hsa now there's limited actual wares.

I know their has been but I haven't seen anything really groundbreaking in software for a loooong time...

theoneandonlymrkInterestingly I ran performance passmark test a test not endorsed by amd due to its intel bias and scored 4063 beating most intel pcs out there sooo can my bias ass definitely say mines better no but its still not a bad buy a few years ago for 157 £.;-)

which passmark test did you use? performance test 8.0 the cpu tests?

www.passmark.com/products/pt.htm ?

arbiterI know someone with one those e1 cpu powered laptops, its like 2 years old i think, that cpu is Slow as CRAP. My 8+ year old core duo laptop its not core 2. Its lowest end core duo chip was made matches the thing in performance. Even using his laptop core duo in mine is faster.

Which Core Duo SKU are we talking about here?

If you'd try Atom from the same era it would be equally slow and crappy as that E1...

arbiterwhich passmark test did you use? performance test 8.0 the cpu tests?

www.passmark.com/products/pt.htm ?

Exactly that.

WaroDaBeastWhich Core Duo SKU are we talking about here?

core duo t2050, its lowest end core duo mobile chip made. at time it was cheapest dual core intel was being sold when i bought it and still 750$.

theoneandonlymrkExactly that.

um if you did same test i did, just cpu test alone, my 4770k scored just under 11000. so 4000 you said is um well you can guess.

RejZoRIf you'd try Atom from the same era it would be equally slow and crappy as that E1...

I was talking a core duo cpu that was made in 2006 vs a cpu from mid 2013.

You still don't get it. Age is irrelevant, you have to respect the TYPE of the processor. Atoms and E processors were crap even when they arrived brand new when you compare them to the wrong other products. I bought it because it was cheap and it offered incredible battery performance. And at the time it performed reasonably well. It's a bit slow today, but that's normal for such CPU. At least GPU part is still reasonably powerful for what I need it. Comparing Atom grade CPU's to 4770k, well you can guess what I think about doing that...

RejZoRYou still don't get it. Age is irrelevant, you have to respect the TYPE of the processor. Atoms and E processors were crap even when they arrived brand new when you compare them to the wrong other products. I bought it because it was cheap and it offered incredible battery performance. And at the time it performed reasonably well. It's a bit slow today, but that's normal for such CPU. At least GPU part is still reasonably powerful for what I need it. Comparing Atom grade CPU's to 4770k, well you can guess what I think about doing that...

TPU forums borked up replies. ;/ Its not unreasonable to expect a cpu that is 7 years newer should be faster then a cpu that was even when it was released was at the lowest end of the SKU. GPU maybe better on the e1, but does that really matter if the cpu is pretty slow as it is? (the laptop is a 17inch that talking about has e1.)

Atom's and E's had a very clear purpose. Low power. Even at expense of performance. You can have a tiny battery and the laptop will run for 3 hours rather easily. You can only dream of that with normal dual cores.

"Over-promising and under-delivering"

This statement describes AMD completely. Instead of being honest and aim at the right market using the "right" word, they go head to head with Intel with nothing to show for it.

Bad advertisement and strategy.

arbitercore duo t2050, its lowest end core duo mobile chip made. at time it was cheapest dual core intel was being sold when i bought it and still 750$.

So, basically, you're complaining that a 31 W CPU is faster than a ~15 W CPU. How very remarkable.

i think AMD should change something, like low powered chip with better performance, not always on the top
look at mediatek where they can place themself as good alternative after qualcomm