AMD's Excavator Core is Leaner, Faster, Greener

[hairyfeet]

Well GPU cores in software that can be accelerated by them runs much faster but that is not much software to start with. Most software that people would use that is GPU accelerated in such a way usually more pro end software and likely those people will spend a lot on hardware to begin with. Look at the slides AMD put out claiming their apu match's an i7 in mobile side, All those benchmarks the compare with are all GPU accelerated ones which AMD has big edge on.

But you just pointed out the POINTLESSNESS of the whole thing as those running the kind of high end AV and specialty software like 3D CAD that can actually USE those GPU cores are NOT gonna be running AMD APUs for such CPU intensive tasks, not when they can get a MUCH more powerful GPU for MUCH cheaper and pair it with more real CPU cores!

The simple fact is IMHO the entire APU concept makes ZERO sense with the exception of mobile. In a laptop where space is a premium and power is severely limited? Then sure having the CPU and GPU on one die cuts down the costs and power usage, but on a desktop? Even if you get the lowest end APU you are still getting ripped off, I mean look at the prices, you can get a dual core APU with an HD8300 for $69 OR you can go to some place like Biiz and pick up an FX4300 with four REAL cores that will do any task (not just the extremely limited GPU accelerated ones) for the same money. By the time you figure the increased cost of the APU over the CPU, the need for much faster RAM compared to the CPU as the GPU side of an APU is ALWAYS starved for memory bandwidth? you will simply never come out ahead as even the lowest end GPU with dedicated GDDR 5 memory (which as I said is just $60, the GeForce 610 or 710 IIRC) with just slaughter the thing without effort!

Look I'm about as hardcore an AMD supporter as they come, I have 6 AMD PCs in my family going back to my father's Phenom I quad all the way up to the FX8300 of the youngest, but if you are not running a laptop? There just isn't a selling point for their APUs, there just isn't. If you build a machine with the least expensive APU and I build the least expensive CPU+GPU the increased cost of the APU is gonna make it a losing proposition,just compare the lowest ACTUAL quad core APU with the same on the AM3+ side and its not even funny how lopsided it is, you can get 4 REAL cores AND a GPU for less than the APU quad so no matter how you slice it? It just doesn't make sense.

 

[arbiter]

Look I'm about as hardcore an AMD supporter as they come, I have 6 AMD PCs in my family going back to my father's Phenom I quad all the way up to the FX8300 of the youngest, but if you are not running a laptop? There just isn't a selling point for their APUs, there just isn't. If you build a machine with the least expensive APU and I build the least expensive CPU+GPU the increased cost of the APU is gonna make it a losing proposition,just compare the lowest ACTUAL quad core APU with the same on the AM3+ side and its not even funny how lopsided it is, you can get 4 REAL cores AND a GPU for less than the APU quad so no matter how you slice it? It just doesn't make sense.

i would say if you got younger kids, amd apu would be gold to build each one their own computer with for school stuff and some of less graphic games.

 

[Aquinus]

Even if you get the lowest end APU you are still getting ripped off, I mean look at the prices, you can get a dual core APU with an HD8300 for $69 OR you can go to some place like Biiz and pick up an FX4300 with four REAL cores that will do any task (not just the extremely limited GPU accelerated ones) for the same money.

Ummm, they both use BD modules. A 2 module (4 core) FX CPU is practically identical to a 2 module (4 core) APU. The only difference is that that the APU has a GPU onboard and lacks HyperTransport as the PCI-E lanes are provided by the CPU on APUs (much like Intel's CPUs, which on skt115(5/0) which also have integrated graphics). The problem is that AM3+ is old. PCI-E 3.0 will saturate HyperTransport too quickly and the shift to lower power platforms kind of makes this a must.

You see this statement?

those running the kind of high end AV and specialty software like 3D CAD that can actually USE those GPU cores are NOT gonna be running AMD APUs for such CPU intensive tasks

I think you're forgetting the simple fact that most users aren't using their computer for this. APUs target the widest audience, not the narrowest like 8c FX or skt2011(-3) CPUs. If you need a lot of power and you get an APU, shame on you. However, for a workstation or for doing anything that isn't 3D related, an APU is a pretty good option for the price.

Also with respect to the cores bit. More isn't always better because it depends on the workload. CAD, 3D rendering, OLAP, and web servers love more cores, however that just the nature of the application. More often than not, most applications won't benefit from more cores, even if it's coded to be multi-threaded. So we're seeing quad-core for the most part for this reason, because more is useless for most consumers and companies like to maximize profits.

Before people start going too gung-ho about cores, I'm going to leave this quote of myself from the thread on AMD and their rumored Zen architecture:

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.

 

[hairyfeet]

Ummm, they both use BD modules. A 2 module (4 core) FX CPU is practically identical to a 2 module (4 core) APU. The only difference is that that the APU has a GPU onboard and lacks HyperTransport as the PCI-E lanes are provided by the CPU on APUs (much like Intel's CPUs, which on skt115(5/0) which also have integrated graphics). The problem is that AM3+ is old. PCI-E 3.0 will saturate HyperTransport too quickly and the shift to lower power platforms kind of makes this a must.

You see this statement?

I think you're forgetting the simple fact that most users aren't using their computer for this. APUs target the widest audience, not the narrowest like 8c FX or skt2011(-3) CPUs. If you need a lot of power and you get an APU, shame on you. However, for a workstation or for doing anything that isn't 3D related, an APU is a pretty good option for the price.

Also with respect to the cores bit. More isn't always better because it depends on the workload. CAD, 3D rendering, OLAP, and web servers love more cores, however that just the nature of the application. More often than not, most applications won't benefit from more cores, even if it's coded to be multi-threaded. So we're seeing quad-core for the most part for this reason, because more is useless for most consumers and companies like to maximize profits.

Before people start going too gung-ho about cores, I'm going to leave this quote of myself from the thread on AMD and their rumored Zen architecture:

So in other words granny boxes, just as I said. Well if all you want is a granny box there the APU again makes no sense as most users just watching videos are never gonna be able to notice the difference between that $189 APU and the $129 Intel with built in HD graphics because its "good enough" for the basic tasks a granny box does.

Like I said I'm a hardcore AMD fan but other than mobile? You just aren't gonna find a use case other than the super teeny niche HTPC where having a memory constrained powerful GPU is gonna be a benefit. I can get an FX4200 (with four actual compute cores) for $59, pair that with a $60 GeForce 610 with a GB of GDDR 5 and I WILL SLAUGHTER the APU, which at less than $100 has only TWO, count 'em two, CPU cores.

And the benefit of actual real cores? That one is simple...multitasking! Today's OS does NOT just single task, you got processes in the background, you got program and OS updates being checked, you got email and chat programs, multiple browser tabs, all of these take CPU power and pretty much NONE of it can be done on a GPU! A GPU is not, now nor will it ever be, a general purpose computing unit. It won't because the very nature of its purpose, rendering 3d objects, just does not translate into being good at processing the basic math done by say a chat program. AMD pretending that it will is like saying a Ferrari is a great ride for hauling kids and a camper!

Look I could show you build after build after build and in not a single instance will the APU turn out to be a better buy, because you can get more performance for less money by going CPU+GPU, that's a fact. The APU will never be able to compete because DDR 3 is a bad joke compared to GDDR 5 so the $60 GPU will just kill the $189 APU because its gimped for bandwidth. Again if ALL you want is a granny box you can run an APU, but why would you? And on gaming? You're just never gonna fix the bandwidth issue short of bolting GDDR 5 on the board which again would drive the cost above what a simpler CPU+GPU would cost!

If AMD bets the farm on nothing but APUs? Then I'm sorry but they are toast, and this is from somebody who has been AMD exclusive since Athlon 64. Nobody is gonna go from an X4 (or X6 or X8) and be satisfied with a dual core or even quad APU because it would be a downgrade from what they have, and many games are already taking advantage of 4 cores...you looked at the price of the actual quad core (as opposed to AMD marketing calling a GPU a "compute core") APUs in their lineup? They just aren't cost competitive, either with AM3+ nor with the Intel side. If you just want a box for browsing and watching 1080P video? The HD graphics on any sub $99 Intel will do that job just fine. you want to game? the APU will become the bottleneck so fast it really isn't even funny, a first gen bulldozer quad with a $60 GPU will just kill anything in the APU line, regardless of price point.

So sell it to me, why EXACTLY would I want to pay more for less with the AMD APU over the competition or even their past CPU offerings? Because from where I sit its Bulldozer all over again, a design that can't compete with previous offerings in their own catalog. heck if all I want is light gaming why would I not just buy the socket AM1 which is MUCH cheaper and gives me a quad core with GPU that guys on YouTube are playing Crysis 3 with? Can you name even ONE selling point with their high end APUs that wouldn't be served better by a (again much cheaper) CPU+GPU other than mobile?

 

[TheGuruStud]

So in other words granny boxes, just as I said. Well if all you want is a granny box there the APU again makes no sense as most users just watching videos are never gonna be able to notice the difference between that $189 APU and the $129 Intel with built in HD graphics because its "good enough" for the basic tasks a granny box does.

Like I said I'm a hardcore AMD fan but other than mobile? You just aren't gonna find a use case other than the super teeny niche HTPC where having a memory constrained powerful GPU is gonna be a benefit. I can get an FX4200 (with four actual compute cores) for $59, pair that with a $60 GeForce 610 with a GB of GDDR 5 and I WILL SLAUGHTER the APU, which at less than $100 has only TWO, count 'em two, CPU cores.

And the benefit of actual real cores? That one is simple...multitasking! Today's OS does NOT just single task, you got processes in the background, you got program and OS updates being checked, you got email and chat programs, multiple browser tabs, all of these take CPU power and pretty much NONE of it can be done on a GPU! A GPU is not, now nor will it ever be, a general purpose computing unit. It won't because the very nature of its purpose, rendering 3d objects, just does not translate into being good at processing the basic math done by say a chat program. AMD pretending that it will is like saying a Ferrari is a great ride for hauling kids and a camper!

Look I could show you build after build after build and in not a single instance will the APU turn out to be a better buy, because you can get more performance for less money by going CPU+GPU, that's a fact. The APU will never be able to compete because DDR 3 is a bad joke compared to GDDR 5 so the $60 GPU will just kill the $189 APU because its gimped for bandwidth. Again if ALL you want is a granny box you can run an APU, but why would you? And on gaming? You're just never gonna fix the bandwidth issue short of bolting GDDR 5 on the board which again would drive the cost above what a simpler CPU+GPU would cost!

If AMD bets the farm on nothing but APUs? Then I'm sorry but they are toast, and this is from somebody who has been AMD exclusive since Athlon 64. Nobody is gonna go from an X4 (or X6 or X8) and be satisfied with a dual core or even quad APU because it would be a downgrade from what they have, and many games are already taking advantage of 4 cores...you looked at the price of the actual quad core (as opposed to AMD marketing calling a GPU a "compute core") APUs in their lineup? They just aren't cost competitive, either with AM3+ nor with the Intel side. If you just want a box for browsing and watching 1080P video? The HD graphics on any sub $99 Intel will do that job just fine. you want to game? the APU will become the bottleneck so fast it really isn't even funny, a first gen bulldozer quad with a $60 GPU will just kill anything in the APU line, regardless of price point.

So sell it to me, why EXACTLY would I want to pay more for less with the AMD APU over the competition or even their past CPU offerings? Because from where I sit its Bulldozer all over again, a design that can't compete with previous offerings in their own catalog. heck if all I want is light gaming why would I not just buy the socket AM1 which is MUCH cheaper and gives me a quad core with GPU that guys on YouTube are playing Crysis 3 with? Can you name even ONE selling point with their high end APUs that wouldn't be served better by a (again much cheaper) CPU+GPU other than mobile?

You. Are. Not. The. Target. Audience.

Every little tom, dick and harry gets a PC from a big box store. Almost all of them want to play little games. Some are 2D, so they don't need much acceleration. But, there's a lot that want to play something like Sims. This is where the apu will shine. It will work perfectly for this sort of gaming and normal desktop use. Mommy doesn't know about buying a gpu nor is she going to spend more money (and the AMD box was cheaper than intel which is why she bought it).

 

[$ReaPeR$]

You. Are. Not. The. Target. Audience.

Every little tom, dick and harry gets a PC from a big box store. Almost all of them want to play little games. Some are 2D, so they don't need much acceleration. But, there's a lot that want to play something like Sims. This where the apu will shine. It will work perfectly for this sort of gaming and normal desktop use. Mommy doesn't know about buying a gpu nor is she going to spend more money (and the AMD box was cheaper than intel which is why she bought it).

The truth has been spoken!

 

[hairyfeet]

The truth has been spoken!

So their business model is suckering people who don't know any better? BTW in case you missed it the new CEO of AMD said they will NOT compete on price anymore but on PERFORMANCE, so that strategy is already dead. Look up AMD on /. if you want to read more but since the ONLY advantage AMD has now is cores? I'm looking forward to seeing those 12 and 16 core AM4 boxes myself.

 

[TheGuruStud]

So their business model is suckering people who don't know any better? BTW in case you missed it the new CEO of AMD said they will NOT compete on price anymore but on PERFORMANCE, so that strategy is already dead. Look up AMD on /. if you want to read more but since the ONLY advantage AMD has now is cores? I'm looking forward to seeing those 12 and 16 core AM4 boxes myself.

Uh....what do you think intel did for 20-25 years? They spread propaganda through shady and illegal means (plus the antitrust stuff) so people would buy their inferior and more expensive CPUs.

At least in this case the apu IS the better buy for these people.

 

[$ReaPeR$]

So their business model is suckering people who don't know any better? BTW in case you missed it the new CEO of AMD said they will NOT compete on price anymore but on PERFORMANCE, so that strategy is already dead. Look up AMD on /. if you want to read more but since the ONLY advantage AMD has now is cores? I'm looking forward to seeing those 12 and 16 core AM4 boxes myself.

mate if you cant understand that different people have different needs there is no point in continuing this argument with you. i have built many systems for different people with different needs, and most of them do not NEED more than an APU, that doesnt mean that if someone asked me to build him/her the best available system i would suggest an APU! i would probably suggest the best available i7 with the best available GPU at the time. i'm just not biased that way usualy the people that argue Intel vs AMD/ Nvidia vs AMD always try to show off their epenis is bigger and better so.. no point in arguing with fanboys, they dont understand how reality works. cheers

 

[Mussels]

my dad got an APU system as a non-gamer, and then he got into world of tanks. he played for 6 months on minimum settings before throwing in a 5850 1GB, and now plays it on high.


APU's sure as hell have a place, entry level gaming machines and laptops being the obvious ones.

 

[RealNeil]

I did an APU build for one of my nephews. An A10-7850K APU and a R9-280X OC GPU. He's really happy with the way it games for what we spent on parts.

There is certainly a place for APUs in today's gaming market.