AMD FX Making a Comeback, to Challenge Intel Core i7 Extreme Edition

[TheLaughingMan]

I don't care about the cause behind performance deficits. it very simply is a deficit, and no explanation will make the performance different go away. I know very simply that a large part of the difference in bios perforamcne is either AGESA code changes, or subtimings. But neither is going to fix the performance gap.

And yes, I did link NOT the wrong graph. the fact of the matter is that I could NOT get the same speeds on AMD as I do on Intel, with the exact same sticks. But the link is there with 2000mhz numbers, anyway.

Anyway, the important part if that if the new FX parts are to compete with Intel's Extreme line(and notice, not the "K" line of unlocked cpus), memory performance, for me, must be equal or better.

You don't have to defend AMD on this...thier memory control sucks. If you want exacty compares, toss up some 1600mhz CAS 6 numbers, and I'll do the same, and we will see what the actual difference is, if you like. I mean, I could toss up my own screenshots...I do ahve many. but I'd rather post info from outside sources.

Yes, of course.

Multi-gpu rendering requires more system memory bandwidth, and hence Intel out-performing AMD with Crossfire.

I very specifically need it. So that thier CPUs can support thier GPUs like the competition does. Agasin, these are my own needs..not the needs of everyone.

cdawall is the only one trying to tell me that AMD is sufficient to meet my needs, when it's not.

Dave....take your medicine. You are foaming at the mouth and your typing is becoming erratic. Let the children play.

New memory control will be better, but actual performance is yet to be seen as the only released info compares their 1866 dual Channel to an i7 Triple channel at 1066. That was a BS comparison.

 

[cadaveca]

Yeah, that has me a bit hesitant.

 

[xtremesv]

I expect another HD6900 vs GTX 580 type of failure. By the time Bulldozer will be on the market, Intel will be riding on Sandy's back.
I hope I'm wrong though.

I don't get it!

When GTX480/470 was out, people didn't say it was a failure, just that Nvidia needed time to perfect the design and they were right. But now, HD6900 is out and everyone, including AMD users, says it's a failure, I don't see how this can be fair. HD6900 design is not flawed by any means, this time though, AMD was taken by surprise and wasn't ambitious enough.

AMD doesn't need to be the king of the hill to be competitive, what matters the most is to deliver sufficient and efficient performance for less, AMD has always competed in pricing (of course there are exceptions). I don't care if Bulldozer can match a $1000 i7 980X but, let's say, it can give 75% of its performance for $600, then we have a winner.

 

[CDdude55]

I don't get it!

When GTX480/470 was out, people didn't say it was a failure, just that Nvidia needed time to perfect the design and they were right. But now, HD6900 is out and everyone, including AMD users, says it's a failure, I don't see how this can be fair. HD6900 design is not flawed by any means, this time though, AMD was taken by surprise and wasn't ambitious enough..

You've got to be kidding me, not only did people say the GTX 400 series was a failure at launch, but the ridicule has still continued since then. Hell on this site alone you will find a crap load of bashing in the eyes of Fermi.

The 6900's were not a failure imo, they just ended up performing under what the majority expected. The cards design and functionality are perfectly fine unlike the issues with Fermi, it's just that they failed to deliver on most peoples expectations, hence making it a failure to most.

 

[cdawall]

just because the intel has more MB/s in memory speed doesnt mean its faster for most applications, however.

Heck aid64 is the end all of memory performance did you forget?

 

[Super XP]

You've got to be kidding me, not only did people say the GTX 400 series was a failure at launch, but the ridicule has still continued since then. Hell on this site alone you will find a crap load of bashing in the eyes of Fermi.

The 6900's were not a failure imo, they just ended up performing under what the majority expected. The cards design and functionality are perfectly fine unlike the issues with Fermi, it's just that they failed to deliver on most peoples expectations, hence making it a failure to most.

I agree 100%. I am one among many in TechPowerUp that helped make people aware of Fermi's major issues. NVIDIA did indeed fix most of Fermi’s issues to a certain extent, personally I really think NV's CEO shot himself in the foot, if anybody is to blame for Fermi's past and current issues, he's the culprit.

Though I am very glad NVIDIA is still in the game full force with the fastest single GPU card in the industry with AMD holding the crown with its Dual GPU card. I am very happy with my Sapphire Radeon HD 6970’s performance, it obliterates my last setup 2 x HD 4870’s in CrossfireX. That said, I did expect the HD 6970 to be faster, but then again what can we expect with 40nm? AMD definitely did their best in this matter IMO…