radu_matei_2007
Member
- Dec 11, 2011
- 50
- 0
- 0
Even more embarrassing for AMD, FX-8150 versus i5-750:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=109
Bulldozer wins on the heavily multi-threaded benchmarks. Intel's desktop R&D department could have taken a three-year holiday and they would probably still be ahead of the curve.
Even the Core i3-530 doesn't have a bad showing against the FX-8150:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=118
In what? Everything? Not even close.I think 530 with OC to 4,5 is better than FX
Are we strictly talking about high end desktop processors here? The title of the post seemed a little more vague than that.
You guys almost make it sound like the FX-8150 is the only processor AMD sells
Intel is targeting them here now, and might even overtake them with Haswell. However, I would say that I'd prefer an AMD APU in this form factor because at least then you'll have some display driver support.Are we strictly talking about high end desktop processors here? The title of the post seemed a little more vague than that.
Here's one reason AMD will keep selling processors: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16834215257
You guys almost make it sound like the FX-8150 is the only processor AMD sells
I give AMD about another 3 years. And I'm not joking.
Sadly, they will drag a great graphics company, ATI, down with them.
I went from Intel, to AMD during the "Athlon 64" era, then back to Intel. So I'm no Intel fanboy. And It upsets me... because once they do go under, Intel and Nvidia will price gouge the heck out of graphics cards and GPUs.
Best we can hope for is they sell of their ATI graphics division... which isn't likely, because it's the only thing keeping them afloat.
And this is coming from someone who has never owned ATI, but respects them.
The better process technology will always win... in the two key areas that matter these days: cost and power usage.
Intel's process advantage means they can price their chips cheaper (if AMD ever gets around to beating them in performance) and they leak less current so they're more energy efficient and generate less heat.
Time permitting there is another elephant in the room Apple. Intel with medfield pits itself against Apple. I would say apple buys AMD.
Yet another elephant is making its way into the room . China
Time permitting there is another elephant in the room Apple. Intel with medfield pits itself against Apple. I would say apple buys AMD.
Yet another elephant is making its way into the room . China
Intel's process advantage means they can price their chips cheaper (if AMD ever gets around to beating them in performance) and they leak less current so they're more energy efficient and generate less heat.
Apple doesn't need AMD, they need access to Intel's process tech and the easiest way to gain that access is to just buy Intel's CPU's.
What would Apple do with AMD? Go beg and plead with TSMC/GloFo/Samsung to convince them to throw more billions into process tech development so their (Apple's) foundered CPU's have less of a handicap to that of their competitor's products that are built using Intel chips?
I'm sure Apple would love to swing a foundry deal with Intel to get their A5 and A5X chips shrunk and produced on 22/14nm Intel nodes, but Intel is intentionally keeping their foundry deals restrictive so they aren't reducing the advantages of their own Atom products over that of ARM. They'll do FPGA, no competition with Intel's own products, but nothing that competes with Atom.
hmm not much difference between 965 extreme and 920
fx8150~i7 920
Apple doesn't need AMD, they need access to Intel's process tech and the easiest way to gain that access is to just buy Intel's CPU's.
How is Gulftown a fat core compared to BD? Die size is 248mm2 and 1.2B transistors. Amd BD? 315mm2 and also 1.2B. Just look at the performance gap in games, it is HUGE.980x is : 829/991=0.836 or 16.4% faster in multi-threaded workloads.
We have a "fat" 6 core chip that supports SMT(12T) versus a "slim" 8 core chip with only 4 FP units(8T) that should be weak in single thread workloads and somewhat strong in MT workloads. What we get is 15% higher single thread performance and 16.4% higher MT performance for "fat" core. FX is not that slow after all.At least if you compare it to Westmere.
One more comparison using hardware.fr numbers is here .
Compared to top IB 3770K,in applications FX8150 is 183.7/150.7=1.22 or 22% slower ,stock vs stock. This is not bad at all since we have "slow" 32nm FX "8core"(which actually has 4 floating point,8 threaded subunits) versus 4C/8T IB @ 22nm. 22% slower in desktop workloads is peanuts gap and can be closed with Vishera with little to no problems.
As can be seen from above,facts are facts and fanboy fiction is fanboy fiction. Let's stick with the facts and this forum may be regarded(one day) as a serious tech forum,not a fanboy lounge .
How is Gulftown a fat core compared to BD? Die size is 248mm2 and 1.2B transistors. Amd BD? 315mm2 and also 1.2B. Just look at the performance gap in games, it is HUGE.
What we get is 15% higher single thread performance and 16.4% higher MT performance for "fat" core. FX is not that slow after all.At least if you compare it to Westmere.
How is Gulftown a fat core compared to BD? Die size is 248mm2 and 1.2B transistors. Amd BD? 315mm2 and also 1.2B. Just look at the performance gap in games, it is HUGE.