Is AMD 960K Athlon Excavator likely to beat intel 2500K sandy bridge?

[john5220]

What you guys think will happen here with excavator in terms of single and multi threaded CPU performance?

AMD likely to reach sandy bridge or ivy bridge performance finally?

 

[ShintaiDK]

Not even remotely close.

 

[john5220]

What about a locked 2400 i5?

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-2400+@+3.10GHz

its only 5812 points. A 4GHZ excavator should be able to match or beat a locked 2400 to 3.1GHZ not so?

 

[ShintaiDK]

No.

Just compare with the 7850K in a wide selection of benchmarks, and see how much more the EX core would have to perform to catch up. Maybe it if was clocked at 5 or 6Ghz...

 

[Yuriman]

Sandy Bridge has something like a 40-50% IPC advantage over Piledriver, and Piledriver has a module penalty, so if you load up both cores on a module they're each about 10% slower.

~4.5-5ghz would probably do it.

EDIT: Would probably match a stock SB i5, but not an overclocked one.

EDIT2: Take a look on Anandtech Bench, and bear in mind that the AMD chip has a roughly 10% clockspeed advantage:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/288?vs=1200

Sandy Bridge were legendary overclockers, with 4.5GHz+ being commonplace.

 

[john5220]

^ from that link

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/363?vs=1200

I am going to bet that 960K excavator will be about the speed of a sandy bridge 2400

BTW if intel didn't scam AMD with the whole mafia tactics where they were slapped with billions in fines do you think there would be such a huge gap in performance today?

Assuming intel played fair and didn't bribe and threaten everyone not to use AMD?

 

[Phynaz]

Oh crap, not this again.

 

[AtenRa]

If a TWO module Excavator would reach Sandybridge Quad Core Core i5 performance in Throughput, it would be a tremendous accomplishment. It is the same thing as Core i3 Broadwell or Skylake (dual core) would reach a Quad Core Sandybridge throughput.

 

[Yuriman]

Maybe, maybe not. Intel was already established and trusted to deliver solid chips, on time. AMD might've made some more cash in the brief period before Core2 came out, but whether it would've made a difference in the long-term will remain forever unknown.

 

[Yuriman]

If a TWO module Excavator would reach Sandybridge Quad Core Core i5 performance in Throughput, it would be a tremendous accomplishment. It is the same thing as Core i3 Broadwell or Skylake (dual core) would reach a Quad Core Sandybridge throughput.

Are we expecting four module Excavator chips?

AMD's module designs were an improvement in performance with a given area and number of transistors, if I remember correctly, but I believe AMD is still delivering less performance per area and per transistor than Intel, and Intel has a process advantage allowing those fewer transistors in smaller dies to be clocked higher, run with lower power consumption and be built cheaper.

Intel will continue to print money because they can sell a small chip for the same price and performance as a big chip from AMD.

 

[chrisjames61]

Are we expecting four module Excavator chips?

AMD's module designs were an improvement in performance with a given area and number of transistors, if I remember correctly, but I believe AMD is still delivering less performance per area and per transistor than Intel, and Intel has a process advantage allowing those fewer transistors in smaller dies to be clocked higher, run with lower power consumption and be built cheaper.

Intel will continue to print money because they can sell a small chip for the same price and performance as a big chip from AMD.

Until Apple delivers a Mac with an Apple designed 64 bit ARM processor. Then Intel will start feeling the pain. As the floodgates will open just like they have in mobile. At least in the consumer world.

 

[inf64]

You'd have to 1st see such a chip. I don't think there will even be 960K model.

 

[Justinbaileyman]

Come on guys stop with the AMD vs Intel crap.. both are great Cpu's and this isn't 2000-2001 any more and anything with 4 core is more then enough for 90% of users. We all know 860k-960k is no where near a 2500K and its not meant to be.Its like comparing a Dodge Caravan to a Lamborghini..Both vehicles will get you to where you need to go but the more expensive one will get you there a little bit faster.Not every road is gonna let you go 120Mph though just like your not going to be able to tell the difference in every program between either cpu..Maybe in gaming or video encoding but thats about it..

 

[AtenRa]

Are we expecting four module Excavator chips?

AMD's module designs were an improvement in performance with a given area and number of transistors, if I remember correctly, but I believe AMD is still delivering less performance per area and per transistor than Intel, and Intel has a process advantage allowing those fewer transistors in smaller dies to be clocked higher, run with lower power consumption and be built cheaper.

Intel will continue to print money because they can sell a small chip for the same price and performance as a big chip from AMD.

In relation to Throughput,

One Bulldozer Module ~= One Sandybridge Core (+HT)
One PileDriver Module ~= One IvyBridge Core (+HT)
One SteamRoller Module ~= One Haswell Core (+HT)

Could be the same with Excavator vs Broadwell/Skylake

 

[Yuriman]

In relation to Throughput,

One Bulldozer Module ~= One Sandybridge Core (+HT)
One PileDriver Module ~= One IvyBridge Core (+HT)
One SteamRoller Module ~= One Haswell Core (+HT)

Could be the same with Excavator vs Broadwell/Skylake

I hope so. AMD suffers from a poor distribution of power among those cores though. 80:20 is often more useful than 50:50, given the same total performance.

If the price is right, I'd buy an AMD chip though. For basic desktop use you're not likely to be able to tell a difference, and FM2 is a modern platform with modern features.

 

[escrow4]

Come on guys stop with the AMD vs Intel crap.. both are great Cpu's and this isn't 2000-2001 any more and anything with 4 core is more then enough for 90% of users. We all know 860k-960k is no where near a 2500K and its not meant to be.Its like comparing a Dodge Caravan to a Lamborghini..Both vehicles will get you to where you need to go but the more expensive one will get you there a little bit faster.Not every road is gonna let you go 120Mph though just like your not going to be able to tell the difference in every program between either cpu..Maybe in gaming or video encoding but thats about it..

And gaming and video encoding are two of the most grunty tasks where Intel slaps around AMD all day every day. Never mind creaky old AM3+ which is what, a 2010 socket?

 

[john5220]

I hope so. AMD suffers from a poor distribution of power among those cores though. 80:20 is often more useful than 50:50, given the same total performance.

If the price is right, I'd buy an AMD chip though. For basic desktop use you're not likely to be able to tell a difference, and FM2 is a modern platform with modern features.

This is why I recommended my friend to go AMD because he could only buy with cash no credit card so no access to Amazon like me. And in the Caribbean all they sell is AMD CPU for some reason. Sure you might get intel but its gonna be too expensive because you have to pay 20% tax

I guess most people here are not willing to spend money on intel and the performance you get most are satisfied with what AMD delivers.

Infact remeber the i3 4150 I bought? and then bought him a 760K to upgrade his budget A6 APU?

Both our systems perform the same we both use SSD also. I cannot even tell the difference with the intel or the AMD. So i really can't even see the point about the whole bragging rights about intel.

They all work the same in everyday tasks in blind tests. There is no feeling that AMD is slower.

The reason he needed the 760K is because Battlefield 3 will not run on dual core and 64 player maps it stutters badly.

Now his 760K runs the same Fps like my i3 so we are both happy. Infact requirements for games are usually a 2400k sandy bridge i5 or a low end quad core Phenom II X4 @ 3ghz

You never see 2400K sandy bridge but a super mega OC 8 core AMD at 5GHZ. They honestly perform just as good in the real world a lot of times also the server causes lag and the best devil's canyon cannot help you when the issue is on the server end.

Life is all nice in single player a mode nobody plays in these FPS games to begin with. But in multi player your problem is servers. Look at Diablo 3 still has rubberbanding and lots of issues here and there.

Intel is only impressive in those fancy benchmarks that means so little in the real world for the average user. the way people on this site talk about intel you would think its the greatest thing since sliced bread, so much misinformation going around in this place.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The reason he needed the 760K is because Battlefield 3 will not run on dual core and 64 player maps it stutters badly.

You keep making up lies.

 

[Burpo]

This ^^^^^^^..
Has me wondering if he's still in high school..

 

[NostaSeronx]

Depending on what AMD did with the "Excavator" architecture. AMD could be able to improve performance with little effort.

The changes with Steamroller's front-end allows for an evolution from MCMT. This evolution is specifically called Clustered SMT.

MCMT;
http://i.imgur.com/v3CTSnd.png

1st Gen CSMT;
http://i.imgur.com/uRI6Byp.png
(FDL -> Forwarding Logic, this removes dependencies between clusters sharing a module. This will improve performance when running SPMD in regards to integer. The FPU is already SMT, so the improvement in the FPU will need to come from AVX2 and FP256.)

 

[john5220]

You keep making up lies.

Lies? how stupid can you even be. I got double the FPS of my old Phenom II X2 with my previous intel dual core pentium G haswell which is still unplayable since the old phenom II X2 is around 9 FPS min in many many situations. Totally unplayable

Maybe do some research next time before looking like an idiot making claims about my "lies"

dual cores STINK in these 64 player maps with high tech Engines like frostbite 2 and 3. Mantle tries to help but its still pretty bad, the haswell pentium G3220 was trash which is why I got rid of it. Or wait you must be one of those idiots who look at Single Player benchmarks ROFL
Just imagine 3 years later after the release of battlefield 3 and people are still this retarded to pointing to single player benchmarks and saying ow look BF3 runs smooth on dual cores guess thats that.

Ow wait nobody buys these games for single player neither do they play single player.

Find another way to make your point without calling people idiots.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[Enigmoid]

In relation to Throughput,

One Bulldozer Module ~= One Sandybridge Core (+HT)
One PileDriver Module ~= One IvyBridge Core (+HT)
One SteamRoller Module ~= One Haswell Core (+HT)

Could be the same with Excavator vs Broadwell/Skylake

Broadwell is only 5% faster clock for clock. I expect (hopefully) excavator to bring more of an IPC gain than that. Personally, I would say that a steamroller module seems to bring about 5% more performance to the table than a HT haswell core at the same speed.

You are completely correct in terms of throughput. However, it is a LOT harder to increase performance per core than to increase performance by adding multiple cores. Modules are a great way to increase throughput but a terrible way to increase singethread performance due to the shared resources. Two atom cores at the same clockspeed as a single Haswell core (no HT) will compete fairly well. Credit must be given to intel for getting that throughput as singlethread performance.

Personally, I'm not expecting much from either intel or amd in the future. Intel has a history of low 5-10% IPC increases and its unlikely so see anything groundbreaking (maybe IGP?) from them. Pretty much every single one of AMD's products has been hyped to the sky on this forum and and failed to deliver. AMD seems to like picking benchmarks that show their products in the best possible light then when you see it it is quite mediocre (ie a10-7850k marketing showed a huge increase over the a10-6800k when in reality the two chips are indistinguishable performance wise- the 20% IPC gain was really 'up to 20%'). AMD won't have anything major until their new cores hit (why spend a ton of R&D which you don't have on an architecture you are going to drop?). I don't expect K12 to have anything like SB IPC either. At best it will close half the IPC gap (my prediction).

If AMD could hit SB or IVB performance (IPC and throughput) with excavator then there would be no reason to drop the modular design.

 

[NTMBK]

Have we even confirmed that there will be a high-frequency version of the Excavator cores? Excavator is meant to be made using High Density Libraries- these are intended to significantly improve power consumption, but at a cost:

The tradeoff is peak frequency. These heavily automated designs won’t be able to clock as high as the older hand drawn designs. AMD believes the sacrifice is worth it however because in power constrained environments (e.g. a notebook) you won’t hit max frequency regardless, and you’ll instead see a 15 - 30% energy reduction per operation. AMD equates this with the power savings you’d get from a full process node improvement.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6201/amd-details-its-3rd-gen-steamroller-architecture/2

So an Excavator core may not be able to clock as high as a Steamroller core. I expect that we will see Kaveri stick around on the desktop.

 

[Yuriman]

Both our systems perform the same we both use SSD also. I cannot even tell the difference with the intel or the AMD. So i really can't even see the point about the whole bragging rights about intel.

I don't think most buy an Intel chip because it confers status or gives bragging rights.

You never see 2400K sandy bridge but a super mega OC 8 core AMD at 5GHZ. They honestly perform just as good in the real world a lot of times also the server causes lag and the best devil's canyon cannot help you when the issue is on the server end.

Not sure what you're going for here, but Sandy Bridge will generally hit similar clocks to AMD's FX chips.

The reason he needed the 760K is because Battlefield 3 will not run on dual core and 64 player maps it stutters badly.

I don't own a Pentium so I can't speak for it personally, but I've heard results from those who do own them running this game smoothly. Still, I have never recommended a Pentium for gaming.

Life is all nice in single player a mode nobody plays in these FPS games to begin with. But in multi player your problem is servers. Look at Diablo 3 still has rubberbanding and lots of issues here and there.

Did you feel the need to upgrade from your Pentium because the servers you were playing on were causing you to rubber band? Diablo 3 is one specific title. Rubber banding != low fps.

I suspect this complaint is mostly (outside of Diablo) because you're playing on servers outside of your country / geographic area. Most multiplayer servers I've been on in the 'states are fine.

Intel is only impressive in those fancy benchmarks that means so little in the real world for the average user. the way people on this site talk about intel you would think its the greatest thing since sliced bread, so much misinformation going around in this place.

Are we talking about average users, or power users and gamers here?

I have at present and in the past owned both Intel and AMD chips. I still have an Opteron 165 happily crunching away a 2.7ghz, a 50% overclock! It was an insane value at the time. I have an FM2 platform in the living room.

Regardless, I would buy a processor based on its benchmarks before I'd buy one based on hearsay, and the benchmarks tell me that right now I need to buy Intel's chips unless I have a specific use that an FX/FM2 chip would better satisfy. If you don't think framerates are important, buy less expensive hardware.


EDIT: I'm confused, I suppose. Are you arguing that Intel chips only deliver higher framerates and better performance in benchmarks, or that there's no point in buying faster CPUs?

 

[Headfoot]

The athlon K versions usually have the cache chopped. So I doubt it'll get remotely close as its a neutered chip to begin with