Jim Keller leaves AMD

[mrmt]

Ancient or not -- we're still talking about brand new components that are much less likely to fail. If someone gave me the choice of a brand new Hyundai or a Ford that has 80,000 miles on it -- I'll take the Hyundai every time...... And I'd guess any logical person would. But logic isn't very common on this forum.

Evidence that newer components are less reliable than AMD's ancient platforms?

 

[RampantAndroid]

And just to rub salt in the wounds -- Passmark rates the lowly AMD FX-8320e as a more powerful chip than the E3-1240 that you were worshiping in your previous post.

Having looked at passmark stuff lately since Plex uses it as a guideline for how many streams a CPU can transcode...

What?

1240v3: 9730
1240v2: 9292
8320: 8043
8320e: 7409

As for power, I couldn't find a simple comparison between the two (you ARE looking at a Xeon versus an FX - not a common comparison) so I used the 4770/4790 as a comparison...and from Hexus, it looks like the 8320e system power draw is 63W more at load in 3D, 77W more under handbrake and 20W more at idle. Now, I'm looking at a server that's on 24/7, doing transcodes, backups and webserver duties (maybe a game server too, if I have the resources) so my take is a little skewed, but over time that will add up...

 

[Arachnotronic]

Ancient or not -- we're still talking about brand new components that are much less likely to fail. If someone gave me the choice of a brand new Hyundai or a Ford that has 80,000 miles on it -- I'll take the Hyundai every time...... And I'd guess any logical person would. But logic isn't very common on this forum.

I would take a used, functioning 6700K over a new FX-[insert model number here] any day of the week.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Having looked at passmark stuff lately since Plex uses it as a guideline for how many streams a CPU can transcode...

What?

1240v3: 9730
1240v2: 9292
8320: 8043
8320e: 7409

Pretty slick how you just moved the goalposts -- but the deal he was referring to was for a v1 =
Which clocks a Passmark score of 7964. Which is indeed lower than an FX 8320 (8043).
I'd say the 8320e passmark scores are pretty misleading -- those chips are generally the best
binned ones (most AMD overclockers try to buy this one), I'd be shocked if many are running
stock clock with that unlocked multiplier and mature yield. I'd imagine most FX 8320e are
putting up scores around FX-8350's if not 9000's.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+E3-1240+%40+3.30GHz

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8320+Eight-Core

But, fun times regardless.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

I would take a used, functioning 6700K over a new FX-[insert model number here] any day of the week.

And when the 6700K turns 4 years old -- The newer Zen+ chips will likely be a lot better as would Intel's 10 nm stuff.

The concept of preferring 4 year old stuff to brand new components is a silly thought. I totally understand that people are picking up used Xeon's for gaming -- but it is being done for economic reasons (they are being dumped on ebay). But taking the OP further -- he's stating that even newer, clearly better CPU's are a waste of money (like an i7 5960x for example).

Bottom line: If I could buy a i7-5960x for the same price as that e3-1240, I'd get the i7. People generally buy the best they can within their budget -- and some people try to stretch their budget further with AMD chips.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Evidence that newer components are less reliable than AMD's ancient platforms?

What? Who actually needs evidence that a brand new anything will be more reliable than something with 4 years of wear and tear. That's pretty much common sense.

 

[cbn]

the deal he was referring to was for a v1 =
Which clocks a Passmark score of 7964. Which is indeed lower than an FX 8320 (8043).

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+E3-1240+%40+3.30GHz

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8320+Eight-Core

But, fun times regardless.

Single thread is higher though: 1833 vs 1399.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Single thread is higher though: 1833 vs 1399.

And overclocking capability is way better on an FX-8320e..... By probably a full Ghz.... Which would erase a fair chunk of that single threaded advantage.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Pretty slick how you just moved the goalposts -- but the deal he was referring to was for a v1 =
Which clocks a Passmark score of 7964. Which is indeed lower than an FX 8320 (8043).

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+E3-1240+%40+3.30GHz

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8320+Eight-Core

But, fun times regardless.

Well, since I didn't read thr whole 11 pages of this thread, I didn't know that. But hey, get hostile...

And overclocking capability is way better on an FX-8320e..... By probably a full Ghz.... Which would erase a fair chunk of that single threaded advantage.

Anyone buying a Xeon and trying to overclock it is a fool. They're not unlocked, they're not meant for gaming. They're meant for lower power consumption and 24/7 reliability with the ability to run visualization and hardware passthrough.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Anyone buying a Xeon and trying to overclock it is a fool. They're not unlocked, they're not meant for gaming. They're meant for lower power consumption and 24/7 reliability with the ability to run visualization and hardware passthrough.

You can usually get a little extra pop out of a Xeon by overclocking the BCLK.... It isn't a massive jump, but still.... For a gamer, you would get your games to run a little more fluid with the right cooling solution.

 

[MongGrel]

Anyone buying a Xeon and trying to overclock it is a fool.

:hmm:

:biggrin:

 

[Boze]

I did reread it -- you are simply interpreting it differently.

He never made the distinction between organizations and private users in the first post -- and that it something that has been injected into it after he's retreated on the original statement.

I did make the distinction, you just can't handle being proven wrong... honestly, we're about at the point where its time to break out a hammer and start hitting you in the head with it, because that'll be the only way I can beat the knowledge into you, you don't seem to be getting it...

FROM MY VERY FIRST POST:

For the first time in a very long time, we're seeing such minuscule performance gains to the average user that whenever someone in my family wants a new computer, I just search through refurbishers and reclaimers now and pick them up an old office machine.

 

[Boze]

You're the one who can't deal with it.

You are advocating buying a 4 year old workstation that likely has 30,000 to 50,000 hours of usage already on it (so reliability is a wild card).

Where are you getting these numbers? 12 hours a day for 365 days for 4 years is 17520 hours. Do you really think these office machines got used 12 hours a day? Most of them are probably 8 hours top. A few might have been in institutions, say maybe in a university library... so they might be used from... what? 14 hours a day? Still far shy of your estimate.

On top of that -- you are probably locked into a workstation case and form factor that make upgrades a hassle if not impossible (because many of these OEM machines are not 100% ATX compliant).... Running a low wattage power supply that is likely insufficient to power a modern dedicated video card.

Not so insufficient that I couldn't put a GTX 980 in the $299 machine the other guy linked and get it running rock solid with Steam OS.

BTW, most of these OEM machines are running 5400 RPM hard drives (and probably at best 7200 RPM hard drives) that are already towards the end of their MTBF......

You're an idiot. Hard disks have MTBF of hundreds of thousands to millions of hours. Even if it does fail... I'll throw a $50 128 GB SSD in there. Problem solved. Still faster than a brand new AMD machine from Best Buy / Walmart / self-build.

Versus a brand new six or eight core AMD cpu -- that can be bolted into a gaming ATX case with a modern power supply... That could use an SLI or Crossfire motherboard..... Or investing the money in a brand new solid state. You've got such bad advice -- it defies logic.

And just to rub salt in the wounds -- Passmark rates the lowly AMD FX-8320e as a more powerful chip than the E3-1240 that you were worshiping in your previous post.

Hey genius, if you're running SLI cards, guess what you won't be running? AMD processors. You need high-end chips like i7 3770s and above to get the full functionality from say, two GTX 980s. I guess next you'll tell me, "BUT WHAT IF YOU'RE RUNNING TWO 960s?!"

And finally... Passmark? Wow, that'd be impressive if all I wanted was high numbers on a benchmark, but I actually wanted my brother to be playing games where single / double threaded performance matters, and guess who sucks at that?

AMD.

You won't win this exchange, because you are consistently wrong at every turn. For someone who spends a lot of time on AnandTech, you need to be a lot smarter, and actually read the articles, because they directly refute what you're posting.

 

[Boze]

If someone gave me the choice of a brand new Hyundai or a Ford that has 80,000 miles on it -- I'll take the Hyundai every time...... And I'd guess any logical person would. But logic isn't very common on this forum.

Except that's not the choice you're being given.

What you're being given is the choice between a 2016 Hyundai Elantra or a 2012 Audi A6.

I'll take the A6 every time.

I tell you what, I'll end this debate right here, right now.

Take $299 and build me a system with at least 4 cores / 8 threads, 8 GB RAM, a 2 TB hard drive, a mini-tower case, a 400 watt power supply, a motherboard, Windows 7 or 8 or 10 Professional, that will perform at the same level as the machine I linked to Hot Deals that was shown earlier this thread...

 

[DrMrLordX]

Anyone buying a Xeon and trying to overclock it is a fool.

Don't tell Burpo!

 

[tweakboy]

Honestly who cares... We want good games,,,, like UT4 and COD and a little TMN hee
gl

 

[ShintaiDK]

Power consumption is pretty irrelevant in a conversation about PC gaming -- considering that most people's dedicated video cards are likely gobbling up anywhere from 200 to 500 watts by themselves. The electrical draw of the CPU is a drop in the bucket compared to a gaming GPU.

Incorrect. This can also be seen on GPU sales.

 

[Dresdenboy]

Incorrect. This can also be seen on GPU sales.

This sounds like a made up point.

How did you correlate the reduced sales to power consumption and made sure, that this is not related to a shift in interest by proving, that the people buying systems with iGPU were 250W dGPU users before?

 

[Techhog]

Incorrect. This can also be seen on GPU sales.

Oh, please. Using it as a justification doesn't necessarily mean that they actually care. Intel and Nvidia have better marketing. If AMD blew both of them away in power consumption, it wouldn't make even a slight difference to sales without proper marketing.

 

[Techhog]

This sounds like a made up point.

How did you correlate the reduced sales to power consumption and made sure, that this is not related to a shift in interest by proving, that the people buying systems with iGPU were 250W dGPU users before?

Because he has to side with Intel. That's it. There's no direct correlation whatsoever.

 

[PliotronX]

I just find it odd how there are so many more haters these days as opposed to say the K6 days when they were also the underdog. I run all Intel in my systems because they fit my needs but it's not like AMDs products warrant the hatred :hmm:

 

[frozentundra123456]

Because he has to side with Intel. That's it. There's no direct correlation whatsoever.

Do you any data to back that up? The sales figures would in fact tend to show there is a correlation between efficiency and sales, although there are many other factors as well.

Personally, power consumption *does* matter to me. I dont think either those who say power comsumption does not matter or those who make too much of it are correct. It is a factor. There are many other factors as well, but it *is* a factor. All else being equal, I think anyone not blinded by brand loyalty would choose the product that consumes less power. Cards that consume less power also allow upgrades for those with low to midrange power supplies without replacing said power supply.

And I know personally, I dont consider myself a raging environmentalist, but I do like having an efficient product, even if it costs a bit more. I am sure there are others, even gamers, with the same feelings.

 

[Boze]

I just find it odd how there are so many more haters these days as opposed to say the K6 days when they were also the underdog. I run all Intel in my systems because they fit my needs but it's not like AMDs products warrant the hatred :hmm:

I don't hate AMD.

I hate the people who mindlessly side with them even when there's no reason to do so.

There might be some legitimate use cases for AMD processors over Intel, but again, I go right back to my original point...

Why buy a brand new top-of-the-line AMD processor-based system when, for half the price, you can get similar performance buying a 3/4/5 year old office machine?

That was always the root point of my argument.

I bought two of those computers on WOOT! for $299, the HP refurbs, that I linked in Hot Deals forum the other day. E3-1240 Intel Xeon (3.4 gHz, 4 cores / 8 threads), 8 GB RAM, 2 TB hard drive. One was for my brother's birthday, the other one I'm going to turn into a Linux server for a new project here at the house.

Why would I spend twice as much to get the same performance? It just doesn't make sense, especially given my use case.

 

[AtenRa]

I don't hate AMD.

I hate the people who mindlessly side with them even when there's no reason to do so.

There might be some legitimate use cases for AMD processors over Intel, but again, I go right back to my original point...

Why buy a brand new top-of-the-line AMD processor-based system when, for half the price, you can get similar performance buying a 3/4/5 year old office machine?

That was always the root point of my argument.

I bought two of those computers on WOOT! for $299, the HP refurbs, that I linked in Hot Deals forum the other day. E3-1240 Intel Xeon (3.4 gHz, 4 cores / 8 threads), 8 GB RAM, 2 TB hard drive. One was for my brother's birthday, the other one I'm going to turn into a Linux server for a new project here at the house.

Why would I spend twice as much to get the same performance? It just doesn't make sense, especially given my use case.

Let see,

First, by the same logic why buy any new Intel system and pay more to have lower performance ?? because you cannot have any new Intel system for the same price ($299) and the same performance as this 8x Threaded XEON E3-1240 today.

Second, You were talking about lower power consumption before but not now. Your 80W TDP XEON will have way higher idle power consumption than any new system being Intel or even AMD Kaveri. And it will certainly have higher power consumption than new Intel CPUs when the CPU will work at 100%.

Thirdly, not everyone would like to buy a USED 4-5 year old Workstation even if it is cheaper and more powerful than the same priced current new hardware. It lacks new features and it is used without any warranty. Not everyone is fine paying for that.

 

[PliotronX]

I don't hate AMD.

I hate the people who mindlessly side with them even when there's no reason to do so.

There might be some legitimate use cases for AMD processors over Intel, but again, I go right back to my original point...

Why buy a brand new top-of-the-line AMD processor-based system when, for half the price, you can get similar performance buying a 3/4/5 year old office machine?

That was always the root point of my argument.

I bought two of those computers on WOOT! for $299, the HP refurbs, that I linked in Hot Deals forum the other day. E3-1240 Intel Xeon (3.4 gHz, 4 cores / 8 threads), 8 GB RAM, 2 TB hard drive. One was for my brother's birthday, the other one I'm going to turn into a Linux server for a new project here at the house.

Why would I spend twice as much to get the same performance? It just doesn't make sense, especially given my use case.

And you don't think Intel has its own fanboys? Do you recall the Athlon XP vs hot running slow P4s or the glorious pre-C2D K8 days? How vocal the P4 fans were with their inferior yet still capable products?