Well said.I think a lot of people here will only measure it against Intel's best, if it is still slower than a 4.8GHz Sandy/Ivy, then it'll be a failure. We can just about guarantee it will be slower than an overclocked Intel chip. But, I think that if it can improve on some of Bulldozer's weaknesses in a meaningfull way, then it may yet be a decent chip for the masses. It may even find its way into enthusiast setups if it can clock high enough (wouldn't hold my breath on that, but you never know).
Yeah, Intel is a step ahead on the process node and Intel has the cool FinFET "3D" technology but neither of those are the real problem for AMD.Intel has superior fab's => lower node tech (ei. 14nm vs 22nm ect), their always a step ahead =>
better performance/watt.
I would personally love to see FinFET technologies (ei. Intel's 3D trasistor) used on AMD cpus as well... since it gives such a huge reduction in power use.
How much of an architecture redesign is Piledriver compared to BD?
Just curious. How much would you have to overclock the AMD FX 8150 to get performance roughly equal to the 2600k in all aspects? Or are they so far apart no viable overclock (excluding LN2) can close the gap between them?
Just curious. How much would you have to overclock the AMD FX 8150 to get performance roughly equal to the 2600k in all aspects? Or are they so far apart no viable overclock (excluding LN2) can close the gap between them?
I'm largely interested in if they can get the production costs down. If they were able to start hitting hard on price/performance again, then they could make a big dent in the midrange and low end market- you know, the majority of PCs sold. I don't care if the top end PD is slower than the top end IB, if it's priced the same as an IB i3.
Excluding AtenRas handpicked benchmarks. Alot.
Even 50% OC wont get you there.
Just curious. How much would you have to overclock the AMD FX 8150 to get performance roughly equal to the 2600k in all aspects? Or are they so far apart no viable overclock (excluding LN2) can close the gap between them?
The majority of people here are Gaming in 1080p and above
http://atenra.blog.com/2012/06/08/amd-fx8150-vs-intel-2500k-1080p-dx-11-gaming-evaluation/
Excluding AtenRas handpicked benchmarks. Alot.
Even 50% OC wont get you there.
Excluding AtenRas handpicked benchmarks. Alot.
Even 50% OC wont get you there.
Yeah, not in old single-threaded game engines.
Luckily, those old games are still perfectly playable, 77 fps vs 150? Who even cares?
If more new games can support up to 8 threads like bf3, Piledriver could do well. If they can't, oh well. Crappy console ports aren't going to shine on AMD's CPUs. But again, most of the time these games that won't run well are still well above 60 fps, so... yeah.
Who cares? basicly you are advocating to buy a CPU for the past.
If any of those 2 fails, any design like BD fails badly. And that funny enough basicly happens all the time.
No I'm not, I'm advocating bench-marking for the future. You are the one pulling out benchmarks for 8 year old games to show how horrible bulldozer is. At least use current stuff.
Most new PC games are still on a 10-year-old DX9 API, so "new" stuff is 10 years old; this also limits the thread count, btw. Still, Chiropteran is right. Because most games are still DX9, most CPUs will do quite fine and won't get bottlenecked and certainly won't dip you down to below playable FPS. It really doesn't matter if Intel or AMD put out a new chip that's weaker than their last generation, because as far as gaming is concerned it really makes absolutely no difference. It's sort of why VirtuMVP is so stupid, who cares if you get +20% FPS when you're already over 60? Other than bragging about it on forums to stupid people who think that actually matters.
60 FPS, a chopper crashes into a building in front of you which then partially collapses, it dips to 30 FPS and gameplay gets slow
90 FPS, a chopper crashes into a building in front of you which then partially collapses, it dips to 60 FPS and gameplay stays the same
In terms of how Virtu functions, it is important to understand the concept of being able to perform what was mentioned on the previous page—being able to manipulate what the GPU does and what it does not do. The underlying technology of Virtu is that the environment is virtualized. This means that instead of the GPUs working on top of the operating system, Virtu adds in a middle layer between the operating system and the GPU. This way, Virtu can manipulate everything that the operating system wants to say to the GPU, and vice versa, without either of them knowing that there is a middleware layer.
The second is most important perhaps, which I will go into later. Virtual V-Sync and HyperFormance will only make a difference in the following circumstances:
a) You suffer from visual tearing in your games, or you actively use V-Sync
b) If your setup (screen resolution and graphics settings) perform better than your refresh rate of your monitor (essentially 60 FPS for most people). If you have less than this, then you will probably not see any benefit.
You don't understand how VirtuMVP works then. The only performance gains achieved were under situations where you don't see spikes, and with it enabled the spikes were more severe. It doesn't raise the ceiling for your FPS, it just makes it look like your rig is performing better than it actually is. Essentially, it does absolutely nothing other than allow a few idiots to gloat about how big their e-penis is.
Yeah my post was aimed at your anything over 60 FPS is pointless comment.