Overclockers Australia Forums

OCAU News - Wiki - QuickLinks - Pix - Sponsors  

Go Back   Overclockers Australia Forums > Manufacturer-specific Forums > AMD x86 CPUs and chipsets

Notices


Sign up for a free OCAU account and this ad will go away!
Search our forums with Google:
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 21st December 2014, 9:44 PM   #16
dr_deathy
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,189
Default

Your system has issues, i have used both and come away with a bitter taste with intels current range of 1150 CPUs. BS costly for stuff all. When you see real world gaming results etc there is no real difference between intel and AMD esp at 4k.

Also intel fanboys are so funny.
dr_deathy is offline   Reply With Quote

Join OCAU to remove this ad!
Old 21st December 2014, 9:55 PM   #17
Kommandant33
Member
 
Kommandant33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Cheltenham VIC
Posts: 3,743
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr_deathy View Post
Also intel fanboys are so funny.
Not as funny as AMD fanboys!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Creekin View Post
cant wait till the hard tubes crack or come out of fitting and leak red dye all over their mums carpet
Kommandant33 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2014, 2:24 PM   #18
dr_deathy
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,189
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kommandant33 View Post
Not as funny as AMD fanboys!
what about apple lol.

AMD are still a whole node behind and can still sell chips that compete with intel, just not with benchmarks

It is hard for humans not to be fanboys tho. Its the nature of the beast.
dr_deathy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2014, 3:37 PM   #19
balckjok3r
(Banned or Deleted)
 
balckjok3r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Merredin WA
Posts: 1,706
Default

my 8350 stuck at 4ghz because of power issues (suspect mobo) does not break a sweat in any game I have tried so far. It can encode a dvd in 10mins too
balckjok3r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2014, 4:38 PM   #20
mAJORD
Member
 
mAJORD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Griffin , Brisbane
Posts: 8,558
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vid_ghost View Post

AMD Phenom II on a smaller 28nm 2014 CPU Node would blow away anything AMD has on the market today!
Not a chance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by m1one View Post
AMD has a proven track record of what they know !
And it only has one or two shinning stars , the rest is
And please don't come back with the budget stuff ..

Often it is hard to see what is right under your nose , and even worse for fanboys to see it first and call for it - now that would make AMD look right silly would it not ..

Give the consumer what they want - oh and wait - maybe be a intel killer ! Geez Louise , you cant have that !

And the simple fact is , that's what intel did .. Slap two dual cores together and viola , a AMD killer .. It was so simple , so silly an idea , it almost bankrupted AMD . So why is it crazy or nuts to put two quads together for a 8 core , shrink the die as much as possible , and maybe create a decent CPU .
.
That's actually not what happened.. Dual core Conroe was the AMD Killer. Quad cores were niche when the Q series was initially released.

AMD's mistakes were made way back when K8 was dominating. They rested on their basic architecture too much and were caught off guard by what was at the time a revolutionary Uarch (conroe), launching on a very successful (I'd say unexpectedly so ) 65nm process.

It would have been no walk in the park engineering that chip.. It's roots still heavily entrenched in Intel's current Haswell processors some 8.5 yrs later.

K10 was already well into development at that point, and about hit the first of several delays due to a 65nm process that was frankly, terrible, as was evidenced by the K8 shrink.
Thefroe it was a combination of the K10 architecture missing the mark next to conroe both in IPC (around 10% shortfall) and frequency (impossible to say how much by, but not much) , on a massive failure of a process that meant it launched at a ridiculously low frequency.

45nm was a success in some ways and showed what K10 was capable of by taking away that process frequency wall, but was late, and so on it goes.. an impossible game of catchup from then on. There was a tiny window of opportunity that was only just missed with this shrink which would have made it competitive in the top end for a small time, but from then on there was no making up ground.

All this was not to say AMD couldn't have done a lot better, but the damage was done way back then, and I think even with better management and direction over the last 8yrs or so, there still would have been NO hope of an actual "return to glory" Intel would never let it happen. You just cannot develop killer chips without resources, and AMD have never really had any

Last edited by mAJORD; 22nd December 2014 at 4:43 PM.
mAJORD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2014, 5:38 PM   #21
philscomputerlab
Member
 
philscomputerlab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,843
Default

To me the "value" argument isn't valid any more. There used to be a time when the top CPU cost close to A$ 1000 and you could get a $400 CPU and overclock it to that level. But these days are pretty much over.

PC hardware is so cheap and by penny pinching you can save maybe a little bit but not much. What I found with Intel is that you can go with the cheapest $60 board and an i7 and have a top system but with AMD you need a pretty good motherboard that can "handle" the top processors. So what you save in the processor you got to spend on the motherboard.

The FX6300 I got recently, the stock cooler is so noisy. Well over 5000 rpm and struggles to keep the temperature in check. Again, cheap processor, but what's the point when you need to spend another $20 - 40 on a new cooler.

The Intel stock cooler isn't better it's just that the processor are so energy efficient that it doesn't have to be better. It's quiet despite being much smaller.
philscomputerlab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2014, 9:52 PM   #22
SLATYE
SLATYE, not SLAYTE
 
SLATYE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Canberra
Posts: 26,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by philscomputerlab View Post
To me the "value" argument isn't valid any more. There used to be a time when the top CPU cost close to A$ 1000 and you could get a $400 CPU and overclock it to that level. But these days are pretty much over.
Yes, hard to overclock a quad-core into a six-core.

Years back, a top-end CPU cost $1000, or you could overclock a $400 CPU to that level - and you'd notice the difference in many tasks. These days, the vast majority of users would see no difference between a $1000 CPU and a $50 CPU. Even gamers probably wouldn't notice much between a $1000 CPU and a $300 CPU.

Quote:
Originally Posted by philscomputerlab View Post
PC hardware is so cheap and by penny pinching you can save maybe a little bit but not much. What I found with Intel is that you can go with the cheapest $60 board and an i7 and have a top system but with AMD you need a pretty good motherboard that can "handle" the top processors. So what you save in the processor you got to spend on the motherboard.
If you go for a "top" Intel CPU then you're on LGA2011, which demands a very expensive mainboard.

From either company, if you go a little bit behind the absolute top (ie a fast LGA1150 CPU from Intel, or one of the 95W AMD FX chips) then you can save a vast amount of money without losing too much performance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by philscomputerlab View Post
The FX6300 I got recently, the stock cooler is so noisy. Well over 5000 rpm and struggles to keep the temperature in check. Again, cheap processor, but what's the point when you need to spend another $20 - 40 on a new cooler.
AMD had much the same problem with the Athlon XP too, to the point where specifying a third-party cooler in any new system build was completely normal. Luckily for AMD, a number of manufacturers produced cheap but excellent coolers (eg. the $25-ish Spire Falcon Rock and Whisper Rock) and AMD had a huge price advantage over Intel (it was something like $250 CPU and $150 mainboard to compete with a $400 Intel CPU and $200 Intel mainboard).

Quote:
Originally Posted by m1one View Post
The power thing , why you shrink cores ..
I know its hard to shrink a 8 core for AMD , to get the power levels down ..
Would it not be easier to shrink a quad , or a dual core die ..
And rather than trying to make a 8 core cpu that's a true 8 core ( CHEAT ) like intel did ..
Shrinking cores can be done in two ways: manufacturing technology or architecture.

AMD doesn't control the manufacturing technology; they sold off their production facilities years ago. While Intel can say "we're going to spend a billion dollars to upgrade our fabs to 1nm technology", all AMD can do is beg their suppliers to get on with it.

Architecture is something that AMD control. From an architecture point of view it's probably easier to build an eight-core CPU than to make two four-core ones talk to each other, particularly when the memory controller has to be integrated into one of them. It's also something that takes a long time to do, and a lot of money.

Intel's two big "two CPUs glued together" examples (two Core 2 Duos glued together to make a Core 2 Quad, two Pentium 4s glued together to make a Pentium-D) have used off-chip memory controllers, simplifying that aspect.

The Pentium-D was done when Intel was in much the same situation as AMD is in now (ie can't keep up even in single-core performance, much higher power required) and it was a bit of a disaster; the Pentium-D was nowhere near being a good competitor to the Athlon64-X2. However, in this case Intel was able to push their manufacturing side and get down to 65nm, which was enough to keep them going until the Core 2 Duo appeared.

The Core 2 Quad was the opposite. Intel already had a substantial performance lead while using much less power than any AMD CPU. By sticking two CPUs together to make a Core 2 Quad, they lost some performance (compared to a "fully integrated" quad-core design) but it was still faster than anything AMD could do - and power consumption was low enough to avoid problems too.

In short, AMD doesn't have a whole lot of options here. They can't afford the time and money to build a completely new architecture quickly, and they can't push the manufacturing side of things to stretch the existing architecture. They've got a couple of low-power, low-performance architectures but nothing that can compete with Intel's higher-end chips.


Edit: with that said, if AMD glued together a pair of Kabinis and offered a 50W, $120 8-core CPU then it'd be pretty attractive. However, for most tasks where single-thread performance matters it'd still be slower than a cheap Celeron or Pentium.
__________________
Main system: Phenom II X4 920 | 8GB (4x 2GB) DDR2-800 | Gigabyte M57SLI-S4 v2.0 | Leadtek Geforce 9600GSO 384MB | Enermax Modu82+ 525W | 1TB Hitachi HDD | 3.5" + 5.25" FDD
Laptop: Compal EL80 | C2D T7200 | 320GB Fujistu HDD | 2GB DDR2-667 | GF Go 7600

Last edited by SLATYE; 22nd December 2014 at 9:55 PM.
SLATYE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd December 2014, 12:00 AM   #23
dirtyd
Member
 
dirtyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 3,884
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SLATYE View Post
Edit: with that said, if AMD glued together a pair of Kabinis and offered a 50W, $120 8-core CPU then it'd be pretty attractive.
Even then, it probably wouldn't overclock well because it's on GloFo's 28nm middling CPU/GPU compromised process, so people would still be complaining
__________________
"It is worthy of remark that a belief constantly inculcated during the early years of life, whilst the brain is impressible, appears to acquire almost the nature of an instinct; and the very essence of an instinct is that it is followed independently of reason." - Charles Darwin | trustworthy traders
dirtyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th December 2014, 3:43 PM   #24
newlife
Member
 
newlife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Adelaide, SA
Posts: 2,063
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SLATYE View Post
Edit: with that said, if AMD glued together a pair of Kabinis and offered a 50W, $120 8-core CPU then it'd be pretty attractive. However, for most tasks where single-thread performance matters it'd still be slower than a cheap Celeron or Pentium.
And/or a 3.2ghz stock clock
newlife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th December 2014, 8:27 PM   #25
Mensuri
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 733
Default

Just nit with a stock voltage of 1.764 please 😊
__________________
GAMING MONSTER : A64 3200 @ 2.4, X800GTO at 400/760 and 1.5G ddr 400

Labrador Rescue
Mensuri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th December 2014, 9:05 PM   #26
newlife
Member
 
newlife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Adelaide, SA
Posts: 2,063
Default

Yeah that and not requiring ln2 cooling
newlife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th December 2014, 9:21 PM   #27
sammy_b0i
Member
 
sammy_b0i's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: ACT 2914
Posts: 3,056
Default

If AMD really did release something that is somewhat competitive to Intel again, I'd be all for jumping ship to the new tech. I remember the move to 939 Opterons. Those really spanked the P4 nicely. As soon as the C2D's came out though... grabbing that E2140/60/80 for a 100% overclock was just way too good value to pass up.

Maybe a new name? Move away from Athlon/Phenom/etc moniker. Maybe something a little more jazzy.
__________________
Ryzen R7 1700, MSI X370 Gaming Pro Carbon, Noctua U14S, 16GB G.Skill TridentZ 3200MHz, eVGA GTX980 Classified, 480GB OCZ Trion150, eVGA G2 750W, Fractal Define C, BL3200PT
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommodmc View Post
OCAU is a breeding ground for hyper-moralistic 13 year olds who've never stepped out of the computer room in their entire life. Young liberals, young labor, people who will grow old and die before they ever think about pulling their head out.
sammy_b0i is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th December 2014, 12:20 AM   #28
Pemalite
Member
 
Pemalite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Port Lincoln, SA
Posts: 429
Default

For me, they don't even have to be competitive with Intels latest and greatest Haswell Octo chips.
Just "Good enough" at a decent price with good power characteristics will make it a winner.

For instance, AMD's biggest and baddest chip still can't beat the 5 year old Intel Nahelem 980X processor, it stands no chance once you stretch the 980X's legs in overclocking.

I'm still kicking an AMD FX 8120, Phenom 2 x6 1090T, Phenom 2 x6 1035T rigs, which all leave much to be desired in the performance stakes, but they were also terrific value.
With that said, gaming in Eyefinity, I never noticed a single difference between my 3930K @ 4.8ghz and any of those AMD chips, you are always GPU limited at high resolutions.

With that said... Common AMD, give me an excuse to upgrade all my systems, I dare you.
__________________
Cats.
Pemalite is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29th December 2014, 5:31 AM   #29
2_stroke
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: cranbourne 3977
Posts: 1,157
Default

I love some of the comments coming from arm chair engineers, fact is amd goes under and were all screwed. But theres more then desktop cpu's to make a dollar from and thats were amd is heading, there apu idea is smart but even intel is gaining ground there so who knows. I can't see the desktop being around in years to come anyhow, besides gamers and geeks there probably not a lot of sales left in them. Look at a common household now and what's being used, its notebooks, tabs and wifi printers, desktops are part of the past. It's hard to believe pc gaming is still just holding in there It wont be long till it dies i can tell you that.
__________________
http://bfbc2.elxx.net/sig/clean1/pc/2stroke.png
Successful trades
Sold to: chopstick9558, jackdaw, davomaster, haksam, jomo, kingpeck
Bought from: h$v, epo299, tangcla, Gillyske, winterstide, jboles, nooobs,Sainter4Life, auron1
stop listing years ago just way to many trades lol
2_stroke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th December 2014, 8:35 PM   #30
JunkDogg
Member
 
JunkDogg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Perth 6169
Posts: 1,559
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2_stroke View Post
It's hard to believe pc gaming is still just holding in there It wont be long till it dies i can tell you that.
Don't quote me on this but I'm sure I read somewhere in the last 12 months PC gaming has picked up again and console gaming was down. I'll try and find the link.

Well, here's one. Fairly sure I read it more recently though.

http://www.techspot.com/news/57051-p...ing-ahead.html
JunkDogg is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Sign up for a free OCAU account and this ad will go away!

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time now is 12:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
OCAU is not responsible for the content of individual messages posted by others.
Other content copyright Overclockers Australia.
OCAU is hosted by Micron21!