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 9th November 2015, 4:39 PM   #136
Perko
Member
 
Perko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: NW Tasmania
Posts: 1,752
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mAJORD View Post
No, because performance is not defined anywhere. It's the same old argument from the Ghz war days, just with cores.

With the move to arbitrary model numbers for SKU's and decreasing the emphasis on clockspeed, most people have realized it's a poor indicator. This just needs to happen with core counts also.

The formula to determine performance has become incredibly complex. The following all significantly affect performance:

-uArch IPC (Now not so easily identified with multiple, uARChs of vastly different IPC sharing the same name - e.g current Pentium lines)
-Base frequency
-Turbo frequency
-# cores
-SMT and associated scaling
-software thread count and scaling
-IGP type/performance

It is a mess, with no simple solution from a model naming and marketing pt of view

The only scenario where this would hold up, is if AMD launched their 8 core FX for a higher price than the outgoing 6 core, but with no MT performance advantage across a range of benchmarks. Or worse still, pitched it as an alternative to Intel's 6 core.

Whilst BD was disappointing, and was beaten by its predecessor on occasion in single / lightly threaded tasks, it did hold a sizable enough advantage in MT performance to justify its price.
You won't get any argument from me there - it becomes an even bigger mess when you take in ARM chips and SOC using the same terminology in sales literature. But once it gets to court it'll be muddied enough that AMD could have to go to appeal to get it thrown out. That's not the same as getting done, obviously, but it's cash that they really don't have to spare.

Hopefully it doesn't progress past initial hearings.
__________________
Main: Phanteks Enthoo Primo/Enermax Platimax 850/MSI X99A SLI Plus/i7-5820k @ 4.4GHz/Noctua NH-D15/Corsair Vengeance 3000MHz Low Profile/Galax GTX 1080 EXOC/ASUS Xonar STU + Beyer T70/Samsung 950 Pro 512GB + 1TB Caviar Black/Win 10 Pro/Cherry Compuregister - MX Clears/Mionix Naos 3200/X-Star DP2710 Glossy
Notebook: ASUS ROG G53SW w/ Win 10 + Ubuntu 16.04
Perko is offline   Reply With Quote

Join OCAU to remove this ad!
Old 11th November 2015, 8:29 AM   #137
KriiV
Member
 
KriiV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,335
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by n2p4u View Post
But isnt that the exact problem they have, I want them around but im not a fan so i most likely will never ever buy them? Even if they developed a chips that beats Intel in every aspect and is cooler and cheaper by a few $$ people would still buy the Intel.

Without people like you going with AMD then they have no hope of making any difference, cause if Zen was the best CPU released in its time, and the Intel variants are slower but no one bought it because "It's AMD, i'm not a fan" and still make a loss then what was the point
But see there's the thing, if AMD were to produce a fundamentally better chip than Intel, I'd buy it. My basis for not being a fan of AMD is that they consistently put out inferior chips.
KriiV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th November 2015, 11:07 AM   #138
digamma
Member
 
digamma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Brisbane, Southside.
Posts: 2,679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KriiV View Post
But see there's the thing, if AMD were to produce a fundamentally better chip than Intel, I'd buy it. My basis for not being a fan of AMD is that they consistently put out inferior chips.
Inferior perhaps, but often not by much. And here's the important distinction between the two chip manufacturers, AMD is significantly cheaper for their products, across their entire range.
__________________
The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral. Returning violence with violence only multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.
digamma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th November 2015, 12:50 PM   #139
PsychoSmiley
Member
 
PsychoSmiley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Taranaki, New Zealand
Posts: 6,268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KriiV View Post
But see there's the thing, if AMD were to produce a fundamentally better chip than Intel, I'd buy it. My basis for not being a fan of AMD is that they consistently put out inferior chips.
For me I am willing to sacrifice performance on a bang for buck level. If they can put out something that is not quite as good but from a cost point of view very good value I'd buy it. For me it's perceived value for dollar which is why I chose a R9 390 over a GTX970. Similar prices, similar performance, but more memory and better compatibility in the future with the 390. I lose on some aspects but I still have the better product for me. If AMD could produce something that is 90% of the performance of Intel's current offerings but at 25% less cost it'd be a no brainer for me.
__________________
Steam Profile | Currently Playing: Heroes of the Storm (PC) | The Witcher 3 (PC)
PsychoSmiley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th November 2015, 10:47 PM   #140
staffy007
Member
 
staffy007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: red cliffs vic
Posts: 372
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PsychoSmiley View Post
For me I am willing to sacrifice performance on a bang for buck level. If they can put out something that is not quite as good but from a cost point of view very good value I'd buy it. For me it's perceived value for dollar which is why I chose a R9 390 over a GTX970. Similar prices, similar performance, but more memory and better compatibility in the future with the 390. I lose on some aspects but I still have the better product for me. If AMD could produce something that is 90% of the performance of Intel's current offerings but at 25% less cost it'd be a no brainer for me.
I say , work out which games you play the most. which ones out of them are optimised red or green and go to which you want the visuals at best
__________________
1; 4930k RIVE sli 980ti classifieds 4x4gb dom platinums
2;4790k /z97 extreme 4/dom 2666 ram/780ti hydrocopper classy
staffy007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2015, 1:17 PM   #141
Sologuy
Member
 
Sologuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Northern Tasmania
Posts: 169
Default

Perhaps Intel getting 2nd highest amount of 'corporate welfare' from US gov goes some way to explaining why Intel has so much $ for R&D? Even though the link is dated from March this year, I believe its still relevant...

Source
Sologuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2015, 11:07 PM   #142
mAJORD
Member
 
mAJORD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Griffin , Brisbane
Posts: 8,558
Default

lol

Difficult fathom how Intel would have received subsidies but not AMD (or at least, so little they're on the list)

They managed to get 300M out of isreal though - they're good at it.
mAJORD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd November 2015, 12:14 AM   #143
Smokin Whale
Member
 
Smokin Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pacific Ocean off SC
Posts: 5,147
Default

I kinda dislike how this is the top thread in the AMD subforum. AMD is not dead
__________________
New RIG!
AMD Athlon64 x2 4400+ S939 (stock), Gigabyte K8N-SLI, 4GB DDR1 RAM, ATI X1550 256mb + X300 128MB, 24GB SSD, Triple 17" 1280x1024 monitors, Linux Mint MATE 18.1 64bit
Smokin Whale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd November 2015, 12:41 AM   #144
ipv6ready
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: North Sydney
Posts: 624
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sologuy View Post
Perhaps Intel getting 2nd highest amount of 'corporate welfare' from US gov goes some way to explaining why Intel has so much $ for R&D? Even though the link is dated from March this year, I believe its still relevant...

Source
but those subsides are for opening factories etc id AMD built more factories it would get more too lol.
__________________
4k nut UP3214Q, UP2414Q and U28D590D
MSI Z77a-GD80, Cosmos II, i7-3770k, Swiftech H240-X, Gigabyte G1 GTX1070, G.Skill 32mb 1600, 256GB Samsung Pro 840, 120GB Sandisk Extreme, LSi 9261, 8 x 1TB WB Black HDD, Seasonic 660w Platinum, Cyberpower UPS
ipv6ready is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd November 2015, 1:09 AM   #145
mAJORD
Member
 
mAJORD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Griffin , Brisbane
Posts: 8,558
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ipv6ready View Post
but those subsides are for opening factories etc id AMD built more factories it would get more too lol.
Good point. Intel has /had far more fab's in the US over that time period
mAJORD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2015, 12:52 PM   #146
Sologuy
Member
 
Sologuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Northern Tasmania
Posts: 169
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ipv6ready View Post
but those subsides are for opening factories etc id AMD built more factories it would get more too lol.
Well they can't open more factories because of lack of money of which (to cut a LONG story short) is because the corporate playing field in US is not a level playing field (compared to Australia, at least).

Many years of dodgy & shifty business practices from Intel have made sure of that..
Sologuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2015, 12:55 PM   #147
Sologuy
Member
 
Sologuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Northern Tasmania
Posts: 169
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokin Whale View Post
I kinda dislike how this is the top thread in the AMD subforum. AMD is not dead
Yes, it is sad, but Intel is happy. If they had it their way, ALL the way, one vendor for the modular x86 market.. yeah that's real good for consumers right? not having a go at you, just sayng.

When they say jump, we say.. 'how high?'...

Last edited by Sologuy; 24th November 2015 at 12:59 PM.
Sologuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2015, 5:29 PM   #148
ipv6ready
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: North Sydney
Posts: 624
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sologuy View Post
Many years of dodgy & shifty business practices from Intel have made sure of that..
I think both Intel and AMD played the game.... Intel was better at it.
__________________
4k nut UP3214Q, UP2414Q and U28D590D
MSI Z77a-GD80, Cosmos II, i7-3770k, Swiftech H240-X, Gigabyte G1 GTX1070, G.Skill 32mb 1600, 256GB Samsung Pro 840, 120GB Sandisk Extreme, LSi 9261, 8 x 1TB WB Black HDD, Seasonic 660w Platinum, Cyberpower UPS
ipv6ready is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2015, 12:42 AM   #149
Nian
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 731
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ipv6ready View Post
I think both Intel and AMD played the game.... Intel was better at it.
I believe it is the concept of Capitalism at its worse, that is the game that Intel plays. Because in the USA, a monopoly isn't illegal.
__________________
Asrock Fatal1ty 990FX Killer, AMD FX-8370 BE @ 4.5Ghz, G.Skill TridentX DDR3 @ 2133 Mhz 10-12-12-31 4x8Gb , 2x Gigabyte Windforce 3 R9 290X OC 4Gb GV-R929XOC-4GD, Cooler Master HAF XB EVO, Cooler Master V8

Old System: Gigabyte GA-965p-DS4 Rev. 1.0, Q9300ES @ 2.8Ghz, Team Xtreem Dark DDR2 740Mhz 4-4-4-12 4x2Gb, AFox HD7850 2Gb, Asus Xonar D2X, CoolerMaster CM690. Zalman CNPS9700 LED
Nian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2015, 8:50 AM   #150
lithos
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PsychoSmiley View Post
For me I am willing to sacrifice performance on a bang for buck level. If they can put out something that is not quite as good but from a cost point of view very good value I'd buy it. For me it's perceived value for dollar which is why I chose a R9 390 over a GTX970. Similar prices, similar performance, but more memory and better compatibility in the future with the 390. I lose on some aspects but I still have the better product for me. If AMD could produce something that is 90% of the performance of Intel's current offerings but at 25% less cost it'd be a no brainer for me.
Exactly. I'm not looking for a chip that'll slay Intel's six ways to the Sunday after next in every benchmark, game, and crunch an hour of 8K video in ten seconds flat (though that'd be nice); I'm looking for a chip that'll do everything a decent gamer needs...at a good price point.

And that's where AMD kicks arse.

I'm looking for a cool octo-core that does 90% of Intel's $500 enthusiast chip for $250. And sits in a socket that won't be outdated in six months time.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GooSE View Post
Congratulations, OP, you've discovered stereotypes and hyperbole. These two things have been used for centuries by imbeciles and morons.
lithos 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 12:44 AM.


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!