Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > CPUs and Overclocking

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals
· Free Stuff
· Contests and Sweepstakes
· Black Friday 2013
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-13-2012, 06:51 AM   #26
Idontcare
Administrator
Elite Member
 
Idontcare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 台北市
Posts: 20,312
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by octavian33 View Post
We all know that Intel makes the faster processor. We also all know that intel is way more expensive. So my simple question is this, why doesnt amd just make a board that will take 2 FX-8350's. I mean is there a reason that 2 processors running in unison wouldnt at least or exceed intels 3970x in multithreaded applications, and at a cheaper price? I am a total newb at multi processor set ups but it seems logical to me.
They've been down this road before, both companies, of crafting 2-socket mobos for the enthusiast segment and the bottom line is that they just don't sell very well.

AMD did it and it was called the "quad-father" (two dual-core CPUs) at the time, it performed ok but it pushed the power usage numbers to ludicrous levels and thus became a pariah for that reason.

I suspect an enthusiast-level dual socket FX-8350 platform would be similarly castigated by the enthusiast community, sadly, and that concern alone probably torpedoes the idea at the drawing board.

For the HPC and workstation markets, where performance truly matters in the economic sense, overclocking is out anyways so those platforms are going to be based on Xeons and Opterons which already have their own dual-socket platforms.

It is just the minor segment of at-home OC'ers who are into this stuff and it would appear that for most of us when we say we are "into it" that really mean we "like to read about it", which translates into very few sales. If you know your platform volume is going to be low then it becomes harder and harder to justify the expense of crafting niche products like enthusiast-class dual-socket mobos (skulltrail for example).
Idontcare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 08:36 AM   #27
lamedude
Senior Member
 
lamedude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: ��
Posts: 862
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bunnyfubbles View Post
there are 8 core Xeons on 32nm, the problem is that they're completely locked down outside of the typical maybe couple extra MHz on BCLK overclocking like we see with Sandy and Ivy 1155 non K CPUs, and thus a heavily overclocked 6 core is actually going to be faster than the fastest 8 core Xeon and completely not worth it for an enthusiast who is willing to blow past stock TDP with proper cooling.
SNB-E can do 125,166, or 250MHZ BCLCK.
31-38*125=3.8-4.7GHZ
lamedude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 08:44 AM   #28
Makaveli
Diamond Member
 
Makaveli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,238
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by octavian33 View Post
We all know that Intel makes the faster processor. We also all know that intel is way more expensive. So my simple question is this, why doesnt amd just make a board that will take 2 FX-8350's. I mean is there a reason that 2 processors running in unison wouldnt at least or exceed intels 3970x in multithreaded applications, and at a cheaper price? I am a total newb at multi processor set ups but it seems logical to me.
Do FX chips even have the correct hypertransport setup to support Dual socket workstation board?

That is usually the difference with the opteron and xeons!
__________________
Intel Core i7 970 @ 4.2Ghz 1.29v | TRUE Black Rev.C + Scythe S-Flex 1600 rpm x2 | Asus P6-T Deluxe V2 | 12GB Mushkin DDR3-1600 7-8-7-20 1T | MSI 7970 Ghz + Kraken G10 & H55 | EVGA 650 SC Physx | Logitech G15+G500 | Intel 320GB G2 Raid 0 | WD 1TB Black Storage | ESATA 2TB Green | CM 690 II Advanced | Razor Vespula | HP ZR24w | Logitech Z560 | X-FI Titanium | Corsair Pro Series Gold AX750
Makaveli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 10:12 AM   #29
Nemesis 1
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,379
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by inf64 View Post
50% better performance? How about some facts from the article? Time to completion of whole THG test suite(ST and MT workloads) for 3970x is 91.5 minute. FX8350 took 116 minutes . From this we have: 91.5/116=0.788 or ~21% faster than 8350. 3770K is similarly 12% faster than 8350 when you take its total runtime in the equation.
YA i was a bit high there, I gave type of numbers you give befor the release of every AMD processor.

If I took a 3770K and overclocked it to the same power usage as the amd . The intel cpu would be running around 4.4ghz when you equalize power out of the socket .. The Best metric is power usage . Time of Work is user choice but intel would have a huge advantage here. Now you could argue were talking stock. But than I would point to Amd sales numbers and profits. Ya the 8 core amd chip is fast but its a power hog. For the same power usage intel users have way better performance In hardware forums that is. The people speak with their money . Thats not going so well for Amd

Last edited by Nemesis 1; 11-13-2012 at 10:14 AM.
Nemesis 1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 10:18 AM   #30
njdevilsfan87
Golden Member
 
njdevilsfan87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,273
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lamedude View Post
SNB-E can do 125,166, or 250MHZ BCLCK.
31-38*125=3.8-4.7GHZ
That is not something you can do on SNB-EP unfortunately.
__________________
Gaming :::::: 3770k delid+CLU 4.6ghz 1.2v raystorm wc | z77-extreme6 | 32gb ddr3 | sli ek fc-titan | 2x120b ssd | 2tb-raid1 | 1300w g2 | u2713hm | xl2420te [win7 pro]
njdevilsfan87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 10:18 AM   #31
inf64
Platinum Member
 
inf64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,028
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemesis 1 View Post
The people speak with their money . Thats not going so well for Amd

Funny that 8350 has been constantly sold out at newegg. So much for not going so well for AMD. I'm willing to say that AMD will exceed their sales expectation with Vishera line,far outselling FX8/6/4 series this and next year.
__________________
ShintaiDK:"There will be no APU in PS4 and Xbox720."
ShintaiDK:"No quadchannel either.[in Kaveri]"
CHADBOGA:"Because he[OBR] is a great man."
inf64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 10:24 AM   #32
AdamK47
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 10,506
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lamedude View Post
SNB-E can do 125,166, or 250MHZ BCLCK.
31-38*125=3.8-4.7GHZ
Unfortunately, base clocks of 125, 166, and 250 do not work on the Xeons. I'd have one if they did.
__________________
Intel Core i7 4960X @ 4.5GHz - ASRock X79 Extreme11 @ 36x125MHz - 32GB G.SKILL Ripjaws Z @ 2333 DDR - Four Nvidia GTX Titans in 4-Way SLI - 256GB Vertex 4 SSD (System) - Eight 512GB Vertex 4 SSDs in 4TB RAID-0 (Games) - 4TB Deskstar 7K4000 HDD (Backup) - Pioneer BDR-206 BD-RW - Cooler Master HAF-X case - Corsair H110 cooler - LEPA G1600 power supply - Razer BlackWidow Ultimate keyboard - CST LaserTRAC 2545W trackball - DoubleSight DS-307W monitor - Shure SRH1440 headphones - Windows 8.1 Pro x64
AdamK47 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 10:36 AM   #33
AtenRa
Diamond Member
 
AtenRa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Athens Greece
Posts: 5,798
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare View Post

AMD did it and it was called the "quad-father" (two dual-core CPUs)
The Quad Father was the first true x86 quad core CPU, the Phenom I (i have a T-shirt from Cebit 2008). The dual socket was in the Athlon FX era.

Edit: Nope i was wrong, it was the dual Socket
__________________
Thief : Mantle CPU Scaling and Power evaluation
(10 CPUs at default and Overclock, including Power Consumption)

Last edited by AtenRa; 11-13-2012 at 10:41 AM.
AtenRa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 11:19 AM   #34
Makaveli
Diamond Member
 
Makaveli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,238
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by inf64 View Post
Funny that 8350 has been constantly sold out at newegg.
Sales alone doesn't guarantee anything.

If you price stuff cheap enough people will buy it.

I'm not saying it isn't a good cpu for the price you pay.

You cannot look at sales numbers alone.
__________________
Intel Core i7 970 @ 4.2Ghz 1.29v | TRUE Black Rev.C + Scythe S-Flex 1600 rpm x2 | Asus P6-T Deluxe V2 | 12GB Mushkin DDR3-1600 7-8-7-20 1T | MSI 7970 Ghz + Kraken G10 & H55 | EVGA 650 SC Physx | Logitech G15+G500 | Intel 320GB G2 Raid 0 | WD 1TB Black Storage | ESATA 2TB Green | CM 690 II Advanced | Razor Vespula | HP ZR24w | Logitech Z560 | X-FI Titanium | Corsair Pro Series Gold AX750
Makaveli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 11:47 AM   #35
inf64
Platinum Member
 
inf64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,028
Default

Well its price is positioned in the market "sweet spot" ** It's not overpriced nor under priced And debating whether AMD gets any money is absurd** I remember someone once did a calculation on production costs at Ace's HW forum and it turned out AMD payed from 45-65$ per good die** I see no reason why this would have changed especially now that AMD has zero investments in process nodes and only pays for good dies now**

When you sell that chip for ~150-200 bucks it certainly is not losing money** And then you sell same die in other form(server) for 5x more,you do the math whether they lose money or earn money** Margins are low and that is true ,but that is because AMD sells a lot of cheap CPUs(cheap dual and even quad core APUs for OEM machines) at bargain prices and they make a large part of their shipments**

PS Forum is acting up, we have a lot of ** in our posts**
__________________
ShintaiDK:"There will be no APU in PS4 and Xbox720."
ShintaiDK:"No quadchannel either.[in Kaveri]"
CHADBOGA:"Because he[OBR] is a great man."

Last edited by inf64; 11-13-2012 at 11:52 AM.
inf64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 12:34 PM   #36
Edrick
Golden Member
 
Edrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Boston MA
Posts: 1,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by inf64 View Post
When you sell that chip for ~150-200 bucks it certainly is not losing money
You are not taking into account all the R&D, packaging, overhead costs that go into making the product** Yes AMD is making some money, but not even close to where they want to be**
__________________
Core i7 4770
Gigabyte Z87X-UD3H (F5 BIOS)
G.Skill RipjawsZ 8GB @ 2400mhz 10-12-12-31
Gigabyte GTX 660
Samsung 840 Pro 256GB
Antec Eleven Hundred
Edrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 12:50 PM   #37
Ben90
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,816
Default

I'm amazed they still see a market for 130W+ CPUs in the desktop space** CMON 200W Haswell!
Ben90 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 01:07 PM   #38
mrmt
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,270
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by inf64 View Post
Well its price is positioned in the market "sweet spot"** It's not overpriced nor under priced And debating whether AMD gets any money is absurd I remember someone once did a calculation on production costs at Ace's HW forum and it turned out AMD payed from 45-65$ per good die** I see no reason why this would have changed especially now that AMD has zero investments in process nodes and only pays for good dies now

(******)

When you sell that chip for ~150-200 bucks it certainly is not losing money**
First AMD is certainly not happy with GLF pricing and execution otherwise they wouldn't have shelled out 600 million to get out of the contract with them** That means bad yields or very high costs, to the point that AMD sees more than 600 million in gains from breaking up with GLF**

Second, your numbers for costs aren't too off mark but your revenues estimates are** Assumming that AMD sold 11 million units at the confirmed 38% gross margins, this means $54 COGS per chip and ASP of $87 per chip, servers included**

AMD certainly isn't losing money on the FX 8350 but you can be pretty sure that AMD cannot sell them to retailers and distributors at $150-$200, it's way less, plus I wouldn't be so sure on them making much money, if any, on the FX 4xx0 (which shares the same 8xx0 die) or the single module Trinity, which shares the same 246mm^2 5800k die**
mrmt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 01:10 PM   #39
skipsneeky2
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 3,557
Default

Intel has popped another prescott out of the oven!

150wtdp and not very much quicker then its predecessor let alone a $600 3930k@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#how is this thing even appealing with a whopping 150w tdp?

I sense a bulldozer @#@#@#ment in@#@#@#ing as most are gonna exclaim those are the prescott chips!
skipsneeky2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 01:15 PM   #40
Makaveli
Diamond Member
 
Makaveli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,238
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skipsneeky2 View Post
Intel has popped another prescott out of the oven!

150wtdp and not very much quicker then its predecessor let alone a $600 3930k@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#how is this thing even appealing with a whopping 150w tdp?

I sense a bulldozer @#@#@#ment in@#@#@#ing as most are gonna exclaim those are the prescott chips!
How is it another prescott when its the highest performing Desktop processor they have to offer?

Prescott never held that title@#@# And if we assume your argument is about heat prescott never offered the performance for its heat generated, you cannot say the same about SB-E@#@#

Extreme edition cpu's are ment for those that want the best of the best and can afford it@#@#

Its obviously not in the market for alot of us yet you don't see me going to the lambo forum and @#@#@#plaining about the price
__________________
Intel Core i7 970 @ 4.2Ghz 1.29v | TRUE Black Rev.C + Scythe S-Flex 1600 rpm x2 | Asus P6-T Deluxe V2 | 12GB Mushkin DDR3-1600 7-8-7-20 1T | MSI 7970 Ghz + Kraken G10 & H55 | EVGA 650 SC Physx | Logitech G15+G500 | Intel 320GB G2 Raid 0 | WD 1TB Black Storage | ESATA 2TB Green | CM 690 II Advanced | Razor Vespula | HP ZR24w | Logitech Z560 | X-FI Titanium | Corsair Pro Series Gold AX750
Makaveli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 01:24 PM   #41
skipsneeky2
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 3,557
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Makaveli View Post
How is it another prescott when its the highest performing Desktop processor they have to offer?

Prescott never held that title@#@# And if we assume your argument is about heat prescott never offered the performance for its heat generated, you cannot say the same about SB-E@#@#

Extreme edition cpu's are ment for those that want the best of the best and can afford it@#@#

Its obviously not in the market for alot of us yet you don't see me going to the lambo forum and @#@#@#plaining about the price
Will reply with 2 words@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#

150w tdp,price well the smart ones are buying a 3930k,like you were the smart one buying the 970 over the 980x@#@#

Twice the tdp of a 3570k@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#a measily 200mhz jump over the 3960x@#@#
skipsneeky2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 01:28 PM   #42
ShintaiDK
Lifer
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 10,161
Default

Atleast they dont have try and fake it by calling it ACP.
__________________
Anandtech forums=Xtremesystems forums
ShintaiDK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 01:34 PM   #43
Makaveli
Diamond Member
 
Makaveli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,238
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skipsneeky2 View Post
Will reply with 2 words@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#

150w tdp,price well the smart ones are buying a 3930k,like you were the smart one buying the 970 over the 980x@#@#

Twice the tdp of a 3570k@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#a measily 200mhz jump over the 3960x@#@#
hehe I can't even see the reply with all these random characters in the post@#@#

someone please fix the forum@#@#

But I think were on the same page@#@#
__________________
Intel Core i7 970 @ 4.2Ghz 1.29v | TRUE Black Rev.C + Scythe S-Flex 1600 rpm x2 | Asus P6-T Deluxe V2 | 12GB Mushkin DDR3-1600 7-8-7-20 1T | MSI 7970 Ghz + Kraken G10 & H55 | EVGA 650 SC Physx | Logitech G15+G500 | Intel 320GB G2 Raid 0 | WD 1TB Black Storage | ESATA 2TB Green | CM 690 II Advanced | Razor Vespula | HP ZR24w | Logitech Z560 | X-FI Titanium | Corsair Pro Series Gold AX750
Makaveli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 01:43 PM   #44
blckgrffn
Diamond Member
 
blckgrffn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Blaine, MN
Posts: 6,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Makaveli View Post
hehe I can't even see the reply with all these random characters in the post@#@#

someone please fix the forum@#@#

But I think were on the same page@#@#
I thought it was me! Holy crap is it goofed to hell around here....
__________________
Crunch/Fold for the TeAm! http://forums.anandtech.com/forumdisplay.php?f=15

3930k @ 4.2 - GA-UP4 - 2x MSI TF3 7950 - 32GB EL RAM - Seasonic X650 - 840 250GB - U2913WM
blckgrffn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 01:59 PM   #45
cytg111
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,279
Default

** all your pointers are pointing .. back in your face .. It's the forums way of saying, enough with flame** allready, god**it.
__________________
404
cytg111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 02:27 PM   #46
skipsneeky2
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 3,557
Default

Wonder how long it will be before 6 core comes with a mainstream price in the $200-$300 range?

I suspect when the time for a mainstream affordable 6 core comes out from intel,they might release a low stockclocked model perhaps on a new stepping without ht and sell it for about $300 or so.

Sorta might happen like when the g0 stepped e6750 and q6600 came out.
skipsneeky2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 05:25 PM   #47
minitron
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 124
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtenRa View Post
Intel XEON E5 takes 91.5 seconds to complete the run
FX8350 needs 116 seconds to complete the run

FX8350 needs 24,5 seconds more to complete then run

116 seconds are ~26,7% more than 91,5 seconds

Edit : That makes the FX8350 ~26,7% slower than Intel XEON E5 because it needs 24,5 seconds more to finish the run.

Intel XEON E5 needs ~21,1% less time to complete the run than FX8350

That makes Intel XEON E5 ~21,1% faster than FX8350.
More bad math.

The i7 completing the task in 79% of the time it would take the FX which is not the same as the i7 being 21% faster.

I guess I must use an example for AMD fanboy:
Assuming constant speed and no acceleration...
Car A travels 1/4 Mile in 12 seconds
Car B travels 1/4 Mile in 24 seconds

Car A is not 50% faster than Car B (12/24)
Car A is 100% faster than Car B (24/12)

Or you can just try to do the reverse equation (for your terrible math) in which case 91.5 x 1.21 =/= 116.

Edumacations, go gets thems?!?

Last edited by minitron; 11-13-2012 at 05:33 PM.
minitron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 08:34 PM   #48
inf64
Platinum Member
 
inf64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,028
Default

You cannot get it,give up man.It's just over your head...
__________________
ShintaiDK:"There will be no APU in PS4 and Xbox720."
ShintaiDK:"No quadchannel either.[in Kaveri]"
CHADBOGA:"Because he[OBR] is a great man."
inf64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 09:13 PM   #49
Abwx
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by minitron View Post
The i7 completing the task in 79% of the time it would take the FX which is not the same as the i7 being 21% faster.
So if the 8350 is at 100% and the i7 as in your exemple at 79% ,
how much less time in % does is take to do the task ????

When looking at the faster CPU we start from 116 , that is
from the slower to the faster , so 116 will be the base , hence
the i7 will be 24.5/116 x 100 = 21.1% faster.

When computing by how much the slowest is slower , we go from 91.5 to 116 , that is, from faster to slower , as such the faster, 91.5 , will be the base , this time the 8350 will be 24.5/91.5 x 100 = 26.77% slower....

Inf64 is right , you understand nothing at basic maths
since you dont even realise that the faster realize the lowest
absolute number while the slowest do the higher absolute number.


Quote:
Originally Posted by inf64 View Post
You cannot get it,give up man.It's just over your head...
I sense some uncontrolled convolution in an imaginary domain...

Last edited by Abwx; 11-13-2012 at 09:18 PM.
Abwx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 09:31 PM   #50
minitron
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 124
Default

The i7 completes the task in 91.5s
The FX completes the task in 116s

The i7 is not 21% faster than the FX [1 - (91.5/116)]
The i7 is 26% faster than the FX (116/91.5)

I understand there's 10 numbers and it's hard for some of you to master them all but it's something you'll probably have to learn eventually. Then again maybe not.

Take a book out of inf64's playbook: "I'm done with you."

Last edited by minitron; 11-13-2012 at 09:37 PM.
minitron is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 -5. The time now is 02:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.