6 or 8 core Steamroller based AMD CPU likely?

[rtsurfer]

If this is your deadline it is better start thinking about the backup plan. AMD is giving every indication that there will be no Steamroller with more than 4 cores for the remainder of 2014.

I already have a 4770K plan in place.

But I wish I could buy an AMD product and help them survive.

Sadly the 8350 is not worth it...

 

[Centauri]

I already have a 4770K plan in place.

But I wish I could buy an AMD product and help them survive.

Sadly the 8350 is not worth it...

So you want to buy an AMD chip that is generally considered pretty competitive, and you want to do it because you're a fan of the company, but you're going to buy an Intel chip instead because... you're afraid somebody is going to make fun of you or something?

I don't get it. What's preventing you from buying an AMD CPU when your inclination is to support the company?

 

[JDG1980]

I think it's inadvisable to read too much into the mere omission of a product from a roadmap. Until about a week ago, the conventional wisdom was that Intel's Broadwell would only be available in BGA format. Then we got a leaked roadmap slide showing that it is now slated for release in a LGA 1150 "K" series chip.

The truth is that no one knows whether Steamroller will be released in a 6/8-core FX version or not. In fact, I don't think AMD has even made this decision internally yet. I suspect that whether we see this or not will depend on how well the Steamroller APUs (Kaveri) are received. If Kaveri is a big hit and everyone likes it and wonders when we'll be seeing the FX version, then I think the FX release will be fast-tracked. (Relatively speaking; it could come out within maybe 6-8 months.) On the other hand, if Kaveri receives lukewarm reviews, or if it turns out the chip's IPC isn't as good as expected or it can't clock up to 4 GHz, then the release of a FX Steamroller becomes less likely.

There is an old adage that it's better to underpromise and overdeliver than to overpromise and underdeliver. Too often in recent years, AMD has done the latter; the JF-AMD fiasco really hurt their image with enthusiasts. But I think Rory Read understands why this is a problem and has dialed it back substantially. The R9 290X graphics card was actually better than most people expected, and I hope the same will be true of Steamroller.

 

[sequoia464]

I already have a 4770K plan in place.

But I wish I could buy an AMD product and help them survive.

Sadly the 8350 is not worth it...

Don't think I would go AMD again (seeing several Z87 boards that interest me), but if you're so inclined the 8320 will save you a few $$'s - have seen them as low as $145 on Amazon - mine runs at 4300MHz with just a slight voltage bump.

 

[rtsurfer]

So you want to buy an AMD chip that is generally considered pretty competitive, and you want to do it because you're a fan of the company, but you're going to buy an Intel chip instead because... you're afraid somebody is going to make fun of you or something?

I don't get it. What's preventing you from buying an AMD CPU when your inclination is to support the company?

Man you are getting too worked up.Cool down. Let me explain myself.

I want to buy an AMD chip because I want to support the company.

Not because I fancy the idea of supporting the UNDERDOG, but because, unless I have no choice, I do not want to contribute to a MONOPOLY (Intel).

Here are the builds I have been considering

INTEL

http://pcpartpicker.com/user/fienman/saved/1Zdv

AMD

http://pcpartpicker.com/user/fienman/saved/2Ajl

I am a college student. I have a very tight budget.
I want to play BF4 and other next gen games at Ultra on 1080P. Now, I know the FX can handle it.
But the 4770K is more future proof.

I might not be able to upgrade this PC for I don't know how many years.
So, I intend to extract every ounce of performance from whatever I build a.k.a overclocking.

So I have to go with an expensive(relatively) board on both the builds.

This basically kills AMD's cheaper advantage.
To overclock FX 8350 to something like 4.8 to 5 Ghz, I need a proper board.
That brings the AMD build within 70$ range of Intel. And the AM3+ platform might not see another update.

This is my main problem. While on Intel I can snag the Haswell successor on ebay or something, 2 years after its release. AMD would require a new board.

Upgrade path aside, spending 70$ more gives me a performance boost that is hard to overlook.

Now if AMD would be releasing 4M/8T SR around Q2 2014, then maybe I could wait. But we don't have a date. The more I wait, the more close I get to the Haswell refresh.Which means that if I wait till April for AMD and nothing shows up, then I feel like I will have wait for Haswell successor (eventhough it might be just 5-7% faster) . I don't want to wait anymore. I have already waited 1.5 Years for this build and I am running out of patience:|.

I think it's inadvisable to read too much into the mere omission of a product from a roadmap. Until about a week ago, the conventional wisdom was that Intel's Broadwell would only be available in BGA format. Then we got a leaked roadmap slide showing that it is now slated for release in a LGA 1150 "K" series chip.

The truth is that no one knows whether Steamroller will be released in a 6/8-core FX version or not. In fact, I don't think AMD has even made this decision internally yet. I suspect that whether we see this or not will depend on how well the Steamroller APUs (Kaveri) are received. If Kaveri is a big hit and everyone likes it and wonders when we'll be seeing the FX version, then I think the FX release will be fast-tracked. (Relatively speaking; it could come out within maybe 6-8 months.) On the other hand, if Kaveri receives lukewarm reviews, or if it turns out the chip's IPC isn't as good as expected or it can't clock up to 4 GHz, then the release of a FX Steamroller becomes less likely.

There is an old adage that it's better to underpromise and overdeliver than to overpromise and underdeliver. Too often in recent years, AMD has done the latter; the JF-AMD fiasco really hurt their image with enthusiasts. But I think Rory Read understands why this is a problem and has dialed it back substantially. The R9 290X graphics card was actually better than most people expected, and I hope the same will be true of Steamroller.

I hope so too.

 

[sequoia464]

For Fjodor2001, I offer this song to keep your hopes alive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycbgHM1mI0k

Off the subject but;

This song lured me in, just spent the last couple of hours back in the 60's

 

[Centauri]

Man you are getting too worked up.Cool down.

That some sorta reverse psychology thing?

 

[guskline]

Off the subject but;

This song lured me in, just spent the last couple of hours back in the 60's

Being born in 1951, that era was GREAT!

 

[rtsurfer]

That some sorta reverse psychology thing?

No. I just said this because you said if I was maybe afraid of buying AMD because someone might make fun of me. I was a bit surprised that you reached that conclusion.I don't give a crap about what a bunch of people on internet have to say about something I bought on my own choice.

Anyways, might me a poor choice of words on my side. Sorry

 

[sequoia464]

Being born in 1951, that era was GREAT!

1952

 

[Enigmoid]

Man you are getting too worked up.Cool down. Let me explain myself.

I want to buy an AMD chip because I want to support the company.

Not because I fancy the idea of supporting the UNDERDOG, but because, unless I have no choice, I do not want to contribute to a MONOPOLY (Intel).

Here are the builds I have been considering

INTEL

http://pcpartpicker.com/user/fienman/saved/1Zdv

AMD

http://pcpartpicker.com/user/fienman/saved/2Ajl

I am a college student. I have a very tight budget.
I want to play BF4 and other next gen games at Ultra on 1080P. Now, I know the FX can handle it.
But the 4770K is more future proof.

I might not be able to upgrade this PC for I don't know how many years.
So, I intend to extract every ounce of performance from whatever I build a.k.a overclocking.

So I have to go with an expensive(relatively) board on both the builds.

This basically kills AMD's cheaper advantage.
To overclock FX 8350 to something like 4.8 to 5 Ghz, I need a proper board.
That brings the AMD build within 70$ range of Intel. And the AM3+ platform might not see another update.

This is my main problem. While on Intel I can snag the Haswell successor on ebay or something, 2 years after its release. AMD would require a new board.

Upgrade path aside, spending 70$ more gives me a performance boost that is hard to overlook.

Now if AMD would be releasing 4M/8T SR around Q2 2014, then maybe I could wait. But we don't have a date. The more I wait, the more close I get to the Haswell refresh.Which means that if I wait till April for AMD and nothing shows up, then I feel like I will have wait for Haswell successor (eventhough it might be just 5-7% faster) . I don't want to wait anymore. I have already waited 1.5 Years for this build and I am running out of patience:|.



I hope so too.

Don't buy an expensive cooler, don't buy an expensive Mobo or expensive RAM, put the money in the bank and upgrade your PC a year earlier than originally planned.

Today it pretty much doesn't matter whether you went with a Q9400 or a Q9550. They both perform poorly compared to CPUs released a couple year later.

LGA 1150 is pretty much a dead socket. Broadwell isn't going to be compelling enough for someone on a 'budget'.

 

[rtsurfer]

Don't buy an expensive cooler, don't buy an expensive Mobo or expensive RAM, put the money in the bank and upgrade your PC a year earlier than originally planned.

Today it pretty much doesn't matter whether you went with a Q9400 or a Q9550. They both perform poorly compared to CPUs released a couple year later.

LGA 1150 is pretty much a dead socket. Broadwell isn't going to be compelling enough for someone on a 'budget'.

Believe me I have tried to cut as much fat as I could on this build.

Nothing is there unless it is needed.

As to your Q9400 and Q9550 comparison. They both perform worse than there successive generation of parts, but to a varying degree .

Plus as we are reaching the pinnacle of transistors shrinkage, the performance difference between the successive generations of CPUs is getting really small.

For example, If I had bought a 2770K, then I wouldn't really buy 4770K, because it is not that much faster.

 

[Soulkeeper]

In my mind AMD has yet to definitively beat Q9xxx performance.

 

[Centauri]

Somebody probably makes a pill for that.

 

[kagui]

the only posible refresh to the socket. according to roadmaps is warsaw, based on piledriver is the only non hsa chip will be 12 to 16 cores, improved power consumption and increased turbo to be released 2h of 2014. and prob build on a new node

 

[NTMBK]

the only posible refresh to the socket. according to roadmaps is warsaw, based on piledriver is the only non hsa chip will be 12 to 16 cores, improved power consumption and increased turbo to be released 2h of 2014. and prob build on a new node

Warsaw is just another respin of Piledriver- it's probably a MCM, like the current Piledriver 16-core parts. No exciting new silicon.

 

[NTMBK]

In my mind AMD has yet to definitively beat Q9xxx performance.

Unfortunately your mind is pretty incorrect. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/49?vs=697

 

[Soulkeeper]

Unfortunately your mind is pretty incorrect. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/49?vs=697

I figured someone would quote me ...

clock for clock thread for thread AMD still struggles to compete with core2

even with that 1GHz handicap and the link you provided ...
"definitively" being the key word here

The average joe is going to be hard pressed to tell the difference between 30 and 40 seconds.

 

[bgt]

Sadly the 8350 is not worth it...

The 8350 is worth every penny. Let benches not fool you. The practical experience is that it is a very snappy CPU. Ok, it may loose in Intel optimized benches but in general you would not know the difference.
The reason I dont have a 4770K system yet is the C2 fault and the lid on the CPU being not very nice. So I just wait for the next steppings.

 

[inf64]

The average joe is going to be hard pressed to tell the difference between 30 and 40 seconds.

Oh rly?
Following this logic the same thing could be said (even more so as the difference is much smaller than in case of what NTMBK linked) in this case:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/837?vs=697
4670K vs 8350. 4670K is 10% pricier on newegg.

But this is a topic about SR core and not PD,core2 or core i7/i5.

 

[Soulkeeper]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/49?vs=700
That match up is better.

You could prolly pickup a used dual socket Q9xxx system off ebay for cheaper than an FX-8* if you wanted to compare equal thread count.

 

[NTMBK]

I figured someone would quote me ...

clock for clock thread for thread AMD still struggles to compete with core2

even with that 1GHz handicap and the link you provided ...
"definitively" being the key word here

The average joe is going to be hard pressed to tell the difference between 30 and 40 seconds.

Who cares about clock for clock or thread for thread? The things that matter are overall performance. The way that the CPU hits those points doesn't matter, so long as it hits them. And I'd say it's pretty definitive- on some of those tests it's going twice as fast as the Q9650.

AMD are definitely lagging behind Intel's latest stuff, especially in performance/W. But saying that they haven't surpassed 5 year old processors is both insulting and incorrect. The 8350 is slightly faster than Nehalem on average (considerably faster on multithreaded tasks, but slightly slower on single threaded tasks).

 

[NTMBK]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/49?vs=700
That match up is better.

You could prolly pickup a used dual socket Q9xxx system off ebay for cheaper than an FX-8* if you wanted to compare equal thread count.

What is your obsession with thread count? The whole point of Piledriver was to share resources and fit more cores into the same die area more efficiently. Of course it's going to have more threads.

 

[Idontcare]

I think it's inadvisable to read too much into the mere omission of a product from a roadmap.

Well said.

 

[Enigmoid]

As to your Q9400 and Q9550 comparison. They both perform worse than there successive generation of parts, but to a varying degree .

But if you are unsatisfied with the Q9400 performance you will be unsatisfied with the Q9550 performance. Its like 10% faster. A 4670K is basically double the speed of the Q9550.

In this case you would be better served having gone with the Q9400 and upgrading to the 3570k instead of going with the Q9550 and upgrading to the 4570k as that year you have the 3570k vs the Q9550 is going to make a much bigger difference than the years you had a Q9550 vs a Q9400.

My advice, just get an i5 vs an i7 and if you are on a budget (which I would not call a $1000 build 'budget') get a cheaper board. Haswell is pretty much silicon lottery and your mobo makes little difference.