AMD competition for Core i3 (Gamers thread)

[cbn]

/begin_rant

All games released these days will take advantage of at least 4 cores if not more therefore having a quad core is the best way to go.

This is not true if we are talking online multiplayer.

A major exception would be a Coop game like Left 4 dead 2. This is because computer AI is added to the equation....and computer AI means more threads are involved.

For something like Crysis wars I would rather have pure speed combined with 120 Hz monitor....not excessive multi threading performance on a soon to be old process (like 45nm).

 

[cbn]

Did you not read my post? A dual core didn't play decent.

You had a weak dual core.

P.S. Something tells me that in the era of eight threaded programs there will still be cutting edge technology quad cores (with some sort of hyperthreading) capable of handling the workloads. At the same time I am sure someone will be selling 16 core CPUs also.

 

[Drakcol]

This is not true if we are talking online multiplayer.

A major exception would be a Coop game like Left 4 dead 2. This is because computer AI is added to the equation....and computer AI means more threads are involved.

For something like Crysis wars I would rather have pure speed combined with 120 Hz monitor....not excessive multi threading performance on a soon to be old process (like 45nm).

Like I said you obviously have a biased on dual core processors. If you want the i3 go for it, it's your choice. I'll stick to my i5. You don't need to "defend" your decision if you want the i3 when it comes out then buy it. It'll obviously excel in certain areas; will it be so much "faster" that it really makes a difference in sub-2 thread programs, probably not. Then again the i3 is quite a bit cheaper (50-80 dollars cheaper).

If you want the i3 then buy it, it will be a decent processor but it will not match the quad core when it comes to multi-thread processing. If multi-thread processing isn't your slice of cake then go for the i3. It's as simple as that.

 

[ilkhan]

Then again you forget that everything is moving to multi threaded apps. So dual cores are left in the dust. /end

No, my posts are referring to a pretty specific situation, mine. multi-threaded is great, but it doesn't help supcom.

Ill be getting either a 660 or an e8500 to replace my Q8200, just not sure which yet. And Ill be getting a 620LM/640LM/520M/540M/640M (depending on what the laptop I end up deciding on supports) for my next laptop. Im leaning towards the 660, as I can transplant it to my server when I upgrade the desktop to a sandy and lose some power usage on it eventually.

 

[cbn]

Like I said you obviously have a biased on dual core processors. If you want the i3 go for it, it's your choice. I'll stick to my i5. You don't need to "defend" your decision if you want the i3 when it comes out then buy it. It'll obviously excel in certain areas; will it be so much "faster" that it really makes a difference in sub-2 thread programs, probably not. Then again the i3 is quite a bit cheaper (50-80 dollars cheaper).

If you want the i3 then buy it, it will be a decent processor but it will not match the quad core when it comes to multi-thread processing. If multi-thread processing isn't your slice of cake then go for the i3. It's as simple as that.

Okay back to my original question: What does AMD have planned to compete against Core i3?

I think it is obvious to anyone that in this day of low cost consoles what amounts to server PC main boards for gamers isn't going to cut it anymore.

 

[Drakcol]

Okay back to my original question: What does AMD have planned to compete against Core i3?

I think it is obvious to anyone that in this day of low cost consoles what amounts to server PC main boards for gamers isn't going to cut it anymore.

Ya no problem, AMD has pretty much migrated all there newer processors to quad core and seeing as we want a fair comparison we can't compare a dual core AMD to a Dual core Intel w. hyperthreading as the Intel will be able to process two additional threads. We also do not have an reliable benchmarks out for the core i3 yet (not that I know of anyway). So for this comparison I will be comparing strictly price points. For the price the i3 is rumored to come out as you can buy a decent AMD Phenom II or a high-end Athlon II x4.

If you were strictly comparing dual cores then the best AMD has to offer is a low-end phenom II x2 or an even lower end Athlon II x2. But seeing as these are extremely low-end processors they may not be able to compete with the i3 nor do they have the hyperthreading enhancement.

If you are asking whether AMD plans on releasing a future chip to rival the i3 well I don't think AMD has any plans of releasing anything less than 3 cores anymore. Then again with the Bulldozer a 2 "core" processor would be capable of 4 int threads and may be deemed a 4 "core" processor even though it would only have 2 true "cores" .. that would be the closest thing to an i3's architecture that I can think of.
- The cores are in quotes because AMD is blurring the line between what is a core and what is not a core with the bulldozer processor.

I hope this answers your Q, it's the best that I can come up with

 

[Fox5]

This is a single player RPG? Not an online First person shooter right?

Why do I need every possible frame in this scenario as long as the game plays decently enough?

Smooth enough is smooth enough.....and I am not competing against anyone. This is why I don't care.

You're ridiculous. What FPS online shooter is going to run 'not well enough' on a quad core?
Everything Unreal engine based supports quad cores.
ID Tech 5 supports many core systems. In fact, id tech 5 is already prepared for much greater than quad cores, and the next unreal engine will go this way too.
Futuremark's new game release requires quad cores.
GTA4 basically requires quad cores.
MW2 probably benefits from quad cores as well, though without dedicated servers, I bet it'll run 'well enough' on anything with those 8 player games.
L4D2 benefits from quad cores, and likely all future valve games.

And it's not like there's a 50% difference in quad versus dual core speed, more like 10%-20% (and AMD doesn't even make duals as fast as their quads if you're looking to go on the cheap). And turbo mode on the i7s make quad cores run as fast as dual cores in games that don't support quad cores.
Your choices are: Save a bit of money and get a dual core that will soon struggle with many games (and may already struggle). The presence of AMD's low cost quad cores makes even this stupid, however.
Get a quad core, and have something that will last quite a long time, probably until ports from the next gen of consoles start coming.

BTW, Supreme Commander 2 is coming out soon. It supports quads.

And AMD's strategy is, as it has been, fight less cores with more. An i3 may be faster than an Athlon II triple/quad in quite a many things. The benefits in quad core applications will push the Athlon IIs beyond an i3. AMD already has an entire line up out, they'll just adjust prices until the average performance of an Athlon II matches the average performance of an i3.

 

[lothar]

Why are you so against quad core systems? Seriously, this is not 2005. A quad can have HT too, i7s do. So that's 8 threads and they will process stuff a hell of a lot faster than any dual core doing the same work.

I find it interesting he has a hard-on for dual cores.
Why stop at dual core? Why not drop down all the way to single core and continue salivating?

 

[Fox5]

I find it interesting he has a hard-on for dual cores.
Why stop at dual core? Why not drop down all the way to single core and continue salivating?

You know, if everything were just made in Glide, we could go back to our 3dfx cards and would never need anything beyond a single core. Glide is more efficient, don't ya know?

 

[cbn]

You're ridiculous. What FPS online shooter is going to run 'not well enough' on a quad core?

What online FPS shooter is going to run 'not well enough' on a Cray supercomputer?

But does that mean we should all buy Cray Supercomputers now?

ID Tech 5 supports many core systems. In fact, id tech 5 is already prepared for much greater than quad cores, and the next unreal engine will go this way too.
Futuremark's new game release requires quad cores.
GTA4 basically requires quad cores.
MW2 probably benefits from quad cores as well, though without dedicated servers, I bet it'll run 'well enough' on anything with those 8 player games.
L4D2 benefits from quad cores, and likely all future valve games

By the time this is implemented I'm sure octocore will be the default standard for desktop.

Besides a cutting edge dual core should have no trouble running these current four threaded programs you are talking about. I know this is true with Left 4 Dead 2.

Your choices are: Save a bit of money and get a dual core that will soon struggle with many games (and may already struggle). The presence of AMD's low cost quad cores makes even this stupid, however.

It will be interesting to see the benchmarks comparing Intel Core i3 with hyperthreading and Athlon II x4.

I have a feeling this Core i3 will probably beat it by a good margin though.

BTW, Supreme Commander 2 is coming out soon. It supports quads.

I already know some games are featuring four threads. But that doesn't mean a dual core won't be able to play it. Total computational power matters more.

 

[cbn]

I find it interesting he has a hard-on for dual cores.
Why stop at dual core? Why not drop down all the way to single core and continue salivating?

Dual core, quad core, octo-core is not the issue. I just don't see the point of needing a high TDP server mainboard to play games when the software hasn't caught up yet.

Telling me about four threaded programs doesn't count either when the latest dual core has easily handle it.

If the next generation PS4 has something like 16-32 cores then maybe I will change my mind (depending on how hardware intensive the ports are).

 

[cbn]

AMD already has an entire line up out, they'll just adjust prices until the average performance of an Athlon II matches the average performance of an i3.

Trouble is competing AMD hardware at the moment is running on a larger die size. (Phenom II die size >> Core i die size).

On top of this intel is @ 32 nm sooner which will further increase their yields per wafer.

I don't see how AMD can slash prices much longer as this is basically amounting to a battle of attrition.

 

[ilkhan]

BTW, Supreme Commander 2 is coming out soon. It supports quads.

SupCom 1 supported quads, but it was like 100%/25%/5%/5% usage per core. Absolutely shit. AFAIK its the same engine reworked, we don't know if it'll actually USE the 3rd/4th cores.

 

[Hyperlite]

Dual core, quad core, octo-core is not the issue.I just don't see the point of needing a high TDP server mainboard to play games when the software hasn't caught up yet.

Telling me about four threaded programs doesn't count either when the latest dual core has easily handle it.

If the next generation PS4 has something like 16-32 cores then maybe I will change my mind (depending on how hardware intensive the ports are).

pardon me, but what the heck are you talking about? it would take me the rest of the day to post links to all the quad capable motherboards that cost <$100. What does TDP have to do with anything anyway?

And lets take your snippit from the DA:O article. They said a dual core ran "smooth enough." that DOES NOT equal "easily handle."

 

[cbn]

pardon me, but what the heck are you talking about? it would take me the rest of the day to post links to all the quad capable motherboards that cost <$100. What does TDP have to do with anything anyway?

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=28926506&postcount=124

And lets take your snippit from the DA:O article. They said a dual core ran "smooth enough." that DOES NOT equal "easily handle."

With respect to the DA:O article realize they were using older dual cores....and those older dual cores were still sufficient. Core i3 being the latest dual core would have more computational power.

 

[Markfw]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=28926506&postcount=124



With respect to the DA:O article realize they were using older dual cores....and those older dual cores were still sufficient. Core i3 being the latest dual core would have more computational power.

The first quote, what does that have to do with TDP ?? I also don't see your point, as most games today work better on a quad, and on many, a dual-core is not "good enough" (>60 fps)
I really think you are fighting a loosing battle here. Quad motherboards are cheap, and unless you are actually using the CPU, they don't use the power or create heat of the total quad. Maybe one watt more at idle than a dual-core ?? (don't quote me on that number, its a guess, but you should get the point)

 

[cbn]

I also don't see your point, as most games today work better on a quad

I am guessing Intel will do something to these Core i3 chips to limit their overclocks so you very well just may be right.

However, If these chips scale better @ 32nm then I would have a hard time finding a way to upgrade on LGA 1156. It is a shame Intel is bypassing 32nm for quads until Sandy Bridge.

 

[Drakcol]

Trying to convince Computer Bottleneck that Quads are BETTER is like trying to convince a penguin to fly, it's just not going to happen. Qaud core processors do not require a server mainboard nor do they use a very high TDP (well other than the high end phenom II's) They will excel in multi-threaded environments but mutli-core processors still use the same core architecture as similar dual-core processors. A low in i7 has hyper threading effectively giving it 8 threads it can handle (I brought this up just because Computer Bottleneck seems to think hyper threading is a major selling point)

Quad core processor's are the present, they WILL perform equally well if not overwhelmingly better than dual-core CPUs and no nm shrink will change that. The i3 and it's cores are still based off the same architecture that the i5 and i7 processors are. They are essentially the same cores, what a smaller nm size allows is the cores to be more energy effiecent (not to the point where it saves you much money). They will also run cooler which will or at least should allow a higher overclock (not the the point where it would make a large difference over current ocing)

The i3 will be a decent low-end cpu capable of playing games that exist today (but maybe not as well as a true quad). The major downfall of the i3 is it WILL have a shorter usable life span than the quad cores meaning a few years down the road when the in-game processing becomes more intense you'll be looking for a new cpu while the quad core players (especially those with hyperhreading) will still be playing happily for some time still. It's just how it goes, if you buy mediocre hardware now you'll be buying a replacement sooner. Intel never ment the i3 to be a killer gaming processor that would take down the it's quad core's that are 50 dollars more. That would just be bad business sense.

Like I said before,if you want an i3 go buy one, but all your defending of the dual-core cpus is getting kinda foolish now. We aren't raggin on dual-cores we are stating facts that we have seen over the past few years. A new low-end dual-core cpu isn't going to magically rewrite history and make a dual-core a gamers processor of choice.

 

[cbn]

Trying to convince Computer Bottleneck that Quads are BETTER is like trying to convince a penguin to fly, it's just not going to happen.

Four is greater than two. It is not that hard to figure out.

 

[Drakcol]

Four is greater than two. It is not that hard to figure out.

Then what's the point of all the arguing?? Am I amiss here?

 

[cmdrdredd]

This is not true if we are talking online multiplayer.

A major exception would be a Coop game like Left 4 dead 2. This is because computer AI is added to the equation....and computer AI means more threads are involved.

For something like Crysis wars I would rather have pure speed combined with 120 Hz monitor....not excessive multi threading performance on a soon to be old process (like 45nm).

*yawn* you know crysis uses 4 cores too right? Wait...we discussed that 2 pages ago.

 

[cbn]

*yawn* you know crysis uses 4 cores too right? Wait...we discussed that 2 pages ago.

In interviews back in 2007 Cevat Yerli (the CEO of Crytek) said the game worked best on quad cores. But since then every test I had read says there is no difference between quad core and dual core with this game.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Since nobody has said it yet, I'll add this useless nugget of information: AMD will counter i3 with cheap quad cores utilizing speculative threading!

Yes, let's resurrect the reverse-HT rumor! Huzzah

 

[Drakcol]

Since nobody has said it yet, I'll add this useless nugget of information: AMD will counter i3 with cheap quad cores utilizing speculative threading!

Yes, let's resurrect the reverse-HT rumor! Huzzah

Ya I pretty much said that in a very long and winded way, it seems like the best option for AMD to counter the i3.

 

[cbn]

Intel never ment the i3 to be a killer gaming processor that would take down the it's quad core's that are 50 dollars more. That would just be bad business sense.

I will agree that quad core is basically the sweet spot now. In fact, I can buy a Core i5 750 CPU/mobo combo @ Fry's for anywhere between $199 and $229.

But these i3 chips are only supposed to be $87 to $120 retail for the two lowest ones. A fry's combo deal might be pretty attractive for these also.

The real question is how well will these compete against AMDs $100 offerings?

P.S. I'm sure this is one reason why consoles are so popular for the average guy surfing the net and checking email. $500 every two years for a CPU/mobo/Ram upgrade (in the case of Core i7 860) is a little bit costly. Most people just don't need really that kind of hardware to play games. In fact, most of the time this expensive stuff seemingly obsoletes long before it is ever able to be fully utilized (in the case of gamers). Buying Core i7 860 just so a person will be futureproofed for 8 threaded games....Seriously??