AMD is no longer world fastest cpu?

[mnewsham]

Bulldozer 12 core VS 2700K 6 core

and the winner is AMD !!! end of story

it's funny because it wont be true unless it is very highly threaded program.

 

[tweakboy]

And it is my Sonar X1 can use all the ram and cpu it can get.


Other people do video editing,,,, or pro tools

For this more core the better

It will matter for me but maybe not a casual pc user surfs net and views pic and plays games and what not....

 

[Fox5]

Uh yeah gulftowns, sweet - sorry, but those are hardly the fastest CPUs out there. Sure from 1k to six digits upwards is a steep step, but then price isn't important

Different scenarios have different needs and price (not just the purchase price though) is almost always one of them - ignoring that is just ignorant or only of academic interest (well and I assume it's easier to brag with it). And then we still ignore the most important question here - "fastest" in what regard (throughput, latency, which benchmark,..) and what exactly do we count (peak power of a GPU is certainly higher than that of any CPU out there)?

Gulftown likely competes with the fastest general purpose cpus available. Generally higher priced stuff just because more specialized (good at only a select few things) or massively parallel, so the performance of the individual chip doesn't matter. And the highest performance systems will be water cooled, and you could get an i7 up pretty high in speed with water cooling.

 

[dac7nco]

Tweakboy, AMD's current chips have around the same IPC as your Q6600. That's not a bad thing, but if you ran your Sonar suite on an i7 you would understand better. A 2600K and 16GB of cheap memory would fly for what you do - an AMD 1100T much less so. The 6-core AM3s and 12-core G34s are a less-effective, inelegant, brute-force approach to matching Intel's architectural refinements. AMD did some great things like moving off of the FSB, and introducing 64-bit computing into the x86 space... They haven't done anything in the last 5+ years, IMO, except grab a GFX company. We first heard about Bulldozer going on 4 years ago, and all of a sudden it's supposed to be the greatest thing since sliced bread - I wouldn't be surprised if this was another "Phenom" launch. They need help.

 

[SirGCal]

You've got a nice system bro make no mistake, I'm just not going to defend a CPU that's soundly beaten when the cost to achieve that added performance is barely there. Why anyone would mention a $1,000 CPU in this thread is beyond me, AMD dose not have a CPU with that kind of performance which is exactly why it's $1,000. I have an PII x3 myself and I've never once purchased an Intel CPU in my life because of their typically massive premium. At the moment I'm just focusing on the products Intel has released within AMD's current price bracket. Given the options no, AMD six core part is not worth its cost right now to anyone no matter what their *needs* are. You can put together a sandy bridge system for merely an extra fifty bucks, and the kicker, it's actually worth every penny over the x6.

ANYWHO. I won't rant any longer. The Phenom II is EOL right now, not trying to harp on your system I'm just saying from a technological stand point I really don't think you understand core per core what Intel is doing to AMD right now. It's not pretty.

And as for my knowledge, I know a ton more then anyone here would care to admit. I used to work for one of the big two itself and still work in the semiconductor industry directly in areas of design, testing and engineering. I know more then most of the public ever will reading third-party reviews or going to electronic conferences. But that aside, one of your own comments proved a view of opinion many here were trying to make...

To those who still think if AMD folds that CPUs won't go through the roof again (think back in time... anyhow)... The $1k X is the perfect example that it will. Per your own words which I italicized; without direct competition, the price will be what ever they want it to be. The only competitive prices will be where there are competitive alternatives. And if they become too strong; they can undercut the competition and force them out all together by taking a loss on those competitive parts to force the competition to sell under a profit at which point no company can survive. And NOBODY wants that to happen. In a perfect world, they would keep swapping the crown back and forth and perhaps even a third player or more would return and get into the mix competitively. The simple fact is that when any one manufacturer takes a commanding lead, only the consumers will suffer.

Even for gaming cores, it doesn't look like we're alone thinking AMD isn't out of the running yet... Infact, they got a strong share of the list here for mainstream gaming rigs January lineup by tom's. Infact, of all listed, there were 5 AMD and 6 Intel cores if I counted accurately. Sounds pretty well blended depending on your focus and budget needs...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu-core-i5-2500k-amd-e350,2843.html

But then again we come back to the simple point that there's hardly a game out there worth playing anymore with them all being console ports...

While I hold all of these types of reviews very lightly, none-the-less it looks like AMD is far from 'out of it'. They don't have the top of the pile, as I do believe everyone has admitted. But they are far from junk by any stretch of the word. As for End of Life, everything gets there eventually. And with the new generation literally days away... What's the point until we have hard data?

I can guarantee though if AMD falls seriously short, we're all going to end up paying for it in the long run. The biggest difference between AMD and Intel is Intel is a cash-cow with huge financial stockpiles. AMD however has always been far more restricted in their budget department. But if competition truly ceases, only consumers/businesses will suffer.

But as for right this moment; it still greatly depends on the individual user's needs and specifics for which may serve them best. Those who say AMD is all junk and out of it are simply blind to the truth that most people don't need a Ferrari to go to the store and run errands. And when you get into the mainstream budget area, both companies have excellent options. And if you have the need or money for a Ferrari, then by all means. But most Mustang Cobra's can spank the majority of cars out there... It's all about what the individual person is after, what their budget is, and what their goals are.

Sure with my personal example; there are Intel units that would serve me wonderfully. But to me the cost to performance at the time of the purchase; that was not the case. Otherwise I'd likely be rocking an i(something) right now but at the time, a comparable Intel setup was going to cost almost 30% more than I spent for the same level of parts. If I was going to buy right this minute, today, with the new Intel chips that just came out.. That might not be the case...

And for those people still hung up on the 1100T 6-core... It was a gift... My original purchase was a 965 BE quad. Read through my personal blog's review history if you don't want to believe me. That quad's performance in games was actually a hair better than my hex's. But the hex works much faster for me in my productivity endeavors so for me it's a no-brainer. But in the end it still comes down to what the user wants and needs are to what would be best suited for them. To say absolutely that one brand or another is a stupid choice no matter what is just frankly a really uneducated and unsupportable comment. And from the above review, it seems even other would-be professionals seem to agree with my opinions on that.

Simply put, I might currently go Intel if I was to rebuild my main rig today. But I still can't touch Intel for my HTPC needs for the price I can build a full AMD rig with quality parts even if I really wanted to. Could I build an Intel HTPC; absolutely. Have done, many times. Does that mean it's the best choice for everyone in every situation? Absolutely not.

But I'm unsubscribing from this thread in particular since it seems the anti-AMD crowd seems to be coming out of the woodwork. I'm not talking to anyone in particular here but... I don't like anti-anything for the simple reason that we need good competition. Fanboys and anti-brands for no other reason need to get a real understanding of how the industry really works and what damage that really does to all of us. We should all be electronic-lovers and technology-geeks, regardless of who's name is on the label and support a strong competition. But since it seems to have become a 'pick the posts apart' competition here instead of looking at the whole intend of a given post... I've lost interest and have no desire to feed the flamers with more fuel. Pick this apart all you like; I won't be watching it. Perhaps I'll peak back in later but I won't be notified as usual.

For those of you who truly do not believe competition is the key to a good consumer market; I'm sorry, there's really no help for ya. You're as wrong as could possibly be and I don't know how to even suggest you get a better perspective accept perhaps to go take some real business and economy classes on your own. Monopolies hurt the consumers in ways that are almost endless to list. Price hikes and technology slowdowns being two of the huge ones that come to mind.

And why? Look at the Xbox and other consoles for a prime example. They could easily put out something many times over better. But they don't. Why? Cause they're still selling what they made almost a decade ago. Why spend the money to research a new design when they can milk the one they got... All three major players have ideas but all of them have also said they just have no need to replace their current offerings. Even the Wii without HD of all things... And that not only hurts the consumers who actually use them but from other aspects also such as game development. Look how it's stagnated over the years. It's a snow-ball effect effecting multiple different areas and companies from just one initial source. And that's even an example WITH competition... Imagine if there was only one how much longer they would milk it... Still doubtful? Can't help ya...

 

[mnewsham]

Tl;dr

 

[paperwastage]

You can get motherboard+quad cpu (even with full L3$ if you are unlocking)+4GB ram for the price of an iCore quad CPU alone.

For a $200-$250 upgrade it will give you very decent performance. And it it will let you toss a $250-300 GPU in there for <$500 upgrade.

There won't be many games/applications where such setup won't give you enjoyable performance/usage.

yeah, thats why I said quad AMD chips are price/performance worthy. But the x6 is no longer worthy, since its just a tad cheaper than the i5-2500k, and you can get a decent mobo for the i5 at 100, a little more than a decent AMD mobo at maybe 80

That's just false.

well for idle sure(more like 20W), but for load, 50 is possible. Google "i5 2500 + power consumption", they test AMD and intel systems(same GPU/RAM/PSU, different mobo/chip)

10w difference idle, 50-60w load
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i5-2500-2400-2300_10.html

close to 50w for idle AND load here

http://www.techspot.com/review/353-intel-sandy-bridge-corei5-2500k-corei7-2600k/page15.html

 

[Rifter]

How many times do we really need to have this discussion?

Its pretty simple, we need AMD around to keep intel from raping us with prices. And if AMD does pull off a miracle with BD then we need intel around to keep AMD from raping us with prices like the p4/A64 days.

If you want the faster chips buy intel. If you want a chip thats cheaper but still fast enough to get the job done buy a AMD quad(as mentioned AMD needs to pull there heads out of there asses with the current X6 prices)

I own 1 intel system(main gaming rig) and 3 AMD systems and they all serve there intended purspose very well.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

AMD systems have a place. The cheapest i3 system is still pretty pricey. Those motherboards are north of $100 easily and so is the CPU.

I've been looking at a NAS setup and an Athlon II solution is perfect. I might try the i3 simply because of power savings, but Athlon II + Mobo can easily run for just over $130 or so. Try doing that when you need $130 on a mobo alone for an i3. Then throw on the $120 CPU.

You're right, if I had money, I'd go Intel all the way. I got a bonus last summer, I cashed out immediately on an i7 930 + 6gb + $250 X58 mobo. But when I want to keep my NAS build as cheap as possible, I can't just pick Intel that easily.

 

[natto fire]

I also got out of following CPUs, partly because my computing needs changed, and partly because trying to research them became very frustrating with retarded biases and fanboism (as this thread clearly demonstrates). I just gave up on new games and have owned a netbook for about 2 years now. After playing OpenTTD, Xcom, SC3000, and the like, I am ready to game for real again. I am doing a new build, and Sandy Bridge is indeed impressive, I am picking one up because I can't wait for Bulldozer. So yeah, Intel apparently took it very personally that they were getting creamed with Netburst and came up with a good arch.

To reiterate the clich&#233;d argument that it is excellent they are both in the game seems silly, because although if just one did end up top, put the other out of business, there would be a "dark age" of CPUs for a while. Only a short while though, unless the victor was truly evil and destroyed the manufacturing capacity of the loser. Another company would come along and fill the niche. The only places in business that monopolies take place is when the PUCO is involved...

 

[Rifter]

AMD systems have a place. The cheapest i3 system is still pretty pricey. Those motherboards are north of $100 easily and so is the CPU.

This is not true now that 1155 is out, a ASUS P7H55-M LX is $83 at local shop, and a i3 540 is 99.99. Im sure you americans can do better than that too since canada always has higher prices.

Im sure the i3 1155 chips will be pricy to start off though but will also perform better.

 

[Rifter]

i3 1155 chips ,yes ,,it's good.

i agree, waiting for them to come out to build a second HTPC.

 

[fire400]

the performance road changed in "year: 2006" ...

doesn't that sound kind of science fiction, lol...