Does AMD have any hope against Intel?

[Phynaz]

You just proved his point.

Perhaps you got colors in the charts confused? The Intel chip is faster.

 

[Lepton87]

BT has 10%/20% less IPC than a Bobcat in INT/FP

Do you have any benchmarks to support that claim? Because from what I remember BT was almost evenly matched with Jaguar/Puma not to mention Bobcat.

 

[Phynaz]

I checked the corporates results for Q3, none of the supposed targeted firms did suffer the slightest way, Apple did at most lose 1-3 millions tablet sales for H1 2014, Qualcomm got strong growth and profits, their problem is rather LTE licencees that are cheating, and Samsung used Snapdragon 805 anyway, so all Intel pretenses are just bad covers as the only firm that had to suffer dire consequence is AMD, the proof is in the pudding.

As usual poor AMD's problems are never of their own making.

 

[Phynaz]

Re-reading all my posts it sounds like I've converted from an AMD fanboy to an Intel fanboy.

I honestly didn't mean it to sound like that, but my experience was truly traumatic going from AMD to Intel then back to AMD. So don't blame me

P.S. All Hail Intel ! *hitler salute*

just kidding xD

Wtf?

 

[Lepton87]

The sub-250 ones don't seem that bad. Well, they do come with Windows 8 which is unfortunately a reality these days.

What's bad about Windows 8? I was really appalled at the new Fisher Price UI but I switched to Win 8.1 and installed classic shell and I use it almost like Windows 7. It should be faster and more secure although I haven't seen straight comparisons to confirm that. The point is I prefer Win 8.1 with classic shell to Win 7 but I never use the new interface or apps for it. I hate those. Win 10 should be even better with multiple desktop a feature that has been missing in windows for years, I had it on my Macbook with OS X Leopard with a Core 2 Duo. How many years ago was that? Shame on MS for that.

 

[Lepton87]

You're completely lost. Its not like I've never used an i5 760 or an FX before. A Lynnfield i5 is a sad, old 2.8 Ghz chip..... The Bulldozers may have been a huge disappointment, but they still will own a Lynnfield any day of the week.

It really isn't close..... I mean seriously:
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/317/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8150_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-760.html

The benchmarks tell the whole story. You're not even in the same zip code.

Why don't you try living in the real world for a day, dude......

I agree with him, Lynnfield is better, especially HT enabled one which is on par with Bloomfield, as for i5-750 it needs an overclock and it will be a better chip all around then OC-ed BD. i5 750@3.8GHz vs 8150@4.6GHz, that's typical overclocks for both, i5 will be better, massively so in games and other programs that rely heavily on performance of a strong single thread. In MT workloads it might be close, but take an i7 Lynnfield and Intel will be better.

 

[Spawne32]

What's bad about Windows 8? I was really appalled at the new Fisher Price UI but I switched to Win 8.1 and installed classic shell and I use it almost like Windows 7. It should be faster and more secure although I haven't seen straight comparisons to confirm that. The point is I prefer Win 8.1 with classic shell to Win 7 but I never use the new interface or apps for it. I hate those. Win 10 should be even better with multiple desktop a feature that has been missing in windows for years, I had it on my Macbook with OS X Leopard with a Core 2 Duo. How many years ago was that? Shame on MS for that.

I think the general point is that you shouldn't need to install classic shell to make windows 8 or 8.1 usable. One thing that made windows 8 miserable was the distinct separation between apps and programs, and the inability to close anything once you've opened it. It was a lame attempt to bring tablets and phones together with the PC interface. Nobody understood how it worked because it was a terrible layout. From what ive seen windows 10 improves on this dramatically, with the ability to interpret what sort of system its on and setup the interface appropriately. The enhancements to the UI are actually usable and easier to figure out, but more importantly, apps and programs now work together with each other.

 

[Enigmoid]

Do you have any benchmarks to support that claim? Because from what I remember BT was almost evenly matched with Jaguar/Puma not to mention Bobcat.

BT (J1900 vs 5350) has higher clocks (2.4 ghz vs. 2.05 ghz) for a smidgen less performance.

 

[Lepton87]

BT (J1900 vs 5350) has higher clocks (2.4 ghz vs. 2.05 ghz) for a smidgen less performance.

J1900 2.4GHz is its turbo clock we don't know the average clock it is running at during benchmarks.

 

[Abwx]

Do you have any benchmarks to support that claim? Because from what I remember BT was almost evenly matched with Jaguar/Puma not to mention Bobcat.

You can extract a few numbers from these reviews, there s a mistake in CB11.5 though, the J1900 ST score should be 0.48-.49 and not 0.42 according to other reviews but it doesnt change the whole picture.

http://tweakers.net/reviews/3502/5/het-am1-platform-met-athlon-apu-prestaties-de-cpu.html

http://www.modders-inc.com/amd-athlon-5350-am1-apu-review/4/

If it wasnt 40nm a Bobcat would be competitive with a BT, better IPC on FP and Integer and even better GPU.

Intel is really late and they know it, what bother them is that it wont take long before every child gets a tablet, that s a huge market in the coming and they dont want AMD to acquire brand reconition in this segment, moreover given that Mullins has much better behaviour than BT, so they are craming bns because they think that it s few quanttity compared to what would be lost on the long term should AMD get their product in stores.

What is ironic is that the same people who trash AMD because they are not as good in DTs are now relying to terms like "good" enough", "the consumer do not care" to try to prop up what is a definitly outmatched product that has no winning point, it s not like in the DT where AMD manage to get the best GPU, here Intel has both worse CPU and GPU but there s still be people who defend their anti competive practices, no choice for the consumer is branded as not important...

 

[Enigmoid]

J1900 2.4GHz is its turbo clock we don't know the average clock it is running at during benchmarks.

On the desktop it runs turbo constantly. Look at reviews.

 

[AtenRa]

Perhaps you got colors in the charts confused? The Intel chip is faster.

You should look again, some tests are "lower is better"

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/434?vs=191

 

[Abwx]

As usual poor AMD's problems are never of their own making.

They would be the only responsible if they were living in an insulated market where others actors have no big influence, but when the competition flood 25% of the 8.1 mobile market with free chips and subsides just dont pretend that it has no negative influences, the market is not infinitely extensible, although you seems to think that i t s so...

 

[Abwx]

You should look again, some tests are "lower is better"

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/434?vs=191

Not only that, for Mtheaded softs the ST scores are irrelevant, no one will use CB or Handbrake in single thread, happily there s a serie of Sysmark to help make some pathetic points in favour of the ix.

 

[Kabery]

Intel's chips are better, while AMD's are cheaper. Thats my opinion

 

[monstercameron]

Intel's chips are better, while AMD's are cheaper. Thats my opinion

That is a bad opinion and does a disservice to the truth.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

Problem is when amd makes a better cpu, intel can simply lower prices, and amd will still not make much on their cpu's.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

I agree with him, Lynnfield is better, especially HT enabled one which is on par with Bloomfield, as for i5-750 it needs an overclock and it will be a better chip all around then OC-ed BD. i5 750@3.8GHz vs 8150@4.6GHz, that's typical overclocks for both, i5 will be better, massively so in games and other programs that rely heavily on performance of a strong single thread. In MT workloads it might be close, but take an i7 Lynnfield and Intel will be better.

Negative..... An overclocked Lynnfield can only edge out an overclocked Bulldozer on some single threaded games. The Bulldozer mops the floor in virtually every other category (rendering, multi-threaded games, archiving, ripping, encoding, etc -- re-read the benchmarks.....) Way too many people are misreading the Anand benches, many of the those benchmarks are rendering times -- in which the lower score (FX-8150) is superior.

There are several tasks where the FX 8150 was roughly TWICE as powerful compared to the i5 -- (7 Zip, x264 HD Encode Test - 2nd pass, POV-Ray 3.7 beta 23). Where the i5 actually won a benchmark, it was a marginal win around 5% to 25% faster.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/434?vs=191

It is a walloping based on Anand's real world benchmarks.... The AMD chip won 23 of the benchmarks, the Intel barely squeaked out 9 wins. So how exactly is an i5 760 "was DEFINITELY faster in EVERY aspect" by the OP? I call complete B.S. from someone who probably never owned an AMD chip in his life. Don't feed the troll.

The Lynnfield is no Haswell..... It wasn't even close. We are talking about an ancient 45 nanometer Intel chip -- it's pretty dumb to try to convince people it is a superior chip to a 32 nanometer SOI eight core. I mean seriously, WTH? Common sense would go a long way on this forum.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Perhaps you got colors in the charts confused? The Intel chip is faster.

LOL, so the AMD chip won 23 of the benchmarks and the i5 only 9 -- yet "The Intel chip is faster." LOL indeed.

Ahem, some charts are "Lower Score Is Better."

But sweet -- let's run with it.... We can write new marketing slogans for Intel! The awesome Intel i5 760 Adds 40% of rendering time to the 3dsmax r9 - SPECapc - Underwater benchmark compared to the lame AMD FX-8150!

Okay, sarcasm off/

 

[Enigmoid]

Negative..... An overclocked Lynnfield can only edge out an overclocked Bulldozer on some single threaded games. The Bulldozer mops the floor in virtually every other category (rendering, multi-threaded games, archiving, ripping, encoding, etc -- re-read the benchmarks.....) Way too many people are misreading the Anand benches, many of the those benchmarks are rendering times -- in which the lower score (FX-8150) is superior.

There are several tasks where the FX 8150 was roughly TWICE as powerful compared to the i5 -- (7 Zip, x264 HD Encode Test - 2nd pass, POV-Ray 3.7 beta 23). Where the i5 actually won a benchmark, it was a marginal win around 5% to 25% faster.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/434?vs=191

It is a walloping based on Anand's real world benchmarks.... The AMD chip won 23 of the benchmarks, the Intel barely squeaked out 9 wins. So how exactly is an i5 760 "was DEFINITELY faster in EVERY aspect" by the OP? I call complete B.S. from someone who probably never owned an AMD chip in his life. Don't feed the troll.

The Lynnfield is no Haswell..... It wasn't even close. We are talking about an ancient 45 nanometer Intel chip -- it's pretty dumb to try to convince people it is a superior chip to a 32 nanometer SOI eight core. I mean seriously, WTH? Common sense would go a long way on this forum.

Do you even listen to the OP?

Its an 4.0 ghz overclocked Lynfield (by about 43%) vs a 4.4 ghz 8150 (22%). Furthermore at the time, in GAMES, more than 4 cores was rarely taken advantage of. I don't agree with the OP's view but the 8150 was a bad CPU. Just for kicks Lynfield at 4.0 is about equivalent to SB at 3.5 (2500k).

 

[AnandThenMan]

nm

 

[Enigmoid]

You just shifted the goalposts around about 5 times.

Me?

 

[AnandThenMan]

I edited my post don't feel like getting into it. :|

 

[cytg111]

I edited my post don't feel like getting into it. :|

good call

 

[Omar F1]

I'd never forget the day back when Anand listed the early performance figures of Core2, six months ahead of it's release, and man it was awesome.
At last, the fixed $300 price of A64 X2 3800+ would be broken (I always dreamed to own one).

I'd really love if some executive at Intel would answer the question:
If AMD didn't dominate with it's A64 / A64 X2, till when would they kept shoving P4s into our throats ! and when was their future project (Core) initially scheduled for release ???

God bless the competition ...