Does AMD have any hope against Intel?

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Not unless perception changes. Amd makes great bang for the buck stuff but is dogged in general by pc enthusiasts.

 

[2is]

To be honest, I want AMD gone. The sooner the better.

I have a huge vendetta against AMD. You see... I had AMD CPUs all my life, my first PC had an Athlon K7... then came the x64 stuff I had that too... Then I upgraded to a Phenom triple-core then to a Phenom II quad, never used an Intel CPU before as I was a huge AMD fan boy.

Then... My life was about to change, I decided to give in and try an Intel CPU for the first time... That CPU would be my i5-760. When I first used it, I was just shocked, utterly shocked, like as if someone took the blindfold away from my eyes and I finally saw the light. Everything was just so much faster and more responsive, games ran better, applications opened faster, everything, literally everything was better.

When the AMD eight-cores came out, literally the week it was released, I decided to buy a new system to support one, the FX-8150, thinking it would wreck the i5-760 with its "eight-awesome-AMD-cores". So when I was so excited to test my new system, I realized how bad it was compared to my older i5-760... Everything was slower, games ran worse, applications loaded slower... I literally wasted almost a thousand dollars on an entirely new system.

To this day, I'm pretty upset and have vowed NEVER to buy an AMD CPU ever again. Second thing I learned was to do extensive research on any product before purchasing, especially if I'm spending a lot of money.

So yes... I hate AMD and I hope it dies in hellfire!

/endrantandlifestory

I'm no AMD fan, all my systems are Intel, but your problem is you, not AMD. The highlighted part should be the first thing you learn, not the second.

 

[chrisjames61]

It performs rather poorly against PII x6 despite having two more cores and a node advantage. PII x8 (with arch tweaks- stars) on 32 nm would have dominated it.

That isn't true at all. STARS was at the end of the road. Llano was a die shrunk "32 nm" Phenom II and it sucked.

 

[chrisjames61]

I'm no AMD fan, all my systems are Intel, but your problem is you, not AMD. The highlighted part should be the first thing you learn, not the second.

Pretty sure he is trolling for people to agree with his general lack of cognitive skills.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Still yabbering about the i5 at a meagre stock speed of 2.8Ghz. Of course the AMD will win at those speeds. Let's compare them both at their potential instead of at stock.

Unfortunately, the i5-760 @ 4Ghz DID stomp my FX-8150 @ 4.4Ghz in every game I played.

Again, the benchmarks don't support what you're saying -- and FX chips have more overclocking headroom than Lynnfield chips. An overclocked FX is faster than a Lynnfield on multithreaded games (which is a majority of modern titles). The benchmarks are very decisive and completely disprove what you are saying.

Enough already -- it's obvious you are just a troll trying to stir up nonsense.

 

[chrisjames61]

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

just kidding xD

Not a good thing to kid about under any circumstances.

 

[chrisjames61]

Again, the benchmarks don't support what you're saying -- and FX chips have more overclocking headroom than Lynnfield chips. An overclocked FX is faster than a Lynnfield on multithreaded games (which is a majority of modern titles). The benchmarks are very decisive and completely disprove what you are saying.

Enough already -- it's obvious you are just a troll trying to stir up nonsense.

When someone admits to getting emotional about a cpu and wants said company to die he is either 14 years old or mentally incapacitated to a degree.

 

[AtenRa]

My 760 was clocked to 4Ghz while my 8150 was clocked to 4.4Ghz.

.

I dont have data at 4.4GHz but we have data of FX8150 @ 4.7GHz and Core i5 2500K at 4.5GHz.
You will see that Core i5 2500K which is way faster than i5 760 is loosing to the FX8150.

Data taken from this thread

FX8150 @ 4.7GHz

Core i5 2500K @ 4.5GHz

As i have said before, there were games that run considerable faster with Intel CPUs like DIABLO III and STAR CRAFT II. But the vast majority of games were playing just fine with the FX8150. I have even played new AAA games and the 3 year old OCed FX8150 does extremely fine today.

ps: you can find more CPUs (overclocked or not) to compare in the link above.

 

[III-V]

That isn't true at all. STARS was at the end of the road. Llano was a die shrunk "32 nm" Phenom II and it sucked.

Define "sucked." It was better than Bulldozer. There is no "end of the road" for uarchs, at least thus far in the history of computing. There are plenty of things you can change to make a core go faster... Intel's been reiterating the same core since Pentium III... to great success.

 

[AtenRa]

It was better than Bulldozer.

Llano is not better than Bulldozer,

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/675?vs=399

also, power consumption is lower
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6347/amd-a10-5800k-a8-5600k-review-trinity-on-the-desktop-part-2

Perf/watt is better with Bulldozer

 

[III-V]

You linked a comparison to Piledriver as proof? Where Piledriver, which was a considerable improvement over Bulldozer, barely has a lead?

Well thanks for proving my point, I guess.

 

[mrmt]

That isn't true at all. STARS was at the end of the road. Llano was a die shrunk "32 nm" Phenom II and it sucked.

STARS was a 32nm die shrink of a then-8 years old veteran core, while Bulldozer was eating the bulk of AMD R&D spending since 2005. Was it worth to spend billions on Bulldozer to get that level of performance?

Even if STARS was really at the end of the line (it wasn't, it just didn't get R&D money), the answer should *not* have been Bulldozer, but developing something different.

 

[AtenRa]

You linked a comparison to Piledriver as proof? Where Piledriver, which was a considerable improvement over Bulldozer, barely has a lead?

Well thanks for proving my point, I guess.

Piledriver ipc is only 7-8% faster on average than Buldozzer. That still doesnt make Llano better than Bulldozer.

Edit: Not only that, Llano couldnt OC more than 3.8GHz on air. Bulldozer could easily brake the 4.5GHz and Richland is able to OC to 4.8GHz or higher.

 

[Lepton87]

Lynnfield=was on par with Deneb/Thuban.
8150 had worse IPC.

Not true, it has worse IPC then Yorkfield and even Kentsfield but they are very close. Overclocking the uncore should reverse this and even challenge Yorkfield but I haven't seen any proper comparison between identically clocked Kentsfield, Yorkfield, Deneb and Dened with its uncore overclocked. It would be interesting.
http://anandtech.com/bench/product/88?vs=48

So if it loses to Core 2 Quad there's no need to even compare it to Core i5/i7.

Piledriver ipc is only 7-8% faster on average than Buldozzer. That still doesnt make Llano better than Bulldozer.

Edit: Not only that, Llano couldnt OC more than 3.8GHz on air. Bulldozer could easily brake the 4.5GHz and Richland is able to OC to 4.8GHz or higher.

Yes, but there are some gaming benchmarks where PD is over 20% faster clock for clock than BD. I have seen even higher figures. BD makes for a very bad gaming chip.

People on this forum practice a very ridicilous thing, they choose a benchmark and from a single benchmark they conclude how much faster or slower one CPU is from another. It's really ridiculous. There's no single benchmark for that, using Cinebench as some sort of oracle that says how one CPU compares to another is really idiotic.

 

[SoulWager]

Not unless perception changes. Amd makes great bang for the buck stuff but is dogged in general by pc enthusiasts.

I don't think "bang for buck" is specific enough. There are some very niche applications where that's true, but on a quad core CPU you're almost always bottlenecked by either single thread performance or GPU.


Overly simplistic explanation incoming:

Say you can easily split a task into 5 parts that can run in parallel, taking 10ms, 6ms, 4ms, 1ms, and 1ms to complete each part.
on an 8 core processor this takes 10ms.
on a 4 core processor this takes 10ms.
on a 2 core processor this takes 11ms.
on a 1 core processor this takes 22ms.

Okay, what if we spend a lot of time and effort splitting that 10ms part into two 5ms parts?

an 8 core processor finishes in 6ms
a 4 core processor finishes in 6ms
a 2 core processor finishes in 11ms
a 1 core processor finishes in 22ms

Now, How would increasing single thread performance change these? If you're 50% faster single threaded, a 2 core chip would beat a 6 core chip in the first example by 2.66ms, and lose to the 6 core chip by 1.33ms in the second example.

Most games and everyday tasks are something like these examples. A few things like video encoding can split workload evenly across many threads, but most of the time video encoding won't be too demanding for a 4 core CPU.

So yeah, most of the time I'd recommend a pentium g3258 over a FX-6300, or an i5 4690k over a FX-8350. There are exceptions, but they're based on benchmarks for a specific application the person is building a machine for.

 

[Enigmoid]

Again, the benchmarks don't support what you're saying -- and FX chips have more overclocking headroom than Lynnfield chips. An overclocked FX is faster than a Lynnfield on multithreaded games (which is a majority of modern titles). The benchmarks are very decisive and completely disprove what you are saying.

Enough already -- it's obvious you are just a troll trying to stir up nonsense.

(Which is NOT a majority of the titles in Oct 2011 when the 8150 was launched).

His lynnfield went from 2.8 to 4 ghz (43%) his 8150 went from 3.6 to 4.4 (22%).

I dont have data at 4.4GHz but we have data of FX8150 @ 4.7GHz and Core i5 2500K at 4.5GHz.
You will see that Core i5 2500K which is way faster than i5 760 is loosing to the FX8150.

Data taken from this thread

As i have said before, there were games that run considerable faster with Intel CPUs like DIABLO III and STAR CRAFT II. But the vast majority of games were playing just fine with the FX8150. I have even played new AAA games and the 3 year old OCed FX8150 does extremely fine today.

ps: you can find more CPUs (overclocked or not) to compare in the link above.

OP has clarified that primarily he meant games, not perfectly threaded rendering.

Piledriver ipc is only 7-8% faster on average than Buldozzer. That still doesnt make Llano better than Bulldozer.

Edit: Not only that, Llano couldnt OC more than 3.8GHz on air. Bulldozer could easily brake the 4.5GHz and Richland is able to OC to 4.8GHz or higher.

And power dropped a good bit with piledriver. Which enabled higher clocks. The gaming gain appeared to be more than the application gain.

Note that llano had teething problems on the 32 nm node.

 

[tential]

To be honest, I want AMD gone. The sooner the better.

I have a huge vendetta against AMD. You see... I had AMD CPUs all my life, my first PC had an Athlon K7... then came the x64 stuff I had that too... Then I upgraded to a Phenom triple-core then to a Phenom II quad, never used an Intel CPU before as I was a huge AMD fan boy.

Then... My life was about to change, I decided to give in and try an Intel CPU for the first time... That CPU would be my i5-760. When I first used it, I was just shocked, utterly shocked, like as if someone took the blindfold away from my eyes and I finally saw the light. Everything was just so much faster and more responsive, games ran better, applications opened faster, everything, literally everything was better.

When the AMD eight-cores came out, literally the week it was released, I decided to buy a new system to support one, the FX-8150, thinking it would wreck the i5-760 with its "eight-awesome-AMD-cores". So when I was so excited to test my new system, I realized how bad it was compared to my older i5-760... Everything was slower, games ran worse, applications loaded slower... I literally wasted almost a thousand dollars on an entirely new system.

To this day, I'm pretty upset and have vowed NEVER to buy an AMD CPU ever again. Second thing I learned was to do extensive research on any product before purchasing, especially if I'm spending a lot of money.

So yes... I hate AMD and I hope it dies in hellfire!

/endrantandlifestory

So your issue isnt' that AMD is horrible, but that you're a fanboy of hardware products based off of ONE good experience.

If you had wanted the best performing product you would have been purchasing intel since 2006, however, instead of doing your research, you became a "fanboy".

The issue isn't AMD, it's people like yourself who somehow become a "fanboy" of a hardware company and subsequently purchase each product without doing your due diligence. You deserve all the "misfortune" you had.

The fact that MOST of us STILL remember reading anandtech's Conroe launch again shows how if you simply had done ANY type of research you would have seen what the top performing CPU at the time was but instead, you just blindly purchased CPU's based on "OMG, I really love AMD I purchased them all my life!" like it's a clothing brand or something, so it's not AMD that should burn in a fire but rather customers like yourself who should learn to actually do some thinking. There is NOTHING WORSE in the hardware industry than fanboys and sadly there are FAR too many of your type that great products get overlooked due to "The "I'm a fanboy of xyz company".

Since I'm actually capable of using a graph, I didn't purchase an AMD processor since 2006. Athlon x64 3000+, to a Core 2 Duo (which lasted a long time since I rarely gamed in college beyond Dota) to a 4770k(although I had gotten extremely interested in upgrading since Sandybridge).

DO YOUR RESEARCH AND DONT BE A BLIND FANBOY.

 

[JustMe21]

I like both AMD and Intel. In all honesty, if companies like AMD, Cyrix, Winchip, NexGen, and even IBM hadn't been making x86 processors, building PCs as a hobby wouldn't have been possible for a lot of us due to higher prices and there wouldn't have been as much innovation. That said, I do fault AMD for resting on their laurels and not improving their FPU performance when they did have a good product. And, I feel they weakened that performance even more when they shared/split the FPU performance between the modules.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

(Which is NOT a majority of the titles in Oct 2011 when the 8150 was launched).

OP has clarified that primarily he meant games, not perfectly threaded rendering.

Note that llano had teething problems on the 32 nm node.

The OP is clearly a troll trying to egg on another AMD vs Intel mudslinging battle. I'm not biting. By making Hitler references and hoping for the death of AMD -- it's very clear what his goal was..... It has nothing to do with an actual debate on hardware.

 

[tential]

The OP is clearly a troll trying to egg on another AMD vs Intel mudslinging battle. I'm not biting. By making Hitler references and hoping for the death of AMD -- it's very clear what his goal was..... It has nothing to do with an actual debate on hardware.

I doubt it. He's a new member trying to learn more about hardware. Just look at his posts, it's clear he didn't do his due diligence before but now he is learning to and wants to learn what the current state of the market is.

Seems like he's learned a couple of things in this thread already. As a new member, you'd have to excuse those types of references. On other forums, this type of way of typing is how people talk so it is dependent on the forum you're on. Another "tech" forum I've visited, that's exactly how people talk and it's encouraged by moderation to do so (not sure why at all they just don't care from the looks of it). He's new, I'm sure he'll adjust.

 

[Ryanrenesis]

I doubt it. He's a new member trying to learn more about hardware. Just look at his posts, it's clear he didn't do his due diligence before but now he is learning to and wants to learn what the current state of the market is.

Seems like he's learned a couple of things in this thread already. As a new member, you'd have to excuse those types of references. On other forums, this type of way of typing is how people talk so it is dependent on the forum you're on. Another "tech" forum I've visited, that's exactly how people talk and it's encouraged by moderation to do so (not sure why at all they just don't care from the looks of it). He's new, I'm sure he'll adjust.

Thanks for your kind words.

Like I said, I definitely learned a lot after being burned by AMD (or rather by my own lack of research). I was totally brought in by the "OMG 8-core, Zeellion gigahertz!" marketing hype and wasted over a $1000 of my life savings as a teenager for it. You can imagine how upset I was.

I've also learned a lot throughout this thread. I was warned and infracted several times by multiple moderators, so I definitely am getting a feel of what's appropriate to say and what's not appropriate.

Thanks to everyone who didn't flame me for sharing my experience though. I really appreciate it.

 

[III-V]

I doubt it. He's a new member trying to learn more about hardware. Just look at his posts, it's clear he didn't do his due diligence before but now he is learning to and wants to learn what the current state of the market is.

Astute observation. A lot of people simply write off others' opinions as "trolling," when in reality, people very rarely post things just to get a rise out of others. Unfortunately, the moderation team here doesn't seem to understand that at times.

 

[monstercameron]

I like both AMD and Intel. In all honesty, if companies like AMD, Cyrix, Winchip, NexGen, and even IBM hadn't been making x86 processors, building PCs as a hobby wouldn't have been possible for a lot of us due to higher prices and there wouldn't have been as much innovation. That said, I do fault AMD for resting on their laurels and not improving their FPU performance when they did have a good product. And, I feel they weakened that performance even more when they shared/split the FPU performance between the modules.

And did think about fpu performance, that's why they went lol in with fusion. They also are innovators when it comes multi core, they were 1st to dual core, first to single die quad core and possibly first to 6 and 8 cores -maybe even 16cores on opteron. The industry was too slow in adopting multicore software and it cost and dearly.

 

[AnandThenMan]

As a new member, you'd have to excuse those types of references

No you don't, ever. It should be common sense and decency not to make such references.

The industry was too slow in adopting multicore software and it cost and dearly.

AMD made the mistake of hoping the industry would move to multicore software on their own, they needed to be the ones strongly pushing but didn't have the resources.

 

[crashtech]

Innovating in multicore is great, but when IPC languishes too much relative to the competition it just ends up looking like an expedient or an apology, like, "here are your free cores, sorry about that poor per-core performance."