Does AMD have any hope against Intel?

[ShintaiDK]

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 ...

The Core 2 development started around 2001-2002. Before K8 was even released.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Wow ...

It couldn't even win on ALL fronts. It has weaker single threaded performance despite the fact that it has a higher clock, higher power consumption, bigger die size, and a smaller transistor feature size ...

What you've shown just makes Bulldozer look worse, not better ...

#Humiliating

Yeah, sure.... Winning 72% of Anand's benchmarks has to be very humiliating.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

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).

The benchmarks clearly say otherwise. The 8150 was not a "bad" CPU. It clearly was overhyped at release -- but obviously its a considerably stronger chip than an i5 760 or it wouldn't have won 23 benchmarks versus 9.

Trying to convince an i5 760 is superior to a FX-8150 is absurd..... Bulldozer disappointed a lot of people, but Lynnfield is an antique that just can't compete. The only thing an i5 760 can consistently beat the FX for is power consumption. No way is a chip that lost 72% of the benchmarks "was DEFINITELY faster in EVERY aspect." The OP wasn't just talking about games -- it was EVERY aspect.... Considering the i5 trails on virtually everything but a handful of single threaded games. It's clearly not an accurate statement.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I look forward to AMD's ARM CPUs, especially coupled with AMD's IGPUs.

 

[Lepton87]

The benchmarks clearly say otherwise. The 8150 was not a "bad" CPU. It clearly was overhyped at release -- but obviously its a considerably stronger chip than an i5 760 or it wouldn't have won 23 benchmarks versus 9.

Trying to convince an i5 760 is superior to a FX-8150 is absurd..... Bulldozer disappointed a lot of people, but Lynnfield is an antique that just can't compete. The only thing an i5 760 can consistently beat the FX for is power consumption. No way is a chip that lost 72% of the benchmarks "was DEFINITELY faster in EVERY aspect." The OP wasn't just talking about games -- it was EVERY aspect.... Considering the i5 trails on virtually everything but a handful of single threaded games. It's clearly not an accurate statement.

I said when both are overclocked Lynnfield is better, especially i7 just trashes BD. I had a Lynnfield and it OC'ed way better percentage wise than BD. BD is a failure. That's it. Even AMD admitted that.

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/99?vs=434

That's how it would have look like when both are OC'ed, BD would have about 300MHz-500MHz frequency advantage, just look at how poorly it does in games.
I care about gaming performance the most that's why even any Lynfield without HT is vastly superior to BD to me.

 

[Abwx]

The benchmarks clearly say otherwise. The 8150 was not a "bad" CPU. It clearly was overhyped at release -- but obviously its a considerably stronger chip than an i5 760 or it wouldn't have won 23 benchmarks versus 9.

Of the 9 won by the i5 there are 4 that are Sysmark, an Intel bench, and one is Cinebench R10 in single thread, no one will use this soft in such a way, looking at the relevant benches it s a no contest, anyway quite telling about the bias if a clear win for AMD is assumed as a clear win for Intel in total denial of the numbers, hey, it has no right to be better even if 10x faster...

Edit : Also, a test where the i5 do better is Winrar 3.8 , an old version that used only 2 cores, try the same bench but with Winrar 5.1 and the i5 wouldnt do even half of the 8150 score..

 

[OatisCampbell]

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 you bought without researching what you were buying and it's AMDs fault somehow?

AMD does the best they can with what they have. intel is too big a company comparatively for them to go head to head with.

Would I buy a desktop CPU from them now? No, that would not be smart.

Would I buy a laptop with one of their APUs? Sure.

My last video card was a 7970 GHz, got it for an amazing price. My current video card is a HIS IceQ R290, a whole LOT of graphics power for $250..

There's no point in getting upset with companies. Just read reviews, buy what suits your needs best at your pricepoint.

 

[Enigmoid]

The benchmarks clearly say otherwise. The 8150 was not a "bad" CPU. It clearly was overhyped at release -- but obviously its a considerably stronger chip than an i5 760 or it wouldn't have won 23 benchmarks versus 9.

Trying to convince an i5 760 is superior to a FX-8150 is absurd..... Bulldozer disappointed a lot of people, but Lynnfield is an antique that just can't compete. The only thing an i5 760 can consistently beat the FX for is power consumption. No way is a chip that lost 72% of the benchmarks "was DEFINITELY faster in EVERY aspect." The OP wasn't just talking about games -- it was EVERY aspect.... Considering the i5 trails on virtually everything but a handful of single threaded games. It's clearly not an accurate statement.

Even AMD said it was a failure.

A 4.4 8150 compared to a 4.0 lynfield i5 would have been a sidegrade.

You must also realize that in 2011 when BD launched, ST was king much much more than today.

And sure the OP may have said 'every aspect' but thats (his usage) every aspect. If he wasn't rendering then his 'every aspect' didn't include rendering.

That said I think he is being a little extreme. The 8150 in multithreaded tests would undoubtedly be a stronger ship but I think the OP meant more day to day usage where lynnfield would have the advantage. Its debatable (personally I do not agree with him). Even a lynfield at 4.0 today is going to generally perform like a HW at ~2.8-2.9 ghz which will power most games.

 

[cytg111]

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 ...

I guess it is not that simple? Given that the timespan from idea to conception of an architecture has to align with the advancement of process technolgy in that same timeframe .. I guess you have to make some pretty bold "crystal ball" bets when you put down your money on a given uarch to be born 10 years from now. Given what they knew back then I am sure the "netburst arch" was the safest bet they could make. They lost that pot. Name of the game. (holdem vets hate AA's for that reason).

 

[AnandThenMan]

Intel was saved by their mobile division they were marching on to 10GHZ reality be damned. Remember moar gigahertz was a huge part of the marketing.

 

[tential]

Intel was saved by their mobile division they were marching on to 10GHZ reality be damned. Remember moar gigahertz was a huge part of the marketing.

I'm pretty sure there isn't a user on here who if they read the Conroe benches those days doesn't remember it.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Even AMD said it was a failure.

When the "unmitigated failure" as described by Mr. Feldman (from AMD) stomps the Intel i5 760 in 23 benchmarks -- what does that say about the i5?

That just makes the i5 looks even worse. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[monstercameron]

Even AMD said it was a failure.

-snip-

business failure maybe but not a technical failure.

 

[Ryanrenesis]

When the "unmitigated failure" as described by Mr. Feldman (from AMD) stomps the Intel i5 760 in 23 benchmarks -- what does that say about the i5?

That just makes the i5 looks even worse. Thanks for proving my point.

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.

It's just a fact, if you can't face the facts, then don't join the discussion please. I'm tired of you yabbering on about the i5-760 at STOCK speeds when none of us here are talking about the i5-760 at STOCK speeds. In fact we all agree with you, the FX-8150 is better than the i5-760 at stock. The reverse is true when both are overclocked to their potential.

At the end of the day, AMD has failed me with their offerings and to this day they're still failing with their CPU offerings.

 

[mrmt]

When the "unmitigated failure" as described by Mr. Feldman (from AMD) stomps the Intel i5 760 in 23 benchmarks -- what does that say about the i5?

That just makes the i5 looks even worse. Thanks for proving my point.

Not sure why you are making a straw out of this one. By the time Bulldozer was launched the Core i5 760 was already EOL'ed by Intel and Sandy Bridge was on the market. Had Bulldozer been launched in 2009 with the levels of performance it only showed in 2011, then it wouldn't have been called an unmitigated failure.

 

[mrmt]

business failure maybe but not a technical failure.

Do you really think AMD aimed at developing a bigger die, almost twice as big as Intel competition, with inferior performance but higher power consumption? Because unless you think AMD really aimed on this one, you have to say that Bulldozer is also a technical failure.

 

[monstercameron]

Do you really think AMD aimed at developing a bigger die, almost twice as big as Intel competition, with inferior performance but higher power consumption? Because unless you think AMD really aimed on this one, you have to say that Bulldozer is also a technical failure.

the die was large due to the massive amount of cache and as the benchmarks have shown for years, embarassingly parallel workloads tend to favour amds octo core vs intels price competitor.

 

[mrmt]

the die was large due to the massive amount of cache and as the benchmarks have shown for years, embarassingly parallel workloads tend to favour amds octo core vs intels price competitor.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[schmuckley]

They have one..one more more shot at it.
After that...if it fails, they're done.
It might be good..I hope so.
I really liked AMD up until Bulldozer.
..from 4x86 on..up until.
..but they've stuck to a failing architecture for 4 years..
How long did Intel stick with Netburst?

 

[Enigmoid]

business failure maybe but not a technical failure.

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.

the die was large due to the massive amount of cache and as the benchmarks have shown for years, embarassingly parallel workloads tend to favour amds octo core vs intels price competitor.

Which is partly why it was a technical failure. Massive amounts of cache bloating die space reduced its perf/mm^2 which is what the modular design of BD aimed for.

 

[exar333]

When the "unmitigated failure" as described by Mr. Feldman (from AMD) stomps the Intel i5 760 in 23 benchmarks -- what does that say about the i5?

That just makes the i5 looks even worse. Thanks for proving my point.

Why are we even comparing the 8150 to the 760? I had ~8150 performance YEARS before BD was even launched. It was called the i7 920...

 

[rtsurfer]

Why are we even comparing the 8150 to the 760? I had ~8150 performance YEARS before BD was even launched. It was called the i7 920...

Because that is what the CPU the OP had.

And he claims that the 760 is faster than 8150.

 

[Ryanrenesis]

Because that is what the CPU the OP had.

And he claims that the 760 is faster than 8150.

A lot of people who post without reading the entire thread probably missed the fact that:

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

At those clockspeeds, my 760 was faster in every game I played.

 

[schmuckley]

Lynnfield=was on par with Deneb/Thuban.
8150 had worse IPC.
I'm pretty sure the latest iteration is improved...

 

[rtsurfer]

A lot of people who post without reading the entire thread probably missed the fact that:

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

At those clockspeeds, my 760 was faster in every game I played.

Yes.
I read this claim plenty of times in this thread.