ITT: We discuss future pricing and availability for AM3+ processors and mobos

[cbn]

So let me get this straight, enterprises will choose Intel apus because they are good enough but not AMDs...this train of though is very hard to follow.

It has nothing to do with being good enough. A core 2 duo is probably good enough in some cases (as far as raw performance goes).

It is just that the Intel LGA 1150 processors offer better cpu performance at lower wattage at any given price point with adequate iGPU. AMD FM2 and FM2+ APUs only offer better iGPU.

But we are talking enterprise, so extra iGPU is not too relevant.

 

[cbn]

Its 1800Mhz base, 2.4Ghz turbo. And performance is far below Kaveri. With Kaveri you get 2.1Ghz base, 3.3Ghz turbo at 19W. Or 2.7Ghz base, 3.6Ghz turbo at 35W, including much faster IGP.

I didn't see any mention of base frequency, but I did I make mistake: A6-6310 is 15 watts (not 25 watts).

And as far as Kaveri goes, sure a mobile SKU could be used also. I'm sure it will cost more money though.

Maybe a better comparison is quad core Beema to the low end desktop dual core FM2 and FM2+ processors?

Certainly as yields improve on 28nm, a high clocked quad core Beema could replace those low bin, harvested FM2/FM2+ dual cores for entry level desktop. Maybe instead of 15 watts, the Beema becomes 25 watt (at even higher clocks). In a desktop, the extra watts won't hurt. Then move the Kaveris (as yields improve) into gaming laptops or gaming AIOs, etc

 

[monstercameron]

It has nothing to do with being good enough. A core 2 duo is probably good enough in some cases (as far as raw performance goes).

It is just that the Intel LGA 1150 processors offer better cpu performance at lower wattage at any given price point with adequate iGPU. AMD FM2 and FM2+ APUs only offer better iGPU.

But we are talking enterprise, so extra iGPU is not too relevant.

Even if all that was accurate and we weren't talking about at best low teens percent difference...enterprises are very price sensitive.

 

[cbn]

So in Summary, here is what I would like to see happen:

1. Octocore AM3+ occupying lower price points. This will strengthen traditional desktop at the value level.

2. Kaveri and other big core APUs leaving traditional desktop and moving into mobile (Gaming laptops) or (to a lesser extent) very small desktops that use mobile derived chips.

3. Jaguar (Puma) based chips moving upscale into more and more entry level desktops that used to be occupied by the lower priced FM2/FM2+. This by making use of improving yields on 28nm to increase clocks and make use of quad core.

P.S. Regarding #3, As much as dislike the idea of SOCs in entry level desktops, that is pretty much the only option I see for AMD. (re: I just can't see Enterprise customers or the average user needing all the extra iGPU of Kaveri. But I am thinking if AMD increases clocks on the Jaguar quad cores the experience will be decent enough.)

 

[Abwx]

So let me get this straight, enterprises will choose Intel apus because they are good enough but not AMDs...this train of though is very hard to follow.

Notice double standard like this :

The vast majority of consumers and enterprise users do want "apus". Unfortunately for AMD Intel sells them too, and they generally have better efficiency, CPU performance, and plenty good enough graphics for normal use.

So intel s IGP is good enough for "normal" usage but seems that AMD s APU s CPUs parts are apparently not good enough even for "normal usage", i like it when the "good enough" apply only to one s favourite brand when they have a weak feature, much more weaker actualy than the AMD s weakness counterpart.

Also all thoses people forgot that AMD s APUs are more efficient when the GPU is used, so intel s APUs are not more efficient overall, only when only the CPU is loaded...

Got some links to that? It would really be sad if a super niche product even outsold quadcores.

Source is Hardware.fr stockholder wich is a local kind of newegg, FX4XXX are actualy the niche product, the pricing difference with the 6/8C is just too low for the quads to be more attractive, before prices hikes the 8320/8350 were at 127/149€, while 6C were about 100/110€ and 4C being at 90€, obviously the 6/8C have a much better price/perf ratio, as said the 8350 even largely outsold the 8320.

 

[cbn]

So intel s IGP is good enough for "normal" usage but seems that AMD s APU s CPUs parts are apparently not good enough even for "normal usage", i like it when the "good enough" apply only to one s favourite brand when they have a weak feature, much more weaker actualy than the AMD s weakness counterpart.

As I mentioned earlier, good enough is not the issue.

The Intel desktop parts I am thinking about in the $40 to $60 price range have faster cpus (at lower power usage) than the low end FM2 APUs. The APUs have better iGPUs, but the Intel iGPU is more than adequate.

For an enterprise customer using a low end desktop at any given price point, I'd have to imagine a faster cpu with adequate iGPU (that happens to be lower power usage) would be a better tradeoff than a weaker (but still adequate cpu) with a more than adequate iGPU.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Source is Hardware.fr stockholder wich is a local kind of newegg, FX4XXX are actualy the niche product, the pricing difference with the 6/8C is just too low for the quads to be more attractive, before prices hikes the 8320/8350 were at 127/149€, while 6C were about 100/110€ and 4C being at 90€, obviously the 6/8C have a much better price/perf ratio, as said the 8350 even largely outsold the 8320.

So the answer is no.

 

[Abwx]

As I mentioned earlier, good enough is not the issue.

The Intel desktop parts I am thinking about in the $40 to $60 price range have faster cpus (at lower power usage) than the low end FM2 APUs. The APUs have better iGPUs, but the Intel iGPU is more than adequate.

And AMD CPUs parts are also more than adequate for corporate usage, even an AM1 set up would be perfect in such a scenario.

So the answer is no.

The answer is yes but seems that it s an answer that do not please you so you had to rely on trolling and explicitely state the contrary of what i got from an employee that is working in this shop.

Anyway anyone with some smartness would notice that a FX8 is 30-40% more expensive than a FX4 but with about 100% more perfs overall, you are too accustomed to Intel s pricing where you get 20% more perfs at the expense of 50-60% more money, AMD pricing scheme is different and largely customer friendly when looking for the higher performing parts.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Anyway anyone with some smartness would notice that a FX8 is 30-40% more expensive than a FX4 but with about 100% more perfs overall.

In what world does a FX8xxx have 100% performance benefit than a FX4xxx in overall performance? The only places you even get close to that is extremely multithreaded applications. And they are anything but overall performance metrics. And your 30-40% is more like 50-80%.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Notice double standard like this :



So intel s IGP is good enough for "normal" usage but seems that AMD s APU s CPUs parts are apparently not good enough even for "normal usage", i like it when the "good enough" apply only to one s favourite brand when they have a weak feature, much more weaker actualy than the AMD s weakness counterpart.

Also all thoses people forgot that AMD s APUs are more efficient when the GPU is used, so intel s APUs are not more efficient overall, only when only the CPU is loaded...



Source is Hardware.fr stockholder wich is a local kind of newegg, FX4XXX are actualy the niche product, the pricing difference with the 6/8C is just too low for the quads to be more attractive, before prices hikes the 8320/8350 were at 127/149€, while 6C were about 100/110€ and 4C being at 90€, obviously the 6/8C have a much better price/perf ratio, as said the 8350 even largely outsold the 8320.

Apparently most enterprise users agree with me. The sales figures speak for themselves.

 

[Abwx]

In what world does a FX8xxx have 100% performance benefit than a FX4xxx in overall performance? The only places you even get close to that is extremely multithreaded applications. And they are anything but overall performance metrics. And your 30-40% is more like 50-80%.

It has 100% more throughput the same way a 4770 has 100% more throughput than an i3, that this computing capability is not always used entirely is different matter.

FX4300 is currently 94e while the 8320 is at 136e, sure the FX4 can be found for less but so is the 8320, that s 45% more for the 8C, it was 40% last month, FX8 and FX6 were hiked for some reason these recent times.

Apparently most enterprise users agree with me. The sales figures speak for themselves.

Intel had always way more presence in corporate markets than AMD, indeed most enterprise users did agree with you even at the time of the pentium 4 that did sell much more than the A64, you see , being in agreement with thoses people doesnt mean that you re forcibly right.

 

[ShintaiDK]

It has 100% more throughput the same way a 4770 has 100% more throughput than an i3, that this computing capability is not always used entirely is different matter.

You said overall performance. Now you try to twist it after you got caught.

FX4300 is currently 94e while the 8320 is at 136e, sure the FX4 can be found for less but so is the 8320, that s 45% more for the 8C, it was 40% last month, FX8 and FX6 were hiked for some reason these recent times.

Wrong again.

Lets see.
http://geizhals.at/amd-fx-4300-fd4300wmhkbox-a853312.html
FX 4300 for 72€

FX 8320 for 122€
http://geizhals.at/amd-fx-8320-fd8320frhkbox-a852342.html

Thats 70% more for the FX8320. While the FX4300 being 3.8-4Ghz and the FX8320 is 3.2-4Ghz.

 

[cbn]

for corporate usage, even an AM1 set up would be perfect in such a scenario.

Based on my experience with Athlon 5350 (which I still own), I think the cpu speeds need to be faster, but at least the iGPU is sized right.

Hopefully with yields on 28nm improving and maybe even a possible TDP increase (for desktop), AMD will be able to fix the cpu speed situation on AM1/Beema fairly soon.

Then they can move on to getting Kaveri into niches more appropriate to something with a large iGPU.

P.S. They will have to do something with price as well to make it more competitive with Celeron G1820, but at least with AM1/Beema there is no PCH that needs to be bought for the motherboard.

 

[Ramses]

Apparently most enterprise users agree with me. The sales figures speak for themselves.

My experience, which granted was a lot of years ago but I see no reason it wouldn't still be valid, for large scale/volume "enterprise" purchases are that whatever supplier a given company is tied to, and whatever that supplier happens to be/can offering/supply in the price range/volume that has been given to the IT procurement people, is what will dictate what they end up with. When looking at choices, a relatively short amount of time was given to brand of CPU relative to form factor, cost, warranty, delivery, accessories, schedule, maintenance costs, rebates, incentives, kickbacks, etc, etc, etc. This procedure gets modified somewhat when it's special use systems obviously(serious CAD or whatever that needs specific graphics for example), but for a business or department or school wide roll-out of PC's for general users, as long as it was pretty current tech the CPU was a fairly small part of the equation. Mostly they pay too much for too little. Consequently I don't put too much stock in what "enterprise" use/sales are.
Maybe things have changed in the intervening years, but the last 18 wheeler load of Dells I was involved in buying for a school it was still the same old song and dance. Intel is (almost) always a safe bet, it's still an uphill battle for AMD and they can't do it own there own. I haven't seen that they really care to.

 

[Phynaz]

And AMD CPUs parts are also more than adequate for corporate usage, even an AM1 set up would be perfect in such a scenario.

Considering AMD's sales in the enterprise market, the above cannot be true.

Edit: oops frozen beat me to it.

 

[cbn]

Is there a particular ratio for board/cpu/ram/case/psu/gpu cost on a "$1000 system" or such?

Usually a $1000 gamer system will have a pretty serious video card like a GTX 970 card coupled to a fairly strong cpu (i5-4670K, etc). This to keep a reasonable cpu to gpu balance. (Some examples of $1000 system builds here ---> http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2192841 )

For a $500 system, the cpu and video card will be more modest (in keeping with maintaining a reasonable cpu to gpu balance). Some examples of $500 systems here --> http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2389797

 

[Abwx]

You said overall performance. Now you try to twist it after you got caught.

It can have twice the perfs with the relevant application, that a 4C can do as well in lighltly threaded apps is not that relevant, what happens when the apps are updated.?.

i3 and FX4 will be stuck to their former perfs while the 8T CPUs will fly given their reserve.

Wrong again.

Lets see.
http://geizhals.at/amd-fx-4300-fd4300wmhkbox-a853312.html
FX 4300 for 72€

FX 8320 for 122€
http://geizhals.at/amd-fx-8320-fd8320frhkbox-a852342.html

Thats 70% more for the FX8320. While the FX4300 being 3.8-4Ghz and the FX8320 is 3.2-4Ghz.

Extreme offerings are not average prices available everywhere, here you can hardly find a FX4 for less than 80e when discounted, besides the 8320 is 3.5-4.0.

That said even using this extreme exemple you have 100% more throughput for 70% higher price, isnt that cool, throughput increase more than price...
I guess that with Intel you wont even get 70% more throughput for 100% higher price, and by a long shot.

 

[escrow4]

Ironic that everyone says the APUs have great iGPUs; Guru3D tested Kaveri and it stuttered on UltraHD playback:

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_a10_7850k_apu_review,18.html

The anniversary Pentium yawned and did it no problems:

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/pentium_20th_anniversary_series_g3258_processor_review,15.html

And buying an outdated FX now in the hope that software will become better threaded and justify is hilarious.

 

[Ramses]

Usually a $1000 gamer system will have a pretty serious video card like a GTX 970 card coupled to a fairly strong cpu (i5-4670K, etc). This to keep a reasonable cpu to gpu balance. (Some examples of $1000 system builds here ---> http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2192841 )

For a $500 system, the cpu and video card will be more modest (in keeping with maintaining a reasonable cpu to gpu balance). Some examples of $500 systems here --> http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2389797

Interesting.
I completely don't build systems that way but it's interesting.

 

[Abwx]

Based on my experience with Athlon 5350 (which I still own), I think the cpu speeds need to be faster, but at least the iGPU is sized right.

Hopefully with yields on 28nm improving and maybe even a possible TDP increase (for desktop), AMD will be able to fix the cpu speed situation on AM1/Beema fairly soon.

Then they can move on to getting Kaveri into niches more appropriate to something with a large iGPU.

P.S. They will have to do something with price as well to make it more competitive with Celeron G1820, but at least with AM1/Beema there is no PCH that needs to be bought for the motherboard.

I m rather of the opposite opinion, that Kabini CPU is good enough and that they could had increased the GPU size by at least 50%, the CPU is competitive overall with a G1820, i agree that they could had done better with the 2C S2650 by increasing clocks up to 1.8-2.0, according to Anand s review it would still consume less than a 5350.

As for highly clocked 4C AM1 they could release a 2.2-2.4 iteration since the 5350 is well below the official 25W TDP figure, all numbers point to about 15W real TDP.

Back to the AM3+ topic i think that AMD made a big mistake by not releasing a low cost dedicated chipset, something like 6 usb3 and 4 sata3 would be pefect for a majority of users, not everyone use grappes of HDDs.

 

[Ramses]

And buying an outdated FX now in the hope that software will become better threaded and justify is hilarious.

Echos of 1997.

 

[Ramses]

Back to the AM3+ topic i think that AMD made a big mistake by not releasing a low cost dedicated chipset, something like 6 usb3 and 4 sata3 would be pefect for a majority of users, not everyone use grappes of HDDs.

Only gripe I still have with AM3+/FX- is that old ass chipset.
Beyond that I still can't find anything functionally to dislike about them.

 

[Abwx]

The anniversary Pentium yawned and did it no problems:

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/pentium_20th_anniversary_series_g3258_processor_review,15.html

And buying an outdated FX now in the hope that software will become better threaded and justify is hilarious.

You should had checked better the link you re providing to see how well this marvel perform..

4.8 for this..??.

Considering AMD's sales in the enterprise market, the above cannot be true.

Edit: oops frozen beat me to it.

I dont think he will beat you in respect of double standard, didnt you aknowledge that you were exclusively selling P4 based gear at the time of the A64..?.

So it looks like it s not a matter of perfs to enter in this market, that said i would be curious to know what where the argument you used to convince your customers that the Xeons/P4 were better than A64/Opteron64...

Only gripe I still have with AM3+/FX- is that old ass chipset.
Beyond that I still can't find anything functionally to dislike about them.

Member Aten Ra posted some graphs that show that it performs as well as the most recent chipsets, the drawback is that the 990 chipset is not adequate for 95W TDP FXs, such users will have to either use a 970 or eventualy an older chipset since the 990 negate the power comsumption gains of thoses CPUs, as said AMD should had released a low cost chipset for thoses users.

 

[cbn]

I m rather of the opposite opinion, that Kabini CPU is good enough and that they could had increased the GPU size by at least 50%

That extra igpu on Kabini would increase cost though.

And AMD needs something to compete against Intel for customers that don't care about extra iGPU right?

For folks that want extra iGPU, I think the Kaveri processor would be a better choice.

This way AMD keeps an option open for those looking at basic needs and one option for those looking at beyond basic needs. Having too much iGPU on both levels (big core APU, small core APU) of processor puts a monkey in the wrench for that strategy IMO.

Actually, I would even argue that AM1/Beema has too much iGPU already and going any farther would, of course, make the situation worse. Fortunately for AMD it looks like Intel is going to bloat the die on Braswell with lots of extra iGPU so there is a chance AMD will be able to still compete in mainstream if they resisted the temptation to add extra iGPU themselves on the next round of cat core chips.

 

[Abwx]

You are right that a bigger GPU would be area consuming, moreover given that it would need a dual channel controler, that said Beema has surely significantly better perf/watt than Kaveri, this latter is not at ease within a 19W TDP and should rather be used for the 25-35W range, this will undoubtly change with the Carrizos APUs, if the announced numbers are accurate this may well shift the OEMs attention to the Excavator variant rather than to the Beema replacement, ie, Carrizo-L.