Settle down everyone at least AMD is trying.

[BallaTheFeared]

Even when you're doing it wrong, you may continue to do so as Intel proved.

 

[Accord99]

This is with my Q6 processor. Sandy bridge I heard gives it a 50 percent boost in power. That is nice.

If you look at the benchmarks and application results, comparing a stock 2600K versus stock Q6600, the SB core is more than twice as fast for a single thread and with 8 CPU intensive threads, the 2600K is upwards of 2.5x faster than the Q6600.

Comparing a highly overclocked 2600K at around 4.7-4.8 GHz with your overclocked Q6600, you would see roughly a 2X increase in throughput if you can feed it enough threads.

But the thing is I need cores. I am a believer a true core is faster then a threaded core. At least AMD since 2007 has moved on to 8 core processors while intel is 4 core. and if you want 6 core intel you pay 600 to 1k. While you can pay 300 and get the fastest amd 8 core.

The problem for AMD is Intel's 4 cores with HT matches the throughput of AMD's 8 core. Or if using a car analogy, do you need AMD's 8 passenger minivan if Intel's sports sedan (4 core i7):
-also carries 8 people at the same top speed as AMD's minivan,
-when carrying 4 people or less, Intel's sedan is 60% faster
-has twice the mileage

And if the sports sedan is too expensive, there's Intel's family sedan (i5). It only carries 7 people but otherwise performs identical to the sports sedan.

 

[Agent11]

My sister recently asked me to build her a complete system for $600. I priced it out and I'm building her a very nice trinity system built around the A10.

She will have her A10 quad core at 3.8ghz, 16 gigs of ram, a 60gb ssd and a 21 inch wide screen monitor + an upgrade path.

I could not do that at this price point with Intel.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

My sister recently asked me to build her a complete system for $600. I priced it out and I'm building her a very nice trinity system built around the A10.

She will have her A10 quad core at 3.8ghz, 16 gigs of ram, a 60gb ssd and a 21 inch wide screen monitor + an upgrade path.

I could not do that at this price point with Intel.

FM2=Upgrade path?

16gb of ram for an A10?

You can build a more powerful i3 build for 600 dollars

 

[Agent11]

Never mind. I hadn't realized how cheap Intel was selling their 1155 cpu's and how low their partners were selling the motherboards... It is hard to advise anything but the 1155 right now.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

My sister recently asked me to build her a complete system for $600. I priced it out and I'm building her a very nice trinity system built around the A10.

She will have her A10 quad core at 3.8ghz, 16 gigs of ram, a 60gb ssd and a 21 inch wide screen monitor + an upgrade path.

I could not do that at this price point with Intel.

lol - I don't understand those choices at all.

 

[KingRaptor]

lol - I don't understand those choices at all.

I suppose to each person, his/her own.

Another reason Intel gained such a lead in the CPU market was because of exclusivity deals with manufacturers such as Dell. AMD never had a chance to enter into the mass market.

 

[CHADBOGA]

I suppose to each person, his/her own.

Another reason Intel gained such a lead in the CPU market was because of exclusivity deals with manufacturers such as Dell. AMD never had a chance to enter into the mass market.

Dell has been selling AMD systems since 2006.

Even if Dell had been selling AMD during their glory days, not only were AMD capacity constrained, just as they have been losing marketshare ever since Conroe, being sold by Dell in 2004, wouldn't have stopped that from happening.

What ever challenges AMD faced, their biggest problem was in producing duds in Phenom I and Bulldozer.

 

[BenchPress]

Here is where I think AMD is trying to move forward while Intel is on a dead stop.

IMO for hardcore users not gamers. Cores are more important. Since 2007 Intel desktop has been quad core. That is not enough if you have 50 synths playing in realtime and 100 plugins in the project. This is with my Q6 processor. Sandy bridge I heard gives it a 50 percent boost in power. That is nice.

But the thing is I need cores. I am a believer a true core is faster then a threaded core. At least AMD since 2007 has moved on to 8 core processors while intel is 4 core.

Bulldozer has 2 ALUs per core, Haswell has 4. Bulldozer can sustain 1 x 128-bit FMA vector operations per core, Haswell can sustain 2 x 256-bit FMA per core.

See, you don't need more cores. Intel is just making each core a lot more powerful. This benefits single-threaded and Hyper-Threaded performance. And having wide vector units is far more power efficient than having more cores.

Last but not least, Intel's core count will likely go up again with the 14 nm products. The TSX technology finally makes it easier for applications to scale to more cores efficiently.

AMD needs AVX2 and TSX support to stay in the game.

 

[inf64]

If you look at the benchmarks and application results, comparing a stock 2600K versus stock Q6600, the SB core is more than twice as fast for a single thread and with 8 CPU intensive threads, the 2600K is upwards of 2.5x faster than the Q6600.

Comparing a highly overclocked 2600K at around 4.7-4.8 GHz with your overclocked Q6600, you would see roughly a 2X increase in throughput if you can feed it enough threads.


The problem for AMD is Intel's 4 cores with HT matches the throughput of AMD's 8 core. Or if using a car analogy, do you need AMD's 8 passenger minivan if Intel's sports sedan (4 core i7):
-also carries 8 people at the same top speed as AMD's minivan,
-when carrying 4 people or less, Intel's sedan is 60% faster
-has twice the mileage

And if the sports sedan is too expensive, there's Intel's family sedan (i5). It only carries 7 people but otherwise performs identical to the sports sedan.

Bulldozer does have 8 integer cores,but it has only 4 floating point units. So its performance versus 4C/8T devices like i7 in MT tests that tax the SSE/FP math is expected. Unless you expected that 4 AMD's fp units that can run 8 threads magically outperform 4 SB's fp cores that can also run 8 threads. If nothing, workloads like x264 and handbrake show how good those 4 FX fp units can perform if there is proper software support(both i7 and FX run avx for instance).

AMD's decision on calling module dual core stems from the fact that you still get 8 integer cores which they originally designed with certain server workloads in mind. It's also not helping them that each of those integer cores cannot fully utilize the whole flexfp by itself and it falls short in many single thread fp workloads (a shortcoming that SR core is supposedly going to fix to some extent).

 

[BD231]

If AMD had an 8 core cpu they'd still be competitive. AMD staff and engineers are liars and currently sell a four core cpu as an 8 core. AMD is not trying, they're lying to consumers, not advancing their core logic, rather slapping it all together in different configs and relabeling old tech like its new.

 

[Kuschelweich]

I've been using AMD cpus since the socket A days, but I do believe in giving credit where credit is due and there's a few inconsistencies in the original post that need to be cleared up.

First Intel was indeed first to introduce a dual core cpu, the Pentium extreme 840 smithfield was released in April 05'; around a month earlier than the Athlon X2. Although it was $1k and lost to the cheaper X2s released in May.

Second Intel had a quad in Nov 06', it was the QX6700 and it was another $1k processor.

 

[Eureka]

My sister recently asked me to build her a complete system for $600. I priced it out and I'm building her a very nice trinity system built around the A10.

She will have her A10 quad core at 3.8ghz, 16 gigs of ram, a 60gb ssd and a 21 inch wide screen monitor + an upgrade path.

I could not do that at this price point with Intel.

Actually, you could go even cheaper with an AMD system.

For $600, you're doing it wrong..
Intel i5-3570K: $190
Z77 Motherboard: ~$100
8GB DDR3: ~$30 AR
80GB SSD: ~$40 AR
430W PSU: ~$30 AR
AMD 7750: ~$80 AR
Budget case: ~$30 AR

That's $500, with rebates but these are all prices I've seen within the last 3 weeks. And it will be an extremely powerful computer.

 

[Centauri]

I've been using AMD cpus since the socket A days, but I do believe in giving credit where credit is due and there's a few inconsistencies in the original post that need to be cleared up.

First Intel was indeed first to introduce a dual core cpu, the Pentium extreme 840 smithfield was released in April 05'; around a month earlier than the Athlon X2. Although it was $1k and lost to the cheaper X2s released in May.

Second Intel had a quad in Nov 06', it was the QX6700 and it was another $1k processor.

If I'm not mistaken, Intel cut every corner possible for their first 'dual-core' by essentially welding together two separately functioning processors.

 

[mrmt]

If I'm not mistaken, Intel cut every corner possible for their first 'dual-core' by essentially welding together two separately functioning processors.

Just like AMD did to make the first "16-core" processors? What about of when Intel "glued" two dual-core processors that beat AMD "native" quad-core?

MCM is a valid design trade off. It is not just a shortcut.

 

[Phynaz]

If I'm not mistaken, Intel cut every corner possible for their first 'dual-core' by essentially welding together two separately functioning processors.

And they pulled it off in nine months. Talk about a herculean task in the CPU industry.

 

[Idontcare]

If I'm not mistaken, Intel cut every corner possible for their first 'dual-core' by essentially welding together two separately functioning processors.

You know your sticks of dram aren't made from just one memory chip, right? They essentially weld together eight functioning chips to make one stick of ram, pretty much always have.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

You know your sticks of dram aren't made from just one memory chip, right? They essentially weld together eight functioning chips to make one stick of ram, pretty much always have.

Okay, there's a joke about the three-boob chick from Total Recall in there somewhere, right? :whiste:

 

[teh_pwnerer]

AMD is awesome I don't know why people hate on them.

AMD 64 one of the best CPUs ever made
AMD X2 one of the best CPUs ever made. Still using this. :thumbsup:
AMD Phenom II X4 and X6 some of the best CPUs ever made.

For the price Phenom II's are still one of the best chips you can get for gaming!

If there was no AMD Intel chips would be hundreds of more dollars.

 

[Idontcare]

Okay, there's a joke about the three-boob chick from Total Recall in there somewhere, right? :whiste:

LOL, loved that movie

 

[KingRaptor]

AMD is awesome I don't know why people hate on them.

AMD 64 one of the best CPUs ever made
AMD X2 one of the best CPUs ever made. Still using this. :thumbsup:
AMD Phenom II X4 and X6 some of the best CPUs ever made.

For the price Phenom II's are still one of the best chips you can get for gaming!

If there was no AMD Intel chips would be hundreds of more dollars.

Also, applaud AMD for introducing multiplier unlocked CPUs at reasonable prices. The Phenom Black Editions came before the Intel -K CPUs. Before that, the only multiplier unlocked chips were Intel Extreme Editions costing $1000.

 

[KAZANI]

Actually, you could go even cheaper with an AMD system.

For $600, you're doing it wrong..
Intel i5-3570K: $190
Z77 Motherboard: ~$100
8GB DDR3: ~$30 AR
80GB SSD: ~$40 AR
430W PSU: ~$30 AR
AMD 7750: ~$80 AR
Budget case: ~$30 AR

That's $500, with rebates but these are all prices I've seen within the last 3 weeks. And it will be an extremely powerful computer.

Those prices look a bit iffy to me (assuming they do not correspond to used parts). In any case, you're still 8 GB of RAM and 1 monitor short matching that dude's Trinity build.

 

[Eureka]

Those prices look a bit iffy to me (assuming they do not correspond to used parts). In any case, you're still 8 GB of RAM and 1 monitor short matching that dude's Trinity build.

They are not; I just built a system using those parts. Microcenter has i5's for 190 and 50 off any motherboard (thus 100 or less for a motherboard, plus tax). And the sum adds up to $500... leaving $100 for a monitor. Going from 8GB to 16GB is another $20 ($50 AR from Newegg).

All of these prices have hit newegg/microcenter in the last 3 weeks.

 

[Idontcare]

They are not; I just built a system using those parts. Microcenter has i5's for 190 and 50 off any motherboard (thus 100 or less for a motherboard, plus tax). And the sum adds up to $500... leaving $100 for a monitor. Going from 8GB to 16GB is another $20 ($50 AR from Newegg).

All of these prices have hit newegg/microcenter in the last 3 weeks.

The way newegg and their suppliers have been aggressively going after lowering prices on so many products to get volumes moving, so early and with so much time before cybermonday even, really speaks to how much the PC industry must have slammed on the breaks in the past month or two.

I really get the impression that everyone is just trying to get stuff to move, margins be damned, because of fears of another 2008-2009 type slowdown and inventory build.

The way the newegg emails have been hitting my inbox this past month, I'm going to wait to cybermonday because at this rate they'll be giving away hardware for free by then

 

[podspi]

The way the newegg emails have been hitting my inbox this past month, I'm going to wait to cybermonday because at this rate they'll be giving away hardware for free by then

They actually were the other day. Some cheapo AM3+ mobo for free after MIR. I was going to pick one up (why not?) but it sold out in like 30 seconds.