should I abandon the AMD ship? (Updated)

[witeken]

I know you didn't, frozentundra -- I was responding to Witeken's comment.....

To quote Witeken did:
"Intel has the fastest IGP since Haswell. Time to catch up. Broadwell will offer a healthy increase and Skylake will add a nice number of EUs.
Things are even worse in TDP limited scenarios. Core M's GPU performance is top-notch."

He was the person I was addressing with the Iris/Kaveri comparison. The reality is Intel's IGP is no faster than Kaveri.
I have no agenda. I simply was proving his statement was wrong by pointing out the many instances where Iris was
slower than AMD's IGP. You're trying to read between the lines -- but nothing is actually there.

Don't be so fast; let's not forget what you initial statement was that I responded to:

Intel can't do integrated graphics as well as AMD, either.

()

 

[Abwx]

8 integer cores,
4 flop cores.

Games are using integer.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

The X99 platform is significantly more costly than 1150, a fact which you seem curiously intent on minimizing. Hopefully it will come down in the coming months, at which point your assertions will have more merit.

The gap is definitely there -- it's a brand new platform. It will definitely be a factor, but IMO not a huge one. A good X97 1150 motherboard will run $120 - $180. X99 Boards start around $200. We're talking between a $20 to $60 gap -- which is what many gamers spend on their CPU cooler.

Sure, you could probably game on an H61 motherboard. But its limited feature set is so different from all the standard features you get on a X99 motherboard -- it's becomes an Apples to Oranges comparison.

The 5820k does now make the 4770k and 4790k a lot less financially attractive. Because that extra $40 - $50 buys you two more cores, an upgrade path to an 8 core CPU, newer platform and a newer memory standard.

 

[Ramses]

:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin: that's rich

 

[Abwx]

:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin: that's rich

Numbers say that it s true on the perf/$ side...

Average of applications benches at hfr :

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/924-19/indices-performance.html

With the previous bench set wich dated from years :

We can see that that the FX8350 was scoring 3% better than the 4670K, the 4770K being 16.5% better than the FX, on the updated suite the differences are 15.2% and 9.5% respectively.

 

[crashtech]

The gap is definitely there -- it's a brand new platform. It will definitely be a factor, but IMO not a huge one. A good X97 1150 motherboard will run $120 - $180. X99 Boards start around $200. We're talking between a $20 to $60 gap -- which is what many gamers spend on their CPU cooler...

Well at least compare apples to apples. $200 is the absolute bottom of the barrel for X99. The cheapest ones that compare to a decent Z97 board start about $240-250, and even at that price point the selection is very limited. And unless there are some quad channel 8GB DDR4 kits around of which I'm unaware, the memory carries a quite a premium as well. I don't think too many users are going to willingly run only two channels on a quad channel setup, but maybe I am wrong about that. I just know that I would not.

Don't get me wrong, I want X99 just because, call it e-peen or whatever. But it's tough to make that recommendation based on value right now, which is what it looks like you are doing. X99 is not really that great of a value for 99% of users, especially here at launch time.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Don't be so fast; let's not forget what you initial statement was that I responded to:

Intel can't do integrated graphics as well as AMD, either.

()

And let me quote User8000:
The funny thing is the Iris Pro IGP section is not only much bigger than the IGP section of Kaveri,but also uses another 80MM2 of L4 cache on top of this. Plus its made on a much more advanced process node too. Its expensive to implement and hence is only sold in expensive laptops,and ultimately at least for the DIY market none of us can even buy one.

So considering how expensive it is, that L4 cache, the superior die process, the larger real estate compared to Kaveri -- and that it can only match Kaveri performance. I'd say it is a very accurate assessment.

The vast majority of Pentium/i3/i5 are dominated by their cheaper AMD rivals in integrated graphics performance. There are a couple of Iris Pro equipped i7's that retail for $400 - $600 that can finally match a $200 Kaveri in graphics performance.

I think it's fair to say that Intel is still as far behind AMD in integrated graphics -- as AMD is behind Intel in CPU's.

 

[witeken]

And let me quote User8000:
The funny thing is the Iris Pro IGP section is not only much bigger than the IGP section of Kaveri,but also uses another 80MM2 of L4 cache on top of this. Plus its made on a much more advanced process node too. Its expensive to implement and hence is only sold in expensive laptops,and ultimately at least for the DIY market none of us can even buy one.

So considering how expensive it is, that L4 cache, the superior die process, the larger real estate compared to Kaveri -- and that it can only match Kaveri performance. I'd say it is a very accurate assessment.

The vast majority of Pentium/i3/i5 are dominated by their cheaper AMD rivals in integrated graphics performance. There are a couple of Iris Pro equipped i7's that retail for $400 - $600 that can finally match a $200 Kaveri in graphics performance.

I think it's fair to say that Intel is still as far behind AMD in integrated graphics -- as AMD is behind Intel in CPU's.

Let's not forget this is a 2+ year old process and architecture; let's wait for Broadwell to see if Intel used those 2-3 years to catch up (although it was AMD who had to catch up with Kaveri). But really I wouldn't consider the L4 cache or the 22nm process a disadvantage. Intel could sell an unlocked Iris Pro quadcore for ~$250.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Well at least compare apples to apples. $200 is the absolute bottom of the barrel for X99. The cheapest ones that compare to a decent Z97 board start about $240-250, and even at that price point the selection is very limited. And unless there are some quad channel 8GB DDR4 kits around of which I'm unaware, the memory carries a quite a premium as well. I don't think too many users are going to willingly run only two channels on a quad channel setup, but maybe I am wrong about that. I just know that I would not.

Don't get me wrong, I want X99 just because, call it e-peen or whatever. But it's tough to make that recommendation based on value right now, which is what it looks like you are doing. X99 is not really that great of a value for 99% of users, especially here at launch time.

I think there is an intrinsic value in the newer platform because it would likely lead to a longer useful life. I also am familiar with the performance gain from going with an overclocked FX-6300 to a 1150 Haswell from the OP -- because I own similar setups. That modest performance gain can't justify the $350 - 500 investment moving to 1150 -- but I'm pretty confident there is more value making the $700 investment to move into 2001-V3. CPU limited games are going to have more breathing with the better IPC and additional threads. Haswell E does have better IPC over Haswell -- it isn't a large margin -- but it still is there.

The reality is -- if he's running an overclocked FX 6300 with crossfired GPU's -- there really isn't a single game right now that is going to really tax his current setup and probably won't be for a while. The upgrade bug is a bit psychological -- IMO it is probably a bit more about bragging rights. If that's the mission, then X99 is really as good as it gets right now. You can probably count the number of people running X99 on this forum on one hand currently -- it would be a little like owning a Lamborghini for a few months until they become more common.

 

[AtenRa]

Intel could sell an unlocked Iris Pro quadcore for ~$250.

Certainly, but margins would go down to Hades :biggrin:

 

[crashtech]

I think there is an intrinsic value in the newer platform because it would likely lead to a longer useful life. I also am familiar with the performance gain from going with an overclocked FX-6300 to a 1150 Haswell from the OP -- because I own similar setups. That modest performance gain can't justify the $350 - 500 investment moving to 1150 -- but I'm pretty confident there is more value making the $700 investment to move into 2001-V3. CPU limited games are going to have more breathing with the better IPC and additional threads. Haswell E does have better IPC over Haswell -- it isn't a large margin -- but it still is there.

The reality is -- if he's running an overclocked FX 6300 with crossfired GPU's -- there really isn't a single game right now that is going to really tax his current setup and probably won't be for a while. The upgrade bug is a bit psychological -- IMO it is probably a bit more about bragging rights. If that's the mission, then X99 is really as good as it gets right now. You can probably count the number of people running X99 on this forum on one hand currently -- it would be a little like owning a Lamborghini for a few months until they become more common.

No substantive disagreement, save for the continued use of the $700 figure with is too low even with the use of two channels. Don't forget to add a CPU cooler! Here is a more realistic bottom rung config which populates all channels: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/6VDP8d

My advice for the OP would be to wait and save up for an X99 system, right now retailers are collecting early adopter taxes. You are right in that the only viable 1150 upgrade path would be straight to a 4790K, at which point X99 does start to be a reasonable option.

 

[witeken]

Certainly, but margins would go down to Hades :biggrin:

Even it would impact margins, the lack of contra-revenue mobile losses in 2015 will push their margins up a lot more than they would go down.

 

[Cheesesticksandbeer]

Just ran 3dmark...

Firestrike: 9377
Skydiver: 22150
Cloud Gate: 16602
Ice Storm: 118168

 

[Ramses]

26767 in Skydiver, which is better than 92% of computers

I'll run the rest later and close all the background stuff running first.

 

[Ramses]

I don't know enough about this benchmark to know if the difference in scores is significant or not. If I had to guess I'd say not.

 

[Ramses]

And there is the much maligned pitiful single core performance that I still can't notice till it's in a benchmark for some reason.

 

[cbn]

Edit: I've also taken to buying cheap refurb HP/Compaq DC5800 PCs with Windows 7 on sale. The most recent ones are a 2.0Ghz C2D, 2GB DDR2, 80/160GB HDD, DVD-ROM, and Win7, for $90. Hard to beat that package.

Have you ever installed a game-able low profile video card to one of those? If so, how does it work out?

 

[VirtualLarry]

Have you ever installed a game-able low profile video card to one of those? If so, how does it work out?

Nope, not going to waste the money.

 

[rfs830]

You all have really got me thinking now. I am looking to build a new system but want to want go all out now and then wish I would have waited just a little bit longer. I was thinking of just spending about 1500 now to build a nice amd fx based system. This system will do all I need for at least the next 2 years being that Im looking for more of a workstation with a little gaming on the site. I was looking at getting a r285 or something in that price range. Then when the other new chips come out I can look to just upgrading my board, chip and memory to the new stuff and keep the rest of my system. I was looking at spending 2500 now but if I can save 1k now and then upgrade down the road I think that would be better. What do you all think?

Thanks in advance

 

[crashtech]

The FX line is so old now. Building a brand new system based on it seems like it would ultimately be disappointing in the long run. If you really want to build AMD, maybe late next year things will look different:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...rmance_Micro_Architecture_in_2015_Report.html

Right now the consensus is nearly unanimous that the only rational reason for choosing an FX chip today is if you already have the mobo for it, other than for some niche applications, perhaps.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

The FX line is so old now. Building a brand new system based on it seems like it would ultimately be disappointing in the long run. If you really want to build AMD, maybe late next year things will look different:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...rmance_Micro_Architecture_in_2015_Report.html

Right now the consensus is nearly unanimous that the only rational reason for choosing an FX chip today is if you already have the mobo for it, other than for some niche applications, perhaps.

It is sadly true. The AM3+ socket really is in an EOL situation. I really wish an FM2+ Athlon X6 would show up -- I know they could do one if they wanted and FM2+ really needs something that has stronger CPU performance than the A10 7850K.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy with my FX 8320 -- but would be reluctant to build a new system on AM3+ today because so much of the motherboard tech is falling behind (USB 2.0 / PCI Express / SATA). Of course, if Microcenter offered a stupid good deal -- I'd still probably would cave in and go for it.

FM2+ is just a better place to be for an AMD owner in the long term -- That is the socket that AMD is planning to use for future generations. Most AMD people I know are now building rigs around overclocked Athlon X4 760K -- they can usually hit 4.7 Ghz on water cooling. The new Kaveri based X4 860K is also available, too -- and it offers about a 10% boost in IPC over the Richland.... I don't know anyone who has tested an 860K yet, so I'd be curious about its overclocking potential.

 

[frozentundra123456]

The FX line is so old now. Building a brand new system based on it seems like it would ultimately be disappointing in the long run. If you really want to build AMD, maybe late next year things will look different:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...rmance_Micro_Architecture_in_2015_Report.html

Right now the consensus is nearly unanimous that the only rational reason for choosing an FX chip today is if you already have the mobo for it, other than for some niche applications, perhaps.

Maybe, but late 2015 is just for revealing the architecture. Even assuming no delays, at best I don't see retail availability until well into 2016. That could be an interesting year though, because of this rumored chip, and broadwell k and skylake should be available as well. Actually though, I have pretty much given up on expecting big improvements on the desktop CPU side, since sandy bridge was pretty much the last big step forward.

 

[Ramses]

You all have really got me thinking now. I am looking to build a new system but want to want go all out now and then wish I would have waited just a little bit longer. I was thinking of just spending about 1500 now to build a nice amd fx based system. This system will do all I need for at least the next 2 years being that Im looking for more of a workstation with a little gaming on the site. I was looking at getting a r285 or something in that price range. Then when the other new chips come out I can look to just upgrading my board, chip and memory to the new stuff and keep the rest of my system. I was looking at spending 2500 now but if I can save 1k now and then upgrade down the road I think that would be better. What do you all think?

Thanks in advance

Are you starting from absolutely nothing or do you have a case, power supply, etc? R285 is a neat card but I don't know that it's the best bang for the GPU buck right now. Also are you set on new stuff?

 

[rfs830]

Are you starting from absolutely nothing or do you have a case, power supply, etc? R285 is a neat card but I don't know that it's the best bang for the GPU buck right now. Also are you set on new stuff?

I dont have anything right now. I have been using laptops but now want to go back to a desktop as I now have more space. I was looking at maybe building a intel i7-5820K system as I was looking for a vm/workstation box first. I can only put off building maybe another few months but then I will need to build. Thats why I was thinking amd fx now then upgrade down the road.

I have not been keeping up on all the new hardware as before I would just see what new gaming laptop asus had out and I wold just buy that.

 

[crashtech]

Maybe, but late 2015 is just for revealing the architecture. Even assuming no delays, at best I don't see retail availability until well into 2016. That could be an interesting year though, because of this rumored chip, and broadwell k and skylake should be available as well. Actually though, I have pretty much given up on expecting big improvements on the desktop CPU side, since sandy bridge was pretty much the last big step forward.

Well, sure. But hardcore fans have to have something to hold onto, and that was all I had to offer, lol. I really hope AMD can knock it out of the park, it'd be good for everyone including Intel. If they go too long without any competition on the desktop/server side, they're gonna get too complacent, if they aren't already.