• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

[Techspot] FX power vs performance

Yeah, you're gonna need that flamesuit. The article is really rather awful. Their point is that AMD gets a lot of undeserved hate, and their processors aren't as bad as they're made out to be compared to Intel's.

However, not anywhere in the article do they even show any data from their competition to draw such a comparison. They do claim what Intel's power draw is, but by failing to put that data in even a single chart, and compare it to AMD, requires the reader to do far more work than 99% of them are going to do.

Ain't nobody got time for that.

If they wanted to set people who are "misinformed" on the matter straight, they certainly have failed to do so. Regardless of whether or not they are actually correct, and that AMD is "much better than one would be led to believe," that message gets totally lost by that one critical shortcoming.

I guess the performance scaling alongside the power scaling for various workloads is interesting, and not something I see very often. Overclocking for gaming seems very wasteful here. If you're okay with your processor becoming so hot that it'd desolder the socket off the board (not a stab at AMD), you can get very nice performance scaling in Handbrake
 
Last edited:
Love the graphs that zero out the absolute power usage on the right but hyper-scale the benefits of increasing clockspeed on the left.

2014-12-17_14-25-09.jpg


Totally convinces me to go out and buy one! :hmm:
 
III-V said:
Yeah, you're gonna need that flamesuit. The article is really rather awful. Their point is that AMD gets a lot of undeserved hate, and their processors aren't as bad as they're made out to be compared to Intel's.

However, not anywhere in the article do they even show any data from their competition to draw such a comparison. They do claim what Intel's power draw is, but by failing to put that data in even a single chart, and compare it to AMD, requires the reader to do far more work than 99% of them are going to do.

Ain't nobody got time for that.

If they wanted to set people who are "misinformed" on the matter straight, they certainly have failed to do so. Regardless of whether or not they are actually correct, and that AMD is "much better than one would be led to believe," that message gets totally lost by that one critical shortcoming.

I guess the performance scaling alongside the power scaling for various workloads is interesting, and not something I see very often. Overclocking for gaming seems very wasteful here. If you're okay with your processor becoming so hot that it'd desolder the socket off the board (not a stab at AMD), you can get very nice performance scaling in Handbrake
Click to expand...

Not awful really, just incomplete. Without comparable power and performance figures from intel, it is really meaningless. They say how much intel power consumption increases with overclocking, but they give no absolute power usage numbers or performance numbers.
 
frozentundra123456 said:
Not awful really, just incomplete. Without comparable power and performance figures from intel, it is really meaningless. They say how much intel power consumption increases with overclocking, but they give no absolute power usage numbers or performance numbers.
Click to expand...
Yeah I'll concede that. The article does offer some value. It's just bizarre that they'd leave out the critical piece of information that they base their entire piece on.
 
I like my FX. I think the sweet spot for them is really the mid 4GHz range. Would have liked to see some comparison with i3/i5's.
 
nemesismk2 said:
finally a decent article about amd fx been waiting for a long time 🙂
Click to expand...

FX series gets way too much hate and there are hyped up cherry-picked benchmarks of G3258 and i3s in dual-threaded games that get plastered all over the forums to downplay FX's competitiveness in well-threaded modern benchmarks.

While at this time I would choose an i5/i7 for my overall system build, the FX9000 series is still a very decent CPU performance wise for multi-threaded apps that's brought down by its high power usage and outdated AM3+ features set. If AMD is able to release a next gen CPU with 20-30% faster IPC on 16-20nm node, it will make great strides in capitalizing on its multi-threaded performance.

3dsmax.png

aftereffects.png

premiere.png

lightroom.png

finereader.png

truecrypt.png

winrar.png

x264.png

freemake.png


Considering how old the Bulldozer architecture is vs. Haswell, how inferior the node is that AMD is using for its CPU fabrication, and how little R&D and engineering resources AMD has, what they've done even be in a discussion of multi-threaded performance is nothing short of remarkable. Hopefully AMD can adopt a more modern node with its next 2016 architecture so that we get much needed competition in the $200+ CPU space. AMD also desperately needs to update its I/O chipset features set to M.2 32Gb/sec and by 2016 I would hope PCIe 4.0.
 
RussianSensation said:
FX series gets way too much hate and there are hyped up cherry-picked benchmarks of G3258 and i3s in dual-threaded games that get plastered all over the forums to downplay FX's competitiveness in well-threaded modern benchmarks.
Click to expand...

Well that's the whole point,nobody will buy the pentium or I3 for the hyped up cherry-picked benchmarks that you just put up,people asking for gaming/everyday tasks CPUs are not interested in 3Ds,truecrypt, and all the stuff you showed us, they are interested in games and everyday workloads,and there the pentiums and I3s are just better.

Sure, if someone needs a machine only for this type of workload an FX is great,but like it or not games don't work the same way as these programs do and a CPU with faster but fever cores will almost always win.
 
Amd please do 28nm bulk 8 module steamroller chip sans l3$ with an fm2+ chipset. Clocked around 4-4.4ghz.
It would be smaller than vishera and be a throughput monster!
 
I'd buy a 4 module steamroller chip. I am really liking the 860k, gaming performance is better than the i3-3220 it replaced, plus I can overclock it.
 
ShintaiDK said:
But not enough would buy it and it would simply turn out as a loss.
Click to expand...

I'm not too sure, most of the R&D is paid for. They'd just have to put the 'off the shelf' parts together. But, I'm not sure there are many FM2+ boards that come with the power delivery that would be needed for a 4GHz+ Steamroller four module part.
 
Marketing disguised as journalism. AMD has no new products to generate new review, so they got someone to rereview an ancient product? Probably.
 
erunion said:
Marketing disguised as journalism. AMD has no new products to generate new review, so they got someone to rereview an ancient product? Probably.
Click to expand...


Yeah it is ancient but what could they do or have done to fill the gap until zen? Besides an 8 module steamroller chip... Market the last batches of vishera that exist...maybe
 
SlowSpyder said:
I'm not too sure, most of the R&D is paid for. They'd just have to put the 'off the shelf' parts together. But, I'm not sure there are many FM2+ boards that come with the power delivery that would be needed for a 4GHz+ Steamroller four module part.
Click to expand...

Its so low you dont even see SR based AM3+ parts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top