Quad core..phht Amd has a new 8 core desktop cpu

[tuolumnejim]

I know you Intel guys will go "so", but I really like AMD granted I haven't use an Intel chip since they had the "new" 300mhz unit.

Just got this in my email from newegg.

CPU Link
Main ad link

[Merc1138]

Yeah we know. By the way, it's garbage. Go try reading some benchmarks compared to the previous generation of AMD CPUs, and Intel's current line.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=487677

[Darklyte27]

Yup more isnt always better
Im running a sandy bridge 2600k with a ssd drive

[Us3rName]

I've been out of the loop

wasn't there some type of bottle neck in terms of processing capabilities compared to what the storage devices can do?

basically can we utilize the full potential of the processor?

[Merc1138]

Originally Posted by Us3rName

I've been out of the loop

wasn't there some type of bottle neck in terms of processing capabilities compared to what the storage devices can do?

basically can we utilize the full potential of the processor?

Huh? I'm not sure what storage device speed has to do with the CPU, that would be application specific. Again, using the full potential of the processor depends on whether or not the applications are multi-threaded, even then they need to be optimized to use the total number of cores available(or the OS needs to be able to assign individual processes to each core, which modern OS's can do). So you need multi-threaded applications, or be multi-tasking to take advantage of the additional cores. Neither scenario is something that would really apply to a desktop PC(unless you're trying to play battlefield 3 and encode video at the same time or something).

Plus, individual SSD drives these days can easily do 300MB/s read 250MB/s write(and some cheating is involved with benchmark applications writing out just zeros with specific block sizes to hit the max of about 550MB/s read and 550MB/s write), that's not including PCI-e based SSD options or SSDs used in a RAID volume.

[Us3rName]

like I said.

out of the loop.

When 64bit OS were starting to roll in was when there were talks on hardware related bottle necking.

this was when 1gb of ram was $100+

I just bought 2gb for $60 last week!

[tuolumnejim]

Were some writers saying the same thing about quadcore cpu's being unuseable? Look where we are now, give these a little time to work the bugs out and these are going to be awesome.

[paul0660]

Competition is a very good thing.

If there were no Apple, we would still be typing c:/ to start the day.

If there were no MS, top of the line would be a 150mhz at $3000.

[choprzrul]

Question: Which company's processor will benchmark better, a $300 AMD or a $300 Intel? Assuming same bus speeds, memory speeds, etc.

.

[nmerced]

Originally Posted by choprzrul

Question: Which company's processor will benchmark better, a $300 AMD or a $300 Intel? Assuming same bus speeds, memory speeds, etc.

.

Right now its Intel but just barely. I'm pretty sure Intel would be coming up with a new line in the near future. The pissing race is never ending.

[Merc1138]

Originally Posted by tuolumnejim

Were some writers saying the same thing about quadcore cpu's being unuseable? Look where we are now, give these a little time to work the bugs out and these are going to be awesome.

Yes, but when the single core performance of the 6 core CPU(AMD) runs circles around the 8 core CPU(AMD), and the 8 core CPU(AMD) is just barely on par with Intel's middle-end 4 core CPU(sandy bridge) even with mutlithreaded applications, AMD screwed up. Then there is the matter of the power requirements for those additional slow cores. There are no "bugs to be worked out", AMD launched a bad product and is relying on it's marketing team to overcome the mediocre/bad reviews. Hence the garbage like the world record overclock that required 3/4 of the CPU to be disabled to even achieve with no stability or performance testing done.

Originally Posted by nmerced

Right now its Intel but just barely. I'm pretty sure Intel would be coming up with a new line in the near future. The pissing race is never ending.

Intel already scheduled their new line(Ivy bridge) to launch in March.

[choprzrul]

Originally Posted by choprzrul

Question: Which company's processor will benchmark better, a $300 AMD or a $300 Intel? Assuming same bus speeds, memory speeds, etc.

.

It might be a forum faux pas, but I am answering my own question as it made me curious enough to go look.

Using Passmark's benchmark tool scores, I compared 2 identically priced processors. AMD prices didn't go to $300, so I used their highest priced processor from Newegg. I then looked up an Intel processor that matched the price and cross referenced both of them on Passmark's page.

For your review:

$189.99 Intel Core i5-2400: Passmark CPU = 6137

$189.99 AMD Phenom II X6 1100T: Passmark CPU = 6306

CPU Benchmarks

In a world where money is no object, Intel wins the speed wars. I don't live in such a world. So, if I have $189.99 to spend, and I want the fasted processor for that price, AMD wins.

If I have a pocket full of cast to blow, Intel wins.

.

[Merc1138]

Originally Posted by choprzrul

It might be a forum faux pas, but I am answering my own question as it made me curious enough to go look.

Using Passmark's benchmark tool scores, I compared 2 identically priced processors. AMD prices didn't go to $300, so I used their highest priced processor from Newegg. I then looked up an Intel processor that matched the price and cross referenced both of them on Passmark's page.

For your review:

$189.99 Intel Core i5-2400: Passmark CPU = 6137

$189.99 AMD Phenom II X6 1100T: Passmark CPU = 6306

CPU Benchmarks

In a world where money is no object, Intel wins the speed wars. I don't live in such a world. So, if I have $189.99 to spend, and I want the fasted processor for that price, AMD wins.

If I have a pocket full of cast to blow, Intel wins.

.

Umm, from the site you linked:

AMD FX-8150 Eight-Core Score = 8628 $279.99 on newegg
Intel Core i7-2600 score = 8965 $299.99 on newegg
Intel Core i7-2600k score = 10020 $314.99 on newegg

I don't consider a product announced last year, and launched 10 months after Intel released the i7-2600(with half the cores)that can't beat it in performance(but costs a whole $20 less) to be worthwhile. When you're talking about a $20 price difference, it's hardly an issue of money being no object.

[choprzrul]

Originally Posted by Merc1138

Umm, from the site you linked:

AMD FX-8150 Eight-Core Score = 8628 $279.99 on newegg
Intel Core i7-2600 score = 8965 $299.99 on newegg
Intel Core i7-2600k score = 10020 $314.99 on newegg

I don't consider a product announced last year, and launched 10 months after Intel released the i7-2600(with half the cores)that can't beat it in performance(but costs a whole $20 less) to be worthwhile. When you're talking about a $20 price difference, it's hardly an issue of money being no object.

I was just trying to use an exact apples to apples example based solely upon price. As the price difference increases, so does the benchmark values, as demonstrated in your example.

.

[natrab]

And FYI, Microcenter still has the 2600k for $279. That's where I got mine.

[Merc1138]

Originally Posted by choprzrul

I was just trying to use an exact apples to apples example based solely upon price. As the price difference increases, so does the benchmark values, as demonstrated in your example.

.

But you also claimed the most expensive AMD CPU on newegg was $189, considering they've been selling the new 8 core for a few days now that's hardly the case.

Also like natrab mentioned, you can find the i7-2600k for the same price as the AMD 8 core CPU, and still according to the benchmark site you posted it smokes the AMD 8 core and would end up costing the same(since everyone selling the new AMD CPU has it for $280)

[jimmykan]

I just ordered these parts to build a gaming PC to play Battlefield 3:

Processor: Intel Core i5-2500K
Motherboard: Asus P8Z68-V Pro
Memory: Corsair Vengeance 16GB 1600MHz DDR3
Graphics: EVGA GeForce GTX 580 SC DS
Solid State Drive: OCZ Vertex 3 60GB
Hard Drive: Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB
Power Supply: Corsair TX850W

Hopefully this will last me into Battlefield 4! I might have to buy another GeForce GTX 580 and do SLI to keep it going, though.
Case: Cooler Master HAF 922M

[choprzrul]

Originally Posted by Merc1138

But you also claimed the most expensive AMD CPU on newegg was $189, considering they've been selling the new 8 core for a few days now that's hardly the case.

Also like natrab mentioned, you can find the i7-2600k for the same price as the AMD 8 core CPU, and still according to the benchmark site you posted it smokes the AMD 8 core and would end up costing the same(since everyone selling the new AMD CPU has it for $280)

Ok, so I didn't go all over the internet searching for absolutely the highest priced AMD that I could possibly find. I went to Newegg and searched. Tell me what you see on that page? I then went and did another Newegg search and found an Intel processor that matched the price. After that, I looked at the benchmarks for those two processors that cost the same from Newegg. Did I, like, kill the Pope or something???

Oh, and I provided links so that anyone could follow what I was doing. Can you reciprocate?

.

[jimmykan]

I went with the Z68 chipset so that I could use the small SSD for hard drive caching. Intel calls it Smart Response Technology:

Intel Z68 Chipset & Smart Response Technology (SSD Caching) Review

You gain some drive performance without having to buy a giant SSD.

[Merc1138]

Originally Posted by choprzrul

Ok, so I didn't go all over the internet searching for absolutely the highest priced AMD that I could possibly find. I went to Newegg and searched. Tell me what you see on that page? I then went and did another Newegg search and found an Intel processor that matched the price. After that, I looked at the benchmarks for those two processors that cost the same from Newegg. Did I, like, kill the Pope or something???

Oh, and I provided links so that anyone could follow what I was doing. Can you reciprocate?

.

Reciprocate what? The performance numbers I mentioned were from the link you already provided. I also provided the model numbers that you can easily search for on newegg.com, I mentioned where I got my pricing from and someone else mentioned another site where you could get the i7-2600k for less.

http://www.newegg.com/Store/Category...PUs-Processors

Try clicking on the first ad on the page labeled "What's New" with the big text about AMD's 8 core processors. Or just copy the text from my post and paste the model into the search box on newegg.com.

Why is it people act like information is so difficult to find. If I tell you what website and what the model is, search for it.

edit: Here it is since you can't be bothered to highlight some text, hit ctrl+c, paste it into the search box and hit enter:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103960

[Nose Nuggets]

meh, the benefit of virtual cores only goes so far. most apps wont even utilize 2.

[choprzrul]

Originally Posted by Nose Nuggets

meh, the benefit of virtual cores only goes so far. most apps wont even utilize 2.

Yep, and that is why the new AMD benchmarks so poorly. Windows is unable to efficiently utilize those 8 cores, so you end up using only 2 or 4 of them.

[Merc1138]

Originally Posted by choprzrul

Yep, and that is why the new AMD benchmarks so poorly. Windows is unable to efficiently utilize those 8 cores, so you end up using only 2 or 4 of them.

But that's just it, windows can use 8 cores if the application is multi-threaded for it. The single core performance of AMD's previous 6 core CPU beats the 8 core version. This is basically taking a 3 liter v6, and then making a newer 3 liter v8. You have the same displacement, smaller cylinders, require more spark plugs, parts, etc.

The bottom line, is that for a new product I expect it to out-perform or be on par for performance but cost less than the competition that's been out for almost a year and force Intel to keeps it's cost down(which is what AMD has done in the past, forcing Intel to keep costs reasonable or produce a faster product) it does neither.

[choprzrul]

Originally Posted by Merc1138

But that's just it, windows can use 8 cores if the application is multi-threaded for it. The single core performance of AMD's previous 6 core CPU beats the 8 core version. This is basically taking a 3 liter v6, and then making a newer 3 liter v8. You have the same displacement, smaller cylinders, require more spark plugs, parts, etc.

The bottom line, is that for a new product I expect it to out-perform or be on par for performance but cost less than the competition that's been out for almost a year and force Intel to keeps it's cost down(which is what AMD has done in the past, forcing Intel to keep costs reasonable or produce a faster product) it does neither.

And once Microsoft patches Windows to optimize the AMD's capabilities?

.

[Rouge Recon]

I'm running 2nd gen SB, but I really am rooting for AMD. I hope they gain more market share. ARM too. Intel has too much control of the market. Choice is good.

[Merc1138]

Originally Posted by choprzrul

And once Microsoft patches Windows to optimize the AMD's capabilities?

.

Why do you think Windows can't handle 8 cores? Windows can handle it, has been able to for years. The applications need to handle it, or if they can't then you run more than one application at a time. The only thing Microsoft would need to patch into Windows would be support for a new instruction set(and even then the application would still need to use it) which is not the case here. Microsoft didn't need to patch anything for AMDs 6 core CPU, heck server 2008 R2 datacenter edition will support 64 cores(support for this is limited in lower end versions of windows) so it's not like MS needs to do anything.

Like I said, 1 core from AMDs over 6 core CPU runs faster than 1 core from AMDs newest CPU. That's why the thing doesn't perform so well. It's a less efficient design that is a brute force approach to getting the job done. This is just like back when AMD first made massive gains in market share from Intel toward the end of the single core CPU days when Intel did nothing but market megahertz and had no performance gains to match the clock speed. With this product AMD is marketing "more cores!" with no gain.

[choprzrul]

Originally Posted by Merc1138

Why do you think Windows can't handle 8 cores? Windows can handle it, has been able to for years. The applications need to handle it, or if they can't then you run more than one application at a time. The only thing Microsoft would need to patch into Windows would be support for a new instruction set(and even then the application would still need to use it) which is not the case here. Microsoft didn't need to patch anything for AMDs 6 core CPU, heck server 2008 R2 datacenter edition will support 64 cores(support for this is limited in lower end versions of windows) so it's not like MS needs to do anything.

Like I said, 1 core from AMDs over 6 core CPU runs faster than 1 core from AMDs newest CPU. That's why the thing doesn't perform so well. It's a less efficient design that is a brute force approach to getting the job done. This is just like back when AMD first made massive gains in market share from Intel toward the end of the single core CPU days when Intel did nothing but market megahertz and had no performance gains to match the clock speed. With this product AMD is marketing "more cores!" with no gain.

Sorry that it took me a while to get back to you on this. I got busy and haven't had a chance to go back and find what I had previously read about Windows playing nice with the new AMD. Anyway, here is the interesting part as commented on by a Microsoft person:

But this does force us to address the relationship between AMD’s hardware and the software that’ll invariably run on it. In Intel Core i5 And Core i7: Intel’s Mainstream Magnum Opus, I brought up specific optimizations in Windows 7 that were the product of collaboration between Intel and Microsoft—notably, core parking. Windows 7 intelligently schedules to physical cores before utilizing logical (Hyper-Threaded) cores.


In theory, AMD could benefit from the same thing. If Windows were able to utilize an FX-8150’s four modules first, and then backfill each module’s second core, it’d maximize performance with up to four threads running concurrently. This isn’t the case, though. According to Arun Kishan, software design engineer at Microsoft, each module is currently detected as two cores that are scheduled equally. So, in a dual-threaded application, you might see one active module and three idle modules—great for optimizing power, but theoretically less ideal from a performance standpoint. This also plays havoc with AMD’s claim that, when only one thread is active, it has full access to shared resources. Adding just one additional thread could tie up those shared resources, even as multiple other modules sit idle.


Microsoft is looking to change that behavior moving forward, though. Arun says that the dual-core modules have performance characteristics more similar to SMT than physical cores, so the company is looking to detect and treat them the same as Hyper-Threading in the future. The implications there would be significant. Performance would unquestionably improve, while AMD’s efforts to spin down idle modules would be made less effective.

Full Article Here

.

[stormy_clothing]

8 core is so 2002

100 core

[Merc1138]

Originally Posted by choprzrul

Sorry that it took me a while to get back to you on this. I got busy and haven't had a chance to go back and find what I had previously read about Windows playing nice with the new AMD. Anyway, here is the interesting part as commented on by a Microsoft person:



Full Article Here

.

That still doesn't explain AMD's older processor with less cores having better individual core performance than the 8 core. It also doesn't explain away the poor performance on linux compared to a 4 core Intel CPU(again, the support for more than 8 cores has been there for years), or the higher power consumption.

8 crappy cores < 6 less crappy cores < 4 better cores

[zenmastar]

Originally Posted by paul0660

Competition is a very good thing.

If there were no Apple, we would still be typing c:/ to start the day.

If there were no MS, top of the line would be a 150mhz at $3000.

I guess you are unfamiliar with patent #3541541, Engelbart, or X at MIT? If there were no Apple, we would be using windows on a Unix based computer... such as the current Mac.

If there were no Intel, we would not get stuck with a segmentation based architecture microprocessor and loose about a decade of worthwhile advances.

At least Apple picked the right microprocessor architecture from the beginning for the Mac.

[Nose Nuggets]

Originally Posted by choprzrul

And once Microsoft patches Windows to optimize the AMD's capabilities?

.

the applications you run will STILL need to handle 8 threads.

if windows uses all 8 threads, big whoop. windows is pretty low overhead.

[elSquid]

Originally Posted by Merc1138

This is basically taking a 3 liter v6, and then making a newer 3 liter v8. You have the same displacement, smaller cylinders, require more spark plugs, parts, etc.

But the engine can now spin faster, making more horsepower...

-- Michael

[Merc1138]

Originally Posted by elSquid

But the engine can now spin faster, making more horsepower...

-- Michael

Not if you did a bad job of it. There is more to it than just having more cylinders, which was my point.

[whatpain]

doesnt matter much anyway, the intitial benchmark tests say that the "bulldozer" as theyre calling it only performs as well as the first generation i7 980x and for the price and it having 8 cores you would expect more bang for the buck. i am dissapointed. heck it only performed 19% better then the first gen i5. but amd is always cheaper so well see what they do when the second gen i precessors take off

[Wherryj]

Originally Posted by Merc1138

Not if you did a bad job of it. There is more to it than just having more cylinders, which was my point.

More cylinders is better!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugatti_Veyron
W16 quad turbo or bust.

[JDay]

Big deal, the i5-2500k spanks it... and is cheaper.

[meaty-btz]

AMD failed totally in the desktop market this go round. We need competition, AMD is not providing it. Now the AMD 12 and soon 16 core Opterons are definitely a strong contender in the Server market. Just wish they could bring such solid competitiveness to the desktop

[ibanezfoo]

Originally Posted by Us3rName

like I said.

out of the loop.

When 64bit OS were starting to roll in was when there were talks on hardware related bottle necking.

this was when 1gb of ram was $100+

I just bought 2gb for $60 last week!

8 gig Patriot DDR3/1333 is $35 at Microcenter... you got had

[ibanezfoo]

Originally Posted by Nose Nuggets

the applications you run will STILL need to handle 8 threads.

if windows uses all 8 threads, big whoop. windows is pretty low overhead.

You can assign processor affinity...


I'm stoked for more cores for all my VMs. I wouldn't use one of these things in a desktop though... its kind of weak for what it costs vs. anything Intel has out right now.

[paul0660]

Originally Posted by zenmastar

I guess you are unfamiliar with patent #3541541, Engelbart, or X at MIT? If there were no Apple, we would be using windows on a Unix based computer... such as the current Mac.

If there were no Intel, we would not get stuck with a segmentation based architecture microprocessor and loose about a decade of worthwhile advances.

At least Apple picked the right microprocessor architecture from the beginning for the Mac.

Very unfamiliar. So unfamiliar I did not understand a word of that.

I was talking about marketing, and am right. You are referring to some tech gibberish and might be right as well.

And, it's lose, not loose...........my spellcheck would have caught that.