Intel hyper threading vs AMD's two cores. Their 8 core CPU is very similar to 4 dual core chips put together, the second core acts a little like hyper threading. With a faster second core, it increases the speed of multithreaded tasks...
AMD becomes the first to reach 5GHz with FX-9590 processor
- Thread starter Shawn Knight
- Start date
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
Again seriously!!
Hyper-threading is a design to compensate for core inefficiencies. Ignoring these inefficiencies and increasing core count instead, is one of many reasons in my opinion why AMD suffers from high TDP. But yet here you are comparing hyper-threading with a full-fledged core, when the rest of us are looking at core to core comparisons. Somehow I think you are scrapping the bottom of the barrel.
Jad Chaar
Posts: 6,481 +976
Well yeah. I personally dont experience those issues with my GPU ever since the uninstall utility came out. But yeah, frame latency can be fixed with drivers, and that is AMDs weakness.
"In reality, however, the FX-9590 will do little to help AMD position themselves against rival Intel"
Who wrote this stupid article? PC's have to rely mostly on console ports, next gen consoles are AMD and Radeon Based Hardware, so an AMD/Radeon based PC running a next gen console port will pi** all over an Intel based PC, game developers are going to develop for AMD/Radeon based architecture LMAO!
Who wrote this stupid article? PC's have to rely mostly on console ports, next gen consoles are AMD and Radeon Based Hardware, so an AMD/Radeon based PC running a next gen console port will pi** all over an Intel based PC, game developers are going to develop for AMD/Radeon based architecture LMAO!
Jad Chaar
Posts: 6,481 +976
I really wonder how much games use those "virtual threads" because an i7 doesnt gain much over a i5 quad core. Yet, AMDs 8350 gains considerable performance over a 6300. I find that pretty interesting. I still think you are right though.
I know AMD does suffer from high TDP, I accept that
However, I don't compare processors by core count/clock speeds etc... I simply compare with the way they perform. Again! Intel has better single threaded performance, and AMD better multithreaded performance for the reasons I put forward in my last post. Fully fledged core? The AMD cores in the 8 core processors do not have as many resources such as cache, etc open to them than a normal single core, therefore not a fully fledged core.
EEatGDL
Posts: 770 +501
Oh really? As far as I remember x86 is Intel's, AMD first licensed it [before 386, along with others] and now they are on their own, but still the same architecture to maintain legacy, software doesn't ask for "Intel x86" or "AMD x86". You're crying stupidity when you show no background but agressiveness instead... have you even seen a benchmark? Radeon was already present in the XBOX 360 and that didn't prevent ported games to use NVIDIA PhysX (XCOM: Enemy Unknown uses NVIDIA PhysX on PC and still runs in XB360) or any other propietary/globally adopted technology/APIs in either graphics or low-level instructions (new instructions incorporated in the ISA); and I see it pretty much the other way around: developing for PC, porting to X-Box One and PS4 with minor changes
Having AMD or Intel won't change much in the future but close the porting-gap, it will benefit more than help one in particular independently of who's selling the x86 chips. I'm just seeing here another AMD fanboy, because this FX-9590 won't be used on either X-Box One nor PS4.
amstech
Posts: 2,660 +1,824
This statement doesn't make any sense. If AMD had better multithreaded performance, its 8 core CPU's wouldn't lose to Intel 4 and 6 core CPU's.
AMD's architecture and instruction sets are inferior to Intel's. Countless benchmarks of all kinds show this.
Most modern programs at the moment are single threaded or rely on a single thread to compute the majority of the program, with some other threads on the side (the main thread controls the speed of the program, a bit like a control thread)... Therefore do not benefit from higher cores. I am so sick and tired of Intel vs AMD. I only went for AMD because its similar to an i5 in performance and I decided to roll the dice and gamble with the 8350. I enjoy using it, and I am aware that Intel have many strengths over AMD.
I try to take a neutral stand, but AMD has some strengths over Intel - it all depends on what you are doing. It's true the I7's are the best around, but who cares??? I just want to run a fast computer which does everything I need for my budget and I have one. Why can't you guys just accept that they have different strengths and weaknesses, and are more suited for other task. Fanboy? How childish can people get calling people names because they prefer a brand of processor? I am sick of it. Let AMD release a new processor and don't shake it off before its even been release. It could beat Intel's I7 or be worse than their I3. No-one knows, and they can only guess. Its like me shaking off the new Intel releases before trying it out for myself or looking at review because I may prefer another brand.
Sheeesh, that's my rant over! Sorry anyone else who had to read this.
EEatGDL
Posts: 770 +501
Dude, I don't think you're seeing the whole picture here, I called him what he's manifesting [he posted twice here almost with the same idea as if asking for attention the second time, but in the second calling the writter stupid -that's childish-]; and I'm not even Intel fanboy, I suggest family when asked to buy AMD, and when someone tells me he's about to build a rig with Bulldozer I'm all "go ahead!".
But he's not using any background on his statements other than brand, as if AMD selling in consoles would actually benefit AMD's architecture, saying he even cancelled buying NVIDIA for that sole reason [brand presence in future consoles]. Programmers port high level code which is recompiled and adjusted according to the different architectures, which most of the job is of the compiler; they don't program in assembly language to use particular propietary features, optimizations can be done from the compiler and programmer part for a particular platform, but still mantain the usability for other platforms/architectures. AMD being on both future consoles doesn't give much advantage to it but economically [and not even advantage, just some fresh air].
There was PS3 with NVIDIA, 360 with AMD and PC with both of them and that didn't charge the balance to one side, people still bought their video cards for different reasons and programmers either choose to work closely with NVIDIA and their APIs/technology or with AMD which see better results sometimes or use something they consider would enhance the experience someway.
Remember, computer architecture is a like a black box: you give it an input, you expect the same result don't caring how it does it; and AMD has minor variations to the low-level instructions programs may use whether they do it in a totally different way or the same way that the competition does it; similar with graphics cards, being there more differences.
Concerning consoles and games, I am not sure what will happen - its up to the game developers! Some programs are optimized for NVIDA GPU's, but with the consoles it is likely that some, but not all games may now become optimized for Radeon GPU's. It depends on what game developers focus on - probably mobile graphics
GhostRyder
Posts: 2,151 +588
This guy ^
Couldn't have said it better myself.
This is why I like cpumark. http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8350+Eight-Core
dividebyzero
Posts: 4,840 +1,271
That has already happened. The purge started with DIrk Meyer being relieved of his post. Unfortunately for AMD they are locked into the architecture for the foreseeable future.The rehiring of Jim Keller means that there is definitely a new design team going in a new direction but the lead in time for CPUs is measured in years. Note that the Bulldozer architecture was already well advanced in 2007.
As far as the FX-9000 series goes...its inexpensive PR if nothing else. Keeps people talking about the company, and theres always the chance that the casual passer-by will see the 5GHz number and attribute the "moar pwr" philosophy to their next laptop or pre-built purchase.
As far as the architecture itself is concerned, when even AMD execs are calling it a disaster it's really time to face the facts:
(And No. Piledriver isn't a "new architecture" any more than Ivy Bridge is a new architecture just because it adds some refinements and a new instruction set to Sandy Bridge)
No. No. No.
The 990FX chipset doesn't support PCIE 3.0, and nor does any of the C32 and G34 socketed solutions either. If you'd bothered to read the fine print:
The situation is no different from Asus' PLX equipped Intel boards. By your reasoning, the Z77 chipset supports quad graphics cards because a few PLX equipped motherboards do.
Note: If you're going to call someone out for being wrong, its always best to make sure you're right first.
Keep seeing you guys getting premature hardons over this.
For now its all hearsay we don't know what future ports will run like regardless if the CPU and GPU belong to AMD's in the next gen consoles.
When they games are out and we can do some cross platform comparison then we can talk until then keep it in your pants bro.
My current setup is i7/Radeon just to get that out there.
dividebyzero
Posts: 4,840 +1,271
I think EEatGDL called it. Kelorth sounds like a shill/cheerleader with the repetitive name/brand placement in their posting. They read like poorly composed press releases.
GhostRyder
Posts: 2,151 +588
Umm no, your wrong, its still a AMD 990FX board that supports PCI-E 3.0 which you said there was none, you just forgot there was one out now. End of discussion...
Oh and I read the fine print, but clearly its still a 990FX chip set, does not matter what extras are added. Same with Quad support on a Z77 board, its still a Z77 chipset.
/Back to Ignore
Now anyway, next gen consoles with AMD stuff, I don't really think that's going to make a huge impact other than maybe PhysX at most. Its really just going to be the same as last round in terms of consoles but with a higher probability of better graphics all around since they wont be as limited by consoles again.
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
A chipset is a set of chips that are identical on each and every board. If there are additional chips, these chips are not a part of the chipset.
AMD 990FX Chipset
Please find where it states PCIe 3.0 is included.
AMD 990FX Chipset
Please find where it states PCIe 3.0 is included.
GhostRyder
Posts: 2,151 +588
It is still an AMD board, that's AM3+, that's a 990FX chipset, that supports FX or any series of AMD processor (In a sense of the last years or so), that has PCI-E 3.0 Support. Even with it being an add on, it still is there, and it clearly exists. Link
I never once said it was not a mod, I just said It Exists
By the way, back on the real subject, so has anyone found boards that could support a tdp of 220+ yet. Im curious to see if anything other than something made specifically for that chp exists, im going to research that next
I never once said it was not a mod, I just said It Exists
By the way, back on the real subject, so has anyone found boards that could support a tdp of 220+ yet. Im curious to see if anything other than something made specifically for that chp exists, im going to research that next
Jad Chaar
Posts: 6,481 +976
Someone snapped this pic of the 9590 during E3 if anyone is curious:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ykry7tcxdik3fr3/965177_484496408289518_1880354441_o.jpg
Sorry I cant insert it, my inserter isnt working.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ykry7tcxdik3fr3/965177_484496408289518_1880354441_o.jpg
Sorry I cant insert it, my inserter isnt working.
GhostRyder
Posts: 2,151 +588
Oh wow ok...Well I will say this, the pump looks sexy with that glowing FX logo. I want to see the temperature monitor lol.
Snickers
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
DBZ never said it didn't exist, he said PCIe 3.0 wasn't built into the chipset. Your biggest problem with DBZ is you don't know just how technical he is.
EEatGDL
Posts: 770 +501
Dude, don't you read? That's not part of the chipset, chipset is either done by Intel, AMD or VIA, additional features added are just connections to existing buses. When you buy a certain chipset you expect a standard as a starting point, from there, manufacturers can add features and controllers by their own.
These are official specifications of chipsets:
https://www.techspot.com/guides/519-intel-z77-panther-point-chipset/page2.html
If a manufacturer wants to add SLI/Crossfire two,three,four-way support, PCIe 3.0, etc. that's up to the manufacturer, not part of the chipset.
dividebyzero
Posts: 4,840 +1,271
Comprehension fail.
I didn't mention motherboards at all. As cliffordcooley mentioned and I stated:
You really aren't doing yourself any favours...just exposing a lack of comprehension and basic technical knowledge.
AMD 990FX chipset
GhostRyder
Posts: 2,151 +588
Its still an AMD board that's a 990FX chipset with those features...
Just like its still a Z77 even with added support for Quad-SLI/CFX
It does not matter if it was not done directly by AMD, it means it can and was done, just instead by Asus so there is a board, you can buy, that supports an AMD Processor and is the 990FX chipset, that has PCI-E 3.0.
Just like its still a Z77 even with added support for Quad-SLI/CFX
It does not matter if it was not done directly by AMD, it means it can and was done, just instead by Asus so there is a board, you can buy, that supports an AMD Processor and is the 990FX chipset, that has PCI-E 3.0.
GhostRyder
Posts: 2,151 +588
You said
I just showed you a board with PCI-E 3.0 on the AMD side.
Your cute, but I wont stoop to your level by insulting.
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
The board supports PCIe3.0 but it's not part of the chipset. You have three people trying to explain this, why is it so hard for you to grasp?
Similar threads
