dividebyzero
Posts: 4,840 +1,271
So you're negating the findings of others based on bias, yet commit to AMD forever based on unreleased product.....so much for self awareness.
AMD's Zen processors to feature up to 32 cores, 8-channel DDR4
- Thread starter Scorpus
- Start date
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
Evernessince
Posts: 5,469 +6,158
Ok, how about this. Go find any website that says AMD's top of the line FX processor can beat ANY of Intel's skylake i7 processor. If you are so confident that all these reports are stinted towards intel, let's see your best data.
captaincranky
Posts: 19,684 +8,825
So the AMD fan base will be changing its battle cry from, "wait until Bulldozer gets here", to, "wait until Zen gets here". That's about the extent of it, right?
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
Technician
Posts: 677 +115
When I upgraded my youngest daughters computer at Christmas for her I seriously considered going with AMD for the build since I was replacing the mainboard, CPU and memory together. All of the other computers in the house ate Intel / nVidia builds ( 13 total) and I could have saved a few bucks with the cheaper AMD setup but I decided that since she is getting top marks in school I didn't want to treat her like a second class citizen and relegate her to AMD purgatory. So we decided to step up and get her what we all used and what she had previously and I did an ASUS H170 hero board with skylake and quad channel memory. They are only kids once, why compromise?
But in all fairness I did a lot of research on AMD since I had never used it before and considered it seriously, until I did exhaustive research on it. Then ( for me) the choice was obvious.
Last edited:
Evernessince
Posts: 5,469 +6,158
It really is a shame that AMD is only considered for lower end builds nowadays too. I used to have an Athlon x64 back in their hayday. Nothing we can really do, AMD just isn't big enough and doesn't have enough resources to compete with a company over 10 times it's size. I really do hope that Zen does deliver because if it doesn't AMD's nor the CPU market's prospects look good.
captaincranky
Posts: 19,684 +8,825
Well not yet, but you will be........eventually.3 x 4K at over 100+ FPS...I'm very disappointed.
red1776
Posts: 5,124 +194
huh?Well not yet, but you will be........eventually.
captaincranky
Posts: 19,684 +8,825
Since it isn't released yet, I'm suggesting that when you get one, you will be disappointed.
That's the conceptional framework I'm using to bust your ballz. I honestly didn't think it was abstruse enough to warrant a "huh". But, I suppose you could also be busting mine.
captaincranky
Posts: 19,684 +8,825
I thought you were projecting the eventual performance of this "Zen" series.
Face it though, doesn't your main rig have about 4 Nvidia 980's in it? You'd think with much graphics terraflopping going on, you'd likely get the same FPS and screen res numbers from a P-3.
^^ Was that enough to convince you I'm joking?
red1776
Posts: 5,124 +194
I thought you were projecting the eventual performance of this "Zen" series.
Face it though, doesn't your main rig have about 4 Nvidia 980's in it? You'd think with much graphics terraflopping going on, you'd likely get the same FPS and screen res numbers from a P-3.
^^ Was that enough to convince you I'm joking?
I never doubted you were busting ballz
Terraflopping?...I think you just Shakespeare'd all over yourself
It has 4 x R390x's however according to whiners and those who screed about something they have never used, an AMD will not even power 4 GPU's.
...hmm...6000 posts.
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
Grats!
dividebyzero
Posts: 4,840 +1,271
I don't think the issue is if an AMD platform can power quad GPU, but how effectively the platform scales feeding four GPUs. Can't say I've seen anyone saying that an AMD FX platform can't do quad Crossfire (or SLI). Point them out to me, and let's have some fun.
As for feeding the GPUs in comparison with Intel platforms, I don't think the numbers lie. The highest placing in the four most intensive quad-GPU benchmarks for an AMD platform is 31st ( an FX-9590/990FX) for 3DMark Fire Strike Ultra using four R9 295X2's. The preceding 30 places are obviously Intel. The next best result is your 45th place in 3DMark11 Extreme, followed by 152nd place ( Phenom II X6 1090T) in Unigine Heaven Xtreme Preset, and 279th place (also a 1090T) in 3DMark Vantage Performance Preset.
It makes for pretty telling reading considering the number of 2500K/3570K/4690K 4-core systems putting up better quad-GPU benches than many (nominally) 8 core FX's.
Last edited:
red1776
Posts: 5,124 +194
As for feeding the GPUs in comparison with Intel platforms, I don't think the numbers lie
Oh they do lie and that has been my contention while building a quad GPU setup every generation since the 4xxx series. If you benchmark Futuremark products for sport then fine, Intel takes it. In actual gaming then not. My rig(s) in non-Futuremark are right smack in the middle of the Intel lineup. in Heaven I have been anywhere from third to 11th of the top 20 surrounded by Intel on both sides. Benchmarking actual games are a different matter all together. The scaling of AMD GPU's is better with more than two cards and the FPS is indistinguishable using an Intel and or Nvidia setup, and often higher as the resolution goes up. And not to go all conspiracy theory but as you know Futuremark was caught adding code that recognized particular brand of product and offloading in the past. That discussion took place right here at TS in 2009 I believe it was.
[/QUOTE]It makes for pretty telling reading considering the number of 2500K/3570K/4690K 4-core systems putting up better quad-GPU benches than many (nominally) 8 core FX's.[/QUOTE]
As I said, if you bench for fun and profit then sure get an Intel. If your concern is actually gaming then its not so telling. I will go with my research/benchmarking which has been upwards of a thousand times over 5 generations of CPU's/GPU's and have yet to come across another top end AMD CPU/AMD GPU quad build. Too bad the benches don't reflect what happens when you load up a game.
wastedkill
Posts: 1,423 +348
Hence why I said 32/64... but it will 'act' like it has 64 cores.....
Technician
Posts: 677 +115
It makes for pretty telling reading considering the number of 2500K/3570K/4690K 4-core systems putting up better quad-GPU benches than many (nominally) 8 core FX's.[/QUOTE]
As I said, if you bench for fun and profit then sure get an Intel. If your concern is actually gaming then its not so telling. I will go with my research/benchmarking which has been upwards of a thousand times over 5 generations of CPU's/GPU's and have yet to come across another top end AMD CPU/AMD GPU quad build. Too bad the benches don't reflect what happens when you load up a game.[/QUOTE]
If your concern is strictly gaming why limit yourself to an 'also ran'? If your concern is BUGET gaming, AMD enter the picture. Of course there are also less expensive Intel nVidia packages that the best one.
red1776
Posts: 5,124 +194
As I said, if you bench for fun and profit then sure get an Intel. If your concern is actually gaming then its not so telling. I will go with my research/benchmarking which has been upwards of a thousand times over 5 generations of CPU's/GPU's and have yet to come across another top end AMD CPU/AMD GPU quad build. Too bad the benches don't reflect what happens when you load up a game.[/QUOTE]
If your concern is strictly gaming why limit yourself to an 'also ran'? If your concern is BUGET gaming, AMD enter the picture. Of course there are also less expensive Intel nVidia packages that the best one.[/QUOTE]
it comes from building gaming systems for people with a budget (or 99% of the population) and having to find cost effective solutions. however the 'also ran' comment is preposterous. I game at high res and put my system up against anything anyone has to offer in the multi GPU area. Budget gaming? other than pre-fab benches, I have yet to come across a tri or quad Nvidia system that outdoes mine. when I said 100+FPS at 12k, I wasn't kidding. unless you have built and used both Nvidia and AMD quad GPU systems, you would not know this
This is the kind of thing I have been disproving since building 'Crysis systems' in 2007/2008 and hearing the barrage of misguided comments about what AMD is not capable. And yes it will play Crysis...and then some.
Technician
Posts: 677 +115
If your concern is strictly gaming why limit yourself to an 'also ran'? If your concern is BUGET gaming, AMD enter the picture. Of course there are also less expensive Intel nVidia packages that the best one.[/QUOTE]
But does it djent?
Why are you mad, bro?
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
When all the benchmarks suggest the same thing, maybe it's not the benchmarks that are misguiding. I mean if you go outside the bounds of general consensus, how do you judge something misguided. Especially if it goes against the consensus.
I will also point out that an overclock machine will rise above the others. And give a sense of false allusion, their machine is better than others.
I will also point out that an overclock machine will rise above the others. And give a sense of false allusion, their machine is better than others.
dividebyzero
Posts: 4,840 +1,271
I'm going to have to ask for some kind of corroborating evidence I'm afraid. You know me well enough that I don't make a statement or take a stance without a significant body of factual data drawn from multiple sources.
And yet, evidence from review/benchmarking sites tends to be pretty clear - and supports my experience first hand. You do remember that I used to run two multi-GPU systems? Admittedly my 1055T/ HD 5970 + HD 5850 2GB wasn't top top top of the line (but wasn't far off), but it still gave me an adequate insight into 10h's abilities. The caveat here is that once you move up in resolution/use downsampling (as in your case and my old AMD rig), and/or heavy AA, the choice of platform becomes less important as the limiting factor moves to the graphics side of the equation - and will probably be all but negated if only using two GPUs where CPU load is both marginalized and becomes GPU bottlenecked fairly readily.
Hardly surprising when AMD themselves via their own pro marketer, AMD's Matt Buck, choose to use an Intel platform for marketing their quad Fury X (which also included gaming benches in various forums) Either:
1. AMD don't have any faith in their own platform for direct marketing and ad hoc benchmark challenges in forums, or
2. AMD enjoy doing Intel a solid by promoting the X99 platform for them - which the AMD rep reinforced heavily...
...I'm not sure which is more worrying from a marketing perception point of view,
As you point out, defining "worth" by a narrow parameter is a flawed exercise. Workloads (especially productivity apps in my case), connectivity, and feature set all become part of the whole. As you probably remember, I've sworn off AMD CPU platforms (along with many other enthusiasts of my acquaintance) and don't really recommend them to customers in the wake of the Bulldozer pre-release marketing and The John Fruehe Experience - and won't unless they are very compelling. PR and marketing is one thing- and every company engages in it, but attacking and attempting to destroy forum members credibility and pressuring mods to hand out bans to those daring to question the party line is inexcusable. Bearing all that in mind, my first hand experience with AMD's CMT architectures and multi-GPU are limited, and most multi-GPU benchmark challenges usually revolve around AMD v Nvidia rather than AMD v Intel utilizing a single graphics vendor, so I am more than open to seeing some data regarding tri/quad CFX (or SLI) where the only variable is the CPU/chipset.
Cycloid Torus
Posts: 4,892 +1,711
I want one.
Technician
Posts: 677 +115
Take 2, they're small...and slow...and hot temperature wise, not sales.
