AMD becomes the first to reach 5GHz with FX-9590 processor

[dividebyzero]

I just went through and read every post, I never once stated anywhere that the 990FX chipset on every board supported PCI-E 3.0.

Well, if you didn't then, you have some fundamental problems with comprehension

and how long as the 990FX been AMD's flagship? No PCI-E 3.0 controller might not be a big deal in desktop, but it's a big selling point in the enterprise sector.

Wrong
http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/asus_amd_sabertooth_motherboard_with_pci_express_3.html

The quoted part of my post you listed only covers so many things
No PCI-E 3.0 controller for desktop 900 series (FX). Absolutely true. AMD's FX series use a PCI-E 2.0 controller
Might not be a big deal in desktop. My opinion, and if PCI-E 3.0 IS such a big deal, why can't you find more than one solitary AMD 900 series board touting the feature. It also should be noted that for the majority of users PCI-E 3.0 offers no tangible benefits over 2.0. Of course if PCI-E 3.0 IS an BIG DEAL, then AMD may as well pack up their tent and move on if the combined weight of all resources and their board partners yields one motherboard.
but it's a big selling point in the enterprise sector. You posted a link to a 990FX board, so we safely assume you weren't referencing C32 and G34 servers.

So, I'm supposedly wrong? Which part of the quote you lifted from me is incorrect?
Let me guess, absolutely none of it. You just interpreted what you read and hastily posted in a half-hearted attempt to call me out....and your reward? supplying the forums with a vast amount of unintentional humour and no small amount of derision. Awesome.

/play us out Benny Hill !

 

[GhostRyder]

Once again sticking to insulting I see

Where are you wrong, its listed right there No PCI-E 3.0 controller might not be a big deal in desktop. Yes part of this is an opinion, but however you are wrong on the no desktop support because there is desktop support. Even thought its one motherboard, that is one more than you claim and even if its not directly AMDs component, its still Desktop support and a 990FX chipset. As for the benefits, I don't really care, I was not arguing anything about the benefits of it.

While you were constantly writing insults on every post you made because you could not stand someone pointing out something you said was wrong while I did not once write an insult at you. Clearly you claim me to not be able to comprehend anything and to be the immature one, yet you were the only one out of the 4 of us talking yelling insults. Clearly you cant have a discussion without running to insulting others while the other two fighting for your side were both not once running insults at anyone in the discussion.

St1ckM4n Actually he did, claiming no desktop support for PCI-E 3.0 means he was ignoring or unaware of the fact the board existed in the normal market. Even if its a third party add on, its still desktop support no matter how you want to look at it.

Adjusting to /ignore mode again for rude commentor

 

[dividebyzero]

Where are you wrong, its listed right there No PCI-E 3.0 controller might not be a big deal in desktop.

TA DA ! ( (n))
AMD DO NOT HAVE A PCI-E 3.0 CONTROLLER FOR DESKTOP.

PCI-E CONTROLLERS ARE BUILT INTO THE CPU SILICON.

A PLX chip IS NOT A PCI-E CONTROLLER - NOR IS IT AN AMD DIVISION. IT IS A BRIDGE CHIP / LANE EXTENDER

 

[St1ckM4n]

I see it this way.

If you quote this part only...

No PCI-E 3.0 controller might not be a big deal in desktop, but it's a big selling point in the enterprise sector.

..and ignore the repeated attempts to further clarify the discussion, you could say there is a benefit of doubt that you (Ghost) receive, and you could be justified as calling DBZ a liar. But if you look at the post above, this is explained anyway...

However, if you don't cherry-pick that sentence out of context, this is what you get:

How much real difference is there between the 800 and 900 series chipsets? and how long as the 990FX been AMD's flagship? No PCI-E 3.0 controller might not be a big deal in desktop, but it's a big selling point in the enterprise sector.

The above is taken from a single paragraph, which DBZ uses quite well to convey his meaning. The italicized sentences are referring to each other and the bolded words are the discussion points.

Further to the above, as I meantioned before, DBZ and three others attempted multiple times to clarify the discussion - it was about chipsets.

Ghost, you're clinging to your own interpretation of DBZ's comment (first quoted example) which is fine, but you really need to take into account what the author of the comment is saying when they re-re-re-clarify.

 

[GhostRyder]

I already put him on ignore again awhile ago, I am not going to read anymore of his stuff since he cant make one post without insulting or attacking me. Just going to pretend he does not exist.

He can clarify and say it was about chipsets, but it was pointed out that there was a board that supported the 3.0 lanes even though it was an extender. So saying 0 desktop support is incorrect, limited would have been the correct statement.

As for calling him a "Liar" I pointed out an error, something he does on a constant basis, so if that's true, then hes done it probably 100's of times. But I digress...

Discussion is over, my point was valid and was proven very easily. The board exists, its a normal mainstream board, even if it has an add on its there. Discussion is over, back to 5ghz and setting computers on fire with a 220TDP.

 

[LinkedKube]

4

 

[Jad Chaar]

 

[Guest]

To answer your question: Because Intel is more efficient and does more work per clock cycle than AMD along with a few other things like hyperthreading and whatnot. The thing to remember about this is that 1Ghz for an intel processor is significantly faster than 1Ghz for an AMD processor, you can't just look at the number because that doesn't give you a very good look at how powerful it is. For example, a semi truck may have 1000 horsepower behind it and a Farrari may have 800 Horsepower behind it. Although the semi truck has a larger number, the farrari is still a whole lot faster.

 

[cliffordcooley]

@guest above - What are you really trying to say?

 

[Boilerhog146]

@guest let me see you pull 30,000 pounds of cargo with the Ferrari.

Oh ok, then why has he posted an insult in more than half his responses to me yet I have not said one insult other than saying he is wrong.

you keep saying he is wrong when he is obviously not ,that's insulting , and you repeat it over and over.your giving me a headache again, nothing against ,you ,but the chipset doesn't have pci-e 3.0 support .it was added to the board after just for argument sake,it worked,still needs a processor to make it go.there is none, hence its useless,even if it does exist.

 

[Steve]

It’s not horsepower that’s holding AMD back, their processors don’t develop enough torque. This thread has generated quite a lot of talk though, AMD should look into how we did it.

 

[Jad Chaar]

Wow, I am really creeped out. I was just on this thread, and I went to twitter. Then of course, on the side pane, it suggested me to follow AMD. That is some creepy stuff.

 

[pmshah]

I was a loyal AMD fan since 1992 in spite of lower performance. Earlier this year I reluctantly had to shift.

I started off with 100 mhz 486 up until Quad Phenom 9650. and several models in between. For some reason or the other I was always fighting the system to get it to run cooler and / or more stable. Their Athlon 64 series had a lot of problem with heat dissipation. Had to permanently leave the cabinet cover off with an external table fan blowing air to keep it cool. The Phenom 9650 had perpetual problem problem with on board USB implementation. Had to stick in an old via chi set usb 2.0 pci addon card. While performance was acceptable for my usage power consumption of the box sans monitor as measured at the wall socket was close to 140 watts. This too with only 1 internal hard disk and one dvd drive. Finally earlier this year I built an i3-3220T based system. It beats the quad phenom hands down. Power consumption of the system with 2 HD drives, a dvd drive + up to 4 -5 external port powered usb drives hovers around 45 watts. The system did have problems with front panel USB 3.0 header. It was finally solved last week by Intel releasing bios update.

Honestly, I am looking forward to the quad core mini-itx systems from via. I am not a gamer so performance and frame rates don't really matter. I have built a range of PCs based on via chip set which even after 5 - 6 years are performing flawlessly in very busy travel agency's business environment under all kinds of conditions. If it matches my present i3 setup in performance will bid adieu to Intel. To me stability and reliability are the most important criterion. So far as AMD is concerned, not again in this life time, certainly not with with their own chip set. If via comes up with compatible chip set, might consider it.

 

[Steve]

Honestly, I am looking forward to the quad core mini-itx systems from via. I am not a gamer so performance and frame rates don't really matter. I have built a range of PCs based on via chip set which even after 5 - 6 years are performing flawlessly in very busy travel agency's business environment under all kinds of conditions. If it matches my present i3 setup in performance will bid adieu to Intel. To me stability and reliability are the most important criterion. So far as AMD is concerned, not again in this life time, certainly not with with their own chip set. If via comes up with compatible chip set, might consider it.

You are dreaming if you think a quad-core VIA processor is going to match a Core i3. Think dual-core Atom!

 

[Jad Chaar]

Steve any word on when you can get your hands on a version of this?

 

[Steve]

Steve any word on when you can get your hands on a version of this?

As I said way back in this thread AMD is not sampling the processor.

 

[Boilerhog146]

It’s not horsepower that’s holding AMD back, their processors don’t develop enough torque. This thread has generated quite a lot of talk though, AMD should look into how we did it.

@ steve, all blow and no go.
sorry my response was to ghostryder .he seems to argue for the sake of argument ,no point was proven except the fact that a board does exist,with pci-e3.0 ,not a chipset .I'm not a tech but I read every post and can see the difference.so anyone can add a plx chip to enable the feature,intel has it built in, period,
I am a system builder ,if I were building multiple systems for a client ,of varying degrees of power,but requiring pci-e 3.0 .I could not use the amd option,the same board would have to be used in all, not a reasonable option,
and this proc is for oem, so to get one you would have to order the complete system,thats not a reasonable option either ,not for a builder anyway..,

 

[pmshah]

You are dreaming if you think a quad-core VIA processor is going to match a Core i3. Think dual-core Atom!

I beg to differ. I already have a Zotac dual core Atom system with nVidia chipset and it sucks. I bought this only for its low power consumption at 30 watts. It can't even play an mkv file at 2 mbps smoothly. I use it only for my 24/7 on line usage for downloading latest bulids of various flavors of Linux through torrent, Skype and now also Viber. My single core 8 year old via c7 fares pretty well in comparison at 40 watts.

The latest avatar of quad core via is supposed to bring down the consumption to under 10 watts. Once I read some reliable test reports I will make a decision.

 

[dividebyzero]

@ steve, all blow and no go.
sorry my response was to ghostryder .he seems to argue for the sake of argument ,no point was proven except the fact that a board does exist,with pci-e3.0 ,not a chipset .I'm not a tech but I read every post and can see the difference.so anyone can add a plx chip to enable the feature,intel has it built in, period

As I noted in another thread, adding PCI-E 3.0 support via a PLX chip isn't actually adding the full PCI-E 3.0 specification. You can approximate PCI-E 3.0 bandwidth simply by doubling the electrical PCI-E lane count (which a PLX works to do), but PCI-E also uses a lower overhead encode (128b/130b vs 8b/10b for PCI-E 1.x/2.0), and thus has lower latency. Adding a PLX bridge chip is a quick fix, and handy for adding triple/quad card support, but as is generally noted, routing through the PLX chip also adds latency...it also isn't providing the full bandwidth of PCI-E 3.0 (also as the Anand article notes).
An overview of PCI Express and how it works including the differences between revisions >>here<<

 

[Steve]

I beg to differ. I already have a Zotac dual core Atom system with nVidia chipset and it sucks. I bought this only for its low power consumption at 30 watts. It can't even play an mkv file at 2 mbps smoothly. I use it only for my 24/7 on line usage for downloading latest bulids of various flavors of Linux through torrent, Skype and now also Viber. My single core 8 year old via c7 fares pretty well in comparison at 40 watts.

The latest avatar of quad core via is supposed to bring down the consumption to under 10 watts. Once I read some reliable test reports I will make a decision.

Getting off topic but anyway. There is no way in hell the C7-D is faster than any dual-core Atom. They are both clocked at 1.8GHz but the Atom has 4 threads and the C7-D just one, the Atom has 4x as much L2 cache and uses DDR3 memory opposed to DDR2.

Here is a comparison at 1.6GHz...

http://img.techpowerup.org/080602/Capture018.png

Ohh and that's a single core Atom 230 as well.

Here is a much newer VIA Nano vs. Atom 230 (again single-core)...

http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinions/via-nano-vs-intel-atom_Page-3

 

[Jad Chaar]

As I said way back in this thread AMD is not sampling the processor.

Yeah, but cant you get hold of one when it reaches retail? Do you know when that is?

 

[Steve]

Yeah, but cant you get hold of one when it reaches retail? Do you know when that is?

I have no idea when they will be available, no idea who will be selling them and if we can get one.

 

[dividebyzero]

Yeah, but cant you get hold of one when it reaches retail? Do you know when that is?

Doesn't look like they will be available in retail for some time (or ever).
Of course, you could tackle the issue the tried and trusted way...put together a sub-zero overclocking crew, kill sample a bunch of chips, get some HWBot competition points under your belt, and see if AMD would toss some of the chips your way.

 

[EEatGDL]

I beg to differ. I already have a Zotac dual core Atom system with nVidia chipset and it sucks. I bought this only for its low power consumption at 30 watts. It can't even play an mkv file at 2 mbps smoothly. I use it only for my 24/7 on line usage for downloading latest bulids of various flavors of Linux through torrent, Skype and now also Viber. My single core 8 year old via c7 fares pretty well in comparison at 40 watts.

The latest avatar of quad core via is supposed to bring down the consumption to under 10 watts. Once I read some reliable test reports I will make a decision.

Can you tell us the model of your Atom? Maybe you're confusing the classic dual-threaded Atom which is single core, and not one of the new D500 series or N2800 series [sorry for the spanish there, but I think it's still understandable]. So before starting another off-topic discussion, let's put an end to it by being more specific.

 

[MachineGod]

The Intel vs AMD debate is really about hard-core gamers vs everyone else. Most people aren't going choose between the absolute cheapest computer around or a high-end gaming rig - they go for the comfortable middle ground. AMD beats Intel in price-to-performance at the low end. Intel beats AMD in the top range..if you're willing to pay the premium. But there's almost no difference between them in that vast middle ground where most consumers spend their money. A $175 dollar AMD chip will match the performance of a similar-priced Intel CPU in nearly every respect. Yes, both will do a little better in certain areas but overall their neck in neck. At day's end, bang for the buck is really all that matters, and if anyone's winning that war its gotta be AMD.

I bought an 8350 and thought it was a middle ground as far as price-to-performance goes. I'm hoping to keep this CPU for at least the next 5 years. Gaming wise, there's no reason to go for a more expensive Intel set up when you can play ANY game on high specs with an AMD rig. The only reason you'd invest several thousand dollars in an i7 coupled with SLI Titans is bragging rights. You simply don't need that kind of computing power to play games, and the small benefits you gain are not justified by the money you spend.