AMD-branded memory coming to the US


Posts: 5,124   +193
If you're looking for some straight-up confidence from AMD in their own it is. You may need to find an BS to English online translator. Hopefully the next time they are asked questions....they'll answer them. If this is the best they can do with cherry-picked questions and weeks of preparation I don't hold out much hope for a miracle leap in IPC and overall performance....but we'll see. AMD are locked into BD, and it's still better than what they had just isn't good enough in any recognizable metric to trouble Intel.
Of course AMD's architecture is not that of just 'todays' software, but that of forward thinking and applications that will fuel the imagination of tomorrows technology.
As multi-threading becomes more and more common, AMD's forward thinking architecture will come into it's own and be the performance standard that the industry will follow. for the current slate of processors, we do not look at ours as that of declining popularity...but that the public is becoming more selective and discriminating....
....sorry I can't .....:haha::haha::haha:


Posts: 4,840   +1,264
I just got around to reading the comment thread from that Q&A. Emporer Kyle said that AMD approached [H] to do the article!...and the kicker is, that the guy at AMD whose idea it was is one of the 1400 that got canned.
They had the perfect opportunity to beg off the project and still went ahead with what was a stone certain PR failure.
I knew before reading the first answer that it would be meaningless generalizations, but knowing that AMD could have avoided the whole thing?!......textbook bonehead play.

Loved the " [FX-8150] up to 18% faster than i7 2600 in Civ 5" claim. Would be interesting to see what kind of parameters you would have use for that to happen...and probably not the best thing to quote given that Kyle used the game in [H]'s BD review...oops.

Maybe AMD offers a really good severence package


Posts: 5,124   +193
We also looked at CPU utilization on the AMD FX-8150 to see how well the game was utilizing the CPU. We noticed that all 8 cores were being utilized while we played the game, each core carried a load, none laid flat on the graph. We also noted that the highest peak total CPU usage while gaming was 76%. This indicates that the CPU is being used well in the game as far as utilization goes.
show me a game where "cores lay flat" windows tries to distribute something to any core available and shows a modicum of activity. Doesn't count as 'used core' afaic.

Loved the " [FX-8150] up to 18% faster than i7 2600 in Civ 5" claim. Would be interesting to see what kind of parameters you would have use for that to happen.
probably @ 5760 res with forced 32 AA while balancing an egg on a spoon or something:haha:


Posts: 3,066   +1,386
and, and with liquid cooling, you could probably get a FX to 6ish.
But yea, your points ARE valid. im just hoping for the best, which isnt likely going to happen.


Posts: 4,840   +1,264
I think we're all hoping for the best, but in the greater scheme of things, desktop performance/enthusiast CPU segment would likely be a drop in the bucket with regards AMD's overall portfolio and their need to increase marketshare.
For all the talk of people who buy AMD to keep "competition alive", it is basically rubbish....we're all just bystanders watching it unfold. AMD need to get and keep big contracts in:
>OEM desktop where the majority of people wouldn't know or care what CPU they're buying. Just tell them the speed, how much RAM and screen size, and the OEM's only care about lowest price and guaranteed quantity. AMD's larger die area and poorer yield-both resulting in less usable CPU's per wafer-basically means they take a bath (red ink variety) if they try to undercut Intel's pricing
>Server. The big iron sector is ruled by performance-per-watt and performance-per-core (server software licence fee's are often based on per-core usage). This is the big question mark in AMD's future IMO. If BD can haul AMD's server marketshare up from it's present 5.5% to a respectable level then desktop CPU parts continue simply by dint of being a by-product of server CPU design. If not then the future is APU all the way.

As far as desktop goes, how many CPU's would the average computer user/upgrader/builder buy in one year? or two, or three ? The upshot is that you have to make Intel users shift to AMD, and FX for most people isn't a compelling choice over Sandy Bridge. The next iteration pits Piledriver against Ivy Bridge. AMD are on record as saying Piledriver will be 10% better than BD -with a 3-5% increase in IPC (still behind Sandy Bridge in a lot of metrics). Intels roadmap points to Ivy Bridge being 7+% better performing than Sandy Bridge while using 19% less power which seems to tally with Coolaler's benchmarking on a clock-for-clock & cache-for-cache comparison.

AMD's saving grace is that Intel have no intention of seeing AMD go under...they just won't allow AMD to make any further progress than they already have in the markets that Intel holds sway. Another point to consider is that even if AMD had the ace products, it's highly dubious whether AMD's foundry partners would have the capacity to help them take advantage of the fact.

I suspect that if Intel really wanted to make AMD's eyes water, they could quite easily drop CPU pricing to that of AMD or below, and make every Intel motherboard chipset as fully featured as X79


Posts: 4,840   +1,264
Yup. Looking at a C+ average. Might have been higher but the lady of the house runs interference during the Russian Art Photography course. Going for extra credit with process tech this semester.