AMD officially relaunches FX brand for high-end processors

[gwailo247]

Oh yea..well I can play Crysis on my Commodore 64

.. its a text version..BUT STILL...

LOL. Does it have a lewd mode?

"You enter the room and see a North Korean commando."
>shoot commando
"You hit commando."
>again
"You hit commando."
>again
"The commando dies."
>search commando
"You find 20 pieces of 7.62mm ammo."
>take ammo
"You take the ammo"
>wait
"Someone is shooting at you."
>duck
command not recognized
>take cover
command not recognized

 

[Darkshadoe]

gwailo247 said:

Oh yea..well I can play Crysis on my Commodore 64

.. its a text version..BUT STILL...

LOL. Does it have a lewd mode?

"You enter the room and see a North Korean commando."
>shoot commando
"You hit commando."
>again
"You hit commando."
>again
"The commando dies."
>search commando
"You find 20 pieces of 7.62mm ammo."
>take ammo
"You take the ammo"
>wait
"Someone is shooting at you."
>duck
command not recognized
>take cover
command not recognized

LMAO!..That was great!

 

[Guest]

the phenom II x6 is fraud CPU, i would not recommend it to my worst enemy. In real world benchmarks (not AMD's synthetics) the phenom II x4 offers the exact same performance in everything but video encoding. In fact, in gaming it's a complete waste of money. So unless AMD's plan is create CPU's for a very small niche audience, their business is very flawed. Even if you do video encoding for a living, Intel still has better offers.

AMD must think Intel is like Nvidia, sitting on their asses because the competition sucks until the fail to realize the competition just passed them. Unfortunately Intel seems to be out for blood and AMD's failure to realize that will not be good for fan boys of AMD, Intel, and DIY computer builders.

 

[Guest]

SeiveD,

Oh yeah... I remember that. Good thing you said that in this forum because it makes me wonder if AMD really can pull it off with the two core sharing thing. Even the cache between 2 cores can be shared, which if you think about it; on a regular processor say with 4 cores and 8mb cache, each core gets 2mb of cache and the cores cannot share. For apps that only use 2 cores, i think AMD might be able to do something here as each core has a set of 2mb cache, but if only 2 cores are active, then each core would have access to 4mb of cache. On a previous generation provessor that doesn't happen.That could really make a big difference in performance, especially if the total cache available is more than 8mb, but it seems likely that the cache will be around 6-8mb (maybe for for fx, who knows). What do you guys think?

Brett.

 

[R3DP3NGUIN]

The 8-core zambezi chips are meant to have 8MB of L2 cache and 8MB of L3 cache.

 

[dividebyzero]

Nice that the modules seem to scale in frequency according to usage. I'm not overly sold on 1.4v for 3.5GHz (and lower) though.
http://ascii.jp/elem/000/000/611/611179/img.html

 

[veLa]

I don't know why all the people are going "HELL YEAH FOR INTEL'S MONOPOLY"

Give me a break.

 

[Guest]

Lol...^

U think a $110 cpu is meant for that? Llano is what u need... or bd.

 

[Guest]

Bro...

Intel CPU's are almost 100% for scientific use. Their archetecture is specific to one task, one goal. AMD cataers tp personal computer, where the OS & media reign.

If u want to trnascode/encode, etc... then yes.. a $300 intel cpu is the better choice. But only until llano & bd get here. Win7 uses cores... so even if the spe,ifi, program doesn't, win does.

 

[dividebyzero]

I don't know why all the people are going "HELL YEAH FOR INTEL'S MONOPOLY"
Give me a break.

I think you'll find that most of the comments are actually fairly neutral, or p1ssed off that there is a further delay in BD's launch. Of the other comments I'd say that Paul Otellini could be invited to do an 10,000 word op-ed and it still wouldn't balance out amstech's breed of blinkered fanboyism.

I can see AMD's 8 core's smacking around Sandy Bridge.

AMD don't seem to think so

The X6 is a great midrange GPU.

Phenom II X6 Fusion ?

And too late? How is that?.

Uh, when the competition is more than a full process node ahead of you at a guess.
Conversely, in empirical terms it's a financial quarter if John Fruehe is to be believed. If you count the first aborted Bulldozer on 45nm then we're talking 2+ years. Hardly surprising that the gloss is wearing off for some people.

The 2600K does beat the 980X but only noticabely so in isolated benchmarks. For the majority of us regular users who just game, multimedia and multitask, its no better or unnoticeably better. Not worth spending the cash, and many X58 owners didn't.
4) The only advantage SB has is clock speed, nothing else.

2600K price $315....980X price $1050
I'd say that there is an obvious advantage staring you in the face.

The X6 is a great midrange GPU, hits 4.0Ghz and game/multitasks well.
And no SB isn't any faster clock for clock when it comes to gaming..

Ok, right you aren't. (1100T @ 4.2 v stock 2600K)...and here's a few more at stock. Knock yourself out.

The odd thing is that even the obvious Intel flamebait is factually correct for the most part ( please take note amstech)

No one wants an AMD eight core that competes with an Intel i5-2500k in 2-3 synthetic benchmarks designed for multi core and then gets its *** handed to it in every single real world benchmark. Especially when that said eight core CPU costs $80-100 more.

Intel 2500K price $216 (1k tray unit pricing)
AMD FX-8130 price $290 (1k tray unit price)
AMD FX-8130P price $320 (1k tray unit price)
Difference: $74 and $104......but as for "smacking around" (amstech), "getting its *** handed to it" requires actual benchmarks ( a small consideration I know).

 

[Guest]

In all my years of using AMD and Intel I have noticed that AMD gives you all round preformance whereas Intel does not.


I have two MSi board with AMD and Intel (Obviously different sockets, but same build)
and the AMD works better with on-board graphics and CPU combined when I tried with my intel, it did not go so well.

I play Black Ops and my x4 965 at Stock is fine, Intel is slightly sluggish.
Not sure if it's my luck. It seems really bad with intel.

But this is my next CPU I am getting.
Back to the FX days.

 

[Arris]

gwailo247 said:

Oh yea..well I can play Crysis on my Commodore 64

.. its a text version..BUT STILL...

LOL. Does it have a lewd mode?

"You enter the room and see a North Korean commando."
>shoot commando
"You hit commando."
>again
"You hit commando."
>again
"The commando dies."
>search commando
"You find 20 pieces of 7.62mm ammo."
>take ammo
"You take the ammo"
>wait
"Someone is shooting at you."
>duck
command not recognized
>take cover
command not recognized

Hahahaha.
Reminds me old text based adventures... particularly Lords Of Karma on the Atari 800 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_of_Karma)

>You die.
>You are reborn on a Mountain top.

 

[slamscaper]

Things are only going to get worse for AMD when Intel launches their X79 core logic chipset in Q4 2011. X79 will support octo-core SB-E CPUs, which will have quad-channel memory controllers and 32+ PCIE 2.0 lanes built in (PCIE 3.0 will be supported via the PCH).

X79 is finally going to replace Intel's venerable X58 chipset, which is still their most robust platform available today.

AMD used to spank Intel back when socket 939 was in it's prime. Sadly, AMD's architecture hasn't changed much over the years, while Intel has made big strides. AMD certainly has the ability to produce the fastest CPUs, but they'll need a radical architectural change to get back to the top.

All we can do is keep our hopes up that Bulldozer will offer surprisingly good performance. AMD needs some solid desktop offerings to get the ball rolling.

 

[dividebyzero]

The three announced desktop Sandy Bridge-E CPU's are a four-core (3.6GHz w/10MB L3), and two six-cores ( 3.2 and 3.3GHz with 12 and 15MB L3 respectively). The octo-core is at this point in time a Xeon E5-46xx part for 4-socket server boards only.

Of the three announced Sandy Bridge-E CPU's, only the quad core is likely to be priced at the same level as AMD's FX-8130P*. The hexa-core Extreme Edition 3.3GHz/15MB will undoubtably get Intel's $999 price point as it's top desktop part -significantly more than any Bulldozer derivative I'm guessing.

* Assuming AMD are keeping the same naming nomenclature and clockspeed as previously released. Not a given at this point in time .The 6-month lifespan (launch to EOL) of the first Bulldozer CPU's would seem to be AMD's attempt to out-do Intel at it's own game...

 

[Sarcasm]

SeiveD said:
Everyone seems to be ranting about how AMD is just "throwing more cores at you to compete with intel". I've seen other forums where people foolishly make the comparison between "INTEL WITH 4 CORES AND 8 THREADS LAHL" vs "AMD WITH 8 WHOLE CORES".. That's not exactly the case, as none of you have clearly been paying attention. Basically, AMD's Bulldozer has modules which are essentially two cores which share a single 128-bit FPU. This is what AMD is calling "hyperthreading done right"(or maybe I'm calling it that, nonetheless that's what it is). Given two threads into a single module, it should outperform a single Intel core running two threads as well. If you take a 4-core Intel CPU with hyperthreading, and an '8-core'(4 module) bulldozer, they will both show up as having 8 CPUs in your operating system. The difference AMD is willing to call them all cores. but they've put more hardware behind it, sure, but I read that doing what they've done, they've essentially doubled the cores (yet sharing a single FPU between each two) while only increasing the used die space by some 12% .

Really, a 4-core Intel processor should compare with an '8-core'/4-module bulldozer. They are on the same level. AMD did it differently, they number cores differently, but it's their own approach to the same problem. If it outperforms the Intel in that class, then I'd say they've done a damn good job at it.

Besides, all I've seen is one supposedly leaked benchmark, can't we wait til the thing is released for testing to see what it can really do rather than just sit here and talk trash about it before hand?

Whoa now, say anything remotely positive about AMD and prepared to get chewed up and spit out. This is Intel Fanboy land around (If you haven't noticed already)

 

[Sarcasm]

veLa said:
I don't know why all the people are going "HELL YEAH FOR INTEL'S MONOPOLY"

Give me a break.

This is nothing new.

However, intel has proven itself with solid offerings so it's hard to dispute.

But looking at both companies, what these fanboys fail to understand is that AMD and intel are taking vastly different approaches to the market.

The same could be said about AMD vs Nvidia. AMD is all about efficiency while Nvidia was focused more on raw power.

One isn't necessarily better than the other because it boils down to the end user.

But hey this is Techspot, make sure you go gaga over anything intel and bash AMD as much as possible or else your going to get your neck slit.

 

[dividebyzero]

But hey this is Techspot, make sure you go gaga over anything intel and bash AMD as much as possible or else your going to get your neck slit.

Conversely, you could read and interpret benchmarks and discuss the implications of process and μarchitecture...but of course, this is a little beyond some people who would rather toss around generalities. Discussion is here- you can either partake in a healthy discussion when it arises or, like most people, ignore it and throw around some half-as*ed assumptions.

 

[Guest]

I hope AMD continues to excel in their development of new technology. Intel is both corrupt and now in touch with true values - fair business practices and truth in committing to business agreements. AMD stands for honesty, integrity and kick *** CPU designs. What more could an Engineer ask for?

 

[dividebyzero]

AMD stands for honesty, integrity and kick *** CPU designs. What more could an Engineer ask for?

Well if you're gonna troll the boards, I'll return the favour...
Longoria and Hector might say one out of three ain't bad.

 

[Guest]

Well the truth is both companies need each other wether you like it or not.. Sure intel has been on top for some time now but imagine a world without AMD to push and push price vs power intel would just dominate and probably would just maintain archutectures a make loads of of it just rebranding etc.. but with amd here things are different and intel fanboys know it, Getting at the bigger picture AMD helps intel scale down prices to compare performance and always living a little more room for end users wanting to spend a few more bucks hence the extreme editions.. In the end it all boils down to what you need and not the higher benches, and for me im mutual and will continue to cheer on both sides and will buy cpus based on my needs and both are very competitive at this point and being a gamer ill take amd for now since it has never let me down and keeps my wallet less empty.

P.S as for being an amd or intel guy. Why not be both? Both are great companies that need each other and the ones who mostly benefit from this competition is us!! GOD DAMMIT MORONS.