News AMD announces its first 5GHz CPU

As usual the achievement is over looked by the Intel Vs Amd arguement.

5ghz, 8 core processor is pretty impressive, have Intel done anything similar??

P.S. I jumped ship from Amd to Intel about a year ago but I'm still impressed!!!!

 

I'll take a good look

 

Wasnt you temp banned (or at least a got your thread locked) a while ago for talking total sh!t before?
If i remember correctly it had to do with your fanboyism for alienware... Try not to make the same mistake again...

 

Lets just up the difficulty a bit, prove how AMD Cpus are better when the difference between running an oc'd AMD Cpu and running an oc'd Intel cpu comes in the form of a £30 difference in the monthly electricity bill.

 

Pushing to I boats the market is something intel seem to have forgotten. The big q is how much cooling will be required to max this at 5ghz all the time. I'm very interested to find out.

 

Hmmm I boat = innovate. Please excuse the fat thumbs.

 

so...core for core, clock for clock, a 5Ghz FX chip is only as fast as a 3570,4670K @ 4Ghz.

..not very impressive when you look at it like that is it.

Pointless CPU from an increasingly pointless CPU manufacturer unfortunately, I want them to succeed, I really do, we desperately need the competition, but releasing stuff like this will not help them or the consumer.

 

This sort of attitude really shouldn't be welcome on this forum, it's usually a decent debate, this is just pure attitude. I'm assuming you're not a scientist, otherwise you'd have supported your argument with fact and reason instead of saying you're on a 'crappy' phone.

So I found it out for you:

So you biased your test to favour the CPU you're a fan boy for?

Seems legit. Oh and I find the final sentence slightly offensive with reference to people who are autistic.

 

Thanks for doing my job for me, I just couldn't be bothered in the end.

 

No problem, I can smell crazy a mile away.

 

Hard to comment on how good or anything it is until we get benches. But 5ghz out the box is a substantial jump, and if they've made some other tweaks too, this could just make them competitive in performance and not just price. I'm looking forward to more info, and hope AMD have created something phenom-inal (he he )

 

Holy crap ! Smithers ! release the hounds !

No actually I wasn't. I was set upon by a pack of rabid hounds for voicing my distaste at Coolit for selling coolers that leak, but no bans and no Alienware arguments because arguing over what case some one decides to use is rather stupid.

Thanks for your warning though very helpful (note the hint of sarcasm there) I actually received some heart warming PMs from people during that time.

Let's just up the crap you mean? Let me put this scientifically and logically instead of blowing it out of all exaggerated proportion shall I?

At the last time I checked a 100w light bulb costs 32p to run for 24 hours, going on kwh. Now it's also fair and quite scientifically correct to say that an overclocked 8 core AMD CPU uses roughly around 100w more at full load than the comparative Intel CPU when it too is overclocked. So, if you ran your PC at full load it would use -

32p a day, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year = £116 a year. However, let's break that down to more realistic figures shall we?

I game for three hours a day, pretty much every day. So, let's find out how much it costs an hour to run a 100w more power hungry CPU under full load, shall we?

32 divided by 24 hours is 1.3 pence per hour. So if we gamed using 100w more per hour than a comparative Intel CPU we would use 3.9p per day.

3.9p x 365 days in a year = £14.23 a year. Given that the price differential between the I5 and 8320 is £87 it would take 14.23 x 'X' where X is the year to make up the price differential. Off the top of my head that is about six years in order to give your power argument any weight at all.

Look, if you're going to come out with such statements then have the science and the logic on tap to back them up.

That isn't true either. Clock for clock (as in ghz) fact dictates that the AMD, when all 8 cores are being used is faster than the I5 3570k, and the Sandybridge 2500k. I have not had a chance to compare any data for Haswell yet, but given the right circumstances the 8350 can duke it out with the 3770k so I will assume that it can put up a decent fight against Haswell, again when supported properly and all 8 cores are being used.

It's never been a secret that logically and scientifically AMD's 8 core CPUs, when given the correct software, have been very good. In games? not so good. Not up until we were told we were getting 8 cored consoles, and that all of the people writing the games for those consoles would be using the same techniques needed for AMD's CPUs. You can read about that here.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen

And from my own findings when using any apps or games that make use of all of those threads? the results are the same. The AMD on sheer core count out muscles the comparative Intel CPUs costing nearly twice as much.

So I guess it depends on what you see as impressive.

Can you really? why haven't you offered up any facts then? There's a thread on this forum that I've been posting facts and figures to based from my own testing that no one has bothered to respond to. If you want to prove it clock your CPU to 4.2ghz and then run the same tests and the same benchmarks. In fact, given your extremely ironic reply below, don't bother.

I'm going to ignore everything else you've said based on that final line there. If you find that sentence offensive to people with autism? I wouldn't worry, given that you know? I'm autistic (well actually Asperger Syndrome, AKA ASD, AKA Autistic Spectrum Disorder). Which would be why I said what I did, given that AMD released a 8 core CPU *IMO* two years early when it really wasn't needed or utilised. That, however, is set to change.
I find it quite astonishing that you DARE get upon your high horse and "stick up" for people with autism when you have the audacity to go around saying things such as -

Which as someone who is autistic I find INCREDIBLY offensive and rude given that it's the usual thick ass Neurotypical attitude to some one such as myself.
If you can't think in science and logic don't bother talking to me. Random false facts and lies about AMD won't wash, given that I am able to see that 8 AMD cores are clearly faster than 4 Intel ones no matter how good they are.

 

ASD is a spectrum - imagine a rainbow , someday you might have alot of red tendencies others it might be blue.... but its a wide range.


and I hate the labels that society puts on things other than the considered `normal`.

 

I think the problem you are going to have is to convince the predominantly gamer community on here that AMD is a better proposition. Sure, if you work a lot with productivity apps which are heavily multithreaded, then your CPU is a no-brainer - especially at the price point. But when it comes to gaming, there are only a handful of games that can even address four cores, let alone more. The majority still only really benefit from dual core. So the per-core argument really holds water here.

But if it does what you need it to then good for you! Don't let other people's opinions put you off enjoying your rig.

Personally I'd like to see an architecture overhaul from AMD, where they offer six or eight cores with similar per-core performance to Intel, for a similar price. Then they will get my money again.

 

There is no such thing as 'normal'. I've met many people in my life from different countries and god knows what else and I can attest that I've met some quite frankly barking mad people running businesses and god knows what else.

When AMD released Bulldozer I saw what it could do technically and I was very impressed. Technically as in a scientific experiment sort of way. Then a part of me said "Dear lord, what on earth are you doing?!?!"

The world simply wasn't ready for 8 core desktop processors.

Now though? things are changing. Even if we look back at Bulldozer and see what it could do in say, Winzip, we were clearly given a taste of what it would and could do when supported properly.

THAT is how I view 8 core AMD CPUs. I can't sit here and lie and say they cost £30 more a month because the fact is they just don't.

One thing I have learned about technology during my life is that it never sits still. Buying something and then hoping it will remain top of the pile never happens, we have to look forward.

Given that it's absolutely no secret AT ALL - and that I hope we can all agree that we have been hand fed second hand console slop for YEARS now, then we can all find it logically fair to assume that once the console games are being developed for an 8 core AMD CPU which is very similar then THAT is what we will get.

Will they take the time to ensure that Intel CPUs are used fairly ? haha, have they bothered supporting SLI or Crossfire or anything else that a console doesn't use? A PC gamer will always have to just take the second hand slop handed over by the game devs. PC games are nothing but a second pay day and one they want minimal fuss or work to get their hands on.

When every single game developer asked says - "I'd go with the AMD" then there has to be logic and reason for it. THIS was what I was referring to with my 'writing on the wall' comment.

Those devs know better than nearly all of us, given they have their hands on the tech that is forthcoming.

Just like Winzip, there are a tiny handful of other apps and games that support 8 cores and use them all. And when they do? that's when we find out that Intel's incredibly superior single threaded performance falters (taking close note that I am acknowledging facts? IE - Intel's single threaded performance is quite incredible?)

Bottom line? as I keep saying, over and over, Intel's single threaded performance may be amazing and may batter AMD's. Just a fact, that. However, it's being shown slowly but surely that one of their superior cores does not equal or better two of AMD's.

So when it comes down to the most important thing of all - PRICE - AMD are kicking ass.

 

Scientifically correct to work out your power consumption working backwards from an approximate cost of running a 100W bulb for 24hrs?

No, it isn't. You'd look up the price per kWh and calculate it correctly. Stop talking s***

 

energysavingtrust calculates current average electricity cost at 15.3p per kwh

so a 100w bulb switched on for 10 hours costs 15.3p.

 

Given that the power differential is 100w or there abouts between the two CPUs then there is nothing wrong with my calculations, based on the fact that I DID calculate that 100w differential by using kwh to figure it out based on current charges for electricity.

I could have laid it out per hour yes, but what's the point? if a 100w bulb costs 32p a day to run for 24 hours then dividing up that 32p by 24 works perfectly well.

Fact is, if a 100w bulb costs 32p to run for 24 hours then when broken down it costs 1.3p per hour.

If you don't have anything else to add or anything worth reading then kindly, you know? stop replying to me.

I find you incredibly rude and offensive.

 

British Gas charge 12.745 apparently. I'm checking it now and a kwh is 1000w per hour. A 100w light bulb uses 1/10 of that, so 0.1kW x 10h = 1 kWh.

That means it costs 12.745 for ten hours, so my 32p a day was rather generous. It's actually less than 32p.

Edit. Actually using your rate (the first one I used before looking on BG) it's pretty much bang on 32p for 24 hours.

 

I'm replying because you're using the word scientific a lot when it's not. It's very annoying, so is your condescension.