Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by brumgrunt, 6 Nov 2012.
I might as well keep my old i7 920 for another couple of years then...
thanks for the review. Not bad considering the price tag and the plateform cost. For pleople running 2007 / 2008 era CPU (like my Q6600), this could be a good upgrade.
But I'm more tempted by an A10-5700 (space issue and low power requirement).
The biggest issue for most who on here might still have the i7920 or some who have the 980 990 chips they have now had those chips for 3-4 years and they are still ahead of amd in every benchmark if they own the later 2. An overclocked i7 920 is still as fast as this at stock ( in most of the tests here) and nobody is going to buy for the sake of it.
For the gaming platform i run i still dont have a reason to upgrade my overclocked i7950 to something faster. my vid and photo edit machine was upgraded already.
Given the signature I see in many profiles here ... a lot of us still use C2D/C2Q CPUs.
That must have been OEM only
Sticking with my 965 until Haswell at the mo. Using my desktop less and less these days so really struggling to justify upgrades.
sigh...unless AMD can increase their IPC by at least 30-40% to at least match Sandy-bridge, never mind Ivy-Bridge, I just cant see any of their CPU range ever appealing to me again.
I'm into emulation in a big way, and that needs as much single threaded performance as possible, precisely what AMD cant offer these days, once you go past 2 or 3 cores in the world of emulation, your into fast diminishing returns.
I'm sure for modern games, when paired with a good GPU, these AMD chips are perfectly adequate and you are only really talking about the difference between 80fps or 100fps, therefore pretty irrelevant if they're slower than Intel's line-up, but I'm not into modern games.
I am looking at a 4 CPU AMD server with the new 16 core processors at work, to demolish our PostGIS delays. 64 cores running at 2.2GHz. For the same money I can get 16 3.3Ghz cores from Intel or 24 slower.... It we had went with SQL 2012 then that would have been ok because of the licencing costs, but with PostGIS more cores = happy customers. For the server market AMD are providing some compelling solutions. For integrated solutions, netbooks, laptops and the base end of the PC market, AMD is the way to go. But for enthusiasts it is hard to see anything that they can provide.
In terms of CPU design, I assume by now AMD must have taken Intels design apart and understand where the single threaded performance difference is coming from.
And remind me, why have we not had a the same level of die shrinkage with AMD? as intel.
AMD doesn't own its own fabrication labs anymore, they got spun off into newco Global Foundries, so AMD's kind of at the mercy of GloFlo. If it says it can't do the 22nm process, AMD is stuck on 32nm until it can.
Hmm. Sticking with my water cooled T1100 @ 4.6Ghz.
However I am surprised for the low FPS the 690 GTX produces. I have a 580 GTX and with everything on, including HD gfx & texture mods, I get way better fps!!!
Our benchmark takes place outside whiterun during a storm; lots of weather effects and a large area to render, not inside a city or dungeon, where frame rates are typically much higher.
Meanwhile consumers aren't getting the best deal, with it costing £165 on scan and a whopping £180 on overclockers! I honestly see no reason at all for anyone to buy this processor.
Still cheaper than the £200 the FX-8150 launched at. Oddly, I noticed that it's sold out almost everywhere too (or at least, on order) so someone's buying them!
It costs 100€ less than an i7, 15€ less than an i7-2500k ... nothing to add.
Yep, my 920 @ 4.2GHz is probably on par with the 8350.
Yes, they clearly have something to offer the server market, and I do find their APUs quite appealing.
I wouldn't touch their desktop line with a bargepole, though.
Design a new memory controller, AMD.
It's a shame you're not choosing win8 for this review - given AMD was all about these cores being designed around and beyond win8 in terms of max performance.
Thats said AMD should be more honest in their markeing, it's not 8 full x86 cores at all, more like 4 cores each with a co-processor (maybe call it 4+4).
Even when all that is said an done - agree with whats been said, more IPC's and less power draw are required to make this a viable option for many.
can you rerun this on Win 8 please - the scheduler is apparantly better designed
Toms hardware (I think) tested it and in some cases it was worse than a hot fixed win7.
Amd really are in trouble, it doesnt even beat the i5 when overclocked, let alone at stock at a higher power consumption and without a gpu inside. I dont see why people would buy these unless the only thing you ever used was multi threaded applications, which is probably a very small demographic.
actually it does depend on whicha rticle you read - with some it really does do well against the i5
Can't see bit rerunning all benches for windows 8
Separate names with a comma.