AMD Discussion

[koyoot]

Look, I hope Zen is the Baby Jaybus chip, I really do.
Intel has been coasting for the last few years.
Same with Vega and Nvidia.
I just think it's as likely as a true workstation line up of regularly updated Mac Pros.
We'll know in a couple of months.

I do not care if you believe or not in AMD's capabilities. What I do care, is for not spreading false information about AMD not delivering promised improvements in marketing material, based on one failure very long time ago.

If you are not informed about this, do not make public statements about particular brand based on your perception of the brand.

Is it clear?

 

[cube]

I have used the benchmark you provided, Cube, to compare Excavator single core performance to Haswell, and Skylake CPUs.

In essence, comparable CPU from Haswell is 28% in single threaded performance, despite comparing 3.5 GHz Haswell, with 3.8 GHz Excavator. Skylake on the other hand, the i5 6600 is 32% per clock, with Floating Point around 50% averaging in around 40% higher IPC in 3.3 GHz Skylake vs. 3.8 GHz Excavator core comparison.

What this means is, that core design of Zen most likely will not allow for the CPUs to reach Skylake in SingleThreaded performance, but will be most likely edging out Haswell.

If the rumored prices are also true, AMD still has a killer offer.

Note that the few XV2 benchmarks on that site are still not pushing the Bristol Ridge overclocking.

 

[cube]

I think one must not pay much attention to the CPU ranking on that site, as it seems biased towards low parallelism.

I had no problem putting the X6 to 90% doing some basic maintenance.

The FX-8350 is roughly equivalent to the i5-6600K under full load.

 

[Kpjoslee]

I do not care if you believe or not in AMD's capabilities. What I do care, is for not spreading false information about AMD not delivering promised improvements in marketing material, based on one failure very long time ago.

If you are not informed about this, do not make public statements about particular brand based on your perception of the brand.

Is it clear?

I think you are getting too emotional on a subject that is not even relevant on Mac Pro forum. lol.

 

[koyoot]

I think you are getting too emotional on a subject that is not even relevant on Mac Pro forum. lol.

http://fudzilla.com/news/processors/42223-amd-investors-allowed-class-action-over-llano

I suggest reading this, for anyone thinking AMD can right now be misleading in any way shape or form in their marketing material.

 

[AidenShaw]

I am not arguing that AMD CPUs are slower than Intel's.

But that is such an easy argument to win!

I said:

AMD has been great at obfuscating the conversation by claiming to be best at obscure metrics like IPC and GFLOPs/watt, while Intel usually wins on the "how fast is it" real application benchmarks.

You asked:

Do you have actual benchmarks to substantiate your claims?

I posted a graph of benchmarks where you had to scroll through a number of screens of Intel bench numbers before you got to the first AMD bench - supporting my claim.

Trying to tie it to AMD marketing claims is clearly a case of mobile goalposts.

 

[koyoot]

But that is such an easy argument to win!

I said:


You asked:



I posted a graph of benchmarks where you had to scroll through a number of screens of Intel bench numbers before you got to the first AMD bench - supporting my claim.

Trying to tie it to AMD marketing claims is clearly a case of mobile goalposts.

Maybe you actually do not know this, but every marketing material about AMD CPUs is about IPC(Performance Per Clock), compared to previous generations of AMD CPUs, not Intel's.

Your statement was about Marketing material of ALL AMD CPUs, without consideration of improvements. I did not cared, about AMD being slower from Intel(another thing that you did not understood). AMD never claimed they are great at IPC, but how much they improved their CPUs from previous generations. They never stated that their IPC is higher than Intel's(another thing that you have misread). They have said that their IPC is higher compared to previous generations of AMD CPUs.

I was arguing that they developed progress, and was in line with marketing material.

That was the whole point, of context.
So who is moving the goalpost?

If you are not interested in the topic, which you clearly are, do not spread misinformation on forums. Because with that level of knowledge, you do.

 

[AidenShaw]

Maybe you actually do not know this, but every marketing material about AMD CPUs is about IPC(Performance Per Clock), compared to previous generations of AMD CPUs, not Intel's.

AMD has been great at obfuscating the conversation by claiming to be best at obscure metrics like IPC and GFLOPs/watt, while Intel usually wins on the "how fast is it" real application benchmarks.

What misinformation?

I said that AMD used obscure metrics, and you seem to agree.

 

[ManuelGomes]

Something to take with a grain of salt:
http://wccftech.com/amd-zen-8-core-35ghz-cpu-spotted/

 

[koyoot]

What misinformation?

I said that AMD used obscure metrics, and you seem to agree.

Do you know what is IPC?

Instruction Executed per clock. It is a metric to show how much more performance next generation CPU gains, on certain frequency of the clock, compared to previous generation of CPU uarchitecture at the same clock speeds.

It is not obscure metric. For example 3 GHz, Excavator core is supposed to be around 11% faster compared to 3 GHz clocked core of Steamroller CPU.

You seem to not understand what is IPC, and what it means.

So again, who is moving the goal post?

 

[AidenShaw]

Since automotive analogies are so well received around here, let me make one that compares AMD marketing and Intel/HP/Dell/... marketing.

AMD: For this year's model we've increased the diameter of the fuel line by 20%.

Intel: Zero to 100 (km/h) in 3.6 seconds.

 

[koyoot]

Since automotive analogies are so well received around here, let me make one that compares AMD marketing and Intel/HP/Dell/... marketing.

AMD: For this year's model we've increased the diameter of the fuel line by 20%.

Intel: Zero to 100 (km/h) in 3.6 seconds.

Do you have benchmarks/reviews/tests that show that AMD was misleading on their fuel consumption?

 

[cube]

If you see 8-core super deals, don't be shy to post them.

 

[koyoot]

http://hothardware.com/news/amds-8-core-zen-sr7-offers-core-i7-5960x-performance-at-499

 

[cube]

$499+motherboard+DDR4 is too much, I am looking for a cheap Wraith.

 

[koyoot]

Do you really need that 8 core CPU?

 

[cube]

Do you really need that 8 core CPU?

If I want to have some boost over the 1090T, it has to be at least 8-core Piledriver.

 

[koyoot]

We are talking about uArch that will be faster in Single threaded than PD by around 55%...

4 core CPU will be gigantic upgrade over what you have now.

 

[cube]

We are talking about uArch that will be faster in Single threaded than PD by around 55%...

4 core CPU will be gigantic upgrade over what you have now.

I will not buy a new motherboard so soon. I expect to use a board and RAM for at least 2 different CPUs, and a CPU for 2 boards. I will forget the last constraint if I can find a great deal on an FX.

 

[Stacc]

$499+motherboard+DDR4 is too much, I am looking for a cheap Wraith.

This sounds about the right price for something that meets or performs a little worse than Intel's enthusiast chips. Lets hope AMD delivers and can push Intel on the performance and performance per dollar front.

 

[cube]

This sounds about the right price for something that meets or performs a little worse than Intel's enthusiast chips. Lets hope AMD delivers and can push Intel on the performance and performance per dollar front.

The Phenom II X6 was a lot cheaper and I don't recall it being far behind Intel at the time.

The 1090T was released at $285. The 1100T came out over half a year later ($265).

There was more difference in some benchmarks with Intel Extreme than with the normal top.

One Zen benchmark means little. X6 was very close to Extreme in some.

 

[koyoot]

Remember my post about discussion with Game Developer, who mentioned possibility that AMD will make brand reset in 2017?

Well, if you think about this: What is better way to do this, than offering slightly old performance level, extremely competitive at a gigantic bargain? You are struggling with money, and crave the funds, you do best you can do for this, and offer last gen performance of your competition, at a bargain. And future designs are going to be better, and that alone makes your perspectives for not only survival of the company, but also growth! But for that - you need changing the perception of your brand. And here we go to the merit - extremely competitive performance, at a bargain.

Think about this. 250$ 6 core, Haswell-E CPU + 499$ GTX 1080 GPU(Vega 11). Who would not buy this?

 

[tuxon86]

Remember my post about discussion with Game Developer, who mentioned possibility that AMD will make brand reset in 2017?

Well, if you think about this: What is better way to do this, than offering slightly old performance level, extremely competitive at a gigantic bargain? You are struggling with money, and crave the funds, you do best you can do for this, and offer last gen performance of your competition, at a bargain. And future designs are going to be better, and that alone makes your perspectives for not only survival of the company, but also growth! But for that - you need changing the perception of your brand. And here we go to the merit - extremely competitive performance, at a bargain.

Think about this. 250$ 6 core, Haswell-E CPU + 499$ GTX 1080 GPU(Vega 11). Who would not buy this?

People who are into gaming on PC don't buy yesterday tech.
You are just making excuse for AMD trailing behind Intel and NVidia.
Beside your theory would only make sense if both Intel and NVidia stop evolving their product waiting for AMD to cath up.
Sorry but that is nonsense.

 

[koyoot]

People who are into gaming on PC don't buy yesterday tech.
You are just making excuse for AMD trailing behind Intel and NVidia.
Beside your theory would only make sense if both Intel and NVidia stop evolving their product waiting for AMD to cath up.
Sorry but that is nonsense.

For you. But that is fair enough. And no, there is no excuse my friend in this.

If people do not buy yesterdays tech in gaming market, how come 90% of computers are still very old? How come 90% of gaming forums have Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, and Haswell CPUs in their signatures, which are not updated, becuse those people never felt they need to update their computers?

One of reasons for this, was the lack of competition. Second reason is that the performance is enough even for today.

Your reasoning is nonsense, if you believe that all people can afford immediately highest spec computers, and are gaming on them only.

P.S. Show me high-end desktop CPU from Intel that costs 250$ and even 350$. Then we can talk about who is behind.

 

[cube]

People who are into gaming on PC don't buy yesterday tech.
You are just making excuse for AMD trailing behind Intel and NVidia.
Beside your theory would only make sense if both Intel and NVidia stop evolving their product waiting for AMD to cath up.
Sorry but that is nonsense.

If you look at PC World, it seems many people buy older products which represent better value.