|
Oh, Lord, they're copying the K from Intel.  Still, if the secondhand marketing mumbo-jumbo is correct, they both look like very attractive alternatives to an i3 at that price.
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2011 08:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 12:26 |
|
|
Which they really need. If AMD can stop making the ancient crap they're making now, they don't have to stomp all over it for performance, just make money off it. Having a better, competitively priced, well-performing option for the low end that brings in more profit and doesn't tie up manufacturing with crap they don't need to make? Sounds like a feasible path to getting some black ink, and working into brand names better. Wal-Mart PCs, you know what I mean, but it'd be a big step up from i3 for graphically mildly intensive stuff without requiring a separate card, would it not? Could be grasping at straws, I just want AMD to make some money so I can stop feeling like an Intel fanboy for putting forward what I feel is a pretty solid argument that there isn't a good reason to make an AMD-based computer at any budget 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2011 10:16
|
|
|
I was building a mid-range gaming PC with a fairly strict budget and got a new quad core Phenom II for like $60. I haven't regretted it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2011 10:50
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:Oh, Lord, they're copying the K from Intel. AMD was actually doing the Black Edition unlocked-multiplier thing well before Intel brought out the K models. I don't really see a point in this price range, though. Even if an unlocked multiplier is only a few bucks, it's money better spent saving up for a discrete video card. e:  You're talking about the model numbers themselves, aren't you?Agreed posted:Which they really need. If AMD can stop making the ancient crap they're making now, they don't have to stomp all over it for performance, just make money off it. Having a better, competitively priced, well-performing option for the low end that brings in more profit and doesn't tie up manufacturing with crap they don't need to make? Sounds like a feasible path to getting some black ink, and working into brand names better. Wal-Mart PCs, you know what I mean, but it'd be a big step up from i3 for graphically mildly intensive stuff without requiring a separate card, would it not? The mobile APUs are actually really good for low- and mid-budget netbooks and laptops, and the low-end desktop CPUs are still a decent budget choice. The bigger problem for AMD is the future: their new high-end architecture is a tremendous flop, they're going to get squeezed hard on the low end (where they really do have a compelling product) by ARM, and they still haven't managed much with the Fusion stuff beyond putting a decent GPU and a decent CPU on the same piece of silicon. Space Gopher fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Dec 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2011 19:26
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:AMD was actually doing the Black Edition unlocked-multiplier thing well before Intel brought out the K models. I don't really see a point in this price range, though. Even if an unlocked multiplier is only a few bucks, it's money better spent saving up for a discrete video card. Yes, but they denoted that with Black Edition or BE. There doesn't seem any reason to go with K other than to leech off the success of Intel's unlocked CPUs and blur the line between brands.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2011 19:35
|
|
|
Uh, you could say the K does stand for black, as in CMYK. Key, but in reality, black. Oh never mind, this is a winding path of pointlessness. Of course they stole it from Intel. Why not just U for Unlocked?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2011 19:56
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:Uh, you could say the K does stand for black, as in CMYK. Key, but in reality, black. Honestly, I'm glad they "stole" it like that. It makes it easier for laymen to decipher what the hell all the model numbers mean if the unlocked versions are the same across vendors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2011 20:00
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Honestly, I'm glad they "stole" it like that. It makes it easier for laymen to decipher what the hell all the model numbers mean if the unlocked versions are the same across vendors. The common person doesn't buy a motherboard that allows him to overclock, let alone would they try overclocking even if they knew what it was. In reality it makes very little difference, or that's my feeling. It's not important in the slightest, but my point is that an overclocker, picking out a chip for this purpose, isn't going to get confused by any of the numbers and letters, since they'll do their research anyway. Everyone else just buys whatever piece of poo poo they happen to see in the store that has a big yellow sign saying that the PC is on a cheap deal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2011 20:04
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:Everyone else just buys whatever piece of poo poo they happen to see in the store that has a big yellow sign saying that the PC is on a cheap deal. That's my logic too. 90% of people who use computers don't understand any of the "voodoo" that goes on inside. Do companies like Dell and HP use unlocked processors in their machines? If so, wtf, I still have not seen a bios from a computer manufacturer that allows any real changes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2011 20:10
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:Why not just U for Unlocked? Hard consonants are more x-treme.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2011 20:21
|
|
|
Moey posted:That's my logic too. 90% of people who use computers don't understand any of the "voodoo" that goes on inside. Do companies like Dell and HP use unlocked processors in their machines? If so, wtf, I still have not seen a bios from a computer manufacturer that allows any real changes. Dell offers unlocked processors on its Alienware machines. It also offers non-unlocked processors, but gets more juice out of them by sticking them on P67 boards for +4 bins of Turbo. Of course, by default, the overclock is only 1 bin, or a whopping 1x multiplier/100 MHz. But the BIOS does allow adjustments.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2011 20:32
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:Hard consonants are more x-treme. Joking aside isn't U part of 'UM' or 'ULV' or whatever the low power mobile chips are? I think those have been around for ages, haven't they?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2011 01:36
|
|
|
Spiderdrake posted:Ultra is extreme, but Unlocked is unextreme! ULV and CULV do indeed signify ultra low voltage and.. I think consumer ultra low voltage (although that doesn't make much sense), on Intel chips. It was only a suggestion. Maybe they could use an X. X is just loving extreme. Hell, Z is even more extreme. It's right at the end and it still doesn't give a gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2011 01:54
|
|
|
Next time on Dragon Core Z, our heroes gather the seven dragon cores and assemble them onto one die to revive Goku, who has learned the Turbo technique from King Kai.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2011 02:05
|
|
|
Alereon posted:This has been pulled due to unexpected performance drops.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2011 22:08
|
|
|
They can't seem to catch a break
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2011 14:28
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:Next time on Dragon Core Z, our heroes gather the seven dragon cores and assemble them onto one die to revive Goku, who has learned the Turbo technique from King Kai. I'd watch that. People have talked about hardware for games consoles being part of AMD's revenue stream, but how significant is it? Is it quite a low margin enterprise?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2011 14:49
|
|
|
Chas McGill posted:I'd watch that. At this point, I think it's a decent cash-stream. They were taped out years ago, process improvements are always marching on, and you have guaranteed customer until they EOL the console and stop production. As the consoles shrink too, you can migrate those chips to your newer processes so you can decommission your older lines/furnaces/lithography/etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2011 16:25
|
|
|
Some Chinese leaks of HD 7900 slides. If these features actually work, without any huge driver issues, I'll definitely be buying one of these cards if the price is right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2011 19:27
|
|
|
Alereon posted:I'm really pretty excited about the Radeon 7800-series myself. While the 7900-series looks cool, it's a brand new architecture so I'd rather wait until the kinks get ironed out. The leaked specs for the 7800-series seem to be exactly what I was hoping for, a die-shrunk 6900-series with much lower power consumption (and hopefully great overclocking!). The 77xx, 78xx, and 79xx are all based on the new GCN architecture. Although rumors are that the 78xx will have exactly the same amount of CU's as 69xx series, which will allow us to make some interesting comparisons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2011 19:49
|
|
|
tijag posted:The 77xx, 78xx, and 79xx are all based on the new GCN architecture. Although rumors are that the 78xx will have exactly the same amount of CU's as 69xx series, which will allow us to make some interesting comparisons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2011 22:36
|
|
|
As long as they all have die shrinks and clock bumps, I'm sure they'll be priced well and still be very competitive. This could be an interesting round..
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2011 23:29
|
|
|
I'm not the biggest fan of tomshardware but the results of the latest system builder guide are just so depressing... http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-overclock-crossfire-ssd,3098.html  
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2011 20:07
|
|
|
Fuzzy Mammal posted:I'm not the biggest fan of tomshardware but the results of the latest system builder guide are just so depressing... Err, I'd rather have that than whatever you think would be 'not depressing'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2011 20:51
|
|
|
^^ Sorry, I think you misunderstood the whole point of it. It's a build at $1000 based around Bulldozer to see what happens vs the same cost of machine in September (based on Intel). It only completely cements how bad Bulldozer is. There really is absolutely no place in which it can fit, other than the waste disposal. Tom's Hardware posted:PCMark clearly favors the Intel-based system, and even the overclocked 4.5 GHz FX-6100 cannot match the stock Core i5-2500K's results. I think we should go back to talking about Southern Islands instead of Bulldozer. Bulldozer is far too depressing. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Dec 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2011 21:08
|
|
|
Bulldozer is the action that needs to be done with the chip. As in bulldoze the plans into a landfill.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2011 23:21
|
|
|
Oh, the 'Sept. 2011' system is the older system? I thought it was the newer one. Thats pretty lame.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2011 23:30
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Oh, the 'Sept. 2011' system is the older system? I thought it was the newer one. Thats pretty lame. Yeah, that's how badly bulldozer performs, at an extraordinary power draw. Twice the watts (hope you've got a beefy power supply), very poor performance scaling. Kind of a nightmare for AMD in the enthusiast arena. The server parts aren't much better, even going against Intel's last-gen hardware (soon to be two generations old).
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2011 23:52
|
|
|
Are Intel's server parts always this far behind? My entire workplace uses Xeons for workstations and servers and I guess even though my Z800 is new its still using last gen CPUs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 00:09
|
|
|
I think you have that backwards. Intel is dominating in everything but per-socket performance server-load per-watt performance, and AMD is only competitive there because it crams 12 or 16 cores onto a chip where Intel maxes out at 10. Per core, Intel parts are faster and more power efficient.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 00:16
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:Per core, Intel parts are faster and more power efficient. Intel usually introduces new architectures in the enterprise market first, but has moved away from that in recent years. I can only assume that's for business reasons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 00:19
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Are Intel's server parts always this far behind? My entire workplace uses Xeons for workstations and servers and I guess even though my Z800 is new its still using last gen CPUs. "Behind" is a relative concept and has to be weighed against performance offered by their main competitor, who has ~5% of the market (down from a peak of 25% back when their parts were making GBS threads all over Intel's in every category). Introducing badass new Sandy Bridge server parts would be great, but we've already seen with Sandy Bridge-E that they are having some trouble delivering 8-core Sandy Bridge parts whereas previous-gen server processors have a reliable and profitable 10-core manufacturing process. Given that Sandy Bridge-E's top end parts right now are shipping with two cores disabled, here's some total speculation. Maybe Sandy Bridge-E isn't just a more-money-than-sense consumer trap. It could also be Intel's opportunity to make some money off of what would otherwise be a process-tweaking, spindown-til-it's-right engineering headache. That'd be a pretty good use of an otherwise silly dick waving enthusiast platform. I haven't paid enough attention to Intel's extreme top end lineup or to their server roadmap to see when they do plan to bring newer processors to the server market. At the moment, in terms of competition, Intel just doesn't need do more than what they're doing, because what they have is powerful enough to maintain dominance over AMD. There's really no impetus, no rush for them to end-of-life parts that they can make much more reliably and profitably. It's a monopoly in all but name, don't expect a lot of tooth and nail scrounging for performance from Intel when they're currently winning the server market, the desktop market, and even putting in great showings in the low end market (though hopefully future Llano-successors will change that). They're sucking at Atom, but that's kinda who cares, really, not their money maker.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 01:10
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:I think you have that backwards. Intel is dominating in everything but per-socket performance server-load per-watt performance, and AMD is only competitive there because it crams 12 or 16 cores onto a chip where Intel maxes out at 10. I think all he's getting at that Xeons tend to trail the desktop chips in the generation, so Sandy Bridge hits, Sandy Bridge Xeons don't hit until later, and so on. Used to be the other way round with AMD.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 01:30
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Intel usually introduces new architectures in the enterprise market first, but has moved away from that in recent years. I can only assume that's for business reasons. You sure about that? Looking back as far as Netburst on Wikipedia, the Xeons look like they've lagged at least 3-6 months behind the desktop parts. As far as why they lag, I'd guess it mainly comes down to the design/testing/validation for the extra Xeon features & layouts added onto the base architecture. Probably just extra testing & validation in general, for that matter. And given the level of pressure they're getting from AMD, their timelines probably err on the side of safety.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 02:28
|
|
|
Back to Southern Islands chat: new snapshots of the card, as well as performance numbers from a leaked AMD slide. Take the numbers with a grain of salt, since they're certainly "best case scenario" numbers.  
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 03:25
|
|
|
Lost the graph somehow. 1.6x the performance of a GTX 580 is certainly appealing. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 03:26
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Lost the graph somehow. If nVidia can't match that, and the numbers bear out, count me in. I'd frankly love to give AMD some money right now, enough bad news.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 03:34
|
|
|
That is an awfully misleading graph. Granted, that seems to be par for the course with benchmarks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 03:36
|
|
|
ohgodwhat posted:That is an awfully misleading graph. Granted, that seems to be par for the course with benchmarks. In what way? The only thing I can think is that the GTX 580 is much more limited in high resolution gaming by the 1.5GB frame buffer, which can skew results dramatically depending. But those are games which we have a pretty good idea of how they perform at the given settings with current benches, so if they're being genuine at all and the numbers do match their comparisons, that's an impressive jump in performance for a single-GPU card, and would be tough for nVidia to beat, although I'd expect them to at least match it given that Fermi is a pretty old architecture at this point and Kepler ought to come out swinging unless they've had their heads completely up their asses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 03:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 12:26 |
|
|
Agreed posted:In what way? PR departments are poo poo (especially AMD's). What else is new. That's why I said take it with a grain of salt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 03:52
|
|