|
Riso posted:Let me be the first to admit to still use an AMD Athlon II x4 640. MeramJert posted:Me too and I don't see much of a reason to upgrade at the moment. If I did upgrade though, I'd pretty much have to go Intel for the first time in over 10 years. Me three and likewise. I find since I don't do much PC gaming anymore I don't feel that much pressure to upgrade.
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 15:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:35 |
|
|
Athlon II x4 635 owner here and it is serving me well. Granted, I don't buy games that are above 20 bucks these days, so no wonder the thing still works out fine for me.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
nftyw posted:Athlon II x4 635 owner here and it is serving me well. Granted, I don't buy games that are above 20 bucks these days, so no wonder the thing still works out fine for me. I've got an Athlon II X4 630. When I got it you couldn't touch any Intel quad core parts for the price. It's still pretty decent for a 4 year old chip.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
Riso posted:Let me be the first to admit to still use an AMD Athlon II x4 640. I loved that processor, Now I rock a x6 T1055, A8-4500M, and Opteron 6128. I was thinking about upgrading to the T6300 or FX-8320, still on the fence.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
Corvettefisher posted:I loved that processor, Now I rock a x6 T1055, A8-4500M, and Opteron 6128. There's really not a point to upgrade to the current AMD stuff at this point. I have a 1100T, and when you compare it to the current FX series, the performance gains are fairly small and not worth the cost. Consider the FX-8350 vs i5-3470. Both are $200, but the i5 has better performance and lower TDP: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/702?vs=697 And for a little more money, you can get even better performance from Intel. The Trinity chips can be an acceptable choice if on a budget and aren't going to use a discrete GPU, but the FX series just isn't worth it at their current prices.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
My CPU history (main rig only) has been 1.2GHz Athlon Tunderbird, Athlon XP 1800+, Athlon 64 3000+, Athlon II 250, and now I am on a Phenom II X4 840 purchased in 2011. Just holding out for the next chance to upgrade to a good AMD CPU, any day now. . . right?? Part of me really wants to buy a Phenom X6 off of ebay, I could pay $200 for an 1100 lol, but I think I might be able to find something for about $100. It wouldn't be an amazing upgrade, but I assume it would be a bit better than what I have now and would help me hold off on switching to the dark side a little longer. I mainly use my PC for light gaming and video encoding.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
fx-4170 owner checking in -- I am quite happy with my purchase. I got a new motherboard, ram, cpu, and power supply for around $250 at Christmas. I couldn't get similar performance from an intel box at close to the same price.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
Colonel Sanders posted:I mainly use my PC for light gaming and video encoding. Actually, for your use case the FX series might be a good buy. The FX-8350 manages to beat even the i7 at some video encoding benchmarks (x264), see here and here.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
I thought I would be an AMD lifer. I didn't do much research before my last amd purchase. I got a phenom II x4 955. I was a little peeved when it ran the fan like a huey taking off from the embassy in saigon circa 1975. I was a little more peeved when I found out it was impossible to play 4x4 Star Craft II at any setting. I finally buckled, bought a core i5, and gave the phenom II to my parents. They were thrilled to finally upgrade their Pentium 4. Its a good thing AMD locked up the console market because I really didn't see them surviving in the PC CPU market very much longer. I have been playing a little game the last few weeks when browsing the electronics ads in the local paper. The ratio of prebuilt Intel systems to AMD systems is like 18 to 2. Edit: lol, I guess I could say 9 to 1 to look a little less like an idiot. SYSV Fanfic fucked around with this message at 01:37 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 01:11
|
|
|
All your AMD bashing makes me eager to see how the console Jaguar part(s) will compare to desktop CPUs. I don't really care either way. Although I guess I would be a bit disappointed if it were really really under powered compared to really cheap desktop parts.
Shaocaholica fucked around with this message at 02:22 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:All your AMD bashing makes me eager to see how the Jaguar will compare to desktop CPUs. I don't really care either way. Although I guess I would be a bit disappointed if it were really really under powered compared to really cheap desktop parts. Depends on how threaded your workload is. But yeah, even your Phenom II 900-somethings are going compare decently to it (955s trading blows etc., probably nothing definitive outside the 1000-somethings). i3s not so much because clocks matter, but even i5-2400 will comfortably beat it, and the kind of chips that ACTUALLY get recommended in the build thread leave no contest. Granted, they don't come with 7850s either, so even with a Haswell quad with Iris Pro you'll need an actual video card to match up, and this part with the unified memory will probably have some ramifications we don't quite understand yet.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 02:20
|
|
|
The AMD setups in the new consoles won't have unified memory right?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 02:23
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:The AMD setups in the new consoles won't have unified memory right? That was exactly what I was referring to. Not shared, unified. CPU or GPU, it can address the entire RAM pool.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 02:24
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:All your AMD bashing makes me eager to see how the console Jaguar part(s) will compare to desktop CPUs. I don't really care either way. Although I guess I would be a bit disappointed if it were really really under powered compared to really cheap desktop parts. We know this already. CPU-wise, they use two A4-5000 APUs sitting next to each other. AnandTech has performance reviews up. Per-thread performance is abysmal compared to desktop chips but solid compared to Atom and last-gen's Bobcat, and perfect 8-core scaling will be somewhat but not far above an Ivy Bridge Core i3.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 02:42
|
|
|
syzygy86 posted:There's really not a point to upgrade to the current AMD stuff at this point. I have a 1100T, and when you compare it to the current FX series, the performance gains are fairly small and not worth the cost. Consider the FX-8350 vs i5-3470. Both are $200, but the i5 has better performance and lower TDP: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/702?vs=697 Are the 6300's gimped on FPU's or is that just the quad cores. My T1055 is running and esxi install, so I am not too worried about how much FPS I can squeeze out of it.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 02:52
|
|
|
All FX CPUs are gimped on FPUs. Each 2-core module shares a double-wide FPU. That FPU can be bifurcated for two 128-bit ops but can only do one 256-bit op, so it's essentially cores/2 wide on the good stuff for floating point.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 02:57
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:We know this already. CPU-wise, they use two A4-5000 APUs sitting next to each other. AnandTech has performance reviews up. Per-thread performance is abysmal compared to desktop chips but solid compared to Atom and last-gen's Bobcat, and perfect 8-core scaling will be somewhat but not far above an Ivy Bridge Core i3. So if you're a game dev and you're going to port over your mostly single threaded last gen game engine then you're pretty much shooting yourself in the foot? Also a big FU to smaller/indie devs who have a lot of creative talent but very little coding talent?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 04:00
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:So if you're a game dev and you're going to port over your mostly single threaded last gen game engine then you're pretty much shooting yourself in the foot? Mostly single threaded game engines didn't do too well on the triple-core PowerPC Xbox 360 or the horrid abomination but quite core heavy Cell PS3 either. People who don't have much coding talent shouldn't be programming their own engines and such, they should be working with any of a number of pre-made engines out there.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Mostly single threaded game engines didn't do too well on the triple-core PowerPC Xbox 360 or the horrid abomination but quite core heavy Cell PS3 either. Thats true. I guess there's always the middle of the road devs who don't want to license an engine but also do a horrible job of coding their own. Whatever, life goes on.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 04:20
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Thats true. I guess there's always the middle of the road devs who don't want to license an engine but also do a horrible job of coding their own. Whatever, life goes on.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 04:54
|
|
|
http://www.techpowerup.com/184960/amd-centurion-is-fx-9000-scrapes-5-00-ghz.html?cp=2#comments http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Vishera-Piledriver-Steamroller-socket-AM3-Centurion,22015.html It looks like AMD might be ready to release a super high-end FX processor that has a base clock of 4.8 and turbos to 5.0ghz. TDP of 220 watts. No details about whether this new chip would simply be a binned and cherry-picked current 8350, or if it would include some of the power-saving things that allowed Richland to achieve higher clocks. At computex, there was a Gigabyte motherboard spotted that listed "support for new FX 5ghz CPUs". Gigabyte had to upgrade the VRM in order to provide the voltage necessary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 16:14
|
|
|
So are they just in "gently caress it." mode, or do they expect to grab some enthusiast dollars since Intel got lazy with overclockability in the last two generations?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 16:16
|
|
|
In multi-threaded workloads, I would guess that a 5ghz FX would do quite well against a stock Haswell i7. If Crysis 3 is any sort of indicator of what the future of games will be, (i.e. multi-threaded and capable of using more than 4 cores/threads), then I think a 5ghz FX would make a pretty good argument for an enthusiast to try AMD. The 220 watt TDP is pretty ludicrous, but on the other hand, graphics cards use (and have used) as much or more power, and gamers haven't complained. They won't be able to get away with pricing it much higher than an i7, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
While theoretically true, I think it's also true that if you overclocked a Haswell i7 4770K to 220W of power consumption that 5Ghz Piledriver doesn't stand a chance
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
Mad_Lion posted:The 220 watt TDP is pretty ludicrous I'd say its past ludicrous and moved onto plaid. Seriously though, how are they going cool that thing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
keyvin posted:I'd say its past ludicrous and moved onto plaid. Seriously though, how are they going cool that thing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
Alereon posted:While theoretically true, I think it's also true that if you overclocked a Haswell i7 4770K to 220W of power consumption that 5Ghz Piledriver doesn't stand a chance Yeeeeaah, and if a frog had wings, wouldn't bump its rear end, etc.; I can't get my Sandy Bridge CPU to draw anywhere NEAR that much and I've got a NH-D14 strapped on it and I'm exceeding Intel's voltage spec and using LLC at the same time. Given that modern Intel processors use teeny tiny "please don't kill me" lithography that doesn't respond well to additional voltage AND creates a massive heat issue (again, dangerous for those billions of tiny transistors since resistance increases as voltage and current draw increase)... While putting out a 220W CPU right out the gate is fairly dumb, the chances of getting a Haswell CPU to hit that kind of power usage and heat dissipation without really absurdly good cooling are next to nothing. Highest I've seen on "let the motherfucker burn, I want clocks!" is 4.8GHz and that was with a lapped, de-shimmed IHS and the goal solely of putting up a big clocks number on the CPU that isn't supposed to overclock so well for internet points. You know, from a different perspective, on AMD's side this is actually pretty impressive now that I think about it: as I recall, getting Bulldozer into the 5GHz range was closer to 300W+. Maybe it's a thing, I dunno. I'd love to see a competitive AMD, just hard not to write them off in the desktop space right now because of the P4-style bad bet on the immediate future of computing and betting the farm in the process.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
Wouldn't 220W of power end up melting motherboards like the old intel prescott cores?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
Alereon posted:That's not an unusual power demand for an overclocked CPU, once you start bumping up the voltage power usage skyrockets. It should be doable with a high-end tower heatsink. I think he meant how do they ship it? Or at least that's what I'm wondering, unless AMD has some crazy Radeon branded NH-D14 they intend to package with this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
These are limited edition processors, so I'm assuming that they will do something similar to the Phenom II TWKR Black Edition processors, where they sold their top-binned CPUs at a premium but didn't guarantee exact specs and it was up to purchasers to push the CPUs to what they could. Even if they are rating the CPUs for a particular speed, it seems like they could sell them without a cooler and just say they are for hardcore users only.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
All they have to do is put a disclaimer on the box right? Didn't read the fine print and tried to use a $5 cooler? CPU is still fine, just throttling. Your fault.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
Goon Matchmaker posted:Wouldn't 220W of power end up melting motherboards like the old intel prescott cores? Not a quality motherboard, no. The mounting system and heat pipes for the cooler alone should be sufficient to dissipate even catastrophic heat failure before anything (edit: except, you know, the processor itself) starts melting. High-end coolers can handle an amazing level of wattage, back then the biggest problem was that they were still relying on inefficient heat transfer methods to begin with, and trying to just goose them as much as possible. I remember Dell had these gigantic vacuum blower cooler things, but at the root of it, you had a copper block and fins or rods, which is like the bronze age compared to modern heat pipe cooling and the efficiency of radiator space. Though if I recall, they were shipping the high-end Bulldozers that had similarly remarkable power draw with closed liquid cooling setups. Can't remember if they partnered with Corsair or Antec, but they knew that you had to dissipate a lot of heat real real real fast and supplied accordingly. Nonetheless, I could possibly see them doing what Alereon suggests and playing off of the "elite of the elite" chips, sending them out just binned for ultra-high clocks and leaving it to individuals to ensure that they have the sort of cooling that can handle the standard power draw, let alone trying to move it up from there. I almost swear I remember one Bulldozer overclock report from Anandtech noting that the processor was drawing close to 400W when they had pushed it really hard. But I can't remember the specifics and I find the site kind of hard to browse for older articles 
Agreed fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Jun 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
Goon Matchmaker posted:Wouldn't 220W of power end up melting motherboards like the old intel prescott cores? I was thinking along those lines, particularly how amusing the reversal is from when AMD was sending out Prescott Survival Kits due to the at-the-time blistering 115W TDP
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
Now that I think of it, Prescott was sort of the genesis of heat pipe coolers. Baby ones, but still, the tech was juuust hitting shelves. Thermalright TOWER112, Coolermaster Hyper 6, and one of the first Zalman wacky coolers. If only Bulldozer had came out and ruled instead of gone over like a turd in a punchbowl, maybe we'd have another renaissance in cooling technology out of necessity. Hell, maybe we will anyway with how hot IVB and Haswell run unless you fix their glaring engineering flaw (or evil master plan, hard to tell) of putting the gat damned IHS too far from the guts. I couldn't believe it until it was pretty well proved earlier today that just changing the effectively shimmed IHS setup nets you a 20ºC+ temperature savings, come on Intel, what is that poo poo, at least AMD's was on accident, sheesh 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
Agreed posted:If only Bulldozer had came out and ruled instead of gone over like a turd in a punchbowl, maybe we'd have another renaissance in cooling technology out of necessity. What about closed loop stuff? I think thats a generational shift from heatpipes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
It's an older technology, though. Closed-loop liquid cooling is just mass production and simplification of age-old liquid cooling, not really an application of a novel tech to the problem of cooling computers. Spinning air-bearing coolers are currently in R&D, but they probably won't beat out liquid cooling either. Newer is not necessarily better. Newer just may be better tuned to certain circumstances in terms of cost or trade-offs between cooling performance and other factors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
Clearly it's time for VapoChill to make a comeback  Lusted after those things for entirely too long 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
There are air coolers rated for "300w" though I guess that is marketing. The rumor is that these chips would ship with some liquid solution. I doubt AMD will sell a lot of these things so perhaps they will do the MB as well and bundle it all together. AMD though has a good idea. They are trying to sell to the enthusiast and gaming market that Intel gives not a gently caress (and gives not a gently caress for performance sacrificed for efficiency). They bought a ton of 28nm wafers from GloFo that are not being used; AMD must regret that agreement. Use those wafers! I say go big or go home: make a massive, hot, low yield steamroller 16 core 5 ghz chip that will crush Haswell and sell it for beaucoup bucks. Make people sign wavers in the event it burns down their home to buy it. Sell the binned versions to heat small homes/institutions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
movax posted:Clearly it's time for VapoChill to make a comeback THE GREATEST COOLERS Nothing like having to use some industrial anti-condensation liquid all around your socket!
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 21:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:35 |
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:What about closed loop stuff? I think thats a generational shift from heatpipes. To expand Factory Factory's quick and accurate note THAT this is not really new, here's WHY this is not new. Here's the deal with liquid cooling. It's been around forever, unlike heat pipes, which didn't really get figured out until about 2007-2008 or so. Before that, they had serious issues with horizontal mounting, the dimensions of the heatpipes, shape of them, fin spacing, the works - they were baby's first heatpipe designs, clearly superior to previous copper block and fin/pin technology with m-m-m-megablowers, just not a fully developed technology yet. Still, it was clearly a good idea. Why was it a good idea, especially compared to liquid cooling, which at the time was fiddly as poo poo and required a devil-may-care willingness to soak your system's innards? Well, that's easy enough. The key thing with any heat exchange that relies on radiator space is efficiency. Pre-packaged liquid loops, much like their gigantic brethren of the past, are by way of comparison to heat pipes as a more or less finished technology very inefficient, watt for watt. They require more radiator space for the same level of cooling, more air forced through that space (there's the wattage) which also makes them noisy, and a limitation of the closed loop units that have hit the scene more recently is that they have limited radiator space so there's a definite cap on how much they can cool - at least the old water-cooling units could just run out to a cooling box where the heat exchange took place and have way more radiator space to make that lack of efficiency not matter as much (except for the fact that it might as well have been a noisy space heater with usually at least eight to twelve fans performing that heat exchange). Thus is the price of room temperature under load. Most people do not want or need room temperature under load. Those that do use extraordinary measures like loving ridiculously loud fans to push enough air through the dense radiators of closed loop coolers, set to max (good luck with pump life). At any fan settings lower than MONSTER KILL, closed loop coolers really start showing their inefficiency compared to air coolers with modern heat pipe tech. They don't cool as well per watt per decibel, and those modern designs I'm referring to are amazing at wicking heat and radiating it through fins soldered directly to the pipes - coolers like the Silver Arrow or Archon, or the NH-D14, and some more recent (but not better) entrants to the field. Air wins, for now, for most applications. For balls to the wall overclocking on these high wattage processors, a real, old-school liquid loop is necessary - the all-in-one solutions will fail to cool them well enough, except perhaps for the very biggest ones that require a full tower sized top vent for mounting. And even that is iffy. Of course there are exotic cooling setups too, phase change, liquid etc., dry ice, but those are generally suicide run overclocks intended to set a record before the chip bites it due to incredibly excessive voltage. That's coolin' for ya.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 21:58
|
|