If they did that, then there goes the +7-8% advantage they gained. They would release a processor that performed exactly like the previous one (aka bad) with a power consumption of just bad (because BD was ultra bad).
I'm actually glad they didn't puss out and try to reduce power consumption. I'd rather have the performance than save what amounts to pennies a year on the electricity bill.
I am calm . Its not me .People are so threatened AMD is going out of business that they look at these underperforming power eaters and say not bad . Its amusing . This is amds best 8 core cpu . There in deep do do. Comparing to intells 4 cores is fun and all based on price . But what is exactly the reason for a price compare to beginn with . Because WHY exactly? It has nothing to do with price. A 6 core intel wipes the floor with these . You guys might think based on PRICE Amd has a nice cpu. Thats laughable. I understand the price compare is good .. Same as cpu efficiency is a big deal . Bottom line Intel is cheaper to own threw the lifetime of the product by a large factor . But than The same people who sing the praises of cheaper cpu . Avoid the fact intel 8threaded 4 core is cheaper to own and a better bargin. AMD competes with the 3750 so why even show the 8 thread model in the reviews . In so doing the reality is hidden even deeper in this tangled story of Intel Vs AMD and confussing the cost of ownership . If fans think this will save AMD they are wrong . Next QT. tells the story . I just hate the fact I will have to listen to 3 more months of How great this CPU and the earnings report will show something all together differant . Stange world
whambulance
The imaginary rescue vehicle that will rescue someone when they are incessantly whining over a trivial matter. Used mockingly, but in good humor.
I'm actually glad they didn't puss out and try to reduce power consumption. I'd rather have the performance than save what amounts to pennies a year on the electricity bill.
The gaming argument fails since nobody games in low resolution(unless he has to due to poor GPU). Once you get to 1080p, almost all titles will show no difference since gaming at 100fps and 130fps is basically the same. There are those few titles like Civ and Skyrim that for some reason take a performance hit with FX but they are still more than playable in 1080p. Those who want the absolute highest FPS in their games will buy intel for sure.
Those who want relatively cheap system to do everything one can think of (game also) may pick up 8350 or even 8320(and OC it).
I think it was a mistake offering chips that overclock so well. I mean, why didn't they just come clocked higher, considering the price point they are going for? It would sure make them look better compared to Intel. We, as enthusiasts, make too small of a target audience for such decisions to be based solely upon us. And as said before, their target audience doesn't care much about a few extra degrees to get there.
In my eyes, AMD was that company that wasn't trusted as much as Intel, but we all wanted one because they offered better performance at a lower price.
They took away both, so what is left? Do they think they have elevated themselves that much in the trust part?
Certainly not.
Every server I have put together for our customers has had an Intel processor. Every controller I have worked with has an Intel processor. I am not trying to speak for everyone, but our customers, I believe, use similar technology as other companies.
Sorry for quoting a post so early in the thread, but this bothers me. Yes, I don't much care either when I'm playing Sims 3 and I get 400fps with my i5 instead of 300fps. However, I do care that when playing Guild Wars 2, I get 60+fps instead of 40 because it's such a CPU heavy game, and doesn't take advantage of 8 cores. I do care when I'm late game in a Starcraft 2 mod and I get 30fps instead of 20. I also care when I'm playing Mario Galaxy 2 in Dolphin that it stays pegged at 60fps instead of dropping into the 40's when there's a lot going on.
These are all places where Bulldozer's (and to a lesser extent, Piledriver's) gaming performance fails me. It's not always a case of 300 vs 400fps, a fair number of games (that I play) are actually CPU bound below 60fps.
I think it was a mistake offering chips that overclock so well. I mean, why didn't they just come clocked higher, considering the price point they are going for? It would sure make them look better compared to Intel. We, as enthusiasts, make too small of a target audience for such decisions to be based solely upon us. And as said before, their target audience doesn't care much about a few extra degrees to get there.
I am calm . Its not me .People are so threatened AMD is going out of business that they look at these underperforming power eaters and say not bad . Its amusing . This is amds best 8 core cpu . There in deep do do. Comparing to intells 4 cores is fun and all based on price . But what is exactly the reason for a price compare to beginn with . Because WHY exactly? It has nothing to do with price. A 6 core intel wipes the floor with these . You guys might think based on PRICE Amd has a nice cpu. Thats laughable. I understand the price compare is good .. Same as cpu efficiency is a big deal . Bottom line Intel is cheaper to own threw the lifetime of the product by a large factor . But than The same people who sing the praises of cheaper cpu . Avoid the fact intel 8threaded 4 core is cheaper to own and a better bargin. AMD competes with the 3750 so why even show the 8 thread model in the reviews . In so doing the reality is hidden even deeper in this tangled story of Intel Vs AMD and confussing the cost of ownership . If fans think this will save AMD they are wrong . Next QT. tells the story . I just hate the fact I will have to listen to 3 more months of How great this CPU and the earnings report will show something all together differant . Stange world
A 20$ saving in electricity here, adjusted to buying power, would be over 200$ there. In other words, 20$ is worth to me what 200$ is worth to you. Actually i have the computer open 12 hrs every day with both heavy and light use. If you do the math it would be more than 20$ in my case per year, but i gave that as a typical scenario.
It may sound like peanuts to you, but i am upgrading to an i3 3220 and i love the 55w power consumption.
I think it was a mistake offering chips that overclock so well. I mean, why didn't they just come clocked higher, considering the price point they are going for? It would sure make them look better compared to Intel. We, as enthusiasts, make too small of a target audience for such decisions to be based solely upon us. And as said before, their target audience doesn't care much about a few extra degrees to get there.
In my eyes, AMD was that company that wasn't trusted as much as Intel, but we all wanted one because they offered better performance at a lower price.
They took away both, so what is left? Do they think they have elevated themselves that much in the trust part?
Certainly not.
Every server I have put together for our customers has had an Intel processor. Every controller I have worked with has an Intel processor. I am not trying to speak for everyone, but our customers, I believe, use similar technology as other companies.
TDP and yields, maybe. As others have said, this is probably as fast as they can go with a 125 watt TDP. And who knows, maybe the number of chips they get from a wafer that can operate at 4.2GHz with say a 4.5GHz turbo falls off pretty steeply.
Wouldn't that introduce problems too? Say, bumping up another thread's stores to LLC which isn't going to get any better, judging from AMD's last statements regarding Steamroller? For power consumption that would do wonders, though. With that much cache, you need a way of toggling that on and off.
From Tech Power Up it seems the clock for clock improvement ranges from 3% 3dMark 11, to 15% Cinebench, to 25% WinRaR.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=whambulanceChoking on your whamburger? Shall I call a whambulance for you?
I remember reading an article stating that the resonant clock mesh 3rd-party IP AMD was licensing for Piledriver cores was pretty ineffective at higher-than-4ghz.
Bear in mind they missed their clock speed goals too, which were initially designed to hit ~4.5ghz (missed IPC by >10% too, but that's another story).
What are you basing that on? I've always thought of caches as being a much smaller portion of the power consumption than cores. Is any data available on cache vs. core power consumption?
I have a general question. Does the FX 8350 use or have hyper threading at all, or is it actually 8 physical cores? If it is actually 8 physical cores, the chip can have potential uses in workstations, as there are many kinds of software running old code that support only physical cores, and thus HT would be pointless for these users, and an i7 would essentially just be running as an i5, making AMDs offering more palatable.
I have a general question. Does the FX 8350 use or have hyper threading at all, or is it actually 8 physical cores? If it is actually 8 physical cores, the chip can have potential uses in workstations, as there are many kinds of software running old code that support only physical cores, and thus HT would be pointless for these users, and an i7 would essentially just be running as an i5, making AMDs offering more palatable.
I have a general question. Does the FX 8350 use or have hyper threading at all, or is it actually 8 physical cores? If it is actually 8 physical cores, the chip can have potential uses in workstations, as there are many kinds of software running old code that support only physical cores, and thus HT would be pointless for these users, and an i7 would essentially just be running as an i5, making AMDs offering more palatable.
The caches tend to be the most transistor dense portions of a chip outside of on-die GPUs.
While I agree that ideally you want the highest numbers possible, how about you shows us a setup that can sustain those 120fps on BF3, metro 2033 and similars running 1920 x 1080 highest settings 8xMSAA 16xAF? In fact, many newer games, even on lowered detail, won't reach 120fps at 1080p. And if you tell me that you can lower the resolution, well, how could you complain of "massive difference" when nothings looks uglier than LCDs not running at native res?
Edit: My comment was to highlight that no matter the setup, we are not there yet for 120fps at 1080 yet.
That's true, but it doesn't necessarily result in higher power consumption in the caches. There are two major reasons why caches tend to be lower power than their transistor density might lead you expect: 1) activity factor, and 2) transistor selection. Lower-level caches are generally not accessed very often, and even when they are accessed, only a very small portion of the cache actually does anything. Since the very vast majority of transistors aren't switching, there's very little dynamic power consumption. Designers know this, and that's why the second part comes into play: they specifically design caches to leak less. Bit cells (the 6-8 transistor circuits that store data in caches) can use longer channel lengths and/or higher threshold voltages for their transistors, reducing the static (leakage) power consumption relative to the transistors used for more aggressively-designed logic inside a core.
TL;DR: Yes, there are more transistors, but that doesn't directly imply they burn a lot of power.
Some people pay more for electricity than in united states. Where i live the price after taxes is around 0,12$ per kwh, without any offpeak reductions, while the wages are over 10x smaller.
A 20$ saving in electricity here, adjusted to buying power, would be over 200$ there. In other words, 20$ is worth to me what 200$ is worth to you. Actually i have the computer open 12 hrs every day with both heavy and light use. If you do the math it would be more than 20$ in my case per year, but i gave that as a typical scenario.
It may sound like peanuts to you, but i am upgrading to an i3 3220 and i love the 55w power consumption.
Wasn't this addressed by those Bulldozer patches?The Win7/Win8 scheduler sees them as 8 individual cores rather than Intel-like SMT.
It doesn't, because it normally doesn't care, but in principle, it could know if it wanted.At a software level, a program can't tell the difference between a physical core and a hyperthreaded core (at least that's what I've read).