AMD vs. Intel

StarBound · Post by **StarBound** » 20 Nov 2011, 14:00

Hehe. And all accounted for

I'm still between wanting the hardware and spending the money differently or saving it. Will see what next years graphics cards brings to the table.

Mystical_Titan · Post by **Mystical_Titan** » 20 Nov 2011, 17:14

Don't get 2011. Way too expensive! Keep your PC, nothing wrong with it.

PS - No luck in getting your RAM up to 2 GHz?

StarBound · Post by **StarBound** » 20 Nov 2011, 18:04

Nope I've given up. The only way to get it to 2000mhz is with base clock changes and I'm not going to go that rout. The thing about going 2011 though is that the only bottleneck you then have is your graphics or so I am led to believe. So should I replace my card with next years monster card what will I be looking at though? Like the 5870/560ti to 580gtx a 50% single card increase?

ADT · Post by **ADT** » 22 Nov 2011, 07:27

AMD launches Opteron 16-core x86 server processor this week - first of it kind??

- http://tinyurl.com/ctul6yt

Post by **Anakha56** » 22 Nov 2011, 10:08

@ ADT - It fails...

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/20 ... ophe.ars/1

AMD's Bulldozer server benchmarks are here, and they're a catastrophe
By Peter Bright | Published about 6 hours ago

The desktop benchmark scores for AMD's new Bulldozer architecture didn't make happy reading for fans of the chip company, with the new design sometimes failing to beat AMD's own predecessor architecture, let alone Intel's comparable offerings. Hope still persisted, however, that the processor's architecture might fare better when tasked with server workloads. With the release last week of AMD's first Bulldozer server processors, branded the Opteron 6200 series and codenamed "Interlagos," a host of such benchmarks have arrived from AMD and others.

One reason for the underwhelming performance on the desktop is that the Bulldozer architecture emphasizes multithreaded performance over single-threaded performance. For desktop applications, where single-threaded performance is still king, this is a problem. Server workloads, in contrast, typically have to handle multiple users, network connections, and virtual machines concurrently. This makes them a much better fit for processors that support lots of concurrent threads. Some commentators have even suggested that Bulldozer was, first and foremost, a server processor; relatively weak desktop performance was to be expected, but it would all come good in the server room.

Unfortunately for AMD, it looks as though the decisions that hurt Bulldozer on the desktop continue to hurt it in the server room. Although the server benchmarks don't show the same regressions as were found on the desktop, they do little to justify the design of the new architecture.

The problems with server benchmarking

...

Read on for benchmarks and such...

Mystical_Titan · Post by **Mystical_Titan** » 22 Nov 2011, 10:24

Man, what is up with AMD?!

THE_STIG · Post by **THE_STIG** » 22 Nov 2011, 10:30

AMD are not up, they are down

I think they have fallen to far behind Intel, and dont have the funds to get back ahead

Mystical_Titan · Post by **Mystical_Titan** » 22 Nov 2011, 10:54

Well, their Bulldozer name seems to be very apt right now, 'cause that's what's happening to them.

D3PART3D · Post by **D3PART3D** » 22 Nov 2011, 10:56

AMD is officially dead to me.

THE_STIG · Post by **THE_STIG** » 22 Nov 2011, 10:57

Its sad but true. What AMD need is somebody who can get the company back on track before they run into serious financial problems

Mystical_Titan · Post by **Mystical_Titan** » 22 Nov 2011, 11:09

Didn't they get a new CEO not so long ago?

Post by **KALSTER** » 22 Nov 2011, 11:10

THE_STIG wrote:Its sad but true. What AMD need is somebody who can get the company back on track before they run into serious financial problems

Their only hope now it seems is their improvement road map of + 15% for next year IIRC, coupled with the purported better compatibility of Windows 8 with the new architecture , which comes out at the end of next year. Don't think it will be enough though. They will be forced to go back to the price/performance strategy, or to bundle their CPU's with liquid cooling solutions at roughly the same price point as current, with their CPU's pre-OC'ed to well over 4GHz at least.

Damnit AMD!

StarBound · Post by **StarBound** » 22 Nov 2011, 13:36

AMD needs to turn out a 4 core cpu that can rival the i3 at half the price and an 8 core that can rival the i5 at half the price.

Mystical_Titan · Post by **Mystical_Titan** » 23 Nov 2011, 12:23

StarBound wrote:AMD needs to turn out a 4 core cpu that can rival the i3 at half the price and an 8 core that can rival the i5 at half the price.

And I hear that a formula has been developed that lets pigs fly and fish swim on land.

StarBound · Post by **StarBound** » 23 Nov 2011, 15:22

Mystical_Titan wrote:
StarBound wrote:AMD needs to turn out a 4 core cpu that can rival the i3 at half the price and an 8 core that can rival the i5 at half the price.
And I hear that a formula has been developed that lets pigs fly and fish swim on land.

Indeed, it's called Intel

Let's face it. i7 is untouchable by AMD, for i5 pricing you go i5 because AMD cant deliver and then i3 at AMD pricing kills them off.

i7 3930k @ R6000 is 10% faster than the i7 2600k @ R3000 stock speeds while i7 3990X @ R11000 is 10% faster than i7 3930k. Putting things further out of perspective, Rampage 4 is looking at R5500, X79 Deluxe is R4500 and cheapest intel X79 with all the basics is R2500. I didn't expect Rampage to be more than R4500 and the CPU between R4k-5k.

Mystical_Titan · Post by **Mystical_Titan** » 25 Nov 2011, 10:02

If I have to get a PC again in the near future, it'll definitely be socket 1155.

RuadRauFlessa · Post by **RuadRauFlessa** » 25 Nov 2011, 10:14

I can attest that a sandybridge i7 rocks... I can usually kill any pc with multitasking it to death. Got my rig this week and I tried.. I really tried to get it to slow down and start giving UI response issues. But alas I failed in my attempt. And that was with a 32bit OS and since that I have installed 64bit... For what you pay for a piece of sandy it is really worth it.

Mystical_Titan · Post by **Mystical_Titan** » 25 Nov 2011, 10:29

Sandybridge is so good, I'd even get just an i5-2500k.

StarBound · Post by **StarBound** » 25 Nov 2011, 15:08

Any i7 is killer. That is the thing. I have no reason to replace my current system apart from wanting the new i7. I have an estimated 20% increase in games max if I go 2011, 10% if I go for i7 2600. While all the unseen scores and stuff are anything from 40-100% faster.

Mystical_Titan · Post by **Mystical_Titan** » 25 Nov 2011, 17:01

Um... where do you get those numbers from?

THE_STIG · Post by **THE_STIG** » 25 Nov 2011, 18:55

Tomshardware no doubt

StarBound · Post by **StarBound** » 25 Nov 2011, 19:30

Toms hardware and anandtech I think. Might be 2 other sites aswell though as I was looking for a few.

SykomantiS · Post by **SykomantiS** » 26 Nov 2011, 12:35

You want to really know speed... My dev pc at work is an i7 2600, 8GB Ram, Radeon HD5450 (code dev only, no 3d stuff or visuals so no need for anything hotter), with a 120GB Corsair Force3 (Sata 3) solid state drive.

That right there is serious speed...

I have never encountered anything like it- it's truly insane.

StarBound · Post by **StarBound** » 26 Nov 2011, 15:47

But see the purpose behind it is non gaming. Infact an i7 2011 would probably kill that system.

If you haven't got an i7 or i5 then upgrading to any i7 will be speed like never seen before. But going from i7 to another i7 is pointless.

SykomantiS · Post by **SykomantiS** » 27 Nov 2011, 00:05

But see the purpose behind it is non gaming. Infact an i7 2011 would probably kill that system.

Maybe, maybe not. I'll tell you once we hire some new guys- the new people always get the new toys. Odd...

But I'll be honest- it ain't the Core i7 that's the impressive bit here...

PCFormat Forum Archive

AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel