Go Back   nV News Forums > Hardware Forums > General Hardware

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-19-11, 07:19 AM   #13
grey_1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Observation...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redeemed View Post

Kinda' interesting to see how this round will turn out- especially knowing that nVidia is liscensing SLi to AMD and AMD will be having native SATA3 and USB3.0, hopefully this new AMD3+ platform will indeed be competitive.
Yeah, +1 to this. We'll know exactly where each platform stands by the time I build my next rig - I'm really hoping it will be a tough choice, but somewhat of a win either way.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-11, 08:39 AM   #14
dairy hick
*BANNED*
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 56
Default Re: Observation...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redeemed View Post
Figured I'd respond to both of you since ya'll pretty much said the same thing.

Okay, I'll stand corrected. For some reason I thought there was a much larger performance delta between the 2500k and 2600k than there really is. Thanks for that review Grey. It seems the proper comparison isn't the 2600k to the PhII x6 1100T, but the 2500k to the PhII x6 1100T... in which case it's a clear win for the 2500k, and the 2500k is about $5 cheaper.

So my whole point is moot now and this thread concluded, I guess. Going with the 2500k + SSD would likely be cheaper than the AMD solution while yeilding better performance. It seems, going off of that review though, the greatest gains are when gaming. In media creation or general multi-tasking the 2500k doesn't hold that great of a lead over the six-core Phenom... averages about 6 seconds lead in most rendering apps. Kinda' surprised me as I figured that's where Intel would really take the crown.

The 1100T seems to be hard to place price-wise. It's definitely over priced as is... I'm not sure what would warrant the difference- huge gap performance wise in gaming. I'm thinking the $180 price range would be far more reasonable, but can they sell them that low and still not be selling below cost? This means all their other processors would have to drop in price as well, and that'd also hurt.

I'm at the conclusion now that AMD is likely as low as they can get, for now, in prices. Hopefully BD will offer the performance rumored while still being a bit cheaper- at least to produce. Therefore AMD could sell the chips at a slightly lower cost while bringing in greater revenue. Kinda' interesting to see how this round will turn out- especially knowing that nVidia is liscensing SLi to AMD and AMD will be having native SATA3 and USB3.0, hopefully this new AMD3+ platform will indeed be competitive.
+1.

The 2500K is the best buy on the market right now.

For me to buy another AMD processor, it would have to be guaranteed a good OC'er, but the vcore range for the same AMD processors is wildly high, so I'm going to steer clear of AMD. My next upgrade will more than likely be to a intel 2500K and Asus Sabertooth P67 B3.

I don't know that Bulldozer is going to be a great performer, because the L3 cache is going to be clocked so slow and I'm sure it's going to run hotter than SB. It has a lot of L3 cache, but it's only clocked 20% faster than the PII's L3 cache.
dairy hick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-11, 10:46 AM   #15
Redeemed
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 17,982
Default Re: Observation...

Quote:
Originally Posted by grey_1 View Post
Yeah, +1 to this. We'll know exactly where each platform stands by the time I build my next rig - I'm really hoping it will be a tough choice, but somewhat of a win either way.
Unless AMD completely blows Intel out of the water, at least in price : performance, I'm locked into Intel because of my discount through work. I'd honestly love to have another AMD platform... don't know why I just really prefer their platforms to be honest. For no solid reason either- I know Intel's are faster, usually more stable, etc... just fond of AMD is all. Likely because every AMD rig I've owned has far exceeded my performance expectations, and I've owned far more AMD rigs than Intel ones. Kinda' like I'm numb to the performance of any Intel setup I've owned simply because I came to expect that performance due to the premium I paid... thus wasn't surprised when it performed as anticipated. If that makes any sense.

Really hoping AMD pulls a winner out here. Would be great for them, and great for us consumers. AMD needs a season of pure winning across the board- CPU, chipset, and GPUs. They've been doing great with their GPUs for several years now. Hopefully they'll maintain that momentum. Their chipsets seem to get better and better, hopefully they'll have a star performer, and their CPUs are improving as well just not drastically enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dairy hick View Post
+1.

The 2500K is the best buy on the market right now.

For me to buy another AMD processor, it would have to be guaranteed a good OC'er, but the vcore range for the same AMD processors is wildly high, so I'm going to steer clear of AMD. My next upgrade will more than likely be to a intel 2500K and Asus Sabertooth P67 B3.

I don't know that Bulldozer is going to be a great performer, because the L3 cache is going to be clocked so slow and I'm sure it's going to run hotter than SB. It has a lot of L3 cache, but it's only clocked 20% faster than the PII's L3 cache.
Are you certain that AMD's design with be cache-starved? What if 20% is all it's gonna' need? Of course we wont know untill the unit is out but I kinda' imagine that AMD would be aware of such a performance-crippler if it were that big a deal. AMD seems confident that the BD chip will match the performance of LGA1366 cpus, which essentially would put it on par with SB. And with later revisions they could always up the cache clocks if needed, as yeilds improve.

Assuming BD is on par with SB, this will be a nice architecture for AMD- as all of their previous ones lagged behind Intel's in terms of performance, so that left them continually playing catch-up and aggressively engaging in a price war.

If, out the gate, BD is clock-for-clock on par with SB then that'll give AMD some wiggle room as 1.) they wont have to be so aggressively engaged in a price war, and 2.)it'll allow them a platform on which they can grow- with each revision they can get greater and greater performance, building off of the success of the original BD, thus allowing them to remain competitive.

Worse case scenerio I see is that IB comes out and is ahead of BD, AMD releases a new revision which narrows the gap considerably making the performnce delta between BD and IB negligible yet they can still charge less for their chips, yet again bringing them into a pricewar.

Gonna' be interesting regardless. I've faith in AMD, there's some real talent in that company. I'm optimistic that they'll yet again pull another rabbit out of their hat.
Redeemed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-11, 11:34 AM   #16
Redeemed
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 17,982
Default Re: Observation...

Quote:
Originally Posted by slaWter View Post
I wouldn't get my hopes up too high when it comes to Bulldozer.

AMD seems to put them against the "highest end" SNB 2600K. But that's probably the overall performance including multi-threaded apps. A 8 "Core" CPU will perform much better in those test and can gain a lot compared to SNB.
Well, the 2600k is right up there with the 980x in most tests, if BD can offer that out the gate, what's to say future revisions wont allow for even greater performance?

All in all, I think when IB hits, even after a couple revisions AMD's processors will fall between the 2600k and IB in terms of "final" performance. Mostly because AMD doesn't have the R&D resources Intel does to implement drastic improvements each revision, thus as their processors age they aren't able to keep up each revision with the competition. As such, I'm thinking AMD will fall back to charging slightly less for their parts.
Redeemed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-11, 12:04 PM   #17
Redeemed
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 17,982
Default Re: Observation...

Quote:
Originally Posted by slaWter View Post
Well, that can't be AMD's goal because SB is this year's CPU and IB next year's. AMD needs to deliver a competing product every year. And not just after a few revisions.

And apparently they're using the FX brand again. If AMD's top end FX offering can only compete with a lower end Intel 2600K, then I consider Bulldozer a failure.
AMD should place the FX line against SNB-E.
Let's be honest- for a company of their size matching the 2600k clock-for-clock is pretty impressive. Considering how their current lineup stacks against the competition, making that big a jump is considerable. Also they'll have to price the processors competitively. So if the 2600k goes for $300, the what ever FX model goes against it will also go for around $300.

AMD might be modeling their CPU plan after their GPU success- target the mainstream, own it, and work up from there. If BD can provide 2600k performance while running cooler, costing less (to produce) then it's indeed a win for AMD. I think it's unrealistic to expect them to compete with SNB-E for one because it's not even out yet, and two it'll likely be a fair step ahead of SB in regards to performance. AMD just doesn't have the R&D resources I'd wager to keep up in the high-end, so they have to focus on where they can be the most aggressive... and that'll be the mainstream.

It worked with their GPUs, likely it'd work for their CPUs. After all, most the revenue isn't going to come from selling the fastest high-end product, it'll come from having the most solid mainstream and low end product. I think this is what they're targeting.
Redeemed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-11, 12:11 PM   #18
nekrosoft13
I'm Geralt
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chicagoland, once a year in Poland
Posts: 24,366
Default Re: Observation...

AMD will not be part of my main rig, until they really redo their chipset. I will buy cheap AMD stuff for my other PCs, but never (at least now) for my main rig.

And even saying that, I'm thinking of re-building my server on intel platform, because amd chipset simply can't handle the server tasks well.
nekrosoft13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-11, 12:28 PM   #19
grey_1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Observation...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redeemed View Post
Let's be honest- for a company of their size matching the 2600k clock-for-clock is pretty impressive. Considering how their current lineup stacks against the competition, making that big a jump is considerable. Also they'll have to price the processors competitively. So if the 2600k goes for $300, the what ever FX model goes against it will also go for around $300.

AMD might be modeling their CPU plan after their GPU success- target the mainstream, own it, and work up from there. If BD can provide 2600k performance while running cooler, costing less (to produce) then it's indeed a win for AMD. I think it's unrealistic to expect them to compete with SNB-E for one because it's not even out yet, and two it'll likely be a fair step ahead of SB in regards to performance. AMD just doesn't have the R&D resources I'd wager to keep up in the high-end, so they have to focus on where they can be the most aggressive... and that'll be the mainstream.

It worked with their GPUs, likely it'd work for their CPUs. After all, most the revenue isn't going to come from selling the fastest high-end product, it'll come from having the most solid mainstream and low end product. I think this is what they're targeting.
AMD has to do more than match clockspeeds though. The proc can be the next best thing to sliced bread, but if the chip + chipset doesn't deliver comparable performance to intel for the same money across all functions then they'll maintain status quo at best, fall further behind at worst.

Their current model (targeting mainstream) has gotten them this far, but with increasing costs a company must win every now and then, that's just business.

AMD has good products, I'll never deny that, but mainstream buyers will go for bang for the buck over ~5% (guessing) performance gains every single time. That's why the laptop market is still loaded to the gills with pentium chips. But the chipset they're running on is the saving grace there. I wouldn't say this is do or die for AMD, far from it, but a loss at each pricepoint is just another mediocre product as far as the market is concerned.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-11, 01:33 PM   #20
dairy hick
*BANNED*
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 56
Default Re: Observation...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redeemed View Post
Are you certain that AMD's design with be cache-starved? What if 20% is all it's gonna' need? Of course we wont know untill the unit is out but I kinda' imagine that AMD would be aware of such a performance-crippler if it were that big a deal. AMD seems confident that the BD chip will match the performance of LGA1366 cpus, which essentially would put it on par with SB. And with later revisions they could always up the cache clocks if needed, as yeilds improve.

Assuming BD is on par with SB, this will be a nice architecture for AMD- as all of their previous ones lagged behind Intel's in terms of performance, so that left them continually playing catch-up and aggressively engaging in a price war.

If, out the gate, BD is clock-for-clock on par with SB then that'll give AMD some wiggle room as 1.) they wont have to be so aggressively engaged in a price war, and 2.)it'll allow them a platform on which they can grow- with each revision they can get greater and greater performance, building off of the success of the original BD, thus allowing them to remain competitive.

Worse case scenerio I see is that IB comes out and is ahead of BD, AMD releases a new revision which narrows the gap considerably making the performnce delta between BD and IB negligible yet they can still charge less for their chips, yet again bringing them into a pricewar.

Gonna' be interesting regardless. I've faith in AMD, there's some real talent in that company. I'm optimistic that they'll yet again pull another rabbit out of their hat.
Excellent point about AMD knowing whether 2.4 GHz is a sufficient clock speed for the L3 cache. I hadn't considered that.

I'm kind of optimistic that the CPU will have good performance because of all of the resources they've put into it. At the same time, I'm pessimistic, because the 2500K only sells for about $220 and I don't really know how low AMD can afford to sell BD for.

AMD's chipsets are okay. They're neither as fast nor as feature-rich as those from intel, but they run at very low temps and low voltage, so that kind of makes up for it.
dairy hick is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.