Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Brings Back Semprons & Athlons With The 2014 AM1 Platform

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Rallos Zek View Post
    The biggest load of Bullshit I have read so far this week,

    Intel fanbois are soooo insane.
    I agree that the person you quoted was way off, but we all would like to see AMD's CPUs a bit more competetive. We are already noticing a few monopoly dick moves from Intel with their restrictions on overclocking and non-removable CPUs.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by xeekei View Post
      I agree that the person you quoted was way off, but we all would like to see AMD's CPUs a bit more competetive. We are already noticing a few monopoly dick moves from Intel with their restrictions on overclocking and non-removable CPUs.
      Soldered in board chips aren't a monopoly play, they are a cost savings move - soldering chips together is cheaper than architecting and fabbing sockets and pin grids.

      Excavator is the last Bulldozer design planned out from AMD, so we will see if they focus on a higher ops / clock / core architecture after that.

      Comment


      • #18
        A soldered-on cpu also forces you to buy a new motherboard when you upgrade. That's what makes it a dick move, though I remember reading Intel backtracked on making Broadwell bga only.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by curaga View Post
          A soldered-on cpu also forces you to buy a new motherboard when you upgrade. That's what makes it a dick move, though I remember reading Intel backtracked on making Broadwell bga only.
          How often you upgrade CPU in a single generation? I've only ever upgraded systems after 2-3 generations, otherwise its impossible to justify.

          That, and once I'm done with a system I still pawn it off, either to family or on ebay. If you only upgrade a CPU you just have a (usually) perfectly fine CPU just wasting space. Unless you sell that on its own...

          Comment


          • #20
            A soldered-on cpu also forces you to buy a new motherboard when you upgrade. That's what makes it a dick move, though I remember reading Intel backtracked on making Broadwell bga only.
            This is a rather uneducated way to look at things. The processors generally work best with the chip sets they are designed around. For many ( but not all ) motherboard and processor combos there would be little gain from an upgrade to the next generation of processor. By the time a processor with worthwhile performance crops up you really need a new motherboard to fully leverage that processor.


            Originally posted by zanny View Post
            How often you upgrade CPU in a single generation? I've only ever upgraded systems after 2-3 generations, otherwise its impossible to justify.
            Here is where the flips side raises its ugly head. We are entering the world of System on Chips where it is possible to see drastic performance increases while keeping the physical interface to the rest of the world static. This is exactly the opposite argument that you and I are familiar with. The problem here is that we have yet to see what will actually happen with these AM1 based processors. It is certainly possible that they can enhance the SoC in such a way that we will get substantially better performance in the same socket. If this happens upgrading a plug in SoC might be justified. That however is a big if.
            That, and once I'm done with a system I still pawn it off, either to family or on ebay. If you only upgrade a CPU you just have a (usually) perfectly fine CPU just wasting space. Unless you sell that on its own...
            This is one of those things that comes and goes viability wise. I know this sounds like I'm taking both sides but that is because that is exactly what I'm doing. The fact is for many generations of chips it isn't worth the effort of an upgrade for most users. That changes with the hardware and supporting chipsets. Maybe AMD has long term plans for this socket that will make upgrades worthwhile. At the moment I doubt it but then again each process shrink allows the designers to throw a lot of transistors at performance problems. For example if AMD where to add a large cache or memory block that the GPU can use for frame buffering they could substantially increase system performance without the need for a wider path to RAM. 128 MB of on chip memory would do much for performance.

            There is however a limit to how much performance one can squeeze out of a device without having to adjust the external interfaces. It will be most interesting to see what the next generation of AM1 socketed chips will look like.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by zanny View Post
              How often you upgrade CPU in a single generation? I've only ever upgraded systems after 2-3 generations, otherwise its impossible to justify.
              AMD sockets. They support that 2-3 generations with a single socket, allowing you to do such upgrades between generations.

              Originally posted by wizard69
              There is however a limit to how much performance one can squeeze out of a device without having to adjust the external interfaces. It will be most interesting to see what the next generation of AM1 socketed chips will look like.
              Dual-channel RAM is not that much of a limit. Consider socket 754, a previous single-channel AMD socket. Compare one of the last cpus for that, Athlon 64 3700+, a single-core made on 130nm in 2005 - it beats the 5350 by 5% in integer math single-threaded.

              If a core with that outdated tech can beat it, using comparable external interfaces, there can easily be a doubling of performance using the AM1 socket.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by curaga View Post
                Compare one of the last cpus for that, Athlon 64 3700+, a single-core made on 130nm in 2005 - it beats the 5350 by 5% in integer math single-threaded.
                Since when is integer math performance limited by memory bandwidth? You may want to come up with better arguments.

                The 2.4GHz single core Athlon 64 3700+ built on SOI process had a 89W TDP (not counting Northbridge and Southbridge) according to Wikipedia. The 2.05GHz Athlon 5350 is a quad-core SoC built on TSMC bulk process that has a 25W TDP. Somewhere, compromises have to be made.

                Originally posted by curaga View Post
                If a core with that outdated tech can beat it, using comparable external interfaces, there can easily be a doubling of performance using the AM1 socket.
                The "external interface" of Socket 754 is not at all comparable to the AM1 platform.

                Comment


                • #23
                  CPU performance was the topic, not memory-bound tasks. So integer perf is entirely relevant.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X