Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Launches New FX CPUs, Cuts Prices On Existing Processors

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

  • AMD Launches New FX CPUs, Cuts Prices On Existing Processors

    Phoronix: AMD Launches New FX CPUs, Cuts Prices On Existing Processors

    AMD today is rolling out three new FX-Series processors (the FX-8320E, FX-8370E, and FX-8370) while cutting prices on their existing Vishera AM3+ FX processors. AMD sent over the new FX-8370 and FX-8370E CPUs last week to Phoronix (the FX-8320E is still forthcoming) so we are here with the rundown on the Linux performance of these new FX CPUs compared to a wide variety of other Intel and AMD Linux systems with Ubuntu 14.04 LTS.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=20841

  • #2
    Nice Review

    Originally posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: AMD Launches New FX CPUs, Cuts Prices On Existing Processors

    AMD today is rolling out three new FX-Series processors (the FX-8320E, FX-8370E, and FX-8370) while cutting prices on their existing Vishera AM3+ FX processors. AMD sent over the new FX-8370 and FX-8370E CPUs last week to Phoronix (the FX-8320E is still forthcoming) so we are here with the rundown on the Linux performance of these new FX CPUs compared to a wide variety of other Intel and AMD Linux systems with Ubuntu 14.04 LTS.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=20841
    A nice review and gave me enough information to make this comment: "By not using Steamroller cores. these new CPUs provide no reason [to me] to upgrade my systems."

    In other words, these new CPUs make me say, "Why bother..."

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by NotMine999 View Post
      A nice review and gave me enough information to make this comment: "By not using Steamroller cores. these new CPUs provide no reason [to me] to upgrade my systems."

      In other words, these new CPUs make me say, "Why bother..."
      Even if they were using Steamroller cores, the peformance improvements would be negligible. Steamroller has better IPC, but they can't produce it with the same clock speeds. The only improvement would be in power consumption. Even if they could match the clock speeds, it would only be a 5% performance increase. Does taking the benchmarks in the article with 5% more than FX-8370 make it seem attractive? I would guess not.

      Comment


      • #4
        AMD CPUs

        We need more Dilthium Scotty, we're using AMD CPUs.

        Comment


        • #5
          So, thinking about price and performance, are AMD's offerings competitive with Intel's Core i5s?

          Edit: I see this was mentioned in the last part of the article. IMO, $199 vs $220 is not significant. I'd go with an i5.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Pseus View Post
            So, thinking about price and performance, are AMD's offerings competitive with Intel's Core i5s?

            Edit: I see this was mentioned in the last part of the article. IMO, $199 vs $220 is not significant. I'd go with an i5.
            I believe AMD enthusiast motherboards are cheaper, so that's something to factor into consideration too. But even that doesn't really work out enough to support getting AMD.

            But it's my understanding that part or most of AMD's current woes are related to Intel's monopoly tactics five or ten years back. http://www.amd.com/Documents/AMD-Int..._Complaint.pdf (Legalese, boring reading, but basically Intel used what I consider to be unfair tricks to try to sink AMD. There are easier-to-read summaries of the document if you search around.)

            So I only get AMD parts anyway, even knowing that the current Intel lineup is dramatically superior, especially if you're shopping in the $300+ range.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Michael_S View Post
              I believe AMD enthusiast motherboards are cheaper, so that's something to factor into consideration too. But even that doesn't really work out enough to support getting AMD.

              But it's my understanding that part or most of AMD's current woes are related to Intel's monopoly tactics five or ten years back. http://www.amd.com/Documents/AMD-Int..._Complaint.pdf (Legalese, boring reading, but basically Intel used what I consider to be unfair tricks to try to sink AMD. There are easier-to-read summaries of the document if you search around.)

              So I only get AMD parts anyway, even knowing that the current Intel lineup is dramatically superior, especially if you're shopping in the $300+ range.
              Tricks? Intel payed partners (Dell/etc) to not use/purchase AMD chips, along with quite a few other very illegal and anti-competitive things during the time when AMD was actually winning the performance war (along with price war). AMD has never really recovered from this, unfortunately.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Pseus View Post
                So, thinking about price and performance, are AMD's offerings competitive with Intel's Core i5s?

                Edit: I see this was mentioned in the last part of the article. IMO, $199 vs $220 is not significant. I'd go with an i5.
                Cheaper and the AMD CPUs also get streaming at no performance hit. The extra real cores allow for better multitasking then the i5 will.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by bakgwailo View Post
                  Tricks? Intel payed partners (Dell/etc) to not use/purchase AMD chips, along with quite a few other very illegal and anti-competitive things during the time when AMD was actually winning the performance war (along with price war). AMD has never really recovered from this, unfortunately.
                  I try to present the argument in as neutral a way as possible, so that I can't possibly be accused of fanboyism and biased logic.

                  I don't ever plan to buy Intel parts.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Kivada View Post
                    Cheaper and the AMD CPUs also get streaming at no performance hit. The extra real cores allow for better multitasking then the i5 will.
                    I think some of the testing shows that for real world multitasking, the i5 does better, or what am I missing? It also provides pretty good graphics with no-headache, first day, open source support. No brainer, but I totally understand the argument of buying AMD just to support them.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Yeah, I won't expect much from AMD until 2016. Jim Keller (the Athlon 64 designer) is back on the team to design a new architecture.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by xeekei View Post
                        Yeah, I won't expect much from AMD until 2016. Jim Keller (the Athlon 64 designer) is back on the team to design a new architecture.
                        I for one would be happy(ecstatic?) to see them actually competing(or even coming a helluvalot closer in IPC) with Intel again.

                        I just built an fx-9590(thanks to ucenter same price as 8350 which was OOS anyways) complete with an ATI GPU for purely nostalgic reasons. (Still sluggish compared to even a 4800MQ mobile though... those 8 "cores" are more realistically like 4 or a crappy hw version of hyperthreading... I hope that they make the newer FXes into hybrid APUs assuming kaveri eventually pans out... it shows promise still, but...)

                        I'm guessing that they're doing this just to keep the "brand" out there until they have something worthwhile again... (freaking mobo chipset is pretty ancient as well...)

                        Admittedly ATM I'm drooling over an 8 core haswell-e, and I did decide a while ago to update the 4930k once they came out, but man even c. $800 from ucenter, 6 core is c. $500 plus req all new ram/mobo again...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          lol

                          Originally posted by Slartifartblast View Post
                          We need more Dilthium Scotty, we're using AMD CPUs.
                          This one was a killer, really funny I must say, too bad you can't rate these posts.

                          As for these CPUs I'd say they're OK if they come out at the right prices. AMD is not doing well as far as performance goes right now, their whole architecture was is a mess and a bad decision no matter how you look at it. I bought a Phenom II X6 @ 3.2 GHz quite a while ago and guess what, I've seem benchmarks where it scores pretty close to the top end FX processors of today. Maybe AMD should have just worked on improving the K10 cores rather than waster their time and money on Bulldozer but I guess someone actually thought the new core would be good and after that they didn't have the guts to revert back to old one.
                          Anyway we keep complaining and progress is always good but let's not forget that for most tasks even the cheapest FX CPU is good enough. There's few people that actually need all that CPU power and GPUs seem to be getting more important each day as far as computing power is concerned.
                          I for one am still pleased by the CPU power of my Phenom II X6 and I do some serious compiling as I'm the maintainer for a distro ( Frugalware ). The top end Intel CPUs of today might be twice when compiling something but at around $1000 no thanks.
                          We do need AMD back in the game though as Intel has always had these ridiculous prices when they had the performance advantage.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Michael_S View Post
                            I try to present the argument in as neutral a way as possible, so that I can't possibly be accused of fanboyism and biased logic.

                            I don't ever plan to buy Intel parts.
                            Heh, well, I mean, I am not advocating one or the other, just saying that the facts in question are pretty irrefutable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_v._Intel) of what Intel did, fanboyism aside. All of that said, for my personal desktop I generally only buy AMD chips, and work laptops generally Intel i7s. AMD really doesn't have a high performance mobile option. I am currently stuck on my FX-8350, which I upgraded to from a Phenom II x4 965, and the entire reason I did so was because at the time AMD was promising Steamroller on the AM3+ socket, which appears to have been a bit of a lie. I figure I can get a some more time out of the FX-8350, but, I really don't know what I am going to do in a year or two if AMD no longer has any highend chips. Like you, on principal, I try to only buy AMD CPUs, but I am also kind of torn as Intel now does a ton of support for Linux including the kernel, and basically owning Mesa/X at this point. Why can't companies just be entirely evil or good

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by bakgwailo View Post
                              Heh, well, I mean, I am not advocating one or the other, just saying that the facts in question are pretty irrefutable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_v._Intel) of what Intel did, fanboyism aside. All of that said, for my personal desktop I generally only buy AMD chips, and work laptops generally Intel i7s. AMD really doesn't have a high performance mobile option.
                              My employer picks the work laptop, so I don't have to make a choice there. I've been contemplating an APU for a personal laptop - I know there's a big performance hit, but how often will I really notice it? I don't plan to do anything especially resource intensive on the laptop.

                              Originally posted by bakgwailo View Post
                              I am currently stuck on my FX-8350, which I upgraded to from a Phenom II x4 965, and the entire reason I did so was because at the time AMD was promising Steamroller on the AM3+ socket, which appears to have been a bit of a lie. I figure I can get a some more time out of the FX-8350, but, I really don't know what I am going to do in a year or two if AMD no longer has any highend chips. Like you, on principal, I try to only buy AMD CPUs, but I am also kind of torn as Intel now does a ton of support for Linux including the kernel, and basically owning Mesa/X at this point. Why can't companies just be entirely evil or good
                              I have one of the low end Phenom X6s... 1045T, maybe? And the only time it even fully utilizes a single core is when I rip a DVD to disk... and then I'm guessing I am suffering from picking AMD over Intel, and if I had purchased a Core i5 instead I would get the rips done faster and save a few dollars a month in electricity in the bargain. I don't do intensive gaming, though. (If anybody cares, I own the DVDs I rip and I don't share the ripped files. I just don't feel like hunting through three hundred cases and then sitting through an FBI warning when my preschooler wants to watch Spongebob or an older kid is in the mood for Harry Potter 5.)

                              You are right that Intel is a big open source contributor, of course, but I see Intel only doing this because they have cash to spare, and they have cash to spare because of the illegal (and more importantly, unethical) things they did.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X