Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: AMD Brings Back Semprons & Athlons With The 2014 AM1 Platform

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schmidtbag View Post
    What I don't get is why AMD is making the AM1 socket. FM2 already has Semprons and I think Athlons too. There's already a socket AM2 and AM3 so what is AMD going to do for the next generation?
    I would imagine to support more I/O. The more logic you embed on a SoC the more dedicated pins with distinct functions you need on the package. That is my guess anyways.
    If AMD decides to release a Phenom series with 6-8 cores for this AM1 socket then I'm a little more open to it. But otherwise, if I'm going to go for a super cheap system, I'd rather get an A4 or A6.
    It all depends upon what is important to you.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    They say less than $40 but when you add power supply and chassis its much more.
    Also its hard to come by small chassis and power supplies.

    I wish they made a single-board computer with case and power supply.
    Like Intel NUC.
    I recently built a VESA mounted system with an i3 with this case: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16811129185

    On sale its like $60, and can power almost any APU except the K series AMD parts.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
    I would imagine to support more I/O. The more logic you embed on a SoC the more dedicated pins with distinct functions you need on the package.
    I think schmidtbag was complaining more about the naming of the socket than its existence. I have to concur. If you follow the pattern, then AM1 should have come before AM2 and used DDR memory. Usually, when the marketers try to confuse consumers, they do it to make their products look better. Coming out with an AM1 socket in 2014 is just retarded.

    Once again, AMD needs to finish firing their entire marketing staff...

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by birdie View Post
    They must focus on developing new CPU architecture(s), not introduce CPUs which cannot compete with Intel's cheapest Celerons.

    AMD's IPC performance absolutely sucks - they cannot even beat original Intel Core 2 CPUs which were released eight freaking years ago.
    The biggest load of Bullshit I have read so far this week,

    Intel fanbois are soooo insane.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    in front of my box :p
    Posts
    822

    Default

    To me it looks like a socketed Kabini and that is awesome. I saw some mainboards a week or more ago and chips for it, for prices that were truly affordable. Looks very nice to me.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    372

    Default

    Quote 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.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    573

    Default

    Quote 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.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,275

    Default

    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.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    573

    Default

    Quote 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...

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    389

    Default

    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.


    Quote 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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •