Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Preview: AMD's FX-9590 Eight-Core At Up To 5.0GHz On Linux

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

  • #41
    Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post
    Intel uses eDRAM on-package to essentially turn HD 4600 into amazing Iris Pro graphics. AMD had mentioned doing this in the past, and they kinda already do it on the PS4 and Xbone.

    Honestly I'm not looking forward to DDR4, cause it doesn't do much except lower voltage and can use quad channel. That means sticking 4 memory sticks into your PC to get max performance. That's going to get really old really fast. They could have done something smart like increase the bit rate up to 128-bit. That way 2 sticks is equivalent to 4 sticks of memory, but that obviously doesn't make as much money for ram manufacturers.
    I doubt they can increase the bitrate much, from what I've heard the complexity of the PCBs is getting to the point that theres probably enough room left for that since the traces for the ram have to all be the same length.

    You could go quad channel with 66Mhz SDRAM if you had a memory controller that supported it, it remains to be seen if AMD is going to do this as we had seen them do this ears ago with tri channel on Opterons, but they stated that at least with their tech at the time the increased latency resulted at the time not much gain, with HSA capable APUs with upgraded memory controller tech this may have changed.

    As to eDRAM, notice that you can't get an Intel chip with it retail? It's crazy expensive for only 128Mb which still doesn't make it much faster then the A10-7850K's GPU, last I checked it was 3x as expensive, at that price point you don't use the IGP, you buy a dedicated card and a cheaper CPU of equivalent performance. Intel wants a king's ransom for every 100Mhz bump.

    Comment


    • #42
      yes this thing is just something for bored kids or something like that, this cpu makes no sense

      But that aside, the market is pretty open, yes yes, amd cant compete with cpu raw power, but we see in applications more and more use opencl or something similar, with that on kaveri kicks ass, and even on games we see similar stuff, k not opencl based but with mantle we see also less cpu raw power needed.

      The point with cpgpu or was it gpcpu is that u need other software, its not 386 compatible u cant just through some binaries from 1990 on them and see that it does what it did faster. Thats why maybe kaveri and stuff like that did not power off, and yes amds apus are heavily ram limited. If we would have double the ram speed in last 2 years, many people would been pretty happy with a gaming apu that kicks ass not in the 5 most demanding games but in everything else. even with that bottleneck it was a very good value per buck if that power was anough for u

      So the game is open, I build into my rig a fx6300 that is fast for every single game (not 4k or much AA maybe but appart from that) at the moment even my Grafic card is the bottleneck, because I didnt see a game worth investing some money for it, just changed cpu because I wanted a different fan so I could switch both together.

      Old cpu was fx4100.

      With Mantle DX11, Opengl Next, and opencl maybe we even start seeing that used in games... its not clear how much the cpu matters and if we not come to 2016 with a 4core cpu, and then I am shure at some point amd can deliver also something, and if its only a kaverie with doubled clockspeed and same power usage than todays.

      Comment


      • #43
        Why the hell would you buy this CPU when the AMD 8370E is about to be released, that's TDP is 95W and will perform better than the 8350?

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by Kivada View Post

          As to eDRAM, notice that you can't get an Intel chip with it retail? It's crazy expensive for only 128Mb which still doesn't make it much faster then the A10-7850K's GPU, last I checked it was 3x as expensive, at that price point you don't use the IGP, you buy a dedicated card and a cheaper CPU of equivalent performance. Intel wants a king's ransom for every 100Mhz bump.
          Iris pro is the result of AMD dealing with Apple for a while. If Intel didn't make Iris Pro graphics you would probably see AMD APU's in their 13inch laptops. Why doesn't it exist in all their CPUs? Cause Intels HD 4600 is good enough to make AMD irrelevant. Why add the eDRAM and lose profits when you don't have too?

          From a customer perspective, if your building a PC then it's likely going to be focused around gaming. The AMD APU's are just not good enough to game with decent settings. You'll want a graphics card, even one for $100. Mind you for $120 you can get an i3 or a 6800K and you're always better off with AMD at that price range. For the price of a 7850K you could get an i5. BTW 6800k is nearly as fast or faster then 7850K but $40 cheaper. The only reason an i5 is ~$200 is because of the 8350. Beyond that the price of Intels get exponentially expensive.

          Intel is just waiting for AMD to make a move with their APU's and they'll just slap the eDRAM on their CPU's and throw an R at the end. Only if AMD can effect their sales.

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by Marc Driftmeyer View Post
            Why the hell would you buy this CPU when the AMD 8370E is about to be released, that's TDP is 95W and will perform better than the 8350?
            Top performing chip meant to shoot for 5Ghz, comes with a liquid cooling unit, sill damn good at multitasking, has been proven to hit well above it's weight in gaming while streaming in that it gets the streaming at essentially no performance hit. even with it's "220w TDP" * it's actually still cool enough to run on an air cooler, AMD just went with Liquid as it's less of a shipping hassle as large tower coolers can rip themselves free in prebuilt systems while the water block isn't going to budge.

            E series chips are generally much more expensive then their standard TDP equivalents.

            What's strange is why it took Larabel this long to get one, it's been out since June 11, 2013.

            * Intel and AMD TDPs are calculated differently and in either case both are very misleading as they don't tell you what the actual power draw or thermal displacement will actually be in real world usage.

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post
              Iris pro is the result of AMD dealing with Apple for a while. If Intel didn't make Iris Pro graphics you would probably see AMD APU's in their 13inch laptops. Why doesn't it exist in all their CPUs? Cause Intels HD 4600 is good enough to make AMD irrelevant. Why add the eDRAM and lose profits when you don't have too?

              From a customer perspective, if your building a PC then it's likely going to be focused around gaming. The AMD APU's are just not good enough to game with decent settings. You'll want a graphics card, even one for $100. Mind you for $120 you can get an i3 or a 6800K and you're always better off with AMD at that price range. For the price of a 7850K you could get an i5. BTW 6800k is nearly as fast or faster then 7850K but $40 cheaper. The only reason an i5 is ~$200 is because of the 8350. Beyond that the price of Intels get exponentially expensive.

              Intel is just waiting for AMD to make a move with their APU's and they'll just slap the eDRAM on their CPU's and throw an R at the end. Only if AMD can effect their sales.
              Totally irrelevant to the fact that you can't buy them at retail. The 4600 is slower and much slower then chips running AMD IGPs and is useless in GPGPU. Add to that that the AMD parts scale even better then Intel's in gaming with increased memory bandwidth and theres no real reason a low end consumer system should use Intel unless it's only going to be reading grandma's email.

              Face it, Intel's parts don't compete on price/performance with AMD's APUs.

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by Marc Driftmeyer View Post
                Why the hell would you buy this CPU when the AMD 8370E is about to be released, that's TDP is 95W and will perform better than the 8350?
                Better Question: Why the hell is Michael benchmarking this CPU NOW? if he was going to do it he should have done it oh about a year ago when it was originally released

                Further why are people in this forum acting as if this was new or that the issues with the 9590 haven't been known for a while?

                Comment


                • #48
                  You're not the only one to reject Intel's business practices

                  Originally posted by Espionage724 View Post
                  I don't see myself willing buying Intel ever, at least in the foreseeable future. Don't get me wrong though, I'm sure Intel's performance and power-efficiency isn't too bad at all, but I much like AMD's policies (if that's what you'd call it?) better.

                  Intel has upset me two different times. The first time happened long ago, back when the Intel 950GMA and 965GMA chips were pretty mainstream. A volunteer group I worked with modified Intel's Windows graphics driver to boost performance and add some features to some of Intel's graphics hardware (the 950GMA was most notable iirc). Note, it was mainly just small stuff as-simple as modifying the inf so the 965GMA driver installed on 950GMA hardware; no reverse-engineering.

                  We offered the driver for free for others. Intel threatened to sue though and told us to discontinue it. Was pretty bs in my opinion, but I guess Intel is in their legal right to do so.

                  The second time was when I ordered my 4670K. Firstly, I didn't realize paying a premium for an unlocked CPU also meant losing out on virtualization features, and got screwed on that. The Phenom II X3 720 and ASRock 970 Extreme3 motherboard I had supported IOMMU. How does a CPU way newer and more expensive than both of those things not support such a feature?

                  I also kind of question why Intel doesn't allow all their CPUs to do Hyperthreading. I know there's an obvious marketing reason (have to give people a reason to spend more money by setting artificial limits), but from a technical standpoint, I see no reason.

                  The second issue was the crap temperature issue Intel caused on Haswell (the thick black glue and using thermal paste thing). Skimping out on the manufacturing process and still charging a premium is total bs.

                  Another slightly-ignorable issue is the idea that Intel bothered to make a Z97 and H97 chipset. The Z97 is fine. The H97 however is just a Z97 chipset stripped of features. Wtf? OEMs have clever ways of re-implementing such features to make the H97 chipset more "viable" but this also comes at a cost of weird conditions (PCI/PCI-E slots having different speeds based on what's plugged in, overclocking ability is questionable, etc).

                  So basically, I don't like the way Intel runs their business, and won't willingly support them. So far AMD hasn't screwed me over, and that's where I plan on throwing my money still.

                  <clip> .
                  I regard Intel business practices as so objectionable I would never buy anything from them where an alternative exists. So long as AMD or anyone but Intel makes a CPU that edits video as well as the old Core 2 Quad does when overclocked (about Phenom II x4 performance based on a friend's machine), and that CPU can be obtained for under $250, that is good enough to serve my purposes. I do not want to fund copyrighted hardware interfaces, lawsuits and bully practices against AMD and Nvidia, etc. Just like not buyng music or movies due to the RIAA.MPAA.

                  Years ago, the Intel 486 attracted many clones. The name Pentium came about when Intel found they could not trademark a number. The 586 was copied by AMD, Cyrix, and others, and Intel made a major blunder: hiring AMD to assist in some way in Pentium production! For the Pentium II, Intel tried to patent the slot the board carrying the CPU and separate Cache RAM chips went into, to make sure AMD, Cyrix, et all could not produce a proc with fast cache. AMD somehow managed to defeat this a year later, just as slots were becoming obsolete with a die shrink allowing the cache and CPU to be on once chip. Still, they could not make their chip electrically compatable with Intel boards due apparently to this licensing crap. Of course, that permitted AMD to use a double speed front side bus between CPU and northbridge, allowing them to outperform the Pentium 3. Intel responded by threatening motherboard makers with being prevented from making Intel boards if they dared to make boards for AMD, but got called on that one. They continued to pressure manufacturers of complete computers to boycott AMD, perhaps because they knew at that time they were unable to compete with AMD on their technical merits.

                  Intel make a huge mistake with Netburst Pentium 4's, much worse than Bulldozer and allowed AMD to really pull ahead. A Prescott P-4 could sometimes match for an Athon 64-but had to run about 800 MHZ faster to do so and use a lot more power.

                  Core2 was Intel's last front side bus chip-and it turned out all those Nvidia chipsets for it has required a license from Intel! When Intel copied AMD moving the memory controller to the CPU die (over 5 years late), they denied Nvidia permission to make chipsets, putting them out of the chipset business until they decided to start making their own ARM CPUs. There were even fears that Intel would try to remove the PIC-e bus to kill Nvidia's GPU business, to the point that a legal settlement between them required Intel to keep the bus for 5 years from the date of the decision.

                  AMD does not have to run anywhere NEAR as fast as Intel to compete so far as I am concerned, because if I am buying a new CPU in a box, as far as I am concerned Intel went out of business when they started suing and bullying other hardware makers. That means so far as I am concerned the 9000 series Piledriver 8 cores are the fastest CPUs that can actually be purchased, thankfully when CPU performance counts in my usage it's for video editing, where AMD does just fine.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
                    Better Question: Why the hell is Michael benchmarking this CPU NOW? if he was going to do it he should have done it oh about a year ago when it was originally released

                    Further why are people in this forum acting as if this was new or that the issues with the 9590 haven't been known for a while?
                    Maybe cause he just got one now?

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by A Laggy Grunt View Post
                      Maybe cause he just got one now?
                      To be honest, the title "Preview: AMD's FX-9590" is really confusing...

                      Concerning AMD vs Intel, I also changed side last year for Intel because AMD is no more competitive...

                      I really hope the Ati / AMD fusion can lead to great CPU with integrated GPU but even on this side Intel is far higher right now.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X