Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DDR3-800MHz To DDR3-2133MHz Memory Testing With AMD's Kaveri

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

  • #51
    Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post
    Where can I get ram that says AMD Radeon? Looks pretty cool.
    http://www.radeonmemory.com/desktop_memory_consumer.php

    Comment


    • #52
      Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post
      Where can I get ram that says AMD Radeon? Looks pretty cool.
      http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...663&IsNodeId=1

      Up to 16GB (2x8GB) of 2133Mhz @ 10-11-11-30

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by mmstick View Post
        1) PCIE 3.0 isn't needed for anything yet, even if you have have multiple high end graphics cards.
        2) Single core performance is fine in everything today -- if you want 'futureproof,' well, all future games are threaded for 8+ cores. See how the PS4 and Xbox One both feature 8 core AMD processors.
        Lol. Kids that think they know about technology when in fact they know nothing, amuse me...

        Ps4 and Xbox1 may have 8 cores, but:

        1) 2 are reserved for the OS, so no games can use them

        2) of the remaining six, not all can be utilized by most if not all games... More cores will be used for secondary apps running in the background than the games themselves...

        3) Jaguar cores are extremely weak compared to Intel Core. They are so weak, that a Core i 5 quad could easily destroy 8 jaguar cores, even if you could actually utilize them all at once... You see. if you have a single core with 3 times the performance of 3 cores, the single core can match their performace for 3 threads, those 3 cores can't match its performance in one single thread...

        4) Single core performance is not "fine" in everything. For example for emulation of modern consoles single threaded performance is pretty weak. Especially AMD's processors.

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by Kivada View Post
          http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...663&IsNodeId=1

          Up to 16GB (2x8GB) of 2133Mhz @ 10-11-11-30
          Those prices seem pretty good.

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by Rexilion View Post
            I want my new setup to be futureproof, and here are the downside's of the AMD FX 8350:
            - No PCIe 3.0 support
            - Bad single core performance
            No system can be future proof. And trying to make your system future proof will lead you to waste your money.

            You don't actually need a more expensive cpu than Core i5 4670. In fact, even this cpu is more than you need if all you want is gaming.

            Depending on your screen and resolution, the gpu you might need varies. But it is actually better if you buy a mainstream gpu and replace it with a better 20nm gpu 2 years from now. This is what i would do if i was still a gamer...

            You only need 8 gigs of ram.

            You don't need an SSD, contrary to salesmen who tell you otherwise. Just use a fast HDD.

            Just build a rig with Core i5 4670, 8 gigs ram 1600mhz, a mainstream gpu like radeon 270(or comparable Nvidia if you like Linux gaming), a fast hdd 2T+ and you are set...

            Of course, if you have money to throw away, by all means do. The world economy could use some spending...
            Last edited by TemplarGR; 21 January 2014, 01:16 PM.

            Comment


            • #56
              Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post
              Lol. Kids that think they know about technology when in fact they know nothing, amuse me...

              Ps4 and Xbox1 may have 8 cores, but:

              1) 2 are reserved for the OS, so no games can use them

              2) of the remaining six, not all can be utilized by most if not all games... More cores will be used for secondary apps running in the background than the games themselves...

              3) Jaguar cores are extremely weak compared to Intel Core. They are so weak, that a Core i 5 quad could easily destroy 8 jaguar cores, even if you could actually utilize them all at once... You see. if you have a single core with 3 times the performance of 3 cores, the single core can match their performace for 3 threads, those 3 cores can't match its performance in one single thread...

              4) Single core performance is not "fine" in everything. For example for emulation of modern consoles single threaded performance is pretty weak. Especially AMD's processors.
              Sounds like you are the kid considering your great lack of reading comprehension. Name one game, program, or emulator that I can't already run perfectly with my 4GHz FX-8120. Considering I can play all PS2 games fine with PCSX2, Total War Shogun 2 with triple unit sizes and double the number of unit cards runs smoothly in 20,000+ man battles, the Mount & Blade series all run fine with hundreds of men, and the only things I am aware of that need a lot of CPU benefit from having more cores (software compiling, video encoding, 3D rendering, distributed computing), I fail to see your point. It doesn't matter how fast the processors in the consoles are, it just further demonstrates how single threaded performance isn't all that important in an area that used to be all about single thread performance.

              Comment


              • #57
                Originally posted by Слободан View Post
                If someone would made PCI expansion card containing 1GB GDDR5 memory, would Kaveri APU be able to take advantage of it (to use that memmory instead of system RAM)?
                PCIe is slower than system RAM.

                Comment


                • #58
                  OK, thanks...

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    I plan on putting together a Core i3 Haswell or an AMD Kaveri APU (65 W or 45 W chip) mini-ITX PC. I don't plan on gaming and it seems people here are saying timing is more important for CPU based tasks. The most resource heavy tasks I plan on doing are multi-threaded LZMA2 compression and decompression using Pixz and video transcoding using HandBrakeCLI. The x264 test shows not as much a benefit with the higher frequencies.

                    However, people here are wondering if by "timings on the system memory were maintained the same at all frequencies," Michael means the same number of clocks or the same number of seconds. So if Michael does mean the same number of clocks then how much would CPU tasks benefit from using the recommended number of clocks (ie. keep the timing in seconds to be fairly constant)?

                    Thanks!

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      Originally posted by guido12 View Post
                      I plan on putting together a Core i3 Haswell or an AMD Kaveri APU (65 W or 45 W chip) mini-ITX PC. I don't plan on gaming and it seems people here are saying timing is more important for CPU based tasks. The most resource heavy tasks I plan on doing are multi-threaded LZMA2 compression and decompression using Pixz and video transcoding using HandBrakeCLI. The x264 test shows not as much a benefit with the higher frequencies.

                      However, people here are wondering if by "timings on the system memory were maintained the same at all frequencies," Michael means the same number of clocks or the same number of seconds. So if Michael does mean the same number of clocks then how much would CPU tasks benefit from using the recommended number of clocks (ie. keep the timing in seconds to be fairly constant)?

                      Thanks!
                      FWIW I use an i5 2400 in my mini itx system. Its quite speedy, transcodes realtime and uses very little power.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X