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

[UraniumDeer]

Indeed, all negative points for GDDR5...and i don't like ANY embedded memory solution.

I would prefer at least TRIPLE Channel DDR3 in a mITX MoBo...not completely impossible to do so:

Just needs a OEM with b***s to remove the PCIeX16 connector, remove speaker connector , reduce SATA connectors to 2-3,etc. and you get the PCB space for one more channel.

That board would also be a "technological statment" : We don't need a freaking dGPU.

I'm all for being able to upgrade, but core Linux seems to be relatively stable in memory usage, as time progresses. Personally, I wouldn't mind having embedded memory if it means a vast improvement in performance. Also, that'd actually be pretty neat for things like Steam Machines.
But then, I usually change CPU, motherboard, and memory all at once, so I have no issues with embedded memory, as long as it's quality, speedy, and there more than enough
Then they could create a big cooler to cool it all. It'd be heavy, but silent, and cool.

[UraniumDeer]

In this thread, someone said, that AMD tried to push GDDR5. It's a shame no one listened. Back in the late '90, if memory serves, AMD went with DDR, and intel used RAMBUS. DDR slapped RAMBUS silly, even though the speed of DDR was waaaay lower.

[Tgui]

I'm all for being able to upgrade, but core Linux seems to be relatively stable in memory usage, as time progresses. Personally, I wouldn't mind having embedded memory if it means a vast improvement in performance. Also, that'd actually be pretty neat for things like Steam Machines.
But then, I usually change CPU, motherboard, and memory all at once, so I have no issues with embedded memory, as long as it's quality, speedy, and there more than enough
Then they could create a big cooler to cool it all. It'd be heavy, but silent, and cool.

I'd have no problem with soldered on RAM! I rarely upgrade.

[profoundWHALE]

Rambus kind of went crazy with lawsuits until they imploded on themselves

[movieman]

In this thread, someone said, that AMD tried to push GDDR5. It's a shame no one listened.

APUs are meant to be cheap. Once you start putting gigabytes of exotic RAM on your motherboard, it's no longer cheap.

For the price of a Kaveri and a special motherboard with DDR5, you could buy a faster Intel CPU, the same amount of DDR3, and a faster discrete GPU. It's a crazy idea.

[sarmad]

It's nice to see performance improvements that goes linearly with the frequency increase, haven't seen such thing in a while.

[Rexilion]

[QUOTE=TemplarGR;390818]No system can be future proof. And trying to make your system future proof will lead you to waste your money.

Yes, I'm starting to be aware of that. Go with Intel and gain PCIe3 or with AMD and gain HSA. Who knows?

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.

Yeah, I'm doubting between an i5 4670 and fx-8350 (or slightly higher).

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...

I have an nVidia GT 610 that will do just fine. No exteme gaming.

You only need 8 gigs of ram.

Agreed. I could even get away with four.

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

Yes, SSD is severly overrated.

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...

Just whether I should pick Intel and AMD. I am also looking what cooler / case (so much choice, insance).

Of course, if you have money to throw away, by all means do. The world economy could use some spending...

I LOL'ed at that one.

[TemplarGR]

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.

You just don't get it... There are no games, programs or emulators that you can't run because single threaded performance has reached a plateau.

No one is going to code something that desktops can't possibly run... It is pretty obvious...

We would have PS3 emulators by now, if there was a chance to run them with more than 1 fps on high end cpus...

By your logic, since no program you use currently needs more single threaded performance, we don't need more... This is false. Actually it is physics that prevent us from having better single threaded performance...

[Tgui]

[QUOTE=Rexilion;390844]

Yes, SSD is severly overrated.

Ha! What BS.

[GreatEmerald]

I'll get to know whether SSDs are overrated or not in about a week
...well, and also whenever people fix btrfs-bcache interactions.