# [AMDFX] AMD Steamroller IPC Leaked! Cosmology Benchmark!



## polyzp

Just Look at the difference from Bulldozer to Piledriver to now Steamroller! :O

Over a 30% increase in IPC from Piledriver in this specific cosmology benchmark!



" Thats over 1100% the jump we saw from Bulldozer to Piledriver! "

Big Thanks to Seronx for the Link!

Source


----------



## Deadboy90

GIMMIE!!!!


----------



## Abs.exe

What does that mean, which Intel series is it challenging ?
i5 or i7 ?


----------



## omari79

with this and Mantle looks like my next sig is going to be AMD..i think


----------



## alcal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Abs.exe*
> 
> What does that mean, which Intel series is it challenging ?
> i5 or i7 ?


We wont know that until we see the prices. Realistically, it will compete in the same realm as usual (vs 4c/4t and 4c/8t Intel chips) but we can always pray that AMD has something good enough to take on a 6c/12t chip.


----------



## LordOfTots

please be true


----------



## Caldeio

30% ipc increase puts it at 3770k/4770k. Multithreaded, its prolly ilke the i5's since rumors are that it's a 4 core.


----------



## nuklearwax

Please be true. I am going to finally upgrade off this 955 early next year and if there is no Steamroller by then I'll be building my first Intel rig ever.


----------



## omari79

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> " Thats over 1100% the jump we saw from Bulldozer to Piledriver! "


wait what?


----------



## nitrubbb

february is soo far away :S


----------



## Abs.exe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *omari79*
> 
> wait what?


100% ---> 103%
103% ---> 135%


----------



## Moragg

True 8 core Steamroller that can OC to 4.8GHz? My body and wallet are ready.

Out of interest, will this have all the acronyms we've been hearing about (hQ and HSA and whatever else)?


----------



## Azrail

I will wait and see.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Come on Steamroller! Give us something to be envious of!


----------



## Caldeio

guys the 1100% is from bulldozer. they are saying from BD to PD it was 3% then from PD to SR it's 135%

thats a 1100% trend.

This is very good for AMD on there FM2+ socket. But we need to know is this the new mainstream socket, or is this just a sneak peak at whats possible in the mainstream socket?


----------



## Horsemama1956

What benchmark is this?


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> 30% ipc increase puts it at 3770k/4770k.


No it doesn't, i don't have a bunch of numbers but [email protected] scores ~1.35 in cinebench 11.5 while you can exceed 2.1 with Haswell. Some say cinebench 11.5 is somewhat biased, but even with the performance penalty from running both cores in a module, piledriver is nowhere near haswell in terms of IPC, the gap is like 50-60%. It's expected to be worse, considering the module design and the fact that unlocked 8 core piledriver is significantly cheaper than intel's lowest end unlocked quad core. 30% higher IPC and other stuff steamroller brings would be godly though, 20% would be awesome.


----------



## omari79

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Abs.exe*
> 
> 100% ---> 103%
> 103% ---> 135%


they are talk about a 1100% increase...thats OVER 9000!


----------



## Caldeio

I'm going off 3dmark11 physics. 30% would take a 8350 to a 3-4770k level. Im pretty sure it's single thread benchmark. I've never tried cinebench is it multi-threaded?


----------



## EniGma1987

Why is this in Hardware? Needs to be in Rumors and a mention of needing a whole tanker truck full of salt.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Moragg*
> 
> True 8 core Steamroller that can OC to 4.8GHz? My body and wallet are ready.
> 
> Out of interest, will this have all the acronyms we've been hearing about (hQ and HSA and whatever else)?


It will also have LOL, ROFL, and dont forget HUMA as well.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> No it doesn't, i don't have a bunch of numbers but [email protected] scores ~1.35 in cinebench...


And thats where you lost all credibility to your argument.


----------



## G3RG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Caldeio*
> 
> I'm going off 3dmark11 physics. 30% would take a 8350 to a 3-4770k level. Im pretty sure it's single thread benchmark. I've never tried cinebench is it multi-threaded?


Cinebench is multithreaded but its possibly the worst benchmark outside of superpi to compare AMD to Intel.


----------



## nitrubbb

remember remember the 11th of november


----------



## MoGTy

If true, cool. AMD good job.

The source isn't exactly rock solid.


----------



## BigTree

I think I can wait until 1Q14.


----------



## Dirkonis

-grabs the salt- If this is true which...







then stretching my little 3470 out and going with the red team may be an option in the future. I have always built AMD machines but when I jumped ship it really has been different performance wise even with something stock clocked. Either way I hope AMD has a solid launch with these new chips, hope it isn't another Bulldozer situation.


----------



## EliteReplay

so AMD is finally releasing a CPU to compete vs 4770K? tell me this is true AMD.


----------



## nitrubbb

_We're expecting a healthy increase in graphics performance with Kaveri, but we don't know just how fast it will be right now. However, AMD confirmed that Kaveri *will be shipping in 2013*, which means we'll be able to see just how well Kaveri stacks up against Intel's latest in the next month or two._

Source

I don't know now. Maybe we still get it in december?


----------



## Maelthras

These are lower clocked apu's from what I remember, kaveri has a igpu so isn't a standalone cpu. I think as a lone cpu it would have even better improvements and higher numbers. At 1.8 ghz vs full blown cpu's is very impressive.


----------



## Horsemama1956

There also must be something to the fact they ran it at 1.8Ghz.


----------



## ChrisB17

If this is true. Oh em gee. Kaveri yes please!!!


----------



## SchmoSalt

The numbers only show a 30.76% increase in Integer performance while Floating Point performance takes a 14.4% decrease. One of the major flaws of the horrible Bulldozer architecture was the lack of floating point units in half of the "cores."

I don't see where this "1100% increase" is. All I see is a weak point in AMD performance getting even weaker.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Caldeio*
> 
> 30% ipc increase puts it at 3770k/4770k. Multithreaded, its prolly ilke the i5's since rumors are that it's a 4 core.


Eight cores are rumored to come a few months later.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SchmoSalt*
> 
> The numbers only show a 30.76% increase in Integer performance while Floating Point performance takes a 14.4% decrease. One of the major flaws of the horrible Bulldozer architecture was the lack of floating point units in half of the "cores."
> 
> I don't see where this "1100% increase" is. All I see is a weak point in AMD performance getting even weaker.


FP will now on be handled by the IGPU. You're reading CPU performance boost alone. I'll be more interesting to see benchmarks with both sides of the processor working together. GPU + CPU. You also forget that's 88% performance on four cores vs the eight in the FX.


----------



## zalbard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Awooboowoo*
> 
> The source goes on to say there is a 1100% increase, but then the numbers show about a 30% increase in Integer and about a 15% decrease in FP. In fact, this whole 1100% is just ******* bull**** number manipulation.


The source never finished school and doesn't know how to count it seems.


----------



## Bit_reaper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Horsemama1956*
> 
> There also must be something to the fact they ran it at 1.8Ghz.


Yeah even if we assume (and that's a big if) that the new steamroller based CPU's have an 30% IPC edge when compered to piledriver it still leaves the question of clock speed. There is no guarantee that steamroller chips will be able to run at the same high clocks as the piledrivers.

Its not that I don't want to see AMD come out with some hard hitting CPU's. I'm just saying its way to early to get all excited.


----------



## beers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zalbard*
> 
> The source never finished school and doesn't know how to count it seems.


Quote:


> Thats over 1100% the jump we saw *from Bulldozer to Piledriver*!


2.9*1100%=31.9

His result is ultimately a tad off but it looks like reading comprehension eludes you.


----------



## omari79

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Caldeio*
> 
> I'm going off 3dmark11 physics. 30% would take a 8350 to a 3-4770k level. Im pretty sure it's single thread benchmark. I've never tried cinebench is it multi-threaded?


it has both mate


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Horsemama1956*
> 
> There also must be something to the fact they ran it at 1.8Ghz.


The lower the clockrate allows a user to easily see the difference in IPC vs being overclocked. In the end it should all be relative.


----------



## chocolateCookie

fm2+ only?


----------



## iRUSH

"I just went from six to midnight" As alwyas, I'm looking forward to the release of these CPU's. Hopefully before the end of the year too.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> Eight cores are rumored to come a few months later.
> FP will now on be handled by the IGPU. You're reading CPU performance boost alone. I'll be more interesting to see benchmarks with both sides of the processor working together. GPU + CPU. You also forget that's 88% performance on four cores vs the eight in the FX.


So that means no more CPU only processors from AMD? That would be ******ed if true.

What if the program doesn't suppot HSA? Float point will get worse, games will tank.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chocolateCookie*
> 
> fm2+ only?


Yep.


----------



## HanSomPa

All aboard the hype hype train!
All aboard the hype hype train!

Hype! Hype!


----------



## PureBlackFire

If AMD can even get +/- 5% the ipc of sandybridge and have low tdp quad/hex core cpus for $300 or less that would be a good enough progress with this architecture.


----------



## gregory121295

The only thing I have wrong with this is that it's a single benchmark, and that we don't have the fp numbers for a version of it with l3 cache. Also, this blog isn't exactly official to my knowledge so take it with a grain of salt...

I'd love for it to be true though, so long as it's nice and cheap like the phenom x6's and x4's were back in the day.


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> I don't see anything good from this when running a non-HSA program.
> 
> Sure the int get 30% faster, but the float performance is 10% weaker than the already weak as heck float perf of BD.
> 
> This is like 2 steps forward a step back. At least it's better than BD compared to Phenom. That was like 1 step forward 2 steps back.


No L3 compared to vishera/bulldozer


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> So that means no more CPU only processors from AMD? That would be ******ed if true.
> 
> What if the program doesn't suppot HSA? Float point will get worse, games will tank.


WOAH! You're getting ahead of yourself. I hope you don't assume this enhanced performance reflects backward in product. He was comparing results of a four core to eight, the four core beat the eight. HSA is a hardware thing not a programming language. HSA is something that happens beneath the handling of x86 ISA. It's not ******ed it's the future, SoC is where technology is going.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> No L3 compared to vishera/bulldozer


HSA obsoletes L3


----------



## Ulatec

Jesus, some people just don't read the whole thread. The 1100% comes from the difference between generations, not the raw numbers.


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> WOAH! You're getting ahead of yourself. I hope you don't assume this enhanced performance reflects backward in product. He was comparing results of a four core to eight, the four core beat the eight. HSA is a hardware thing not a programming language. HSA is something that happens beneath the handling of x86 ISA. It's not ******ed it's the future, SoC is where technology is going.
> HSA obsoletes L3


Float performance is lower because kaveri lacks l3. I dont know why you mention HSA


----------



## Maelthras

4 core at 1.8 GHz vs 8 core at 3Ghz+. This isn't even a comparison, it's a slaughter.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Float performance is lower because kaveri lacks l3. I dont know why you mention HSA


You're forgetting it's a four core with fp of 590 and an eight of 690. Per core that's a huge difference!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Maelthras*
> 
> 4 core at 1.8 GHz vs 8 core at 3Ghz+. This isn't even a comparison, it's a slaughter.


They down clocked the FX to compare. I still agree.


----------



## 161029

As nice as it would be if it were true, I'd prefer not to get all hyped up and be disappointed if Kaveri pulls a Bulldozer.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HybridCore*
> 
> As nice as it would be if it were true, I'd prefer not to get all hyped up and be disappointed if Kaveri pulls a Bulldozer.


To be quite honest bulldozer was just a stage in the development to this point, I'm not disappointed in either product. It's a step in the right direction for AMD. I'm proud of them for bringing something unique to the computer world. It'll be up to us, the consumer, to determine it's survivability.


----------



## Shmerrick

I'm seeing a decrease on those float numbers. Why?


----------



## MrJava

Might not be great for desktops, but it looks like a win for mobile. If you have a 30% increase in INT IPC on average, then a 3.5GHz Kaveri Mobile performs like a 4.5 GHz Richland in most applications except in a 35W TDP. Finally, AMD has a chip which is competitive with mobile i3's and i5's. And of course, the integrated graphics will blow both out of the water.

We definitely need to see more benchmarks before making any conclusions. BOINC scores can vary depending on OS and Cinebench is biased.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bit_reaper*
> 
> Yeah even if we assume (and that's a big if) that the new steamroller based CPU's have an 30% IPC edge when compered to piledriver it still leaves the question of clock speed. There is no guarantee that steamroller chips will be able to run at the same high clocks as the piledrivers.
> 
> Its not that I don't want to see AMD come out with some hard hitting CPU's. I'm just saying its way to early to get all excited.


----------



## tx-jose

AMD.....they are on fire latly. Jezussss who lit a fire under the ass??


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shmerrick*
> 
> I'm seeing a decrease on those float numbers. Why?


You're seeing an increase in float. That's four cores vs eight.


----------



## MoGTy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tx-jose*
> 
> AMD.....they are on fire latly. Jezussss who lit a fire under the ass??


Their massive debts ;-)


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MoGTy*
> 
> Their massive debts ;-)


The new CEO is doing a great job. He's not a leech like the previous one.


----------



## Phaethon666

If this info is for real, I think I am going to retire my Fx8350 system (had too many problems with it unfortunately







) and get a nice new Kaveri Steamroller!


----------



## jetsam

if the price is around Intel, I'd still get intel.

AMD is late to the party.


----------



## bfromcolo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> You're seeing an increase in float. That's four cores vs eight.


Not a lot of detail here but I think the [email protected] means they were testing 2 modules versus 2 modules, and this is a decrease in FP performance.


----------



## Dmac73

Rumors section please.

Looks like advertisement for a biased website to me.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bfromcolo*
> 
> Not a lot of detail here but I think the [email protected] means they were testing 2 modules versus 2 modules, and this is a decrease in FP performance.


Could be right. I still expect better FP when we see benchmarks including usage of GPU aided threading and not CPU lone FP.


----------



## edalbkrad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dmac73*
> 
> Rumors section please.
> 
> Looks like advertisement for a biased website to me.


this isnt even a rumor so it shouldnt be in the rumors section, it should just be deleted.

what the hell is a cosmology benchmark anyway? benchmarking the universe?


----------



## MrJava

Yes, the only conclusion you can make with these numbers alone is that FP performance has taken a hit.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bfromcolo*
> 
> Not a lot of detail here but I think the [email protected] means they were testing 2 modules versus 2 modules, and this is a decrease in FP performance.


He doesn't post the real source which is [email protected] I agree though that the "1100% increase" claim is ridiculous.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dmac73*
> 
> Rumors section please.
> 
> Looks like advertisement for a biased website to me.


----------



## AlphaC

Floating point is even worse than bulldozer, so unless the floating point can be shoveled off the the GCN cores (GPU basically) for processing I don't see the hype

Q6600:
Measured floating point speed 3168.38 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 9769.76 million ops/sec

http://www.cosmologyathome.org/forum_thread.php?id=470&sort=5

i7 3770
float 3700.07 million ops/sec
integer 14117.82 million ops/sec

several sample of i7 2600
float ~3,300 million ops/sec
integer ~12,500 million ops/sec
You can look yourself at http://www.cosmologyathome.org/top_hosts.php


----------



## MrJava

As I said BOINC scores alone won't tell you much. We don't even really know what clocks this chip is running at.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?286803-Boinc-CPU-Benchmarks-Results


----------



## azanimefan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> Floating point is even worse than bulldozer, so unless the floating point can be shoveled off the the GCN cores (GPU basically) for processing I don't see the hype
> 
> Q6600:
> Measured floating point speed 3168.38 million ops/sec
> Measured integer speed 9769.76 million ops/sec
> 
> http://www.cosmologyathome.org/forum_thread.php?id=470&sort=5
> 
> i7 3770
> float 3700.07 million ops/sec
> integer 14117.82 million ops/sec
> 
> several sample of i7 2600
> float ~3,300 million ops/sec
> integer ~12,500 million ops/sec
> You can look yourself at http://www.cosmologyathome.org/top_hosts.php


remember the steamroller part is clocked at just 1.8ghz. We don't know it's scalability yet so we don't know how it will compare on a desktop to the max i7 scores that cosmo has.

And it does represent a decrease in FP performance, that was an 8 core with 2 modules disabled against the 4 core kaveri... that said that was the MOBILE Steamroller chip vs a Desktop FX 8350. so they weren't comparing apples to apples. Now we expect hUMA to give Kaveri access to the igpu for fp operations, but we don't know if it does this natively or you need to write a program to specifically do this. We also don't know if this Kaveri they tested had an enabled igpu or not, so we don't know enough about this to draw too many conclusions.


----------



## Awooboowoo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrJava*
> 
> Yes, the only conclusion you can make with these numbers alone is that FP performance has taken a hit.
> He doesn't post the real source which is [email protected] I agree though that the "1100% increase" claim is ridiculous.


the 1100% claim is the percent increase of SR over Vishera. From BD to Vishera is a 2.9% increase in Integer. The increase of Vishera to SR is about 32%. 32/2.9=11.03. Multiply that by 100 to get a percent increase gives us about 1100%. Its basically just a stat pad number that means nothing.


----------



## ihatelolcats

omg omg omg


----------



## Yeroon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tx-jose*
> 
> AMD.....they are on fire latly. Jezussss who lit a fire under the ass??


They've been running 9590's and 290x's, its bound to be getting warm over at AMD....


----------



## Ghoxt

How far behind was BD from Intel 3770K to begin with? bah, would be good for some more competition right about now. Would make for a nice January/February all around for mah new build to end all builds.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrJava*
> 
> Yes, the only conclusion you can make with these numbers alone is that FP performance has taken a hit.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *bfromcolo*
> 
> Not a lot of detail here but I think the [email protected] means they were testing 2 modules versus 2 modules, and this is a decrease in FP performance.
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't post the real source which is [email protected] I agree though that the "1100% increase" claim is ridiculous.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Dmac73*
> 
> Rumors section please.
> 
> Looks like advertisement for a biased website to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

1) I hope these are true and indicate performance increases across the board.

2) 1100% increase is not ridiculous, though it is misleading. The performance increase between Bulldozer and Piledriver increased by 1000% between Piledriver and Steamroller.


----------



## pokerapar88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> You also forget that's 88% performance on four cores vs the eight in the FX.


Been there, done that, with an i5


----------



## trulsrohk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yeroon*
> 
> They've been running 9590's and 290x's, its bound to be getting warm over at AMD....


Winter is coming...

experience next gen visuals AND fight off chills this winter with your friendly PC chipmaker AMD!


----------



## james8

^


----------



## DStanding

Any chance we'll finally see a modern AMD chipset with Steamroller?


----------



## AlphaC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *azanimefan*
> 
> remember the steamroller part is clocked at just 1.8ghz. We don't know it's scalability yet so we don't know how it will compare on a desktop to the max i7 scores that cosmo has.
> 
> And it does represent a decrease in FP performance, that was an 8 core with 2 modules disabled against the 4 core kaveri... that said that was the MOBILE Steamroller chip vs a Desktop FX 8350. so they weren't comparing apples to apples. Now we expect hUMA to give Kaveri access to the igpu for fp operations, but we don't know if it does this natively or you need to write a program to specifically do this. We also don't know if this Kaveri they tested had an enabled igpu or not, so we don't know enough about this to draw too many conclusions.


Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3610QM CPU @ 2.30GHz [Family 6 Model 58 Stepinng9]]
Measured floating point speed 2961.38 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 8004.56 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=198567

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3630QM CPU @ 2.40GHz [Family 6 Model 58 Stepinng9]]
Measured floating point speed 3073.86 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 7541.94 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=191693

Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-3320M CPU @ 2.60GHz [Family 6 Model 58 Stepinng9]]
Measured floating point speed 3024.01 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 10773.02 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=179327

Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2430M CPU @ 2.40GHz [Family 6 Model 42 Stepinng7]]
Measured floating point speed 2656.94 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 9851.21 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=199879

AMD FX(tm)-8320 Eight-Core Processor [Family 21 Model 2 Stepping 0]
Measured floating point speed 2637.12 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 8575.28 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=192091

AMD FX(tm)-8320 Eight-Core Processor [Family 21 Model 2 Stepping 0]
Measured floating point speed 2700.03 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 9193.93 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=200428

AMD FX(tm)-8120 Eight-Core Processor [Family 21 Model 1 Stepping 2]
Measured floating point speed 2528.39 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 6631.85 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=174702

AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1055T Processor [Family 16 Model 10 Stepping 0]
Measured floating point speed 2283.94 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 8123.59 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=197841

AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1100T Processor [Family 16 Model 10 Stepping 0]
Measured floating point speed 2716.78 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 7386.82 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=177273

AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1055T Processor [Family 16 Model 10 Stepping 0]
Measured floating point speed 2286.65 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 7488.31 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=133018

AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1035T Processor [Family 16 Model 10 Stepping 0]
Measured floating point speed 2136.17 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 7304.09 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=144973


----------



## Rickyyy369

That has got to be one of the shadiest sites I have ever witnessed. Extremely likely this "hjh" guy just pulled some numbers out of his ass to get page hits.


----------



## EniGma1987

@SpeedyVT
Dude you are posting some of the craziest ideas I have seen in a while. And with Seronx here on the forums that is quite a feat!


----------



## Ukkooh

If these numbers are true I'll get a 8-core variant of it to replace my 3770k purely because it has solder instead of TIM on die.


----------



## maarten12100

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> No it doesn't, i don't have a bunch of numbers but [email protected] scores ~1.35 in cinebench 11.5 while you can exceed 2.1 with Haswell. Some say cinebench 11.5 is somewhat biased, but even with the performance penalty from running both cores in a module, piledriver is nowhere near haswell in terms of IPC, the gap is like 50-60%. It's expected to be worse, considering the module design and the fact that unlocked 8 core piledriver is significantly cheaper than intel's lowest end unlocked quad core. 30% higher IPC and other stuff steamroller brings would be godly though, 20% would be awesome.


Cinebench 11.5 gimps non Intel processors please think before posting it isn't just a little it is a lot


----------



## Daious

what socket? Anyone know?


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *maarten12100*
> 
> Cinebench 11.5 gimps non Intel processors please think before posting


It's common knowledge that Haswell is like ~50-60% faster core for core when you close to match frequencies though (average oc on piledriver high end is only 200-400mhz higher than haswell)

Piledriver runs a module for every core that Haswell has to stay at all competitive. An 8350 with half of it's cores disabled would get laughed at by an i5 - it wouldn't be a +30% lead for i5. They have four modules and 8 threads for a reason, they need them and it's completely expected for them to lose by a margin greater than 30% when half of their cores are disabled.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3610QM CPU @ 2.30GHz [Family 6 Model 58 Stepinng9]]
> Measured floating point speed 2961.38 million ops/sec
> Measured integer speed 8004.56 million ops/sec
> http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=198567
> 
> Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3630QM CPU @ 2.40GHz [Family 6 Model 58 Stepinng9]]
> Measured floating point speed 3073.86 million ops/sec
> Measured integer speed 7541.94 million ops/sec
> http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=191693
> 
> Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-3320M CPU @ 2.60GHz [Family 6 Model 58 Stepinng9]]
> Measured floating point speed 3024.01 million ops/sec
> Measured integer speed 10773.02 million ops/sec
> http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=179327
> 
> Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2430M CPU @ 2.40GHz [Family 6 Model 42 Stepinng7]]
> Measured floating point speed 2656.94 million ops/sec
> Measured integer speed 9851.21 million ops/sec
> http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=199879
> 
> AMD FX(tm)-8320 Eight-Core Processor [Family 21 Model 2 Stepping 0]
> Measured floating point speed 2637.12 million ops/sec
> Measured integer speed 8575.28 million ops/sec
> http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=192091
> 
> AMD FX(tm)-8320 Eight-Core Processor [Family 21 Model 2 Stepping 0]
> Measured floating point speed 2700.03 million ops/sec
> Measured integer speed 9193.93 million ops/sec
> http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=200428
> 
> AMD FX(tm)-8120 Eight-Core Processor [Family 21 Model 1 Stepping 2]
> Measured floating point speed 2528.39 million ops/sec
> Measured integer speed 6631.85 million ops/sec
> http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=174702
> 
> AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1055T Processor [Family 16 Model 10 Stepping 0]
> Measured floating point speed 2283.94 million ops/sec
> Measured integer speed 8123.59 million ops/sec
> http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=197841
> 
> AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1100T Processor [Family 16 Model 10 Stepping 0]
> Measured floating point speed 2716.78 million ops/sec
> Measured integer speed 7386.82 million ops/sec
> http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=177273
> 
> AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1055T Processor [Family 16 Model 10 Stepping 0]
> Measured floating point speed 2286.65 million ops/sec
> Measured integer speed 7488.31 million ops/sec
> http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=133018
> 
> AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1035T Processor [Family 16 Model 10 Stepping 0]
> Measured floating point speed 2136.17 million ops/sec
> Measured integer speed 7304.09 million ops/sec
> http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=144973


Do cpus turbo during the test though?


----------



## NaroonGTX

Take this with grains of salt, people.

We will get a real idea of Kaveri's performance in around two weeks at the APU '13 Fusion Developer Summit on Nov. 11th thru Nov. 13th.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> No it doesn't, i don't have a bunch of numbers but [email protected] scores ~1.35 in cinebench 11.5 while you can exceed 2.1 with Haswell. Some say cinebench 11.5 is somewhat biased, but even with the performance penalty from running both cores in a module, piledriver is nowhere near haswell in terms of IPC, the gap is like 50-60%. It's expected to be worse, considering the module design and the fact that unlocked 8 core piledriver is significantly cheaper than intel's lowest end unlocked quad core. 30% higher IPC and other stuff steamroller brings would be godly though, 20% would be awesome.


Ivy Bridge is, at max, 55% faster in IPC than PD going from memory.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PureBlackFire*
> 
> If AMD can even get +/- 5% the ipc of sandybridge and have low tdp quad/hex core cpus for $300 or less that would be a good enough progress with this architecture.


The IPC an AMD CPU offers now is enough for >95% of games out there if you're using a single GPU.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> Floating point is even worse than bulldozer, so unless the floating point can be shoveled off the the GCN cores (GPU basically) for processing I don't see the hype


First off, the source mentions the lack of L3 cache as a possible reason for that.
Secondly, FP is by far in the minority of code ran on a modern CPU.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pokerapar88*
> 
> Been there, done that, with an i5


No, you haven't. My i5 is (slightly) faster than yours due to equal clocks and slightly higher IPC yet a FX-8350 can easily take it, or a 3770k depending on the benchmark.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> It's common knowledge that Haswell is like ~50-60% faster core for core when you close to match frequencies though (average oc on piledriver high end is only 200-400mhz higher than haswell)
> 
> Piledriver runs a module for every core that Haswell has to stay at all competitive. An 8350 with half of it's cores disabled would get laughed at by an i5 - it wouldn't be a +30% lead for i5. They have four modules and 8 threads for a reason, they need them and it's completely expected for them to lose by a margin greater than 30% when half of their cores are disabled.


400Mhz is more typical, remember that the FX Piledrivers don't have RCM or whatever is in the A10-6800k that allows it to hit 5Ghz left and right while a Haswell can vary from matching it to barely going above 4Ghz.

That entirely varies on the program you're talking about...There's benchmarks where an FX-8350 matches an i7 3770k and people seem to forget that IPC varies from app to app. (Hence why Ivy Bridge can vary from 0% to 55% faster in IPC than PD, 0% being only in a handful of apps with most being around 30% and a few, very poorly threaded programs being closer to the 55% mark)

If this 30% is normal, expect SR to be slightly behind Haswell with an equal amount of threads in most apps, well behind in some and ahead in others if they launch an 8 core AM3+ one, either way this might finally end the completely unnecessary AMD hate...People don't seem to realize that Piledriver, Deneb, Nehalem and even the better clocking Yorkfield CPUs are fine for games if you're running a single GPU, or an older one. Sandy, Ivy and Haswell really only are useful when you're playing highly CPU intensive games like Starcraft 2, Sins of a Solar Empire, Civ V, etc or are planning on multiple recent GPUs.
(Even then, my HD4890 CFX ran perfectly fine on my Phenom II x4 @ 3.6Ghz and wasn't far behind results I saw from people with i7 920s and the like, but I can't speak for modern R* 2*0s and Keplers with that.)


----------



## azanimefan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> AMD FX(tm)-8320 Eight-Core Processor [Family 21 Model 2 Stepping 0]
> Measured floating point speed 2637.12 million ops/sec
> Measured integer speed 8575.28 million ops/sec
> http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=192091


thanks for these numbers. with this we can make some assumptions...

now, apparently cosmo scales almost 1:1, so using that as the baseline we can assume that 8320 is running at base speeds (no turbo)... or 3.5ghz. if this is true, piledriver doesn't really scale 1:1 , as those numbers would be closer to 1:1.102 scalling... that or that 8320 was downclocked to 3.2ghz. since bulldozer/piledriver isn't particularly efficient we'll go with the assumption it's not a perfect 1:1 scaling, but rather the aforementioned 1:1.102 scaling.

so... assuming steamroller has the same scaling issues as piledriver, we can extrapolate out those scores to be the following.

a 4 core 2 module steamroller at 4.0 ghz would score 6,285.803 integer and 1,190.401 floating point score.
an 8 core 4 module steamroller at 4.0ghz would score 12,571.606 integer and 2,380.802 floating point


----------



## MoGTy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rickyyy369*
> 
> That has got to be one of the shadiest sites I have ever witnessed. Extremely likely this "hjh" guy just pulled some numbers out of his ass to get page hits.


Yep, however no-one seems to care so... meh


----------



## Skillers Inc

Please remember that this chip is aimed at LOW POWER CONSUMPTION ergo it will not be competing with haswell in performance. As much as I love AMD they have so far to go to catch up to Intel in pure computational power. Couple this with a GPU on the chip and you can see that they aren't going to be as powerful as hyped. What will be impressive is if it has low core temps at load and if it had 6 cores. More than likely it will be a 4 core and be sitting on par with ivy bridge i5's at best. That being said please god make this a beast AMD I want to build another rig that doesn't cost 1k for my cpu/mobo.


----------



## junkerde

meh untrustworthy.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Ivy Bridge is, at max, 55% faster in IPC than PD going from memory.


If you quote Ivy Bridge as 50% faster than Piledriver - 100% (base) + 50% (improvement) = 150%.

Then if you call Haswell 10% faster than Ivy Bridge (it's more or less, depending on application) you're doing 150*1.05, not 100*1.05 - so your result is that Haswell has 165% of the IPC of Piledriver, not 160% (arbitrary numbers, but pretty close)

50 or 60 percent for Haswell over Piledriver clock for clock is completely reasonable thusly, especially considering PD will be clocked like 200-400mhz above

^just read rest of post, yea
Quote:


> The IPC an AMD CPU offers now is enough for >95% of games out there if you're using a single GPU.


Depending on your point of view, the singlethreaded performance of Piledriver ranges from a slight annoyance to a crippling hindrance. The result is Intel holding a 50% or more lead in some performance starved games, while not really losing any benchmarks with i7. If you happen to play those games and seek performance, it would be silly to get FX. If you don't play any of them or care about singlethreaded performance, you can pocket your saved money and be within a few hairs of i5/i7.

As someone who prefers high framerates to graphical effects, i've found myself being unable to satisfy myself with performance recently in many of the games i played, long time sc2 player, was thinking of buying rome 2 with some friends, meanwhile looking at Natural Selection 2.. Friend of mine spent like $200 on Planetside 2, i played gw2 for a few hundred hours, and now in bf4 beta, a lot of my frametimes were far worse than what i wanted. On 720p low settings, quite a few frames longer than 15-20ms, as much as 3-5% of them slower than 16.7ms (slow enough to miss a 60hz refresh) so i'm more inclined to get the best CPU available (4770k or 4930k, depending on the game) even if it costs extra, rather than saving money on something that is "good enough" for "most" applications. I do like the FX design though and if Steamroller is close enough in singlethreaded performance to not get completely destroyed in some of my favourite games (or lets be honest, if engine development standards improve) then it will be a very interesting fight!


----------



## sdlvx

You guys, some of the reading comprehension in this thread...

1100% better in the way the article used it means that AMD did 1100% better at improving SR from PD than they did from PD from BD.

Meaning, if PD IPC was 3% better than BD, then SR is 33% better than PD.

(33% - 3%) / 3% = 1100%.

That is the math that is used.

Also this is for IPC, not overall clockspeed. I don't get how you Intel guys can rant and rave about IPC and then there's an AMD benchmark which shows _significant_ IPC increase in a certain area and you dismiss it? It's an ES, there have been TONS of PD and BD ES that ran at 1.8ghz or lower. An ES at 1.8ghz doesn't mean anything in regards to overall clockspeed.

Finally, Haswell topping out at 4.4ghz most of the time and FX 8350 topping out at 4.8ghz most of the time is almost a 10% clockspeed advantage for AMD. If AMD is between 30% to 60% slower per core than Haswell, and it gets a 30% IPC increase, and a 10% clockspeed advantage, it's huge.

Also, do not forget that a lot of these single-threaded benchmarks are done with turbo still enabled. When 4670k and FX 8350 are at base clocks, 8350 as an 17% clockspeed advantage. When both turbos are enabled, FX only has a 10% clockspeed advantage. This biases benchmarks massively because people go

"OH FX 8350 at 4ghz and 4670k at 3.4ghz in this single thread benchmark, so it's 17% slower per clock!" when in fact the difference in clockspeed is around 10% due to turbo.

No reviewer makes a huge deal out of this and none of them even remotely come close to addressing the fact that not all chips are created equal and that some chips might turbo better than others.

It's extremely rare to find a review where turbo is disabled and for all we know FX chips could be at base clock and Intel could be at full turbo, in which case FX only has a 5% advantage over 4670k and 2.5% advantage over 4770k.

No offence to a lot of you but it seems like a lot of you didn't pay much attention in math or reading courses in school. The stuff they teach you is very handy and it helps you from getting burned a lot in life.


----------



## Daious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Except Kaveri which is FM2+


so fx-steamroller is still AM3+?


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Finally, Haswell topping out at 4.4ghz most of the time and FX 8350 topping out at 4.8ghz most of the time is almost a 10% clockspeed advantage for AMD.


The average clock in haswell overclocking thread (with statistics) was recently posted to be 4.55ghz, and out of my circle of friends i've seen two @4.7, 2-3 at 4.6, a few at 4.5 and none below that, while nobody has anything better than high end air and only one has delidded. Some people have bad chips, it's pretty difficult to know how many though, because some people fail at overclocking basics if you give them more than two knobs to play with at once. I would be shocked if half of the chips couldn't hit 4.5 on decent but not extreme ambient cooling, after lurking most of the haswell threads here for june, july, aug, sept, oct, talking to friends and helping a bunch of people overclock from other forums. I don't know piledriver too well, but it seems difficult to pass 5.0


----------



## geoxile

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sdlvx*
> 
> Finally, Haswell topping out at 4.4ghz most of the time and FX 8350 topping out at 4.8ghz most of the time is almost a 10% clockspeed advantage for AMD. If AMD is between 30% to 60% slower per core than Haswell, and it gets a 30% IPC increase, and a 10% clockspeed advantage, it's huge.
> 
> .


Uh-huh...

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/fx_8350

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_4770k/
http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i5_4670k/


----------



## NaroonGTX

Quote:


> so fx-steamroller is still AM3+?


An FX Steamroller chip has not been confirmed to exist yet.


----------



## Dynamo11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Daious*
> 
> so fx-steamroller is still AM3+?


That is the question, it's a point of contention whether there will be a Steamroller FX Chip for AM3+

We could always get a non-IGP Steamroller chip for FM2+ though


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *geoxile*
> 
> Uh-huh...
> 
> http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/fx_8350
> 
> http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_4770k/
> http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i5_4670k/


Higher average clock for i5 over i7. You don't really believe i5s are better binned, do you?


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> so fx-steamroller is still AM3+?
> 
> 
> 
> An FX Steamroller chip has not been confirmed to exist yet.
Click to expand...

...but if it happens, yes. AM4 won't exist.


----------



## NaroonGTX

I know. The 1090FX platform was canned long ago.


----------



## polyzp

Oh .... it WILL exist







After Steamroller is introduced with Kaveri, it will show through that an FX is inevitable. Core count is the only thing AMD is still figuring out, and until it is settled Steamroller FX "doesn't exist". This core count issue was also noticed in older leaked info with regards to a 6 core steamroller Kaveri APU. My guess is both 8 core and 10/12 Core Variants will be announced by Q4 2014 for release in Q1 2015, aswell as 6 core variants for Kaveri by Q2 2015. When 20 nm Excavator is introduced (+35% IPC over steamroller) in late 2015 FX will merge with AMD's APU line to become one socket + GDDR5 memory. AMD's 20nm Excavator chip will be significantly more powerful than anything intel will have at 22nm and will directly compete with Intel's 16 Thread BEAST 14nm Skylake (+20-25% IPC over Haswell) CPU sporting DDR4.


----------



## azanimefan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> Higher average clock for i5 over i7. You don't really believe i5s are better binned, do you?


no, but i do believe HT adds some heat to the chip. it's long been true that the i7s generally will be a little lower on max overclock reached as long as HT is enabled. That said i'm not agreeing with the previous poster nor defending his post.

Sometimes its hard for people to comprehend the advantage intel cpus have in IPC... an i5-4670k at 4ghz would match an fx4350 at 6.8ghz. so talking about fx cpus having a higher overclock limit then haswell is silly. the ipc difference between the chips is just too big to even talk in those terms. Now if steamroller gives AMD cpus a 30% IPC performance gain over piledriver, we'd be talking about the difference between the chips being more manageable. A 4ghz haswell i5 would match a 5.2ghz quad core steamroller. assuming steamroller has similar overclocking performance possibilities as piledriver and bulldozer that is a high end possible overclock to reach. The difference between a steamroller and sandybridge i5 would be a lot closer, something along the lines of the i5-2500k at 4ghz being about the same as a steamroller quad core at 4.4ghz. Granted sandybridge overclocks well, so it will remain slightly faster but when we're talking about a 10% different that's basically unnoticeable. Heck it's unnoticeable going from an i5-2500k to an i5-4670k and those two chips are separated by about 20% in IPC.


----------



## maarten12100

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> Oh .... it WILL exist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After Steamroller is introduced with Kaveri, it will show through that an FX is inevitable. Core count is the only thing AMD is still figuring out, and until it is settled Steamroller FX "doesn't exist". This core count issue was also noticed in older leaked info with regards to a 6 core steamroller Kaveri APU. My guess is both 8 core and 10/12 Core Variants will be announced by Q4 2014 for release in Q1 2015, aswell as 6 core variants for Kaveri by Q2 2015. When 20 nm Excavator is introduced (+35% IPC over steamroller) in late 2015 FX will merge with AMD's APU line to become one socket + GDDR5 memory. AMD's 20nm Excavator chip will be significantly more powerful than anything intel will have at 22nm and will directly compete with Intel's 16 Thread BEAST 14nm Skylake (+20-25% IPC over Haswell) CPU sporting DDR4.


Intel might have ditched P3 derivatives and made a fresh arch though I doubt it they rather money grab and just shrink that die more than innovate without reason(for them).


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> Depending on your point of view, the singlethreaded performance of Piledriver ranges from a slight annoyance to a crippling hindrance. The result is Intel holding a 50% or more lead in some performance starved games, while not really losing any benchmarks with i7. If you happen to play those games and seek performance, it would be silly to get FX. If you don't play any of them or care about singlethreaded performance, you can pocket your saved money and be within a few hairs of i5/i7.
> 
> As someone who prefers high framerates to graphical effects, i've found myself being unable to satisfy myself with performance recently in many of the games i played, long time sc2 player, was thinking of buying rome 2 with some friends, meanwhile looking at Natural Selection 2.. Friend of mine spent like $200 on Planetside 2, i played gw2 for a few hundred hours, and now in bf4 beta, a lot of my frametimes were far worse than what i wanted. On 720p low settings, quite a few frames longer than 15-20ms, as much as 3-5% of them slower than 16.7ms (slow enough to miss a 60hz refresh) so i'm more inclined to get the best CPU available (4770k or 4930k, depending on the game) even if it costs extra, rather than saving money on something that is "good enough" for "most" applications. I do like the FX design though and if Steamroller is close enough in singlethreaded performance to not get completely destroyed in some of my favourite games (or lets be honest, if engine development standards improve) then it will be a very interesting fight!


As you say, it varies by game...But most either run fast enough on a Core 2 Quad to be maxed out already, let alone an FX, or make use of enough threads to still ensure the AMD CPU offers good enough performance. Clearly people should base their purchases purely off what they play alone and not from benchmarks that mean nothing to them.

For you (Playing SC2 among others) single-threaded/dual-threaded performance is what matters and Intel is by far the best choice but if SC2 was able to use up to 8 threads and used Microsoft's compiler (Not sure if it uses ICC or not) then I'd wager an FX would be faster than an i5 3570k, but slower than an i7 3770k and matching an i5 4670k.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sdlvx*
> 
> Also this is for IPC, not overall clockspeed. I don't get how you Intel guys can rant and rave about IPC and then there's an AMD benchmark which shows _significant_ IPC increase in a certain area and you dismiss it? It's an ES, there have been TONS of PD and BD ES that ran at 1.8ghz or lower. An ES at 1.8ghz doesn't mean anything in regards to overall clockspeed.


Because the IPC argument has always been complete crap from start to finish, IPC matters as much as clock speed does on its own.

The general lack of knowledge by people going on and on about IPC for AMD is further proven by how many of them assumed IPC = Single-threaded performance too...You could have a single-threaded CPU with ultra low IPC but high clock speeds (Pentium 4, for example) or a highly-threaded CPU with high IPC and low clock speed. (Xeons at stock speeds)
A lot of Intel owners seem to not realize that AMD isn't as far behind as plenty of people make it seem and that all in all, an FX 8 core is faster than an i5 3570k due to its extra cores and will last longer than one too.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *maarten12100*
> 
> Intel might have ditched P3 derivatives and made a fresh arch though I doubt it they rather money grab and just shrink that die more than innovate without reason(for them).


There's little reason for them to do so, though. Besides, while the current ones are P6 (Architecture name, actually was introduced with the Pentium Pro, rebranded into the Pentium II then the III, reworked into the III SSE models and finally nearly completely reworked into Pentium M) they're nearly completely redesigned since being a Pentium 3 or the like, you could probably trace the heritage back by going from Haswell to Sandy to Nehalem to Conroe etc but likely looking at a Pentium III die shot next to a Haswell die shot you would see very little in common.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seid Dark*
> 
> My previous AMD chip was Opteron 144 (Athlon 64), really great performance and oc potential. Hopefully Steamroller will finally deliver, Intel has been dominating since Conroe. It's boring that for last 6 years Intel has been the only option for enthusiasts.


Dominating the high-end, yes, but Phenom II and the recent APUs have been great budget CPUs even for enthusiasts.

And besides, not everyone games...There's a few tasks where an FX-8350 matched or beat a i7 3770k, especially if you use Linux where the ICC advantage is null and void.


----------



## Seid Dark

My previous AMD chip was Opteron 144 (Athlon 64), really great performance and oc potential. Hopefully Steamroller will finally deliver, Intel has been dominating since Conroe. It's boring that for last 6 years Intel has been the only option for enthusiasts.


----------



## Valor958

Yeah, I'll wait and see as well. Promises, promises... right now, i'm rooting for AMD, but my money resides with Intel.


----------



## raclimja

this is meh.

all intel needs to do is add two more cores on consumer cpu and bam this cpu would be doa.

intel has already have cpu that has 15 cores on the pipeline so adding 2 more cores would be a piece of cake for them.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

IPCs are nice to directly compare architectures' performance, assuming all involved have the same number of cores (or even threads if hyperthreading ends up unfair?), but yes, it doesn't really matter overall. Something that's 100 times as powerful per cycle as Haswell would be great, but it would also be useless if it were unstable past 5MHz. Likewise, if it takes a 40THz chip 100 000 cycles to do a simple calculation, something is wrong. Grossly exaggerated? Yes. But clockspeed and IPCs are worthless without the other.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> I know. The 1090FX platform was canned long ago.


I figured as much, but he didn't. What was 1090FX supposed to add over 990FX? More PCIe lanes?


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *azanimefan*
> 
> no, but i do believe HT adds some heat to the chip. it's long been true that the i7s generally will be a little lower on max overclock reached as long as HT is enabled. That said i'm not agreeing with the previous poster nor defending his post.
> 
> Sometimes its hard for people to comprehend the advantage intel cpus have in IPC... an i5-4670k at 4ghz would match an fx4350 at 6.8ghz. so talking about fx cpus having a higher overclock limit then haswell is silly. the ipc difference between the chips is just too big to even talk in those terms. Now if steamroller gives AMD cpus a 30% IPC performance gain over piledriver, we'd be talking about the difference between the chips being more manageable. A 4ghz haswell i5 would match a 5.2ghz quad core steamroller. assuming steamroller has similar overclocking performance possibilities as piledriver and bulldozer that is a high end possible overclock to reach. The difference between a steamroller and sandybridge i5 would be a lot closer, something along the lines of the i5-2500k at 4ghz being about the same as a steamroller quad core at 4.4ghz. Granted sandybridge overclocks well, so it will remain slightly faster but when we're talking about a 10% different that's basically unnoticeable. Heck it's unnoticeable going from an i5-2500k to an i5-4670k and those two chips are separated by about 20% in IPC.


Ipc is not a fixed number, so I find it hard to follow your post. For example, it will take 6.8Ghz for a dual module FX piledriver to match an i5-4670k to what task exactly?


----------



## maarten12100

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raclimja*
> 
> this is meh.
> 
> all intel needs to do is add two more cores on consumer cpu and bam this cpu would be doa.
> 
> intel has already have cpu that has 15 cores on the pipeline so adding 2 more cores would be a piece of cake for them.


Those chips are coming to market Q4 2013 according to todays rumors while Intel first stated they pushed back Brickland and E7 v2 to Q1 2014.
Something is emerging yet I have so much work left to do first.


----------



## MrJava

Kaveri ES doing another BOINC run (started Oct 23). Matches up with the leak dates for engineering and production samples, we'll see how more stable silicon performs soon.

http://www.cosmologyathome.org/results.php?hostid=187215


----------



## NaroonGTX

Quote:


> this is meh.
> 
> all intel needs to do is add two more cores on consumer cpu and bam this cpu would be doa.
> 
> intel has already have cpu that has 15 cores on the pipeline so adding 2 more cores would be a piece of cake for them.


This is ridiculous. This is an APU. It's not competing with Xeon's or any $1000 CPU's. Seriously have no idea what you were smoking when you made this post.


----------



## azanimefan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> Ipc is not a fixed number, so I find it hard to follow your post. For example, it will take 6.8Ghz for a dual module FX piledriver to match an i5-4670k to what task exactly?


you're right. IPC isn't really measurable in the loose math terms i'm using. It's just some rough numbers sketching out the difference from the chips. generally speaking the average difference in core performance from a piledriver to a haswell is about 60% when at the same clock speed. So in theory, since we know piledriver overclock performance doesn't really plateau like some other chips do you can just play with the numbers a little to find rough equivalences.

this type of math is rough, and not all that accurate sometimes. that said these scribbles are, more often then not, usually a pretty good guess for predicting performance. i've used similar math on a lark to predict FPS in games or times in compression benches... it usually gives a pretty good ballpark.


----------



## SoloCamo

If it's not an eight core and not on AM3+ I could careless at this point...

Would be a downgrade if it's only a quad.


----------



## MrJava

AM3+ is pretty much dead by this point.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> If it's not an eight core and not on AM3+ I could careless at this point...
> 
> Would be a downgrade if it's only a quad.


----------



## maarten12100

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrJava*
> 
> AM3+ is pretty much dead by this point.


I couldn't care less since even though my board has a AM3+ socket I can't upgrade it due to stupid Asrock not updating the microcode what good is it over Intel if they don't do that


----------



## 161029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> To be quite honest bulldozer was just a stage in the development to this point, I'm not disappointed in either product. It's a step in the right direction for AMD. I'm proud of them for bringing something unique to the computer world. It'll be up to us, the consumer, to determine it's survivability.


It's not that the idea behind the architecture is bad. I think it's really unique (and somewhat applies to my username, but that was before modules and Bulldozer and totally irrelevant) and neat what AMD is trying to achieve here. I just don't want to feel the same disappointment after seeing Bulldozer with all of this hype built up around it.


----------



## Moragg

For gaming, how important are integer and floating point calculations?


----------



## maarten12100

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MoGTy*
> 
> Their massive debts ;-)


Not so much their debt more the need to compete or be left behind with contracts which will really cause big debt.
AMD's long term debt peaked in 2007 and is now down to 2Bil


----------



## AlphaC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrJava*
> 
> Kaveri ES doing another BOINC run (started Oct 23). Matches up with the leak dates for engineering and production samples, we'll see how more stable silicon performs soon.
> 
> http://www.cosmologyathome.org/results.php?hostid=187215


AMD Eng Sample: 2M186092H4467_23/18/12/05_1304 [Family 21 Model 48 Stepping 0]

Measured floating point speed 590.32 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 3177.13 million ops/sec

P.S. they also participate in World Community Grid

More Comparison CPUs:


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2410M CPU @ 2.30GHz [Family 6 Model 42 Stepinng7]]
Measured floating point speed 2522.16 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 9403.3 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=158706

Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2450M CPU @ 2.50GHz [Family 6 Model 42 Stepinng7]]
Measured floating point speed 2694.63 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 6834.56 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=192990

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2760QM CPU @ 2.40GHz [Family 6 Model 42 Stepinng7]]
Measured floating point speed 2095.19 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 7150.86 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=150781

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2760QM CPU @ 2.40GHz [Family 6 Model 42 Stepping 7]
Measured floating point speed 3222.63 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 17494.35 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=144425

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2670QM CPU @ 2.20GHz [Family 6 Model 42 Stepinng7]]
Measured floating point speed 2631.48 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 8760.85 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=133782

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3610QM CPU @ 2.30GHz [Family 6 Model 58 Stepinng9]]
Measured floating point speed 3012.24 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 10279.01 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=195824

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3612QM CPU @ 2.10GHz [Family 6 Model 58 Stepinng9]]
Measured floating point speed 2691.72 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 7287.59 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=179932

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3630QM CPU @ 2.40GHz [Family 6 Model 58 Stepinng9]]
Measured floating point speed 3115.96 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 10822.71 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=200322

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3630QM CPU @ 2.40GHz [Family 6 Model 58 Stepping 9]
Measured floating point speed 3357.01 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 20460.24 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=187700

^ integer speed is a fluke , due to Linux

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3632QM CPU @ 2.20GHz [Family 6 Model 58 Stepinng9]]
Measured floating point speed 2827.54 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 9805.69 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=173966

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4700MQ CPU @ 2.40GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
Measured floating point speed2499.3 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed10890.72 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=198536

Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2300 CPU @ 2.80GHz [Family 6 Model 42 Stepinng7]]
Measured floating point speed 2911.49 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 10113.94 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=129655

Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2320 CPU @ 3.00GHz [Family 6 Model 42 Stepping 7]
Measured floating point speed 3314.77 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 19517.22 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=175640

^ fluke integer speed due to Linux

Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2500 CPU @ 3.30GHz [Family 6 Model 42 Stepinng7]]
Measured floating point speed 3330.56 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 11321.25 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=184883

Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-3570 CPU @ 3.40GHz [Family 6 Model 58 Stepinng9]]
Measured floating point speed 3688.24 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 12616.97 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=194271

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4700MQ CPU @ 2.40GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
Measured floating point speed 3133.7 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 14276.71 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=200680

*Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4670 CPU @ 3.40GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
Measured floating point speed 2337.84 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 24365.98 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=197903*

^ Integer speed is a fluke? due to Linux

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4770 CPU @ 3.40GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
Measured floating point speed 3829.04 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 11001.08 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=198118

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4770 CPU @ 3.40GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
Measured floating point speed 3834.77 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 16635.72 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=122078

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4770 CPU @ 3.40GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
Measured floating point speed 3669.49 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 16538.31 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=199893

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4770 CPU @ 3.40GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
Measured floating point speed 3628.57 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 15757.67 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=201052

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4770S CPU @ 3.10GHz [Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3]
Measured floating point speed 3394.72 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 14304.28 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=73690

AMD A6-3620 APU with Radeon(tm) HD Graphics [Family 18 Model 1 Stepping 0]
Measured floating point speed 1922.48 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 5750.27 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=190980

AMD A10-5800K APU with Radeon(tm) HD Graphics [Family 21 Model 16 Stepping 1]
Measured floating point speed 3031.86 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 14905.09 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=198625

AMD A10-5800K APU with Radeon(tm) HD Graphics [Family 21 Model 16 Stepping 1]
Measured floating point speed 2920.59 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 9871.89 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=197436

AMD A10-5800K APU with Radeon(tm) HD Graphics [Family 21 Model 16 Stepping 1]
Measured floating point speed 2716.27 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 12213.34 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=192409

AMD A10-5800K APU with Radeon(tm) HD Graphics [Family 21 Model 16 Stepping 1]
Measured floating point speed 2785.25 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 9684.15 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=195256

AMD A10-6800K APU with Radeon(tm) HD Graphics [Family 21 Model 19 Stepping 1]
Measured floating point speed 3140.61 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 11069.31 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=196370

AMD A8-5600K APU with Radeon(tm) HD Graphics [Family 21 Model 16 Stepping 1]
Measured floating point speed 2825.36 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 9861.97 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=190814

AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1100T Processor [Family 16 Model 10 Stepping 0]
Measured floating point speed 2725.25 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 9428.34 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=196053

AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1090T Processor [Family 16 Model 10 Stepping 0]
Measured floating point speed 2069.28 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 8953.46 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=131089

AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1090T Processor [Family 16 Model 10 Stepping 0]
Measured floating point speed 2694.76 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 8049.15 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=143277

AMD FX(tm)-4100 Quad-Core Processor [Family 21 Model 1 Stepping 2]
Measured floating point speed 2604.58 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 7767.42 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=163731

AMD FX(tm)-6100 Six-Core Processor [Family 21 Model 1 Stepping 2]
Measured floating point speed2360.52 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed6860.73 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=191635

AMD FX(tm)-6100 Six-Core Processor [Family 21 Model 1 Stepping 2]
Measured floating point speed 1340.23 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 7177.83 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=130496
^ fluke on floating point? may be due to Linux

AMD FX(tm)-4170 Quad-Core Processor [Family 21 Model 1 Stepping 2]
Measured floating point speed 3254.71 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 9879.07 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=170223

AMD FX(tm)-8150 Eight-Core Processor [Family 21 Model 1 Stepping 2]
Measured floating point speed 2807.84 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 8786.02 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=196222

AMD FX(tm)-8350 Eight-Core Processor [Family 21 Model 2 Stepping 0]
Measured floating point speed 3066.69 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 10364.91 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=200779

AMD FX(tm)-8350 Eight-Core Processor [Family 21 Model 2 Stepping 0]
Measured floating point speed 2959.03 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 10149.5 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=176181

AMD FX(tm)-8350 Eight-Core Processor [Family 21 Model 2 Stepping 0]
Measured floating point speed 3238.64 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 10815.47 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=198728

AMD FX(tm)-8350 Eight-Core Processor [Family 21 Model 2 Stepping 0]
Measured floating point speed 2980.29 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 10343.18 million ops/sec
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=151474

Keep in mind these are PER logical core , listed on the cosmology page as "number of processors".


----------



## Tatakai All

It's finally good to hear something about Steamroller but until solid factual numbers backed up with benches come out I'll remain skeptical but hopeful. Bulldozer taught me a lesson that I'll never forget. Never, never build a rig around a chip that is ridiculously over hyped and unreleased. I still feel the slight after affects of Bulldozers tremendous disappointment to this day, albeit slight I skeptically hope for the best from Steamroller but expect the worst. It's all I can do as my 955 tiredly chugs along until it retires to becoming my key chain.


----------



## NaroonGTX

Quote:


> For gaming, how important are integer and floating point calculations?


Gaming relies much more heavily on integer calculations rather than FP calculations.


----------



## MrJava

A10-4600M (trinity @ 2.3 - 3.2GHz):
INT: 6497
FP: 1916

Result 17 in table.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?286803-Boinc-CPU-Benchmarks-Results

Possible conclusions:
1. The ES was wildly unstable and possibly stuck at the lowest frequency - 1.2GHz.
2. BOINC is a wildly inconsistent and unreliable measure of CPU performance because it is a multi-platform distributed computing app.

I'll go with 2. OK combo of 1 and 2.


----------



## MrJava

If your app isn't doing heavy floating point work (scientific computing, physics), then it should 90% INT or more. The GPU is much better suited to those physics and scientific computing workloads and the only barrier was the bottleneck of the PCIe bus. In 5-10 years, CPU physics will be as prevalent as CPU-based rendering is now.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> Gaming relies much more heavily on integer calculations rather than FP calculations.


----------



## PontiacGTX

amd said in an interview wwith chw that steamroller IPC increase will be 15%+ vs vishera


----------



## keiths

If AMD gets around to fixing this(http://www.mameui.info/Bench/Bench.htm) deficient performance, that would be great. Though they need +~110%, not 30.


----------



## MrJava

At 4.8GHz, even a bulldozer CPU should significantly outperform a stock-clock Core 2 Duo. So I immediately become suspicious of the binary and how well optimized it is for AMD CPUs. You can compile MAME from source; if you're going to show benchmarks from open-source software, at least prove that the benchmark was fair.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *keiths*
> 
> If AMD gets around to fixing this(http://www.mameui.info/Bench/Bench.htm) deficient performance, that would be great. Though they need +~110%, not 30.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EniGma1987*
> 
> @SpeedyVT
> Dude you are posting some of the craziest ideas I have seen in a while. And with Seronx here on the forums that is quite a feat!


Well I'd like to say it's my Frankenstein idea, but it's AMD's to fuse both GPU and CPU to work together on threads. I'm not certain how many GCN cores are on the Kevari but on Trinity it's like 384 VLIW4 cores which from my understanding that while being GCN they can also be accessed as something similar to CISC/RISC cores.


----------



## Bartouille

Good stuff right here. I really feel AMD could get back in competition with Intel since they haven't improved all that much since SB days.


----------



## nvidiaftw12

Should this not be in rumors?


----------



## NaroonGTX

That Mame benchmark has to be skewed. It must be poorly-optimized for AMD which is probably a result of the code not being updated in a very long time.

Here is the PCSX2 CPU benchmark thread to give you an idea of AMD vs. Intel from many different CPU generations, though PCSX2 is also optimized more for Intel.


----------



## keiths

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrJava*
> 
> At 4.8GHz, even a bulldozer CPU should significantly outperform a stock-clock Core 2 Duo. So I immediately become suspicious of the binary and how well optimized it is for AMD CPUs. You can compile MAME from source; if you're going to show benchmarks from open-source software, at least prove that the benchmark was fair.


The e8400 is overclocked, stock is 3 GHz, benchmarks are from the users of their forum, I supposed you could complain to them about posting them in a chart.


----------



## Liranan

What saddens me is that SR most likely won't be made for AM3+ but for FM2+ or FM3. Seems I'm keeping this 955 till I upgrade or just get an 8320 and keep that for another few years.


----------



## MrJava

I like AMD, but I'm going to be building a Haswell-E system next year. Then just to spite me, AMD will release a 6 module, 12 core, AVX-512 beast with 64 PCIe 4.0 lanes and octo-channel DDR4 memory less than 6 months later.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Liranan*
> 
> What saddens me is that SR most likely won't be made for AM3+ but for FM2+ or FM3. Seems I'm keeping this 955 till I upgrade or just get an 8320 and keep that for another few years.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SchmoSalt*
> 
> One of the major flaws of the horrible Bulldozer architecture was the lack of floating point units in half of the "cores."


None of Bulldozer's core lack an FPU. Each module shares the FPU, and only one core per module can execute 256-bit code at a time, but either core can utilize the whole FPU, and both cores can execute 128-bit code simultaneously.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zalbard*
> 
> The source never finished school and doesn't know how to count it seems.


Speak for yourself.

35% is well over 1000% more than 3%. The source was pretty clear in what it was talking about.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> HSA obsoletes L3


No, it doesn't.

HSA generally implies no L3, because there isn't really room to put on on the die economically, but it most certainly does not mean that L3 could not be used, would not be beneficial, or is "obsolete".
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrJava*
> 
> I agree though that the "1100% increase" claim is ridiculous.


The claim is that the performance increase of Steamroller over Bulldozer is 1100% higher than the difference between Vishera and Bulldozer.

If the raw benchmark scores given are accurate, this claim is accurate.

The only "ridiculous" thing here is how terrible so many people are with ratios.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Awooboowoo*
> 
> Its basically just a stat pad number that means nothing.


I completely agree that it's meaningless, but it's not inaccurate.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nvidiaftw12*
> 
> Should this not be in rumors?


Probably.


----------



## Clocknut

I am still torn between AM3+ or FM2+. Get this thing out already. I hope the release date this year include sending chips to review sites for benchmark.

I am not going to 1155/1150 socket because their motherboard is too expensive and i5 cost more & is slower than FX8350 in multi-threaded games like BF4/Crysis 3.


----------



## keiths

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clocknut*
> 
> I am still torn between AM3+ or FM2+. Get this thing out already. I hope the release date this year include sending chips to review sites for benchmark.
> 
> I am not going to 1155/1150 socket because their motherboard is too expensive and i5 cost more & is slower than FX8350 in multi-threaded games like BF4/Crysis 3.


What are you smoking?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICVeN6WEGgg#t=4m16s Listen about what happens to the minimums.
http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-beta-gpu-cpu-benchmarks/


----------



## djriful

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> Just Look at the difference from Bulldozer to Piledriver to now Steamroller! :O
> 
> Over a 30% increase in IPC from Piledriver in this specific cosmology benchmark!
> 
> 
> 
> " Thats over 1100% the jump we saw from Bulldozer to Piledriver! "
> 
> Big Thanks to Seronx for the Link!
> 
> Source


http://amdfx.blogspot.ca/ source is fake. This is proven by the last Bulldozer claiming to be faster than Intel but it was all opposite.

Flag this as rumor.

+ Don't you guys ever use http://amdfx.blogspot.ca/ website, please. I've seen this website many times. Just a troll PR website.


----------



## Opcode

hypetrain.jpg

Seriously tho... lets not even start to hype Steamroller like Bulldozer.


----------



## NaroonGTX

Yeah, AMDFX.blogspot isn't really a good place to trust. I'm pretty sure they were the ones claiming that the FX-9000 CPU's were using Steamroller cores in them.


----------



## Clocknut

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *keiths*
> 
> What are you smoking?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICVeN6WEGgg#t=4m16s Listen about what happens to the minimums.
> http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-beta-gpu-cpu-benchmarks/


I am still wondering to buy a AM3+ or FM2+ Kaveri.

FX8350 is price competitively against i5. There are at least $100 diff between the high end socket 115x board vs the high end AM3+. So there is no way I will go i5 if future gaming is what I am looking for. As for Kaveri I want to see how the SR cores and HSA will stack up against 8 cores.


----------



## keiths

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clocknut*
> 
> I am still wondering to buy a AM3+ or FM2+ Kaveri.
> 
> FX8350 is price competitively against i5. There are at least $100 diff between the high end socket 115x board vs the high end AM3+. So there is no way I will go i5 if future gaming is what I am looking for. As for Kaveri I want to see how the SR cores and HSA will stack up against 8 cores.


If assumptions are true that games are going to target next gen consoles, i5 is fine as console CPUs are lower performing even though they have more cores. This is known because the cores are already used in other AMD processors and benched(lower IPC than even bulldozer,) and the clock speeds have been revealed, really low. Given where we're at in the CPU release cycle, the choice of i5 vs 8350 would only be for a hold over chip for me. Maybe AMD pulls one out the fire, or enough so that it spurs Intel to respond with more than the trickle of nothing it's been doing and has had planned, but after that's revealed is when I'd do my real upgrade.


----------



## Namwons

if true...WHY COULDNT YOU GIVE US STEAMROLLER FOR NEXT GEN CONSOLES AMD!!!


----------



## amay200

An 8-core steamroller likely was too power hungry and too big to fit MS/SONY design goals for consoles


----------



## xd_1771

The linked source (image) that contains the "AMD Kaveri Steamroller" result does not appear to come from anywhere. In fact, what's ironic is that the image is being hosted on Overclock.net's own servers. I'm going to have to move this to rumours as the validity is very questionable.


----------



## NaroonGTX

Quote:


> This is known because the cores are already used in other AMD processors and benched(lower IPC than even bulldozer,) and the clock speeds have been revealed, really low.


Actually the cores inside the console APU's are Jaguar cores, and their IPC is more or less the same as Piledriver clock-for-clock, though the two pull away from each other depending on what type of calculations are being done. Jaguar also was never meant to clock high like Bulldozer/Piledriver/etc.
Quote:


> if true...WHY COULDNT YOU GIVE US STEAMROLLER FOR NEXT GEN CONSOLES AMD!!!


They'd be stronger but probably used more power than what Sony & Microsoft wanted in their all-in-one console solutions.


----------



## Clocknut

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *keiths*
> 
> If assumptions are true that games are going to target next gen consoles, i5 is fine as console CPUs are lower performing even though they have more cores. This is known because the cores are already used in other AMD processors and benched(lower IPC than even bulldozer,) and the clock speeds have been revealed, really low. Given where we're at in the CPU release cycle, the choice of i5 vs 8350 would only be for a hold over chip for me. Maybe AMD pulls one out the fire, or enough so that it spurs Intel to respond with more than the trickle of nothing it's been doing and has had planned, but after that's revealed is when I'd do my real upgrade.


Next gen consoles are 8 cores x86, so there is no way they will not use 8 thread. With 8 thread in mind 8350 are as fast or sometimes faster than 3570K. Besides I need to buy a new rig in these 3-4months, there is no way I can wait for streamroller 8 core at the end of 2014.

for $100 diff just on the mainboard itself then another $50 diff on the CPU, I could have use that $150 for GPU or just use pay the extra power consumption used by fx8350.

Intel CPU are awesome, but the thing sucks are their CPU+board price.


----------



## MoGTy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771*
> 
> The linked source (image) that contains the "AMD Kaveri Steamroller" result does not appear to come from anywhere. In fact, what's ironic is that the image is being hosted on Overclock.net's own servers. I'm going to have to move this to rumours as the validity is very questionable.


Yes, it's quite suspicious.

I'm guessing someone is in need of clicks on his website. The way it is setup is way too "college-student-like", very little explanation, no sources, sensationalist titles, often very picky benchmarks, graphs and sheets that seem to pop up out of nowhere, images that refer to OCN or a shady review site in German with equally questionable sources (none at all).

*I'm guessing someone on OCN is trolling us big time.*


----------



## keiths

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clocknut*
> 
> Next gen consoles are 8 cores x86, so there is no way they will not use 8 thread. With 8 thread in mind 8350 are as fast or sometimes faster than 3570K. Besides I need to buy a new rig in these 3-4months, there is no way I can wait for streamroller 8 core at the end of 2014.
> 
> for $100 diff just on the mainboard itself then another $50 diff on the CPU, I could have use that $150 for GPU or just use pay the extra power consumption used by fx8350.
> 
> Intel CPU are awesome, but the thing sucks are their CPU+board price.


I don't like Intel pricing either, which is why I bought a 3570k used, using a great resource, overclock.net's marketplace forum


----------



## Bit_reaper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clocknut*
> 
> I am still wondering to buy a AM3+ or FM2+ Kaveri.
> 
> FX8350 is price competitively against i5. There are at least $100 diff between the high end socket 115x board vs the high end AM3+. So there is no way I will go i5 if future gaming is what I am looking for. As for Kaveri I want to see how the SR cores and HSA will stack up against 8 cores.


That's not entirely accurate. There are LGA 1155 boards that have pretty much the same features as an top of the line AM3+ board and is priced similarly. The thing is that thees are usually seen as higher mid-range boards as the LGA 1155 range extends higher, if you get what I'm saying.

There aren't really any ultra high end AM3+ boards available as people who spend $190 on an CPU aren't going to be interested in +$250 motherboards. People very rarely spend more on a mobo then they do on the CPU.

On the other hand as the Intel CPU range goes all the way up to +$300 even on just the LGA 1155 socket, motherboard manufacturer have also extended the motherboard selection higher up.

But that does not mean you can buy an i5 system that is in the same price range as an AM3+ without loosing features.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clocknut*
> 
> Next gen consoles are 8 cores x86, so there is no way they will not use 8 thread. With 8 thread in mind 8350 are as fast or sometimes faster than 3570K. Besides I need to buy a new rig in these 3-4months, there is no way I can wait for streamroller 8 core at the end of 2014.
> 
> for $100 diff just on the mainboard itself then another $50 diff on the CPU, I could have use that $150 for GPU or just use pay the extra power consumption used by fx8350.
> 
> Intel CPU are awesome, but the thing sucks are their CPU+board price.


I don't see why you need to buy something new if you're already running eight cores. There is a point that where having too much power is pointless.


----------



## Clocknut

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bit_reaper*
> 
> That's not entirely accurate. There are LGA 1155 boards that have pretty much the same features as an top of the line AM3+ board and is priced similarly. The thing is that thees are usually seen as higher mid-range boards as the LGA 1155 range extends higher, if you get what I'm saying.
> 
> There aren't really any ultra high end AM3+ boards available as people who spend $190 on an CPU aren't going to be interested in +$250 motherboards. People very rarely spend more on a mobo then they do on the CPU.
> 
> On the other hand as the Intel CPU range goes all the way up to +$300 even on just the LGA 1155 socket, motherboard manufacturer have also extended the motherboard selection higher up.
> 
> But that does not mean you can buy an i5 system that is in the same price range as an AM3+ without loosing features.


I have to disagree, AMD board similar feature set are generally cheaper. For ex. Asus Sabertooth board on my area has a full $100 diff on 1155 vs AM3+. then the 3570K is $50 over FX8350. if I were to go Haswell platform, I need to top up another $75-100.

for $150 diff? Intel can keep their stuff. I am not gonna buy it. So that left me AM3+ & Kaveri.

Kaveri may be very interesting with the hUMA support, I pick a top FM2+ board for kaveri if it look +30% IPC. (since FM2+ doesnt have sabertooth). So right now it is a either Am3+ or Fm2+ platform! Darn it I really hope Kaveri is +30% IPC @ 4Ghz so the choice is clearer.


----------



## Artikbot

Provided this is right and not some cherry picked scenario, Kaveri will indeed have the guts not only to replace Trinity in my portable rig, but might even be a worthy successor to my Phenom II!


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clocknut*
> 
> I am still torn between AM3+ or FM2+. Get this thing out already. I hope the release date this year include sending chips to review sites for benchmark.
> 
> I am not going to 1155/1150 socket because their motherboard is too expensive and i5 cost more & is slower than FX8350 in multi-threaded games like BF4/Crysis 3.


FM2+ isn't going to have anything with more than four cores for quite a while, which means it's going to be slower than the i5s and the eight-core FX parts.

LGA-1150/1155 boards aren't that expensive unless you go feature crazy. You do not need a massive VRM to overclock these parts. A 60-70 dollar board will take any Ivy or Haswell to near it's maximum air cooled potential.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> Actually the cores inside the console APU's are Jaguar cores, and their IPC is more or less the same as Piledriver clock-for-clock


Multithreaded IPC is pretty close or slightly in Jaguar's favor (mostly independent cores, better intercore bandwidth/latency), but it's single threaded IPC is a decent bit less (two-issue cores).


----------



## EniGma1987

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MoGTy*
> 
> Yes, it's quite suspicious.
> *I'm guessing someone on OCN is trolling us big time.*


It says in the OP the link is from Seronx, who is well known to tell people wildly inaccurate information as "fact" with no proof to back it up in any way.


----------



## AnnoyinDemon

Nice! The site looks like a 14 year old boy made it ;/


----------



## timma100

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nuklearwax*
> 
> Please be true. I am going to finally upgrade off this 955 early next year and if there is no Steamroller by then I'll be building my first Intel rig ever.


Join the dark side, just dropped in a 4670K and Z87 Sabertooth, from my 955BE its an amazing difference


----------



## Derp

amdfx.blogspot.com.

Good joke.


----------



## MrJava

In bulldozer/piledriver the decode alternates between cores so at max 2 instructions are dispatched per cycle. This is the same as jaguar.
Branch fusion doesn't really help this number since it happens post-decode.
Also jaguar has the same 2 ALU/2 AGU/1 MUL/1 DIV integer execution units as bulldozer/piledriver along with better per-core FPU resources if all cores are loaded.
Jaguar is only really limited by its half-clocked L2 cache and single channel memory.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Multithreaded IPC is pretty close or slightly in Jaguar's favor (mostly independent cores, better intercore bandwidth/latency), but it's single threaded IPC is a decent bit less (two-issue cores).


The numbers aren't made up though. They're from [email protected] Unfortunately, we really don't what the clock speeds and memory speed/timings are so its hard to make solid conclusions.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> amdfx.blogspot.com.
> 
> Good joke.


----------



## MoGTy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EniGma1987*
> 
> It says in the OP the link is from Seronx, who is well known to tell people wildly inaccurate information as "fact" with no proof to back it up in any way.


Aha I didn't realize that was a name. My bad.


----------



## sdlvx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> Depending on your point of view, the singlethreaded performance of Piledriver ranges from a slight annoyance to a crippling hindrance. The result is Intel holding a 50% or more lead in some performance starved games, while not really losing any benchmarks with i7. If you happen to play those games and seek performance, it would be silly to get FX. If you don't play any of them or care about singlethreaded performance, you can pocket your saved money and be within a few hairs of i5/i7.
> 
> As someone who prefers high framerates to graphical effects, i've found myself being unable to satisfy myself with performance recently in many of the games i played, long time sc2 player, was thinking of buying rome 2 with some friends, meanwhile looking at Natural Selection 2.. Friend of mine spent like $200 on Planetside 2, i played gw2 for a few hundred hours, and now in bf4 beta, a lot of my frametimes were far worse than what i wanted. On 720p low settings, quite a few frames longer than 15-20ms, as much as 3-5% of them slower than 16.7ms (slow enough to miss a 60hz refresh) so i'm more inclined to get the best CPU available (4770k or 4930k, depending on the game) even if it costs extra, rather than saving money on something that is "good enough" for "most" applications. I do like the FX design though and if Steamroller is close enough in singlethreaded performance to not get completely destroyed in some of my favourite games (or lets be honest, if engine development standards improve) then it will be a very interesting fight!
> 
> 
> 
> As you say, it varies by game...But most either run fast enough on a Core 2 Quad to be maxed out already, let alone an FX, or make use of enough threads to still ensure the AMD CPU offers good enough performance. Clearly people should base their purchases purely off what they play alone and not from benchmarks that mean nothing to them.
> 
> For you (Playing SC2 among others) single-threaded/dual-threaded performance is what matters and Intel is by far the best choice but if SC2 was able to use up to 8 threads and used Microsoft's compiler (Not sure if it uses ICC or not) then I'd wager an FX would be faster than an i5 3570k, but slower than an i7 3770k and matching an i5 4670k.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *sdlvx*
> 
> Also this is for IPC, not overall clockspeed. I don't get how you Intel guys can rant and rave about IPC and then there's an AMD benchmark which shows _significant_ IPC increase in a certain area and you dismiss it? It's an ES, there have been TONS of PD and BD ES that ran at 1.8ghz or lower. An ES at 1.8ghz doesn't mean anything in regards to overall clockspeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the IPC argument has always been complete crap from start to finish, IPC matters as much as clock speed does on its own.
> 
> The general lack of knowledge by people going on and on about IPC for AMD is further proven by how many of them assumed IPC = Single-threaded performance too...You could have a single-threaded CPU with ultra low IPC but high clock speeds (Pentium 4, for example) or a highly-threaded CPU with high IPC and low clock speed. (Xeons at stock speeds)
> A lot of Intel owners seem to not realize that AMD isn't as far behind as plenty of people make it seem and that all in all, an FX 8 core is faster than an i5 3570k due to its extra cores and will last longer than one too.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *maarten12100*
> 
> Intel might have ditched P3 derivatives and made a fresh arch though I doubt it they rather money grab and just shrink that die more than innovate without reason(for them).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's little reason for them to do so, though. Besides, while the current ones are P6 (Architecture name, actually was introduced with the Pentium Pro, rebranded into the Pentium II then the III, reworked into the III SSE models and finally nearly completely reworked into Pentium M) they're nearly completely redesigned since being a Pentium 3 or the like, you could probably trace the heritage back by going from Haswell to Sandy to Nehalem to Conroe etc but likely looking at a Pentium III die shot next to a Haswell die shot you would see very little in common.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Seid Dark*
> 
> My previous AMD chip was Opteron 144 (Athlon 64), really great performance and oc potential. Hopefully Steamroller will finally deliver, Intel has been dominating since Conroe. It's boring that for last 6 years Intel has been the only option for enthusiasts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dominating the high-end, yes, but Phenom II and the recent APUs have been great budget CPUs even for enthusiasts.
> 
> And besides, not everyone games...There's a few tasks where an FX-8350 matched or beat a i7 3770k, especially if you use Linux where the ICC advantage is null and void.
Click to expand...

I think you missed my point. There were PD ES that ran at 1.8ghz and now an SR ES shows up at 1.8ghz. PD scaled to 5ghz stock chips. Just because some SR ES shows up at 1.8ghz doesn't mean that SR clocks poorly.

Also, yes, the site is bad, but if you checked the links he's just pulling a WCCFTech and translating a rumor he found elsewhere. The rumor actually came from a respectable website and it showed up as official on the cosmology website. The only thing that is questionable is the guy who is reposting it. We don't come here and go "oh boy sdlvx posted a link to something AMD-related, I don't know who he is so I bet his source is garbage"

Anyways, this is right before the APU dev summit, meaning it's the perfect time for a "leak" to get people talking about products.

But of course it's a rumor, but as such you should at least treat it as a half truth and put a little more effort into it than "lol amdfx.blogspot crap site moving on!"


----------



## sugarhell

Still people believe that only ipc matters. IPS matters. Nothing else.


----------



## polyzp

wccftech stole my post! no credit given hah!

http://wccftech.com/amd-kaveri-steamroller-performance-revealed-integor-point-results-show-viable-competition-haswell/

I am the real AMDFX


----------



## sdlvx

Quote:


> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> Depending on your point of view, the singlethreaded performance of Piledriver ranges from a slight annoyance to a crippling hindrance. The result is Intel holding a 50% or more lead in some performance starved games, while not really losing any benchmarks with i7. If you happen to play those games and seek performance, it would be silly to get FX. If you don't play any of them or care about singlethreaded performance, you can pocket your saved money and be within a few hairs of i5/i7.
> 
> As someone who prefers high framerates to graphical effects, i've found myself being unable to satisfy myself with performance recently in many of the games i played, long time sc2 player, was thinking of buying rome 2 with some friends, meanwhile looking at Natural Selection 2.. Friend of mine spent like $200 on Planetside 2, i played gw2 for a few hundred hours, and now in bf4 beta, a lot of my frametimes were far worse than what i wanted. On 720p low settings, quite a few frames longer than 15-20ms, as much as 3-5% of them slower than 16.7ms (slow enough to miss a 60hz refresh) so i'm more inclined to get the best CPU available (4770k or 4930k, depending on the game) even if it costs extra, rather than saving money on something that is "good enough" for "most" applications. I do like the FX design though and if Steamroller is close enough in singlethreaded performance to not get completely destroyed in some of my favourite games (or lets be honest, if engine development standards improve) then it will be a very interesting fight!
> 
> 
> 
> As you say, it varies by game...But most either run fast enough on a Core 2 Quad to be maxed out already, let alone an FX, or make use of enough threads to still ensure the AMD CPU offers good enough performance. Clearly people should base their purchases purely off what they play alone and not from benchmarks that mean nothing to them.
> 
> For you (Playing SC2 among others) single-threaded/dual-threaded performance is what matters and Intel is by far the best choice but if SC2 was able to use up to 8 threads and used Microsoft's compiler (Not sure if it uses ICC or not) then I'd wager an FX would be faster than an i5 3570k, but slower than an i7 3770k and matching an i5 4670k.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *sdlvx*
> 
> Also this is for IPC, not overall clockspeed. I don't get how you Intel guys can rant and rave about IPC and then there's an AMD benchmark which shows _significant_ IPC increase in a certain area and you dismiss it? It's an ES, there have been TONS of PD and BD ES that ran at 1.8ghz or lower. An ES at 1.8ghz doesn't mean anything in regards to overall clockspeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the IPC argument has always been complete crap from start to finish, IPC matters as much as clock speed does on its own.
> 
> The general lack of knowledge by people going on and on about IPC for AMD is further proven by how many of them assumed IPC = Single-threaded performance too...You could have a single-threaded CPU with ultra low IPC but high clock speeds (Pentium 4, for example) or a highly-threaded CPU with high IPC and low clock speed. (Xeons at stock speeds)
> A lot of Intel owners seem to not realize that AMD isn't as far behind as plenty of people make it seem and that all in all, an FX 8 core is faster than an i5 3570k due to its extra cores and will last longer than one too.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *maarten12100*
> 
> Intel might have ditched P3 derivatives and made a fresh arch though I doubt it they rather money grab and just shrink that die more than innovate without reason(for them).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's little reason for them to do so, though. Besides, while the current ones are P6 (Architecture name, actually was introduced with the Pentium Pro, rebranded into the Pentium II then the III, reworked into the III SSE models and finally nearly completely reworked into Pentium M) they're nearly completely redesigned since being a Pentium 3 or the like, you could probably trace the heritage back by going from Haswell to Sandy to Nehalem to Conroe etc but likely looking at a Pentium III die shot next to a Haswell die shot you would see very little in common.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Seid Dark*
> 
> My previous AMD chip was Opteron 144 (Athlon 64), really great performance and oc potential. Hopefully Steamroller will finally deliver, Intel has been dominating since Conroe. It's boring that for last 6 years Intel has been the only option for enthusiasts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dominating the high-end, yes, but Phenom II and the recent APUs have been great budget CPUs even for enthusiasts.
> 
> And besides, not everyone games...There's a few tasks where an FX-8350 matched or beat a i7 3770k, especially if you use Linux where the ICC advantage is null and void.
Click to expand...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Still people believe that only ipc matters. IPS matters. Nothing else.


yeah, but people are just assuming that higher iPC for SR means lower clocks because we're looking at an ES running at 1.8ghz. That is the point I'm trying to make, that we don't know anything about maximum clockrate of SR right now and to suggest that it only runs at 1.8ghz is foolish.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> wccftech stole my post! no credit given hah!
> 
> http://wccftech.com/amd-kaveri-steamroller-performance-revealed-integor-point-results-show-viable-competition-haswell/
> 
> I am the real AMDFX


Oh you guys, stop fighting over reposting things lol.


----------



## sugarhell

Always es models clocks is around 1.8~2 ghz. Nothing to see here


----------



## Alatar

Unless ES clocks are extremely high (read faster than last retail) they mean absolutely nothing. And out of the box clocks don't really mean much here either.

Hell intel has 1.6ghz ES chips all the time.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clocknut*
> 
> I have to disagree, AMD board similar feature set are generally cheaper. For ex. Asus Sabertooth board on my area has a full $100 diff on 1155 vs AM3+. then the 3570K is $50 over FX8350. if I were to go Haswell platform, I need to top up another $75-100.


990FX sabertooth =/= Z87 sabertooth. The intel board is most definitely better, has more features, is more up to date etc.

Besides, in the states it's more like a $50 difference between the mobos.

You can't just look at sabertooth vs. sabertooth or UD3 vs. UD3 etc. You have to compare the feature sets of the boards. AM3+ and 990FX have been experiencing the same thing X79 did, the mainstream stuff is more up to date and comes with better and newer features. At least X79 got some updates with IB-E but it's still pretty pathetic compared to Z87. Haswell boards are such a joy to use. Every time I start tweaking one of my AM3+ CPUs it feels like a throwback to 2009 and 2010, X58 era boards.


----------



## tjwolf88

Wonder is IPS per Watt will be anywhere near Nehalem?


----------



## Tsumi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> FM2+ isn't going to have anything with more than four cores for quite a while, which means it's going to be slower than the i5s and the eight-core FX parts.
> 
> LGA-1150/1155 boards aren't that expensive unless you go feature crazy. You do not need a massive VRM to overclock these parts. A 60-70 dollar board will take any Ivy or Haswell to near it's maximum air cooled potential.
> Multithreaded IPC is pretty close or slightly in Jaguar's favor (mostly independent cores, better intercore bandwidth/latency), but it's single threaded IPC is a decent bit less (two-issue cores).


Single threaded performance is still more important for most gamers on here though. There are very few situations where more than 4 cores would benefit. Sure, there are a few big games coming which state more cores is better, but what about all the rest?


----------



## Moragg

If the 290 series is any indication, AMD is capable of putting out some very nice silicon with rubbish coolers. Not something I'd mind at all in SR/EX/whatever we get next from AMD.


----------



## os2wiz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Caldeio*
> 
> 30% ipc increase puts it at 3770k/4770k. Multithreaded, its prolly ilke the i5's since rumors are that it's a 4 core.


It is NOT rumor that steamroller is 4 core. it is fact.


----------



## PureBlackFire

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alatar*
> 
> Unless ES clocks are extremely high (read faster than last retail) they mean absolutely nothing. And out of the box clocks don't really mean much here either.
> 
> Hell intel has 1.6ghz ES chips all the time.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Clocknut*
> 
> I have to disagree, AMD board similar feature set are generally cheaper. For ex. Asus Sabertooth board on my area has a full $100 diff on 1155 vs AM3+. then the 3570K is $50 over FX8350. if I were to go Haswell platform, I need to top up another $75-100.
> 
> 
> 
> 990FX sabertooth =/= Z87 sabertooth. The intel board is most definitely better, has more features, is more up to date etc.
> 
> Besides, in the states it's more like a $50 difference between the mobos.
> 
> You can't just look at sabertooth vs. sabertooth or UD3 vs. UD3 etc. You have to compare the feature sets of the boards. AM3+ and 990FX have been experiencing the same thing X79 did, the mainstream stuff is more up to date and comes with better and newer features. At least X79 got some updates with IB-E but it's still pretty pathetic compared to Z87. Haswell boards are such a joy to use. Every time I start tweaking one of my AM3+ CPUs it feels like a throwback to 2009 and 2010, X58 era boards.
Click to expand...

This. AM3+ boards are at best directly comparable to Z68 boards. There hasn't been anything _new_ going on on that socket since.


----------



## os2wiz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tsumi*
> 
> Single threaded performance is still more important for most gamers on here though. There are very few situations where more than 4 cores would benefit. Sure, there are a few big games coming which state more cores is better, but what about all the rest?[/quote
> 
> I am NOT a gamer. I could care less about single thread performance unless it is also linked to large core cpu like 8 cores.For decoding , Photoshop, and Premier, multithreading is more important.


----------



## Yeroon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *os2wiz*
> 
> It is NOT rumor that steamroller is 4 core. it is fact.


No its not, cause SR is core architecture. Thats like saying Haswell is X cores, fact.

Kaveri is supposed to be 4cpu core, 8 gpu cu's (8x64cores). But nothing to do with Kaveri or SR is really a fact, besides that its coming to FM2+.


----------



## os2wiz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yeroon*
> 
> No its not, cause SR is core architecture. Thats like saying Haswell is X cores, fact.
> 
> Kaveri is supposed to be 4cpu core, 8 gpu cu's (8x64cores). But nothing to do with Kaveri or SR is really a fact, besides that its coming to FM2+.


How much will you wager that there will be no 8 core steamroller cpu in 2014 when the road map is released on November 11 ?


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Okay now I'm getting a laptop next year, anyone have any idea what the SR A10 will have in terms of iGPU?

I need at least 512 SPs at at least 700mhz.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *os2wiz*
> 
> How much will you wager that there will be no 8 core steamroller cpu in 2014 when the road map is released on November 11 ?


Remember remember, the Eleventh of November.

Will they lift NDA on the SRs that day?


----------



## os2wiz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *edalbkrad*
> 
> this isnt even a rumor so it shouldnt be in the rumors section, it should just be deleted.
> 
> what the hell is a cosmology benchmark anyway? benchmarking the universe?[/quote Actually I think they meant cosmetology. Somebody was having a big hair day. LOL.


----------



## os2wiz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Remember remember, the Eleventh of November.
> 
> Will they lift NDA on the SRs that day?


Iwould assume so, since that is the first day of the AMD APU ( Developers) Conference, when the road maps will be made public.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Moragg*
> 
> If the 290 series is any indication, AMD is capable of putting out some very nice silicon with rubbish coolers. Not something I'd mind at all in SR/EX/whatever we get next from AMD.


*FACEPALM* No fresh baked video card gets the nice coolers till the second batch. That's when I buy!


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *os2wiz*
> 
> How much will you wager that there will be no 8 core steamroller cpu in 2014 when the road map is released on November 11 ?


No bets, but AMD did say they wanted to put out an eight core. Perhaps it'll be the revision of steamroller, like the HSA addon in the revised trinity processors AKA richlands.


----------



## Yeroon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> No bets, but AMD did say they wanted to put out an eight core. Perhaps it'll be the revision of steamroller, like the HSA addon in the revised trinity processors AKA richlands.


Richlands do not have HSA. They are just better silicon Trinities, that clock properly.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yeroon*
> 
> Richlands do not have HSA. They are just better silicon Trinities, that clock properly.


I beg to differ. It's definitely not the same level as Kevari, but it's an adolescent version of. Allowing memory sharing and so fourth. Basically a 2.5 gen.


----------



## Lumo841

Everyone should get super duper excited!!!! So they can get super duper disappointed.


----------



## M1kuTheAwesome

I was gonna save up for upgrading my graphics, but now I'm tempting to move on from Bulldozer... Too much awesome stuff coming out, too little money to buy it all. Dammit dammit dammit.


----------



## Demonkev666

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lumo841*
> 
> Everyone should get super duper excited!!!! So they can get super duper disappointed.


this is basically what will probably happen in the end


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lumo841*
> 
> Everyone should get super duper excited!!!! So they can get super duper disappointed.


I'm excited but not for performance or anything. Just more or less for the better architectural design of the chips. Some people like me get kicks out of stuff like this. Can't wait to analyze and read about it once released.


----------



## Tojara

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> I beg to differ. It's definitely not the same level as Kevari, but it's an adolescent version of. Allowing memory sharing and so fourth. Basically a 2.5 gen.


No, Richland is literally Trinity with higher clock speeds due to improved power management.
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_a106800k_a106700_richland_apu/images/5.htm


----------



## Lumo841

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> I'm excited but not for performance or anything. Just more or less for the better architectural design of the chips. Some people like me get kicks out of stuff like this. Can't wait to analyze and read about it once released.


The point of new and better architecture is better performance, so if Steamroller turns out to suck, (crossing my fingers it won't, honestly competition is great for consumers.) it's just a waste. And looking at that source made me think of this


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tojara*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> I beg to differ. It's definitely not the same level as Kevari, but it's an adolescent version of. Allowing memory sharing and so fourth. Basically a 2.5 gen.
> 
> 
> 
> No, Richland is literally Trinity with higher clock speeds due to improved power management.
> http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_a106800k_a106700_richland_apu/images/5.htm
Click to expand...

Doesn't Richland also have 50% more GPU cores? Or am I mistaken?


----------



## Yeroon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> I beg to differ. It's definitely not the same level as Kevari, but it's an adolescent version of. Allowing memory sharing and so fourth. Basically a 2.5 gen.


Trinity does the same thing, its not new to Richland. What was new was some software facial recognition "gimmicks".
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ExtremeTech.com*
> Trinity, the company's latest APU available to consumers, beefs up the GPU and CPU interconnects with the Radeon Memory Bus and FCL connections. These allow the GPU access to system memory and the CPU to access the GPU frame buffer through a 256-bit and 128-bit wide bus (per channel, each direction) respectively. This allows the graphics core and x86 processor modules to access the same memory areas and communicate with each other.


Edit :
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Doesn't Richland also have 50% more GPU cores? Or am I mistaken?


384 cores vs 384 makes it same gpu - just 44mhz higher base clock for richland


----------



## NaroonGTX

People will only be disappointed if they are stupid enough to hype up the product when hardly anything has been revealed about it. I'm buying Kaveri either way it goes, I know what the general performance increase will be (for the CPU anyway), but I'm not gonna sit here and hope that it somehow surpasses Haswell or anything. Don't be silly, guys.

Also it IS a fact that Kaveri will feature up to 4 cores. This has been confirmed for ages now. It's been on the roadmaps since forever.

EDIT: Richland was a revision of Trinity which enabled RCM (Resonant Clock Mesh) to achieve higher clocks at the same power consumption of the previous gen. RCM was physically on the original Piledriver (Vishera and Trinity) chips, but wasn't enabled.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lumo841*
> 
> The point of new and better architecture is better performance, so if Steamroller turns out to suck, (crossing my fingers it won't, honestly competition is great for consumers.) it's just a waste. And looking at that source made me think of this


Sometimes you've got to step back to move forward. Bulldozer was a step back from their conventional architecture for a better one later on.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tojara*
> 
> No, Richland is literally Trinity with higher clock speeds due to improved power management.
> http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_a106800k_a106700_richland_apu/images/5.htm


It adds some HSA features where memory isn't parked something. It's not a true HSA, just a baby step.


----------



## Opcode

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> I beg to differ. It's definitely not the same level as Kevari, but it's an adolescent version of. Allowing memory sharing and so fourth. Basically a 2.5 gen.


Richland is Trinity, the only thing different is the implementation of RCM. Thanks to RCM AMD could clock the chips higher while maintaining the same TDP and power consumption as Trinity. This is why the 5800k struggles to break above 4.6 GHz and the 6800k can hold 5.0 GHz with ease.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Doesn't Richland also have 50% more GPU cores? Or am I mistaken?


No, same exact chip just different GPU core layout pattern.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Opcode*
> 
> Richland is Trinity, the only thing different is the implementation of RCM. Thanks to RCM AMD could clock the chips higher while maintaining the same TDP and power consumption as Trinity. This is why the 5800k struggles to break above 4.6 GHz and the 6800k can hold 5.0 GHz with ease.
> No, same exact chip just different GPU core layout pattern.


RCM exists in a10-5800k, the better clocks are because of the improved cores.


----------



## Lumo841

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> Sometimes you've got to step back to move forward. Bulldozer was a step back from their conventional architecture for a better one later on.


Right... Is that why you are still running a 1075T? And what step forward has AMD made yet? None. Your defense for them is amusing.

At least their GPU's don't suck.


----------



## keiths

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> Sometimes you've got to step back to move forward. Bulldozer was a step back from their conventional architecture for a better one later on.


Like pointing a gun at your foot and pulling the trigger is tying your shoe, Bulldozer was AMD tripping and falling on their faces, the result of it was the loss of market share and a bunch of AMD'rs getting fired.


----------



## NaroonGTX

A lot of the people who got fired were responsible for the fiasco in the first place. AMD was under terrible management at the time. The current AMD is an entirely different company.


----------



## rusky1

Is there a download link to the benchmark? I want to bench my rig on it.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lumo841*
> 
> Right... Is that why you are still running a 1075T? And what step forward has AMD made yet? None. Your defense for them is amusing.


I'm too lazy to update what I have because lame people like you will criticize. I'm not defending anyone.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Opcode*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Doesn't Richland also have 50% more GPU cores? Or am I mistaken?
> 
> 
> 
> No, same exact chip just different GPU core layout pattern.
Click to expand...

Okay, I see. A10/A8/A6/A4 is like i7/i5/i3 - it indicates performance within a generation, not the architecture. Apparently though, A10 Trinity has a 7660D while A10 Richland has an 8670D, but both are 384 cores. I guess the difference is more jiggahertz?


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> A lot of the people who got fired were responsible for the fiasco in the first place. AMD was under terrible management at the time. The current AMD is an entirely different company.


A lot of the people who got fired were CEOs I believe who pushed an incomplete product out. Not any chief engineers. Chief Architect quit because of the CEO.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Okay, I see. A10/A8/A6/A4 is like i7/i5/i3 - it indicates performance within a generation, not the architecture. Apparently though, A10 Trinity has a 7660D while A10 Richland has an 8670D, but both are 384 cores. I guess the difference is more jiggahertz?


Yeah more jiggahertz, higher memory support and improved cores.


----------



## NaroonGTX

Quote:


> Apparently though, A10 Trinity has a 7660D while A10 Richland has an 8670D, but both are 384 cores. I guess the difference is more jiggahertz?


The GPU is the same, they just changed the name of it to please OEM's and such (just like how the HD 8000 series were all just 7000 series rebrands, it's to make the OEM's happy.)
Quote:


> A lot of the people who got fired were CEOs I believe who pushed an incomplete product out. Not any chief engineers.


Yeah, the engineers were the ones who were ignored by the terrible management. They asked for more time to refine Bulldozer but the management wanted them to rush it out.


----------



## Opcode

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> RCM exists in a10-5800k, the better clocks are because of the improved cores.


AMD didn't fully implement RCM until Richland. Trinity may have an early implementation of it, tho the A10-5800k and the A10-6800k are the same exact chip. With the Richland variant having a much improved RCM.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Okay, I see. A10/A8/A6/A4 is like i7/i5/i3 - it indicates performance within a generation, not the architecture. Apparently though, A10 Trinity has a 7660D while A10 Richland has an 8670D, but both are 384 cores. I guess the difference is more jiggahertz?


Pretty much, AMD threw out a new name as it was a new product. It wouldn't be appealing if they said the A10 Richland has the same 7660D that the A10 Trinity had.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> A lot of the people who got fired were CEOs I believe who pushed an incomplete product out. Not any chief engineers. Chief Architect quit because of the CEO.


There's only ONE CEO, so how can a bunch of them get fired?

They ended up firing 10% of their work force.
http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/pr-3-11-11.aspx


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> There's only ONE CEO, so how can a bunch of them get fired?
> 
> They ended up firing 10% of their work force.
> http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/pr-3-11-11.aspx


I don't know sometimes I speak in plural when I mean singular. The 10% was the backlash to the CEO's choice of pushing bulldozer. You know ripple effect?

"Hello! AMD Staff 1/10 of you must go because our CEO chose to do something stupid that which our Chief Engineers spoke against doing!"

Not a grammar Nazi but I believe I'm doing better than Yoda.


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> There's only ONE CEO, so how can a bunch of them get fired?
> 
> They ended up firing 10% of their work force.
> http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/pr-3-11-11.aspx


Imagine how many people were hired by the previous management that wasn't needed.

A new AMD, slimmer in workforce and in expenses, has already achieved more feats than the old AMD did in six or seven years.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> Imagine how many people were hired by the previous management that wasn't needed.
> 
> A new AMD, slimmer in workforce and in expenses, has already achieved more feats than the old AMD did in six or seven years.


That could also be from not owning as many plants too! Those plants can freely make other products while making products on contract with AMD. WIN WIN if you ask me.


----------



## NaroonGTX

About AMD's previous management and large percentages of the employees ragequitting because of that -- I made a post about this in another topic recently, have fun: http://www.overclock.net/t/1437381/what-happened-to-amd/0_50#post_21068314

One of my favorite bits is when Dick Meyer was speaking to 100 employees in Sunnyvale and told them that if they "didn't like it, [they should] quit." Within a month, 60 out of 100 of them were gone. Kinda puts things into perspective. Lots of info about Nex Gen and DEC Alpha teams working on the various K6/K7/K8 uarchs and such, AMD management's decisions to replace small concentrated teams of highly-skilled engineers with teams of large amounts of inexperienced ones, etc.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> About AMD's previous management and large percentages of the employees ragequitting because of that -- I made a post about this in another topic recently, have fun: http://www.overclock.net/t/1437381/what-happened-to-amd/0_50#post_21068314
> 
> One of my favorite bits is when Dick Meyer was speaking to 100 employees in Sunnyvale and told them that if they "didn't like it, [they should] quit." Within a month, 60 out of 100 of them were gone. Kinda puts things into perspective. Lots of info about Nex Gen and DEC Alpha teams working on the various K6/K7/K8 uarchs and such, AMD management's decisions to replace small concentrated teams of highly-skilled engineers with teams of large amounts of inexperienced ones, etc.


With a name like Dick Meyer I believe you. Sometimes the inexperienced engineers are the one's who help avoid roadblocks in product design. A lot of highly skilled engineers will often think too high of their knowledge and overlook newer better procedural methods, but not all. The right mix of inexperience and experience is important.


----------



## Yeroon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> RCM exists in a10-5800k, the better clocks are because of the improved cores.


The cores are the same. If the fix was the RCM, that would allow better clocking. Howeer IPC is the same between the two, as is its mem architecture.

The gpu is also the exact same vliw4 384 unit used in trinity, and performs as such. 2133 support was added to richland but trinity does just as well regarding memory.

Look back a couple years for when the CFO took over as temp CEO and implemented project "win". Some terrible decisions made by and under that temp CEO.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yeroon*
> 
> The cores are the same. If the fix was the RCM, that would allow better clocking. Howeer IPC is the same between the two, as is its mem architecture.
> 
> The gpu is also the exact same vliw4 384 unit used in trinity, and performs as such. 2133 support was added to richland but trinity does just as well regarding memory.
> 
> Look back a couple years for when the CFO took over as temp CEO and implemented project "win". Some terrible decisions made by and under that temp CEO.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Accelerated_Processing_Unit#Richland

Never said the GPU changed, just better ram support between processor and gpu. The cores are enhanced piledrivers. Things don't have to aesthetically change on the chip diagram/layout for improvements. Not going to debate it further but the a10-6800k is better because of the better HSA improvements, Kevari will be another step toward true HSA and everything after will be true HSA. Even a10-5800k was HSA but every update to the chips they add a new feature to it or stabilize previous ones. You're not wrong, but we have two totally different perspectives on this matter.


----------



## NaroonGTX

Quote:


> blindly following/defending a company that hasn't made forward progress in the past three years.


This is ridiculous. Sure, on the CPU side they haven't surpassed PII performance levels (when it comes to single-threaded perf anyway), but that doesn't invalidate all the other things they've done. Even that will change in a few months. Their APU's have been selling like hotcakes since they were introduced in 2011, and they've been slowly working towards HSA which is basically the future of computing. They've got their tech inside all three of the consoles (PS4, X1, and Wii U) and combined with Mantle on PC, will result in tons of positives for everyone involved. They've been refining their Bulldozer uarch steadily with decent revisions with the latest one just around the corner.

To suggest that they've been stagnant is ridiculous, just saying.


----------



## Lumo841

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> This is ridiculous. Sure, on the CPU side they haven't surpassed PII performance levels (when it comes to single-threaded perf anyway), but that doesn't invalidate all the other things they've done. Even that will change in a few months. Their APU's have been selling like hotcakes since they were introduced in 2011, and they've been slowly working towards HSA which is basically the future of computing. They've got their tech inside all three of the consoles (PS4, X1, and Wii U) and combined with Mantle on PC, will result in tons of positives for everyone involved. They've been refining their Bulldozer uarch steadily with decent revisions with the latest one just around the corner.
> 
> To suggest that they've been stagnant is ridiculous, just saying.


Since this is a CPU thread that is what I was referring too. Their APU's have made great progress and I wish I had waited for the 290X before I picked up a 780. Their current line of enthusiast CPU's blow.


----------



## tweezlednutball

at the price point the fx-8350 is a good value and so isnt the 6xxx period.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lumo841*
> 
> ...a company that hasn't made forward progress in the past three years.


Ah, ya went there! 'K, so neither side has really had any major improvements in architecture other than power consumption, which doesn't really concern us. Haswell is, what, 5% better? Ivy Bridge was 5% too? Bulldozer to Piledriver is a similar performance boost to Sandy Bridge to Haswell and, if I understand it correctly, more like a "tick" instead of a "tock," to use Intel's terminology. Both Bulldozer and Piledriver (and Steamroller!) are 28nm 32nm (EDIT: That's GPUs, wrong component!), while Sandy/Ivy Bridge to Haswell/Broadwell is a die shrink from X to Y that I don't know off the top of my head.


----------



## tweezlednutball

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Ah, ya went there! 'K, so neither side has really had any major improvements in architecture other than power consumption, which doesn't really concern us. Haswell is, what, 5% better? Ivy Bridge was 5% too? Bulldozer to Piledriver is a similar performance boost to Sandy Bridge to Haswell and, if I understand it correctly, more like a "tick" instead of a "tock," to use Intel's terminology. Both Bulldozer and Piledriver (and Steamroller!) are 28nm, while Sandy/Ivy Bridge to Haswell/Broadwell is a die shrink from X to Y that I don't know off the top of my head.


Bulldozer and Piledriver are 32nm


----------



## Clocknut

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alatar*
> 
> Unless ES clocks are extremely high (read faster than last retail) they mean absolutely nothing. And out of the box clocks don't really mean much here either.
> 
> Hell intel has 1.6ghz ES chips all the time.
> 990FX sabertooth =/= Z87 sabertooth. The intel board is most definitely better, has more features, is more up to date etc.
> 
> Besides, in the states it's more like a $50 difference between the mobos.
> 
> You can't just look at sabertooth vs. sabertooth or UD3 vs. UD3 etc. You have to compare the feature sets of the boards. AM3+ and 990FX have been experiencing the same thing X79 did, the mainstream stuff is more up to date and comes with better and newer features. At least X79 got some updates with IB-E but it's still pretty pathetic compared to Z87. Haswell boards are such a joy to use. Every time I start tweaking one of my AM3+ CPUs it feels like a throwback to 2009 and 2010, X58 era boards.


on my area, it is over $150 diff for 8350 + sabertooth AM3+ vs the 3570K+ sabertooth, there is noway I can ignore that. If i go for Haswell i5-K series I need to top up another $75. for the diff of $150-225 I am rather put it on GPU. the biggest problem is the board are at least $100 cheaper.
I looked into those features, they are pretty much the same, the PCIE 3.0 are worthless especially 990FX can do PCIE2.0 16x for 2 GPUs. We all know that is more than sufficient for it.

Right now I am holding it off for Kaveri, I wanna see how is Kaveri IPC, if it is equal to Nehelem 1156/1366 IPC. I am quite satisfied with it, I might dial down my budget just for this HSA thing. It is either a mid-highend system or a Mainstream Kaveri setup.


----------



## polyzp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> Sometimes you've got to step back to move forward. Bulldozer was a step back from their conventional architecture for a better one later on.
> It adds some HSA features where memory isn't parked something. It's not a true HSA, just a baby step.


The jump from the 1100t to the FX 8150 was more significant than you think! At ~5 Ghz the 8150 is no joke of a chip.


----------



## AlphaC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rusky1*
> 
> Is there a download link to the benchmark? I want to bench my rig on it.


[email protected] is part of BOINC.

Just go to Advanced mode, Advanced ----> run CPU benchmarks.

http://boinc.berkeley.edu/wiki/File:Mgradvanced70.png

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?286803-Boinc-CPU-Benchmarks-Results
http://forums.evga.com/tm.aspx?m=1329235


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> The jump from the 1100t to the FX 8150 was more significant than you think! At ~5 Ghz the 8150 is no joke of a chip.


Not where I was getting at, but I do see your point. However it was a step back in terms of IPC, but it was progress in works. Without bulldozer there wouldn't be piledriver.


----------



## polyzp

I would bet that an 8150 at 5 Ghz (32 nm) from 2011 is a better gaming CPU than the i5-4670k at 4.5 Ghz (22 nm) from 2013 in modern games that take advantage of all 8 cores.


----------



## NaroonGTX

Glad we could get this topic back on track.

Just two more weeks until APU '13!


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> I would bet that an 8150 at 5 Ghz (32 nm) from 2011 is a better gaming CPU than the i5-4670k at 4.5 Ghz (22 nm) from 2013 in modern games that take advantage of all 8 cores.


Probably true as long as the games are offloading FP instructions on to the GPU.


----------



## polyzp

The whole point of AMDFX.blogspot.com was to point out that overclocked Bulldozer shined, while stock it was confined! AMD finally pushed their clocks our the box now to 5 Ghz because they knew that it would traverse the bottleneck for high end GPUs. For people to say bulldozer was crap was an overstatement given the fact that an overclocked 8150 absolutely crushed any stock intel CPU at the time of release even in gaming. But to say that is unfair is correct, but the differences are covered by the overclock deltas. Although the FX 9370 has little overclock room, for 240 USD, you can gaurantee a 5 Ghz overclock out the box. This is not true for intel's haswell. My friend's 4770k is stable at just 4.2 Ghz!


----------



## polyzp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> The whole point of AMDFX.blogspot.com was to point out that overclocked Bulldozer shined, while stock it was confined! AMD finally pushed their clocks our the box now to 5 Ghz because they knew that it would traverse the bottleneck for high end GPUs. For people to say bulldozer was crap was an overstatement given the fact that an overclocked 8150 absolutely crushed any stock intel CPU at the time of release even in gaming. But to say that is unfair is correct, but the differences are covered by the overclock deltas. Although the FX 9370 has little overclock room, for 240 USD, you can gaurantee a 5 Ghz overclock out the box. This is not true for intel's haswell. My friend's 4770k is stable at just 4.2 Ghz!


4.2 Ghz 4770k is probably the better CPU but there is something about that 5.0 Ghz people love..


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PureBlackFire*
> 
> This. AM3+ boards are at best directly comparable to Z68 boards. There hasn't been anything _new_ going on on that socket since.


They have 6 6Gbit/s SATA ports, more PCIe lanes (Enough to offer equal bandwidth to PCIe 3.0 8x/8x) and nearly every new board has USB3.0 still. It may have only come out then but it was more future proof than the Z68 was, and honestly was in my opinion better than Z77 still.


----------



## Clocknut

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> I would bet that an 8150 at 5 Ghz (32 nm) from 2011 is a better gaming CPU than the i5-4670k at 4.5 Ghz (22 nm) from 2013 in modern games that take advantage of all 8 cores.


better = probably no. equal = yes on 8350 only. 8150 is really kinda crap....tho i really hope AMD come out SR 8 cores ASAP.


----------



## Kuivamaa

I'd take an FX-8150 over a Phenom II X6 personally. A no brainer in fully multithreaded applications and it even games better most of the time. WoW, BF3/4, Crysis 2/3,Far Cry 3/BD etc .The main issue with zambezi chips (besides being initially overpriced and overhyped) is that right now they are pretty much pointless with Vishera around. As for AMD,2 years ago I thought they were going the way of the dodo personally. But recently I am impressed. They even managed to sell loads of opterons to Verizon few weeks ago, and we all know what a sad story their server segment has been in the last few years.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> I would bet that an 8150 at 5 Ghz (32 nm) from 2011 is a better gaming CPU than the i5-4670k at 4.5 Ghz (22 nm) from 2013 in modern games that take advantage of all 8 cores.


That would only be possible if, with all available cores loaded, a 4 module (8 "core") bulldozer CPU outperformed a four core Haswell CPU (at the frequencies you stated)

It doesn't.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> I'd take an FX-8150 over a Phenom II X6 personally. A no brainer in fully multithreaded applications and it even games better most of the time. WoW, BF3/4, Crysis 2/3,Far Cry 3/BD etc .The main issue with zambezi chips (besides being initially overpriced and overhyped) is that right now they are pretty much pointless with Vishera around. As for AMD,2 years ago I thought they were going the way of the dodo personally. But recently I am impressed. They even managed to sell loads of opterons to Verizon few weeks ago, and we all know what a sad story their server segment has been in the last few years.


AMD SoC is superior to Intel. Even at 32nm fabrication of their chips on die are still smaller than Intel 22nm fabrication. I'm not saying Intel isn't good mind you, just pointing out AMD's strength with this fusion stuff. The wattage including board because basically everything is on the processor except south bridge is usually lower than Intel as a complete system.


----------



## MrJava

It'll be interesting to see how long AMD takes to release desktop APUs which are at least as powerful as they console chips.
Maybe Carizzo could get close to Xbox One with the proper memory.

Xbox One:
768 GCN SPUs
68.3GB/s

Carizzo (??):
640 GCN SPUs
51.2GB/s (dual channel DDR4-3200)
68.3GB/s (dual channel DDR4-4266)


----------



## djriful

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771*
> 
> The linked source (image) that contains the "AMD Kaveri Steamroller" result does not appear to come from anywhere. In fact, what's ironic is that the image is being hosted on Overclock.net's own servers. I'm going to have to move this to rumours as the validity is very questionable.





Spoiler: Clues



I found out who... uploaded that.





Post here: http://www.overclock.net/t/1428372/amdfx-kaveri-benchmarks-revealed-amd-kaveris-gpu-is-r5-m200-up-to-500-performance-over-iris/300_50#post_20970465


----------



## MrJava

Link to his source: http://www.cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=187215
Again, the numbers are not made up. However, the numbers are about as solid and conclusive as any of these types of rumours seem to be.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djriful*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Clues
> 
> 
> 
> I found out who... uploaded that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post here: http://www.overclock.net/t/1428372/amdfx-kaveri-benchmarks-revealed-amd-kaveris-gpu-is-r5-m200-up-to-500-performance-over-iris/300_50#post_20970465


----------



## polyzp

Given the data is Legit, this shouldnt even be in rumours. The numbers are real.


----------



## MoGTy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> Given the data is Legit, this shouldnt even be in rumours. The numbers are real.


A shady blogspot with no sources, but an OCN member who is notorious for spreading rumors and exaggerations about AMD products, is a rumor to me.


----------



## Moragg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> I'd take an FX-8150 over a Phenom II X6 personally. A no brainer in fully multithreaded applications and it even games better most of the time. WoW, BF3/4, Crysis 2/3,Far Cry 3/BD etc .The main issue with zambezi chips (besides being initially overpriced and overhyped) is that right now they are pretty much pointless with Vishera around. As for AMD,2 years ago I thought they were going the way of the dodo personally. But recently I am impressed. They even managed to sell loads of opterons to Verizon few weeks ago, and we all know what a sad story their server segment has been in the last few years.


Really? I have a 1055T clocked at 3.8GHz, what kind of OC would I need on an 8320 (which I just bought) to achieve at least the same gaming performance?


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Moragg*
> 
> Really? I have a 1055T clocked at 3.8GHz, what kind of OC would I need on an 8320 (which I just bought) to achieve at least the same gaming performance?


4GHz. It will be already trouncing the X6 in newer games while stock, though.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Moragg*
> 
> Really? I have a 1055T clocked at 3.8GHz, what kind of OC would I need on an 8320 (which I just bought) to achieve at least the same gaming performance?


Depends on the game.

In well threaded games, you may not need an OC at all. In some disagreeable and poorly threaded ones, you may need ~20% more clock speed than Thuban.


----------



## maarten12100

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *os2wiz*
> 
> It is NOT rumor that steamroller is 4 core. it is fact.


Kaveri is 2m/4c
Steamroller can have chips as big as 8 modules perhaps even more


----------



## Moragg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> 4GHz. It will be already trouncing the X6 in newer games while stock, though.


Is this because of the newer instructions and better multi-threading?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Depends on the game.
> 
> In well threaded games, you may not need an OC at all. In some disagreeable and poorly threaded ones, you may need ~20% more clock speed than Thuban.


But surely older games will require much less processing power, so I should be fine? I don't expect to be able to hit more than 4.2GHz on the 8320 as my cooling solution is a little 212 EVO and I can't afford anything better.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Moragg*
> 
> Really? I have a 1055T clocked at 3.8GHz, what kind of OC would I need on an 8320 (which I just bought) to achieve at least the same gaming performance?


From anandtech forums, an interesting comparison on SCII (one of the worst cases for FX lineup in gaming).



Stock 6300 more or less matches a pumped up phenom II.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Moragg*
> 
> But surely older games will require much less processing power, so I should be fine? I don't expect to be able to hit more than 4.2GHz on the 8320 as my cooling solution is a little 212 EVO and I can't afford anything better.


Most older games will run fine, well threaded or not, but not all lightly threaded games are old.

Planetside 2 is completely CPU limited on my 4.4GHz 3930k, and generally runs like piss on any system unless you remove shadows and tone down certain details. It's barely even playable, by my standards, on my 4.6GHz FX-8150. Certainly, they are rushing to fix this, but it's currently a good example of a modern, poorly threaded, heavily CPU dependent, title.


----------



## psyside

delete.


----------



## psyside

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> For people to say bulldozer was crap was an overstatement given the fact that an overclocked 8150 absolutely crushed any stock intel CPU at the time of release even in gaming. But to say that is unfair is correct, but the differences are covered by the overclock deltas






http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/9


----------



## Moragg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> From anandtech forums, an interesting comparison on SCII (one of the worst cases for FX lineup in gaming).
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stock 6300 more or less matches a pumped up phenom II.


That's an X4 though. I don't expect a massive difference, the only reason I bought the 8320 was because I saw a really good deal on the marketplace.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Most older games will run fine, well threaded or not, but not all lightly threaded games are old.
> 
> Planetside 2 is completely CPU limited on my 4.4GHz 3930k, and generally runs like piss on any system unless you remove shadows and tone down certain details. It's barely even playable, by my standards, on my 4.6GHz FX-8150. Certainly, they are rushing to fix this, but it's currently a good example of a modern, poorly threaded, heavily CPU dependent, title.


Ouch. I've never played planetside 2 - Skyrim is probably going to keep me busy for a few months, after which something I want to get something like Dragon Age: Inquisition.

On topic, I reckon a 12C/6M Steamroller chip that can be OC'ed easily would sell really well, especially if Mantle takes off.


----------



## MoGTy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Moragg*
> 
> That's an X4 though. I don't expect a massive difference, the only reason I bought the 8320 was because I saw a really good deal on the marketplace.
> 
> Ouch. I've never played planetside 2 - Skyrim is probably going to keep me busy for a few months, after which something I want to get something like Dragon Age: Inquisition.
> 
> On topic, I reckon a 12C/6M Steamroller chip that can be OC'ed easily would sell really well, especially if Mantle takes off.


Take my money


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Moragg*
> 
> That's an X4 though. I don't expect a massive difference, the only reason I bought the 8320 was because I saw a really good deal on the marketplace.


Yeah, but it also goes up against an FX-6300. FX-83x0 vs Phenom II X6 is a similar story.


----------



## Moragg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> Yeah, but it also goes up against an FX-6300. FX-83x0 vs Phenom II X6 is a similar story.


Very true, but I doubt I'll get more than 4.2GHz on my cooler. So long as performance stays the same I see no reason not to upgrade.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Moragg*
> 
> On topic, I reckon a 12C/6M Steamroller chip that can be OC'ed easily would sell really well, especially if Mantle takes off.


APU will most likely not have anything over 6-8 eight cores in the future. Primary reason is that further HSA implementation will be threading some x86 threads through the GPU instead of CPU. Meaning better IPC all the way around.


----------



## EniGma1987

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> APU will most likely not have anything over 6-8 eight cores in the future. Primary reason is that further HSA implementation will be threading some x86 threads through the GPU instead of CPU. Meaning better IPC all the way around.


yes and no. GPU cores excel in floating point work, we still would need strong integer cores and lots of them as things become more multi-threaded. Additionally you only see an increase in performance if there is a ton of things needing to be processed or whatever you are doing is not latency sensitive in any way. Executing code on the GPU has a huge latency penalty compared to executing it on the CPU. This means much lower IPC in all circumstances, just that overall you can get a boost if enough is executed in parallel to overcome this hit to performance.


----------



## MoGTy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> APU will most likely not have anything over 6-8 eight cores in the future. Primary reason is that further HSA implementation will be threading some x86 threads through the GPU instead of CPU. Meaning better IPC all the way around.


Yes and I wonder what the power consumption would be like. A little birdie told me the EU might just cap CPUs at 90W in the not too distant future.


----------



## Moragg

I have no idea about designing CPUs, but doesn't that mean AMD could have a APU-only setup where the integrated GPU is used to accelerate performance using HSA when a discrete GPU is installed?


----------



## sdlvx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> The jump from the 1100t to the FX 8150 was more significant than you think! At ~5 Ghz the 8150 is no joke of a chip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not where I was getting at, but I do see your point. However it was a step back in terms of IPC, but it was progress in works. Without bulldozer there wouldn't be piledriver.
Click to expand...

IPC doesn't mean anything on it's own.

I'm going to dumb the numbers down to make my point, but I hope you understand it from this.

Lets say you have one chip that runs at 1ghz and does 10 instructions per clock tick, chip A

Now you have a chip that runs at 10ghz and does 5 instructions per clock tick, chip B

Chip A has superior IPC but Chip B is actually 5 times faster.

I realize Bulldozer didn't turn out this way and neither did netburst, but Power8 and Power7 DID and they are highly clocked parts that have lower IPC yet still are extremely fast. My point is that it's entirely possible for a chip to have horrible IPC yet better clocks.

There is no way K10 anything would run at 5ghz 24/7 and if you have the cooling it's possible. Not to mention there's a stock 4.7base 5ghz turbo PD chip for sale in retail right now, which is 30% increase in clockrate over Phenon 2 x4 965. Bulldozer did not reduce IPC by enough to not make up for the clockspeed gained. FX x1x0 series problem was that the chip was designed for high frequency and it didn't make it there. PD did though.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> The whole point of AMDFX.blogspot.com was to point out that overclocked Bulldozer shined, while stock it was confined! AMD finally pushed their clocks our the box now to 5 Ghz because they knew that it would traverse the bottleneck for high end GPUs. For people to say bulldozer was crap was an overstatement given the fact that an overclocked 8150 absolutely crushed any stock intel CPU at the time of release even in gaming. But to say that is unfair is correct, but the differences are covered by the overclock deltas. Although the FX 9370 has little overclock room, for 240 USD, you can gaurantee a 5 Ghz overclock out the box. This is not true for intel's haswell. My friend's 4770k is stable at just 4.2 Ghz!
> 
> 
> 
> 4.2 Ghz 4770k is probably the better CPU but there is something about that 5.0 Ghz people love..
Click to expand...

And it was like this when we were going for 4ghz. Trust me, I have a dead P4 Prescott in my basement that's aftermath of this.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> Given the data is Legit, this shouldnt even be in rumours. The numbers are real.


Yeah, but it was reposted by a questionable site! Therefore everything is bad about the data! IF I post a wikipedia article on a shady blog I own then that wikipedia article is no longer trustable.


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



sarcasm!


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Moragg*
> 
> Really? I have a 1055T clocked at 3.8GHz, what kind of OC would I need on an 8320 (which I just bought) to achieve at least the same gaming performance?
> 
> 
> 
> From anandtech forums, an interesting comparison on SCII (one of the worst cases for FX lineup in gaming).
> 
> 
> 
> Stock 6300 more or less matches a pumped up phenom II.
Click to expand...

SC2 is a weak point in Bulldozer architecture and it's not fair to point that out without pointing out situations where FX does better. Comparing FX to Phenom is comparing Phenom when it's in one of its stronger games and FX when it's in one of their weaker ones. If you wanted to be fair you'd post a BF4 benchmark and I don't think Phenom 2 x4 would be very close to an FX chip outside of FX 4000 series.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Moragg*
> 
> I have no idea about designing CPUs, but doesn't that mean AMD could have a APU-only setup where the integrated GPU is used to accelerate performance using HSA when a discrete GPU is installed?


I am thinking that FX 9000 series was to prep motherboard makers for high wattage parts in a single socket. A 4m/8c APU with a decent amount of GCN cores would be a hot, hot chip. I would imagine the Intel fanboys running around making all sorts of snide remarks.

But it does seem like that is the plan for AMD's end goal, but it is easier to get HSA going on APUs alone right now as they're higher volume.

I've always imagined a situation where you have an APU in your rig with a dGPU. the dGPU does NOTHING but renders the graphics while the APU's GPU portion does the physics calculations, tressFX, particles, etc.

It would undo the step backwards Nvidia took with running PhysX on the GPU and bring us more in line with the times of Aegia PhysX where you had an add in card that only added visual appeal to games without a frame rate hit. Except AMD's solution would be general purpose and you would be able to use it in multiple scenarios with different software.

AMD is also working on getting HSA working with dGPUs, so if you weren't playing games it should be possible to eventually get HSA going between APU GPU, dGPU, and CPU on a platform similar to AM3+ (but obviously not AM3+).

I've always hoped for a unified socket between server and HEDT so we could take 2 socket Opteron rigs and bus OC them.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MoGTy*
> 
> Yes and I wonder what the power consumption would be like. A little birdie told me the EU might just cap CPUs at 90W in the not too distant future.


You also forget that the APU is an SoC, there are more components on chip than FX or any other processor including Intel's. So the chip being at either 90watts or 100watts is significantly better in terms of total system power consumption. Intel's make for NB and SB although well performing are incredibly bulky and can be seen on their processor layout. If you haven't noticed how much larger Intel's chips have been getting while remaining at a low nm die production you'd understand what I mean.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sdlvx*
> 
> I am thinking that FX 9000 series was to prep motherboard makers for high wattage parts in a single socket. A 4m/8c APU with a decent amount of GCN cores would be a hot, hot chip. I would imagine the Intel fanboys running around making all sorts of snide remarks.


The FX 9000 was intended for LN2 abusers. Reason why it's a limited product, since it only appeals to hobbyist overclockers. It completely removes it's thermal envelope so that a person can literally push it to burn and the end result is usually higher than unlocked cores on LN2. Intel fanboys shouldn't make snide remarks as their thermal envelope often comes at a crushing speed when overclocking. AMD fanboys need to calm their overly defensiveness down a bit.

It's also to sell a pre-overclocked chip so those without experience can get the performance.

If they had the enhanced piledriver cores like in richland they'd probably hit 5.4 ghz on air. No point in putting the enhanced piledrivers on if steamroller cores are around the corner.


----------



## Kuivamaa

I actually brought SCII up since it is one of the worst case scenarios for BD architecture and yet, it still more than matches stars clock for clock. PD is better than Ph II in pretty much everything.


----------



## JoeelMex

If only they made a m-atx 990fx board i would buy a 8350 to mess around.


----------



## MrJava

Well AMD had it right over a decade ago, there is no replacement for displacement .... err IPC. POWER6 was the high-clocking speed demon. POWER7 and POWER8 refocused on IPC and better multi-threaded scaling within each core.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sdlvx*
> 
> -- snip --


----------



## azanimefan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> I actually brought SCII up since it is one of the worst case scenarios for BD architecture and yet, it still more than matches stars clock for clock. PD is better than Ph II in pretty much everything.


sorta... an 1100T thuban and piledriver are close clock for clock with the 1100t usually 5%-15% faster depending. of course thuban didn't really overclock well... 4.2-4.4Ghz was probably the most you could get out of it.

In the end i think it was because of the 1100T and how disappointing bulldozer was that you get this weird impression that all bulldozer/piledrivers are inferior chips to phII. Frankly piledriver is a little faster then deneb clock for clock, and as we know deneb didn't usually overclock well at all. and while thuban might be as fast (or a little faster) as piledriver it certainly won't overclock as well.

I think what makes people excited about steamroller is the idea of almost a sandybridge core i level performance on an amd priced chip. That also means it will be the first true and significant step forward in processor speed for AMD since the 1100T came out in December of 2010, 3 years ago.


----------



## maarten12100

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MoGTy*
> 
> Yes and I wonder what the power consumption would be like. A little birdie told me the EU might just cap CPUs at 90W in the not too distant future.


At least we have an efficient power grid compared to that low voltage stuff America and some other parts of the world are running.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *azanimefan*
> 
> sorta... an 1100T thuban and piledriver are close clock for clock with the 1100t usually 5%-15% faster depending. of course thuban didn't really overclock well... 4.2-4.4Ghz was probably the most you could get out of it.
> 
> In the end i think it was because of the 1100T and how disappointing bulldozer was that you get this weird impression that all bulldozer/piledrivers are inferior chips to phII. Frankly piledriver is a little faster then deneb clock for clock, and as we know deneb didn't usually overclock well at all. and while thuban might be as fast (or a little faster) as piledriver it certainly won't overclock as well.
> 
> I think what makes people excited about steamroller is the idea of almost a sandybridge core i level performance on an amd priced chip. That also means it will be the first true and significant step forward in processor speed for AMD since the 1100T came out in December of 2010, 3 years ago.


Sometimes clockrates don't match up on chips simply because they are completely designed differently. Best to find the clocks that match each other's benchmarks and see which has the more overclocking potential out of the two. IPC can be a disillusion. For example if a processor came out and was stock 3.2 ghz and was performing as good benchmark wise as a 2.8ghz something else, but that something else could only get an overclock of 3.8 max and the other at 3.2 was hitting 5.0ghz as long as the scalability of the performance surpasses the other's peak overclock. The other would be superior regardless of IPC.

This also means that improving IPC in future chips provides significant headroom.


----------



## MrJava

When will europeans stop capping and sanitizing everything. I want 3.5L engines back in formula one dang-it!!!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *maarten12100*
> 
> At least we have an efficient power grid compared to that low voltage stuff America and some other parts of the world are running.


----------



## btupsx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *azanimefan*
> 
> sorta... an 1100T thuban and piledriver are close clock for clock with the 1100t usually 5%-15% faster depending. of course thuban didn't really overclock well... 4.2-4.4Ghz was probably the most you could get out of it.
> 
> In the end i think it was because of the 1100T and how disappointing bulldozer was that you get this weird impression that all bulldozer/piledrivers are inferior chips to phII. Frankly piledriver is a little faster then deneb clock for clock, and as we know deneb didn't usually overclock well at all. and while thuban might be as fast (or a little faster) as piledriver it certainly won't overclock as well.
> 
> I think what makes people excited about steamroller is the idea of almost a sandybridge core i level performance on an amd priced chip. That also means it will be the first true and significant step forward in processor speed for AMD since the 1100T came out in December of 2010, 3 years ago.


Solid truth right here boys and girls. Those claiming BD "crushes" Thuban are delusional. The only category it crushes it in is power consumption lulz. PD makes it much more neck and neck, but still inconclusive. The excitement over the promise of SR is because it could assume the undisputed performance mantle for AMD, once and for all. Back on topic, I for one am super skeptical over the source material, and don't care for how it is statistically manipulated to give a WOW!!!! factor. I'll take it with a big ol lump of salt for another 2 weeks.


----------



## NaroonGTX

Well the fact that Vishera 6300 can OC much higher than Thuban can with a stable clock means it's better by default. I don't think "crush" is the right terminology, but if I were to build a personal AM3+ machine for myself, I would choose the 6300 over any of the Thubans.


----------



## EniGma1987

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *azanimefan*
> 
> sorta... an 1100T thuban and piledriver are close clock for clock with the 1100t usually 5%-15% faster depending. ... Frankly piledriver is a little faster then deneb clock for clock


You do know that Deneb and Thuban are the same speed clock for clock right? Well except in the memory controller, Thuban was slower than Deneb by about 1% in that area but clocked a bit higher on average there so it easily made up the difference. The differences between Deneb and Thuban cores are pretty much just the addition of turbo core. But to say that a Thuban core is faster than a Deneb would be like saying a Deneb is faster than a Callisto core, they are both the same... When you say Piledriver is a bit faster than Deneb and ~10% slower than Thuban you are saying completely opposite things.


----------



## azanimefan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EniGma1987*
> 
> You do know that Deneb and Thuban are the same speed clock for clock right? Well except in the memory controller, Thuban was slower than Deneb by about 1% in that area but clocked a bit higher on average there so it easily made up the difference. The differences between Deneb and Thuban cores are pretty much just the addition of turbo core. But to say that a Thuban core is faster than a Deneb would be like saying a Deneb is faster than a Callisto core, they are both the same... When you say Piledriver is a bit faster than Deneb and ~10% slower than Thuban you are saying completely opposite things.


not entirely true. not all denebs had the same IPC... the later denebs had better IPC then the earlier ones. thats why 940s at 3.5ghz were slower then 965s at 3.5ghz... when you factor out things like memory speeds. Same for the thuban... that said generally thuban was a little faster then the late era deneb, and the 1100T was the last revision of the thuban chipset, yeilding slightly improved ipc numbers over the 1090t (better overclocks too).

There were small ipc improvements all through the K10 run, every generation of chip squeezing a little better IPC over the previous ones. if you doubt me look at the benches at similar clocks... the PhII architecture gets steadily faster throughout the run. Peaking with Thuban and the 1100T.


----------



## NaroonGTX

Generally all Phenom II chips had the same actual clock-for-clock performance. I never really saw any major differences between steppings or anything. Any different numbers may have been from boosted NB speeds or what have you, or simple margin of error.

Also Phenom & Phenom II were considered part of the K8 family, K10 is actually Bulldozer.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> I actually brought SCII up since it is one of the worst case scenarios for BD architecture and yet, it still more than matches stars clock for clock. PD is better than Ph II in pretty much everything.


But it's a game where Intel has like a 70% advantage in minimum FPS, it's a joke.


----------



## MoGTy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrJava*
> 
> When will europeans stop capping and sanitizing everything. I want 3.5L engines back in formula one dang-it!!!


I know right, they plan on doing the same with GPUs. Capped at 200W if I'm not mistaking.

They did the same thing to microwaves, electric heating and vacuum cleaners. I get their incentive but really my dear computer :/


----------



## btupsx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> Well the fact that Vishera 6300 can OC much higher than Thuban can with a stable clock means it's better by default. I don't think "crush" is the right terminology, but if I were to build a personal AM3+ machine for myself, I would choose the 6300 over any of the Thubans.


Such a line of thought reminds me of the Netburst era, when Intel propaganda would use that exact illogical reasoning to defend itself against Athlon. You can't get around IPC, IPC, IPC. As such, Vishera 6300 clocking higher is generally irrelevant. You'd have to find an exceptionally well binned 6300, and get it stable at 5 GHz, in order to beat a decent clocking Thuban at 4.1 GHz. Even if this is accomplished, the 6300 would be set at a much higher vcore, and would be devouring much more electricity than the Thuban. This is why 1100T performance was included in most 8150/8350 benchmark comparos, because an X6 was more comparable in IPC to an octocore BD/PD.


----------



## Moragg

All these pro-Thuban comments are making me want to keep my 1055T @ 3.8GHz. I've got a 8320 coming from another OCner in ~4 weeks, I guess I'll have to see how it performs.


----------



## NaroonGTX

Quote:


> As such, Vishera 6300 clocking higher is generally irrelevant. You'd have to find an exceptionally well binned 6300, and get it stable at 5 GHz, in order to beat a decent clocking Thuban at 4.1 GHz. Even if this is accomplished, the 6300 would be set at a much higher vcore, and would be devouring much more electricity than the Thuban


This is utter nonsense. It's not irrelevant at all, especially when Phenom II and Vishera generally having the same per-core performance. The 6300 can not only clock higher, but can do it with ease. It's a no-brainer that the 6300 is the better buy, at least for me. I don't know where people come up with this "6300 must be clocked at 5000 Thz to match Thuban" nonsense comes from. The most CPU-intensive thing I do is PCSX2 emulation (aside from video rendering).

http://forums.pcsx2.net/Thread-CPU-Benchmark-designed-for-PCSX2-based-on-FFX-2

You can clearly see how the Vishera's leave Phenom II behind here. It's because PCSX2 mainly runs on two threads. I know that in multi-threaded scenarios, the shared decoder in the Bulldozer uarch can hurt multi-threaded performance, but you can clock that Thuban at 4.1 or 4.2 where it tops out at all you want, it won't beat a 6300 at 4.8 ghz or anything. For me, the 6300 would be the better buy because as long as I had decent aftermarket cooling and a good board, I'd have no problems keeping a stable high OC with all 3 modules and 6 cores enabled.

You can also click the CPU-Z validations for the Vishera's and see that they mostly have reasonable vcore's as well.

Phenom II and Thuban were good chips, but all this worship needs to come to an end.


----------



## amd-dude

Was going to get a 8350 for christmas, think I'll wait.


----------



## btupsx

How is it utter nonsense? Those bench results state exactly what I said; look at the speeds of the BD/PD chips, then look at the speeds of the Thuban/Deneb chips. When a BD/PD beats a Thuban/Deneb, it's clocked in the neighborhood of 5 GHz, and the top scoring Thubans/Denebs are in 4.2 GHz territory. The point is that Vishera doesn't leave Thuban in the dust; it meanders in the same neighborhood, albeit a couple of blocks down the street. Both uarchs are good, but Vishera is absolutely not conclusively better.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Let's not start this again, seriously. When it comes to 95% of tasks and especially gaming, PD mops the floor with Phenom II. Stars was very good, I have an Athlon II X4 640 right here (will drop in an FX octocore soon), and an A6-3400M llano laptop (stars die shrink). Piledriver is a worthy successor and an all around great upgrade for Ph II.


----------



## SandGlass

Yup, I agree the piledriver is significantly faster than Phenom II in some tasks, and the rest you can't notice a difference.


----------



## NaroonGTX

Quote:


> How is it utter nonsense? Those bench results state exactly what I said; look at the speeds of the BD/PD chips, then look at the speeds of the Thuban/Deneb chips. When a BD/PD beats a Thuban/Deneb, it's clocked in the neighborhood of 5 GHz, and the top scoring Thubans/Denebs are in 4.2 GHz territory. The point is that Vishera doesn't leave Thuban in the dust; it meanders in the same neighborhood, albeit a couple of blocks down the street. Both uarchs are good, but Vishera is absolutely not conclusively better.


The highest a Phenom II chip got on that benchmark was just north of 60fps (the main target of the benchmark) and that was a Thuban clocked as high as it could go. The highest AMD chip on that benchmark is a Vishera clocked as high as it could go, and it's in the 76~fps range. The entire point is to OC as high as you can go (while remaining stable, obviously) so you get the best performance you can with PCSX2. The difference in clocks can't be pushed aside for any inane reason just to downplay the advantage of Vishera.

So no, those benches don't help your case at all, and I'm not sure how you even came to that conclusion. The bench isn't like a PC game, 60fps = full speed since that's the refresh rate of the TV's (for NTSC-U/C and NTSC-J regions) the games were running on. An extra 17+fps is a huge deal, and you only get roughly 1.5fps per 100mhz with Phenom II. Vishera is slightly higher. Even the APU's leave Phenom II behind on that benchmark.

There are even PC gaming benchmarks where the Thubans trail behind Piledriver chips. So it's not in the "same neighborhood" or anything at all.


----------



## azanimefan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> Also Phenom & Phenom II were considered part of the K8 family, K10 is actually Bulldozer.


nope. think you're confused. the Phenom 1 & 2 family are k10

as for equivalency... generally speaking you need to clock your 6 core piledriver about 15% higher then your 6 core thuban to land the same frame-rates and benching performance numbers. 15% might not sound like much but when we're sitting at 4.0ghz it's 600mhz... so a 1100T at 4.0ghz will run about as fast as a fx6300 at 4.6ghz... a 1100T at 4.2ghz (generally on average it topped out around here) would be equal to a fx6300 at 4.83ghz (which is ironically enough the average top end overclock for the fx6300 too). in my mind the two chips are basically equal. at least close enough if i were the owner of a PhII x6 1100T i wouldn't see a move to a fx6300 as a step up, just an excuse to spend more money... and I'd see a move to an fx8350 as just a trade for MOAR CORZ.

This doesn't mean piledriver isn't faster, or won't be faster then Thuban. frankly if i had any other thuban i'd probably see a move to piledriver as a step up... mostly because except for the 1100t they overclocked like crap. But if i was sitting on a 1100T i probably wouldn't bother with the swap unless mine didn't overclock well.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *btupsx*
> 
> How is it utter nonsense? Those bench results state exactly what I said; look at the speeds of the BD/PD chips, then look at the speeds of the Thuban/Deneb chips. When a BD/PD beats a Thuban/Deneb, it's clocked in the neighborhood of 5 GHz, and the top scoring Thubans/Denebs are in 4.2 GHz territory. The point is that Vishera doesn't leave Thuban in the dust; it meanders in the same neighborhood, albeit a couple of blocks down the street. Both uarchs are good, but Vishera is absolutely not conclusively better.


Most can only get 3.8. Those pushing higher are also pushing temps and voltage. PD wins because it can push higher with less voltage and achieve more performance at the higher clock than it's previous.

People will say Intel is better, they are right, but the problem is that the improvement in their overclock to performance is just as minimal as AMD's. They really have not broke the x86 wall from SB to Ivy. Haswell is basically the same thing as Ivy.


----------



## NaroonGTX

@azanimefan

What you said is true, but only for multi-threaded workloads. A Vishera clocked at 4.8ghz would leave the Phenom II behind in single-threaded or lightly-threaded workloads (such as PCSX2) which is why the Vishera chips have the higher results on that chart. For people who constantly do heavily-threaded workloads, they wouldn't see a huge benefit going from a Thuban (that was clocked high) to a Vishera. But for people like me who run emu's, I'd be better off with the Vishera.

It basically comes down to what you already have (do you or do you not already have a well-OC'd Thuban) and what you need performance-wise (single or multi-threaded dominant) in the end. They are equal in MT, but ST the Vishera wins.

If Piledriver didn't have that performance penalty for MT workloads due to the shared decoder between two cores in a module, it would be the all-around superior chip. This is why I would like to see AMD release Steamroller-based FX parts -- whether it's on FM2+ or AM3+.


----------



## azanimefan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> @azanimefan
> 
> What you said is true, but only for multi-threaded workloads. A Vishera clocked at 4.8ghz would leave the Phenom II behind in single-threaded or lightly-threaded workloads (such as PCSX2) which is why the Vishera chips have the higher results on that chart..


I somehow doubt this is the reason.

in every bench that tests single threaded performance thuban is faster then piledriver at the same clocks. I think the problem is you're using pcsx2 as your test bench. For all we know it's more optimized for what piledriver does best. Purhaps the gpu matters with it's rendering (i know it does for me with pcsx2, when i went from a 9800gs to a 7770 i saw a huge jump in framerate in pcsx2) and those old PhII numbers were with older less capable gpus then the newer piledriver numbers.

We don't know enough about that one bench to point to it and say "that represents the comparative strength between those chips"

Thats why numerous benches are used in reviews with different chip structures. some chips work better with some benches. For what you use your piledriver for obviously it's a better chip then a thuban. that said on average thuban was and remains clock for clock a little bit faster then piledriver.


----------



## NaroonGTX

PCSX2 isn't optimized for AMD at all, in fact it has been optimized for Intel ever since the devs started working on it back around 2001 or so.

Some games in PCSX2 are more GPU-oriented (the game would be heavily utilizing the Vector Units of the PS2 in this case). The purpose of the benchmark is that it uses a very demanding section of a specific game that is known to be extremely hard on the CPU. Plus the benchmark is run in Software mode which means it doesn't use the GPU for rendering. This is why more games get boosts in Hardware mode (which would explain your performance increase from swapping out GPU's, more bandwidth and GPU power would help here but not in Software mode).

Piledriver also carries various instruction sets that PII doesn't in which case it would outperform PII obviously in those cases, and probably in some apps that use instructions that both support as well. For example, in PCSX2 you can set the gsdx graphic plugin to run using SSE2, SSE 4.1, SSSE3 or AVX. Piledriver chips tend to run better using either SSSE3 or AVX, which PII doesn't support.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *azanimefan*
> 
> I somehow doubt this is the reason.
> 
> in every bench that tests single threaded performance thuban is faster then piledriver at the same clocks. I think the problem is you're using pcsx2 as your test bench. For all we know it's more optimized for what piledriver does best. Purhaps the gpu matters with it's rendering (i know it does for me with pcsx2, when i went from a 9800gs to a 7770 i saw a huge jump in framerate in pcsx2) and those old PhII numbers were with older less capable gpus then the newer piledriver numbers.
> 
> We don't know enough about that one bench to point to it and say "that represents the comparative strength between those chips"
> 
> Thats why numerous benches are used in reviews with different chip structures. some chips work better with some benches. For what you use your piledriver for obviously it's a better chip then a thuban. that said on average thuban was and remains clock for clock a little bit faster then piledriver.


At the same clocks is the exact problem. If you're judging a processors performance simply by IPC you'd be wrong to do so. The best way to judge it is to find both their clocks where they achieve the same performance and then see how far of improvement they acquire as you push them beyond it volt for volt, clock for clock and that'll show which is best.


----------



## Durquavian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *azanimefan*
> 
> I somehow doubt this is the reason.
> 
> in every bench that tests single threaded performance thuban is faster then piledriver at the same clocks. I think the problem is you're using pcsx2 as your test bench. For all we know it's more optimized for what piledriver does best. Purhaps the gpu matters with it's rendering (i know it does for me with pcsx2, when i went from a 9800gs to a 7770 i saw a huge jump in framerate in pcsx2) and those old PhII numbers were with older less capable gpus then the newer piledriver numbers.
> 
> We don't know enough about that one bench to point to it and say "that represents the comparative strength between those chips"
> 
> Thats why numerous benches are used in reviews with different chip structures. some chips work better with some benches. For what you use your piledriver for obviously it's a better chip then a thuban. that said on average thuban was and remains clock for clock a little bit faster then piledriver.


I think those scenarios are quite limited and dwindling by the day. I mean I loved my 965BE but it isn't anywhere near my FX 8350. As time goes on Thuban is gonna fall further behind. Doesn't make it a bad chip at all. Just like my 3800+ was awesome for the near 10years I used it. But as software changes and drivers/support moves forward older tech will start to look more the part. At the inception of BD/PD and its initial bench results Thuban was still looking stout, but know the number of benches where Thuban is even remotely close is becoming far and few between.


----------



## btupsx

PD does not use less power than Thuban. Soooo tired of hearing otherwise, the benches are out there. Anyway, fact remains that for a just above average Phenom, PD is a sidegrade, end of story. This isn't a backhanded compliment to Vishera. Let's try to steer this ship back on topic.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Sidegrade? It is a full,hefty upgrade everywhere. Be it encoding, rendering,gaming or what have you. Thuban can't compete with PD.


----------



## NaroonGTX

Power consumption on the desktop is a goddamned joke anyway, there's no point in even bringing it up. This is a website where people have GTX Titans and triple-monitors and OC their CPU's to the moon. I don't even know why people pull out the power consumption card as if it means anything. Phenom II was and is good, but there's no point in acting like it's better than it really is. For people who run heavily-threaded workloads, PD is a definite upgrade if they went to an octocore.


----------



## Tsumi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *azanimefan*
> 
> I somehow doubt this is the reason.
> 
> in every bench that tests single threaded performance thuban is faster then piledriver at the same clocks. I think the problem is you're using pcsx2 as your test bench. For all we know it's more optimized for what piledriver does best. Purhaps the gpu matters with it's rendering (i know it does for me with pcsx2, when i went from a 9800gs to a 7770 i saw a huge jump in framerate in pcsx2) and those old PhII numbers were with older less capable gpus then the newer piledriver numbers.
> 
> We don't know enough about that one bench to point to it and say "that represents the comparative strength between those chips"
> 
> Thats why numerous benches are used in reviews with different chip structures. some chips work better with some benches. For what you use your piledriver for obviously it's a better chip then a thuban. that said on average thuban was and remains clock for clock a little bit faster then piledriver.


Again, why does clock for clock matter when the chips are designed for different clocks? It's stupid to compare clock for clock. The only valid comparisons are stock clock vs stock clock and max overclock vs max overclock, that's it. Now, it just so happened that SB's max overclock was similar to Vishera's max overclock, that's why IPC played a big role in the comparisons because the clocks were similar. Haswell and Piledriver on the other hand are achieving different max overclocks, and should be compared as thus. Same with Piledriver vs Phenom II.

Again, *IPC and clock for clock mean absolutely nothing by themselves.*


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> Power consumption on the desktop is a goddamned joke anyway, there's no point in even bringing it up. This is a website where people have GTX Titans and triple-monitors and OC their CPU's to the moon. I don't even know why people pull out the power consumption card as if it means anything. Phenom II was and is good, but there's no point in acting like it's better than it really is. For people who run heavily-threaded workloads, PD is a definite upgrade if they went to an octocore.


OC'ing really isn't that bad on wattage. Running a load ton of equipment is. Per cores Intel is far more notorious on wattage, whole processor wattage Intel will beat an AMD.


----------



## btupsx

It's a poor generalization to state that as an arch, PD is a hefty upgrade. Only an octocore Vishera, at relatively high clocks, definitively beats a X6 Thuban; to do this requires vastly more power consumption, additional instruction sets, an appreciable increase in IPS, two additional logic cores, more cache, and a more robust IMC. After all, BD was roughly regarded as a flop since it was more or less exactly on par with a Thuban. PD is generally recognized to be 10-15% faster than BD, so logic dictates that PD is therefore 10-15% better than Thuban at each respective arch's pinnacle. Sounds awfully like the disparity between SB and IB, and I highly doubt a 2600k owner is staying awake at night contemplating "upgrading" to a 3770k. Don't get me wrong, if someone gave me a good 8320/8350, I wouldn't refuse it. But on the flip side of the coin, I have never at any point felt inclined to go out and buy one, either. Power consumption shouldn't be a joke; it *IS* a performance metric, albeit not exactly an exciting one for most on this site.


----------



## NaroonGTX

Power consumption is pretty useless and only means anything if you're sitting there running the rig at full load literally 24/7 *for days and months on end.*
Quote:


> to do this requires vastly more power consumption, additional instruction sets, an appreciable increase in IPS, two additional logic cores, and a more robust IMC.


Besides power consumption, you're basically just listing improvements in the uarch that yield performance improvements, which is kinda the whole point of refining a uarch.

AMD is aware of how power consumption doesn't mean much, which is why they released 220W TDP CPU's not long ago, and why they continue to release GPU's with TDP's of 275+. I don't see why people bring up power consumption when they have a 5,000W central air unit running all day, or a 2,500W fridge. It's just silly.

The boost from PD over BD was a lot bigger than that of IB over SB. 10~15% =/= 5%+.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> Power consumption is pretty useless and only means anything if you're sitting there running the rig at full load literally 24/7 *for days and months on end.*
> Besides power consumption, you're basically just listing improvements in the uarch that yield performance improvements, which is kinda the whole point of refining a uarch.
> 
> AMD is aware of how power consumption doesn't mean much, which is why they released 220W TDP CPU's not long ago, and why they continue to release GPU's with TDP's of 275+. I don't see why people bring up power consumption when they have a 5,000W central air unit running all day, or a 2,500W fridge. It's just silly.
> 
> The boost from PD over BD was a lot bigger than that of IB over SB. 10~15% =/= 5%+.


To play the devils advocate once you reach that much performance in a processor squeezing more out of the same design is incredibly minimal. Honestly most of their cores are just re-brands or die shrinks. People need to think of a processor like an engine you can replace all parts in, any core with any core, memory with memory. Once you understand that cores are simply just cores you can get beyond the idea that they are anything more. What has improved Intel's performance of the later models by that 5% is the ever improving fabrication. 4770k is a different core design btw. What has improved AMD's performance isn't in fabrication but it's incremental progress of architectural design. Once AMD meets it's desired HSA build improving it's fabricating will give it significant boost. My expectation of Intel in progress is disappointment. I assume with a company like Intel, they'd prefer releasing the same chip over and over making cash while the world stagnates in technology, maybe they are waiting for AMD to catchup so they can once again play hardball. I don't know. Either way a company shouldn't stagnate progress even if they fear lower performance from their newer generation. You can't fear that or the world won't see better technology. Not cheering for anyone, to me it's like watching a really long game of Civ 5.


----------



## NaroonGTX

I think the reason why performance has only been going up in small increments for Intel's processors is because their uarchs have already began hitting the performance wall. I mean, those processors are already insanely powerful, and most people don't realize that. They just blindly say "moar! moar!" like it's that easy to squeeze performance out. I see people all the time say the reason Intel hasn't bothered with doing big performance increases is because they have "no competition". The truth is that they have been focusing on lowering power consumption for mobile devices since their chips can scale down to such a level. They know they have come close to hitting their wall, just like how AMD hit their wall with K8 and couldn't squeeze more out of it, resulting in Llano being a little disappointing on the CPU side and them rushing out Bulldozer ver1 in 2011.

AMD has their fresh uarch and they can make tons of improvements to get performance increases. I'm positive that AMD will stick with the modular design even past Excavator. By either Excavator or whatever comes afterwards, I wouldn't be shocked if AMD surpasses them in performance, and this time it wouldn't be merely because of a "fluke" like the A64 days. Of course Intel could strike back with their massive R&D budget and the fact they have their own fabs, but I don't think there would be such a huge discrepancy like there is now.


----------



## Usario

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EniGma1987*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *azanimefan*
> 
> sorta... an 1100T thuban and piledriver are close clock for clock with the 1100t usually 5%-15% faster depending. ... Frankly piledriver is a little faster then deneb clock for clock
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that Deneb and Thuban are the same speed clock for clock right? Well except in the memory controller, Thuban was slower than Deneb by about 1% in that area but clocked a bit higher on average there so it easily made up the difference. The differences between Deneb and Thuban cores are pretty much just the addition of turbo core. But to say that a Thuban core is faster than a Deneb would be like saying a Deneb is faster than a Callisto core, they are both the same... When you say Piledriver is a bit faster than Deneb and ~10% slower than Thuban you are saying completely opposite things.
Click to expand...

Thuban's IPC is ever-so-slightly noticeably better, though no more than 5%.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Moragg*
> 
> All these pro-Thuban comments are making me want to keep my 1055T @ 3.8GHz. I've got a 8320 coming from another OCner in ~4 weeks, I guess I'll have to see how it performs.


Anyone who says that Thuban = Vishera is delusional. Going from a 4GHz 1055T to a 4.5GHz 8320 was a very noticeable upgrade.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> I think the reason why performance has only been going up in small increments for Intel's processors is because their uarchs have already began hitting the performance wall. I mean, those processors are already insanely powerful, and most people don't realize that. They just blindly say "moar! moar!" like it's that easy to squeeze performance out. I see people all the time say the reason Intel hasn't bothered with doing big performance increases is because they have "no competition". The truth is that they have been focusing on lowering power consumption for mobile devices since their chips can scale down to such a level. They know they have come close to hitting their wall, just like how AMD hit their wall with K8 and couldn't squeeze more out of it, resulting in Llano being a little disappointing on the CPU side and them rushing out Bulldozer ver1 in 2011.
> 
> AMD has their fresh uarch and they can make tons of improvements to get performance increases. I'm positive that AMD will stick with the modular design even past Excavator. By either Excavator or whatever comes afterwards, I wouldn't be shocked if AMD surpasses them in performance, and this time it wouldn't be merely because of a "fluke" like the A64 days. Of course Intel could strike back with their massive R&D budget and the fact they have their own fabs, but I don't think there would be such a huge discrepancy like there is now.


Agreed but ARM is a much larger company that has been running with a arch that has nearly unlimited methods of advancements possible to it. Hearing Intel say that they'll be going ARM could mean a dead end for them. AMD wants turn the x86 platform into something resembling ARM chips through it's HSA and highly programmable GCN cores.


----------



## Serios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *btupsx*
> 
> PD does not use less power than Thuban. Soooo tired of hearing otherwise, the benches are out there. Anyway, fact remains that for a just above average Phenom, PD is a sidegrade, end of story. This isn't a backhanded compliment to Vishera. Let's try to steer this ship back on topic.


I remember I saw a review where both phenom x4 965 and the FX 6300 were tested.
The FX 6300 seemed to use as much power as the phenom 965 did only it had better performance especially in games and multithread. Also the 6300 has a lower TDP so it's easier to cool and overclock than the phenom 965.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *btupsx*
> 
> Don't get me wrong, if someone gave me a good 8320/8350, I wouldn't refuse it. But on the flip side of the coin, I have never at any point felt inclined to go out and buy one, either. Power consumption shouldn't be a joke; it *IS* a performance metric, albeit not exactly an exciting one for most on this site.


You obviously are happy with your CPU and not in need of an upgrade, nothing wrong with it. But make no mistake, going from stock thuban hexacore to stock PD octocore is no 2600k-3700k jump, it is a far bigger jump in perf.


----------



## delboy67

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MoGTy*
> 
> Yes and I wonder what the power consumption would be like. A little birdie told me the EU might just cap CPUs at 90W in the not too distant future.


This is sickening if true, they've already virtually destroyed my other hobby, cars, now they are going for computers.


----------



## Kuivamaa

CPUs not likely, I would be more concerned about GPUs.


----------



## Alatar

Guys try to stay on topic, this is a steamroller thread, Not thuban vs. Vishera one.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *delboy67*
> 
> This is sickening if true, they've already virtually destroyed my other hobby, cars, now they are going for computers.


It was just a baseless rumor a while back afaik.


----------



## MoGTy

EDIT: Actually never mind







I spoke too soon.


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Planetside 2 is completely CPU limited on my 4.4GHz 3930k, and generally runs like piss on any system unless you remove shadows and tone down certain details. It's barely even playable, by my standards, on my 4.6GHz FX-8150. Certainly, they are rushing to fix this, but it's currently a good example of a modern, poorly threaded, heavily CPU dependent, title.


On my system it is certainly unplayable. All I can do is capture small outposts and watchtowers at most. Everything else becomes a 20FPS mess.

What's cool is that I could fold 75% load on the GPU and I'd still get the same performance.

Yay for multitasking! [/sarcasm]


----------



## NaroonGTX

Thankfully that multithreaded optimization patch is coming for Planetside 2 sometime after the PS4 versions launches. I've never seen smooth gameplay footage of PS2. It's always been a slideshow, and several of the reviewers I follow on youtube even mentioned it. They say you get much better performance when you turn down (or off) the shadows and a few other video options, but it can still get really hectic.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> Power consumption is pretty useless and only means anything if you're sitting there running the rig at full load literally 24/7 *for days and months on end.*


That's not true.

Lower power consumption means I can get away with cheaper PSUs and cheaper cooling.


----------



## NaroonGTX

Aftermarket coolers for CPU's are already really cheap, and it's not always necessary to pay the premium for Gold/Platinum PSU's. That said, anyone building an "enthusiast" rig shouldn't be worried about how much they're spending on cooling and PSU.


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> That's not true.
> 
> Lower power consumption means I can get away with cheaper PSUs and cheaper cooling.


Cooling is already sufficient, and PSUs is not something you should cheap on.


----------



## bombastinator

interesting it's floating point is dropping. Gonna make GPU optimization even more important. It's like we're going back to the math coprocessor of the old 8080 PCs.


----------



## MrJava

Check this BOINC score for an A10-4600M (6497 INT and 1916 FP). The A10-4600M is 2.7/3.2 turbo, and yet it outstrips this Kaveri ES by 2x (int) and over 3x (fp). I don't think you can put too much stock in the BOINC results here. It could just be that turbo is not working properly under heavy FPU loads.
http://nikita.tnnet.fi/~evntr/boinca104600m.png
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bombastinator*
> 
> interesting it's floating point is dropping. Gonna make GPU optimization even more important. It's like we're going back to the math coprocessor of the old 8080 PCs.


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bombastinator*
> 
> interesting it's floating point is dropping. Gonna make GPU optimization even more important. It's like we're going back to the math coprocessor of the old 8080 PCs.


I don't care about floats. All my games were designed to use integers for all stuff, and floats/doubles are only for GPU tasks. When I can have a movement by +1 on int, I see no reason why throwing in double with its accuracy problems and twice as large RAM size requirements. Considering doubles can't do bitshifts and AND/OR operations, they are quite useless in most tasks.


----------



## MrJava

Isn't physics (in 3D) implemented with floats in games?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> I don't care about floats. All my games were designed to use integers for all stuff, and floats/doubles are only for GPU tasks. When I can have a movement by +1 on int, I see no reason why throwing in double with its accuracy problems and twice as large RAM size requirements. Considering doubles can't do bitshifts and AND/OR operations, they are quite useless in most tasks.


----------



## Raghar

Majority of "physics" engines runs on GFX cards, just to have enough power.


----------



## Nintendo Maniac 64

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> Aftermarket coolers for CPU's are already really cheap, and it's not always necessary to pay the premium for Gold/Platinum PSU's. That said, anyone building an "enthusiast" rig shouldn't be worried about how much they're spending on cooling and PSU.


Noise.


----------



## Opcode

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> I don't care about floats. All my games were designed to use integers for all stuff, and floats/doubles are only for GPU tasks. When I can have a movement by +1 on int, I see no reason why throwing in double with its accuracy problems and twice as large RAM size requirements. Considering doubles can't do bitshifts and AND/OR operations, they are quite useless in most tasks.


Your games must be very basic then. Without using floats I can only imagine how precise movements are when using only whole numbers. Also floats take up the same exact space as integers do in memory (4 bytes). You don't need to use doubles unless you are dealing with extremely large floating point numbers (in which no game does when it comes to basics like character movement). Relying on floats isn't a big issue for the basic tasks at hand, its more over an issue if the game is heavily reliant on them. I can name a few games that are heavily reliant on floating point numbers, and still run perfectly fine, fast, and smooth (Last Chaos for example). So the argument of sticking to integers because processors can obviously crunch them much faster results in a faster game is just nonsense. It takes less than a single millisecond to calculate floats on the CPU.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> Majority of "physics" engines runs on GFX cards, just to have enough power.


A majority of physics engines run on the CPU, you have to step up into big and well known (high cost commercial) engines to see any kind of OpenCL support built into the engine. This day in age processors can handle a majority of physics extremely well.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nintendo Maniac 64*
> 
> Noise.


My silver arrow cost a tiny fraction of my build cost (under £50, cpu was £275) and is the quietest thing in my rig, gpu fans at 1500rpm and hard drive are both far more obnoxious


----------



## Nintendo Maniac 64

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> My silver arrow cost a tiny fraction of my build cost (under £50, cpu was £275) and is the quietest thing in my rig, gpu fans at 1500rpm and hard drive are both far more obnoxious


I have a single SSD only in my desktop and put all my mechanical hard drives in another room in a file server precisely because they were noisy.

GPU-wise I undervolted it and modified the BIOS to have the fan off until it hits 85c but then ramp up semi quickly to around 50% at 95c which is more than enough to keep it from going any hotter. The GPU rarely even hits 90c with these settings, and contrary to popular belief that isn't too hot for the GPU (though it's my understanding that older GPUs tolerated higher temps better, or maybe people just weren't as OCD about GPU temps back then).


----------



## NaroonGTX

I've got two mechanical drives in my rig and can never hear them. Guess it depends on the make & model obviously, but...

Noise isn't an issue for me, my rig is silent even at loads. Even if it did get noisy, it wouldn't make a difference to me since I'm usually gaming/listening to music/watching a movie/etc. and always have my headphones on.


----------



## senna89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> Just Look at the difference from Bulldozer to Piledriver to now Steamroller! :O
> 
> Over a 30% increase in IPC from Piledriver in this specific cosmology benchmark!
> 
> 
> 
> " Thats over 1100% the jump we saw from Bulldozer to Piledriver! "
> 
> Big Thanks to Seronx for the Link!
> 
> Source


WHAT ARE THERE TO SMILE ?

+30 in interger but also -16% in floating point that should be much more important, if this test is correct will be another fail by AMD.


----------



## Tsumi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *senna89*
> 
> WHAT ARE THERE TO SMILE ?
> 
> +30 in interger but also -16% in floating point that should be much more important, if this test is correct will be another fail by AMD.


Not necessarily. Improving integer performance is much more important, you clearly don't know your technology. Additionally, with HSA, the FPUs will be supported by the iGPU, greatly increasing throughput.


----------



## iamwardicus

If they ever do a 3 module / 6 core Kaveri with the igpu then I'm sold... until then I'm hoping the actual Steamroller comes out for AM3+... If it's a drop in upgrade for my 8350 I'll go that route for now./


----------



## MrJava

Barring any bugs in the chip, I don't think its possible for floating point performance to have dropped below trinity/richland. *Remember that none of the actual floating point pipes have been cut in the FPU*. The MMX unit (which handles integer SIMD) was cut because it wasn't used too often and therefore sat there burning power unnecessarily.

I'm tired of repeating this. Maybe you can help me spread the message.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tsumi*
> 
> Not necessarily. Improving integer performance is much more important, you clearly don't know your technology. Additionally, with HSA, the FPUs will be supported by the iGPU, greatly increasing throughput.


----------



## MrJava

http://cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=187215
Lol, checked [email protected] again, there are new numbers from (presumably) a production sample:
INT: 3281.22 (+35% vs. piledriver)
FP: 642.51 (-7% vs. piledriver)


----------



## NaroonGTX

Assuming Kaveri's single-threaded perf is ~35%+ higher than Piledriver, where does it put it performance-wise against Intel? Sandy or Ivy?


----------



## Maelthras

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrJava*
> 
> http://cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=187215
> Lol, checked [email protected] again, there are new numbers from (presumably) a production sample:
> INT: 3281.22 (+35% vs. piledriver)
> FP: 642.51 (-7% vs. piledriver)


No, the stepping 0 indicates that is another engineering sample but one that is possibly more refined and closer to the release specs. Since it has added 100 to the interger score and 50 to it's floating point. Now if they can improve that even a little bit and drop it into a 6 core I am sure everyone would be all over that.


----------



## Maelthras

The early engineering sample had this.
Int: 504.7
FP:2544.64
Then the near production sample had this.
Int: 590.32
FP: 3177.13
And now this new engineering sample has this.
Int: 642.51
FP: 3281.22
Increase of 52 on Int and 104 on FP.
Looking promising. Though clock speed is unknown in recent numbers.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrJava*
> 
> Barring any bugs in the chip, I don't think its possible for floating point performance to have dropped below trinity/richland. *Remember that none of the actual floating point pipes have been cut in the FPU*. The MMX unit (which handles integer SIMD) was cut because it wasn't used too often and therefore sat there burning power unnecessarily.


Even if the loss of an MMX unit has no impact on this particular FP test (and this is not at all clear), that does not imply that there are not other architectural trade offs to have caused a modest hit here. AMD has claimed that the losses are in mutually exclusive areas, but such a claim may not be entirely accurate.

If these leaked tests are at all representative, it certainly implies that the changes made to the FPU can result in a loss of performance in some situations.

Likely they simply considered it an acceptable trade-off.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrJava*
> 
> http://cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=187215
> Lol, checked [email protected] again, there are new numbers from (presumably) a production sample:
> INT: 3281.22 (+35% vs. piledriver)
> FP: 642.51 (-7% vs. piledriver)


From my experience Windows 7 because microsoft is a douche won't support the GPU aided threading driver wise and it's only running on the CPU portion, if so this exceeds my expectations. We would need Windows 8 for it. Rumors were that with GPU aided threading even the CPU portion of non-fpu jumped up a bit as well. 15%-25% was the estimate, but that's also a rumor.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Those leaks persist. I am now sure we are looking at true kaveri mobile ES units. FPU regression is a concern of course.


----------



## Tsumi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> Those leaks persist. I am now sure we are looking at true kaveri mobile ES units. FPU regression is a concern of course.


According to the Anandtech article, both the integer cores and the FPU cores are not changing. The improvements are coming from other areas and should be universal for both integer and FPU, mainly dealing with improved branch prediction, larger cache, and overall more efficient utilization of the cores. AMD is also utilizing their own version of the micro-op cache for Steamroller, which is what gave Sandy Bridge much of its IPC improvement over Nehalem.

Therefore, the FPU regression is most likely some sort of bug that's occurring either in the program or the CPU itself.


----------



## Kuivamaa

All that info comes from last year,though. We aren't sure they apply for "kaveri 2.0". But yeah, this μop cache will be very interesting.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tsumi*
> 
> According to the Anandtech article, both the integer cores and the FPU cores are not changing. The improvements are coming from other areas and should be universal for both integer and FPU, mainly dealing with improved branch prediction, larger cache, and overall more efficient utilization of the cores. AMD is also utilizing their own version of the micro-op cache for Steamroller, which is what gave Sandy Bridge much of its IPC improvement over Nehalem.
> 
> Therefore, the FPU regression is most likely some sort of bug that's occurring either in the program or the CPU itself.


Windows 7 bug more like it.


----------



## azanimefan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> Assuming Kaveri's single-threaded perf is ~35%+ higher than Piledriver, where does it put it performance-wise against Intel? Sandy or Ivy?


Just a hair under SB... SB was about 40% faster then Piledriver... so it would be unimaginably close to SB... close enough i'd call it a wash. Close enough it would probably come down to average clock speeds at stock and average clock speeds attainable under an overclock.


----------



## PiOfPie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *azanimefan*
> 
> Just a hair under SB... SB was about 40% faster then Piledriver... so it would be unimaginably close to SB... close enough i'd call it a wash. Close enough it would probably come down to average clock speeds at stock and average clock speeds attainable under an overclock.


Which, assuming Steamroller clocks similarly to Richland, probably means that it'll fall somewhere between a dead heat with Sandy (worst-case) and between Sandy/Ivy (best-case) in terms of overall single-core performance while competing well with Haswell in multi-core. More than good enough for my purposes.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *azanimefan*
> 
> Just a hair under SB... SB was about 40% faster then Piledriver... so it would be unimaginably close to SB... close enough i'd call it a wash. Close enough it would probably come down to average clock speeds at stock and average clock speeds attainable under an overclock.


Don't want to be a bit of a jerk but everyone says it's like 30-75% with sway of exaggeration. I think it's closer to the 35% if not less. Not only that but 4770k fell back 3% IPC. Not even sure if their benchmarks are done in Hyper-threading or not.


----------



## NaroonGTX

The original target was 15% for overall perf/watt with each new generation, but Steamroller was revised since then and "Steamroller B" has been known about since Jan. 2013. All these recent leaks suggest a huge boost (over Piledriver) in integer performance which is what I need for my uses, so I guess either way I'll be satisfied with the part.


----------



## yawa

Enough brute force to make it a wash in games is all I wanted.

I never thought I'd say this in 2013, but between the console hardware lockups, Hawaii proving nearly every predicted rumour before it's release true ("512 bits, no way...!"), and Steamroller on the cusp of making a performance jump none of us thought even remotely possible given the timeline ( if it falls between Sandy and Haswell, it is entirely possible Excavator could take the performance lead, however briefly before Skylake), AMD are doing things I literally did not think of as possible even a few months ago. Color me impressed.

They are building a Tidalwave of momentum unseen since the early days of this rivalry. Let's hope Steamroller is everything ( or more) we hope it to be, because if it is, we will remember this year as the miraculous rebirth of a company that nearly went bankrupt almost a year ago to this day.


----------



## NaroonGTX

It's all down to Rory Read's excellence, really.


----------



## yawa

I'm just saying, this is a very different AMD than the one that nearly blew it's own brains out with bulldozer.

I'll even go so far as to say the staggered confusing ass, launch of Hawaii was a stroke of genius as they managed to confuse Nvidia enough that they forced their hand to EOL Titan and pull out all the stops on a 780Ti.

Did it look sloppy? Yes it did.

Did Nvidia drop their prices and react to it before they really knew what was coming? Yes they did, and I'd wager that was AMD's goal all along.

And AMD is still holding something back. The 290 launch and a driver refresh that could nullify the Ti, or at the least force Nvidia to drop it's price even further than they originally intended to.

There is a confidence in their actions this time I have not seen in a long time. And that confidence tells me they have something special coming with Steamroller and for once, they know it.

Time will tell but my money is on, it will be a far greater thing than all of us originally presumed it to be. I mean keep in mind, this integer performance is most likely coming from a 35 watt mobile part. What if they have a 95 watt or gasp, even a 125 watt unannounced desktop monster waiting in the wings?

You must keep in mind, they (massively) over delivered with Hawaii, it is not outside the realm of possibility they have something as crazy in store with Steamroller as well.


----------



## PandaX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PiOfPie*
> 
> Which, assuming Steamroller clocks similarly to Richland, probably means that it'll fall somewhere between a dead heat with Sandy (worst-case) and between Sandy/Ivy (best-case) in terms of overall single-core performance while competing well with Haswell in multi-core. More than good enough for my purposes.


If this happens, its a dream come true for gamers.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yawa*
> 
> *Enough brute force to make it a wash in games is all I wanted.*
> 
> I never thought I'd say this in 2013, but between the console hardware lockups, Hawaii proving nearly every predicted rumour before it's release true ("512 bits, no way...!"), and Steamroller on the cusp of making a performance jump none of us thought even remotely possible given the timeline ( if it falls between Sandy and Haswell, it is entirely possible Excavator could take the performance lead, however briefly before Skylake), AMD are doing things I literally did not think of as possible even a few months ago. Color me impressed.
> 
> They are building a Tidalwave of momentum unseen since the early days of this rivalry. Let's hope Steamroller is everything ( or more) we hope it to be, because if it is, we will remember this year as the miraculous rebirth of a company that nearly went bankrupt almost a year ago to this day.


me too, all I care are about gaming performance.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yawa*
> 
> Enough brute force to make it a wash in games is all I wanted.
> 
> I never thought I'd say this in 2013, but between the console hardware lockups, Hawaii proving nearly every predicted rumour before it's release true ("512 bits, no way...!"), and Steamroller on the cusp of making a performance jump none of us thought even remotely possible given the timeline ( if it falls between Sandy and Haswell, it is entirely possible Excavator could take the performance lead, however briefly before Skylake), AMD are doing things I literally did not think of as possible even a few months ago. Color me impressed.
> 
> They are building a Tidalwave of momentum unseen since the early days of this rivalry. Let's hope Steamroller is everything ( or more) we hope it to be, because if it is, we will remember this year as the miraculous rebirth of a company that nearly went bankrupt almost a year ago to this day.


Saying it almost bankrupt is nearly a stretch with it's thriving GPU market and Laptop processors.


----------



## NaroonGTX

I love the way he worded it, AMD did come close to annihilating themselves. The current AMD is a totally different company than the AMD of yesterday. Different leadership, different management, etc. They are executing at a great consistent rate. The way they were continuously trolling everyone with the 290x launch was hilarious. Nvidia didn't even know what to do. Announcing such lame things as G-Sync and trying to hype it up to the moon in an effort to downplay the hype of the 290x.


----------



## HanSomPa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> Saying it almost bankrupt is nearly a stretch with it's thriving GPU market and Laptop processors.


No it's not. Have you seen AMD's financial? Even now, they live perilously close to an uncomfortable edge. They're not bankrupt, but they most certainly do not have a "failure" threshold that Intel and Nvidia do.


----------



## yawa

Thanks guys, i tried to word it right.

All I'm saying at this point, is I would avoid basing anything off of previous Steamroller roadmaps at this point. No roadmap even came close to predicting the brute force power of the Hawaii GPUs and I have a feeling ( call it a hunch) we are in for something spectacular when it comes to Steamroller.

So when a three module, 4.0 GHz Steamroller Desktop APU with a 95 watt TDP drops in 15 - 20 days with 832 Stream Processors and the single threaded IPC of a 3930k, I want you to remember I called it first.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HanSomPa*
> 
> No it's not. Have you seen AMD's financial? Even now, they live perilously close to an uncomfortable edge. They're not bankrupt, but they most certainly do not have a "failure" threshold that Intel and Nvidia do.


There definitely is no wiggle room.


----------



## PandaX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yawa*
> 
> Thanks guys, i tried to word it right.
> 
> All I'm saying at this point, is I would avoid basing anything off of previous Steamroller roadmaps at this point. No roadmap even came close to predicting the brute force power of the Hawaii GPUs and I have a feeling ( call it a hunch) we are in for something spectacular when it comes to Steamroller.
> 
> *So when a three module, 4.0 GHz Steamroller Desktop APU drops in 15 - 20 days with 800 Stream Processors and the ssingle threaded IPC of a 3930k, I want you to remember I called it first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


If this happens, ill send you cookies.


----------



## yawa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PandaX*
> 
> If this happens, ill send you cookies.


And I will gladly accept them. And together with our new rigs, we will play as many poorly optimized single threaded games as we can find ( Starting with Guild Wars 2 and World of Tanks) and we will do so while laughing and telling jokes over vent. Much merriment will be had, and all will be well.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yawa*
> 
> And I will gladly accept them. And together with our new rigs, we will play as many poorly optimized single threaded games as we can find ( Starting with Guild Wars 2 and World of Tanks) and we will do so while laughing and telling jokes over vent. Much merriment will be had, and all will be well.


I'm in on that! Let's boot up Skyrim...

stack overflow


----------



## yawa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> Saying it almost bankrupt is nearly a stretch with it's thriving GPU market and Laptop processors.


Trust me I've been buying AMD stock for the last few months with my meager salary while trying to stay top of it's financials, it is a treacherous endeavor still.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> I'm in on that! Let's boot up Skyrim...
> 
> stack overflow


I was thinking of something we could bottom out our fps in together but, sure. Why not Skyrim?


----------



## S.M.

Sell your AMD stock.

Thanks.


----------



## yawa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *S.M.*
> 
> Sell your AMD stock.
> 
> Thanks.


Heh, no. The short sellers got it wrong selling off last week when AMD reported in the black for the first time in forever. Hasn't even begun to peak yet.


----------



## MrJava

The micro-op queue already exists in bulldozer/piledriver and is likely already drawn upon when loops are detected. As per Mark Papermaster's Hotchips presentation, Steamroller is better at "detecting the loop and fetching from the micro-op buffer". This "micro-op buffer" is probably similar in size to the small loop buffer that intel has in addition to its large 1.5KB micro-op cache. But every little bit helps IPC I guess.









uOp Q between decode domain and dispatch thread domain.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> All that info comes from last year,though. We aren't sure they apply for "kaveri 2.0". But yeah, this μop cache will be very interesting.


----------



## yawa

I'm more of the mindset at this point that they could go two ways with their desktop chips not hinted at in any roadmap yet.

The first maybe a powerhouse Steamroller B APU light on the GCN (384 sp's perhaps?) in favor of adding raw CPU performance a third (hell, or fourth) module and/or L3 cache for those looking for a powerful, fairly traditional processor and are already running high end GFX cards. I think this would satisfy both sides of the argument as they don't have so many SP's on there that it gets in the way of single threaded performance, while at the same time not being left out of the HSA party down the road because it at least managed to pack some SP's on the die.

Then a Steamroller chip that maxes out the original idea of an HSA fueled APU. A chip with no more than four cores, 512 - 832 SP's, yet no L3 cache purely for the high powered laptop, or budget desktop segment.

And/or finally if I'm wrong with both of those predictions, the mythical chip I mentioned last page that would beat a 3930k and have the equivalent of a 7850 to 7870 on board because why the hell not. Crazier things have happened.


----------



## MrJava

If they're going to do a high end desktop CPU (4 or more modules) then they may as well do it right - at least 3 DDR4 channels and at least 16 PCIe 3.0 lanes (on-die).

Edit:
As in-memory databases and big data analytics type applications become more prevalent then memory bandwidth and integer SIMD performance will become more important for server CPUs. So I could see an excavator opteron having 4 DDR4 channels and native AVX2 support in 2015. This chip will then trickle down to gamers and enthusiasts.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yawa*
> 
> I'm more of the mindset at this point that they could go two ways with their desktop chips not hinted at in any roadmap yet.
> 
> The first maybe a powerhouse Steamroller B APU light on the GCN (384 sp's perhaps?) in favor of adding raw CPU performance a third (hell, or fourth) module and/or L3 cache for those looking for a powerful, fairly traditional processor and are already running high end GFX cards.
> 
> Then a Steamroller chip that maxes out the original idea of an HSA fueled APU. A chip with no more than four cores, 512 - 832 SP's, yet no L3 cache purely for the high powered laptop, or budget desktop segment.
> 
> And/or finally if I'm wrong with both of those predictions, the mythical chip I mentioned last page that would beat a 3930k and have the equivalent of a 7850 to 7870 on board because why the hell not. Crazier things have happened.


On the processor side of things it may beat the 3770k but it won't touch 7850 frames, but it's minimum frames maybe comparable. I assume it's performance to rival GDDR5 of 7750 while performing on DDR3 just because it rides on the same bus as the processor. This would still be fantastic in ultra cheap lan rigs with dual graphics.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrJava*
> 
> If they're going to do a high end desktop CPU (4 or more modules) then they may as well do it right - at least 3 DDR4 channels and at least 16 PCIe 3.0 lanes (on-die).


DDR4 doesn't get released till Q1 2014 and will only take up only 4% of the memory on the market. It won't even be feasible till 2015. The GPU on CPU does not ride on a on chip PCIe bus, it rides on the same bus as the processor. Llano was the one that ran on the on chip PCIe.


----------



## MrJava

Where are you getting these figures from, lol?

AMD already has products for 2H 2014 with DDR4 support (their Seattle ARM server chip). AMD has a lot of incentive to move to DDR4 very quickly and Intel will likely push DDR4 adoption as well. Not to mention LPDDR4 looks likely for various cellphones and tablets next year.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> DDR4 doesn't get released till Q1 2014 and will only take up only 4% of the memory on the market. It won't even be feasible till 2015. The GPU on CPU does not ride on a on chip PCIe bus, it rides on the same bus as the processor. Llano was the one that ran on the on chip PCIe.


----------



## yawa

- BTW the reason I'm predicting more than two modules on at least one type of this APU is it just seems weird to me that both consoles have 8 core CPUs and as such AMD will likely push heavily for the devs to multi-thread their games as much as possible. So for them to suddenly go ahead and not offer any of those 4 module options for upcoming PC builds when a big part of this whole "locking up the consoles" strategy would seem to me to be to take advantage of quick, optimized, AMD compiled and favored PC ports going forward.

Which again, just seems weird.-


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrJava*
> 
> Where are you getting these figures from, lol?
> 
> AMD already has products for 2H 2014 with DDR4 support (their Seattle ARM server chip). AMD has a lot of incentive to move to DDR4 very quickly and Intel will likely push DDR4 adoption as well. Not to mention LPDDR4 looks likely for various cellphones and tablets next year.


I realize that, but it's not really a consumers market for DDR4. I imagine the revised edition of Kevari will have all that, the Richland of the Trinity so to speak. Didn't even have to wait a whole year. Probably will be an FM3 board in preperation for next years chips supporting old Kevari and it's revised.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yawa*
> 
> - BTW the reason I'm predicting more than two modules on at least one type of this APU is it just seems weird to me that both consoles have 8 core CPUs and as such AMD will likely push heavily for the devs to multi-thread their games as much as possible. So for them to suddenly go ahead and not offer any of those 4 module options for upcoming PC builds when a big part of this whole "locking up the consoles" strategy would seem to me to be to take advantage of quick, optimized, AMD compiled and favored PC ports going forward.
> 
> Which again, just seems weird.-


I wouldn't assume it'll be an immediate product. Like my thoughts before perhaps a revised version, after all Desktop chips have to worry about temps.


----------



## iamwardicus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yawa*
> 
> Thanks guys, i tried to word it right.
> 
> All I'm saying at this point, is I would avoid basing anything off of previous Steamroller roadmaps at this point. No roadmap even came close to predicting the brute force power of the Hawaii GPUs and I have a feeling ( call it a hunch) we are in for something spectacular when it comes to Steamroller.
> 
> So when a three module, 4.0 GHz Steamroller Desktop APU with a 95 watt TDP drops in 15 - 20 days with 832 Stream Processors and the single threaded IPC of a 3930k, I want you to remember I called it first.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PandaX*
> 
> If this happens, ill send you cookies.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yawa*
> 
> And I will gladly accept them. And together with our new rigs, we will play as many poorly optimized single threaded games as we can find ( Starting with Guild Wars 2 and World of Tanks) and we will do so while laughing and telling jokes over vent. Much merriment will be had, and all will be well.


If this comes to pass...







I'll also have to send cookies. I'll also have to go out and buy an A88X mobo and a new processor...

This is what I want to see happen along with the game developers utilizing the additional performance of the iGPU.


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nintendo Maniac 64*
> 
> Noise.


Oh come on invest in a water loop already









I rock the same loop since half a year before I got rid of my Opteron 1214, only replaced the pump that died, and added a reservoir for practicality.

Total loop cost 200€. In January it'll be three years and a half since I put it together.









Chances are it'll go straight as it is into the next computer. The mounting plate doesn't have fitting holes? We drill some!


----------



## NaroonGTX

Don't wanna be a buzzkill but the chances of a 3 module part are very slim for now. We might see it in the future, but all roadmaps have made it clear that it's a 2 module part. The iGPU will also most likely have 512 GCN cores rather than the 832+ we've been hearing about.

Just don't set yourselves up with unrealistic expectations only to be disappointed when more official info on Kaveri gets unveiled, is all.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

If it can beat my i7 3820 clock for clock, then I'll get a new AM3+ or AM4 mobo


----------



## NaroonGTX

AM4 won't exist. The 1090FX platform was canceled a long time ago. FM2+ will be for Kaveri and Carrizo, and I'd guess FM3 would come for whatever succeeds Excavator.


----------



## MoGTy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> AM4 won't exist. The 1090FX platform was canceled a long time ago. FM2+ will be for Kaveri and Carrizo, and I'd guess FM3 would come for whatever succeeds Excavator.


Probably Dredger.

Or Trencher.

If it's bad they can call it Dump Truck.


----------



## os2wiz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> AM4 won't exist. The 1090FX platform was canceled a long time ago. FM2+ will be for Kaveri and Carrizo, and I'd guess FM3 would come for whatever succeeds Excavator.


Assumption. There is Nothing official from AMD that FM2+ will be the socket for Excavator. It is a logical assumption, as it has been AMD's tradition to keep the same socket for at least 2 generations of cpu's, but it is Not established fact as far as I know.


----------



## Nintendo Maniac 64

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> Oh come on invest in a water loop already
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I rock the same loop since half a year before I got rid of my Opteron 1214, only replaced the pump that died, and added a reservoir for practicality.
> 
> Total loop cost 200€. In January it'll be three years and a half since I put it together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chances are it'll go straight as it is into the next computer. The mounting plate doesn't have fitting holes? We drill some!


Oh I have the capability to water cool, the problem is that even water cooling would be louder than my current set-up _except_ when it's running at full-tilt OC'd. The main issue is that air cooling can even be set to be turned off and/or run at extremely slow & quiet speeds (~300rpm on a 140mm fan) while water always has a minimum "running" requirement and therefore essentially has a noise floor.

There's a reason I'm still using a Brisbane and an 8800GS.







I'm holding out for Kaveri or its DDR4 successor - it's much easier to make a quiet setup when your GPU is on the same die as the CPU, not to mention after-market CPU heatsinks are typically larger and easier to aquire and set-up anyway.


----------



## Gereti

ohh,, this one would be good update to my phenom


----------



## NaroonGTX

Quote:


> Assumption. There is Nothing official from AMD that FM2+ will be the socket for Excavator. It is a logical assumption, as it has been AMD's tradition to keep the same socket for at least 2 generations of cpu's, but it is Not established fact as far as I know.


Actually if you look at the image I posted in the "Steamroller?" thread, one of AMD's slides about APU platforms states under the FM2+ section that it will be the socket for "current and future APUs and Processors". "Future" could just mean Kaveri, but there's nothing to suggest right now that Carrizo would require a new socket, and Roy Taylor said in an interview that they're "sticking with FM2(+)" for the foreseeable future.


----------



## SpeedyVT

T____T I want Final Fantasy XIV a realm reborn. I was benching it for a friend the other day on my Trinity and it ran sooo smooth! I just can't stand fees online.


----------



## NaroonGTX

I was interested in that game, but I also don't feel like playing fees, especially for a game I'd only play every now and then.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> I was interested in that game, but I also don't feel like playing fees, especially for a game I'd only play every now and then.


Try the benches on an APU they run spectacular! It literally utilizes them to the fullest.


----------



## Opcode

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nintendo Maniac 64*
> 
> Oh I have the capability to water cool, the problem is that even water cooling would be louder than my current set-up _except_ when it's running at full-tilt OC'd. The main issue is that air cooling can even be set to be turned off and/or run at extremely slow & quiet speeds (~300rpm on a 140mm fan) while water always has a minimum "running" requirement and therefore essentially has a noise floor.
> 
> There's a reason I'm still using a Brisbane and an 8800GS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm holding out for Kaveri or its DDR4 successor - it's much easier to make a quiet setup when your GPU is on the same die as the CPU, not to mention after-market CPU heatsinks are typically larger and easier to aquire and set-up anyway.


With 65w tdp you could passive cool Kaveri's successor.


----------



## sdlvx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *azanimefan*
> 
> Just a hair under SB... SB was about 40% faster then Piledriver... so it would be unimaginably close to SB... close enough i'd call it a wash. Close enough it would probably come down to average clock speeds at stock and average clock speeds attainable under an overclock.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't want to be a bit of a jerk but everyone says it's like 30-75% with sway of exaggeration. I think it's closer to the 35% if not less. Not only that but 4770k fell back 3% IPC. Not even sure if their benchmarks are done in Hyper-threading or not.
Click to expand...

The problem with people is they take 4.0ghz base clock of FX 8350 and 3.5ghz base clock of 4770k and then assume that those will be the clocks when the CPU is doing single threaded tasks. So they calculate the IPC difference based off of base clocks.

The problem with that is that AMD's turbo boost doesn't work as well as Intel's at all, and that Intel chips turbo more.

difference between

4.0ghz and 3.5ghz is 14.3% (both at base frequency)
3.9ghz and and 4.2ghz 7.7% (both at turbo frequency)
3.9ghz and 4.0ghz 2.5% (Intel turbo working and FX at base clocks)

This seems to completely elude people and they don't get it at all. They assume that there is a 14% clockspeed difference in single thread tests while it reality it is probably more like 7% or 2%


----------



## TKFlight

This is actually very interesting if this holds up to be true, but I'm going to hold off on a mobo/cpu upgrade until Skylake or Excavator. I understand the excitement because there hasn't been much competition between AMD/Intel in quite awhile, it looks promising with these leaked benchmarks but I'll believe it when I see it. Not taking this to seriously until Steamroller is released and there are actual benchmarks showing these improvements. I really do hope these are true though because if AMD can build off this Excavator could be insanely good and make Intel step up their game with Skylake.


----------



## xquisit

I definitely need an upgrade, but I'm not sure if I should wait or jump the gun on Ivy Bridge-E...


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sdlvx*
> 
> The problem with people is they take 4.0ghz base clock of FX 8350 and 3.5ghz base clock of 4770k and then assume that those will be the clocks when the CPU is doing single threaded tasks. So they calculate the IPC difference based off of base clocks.
> 
> The problem with that is that AMD's turbo boost doesn't work as well as Intel's at all, and that Intel chips turbo more.
> 
> difference between
> 
> 4.0ghz and 3.5ghz is 14.3% (both at base frequency)
> 3.9ghz and and 4.2ghz 7.7% (both at turbo frequency)
> 3.9ghz and 4.0ghz 2.5% (Intel turbo working and FX at base clocks)
> 
> This seems to completely elude people and they don't get it at all. They assume that there is a 14% clockspeed difference in single thread tests while it reality it is probably more like 7% or 2%


Yeah this assumption is everywhere. From what I've seen in gaming, an i7-3770k never drops below 3.7Ghz (usually it stays higher) while there are Z87 mobos that will keep an i5-4670k [email protected] and an [email protected] 3.9 during gaming in all cores.


----------



## yawa

I get the hesitency believe me, but I'm going out on a limb here and calling any previous roadmap for Steamroller bunk at this point because of the switch to the B cores. As such I believe in about 18 or so days they will deliver something we aren't expecting at the press conference.

So I'm going restate my predictions when it comes to high end desktop APU's ( especially since all of the leaks up till this point have only been low end mobile APU's), so here they are.

I'm calling two midrange to high end desktop chips being revealed.

- One, a high midrange FM2+ chip, running 832 Stream processors, no L3 cache, and two Steamroller B modules as the pure HSA enabled APU for an AIO build. This is the Richland Successor. -

- Second, a more traditional, yet made to challenge the high end segment, chip with less than 512 Stream processors ( maybe even 386), using the free space to put in a significant amount of L3 cache, and three to four Steamroller B modules for those of us who already own high end GPU's, and don't need one on the die. This is the surprise, the chip to keep them in the enthusiast market and push user's to get an FM2+ motherboard. To show the high end segment they haven't been forgotten. Keep in mind also, this chip's existence I believe would (neatly) explain the sudden onset of higher end Motherboards in the FM socket range.

Of course the cutback, but not elimination of SP's is because they want all mainstream chips going forward to have access to HSA, while at the same time keeping the higher core count of previous generations to make the ports from the 8 core consoles standardized across platforms and compilers. It just makes no sense to me why AMD would put 8 cores in the consoles and encourage developers to properly multi-thread games if they aren't gonna keep the same core count on their PC products for easy, quick, PC ports.-

I know it sounds crazy, but I will state again what I've said. Hawaii over delivered. No Roadmap at the time even remotely pegged that chip as powerful as it wound up being. I have a feeling the smoke and mirror act AMD pulled with their R290 chips, is going to carry over to SR. It's why we've heard nothing from them since mid-year.

Something is going to happen. Something unexpected, and I have a feeling we are all going to be shocked come the day of reveal.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but considering what AMD did with Hawaii, I think now is probably as good a time as any to up the speculation ( and hope) for their forthcoming CPU's.

Feel free to add your predictions BTW. May as well go nuts till 11/20 or whenever the conference is.


----------



## bspader

An article I thought you guys would like. I am a big AMD fan! LOL

AMD Excavator Core May Bring Dramatic Performance Increases.

AMD Excavator's AVX2 Support Hints at New FPU
[10/18/2013 10:48 PM]
by Anton Shilov

As Advanced Micro Devices is preparing to launch its next-generation microprocessors with Steamroller high-performance x86 cores, enthusiasts are revealing secrets about its fourth-generation Bulldozer core code-named Excavator. As it appears, that processing engine will support 256-bit AVX2 floating point instructions, which may mean that it will feature rather revolutionary changes from existing Bulldozer cores.

AMD recently released a patch to the GCC community that enables support for its future high-performance micro-architecture code-named Excavator, which the chip developer calls "bdver4" internally. The initial patch is designed to bring very general support of Excavator to Linux operating system, but even that general support may reveal some of the secrets the Excavator may have. Based on the information released by AMD, the Excavator will support all the instructions found in the modern Intel code-named Haswell microprocessors, including SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES, PCLMUL, AVX, BMI, F16C, MOVBE, AVX2, BMI2, RDRND and so on.

The most important disclosure is support for AVX2 instructions introduced by Intel Haswell earlier this year. While such instructions are barely used today and therefore may not be considered important nowadays, they require major hardware changes from previous generations, something that is clearly important for the future.


The original AVX brought 256-bit floating-point SIMD instructions, the AVX2 allows to operate with the AVX 256-bit wide YMM register for integer data types. The problem with current AMD hardware is that the Bulldozer FPU only supports 128-bit integer operations used in the XOP instruction set, reports HardwareLuxx web-site.

To support AVX2 instructions, AMD will need to either considerably upgrade its FPU [floating point unit], which is shared between two ALUs in a Bulldozer module, or even develop a new one from scratch. The new one will expectedly feature dramatic performance improvements, but even a redesigned one should be noticeably faster than existing one in numerous demanding applications that process loads of data.

Considering the timing about Excavator - 2015 or even 2016 - redesign of the FPU is completely logical and necessary. Keeping in mind that by the time AMD's Excavator begins to roll commercially, Intel will release its brand-new Skylake high-performance micro-architecture that will support 512-bit AVX instructions known as AVX 3.2, upgrading FPU is simply a must.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yawa*
> 
> I get the hesitency believe me, but I'm going out on a limb here and calling any previous roadmap for Steamroller bunk at this point because of the switch to the B cores. As such I believe in about 18 or so days they will deliver something we aren't expecting at the press conference.
> 
> So I'm going restate my predictions when it comes to high end desktop APU's ( especially since all of the leaks up till this point have only been low end mobile APU's), so here they are.
> 
> I'm calling two midrange to high end desktop chips being revealed.
> 
> - One, a high midrange FM2+ chip, running 832 Stream processors, no L3 cache, and two Steamroller B modules as the pure HSA enabled APU for an AIO build. This is the Richland Successor. -
> 
> - Second, a more traditional, yet made to challenge the high end segment, chip with less than 512 Stream processors ( maybe even 386), using the free space to put in a significant amount of L3 cache, and three to four Steamroller B modules for those of us who already own high end GPU's, and don't need one on the die. This is the surprise, the chip to keep them in the enthusiast market and push user's to get an FM2+ motherboard. To show the high end segment they haven't been forgotten. Keep in mind also, this chip's existence I believe would (neatly) explain the sudden onset of higher end Motherboards in the FM socket range.
> 
> Of course the cutback, but not elimination of SP's is because they want all mainstream chips going forward to have access to HSA, while at the same time keeping the higher core count of previous generations to make the ports from the 8 core consoles standardized across platforms and compilers. It just makes no sense to me why AMD would put 8 cores in the consoles and encourage developers to properly multi-thread games if they aren't gonna keep the same core count on their PC products for easy, quick, PC ports.-
> 
> I know it sounds crazy, but I will state again what I've said. Hawaii over delivered. No Roadmap at the time even remotely pegged that chip as powerful as it wound up being. I have a feeling the smoke and mirror act AMD pulled with their R290 chips, is going to carry over to SR. It's why we've heard nothing from them since mid-year.
> 
> Something is going to happen. Something unexpected, and I have a feeling we are all going to be shocked come the day of reveal.
> 
> If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but considering what AMD did with Hawaii, I think now is probably as good a time as any to up the speculation ( and hope) for their forthcoming CPU's.
> 
> Feel free to add your predictions BTW. May as well go nuts till 11/20 or whenever the conference is.


I can't wait for a die shrinkage.


----------



## btupsx

@ yawa I've shared your exact same viewpoint for nearly two months now. I too have the distinct feeling that they're going to surprise us at the conference, just unsure of the final product.


----------



## yawa

Take a guess then. Nothing to lose speculating at this point. Give me your ideal FM2+ high end SR chip.

I find it odd no one since the onset of the new Motherboards and standard have speculated that AMD may cut SP's count to facilitate a high end traditional CPU to replace the 8350. I personally think that's a given at this point.

I just think if SR achieves any significant IPC gains over PD in a traditional core sense, it would be a massive waste to not take advantage of that with an enthusiast level chip that sacrifices SP's to bring us L3 cache and more modules.

It would also be a great way to get those of us still clinging to AM3 boards ( and there are a lot of us) who don't necessarily want build an APU powered midrange system, to finally make the jump to the new socket.

I've thought this since the first FM2+ boards were released. There wouldn't be high end variants of these boards if the chip was remaining a mid range performer.

So the extra time they've had, the switch to B cores, the surprising amount of high end FM2+ motherboards, and most importantly, the flat out sense it makes to get as many of us still hanging on to our Phenom II X 6's and FX Pildrivers to finally adopt their new socket are why I believe a shockingly powerful, enthusiast level, 3-4 core SR APU is incoming. It makes sense, and more importantly, scaling back stream processor counts, makes it doable.

Before the argument with past roadmaps could be made to just abandon the high end market after PD. Let us toil away on our AM3 motherboards till HSA catches on and makes mid level APU's the standard.

But now, knowing what we now do about SR ( especially the raw integer performance coming from of all things, a mobile engineering sample!) I don't think that argument can be made anymore. Especially considering AMD would be conceding potential FM2+ sales to Intel by not giving us a chip to make us ditch AM3. Which simply put, makes zero business sense.

It is in the fact that they will want as many of us AM3 users adopting FM2+ as soon as possible that I believe the potential for this chip exiting comes from, as the only way to achieve such a thing is to offer us something better than what we currently have.


----------



## NaroonGTX

Just to let you know, the Steamroller B cores were known about for about a year now, lol: http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/29986-richland-successor-in-2014-is-kaveri

So they switched to the B revision quite some time ago, which is most likely when the plans for GDDR5 and 3 module Kaveri were canceled. So it's not like the revision was recently or anything, this has been in effect for quite some time, and the roadmaps were last updated around Summer this year, and Kaveri was still listed as having 2-4 cores. Don't expect more cores until perhaps a Kaveri refresh, and even that isn't guaranteed.



The point of the APU's is to build up the install base of APU owners in order to help HSA take off. That's why I don't see them lowering the number of SP's because you'd much more throughput in OpenCL/HSA workloads with more SP's than with more cores. I guess they figured that 4 stronger cores (which might outperform current FX-6xxx chips) would be enough and then dedicated the rest of the die space to a beefier, stronger, more efficient GPU. An APU with an extra module is possible, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. The only reason people want this is because they want Steamroller, just with more cores than four.

I think those people might get FX chips later on down the line, but there's no Opteron chip so far that's based on Steamroller except for Berlin, which is very similar to the Kaveri APU. Wasn't Warsaw listed for 2H 2014? So at best there would be a Piledriver refresh using RCM this time like they did with Richland.

http://techreport.com/news/24973/berlin-warsaw-are-the-future-of-amd-x86-server-lineup



And this quip from a Semi-Accurate post spells out why it seems unlikely that we would see a CPU-only Steamroller-based part:
Quote:


> What's more interesting though is what "Warsaw" says about AMD's high-end server CPU development. As late as AMD's presentation at World Hosting Days in October of 2012 AMD had a rather nebulous "Future High Performance CPU" listed on its roadmap for introduction in H2 2014. But for whatever reason, that chip was canned. So despite "Steamroller's" presence in the midrange, AMD's high-end offerings will still be based on the aging "Piledriver" core. This news bodes poorly for enthusiasts who were hoping to see a "Steamroller" based FX CPU, because it's doubtful that AMD would release an eight plus core chip without offering a server variant of said chip.


----------



## yawa

For the record, I am not even remotely hoping for a pure CPU AM3+ SR chip. That ship has sailed. Just less SP's and more modules for the illusion of more power to get us to ditch our beloved AM3 socket.

But hey, if I'm wrong, they can take me off to the asylum for some quiet time. I'll go peacefully, quietly. I'll enjoy it.

But if I'm right, and we get a 3 to 4 module chip that gives Haswell a run for it's money, Leeeeennnnnyyyy, they will have saved the potential sales of millions of registered overclockers.


----------



## os2wiz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yawa*
> 
> I get the hesitency believe me, but I'm going out on a limb here and calling any previous roadmap for Steamroller bunk at this point because of the switch to the B cores. As such I believe in about 18 or so days they will deliver something we aren't expecting at the press conference.
> 
> So I'm going restate my predictions when it comes to high end desktop APU's ( especially since all of the leaks up till this point have only been low end mobile APU's), so here they are.
> 
> I'm calling two midrange to high end desktop chips being revealed.
> 
> - One, a high midrange FM2+ chip, running 832 Stream processors, no L3 cache, and two Steamroller B modules as the pure HSA enabled APU for an AIO build. This is the Richland Successor. -
> 
> - Second, a more traditional, yet made to challenge the high end segment, chip with less than 512 Stream processors ( maybe even 386), using the free space to put in a significant amount of L3 cache, and three to four Steamroller B modules for those of us who already own high end GPU's, and don't need one on the die. This is the surprise, the chip to keep them in the enthusiast market and push user's to get an FM2+ motherboard. To show the high end segment they haven't been forgotten. Keep in mind also, this chip's existence I believe would (neatly) explain the sudden onset of higher end Motherboards in the FM socket range.
> 
> Of course the cutback, but not elimination of SP's is because they want all mainstream chips going forward to have access to HSA, while at the same time keeping the higher core count of previous generations to make the ports from the 8 core consoles standardized across platforms and compilers. It just makes no sense to me why AMD would put 8 cores in the consoles and encourage developers to properly multi-thread games if they aren't gonna keep the same core count on their PC products for easy, quick, PC ports.-
> 
> I know it sounds crazy, but I will state again what I've said. Hawaii over delivered. No Roadmap at the time even remotely pegged that chip as powerful as it wound up being. I have a feeling the smoke and mirror act AMD pulled with their R290 chips, is going to carry over to SR. It's why we've heard nothing from them since mid-year.
> 
> Something is going to happen. Something unexpected, and I have a feeling we are all going to be shocked come the day of reveal.
> 
> If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but considering what AMD did with Hawaii, I think now is probably as good a time as any to up the speculation ( and hope) for their forthcoming CPU's.
> 
> Feel free to add your predictions BTW. May as well go nuts till 11/20 or whenever the conference is.


Not on your life. The road map will be unveiled in 9 days. Not 3 weeks. There could be different minor variants of steamroller announced later but anything for AM3+ will be announced on the 11th or it is fantasy. Any major revisions of Kaveri or Excavator with more than 2 modules will be known on the 11th. That includes FM2+, AM3 +, and possibly FM3.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *os2wiz*
> 
> Not on your life. The road map will be unveiled in 9 days. Not 3 weeks. There could be different minor variants of steamroller announced later but anything for AM3+ will be announced on the 11th or it is fantasy. Any major revisions of Kaveri or Excavator with more than 2 modules will be known on the 11th. That includes FM2+, AM3 +, and possibly FM3.


AM3+ is dead because it contains a north bridge on board. AMD has better performance with NB on the chip than off.


----------



## os2wiz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> AM3+ is dead because it contains a north bridge on board. AMD has better performance with NB on the chip than off.


You obviously did not read my post carefully. Your remarks have nothing to do with what I said. I never said there will be steamroller on AM3+


----------



## anubis44

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SchmoSalt*
> 
> The numbers only show a 30.76% increase in Integer performance while Floating Point performance takes a 14.4% decrease. One of the major flaws of the horrible Bulldozer architecture was the lack of floating point units in half of the "cores."
> 
> I don't see where this "1100% increase" is. All I see is a weak point in AMD performance getting even weaker.


Don't worry. x87 (floating point) performance is essentially irrelevant at this point, as x87 instructions are basically depricated. No modern compiler makes use of them anymore, and virtually all PC software written in the last 10 years makes use of vectorized instructions for floating point calculations (SIMDs such as SSEx, AVX, etc.), or it offloads such calculations to the GPU. AMD's HSA technolgy greatly facilitates this CPU/GPU integration for floating point calculations to be offloaded to the GPU.


----------



## anubis44

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Maelthras*
> 
> The early engineering sample had this.
> Int: 504.7
> FP:2544.64
> Then the near production sample had this.
> Int: 590.32
> FP: 3177.13
> And now this new engineering sample has this.
> Int: 642.51
> FP: 3281.22
> Increase of 52 on Int and 104 on FP.
> Looking promising. Though clock speed is unknown in recent numbers.


Don't worry. Jim Keller will deliver.


----------



## MrJava

The only problem with this theory is that the Berlin server part based on Kaveri is only 4 cores. Servers like hardware threads and integer performance (well all apps do really, but i digress).
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yawa*
> 
> Take a guess then. Nothing to lose speculating at this point. Give me your ideal FM2+ high end SR chip.
> 
> I find it odd no one since the onset of the new Motherboards and standard have speculated that AMD may cut SP's count to facilitate a high end traditional CPU to replace the 8350. I personally think that's a given at this point.
> 
> I just think if SR achieves any significant IPC gains over PD in a traditional core sense, it would be a massive waste to not take advantage of that with an enthusiast level chip that sacrifices SP's to bring us L3 cache and more modules.
> 
> It would also be a great way to get those of us still clinging to AM3 boards ( and there are a lot of us) who don't necessarily want build an APU powered midrange system, to finally make the jump to the new socket.
> 
> I've thought this since the first FM2+ boards were released. There wouldn't be high end variants of these boards if the chip was remaining a mid range performer.
> 
> So the extra time they've had, the switch to B cores, the surprising amount of high end FM2+ motherboards, and most importantly, the flat out sense it makes to get as many of us still hanging on to our Phenom II X 6's and FX Pildrivers to finally adopt their new socket are why I believe a shockingly powerful, enthusiast level, 3-4 core SR APU is incoming. It makes sense, and more importantly, scaling back stream processor counts, makes it doable.
> 
> Before the argument with past roadmaps could be made to just abandon the high end market after PD. Let us toil away on our AM3 motherboards till HSA catches on and makes mid level APU's the standard.
> 
> But now, knowing what we now do about SR ( especially the raw integer performance coming from of all things, a mobile engineering sample!) I don't think that argument can be made anymore. Especially considering AMD would be conceding potential FM2+ sales to Intel by not giving us a chip to make us ditch AM3. Which simply put, makes zero business sense.
> 
> It is in the fact that they will want as many of us AM3 users adopting FM2+ as soon as possible that I believe the potential for this chip exiting comes from, as the only way to achieve such a thing is to offer us something better than what we currently have.


----------



## anubis44

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yawa*
> 
> Enough brute force to make it a wash in games is all I wanted.
> 
> I never thought I'd say this in 2013, but between the console hardware lockups, Hawaii proving nearly every predicted rumour before it's release true ("512 bits, no way...!"), and Steamroller on the cusp of making a performance jump none of us thought even remotely possible given the timeline ( if it falls between Sandy and Haswell, it is entirely possible Excavator could take the performance lead, however briefly before Skylake), AMD are doing things I literally did not think of as possible even a few months ago. Color me impressed.
> 
> They are building a Tidalwave of momentum unseen since the early days of this rivalry. Let's hope Steamroller is everything ( or more) we hope it to be, because if it is, we will remember this year as the miraculous rebirth of a company that nearly went bankrupt almost a year ago to this day.


I've always had faith in AMD's recovery, most especially with the return of Jim Keller as head of Computing Solutions and then with Raja Koduri's return as a Vice President of Visual Computing. By putting these two men in charge of CPUs and GPUs respectively, you just knew AMD under Rory Read was planning to kick some serious, serious a$$.


----------



## iamwardicus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *os2wiz*
> 
> You obviously did not read my post carefully. Your remarks have nothing to do with what I said. I never said there will be steamroller on AM3+


I personally would be sorta miffed if there is not a Steamroller part for the AM3+ socket.... Granted it's my fault for not waiting an extra year to do my pc build but I went with AMD because I've been praying for a drop in replacement for the 8350. *sigh* I'm still going to hope for the 3module Kaveri I guess.... Doubt it will happen but I'll hope...


----------



## os2wiz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iamwardicus*
> 
> I personally would be sorta miffed if there is not a Steamroller part for the AM3+ socket.... Granted it's my fault for not waiting an extra year to do my pc build but I went with AMD because I've been praying for a drop in replacement for the 8350. *sigh* I'm still going to hope for the 3module Kaveri I guess.... Doubt it will happen but I'll hope...


Better chance with 6 or 8 core Excavator than with Kaveri.


----------



## delboy67

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yawa*
> 
> I get the hesitency believe me, but I'm going out on a limb here and calling any previous roadmap for Steamroller bunk at this point because of the switch to the B cores. As such I believe in about 18 or so days they will deliver something we aren't expecting at the press conference.
> 
> So I'm going restate my predictions when it comes to high end desktop APU's ( especially since all of the leaks up till this point have only been low end mobile APU's), so here they are.
> 
> I'm calling two midrange to high end desktop chips being revealed.
> 
> - One, a high midrange FM2+ chip, running 832 Stream processors, no L3 cache, and two Steamroller B modules as the pure HSA enabled APU for an AIO build. This is the Richland Successor. -
> 
> - Second, a more traditional, yet made to challenge the high end segment, chip with less than 512 Stream processors ( maybe even 386), using the free space to put in a significant amount of L3 cache, and three to four Steamroller B modules for those of us who already own high end GPU's, and don't need one on the die. This is the surprise, the chip to keep them in the enthusiast market and push user's to get an FM2+ motherboard. To show the high end segment they haven't been forgotten. Keep in mind also, this chip's existence I believe would (neatly) explain the sudden onset of higher end Motherboards in the FM socket range.
> 
> Of course the cutback, but not elimination of SP's is because they want all mainstream chips going forward to have access to HSA, while at the same time keeping the higher core count of previous generations to make the ports from the 8 core consoles standardized across platforms and compilers. It just makes no sense to me why AMD would put 8 cores in the consoles and encourage developers to properly multi-thread games if they aren't gonna keep the same core count on their PC products for easy, quick, PC ports.-
> 
> I know it sounds crazy, but I will state again what I've said. Hawaii over delivered. No Roadmap at the time even remotely pegged that chip as powerful as it wound up being. I have a feeling the smoke and mirror act AMD pulled with their R290 chips, is going to carry over to SR. It's why we've heard nothing from them since mid-year.
> 
> Something is going to happen. Something unexpected, and I have a feeling we are all going to be shocked come the day of reveal.
> 
> If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but considering what AMD did with Hawaii, I think now is probably as good a time as any to up the speculation ( and hope) for their forthcoming CPU's.
> 
> Feel free to add your predictions BTW. May as well go nuts till 11/20 or whenever the conference is.


Read another rumor this morning, cant remember where if I do I'll add it to this post, that amd were not paying travel costs for journos to attend this conference BUT now they have changed their minds and are paying travel which suggests a big big announcement will be made at it!


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *os2wiz*
> 
> You obviously did not read my post carefully. Your remarks have nothing to do with what I said. I never said there will be steamroller on AM3+


I'm just putting a tombstone on the remark so no one asks anymore about the next batch of AM3+ FX processors.


----------



## veyron1001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> That's not true.
> 
> Lower power consumption means I can get away with cheaper PSUs and cheaper cooling.


A psu is like a fuel injector. It only takes what it needs.


----------



## NaroonGTX

Quote:


> Read another rumor this morning, cant remember where if I do I'll add it to this post, that amd were not paying travel costs for journos to attend this conference BUT now they have changed their minds and are paying travel which suggests a big big announcement will be made at it!


It was most likely this: http://vr-zone.com/articles/heres-look-kaveri-apu-engineering-sample/62565.html


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *veyron1001*
> 
> A psu is like a fuel injector. It only takes what it needs.


That does not refute what I said.

Besides, you know what you said is not true. Even the best PSUs are only ~95% efficient.

I have good reasons to worry about total system power consumption and PSU efficiency, 'cause if I don't, I might just set the school's library on fire.



You can call me stupid. But hey, if it looks stupid and it works, it ain't stupid.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> That does not refute what I said.
> 
> Besides, you know what you said is not true. Even the best PSUs are only ~95% efficient.
> 
> I have good reasons to worry about total system power consumption and PSU efficiency, 'cause if I don't, I might just set the school's library on fire.
> 
> 
> 
> You can call me stupid. But hey, if it looks stupid and it works, it ain't stupid.


Newer SoCs would be great for all schools. They'd make their money back from less power in a year. That and changing to led bulbs.


----------



## MoGTy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> That does not refute what I said.
> 
> Besides, you know what you said is not true. Even the best PSUs are only ~95% efficient.
> 
> I have good reasons to worry about total system power consumption and PSU efficiency, 'cause if I don't, I might just set the school's library on fire.
> 
> 
> 
> You can call me stupid. But hey, if it looks stupid and it works, it ain't stupid.


Whe.. wha? What are you doing with a computer in a bag at the library? I'm confused.


----------



## EniGma1987

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> Newer SoCs would be great for all schools. They'd make their money back from less power in a year. That and changing to led bulbs.


No they wouldnt, you are greatly overestimating how much money is saved on an electric bill. It would take 3-5 years depending on the cost of models used to make back what was spent, and that is well beyond the target point of what investments in such things like this try to hit.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MoGTy*
> 
> Whe.. wha? What are you doing with a computer in a bag at the library? I'm confused.


You've overloaded my sarcasm detector.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EniGma1987*
> 
> No they wouldnt, you are greatly overestimating how much money is saved on an electric bill. It would take 3-5 years depending on the cost of models used to make back what was spent, and that is well beyond the target point of what investments in such things like this try to hit.


I agree. Besides, most school computer just idles all the time.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> I agree. Besides, most school computer just idles all the time.


Well schools in my location are still running those chunky Pentium 4 processors. LED bulbs are a must.


----------



## MoGTy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> You've overloaded my sarcasm detector.


Your sarcasm detector ?

Why don't you take a laptop to the library ? I don't understand


----------



## Demonkev666

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrJava*
> 
> The micro-op queue already exists in bulldozer/piledriver and is likely already drawn upon when loops are detected. As per Mark Papermaster's Hotchips presentation, Steamroller is better at "detecting the loop and fetching from the micro-op buffer". This "micro-op buffer" is probably similar in size to the small loop buffer that intel has in addition to its large 1.5KB micro-op cache. But every little bit helps IPC I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uOp Q between decode domain and dispatch thread domain.


that wasn't implemented on Zambezi or piledriver cores, if It was the cache misses and penalty wouldn't be as high.

it suppose to come with steamroller cores. If I recall the early benches of sandy bridge where a mess because it's uop cache wasn't working or turned on. people think that uop cache doesn't do much but it can make a huge difference with cache misses by reducing the penalty.

On topic note about the low FPU number in Kaver
i I have a little theory about this being, because of current chips only having one decoder and the other decoder in the steamroller core not getting any data for the fpu causing a slight slow down in it.


----------



## sdlvx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrJava*
> 
> The only problem with this theory is that the Berlin server part based on Kaveri is only 4 cores. Servers like hardware threads and integer performance (well all apps do really, but i digress).


That is why I am putting out the theory that:

1. SR FX can not be made somewhere for whatever reasons (yields, no SOI, etc) so AMD has to stick with smaller cores (6800k is 246mm^2 when FX 8350 is 315mm^2, 6800k SR replacement should be smaller than that because of the transition to 28nm from 32nm

2. AMD no longer has a reason to push their chips from server into desktop. Their x86 CPUs in servers are a complete joke at this point and completely uncompetitive. Last I heard they were getting ready to drop below 4% market share in servers. Meanwhile, their HEDT market share is growing. Meaning that to focus on a market you're not winning in with x86 cores and then letting your work in that market trickle over to the one that's actually performing well is wrong. Hence, I expect AMD to break from their traditional make a server die an HEDT chip and instead just make a HEDT chip and let it trickle over to server if it needs to because the microservers aren't pulling their weight.

3. Therefore, AMD's lack of big x86 server chips could be due to AMD not trying to save a sinking ship as well as GloFo 28nm simply not being able to support a large chip. So, AMD would try to offer something new (HSA, microserver) instead of trying to compete directly with Intel in server space by offering power efficient big x86 cores. Does "we're not going to compete with Intel" ring a bell now?

4. Because of 1., AMD is refreshing PD to fill the "traditional" role. I remember it was referred to as being kept around as a platform for those who need to transition, but it was just assumed that it was for people who are waiting to transition to APU platform. It was never even considered that it is a transitional part that leads to a brand new HEDT/Server platform.

5. Before you go "but how can AMD release a faster HEDT chip if they're not competing with Intel anymore!", realize that Intel has stopped going for that market a long time ago. Their high end parts are just a large number of mobile-optimized cores thrown together.


----------



## chocolateCookie

samples


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sdlvx*
> 
> 2. AMD no longer has a reason to push their chips from server into desktop. Their x86 CPUs in servers are a complete joke at this point and completely uncompetitive. Last I heard they were getting ready to drop below 4% market share in servers. Meanwhile, their HEDT market share is growing. Meaning that to focus on a market you're not winning in with x86 cores and then letting your work in that market trickle over to the one that's actually performing well is wrong. Hence, I expect AMD to break from their traditional make a server die an HEDT chip and instead just make a HEDT chip and let it trickle over to server if it needs to because the microservers aren't pulling their weight.


I thought the same till I saw this :

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1746642-misinformation-concerning-verizon-advanced-micro-devices-server-deal-clarified

Verizon is switching from Xeon to Opteron. While this isn't some magic turnaround ,it shows there is lifeline in the Opteron lineup, that it can be competitive under certain circumstances (obviously AMD is willing to customize platforms to meet various demands).


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sdlvx*
> 
> 3. Therefore, AMD's lack of big x86 server chips could be due to AMD not trying to save a sinking ship as well as GloFo 28nm simply not being able to support a large chip. So, AMD would try to offer something new (HSA, microserver) instead of trying to compete directly with Intel in server space by offering power efficient big x86 cores. Does "we're not going to compete with Intel" ring a bell now?


Most servers benefit from this because most demand tons of tiny threads that offloading to a gpu could handle far more of because of it's massive amount of cores. Just never has been a way with making pci-e bus exclusive to it's own except of ASIC processors like for Bit-mining. My thoughts of the heterogeneous stuff is that it could very well rewrite computers as we know it.


----------



## MrJava

Even if they drastically reduce the prices of Opterons, the margin will still be far, far higher than the razor thin margins on desktop chips. AMD will never abandon the traditional server market. I'd go farther and say the biggest focus (next to HSA) within the company is dense servers with seamicro tech.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> I thought the same till I saw this :
> 
> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1746642-misinformation-concerning-verizon-advanced-micro-devices-server-deal-clarified
> 
> Verizon is switching from Xeon to Opteron. While this isn't some magic turnaround ,it shows there is lifeline in the Opteron lineup, that it can be competitive under certain circumstances (obviously AMD is willing to customize platforms to meet various demands).


----------



## cresuso

Is there a chance for steamroller to be compatible with am3+ ?? I'm asking because i bought a sabertooth 990FX r2.0 last december for 150€, and i hope that i won't have to sell it in order to get a steamroller cpu otherwise might go intel route :/


----------



## NaroonGTX

If Steamroller were coming to AM3+, we would've heard about it by now, and you'd most likely know as well purely by proxy.









New roadmaps coming in a few days, so they will tell us what the future of Socket AM3+ will be (if there is one.)


----------



## Caldeio

looks like I'll be staying with AMD for my CPU. some interesting things being announced at the event. Look like I'll be getting a new board too.









road maps, and performance numbers will be released. Sounds like only rough estimate for shipping dates though, but I wouldn't expect to find release dates in plain view like this other stuff.


----------



## nitrubbb

im hoping for a definitive release date!

GPU13 event had it!


----------



## Tatakai All

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cresuso*
> 
> Is there a chance for steamroller to be compatible with am3+ ?? I'm asking because i bought a sabertooth 990FX r2.0 last december for 150€, and i hope that i won't have to sell it in order to get a steamroller cpu otherwise might go intel route :/


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> If Steamroller were coming to AM3+, we would've heard about it by now, and you'd most likely know as well purely by proxy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New roadmaps coming in a few days, so they will tell us what the future of Socket AM3+ will be (if there is one.)


I'm really hoping that Steamroller/Piledirver or whatever AMD has up it's sleeve is coming to AM3+. If they don't I've wasted not only money but all this time waiting for a reasonable upgrade since BD's fail launch.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tatakai All*
> 
> I'm really hoping that Steamroller/Piledirver or whatever AMD has up it's sleeve is coming to AM3+. If they don't I've wasted not only money but all this time waiting for a reasonable upgrade since BD's fail launch.












Look! The Kevari based chips are part of the APU lineup, however Piledriver has been out for a long while and it totally devastates the BD processors. If you want a reasonable upgrade go PD, it's 8320/8350.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cresuso*
> 
> Is there a chance for steamroller to be compatible with am3+ ?? I'm asking because i bought a sabertooth 990FX r2.0 last december for 150€, and i hope that i won't have to sell it in order to get a steamroller cpu otherwise might go intel route :/












Go and buy a PD already! Significant chance AMD won't release another AM3+ processor. The problem is the fact there is a NB on the motherboard which hinders the effectiveness of it's newer core modules. FM2+ is where everything is going.


----------



## Darklyric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go and buy a PD already! Significant change AMD won't release another AM3+ processor. The problem is the fact there is a NB on the motherboard which hinders the effectiveness of it's newer core modules. FM2+ is where everything is going.


NOOOOOOOO!~


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Darklyric*
> 
> NOOOOOOOO!~


It's not a huge loss you know. It's more probable and some verbal catching from paparazzi in the tech world seem to confirm an eight core APU somewhere down the road. People need to not fear the idea of gpu modules on the die. It actually benefits the cpu whether or not you use the graphical end of them with dedicated cards because of HSA stuff. Don't fret! Technology is getting more awesome!


----------



## Darklyric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> It's not a huge loss you know. It's more probable and some verbal catching from paparazzi in the tech world seem to confirm an eight core APU somewhere down the road. People need to not fear the idea of gpu modules on the die. It actually benefits the cpu whether or not you use the graphical end of them with dedicated cards because of HSA stuff. Don't fret! Technology is getting more awesome!


Meh i'd rather have the die space for another few cores and on an am3+ socket but o well. I mean can it really effect it that much if your using an hsa capable discrete gpu?


----------



## NaroonGTX

Quote:


> I mean can it really effect it that much if your using an hsa capable discrete gpu?


I think this is what GPU context switching is for, but I think that's supposed to arrive with EX (Carrizo.)


----------



## Tatakai All

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look! The Kevari based chips are part of the APU lineup, however Piledriver has been out for a long while and it totally devastates the BD processors. If you want a reasonable upgrade go PD, it's 8320/8350.


Unbunch your panties and shut it. More news about Steamroller and the platform it will be on is around the corner, why would I go and buy a PD chip now? People and their idiotic reasoning..


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tatakai All*
> 
> Unbunch your panties and shut it. More news about Steamroller and the platform it will be on is around the corner, why would I go and buy a PD chip now? People and their idiotic reasoning..


Probably because most of the performance increases have a lot to do with HSA and AM3 has no HSA capabilities for the reasons mentioned prior.


----------



## MrJava

I wouldn't hold out hope for anything new on AM3+ (apart from refreshed Vishera-based CPUs with slightly higher clocks). But you're right, now would be worst time to run out and buy a new CPU.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tatakai All*
> 
> Unbunch your panties and shut it. More news about Steamroller and the platform it will be on is around the corner, why would I go and buy a PD chip now? People and their idiotic reasoning..


----------



## xlink

How much does FP performance matter? I remember hearing a while back that FP mattered more than integer for most things. Has the pendulum swung back the other way?


----------



## MrJava

Its actually completely the opposite situation, integer performance is the most important since integer ops are by far the most common in most programs (loads, stores, branches, adds, subs, muls, etc.). This is not to say that FP performance isn't important - it is. FPU is also a bit of a misnomer for the bulldozer family since the "FPU" also contains units which handle integer SIMD instructions.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xlink*
> 
> How much does FP performance matter? I remember hearing a while back that FP mattered more than integer for most things. Has the pendulum swung back the other way?


----------



## xlink

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrJava*
> 
> Its actually completely the opposite situation, integer performance is the most important since integer ops are by far the most common in most programs (loads, stores, branches, adds, subs, muls, etc.). This is not to say that FP performance isn't important - it is. FPU is also a bit of a misnomer for the bulldozer family since the "FPU" also contains units which handle integer SIMD instructions.


A while back being A64 vs. P4 days... the rules were quite different then.

I acknowledge that work loads shift. I also know that GPU-like processors tend to be rather good at FP. I don't know if HSA will end up as everything it was promised as. It will be interesting if it ends up being a huge leap due to the heterogeneous architecture.


----------



## MrJava

In general, I don't think that much has changed in terms of workloads for the CPU, integer performance was and is the most important metric. In situations where integer/FP SIMD throughput was important and there wasn't much branching, then the P4 would be able to keep up or surpass the A64. But for complex integer code, the A64 was obviously superior.

AMD talks about LCUs (latency compute units) and TCUs (throughput compute units). HSA is about the two types of compute units efficiently communicating with each so that the LCUs can handle "branchy" stuff when needed and the TCUs can crunch large amounts of data in a linear fashion when appropriate.

Edit:
I think its a persistent myth that intel's chips demonstrate higher performance in most applications because their FPU/INT SIMD throughput is higher. In reality, i think its because the intel's integer performance is much higher (good branch predictor, low latency branch target resolution, 4 ALU).
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xlink*
> 
> A while back being A64 vs. P4 days... the rules were quite different then.
> 
> I acknowledge that work loads shift. I also know that GPU-like processors tend to be rather good at FP. I don't know if HSA will end up as everything it was promised as. It will be interesting if it ends up being a huge leap due to the heterogeneous architecture.


----------



## xlink

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrJava*
> 
> In general, I don't think that much has changed in terms of workloads for the CPU, integer performance was and is the most important metric. In situations where integer/FP SIMD throughput was important and there wasn't much branching, then the P4 would be able to keep up or surpass the A64. But for complex integer code, the A64 was obviously superior.
> 
> AMD talks about LCUs (latency compute units) and TCUs (throughput compute units). HSA is about the two types of compute units efficiently communicating with each so that the LCUs can handle "branchy" stuff when needed and the TCUs can crunch large amounts of data in a linear fashion when appropriate.


Interesting.

I assume "branchy" things would be things which have relatively simple calculations BUT possess many dependencies. The solution in such a case would be branch prediction and possible parallel computation of probably outcomes.

I wonder what kind of logic goes in. In my mind, wonders could be done with bayesian analysis, though I suspect said analysis would take more cycles than it's worthy.


----------



## MrJava

That approach might not be practical for non-trivial problem sizes. Imagine path-finding in a graph with thousands of nodes and the amount of branching there. In any case you seem to speaking of hardware solving the inherent problems of software with automatic parallelism which is not a good idea in my opinion. If you read research papers, you'll see small speedups (xx %) being achieved with known algorithms on a regular basis and on occasion new algorithms and data structures that increase performance by orders of magnitude. How long will it take intel, amd or nvidia to speed up existing software that much?







Other than that, the big speedups in the future will come from explicit parallelism with more multithreaded programs and usage of GPUs/DSPs/etc.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xlink*
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> I assume "branchy" things would be things which have relatively simple calculations BUT possess many dependencies. The solution in such a case would be branch prediction and possible parallel computation of probably outcomes.
> 
> I wonder what kind of logic goes in. In my mind, wonders could be done with bayesian analysis, though I suspect said analysis would take more cycles than it's worthy.


----------



## xlink

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrJava*
> 
> That approach might not be practical for non-trivial problem sizes. Imagine path-finding in a graph with thousands of nodes and the amount of branching there. In any case you seem to speaking of hardware solving the inherent problems of software with automatic parallelism which is not a good idea in my opinion. If you read research papers, you'll see small speedups (xx %) being achieved with known algorithms on a regular basis and on occasion new algorithms and data structures that increase performance by orders of magnitude. How long will it take intel, amd or nvidia to speed up existing software that much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other than that, the big speedups in the future will come from explicit parallelism with more multithreaded programs and usage of GPUs/DSPs/etc.


If you're referring to anything bayesian, it isn't... TONS of compute required for that, more than what you'd actually be calculating.

I can see how it'd grow rather rapidly and would give abysmal performance/watt. You'd need cutoff rules of some sort. You also wouldn't need to go TOO deep into the process.If you are "precalculating" 3 things and do that for 2 iterations you'd only need 9x units. If each iteration takes 5 cycles you'd reach the point where you're more or less through the pipeline. There's a balance. Then you start over... It also reduces the need for OoO and has other interesting ramifications.

I'm thinking outloud more than anything. My background is in economics and mathematics, not comp sci or hardware design. I only know bits and pieces.


----------



## pwnzilla61

I hope to see the next chip be FM3 with ddr4.


----------



## tjwolf88

FM3 and DDR4 for 2014 would be pretty awesome although impossible.


----------



## NaroonGTX

It will be some time before DDR4 becomes not only affordable, but actually supported widespread. I think Carrizo will have a dual IMC for this reason. It would work on FM2+ and FM3.


----------



## Gungnir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tjwolf88*
> 
> FM3 and DDR4 for 2014 would be pretty awesome although impossible.


Why impossible? Carrizo is rumored to support DDR4, and will likely be released late 2014; if it uses 28nm enhanced SR, as some rumors say, it might only take a few months, like Richland did. Haswell-E and -EX with DDR4 is also 2014, and DDR4 DIMMs are supposedly coming out before the end of this year. Considering how RAM is an enormous bottleneck for APUs, I'd suspect that AMD wants DDR4 support ASAP.


----------



## NaroonGTX

Carrizo is supposed to be the Excavator APU scheduled for Q1 2015 release.


----------



## Opcode

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xlink*
> 
> How much does FP performance matter? I remember hearing a while back that FP mattered more than integer for most things. Has the pendulum swung back the other way?


Floating point performance is still as critical as ever. Integer performance is key as main loops and a majority of variables are integers in most software. Tho once you get into gaming and heavily compute workloads than floating point performance is a big factor. This is why online games like Battlefield take a huge performance hit once online vs offline mode. For example player position is represented by a float, not just one but at least four (for the basics x, y, z, radius) of them for each and every player. On a 64 player map (64 * 4 = 256) every game client has to calculate 256 floating point numbers at least every second just to keep up with proper character positions and movements in the game. Now that's only the new character positions, the client has to store the existing character positions to know which way the character is moving etc. That brings you up to already 512 floats to be calculated nearly every second ingame. And that's only the start when it comes to heavy floating point numbers that are being calculated frequently. I am in the process of writing a benchmark tool for calculating CPU performance. I can tell you this much floating point performance on my A10-6800k is roughly 50% slower than integer performance. Completing 1 million integer loops at around 20 seconds and 1 million float loops at around 30 seconds. That's with me patching out x87 and strictly using SSE instructions as well (to avoid skewed results with Bulldozer). So yea FPU performance is still as critical as ever, and it will continue to be. There is no getting rid of floats in programming, its just something that simply cannot be done. Hence why AMD is pushing forward HSA and trying to move floating point calculations to the GPU where they are done much faster (faster than integer core performance). In laymans terms if games like Battlefield used the GPU to calculate all the floating point numbers ingame like character position. You would actually see a frame rate increase while online vs offline mode (that is if offline didn't as well). Due to the CPU not being bogged down by these slower operations. The fact that the CPU has to do them is why there is an easy 10-20 frame rate difference between offline and online in games like Battlefield. Hopefully in the future developers will use the iGPU for all floating point calculations, so the CPU can reap full integer performance while gaming. With hQ that will be entirely possible as the iGPU doesn't have to be queued by the CPU. It can be issued and complete instructions entirely on its own.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> Carrizo is supposed to be the Excavator APU scheduled for Q1 2015 release.


Carrizo is actually suppose to be Steamroller refresh. I would expect context switching and everything else to come along with it sometime 2014. Kaveri is already showing DDR4 support that others may have mistaken for GDDR5 support in the past. DDR4 runs a single channel per dimm so each module runs on its own dedicated channel to the controller. It would explain the following source outlining four separate channels within the boot code.

Code:



Code:


//  MEMORY-SPECIFIC DATA STRUCTURES

#define MAX_CHANNELS_PER_SOCKET 4   ///< Max Channels per sockets
#define MAX_DIMMS_PER_CHANNEL   4   ///< Max DIMMs on a memory channel (independent of platform)

#define UMA_ATTRIBUTE_ON_DCT0    0x40000000ul   ///< UMA resides on memory that belongs to DCT0
#define UMA_ATTRIBUTE_ON_DCT1    0x20000000ul   ///< UMA resides on memory that belongs to DCT1
#define UMA_ATTRIBUTE_ON_DCT2    0x10000000ul   ///< UMA resides on memory that belongs to DCT2
#define UMA_ATTRIBUTE_ON_DCT3    0x08000000ul   ///< UMA resides on memory that belongs to DCT3

Basically what this says is Kaveri may have quad channel support built into its memory controller just with two channels disabled. AMD could of jumped the gun and added DDR4 support so when its refresh time all they have to do is tweak the cores and launch the new product (Carrizo). No reason for them to implement Excavator yet as Kaveri will breath new life once it gets DDR4 support. Especially for those interested in building APU based gaming rigs. This would allow AMD to launch a new product later in 2014 without having to rush Excavator. Sorta like how Richland was a space gap after Trinity. Except this time we would obviously see marginal improvements other than clock speed.


----------



## yawa

After really digging through some rumors and stuff I'm refining my prediction.

Until we get a reveal (hopefully next week) I am going to call this my official prediction for the chip we aren't expecting.

So remember this post if I'm right and forget it if I'm wrong D:

The highest end Kaveri will have 832 Shaders.
It will also come with 3 modules with a base clock of 3.6 Ghz. and overclocking potential to 4.4 to 4.5 Ghz (4.8 under water)
Gpu will come in at 850 Mhz. Overclocking potential will break 1000 Mhz.
Single Core IPC will be within 5 Percent of a 4770K

That's it. I will hold myself to this prediction. Throw yours out there before it's too late guys.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Single Core IPC will be within 5 Percent of a 4770K


You're expecting a 50% IPC gain?

I don't expect it to be near Haswell IPC but am expecting as i imagine everyone else is, an unlocked quad core that is significantly cheaper than for example an i5 4670 paired with a 7770/7790/260x

If you're expecting it to have IPC within 5% of Haswell, clock to 4.5ghz on air and have three modules - you're expecting it to be stronger than 4770k, and that's not going to happen while it's half of the price with a meaty GPU on the die


----------



## NaroonGTX

Quote:


> The highest end Kaveri will have 832 Shaders.
> It will also come with 3 modules with a base clock of 3.6 Ghz. and overclocking potential to 4.4 to 4.5 Ghz (4.8 under water)
> Gpu will come in at 850 Mhz. Overclocking potential will break 1000 Mhz.
> Single Core IPC will be within 5 Percent of a 4770K


Not to burst your bubble, but this is very unrealistic. The Berlin APU has up to 512 GCN cores, so I'm sure that's the same amount the 7800k will have. The leaks showing 832 shaders were some results with Kaveri in a Dual Graphics setup with some weak discreet GPU.

I'm positive it will only feature 2-4 cores, we won't be seeing a model with 3 modules for some time. Maybe Carrizo will do that -- if it really is a refresh of Kaveri, though I've seen conflicting reports on this so I'm not sure. All reports I've seen state Carrizo as the Q1 2015 Excavator-based follow-up to Kaveri. I think once AMD sees the demand for more cores, they will put out a 3 module APU. I still don't truly believe AMD will completely leave behind 4 module parts, because Kaveri won't beat out an 83xx chip in multi-threaded scenarios.

Single-core perf will be much beyond Piledriver, but I seriously doubt it will catch up to Haswell like that. My prediction is Sandy Bridge-tier performance, whether within that envelope or slightly beyond it.


----------



## os2wiz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gungnir*
> 
> Why impossible? Carrizo is rumored to support DDR4, and will likely be released late 2014; if it uses 28nm enhanced SR, as some rumors say, it might only take a few months, like Richland did. Haswell-E and -EX with DDR4 is also 2014, and DDR4 DIMMs are supposedly coming out before the end of this year. Considering how RAM is an enormous bottleneck for APUs, I'd suspect that AMD wants DDR4 support ASAP.


Rumors based on nothing substantive. All credible reports state Carrizo will be released in 2015 as Excavator technology as Naroon fas stated. I really don't know what pipe your smoking from. DDR4 will be in short supply and pricey in 2014. Also Carrizo will not be on .28 nm process.


----------



## os2wiz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Opcode*
> 
> Floating point performance is still as critical as ever. Integer performance is key as main loops and a majority of variables are integers in most software. Tho once you get into gaming and heavily compute workloads than floating point performance is a big factor. This is why online games like Battlefield take a huge performance hit once online vs offline mode. For example player position is represented by a float, not just one but at least four (for the basics x, y, z, radius) of them for each and every player. On a 64 player map (64 * 4 = 256) every game client has to calculate 256 floating point numbers at least every second just to keep up with proper character positions and movements in the game. Now that's only the new character positions, the client has to store the existing character positions to know which way the character is moving etc. That brings you up to already 512 floats to be calculated nearly every second ingame. And that's only the start when it comes to heavy floating point numbers that are being calculated frequently. I am in the process of writing a benchmark tool for calculating CPU performance. I can tell you this much floating point performance on my A10-6800k is roughly 50% slower than integer performance. Completing 1 million integer loops at around 20 seconds and 1 million float loops at around 30 seconds. That's with me patching out x87 and strictly using SSE instructions as well (to avoid skewed results with Bulldozer). So yea FPU performance is still as critical as ever, and it will continue to be. There is no getting rid of floats in programming, its just something that simply cannot be done. Hence why AMD is pushing forward HSA and trying to move floating point calculations to the GPU where they are done much faster (faster than integer core performance). In laymans terms if games like Battlefield used the GPU to calculate all the floating point numbers ingame like character position. You would actually see a frame rate increase while online vs offline mode (that is if offline didn't as well). Due to the CPU not being bogged down by these slower operations. The fact that the CPU has to do them is why there is an easy 10-20 frame rate difference between offline and online in games like Battlefield. Hopefully in the future developers will use the iGPU for all floating point
> calculations, so the CPU can reap full integer performance while gaming. With hQ that will be entirely possible as the iGPU
> doesn't have to be queued by the CPU. It can be issued and complete instructions entirely on its own.
> 
> Carrizo is actually suppose to be Steamroller refresh. I would expect context switching and everything else to come along with it sometime 2014. Kaveri is already showing DDR4 support that others may have mistaken for GDDR5 support in the past. DDR4 runs a single channel per dimm so each module runs on its own dedicated channel to the controller. It would explain the following source outlining four separate channels within the boot code.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you are wrong. Carrizo has never been touted by AMD as a steamroller technology. It is scheduled for 2015 release and thus will Not be anything other than an Excavator design. Your assertion to the contrary is fluff. It is fluff because DDR4 production will not be fully ramped up until 2015 and what you ar prognostcating is simply your twist on things and the twist of all the others here who extrapolate things on the scantest of fact. You are so wrong.
Click to expand...


----------



## os2wiz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yawa*
> 
> After really digging through some rumors and stuff I'm refining my prediction.
> 
> Until we get a reveal (hopefully next week) I am going to call this my official prediction for the chip we aren't expecting.
> 
> So remember this post if I'm right and forget it if I'm wrong D:
> 
> The highest end Kaveri will have 832 Shaders.
> It will also come with 3 modules with a base clock of 3.6 Ghz. and overclocking potential to 4.4 to 4.5 Ghz (4.8 under water)
> Gpu will come in at 850 Mhz. Overclocking potential will break 1000 Mhz.
> Single Core IPC will be within 5 Percent of a 4770K
> 
> That's it. I will hold myself to this prediction. Throw yours out there before it's too late guys.


Your prediction is laughable swami. Laughable. This is Not fantasy football here. Start thinking rationally before you post idiotic prognostications.


----------



## tjwolf88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yawa*
> 
> After really digging through some rumors and stuff I'm refining my prediction.
> 
> Until we get a reveal (hopefully next week) I am going to call this my official prediction for the chip we aren't expecting.
> 
> So remember this post if I'm right and forget it if I'm wrong D:
> 
> The highest end Kaveri will have 832 Shaders.
> It will also come with 3 modules with a base clock of 3.6 Ghz. and overclocking potential to 4.4 to 4.5 Ghz (4.8 under water)
> Gpu will come in at 850 Mhz. Overclocking potential will break 1000 Mhz.
> Single Core IPC will be within 5 Percent of a 4770K
> 
> That's it. I will hold myself to this prediction. Throw yours out there before it's too late guys.


A hexacore with single core IPC within the ballpark of high end Haswell, if it's real I'm going to eat my hat with a smile.


----------



## os2wiz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tjwolf88*
> 
> A hexacore with single core IPC within the ballpark of high end Haswell, if it's real I'm going to eat my hat with a smile.


Don't bother. There will be no hexa or octocore apus until Excavator. This guy has zero credibility. I call him swami.


----------



## shak2300

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *os2wiz*
> 
> Rumors based on nothing substantive. All credible reports state Carrizo will be released in 2015 as Excavator technology as Naroon fas stated. I really don't know what pipe your smoking from. DDR4 will be in short supply and pricey in 2014. Also Carrizo will not be on .28 nm process.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *os2wiz*
> 
> Your prediction is laughable swami. Laughable. This is Not fantasy football here. Start thinking rationally before you post idiotic prognostications.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *os2wiz*
> 
> Don't bother. There will be no hexa or octocore apus until Excavator. This guy has zero credibility. I call him swami.


honestly if you dont have anything useful to say beside bashing someone else is prediction, or speculation , you might as well not say anything at all or maybe you just doing it for post count







, this thread in the rumor section, everyone allow to make there own prediction, some of what people have been saying are base off rumors that been post over the last 6-18 months.


----------



## yawa

Hey man, its a prediction. Going for broke.


----------



## tjwolf88

A quadcore with IPC just below Sandy Bridge that has a integrated GPU that performs within 5% a 7750 (with good RAM) and costs $150 would be a no brainer purchase.


----------



## os2wiz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shak2300*
> 
> honestly if you dont have anything useful to say beside bashing someone else is prediction, or speculation , you might as well not say anything at all or maybe you just doing it for post count
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , this thread in the rumor section, everyone allow to make there on prediction , some of what people have been saying are base off rumors that been post over the last 6-18 months.[/quote
> 
> There are rumors and rumors. Some rumors have a logic behind them and some significant facts to back them up. Others have no traction at all and are created by attention seekers or people who believe because they wish something it will come true. Wishing makes NOTHING come true. Science and practical effort make things happen. Investigation of facts often gives clues to what may happen. That means taking what AMD has said in various documents, emails, and interviews as well as understanding the limits of technological change, such as changes in process nodes, when supporting technologies will be available at cost-efficient levels. In fact my comments are quite valuable here. They make people deal with real situations instead of turning this thread into a useless Fantasy Island episode. I offer practical reasons why their hopes or predictions are unfounded and unworkable. This is NOT magic. It is a matter of understanding the technology, the market, and knowing real fact from fiction. I call things as I see them, not simply as I wish them to be. Letting foolishness go unquestioned only helps spread disinformation


----------



## Opcode

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *os2wiz*
> 
> Actually you are wrong. Carrizo has never been touted by AMD as a steamroller technology. It is scheduled for 2015 release and thus will Not be anything other than an Excavator design. Your assertion to the contrary is fluff. It is fluff because DDR4 production will not be fully ramped up until 2015 and what you ar prognostcating is simply your twist on things and the twist of all the others here who extrapolate things on the scantest of fact. You are so wrong.


Care to elaborate and provide at least some sort of evidence like I have?








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tjwolf88*
> 
> A quadcore with IPC just below Sandy Bridge that has a integrated GPU that performs within 5% a 7750 (with good RAM) and costs $150 would be a no brainer purchase.


Kaveri should be just shy of Sandy Bridge IPC if we get what AMD promises. The iGPU will perform very close to the 7750, due to the fact the iGPU uses GCN 2.0 cores. Which are a bit faster and better on power than Cape Verde. Tho we indeed will still be bottlenecked by DDR3 bandwidth.


----------



## MrJava

I won't make any predictions but I'd definitely buy a $90-$100 Kaveri Athlon that offers about 15% better IPC in most workloads and an average overclock of 4.5GHz. The 7750 with DDR3-1600 performs pretty much as well as GT 640, so Kaveri should be awesome in laptops in any case.


----------



## os2wiz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Opcode*
> 
> Care to elaborate and provide at least some sort of evidence like I have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kaveri should be just shy of Sandy Bridge IPC if we get what AMD promises. The iGPU will perform very close to the 7750, due to the fact the iGPU uses GCN 2.0 cores. Which are a bit faster and better on power than Cape Verde. Tho we indeed will still be bottlenecked by DDR3 bandwidth.


You presented nothing to prove Carrizo is stesmroller revision 2, in fact most technology websites in their reports indicate the opposite of what you conjecture. Also what you postulate makes no sense. Why would a refresh of steamroller incorporate ddr4 when for one the increased bandwidth would require a 256 bit IMC. AMD has said IMC redesign will wait until Excavator. In addition very clearly ddr4 will be quite pricey and scarce in second falf of 2014. Ramped up ddr4 production will occur in 2015. This is fact and obviously you ignore all facts that contradict your fantasy.


----------



## Opcode

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *os2wiz*
> 
> You presented nothing to prove Carrizo is stesmroller revision 2, in fact most technology websites in their reports indicate the opposite of what you conjecture. Also what you postulate makes no sense. Why would a refresh of steamroller incorporate ddr4 when for one the increased bandwidth would require a 256 bit IMC. AMD has said IMC redesign will wait until Excavator. In addition very clearly ddr4 will be quite pricey and scarce in second falf of 2014. Ramped up ddr4 production will occur in 2015. This is fact and obviously you ignore all facts that contradict your fantasy.


Once again, more mouth than evidence. Keep building your posts upon rumors, it makes you look silly.


----------



## MrJava

Interestingly, the Vishera die has 4 DCT's (DRAM controller) each operating a single 64-bit channel. Unfortunately, AMD caved to pressure to put another chip on AM3+ and so the extra DCTs are unused.
I fully expect the next big opteron die to have 4 DDR3/4 channels and perhaps even a stacked victim cache of some sort (32+ MB). DDR4 1 DIMM per channel is the perfect setup here since consumer boards could be quad-channel with 1 DPC and server boards could be octo-channel (with MCM chips) and 1 DPC as well.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Opcode*
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> //  MEMORY-SPECIFIC DATA STRUCTURES
> 
> #define MAX_CHANNELS_PER_SOCKET 4   ///< Max Channels per sockets
> #define MAX_DIMMS_PER_CHANNEL   4   ///< Max DIMMs on a memory channel (independent of platform)
> 
> #define UMA_ATTRIBUTE_ON_DCT0    0x40000000ul   ///< UMA resides on memory that belongs to DCT0
> #define UMA_ATTRIBUTE_ON_DCT1    0x20000000ul   ///< UMA resides on memory that belongs to DCT1
> #define UMA_ATTRIBUTE_ON_DCT2    0x10000000ul   ///< UMA resides on memory that belongs to DCT2
> #define UMA_ATTRIBUTE_ON_DCT3    0x08000000ul   ///< UMA resides on memory that belongs to DCT3


----------



## os2wiz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Opcode*
> 
> Once again, more mouth than evidence. Keep building your posts upon rumors, it makes you look silly.


It is amusing your the one making claims about a 2014 Carrizo when Digital Times announced it's arrival in 2015. You are the one making pompous claims and not having any credible source to back you up. I have to prove nothing the burden of proof is on your sagging shoulders. The facts speak for themselves I have provided sources and you have yet to provide one source to back up your ludicrous claims. I expect your silence after Monday when the road map is officially released by AMD.

VR Zone, WCCF Tech, and Digi Times all have reported Carrizo is an Excavator design and is scheduled for launch in the first half of 2015. Give me your sources. Perhaps you and Seronx can form some unholy alliance?


----------



## NaroonGTX

Indeed, all reports for Carrizo indicate it will have the Excavator x86 cores and will be a 1H 2015 APU product.

os2wiz may come across as harsh sometimes, but what he says is true. There's no point in expecting much more than what we realistically can get for Kaveri, because otherwise you're just setting yourself up for disappointment. As with all rumors, it's best to not ever get too hyped (whether it be with negative or positive energy) but to instead think critically and logically and see how much sense it makes and whether or not it's even plausible. There was the rumor of Kaveri having 13 GPU CU's and 832 shaders, but we know that the Berlin APU is a slightly modified Kaveri chip and it has up to 512 GCN cores, so that kinda shot down the 'more than 512 cores' rumor.

I even question the BOINC scores in this thread, since I know for a fact that Piledriver's integer performance got a much bigger boost than just "2%" over Bulldozer. Given the fact that Steamroller 1.0 -- whatever it was -- was canceled a long time ago in favor of SR v2, and I'm just going on a limb by saying that perhaps Jim Keller may have had some involvement in this revision (though most likely we wouldn't see his magic until Excavator), I have no doubts that Kaveri/SR2 will have a really nice boost in x86 perf over the previous Piledriver cores.

We've been speculating and hunting our asses off for months, some even years for every little bit of info we could scrape up for Steamroller & Kaveri. We're now literally only a few days away from presentations which will give us more OFFICIAL information of these things, and FINALLY get the roadmaps which will put much of the AM3+ & SR FX rumors/speculation to rest. It will be glorious for that alone.


----------



## SuperMudkip

Wait do we even know if Steamroller is going to be in the APU line or the FM3+ line?


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

FM2+ for sure, AM3+ possible. Anything you read about Steamroller and AM3+ is speculation as far as I know. It will be the last architecture on that socket if true, otherwise that title belongs to Piledriver.


----------



## NaroonGTX

Steamroller will be on Socket FM2+ and on some server platforms with Berlin.

AM3+ is unknown, we'll find out when the new roadmaps come out sometime during the current APU '13 conference.


----------



## tjwolf88

Today we'll hopefully learn more with the beginning of APU13.


----------



## os2wiz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> Steamroller will be on Socket FM2+ and on some server platforms with Berlin.
> 
> AM3+ is unknown, we'll find out when the new roadmaps come out sometime during the current APU '13 conference.


When you go to the AMD/Investor Relations web page it has a header for upcoming events. There APU '13 is listed. When you click on that it allows you to register for APU 365. They send you an email to click on for the live feed.


----------



## maarten12100

I'm absolutely thrilled for tonight though it starts really later in my timezone 01:30.


----------



## os2wiz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *maarten12100*
> 
> I'm absolutely thrilled for tonight though it starts really later in my timezone 01:30.


Don't go to work tomorrow. Stay up and muse with us.


----------



## maarten12100

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *os2wiz*
> 
> Don't go to work tomorrow. Stay up and muse with us.


Have to go to Uni tommorow at 06:00 but I think I'm just gonna skip sleep this once.


----------



## SkateZilla

With that Floating Point Score, Why does it feel like they fix one thing and break another.


----------



## MrJava

^^ Hopefully this presentation isn't a repeat of the R9 290 series unveil - you'd be cranky both because of the lack of sleep and the reason you lost it!


----------



## SkateZilla

Edit, forgot APUs dont have all the Cache..


----------



## krisz9

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrJava*
> 
> ^^ Hopefully this presentation isn't a repeat of the R9 290 series unveil - you'd be cranky both because of the lack of sleep and the reason you lost it!


Im really hoping this isnt going to be another repeat of that event as well. I felt like I wasted a good amount of time I wont get back.


----------



## maarten12100

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrJava*
> 
> ^^ Hopefully this presentation isn't a repeat of the R9 290 series unveil - you'd be cranky both because of the lack of sleep and the reason you lost it!


GPU14 was less bad the second time I watched it actually still the whole Audio part of the presentation wasn't for me.
All I'm going to do tomorrow at Uni is learn how to use Maple so it doesn't really matter that I'm tired









Let's just hope that the first presentation intro about developers will turn out to be a total Steve Balmer performance. (nah I'm sure the nice Asian woman wouldn't do that to us)


----------



## Gungnir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrJava*
> 
> ^^ Hopefully this presentation isn't a repeat of the R9 290 series unveil - you'd be cranky both because of the lack of sleep and the reason you lost it!


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *krisz9*
> 
> Im really hoping this isnt going to be another repeat of that event as well. I felt like I wasted a good amount of time I wont get back.


GPU13 was aimed primarily at the gaming press, while APU13 is targeting developers. I highly doubt they'll be very similar. Just remember that there doesn't seem to be much on the first day; only two keynotes: one on AMD's relationship with developers, and one about cloud computing. Tomorrow is HSA, and Wednesday is gaming with SCE, Oculus, DICE, and TrueAudio.


----------



## maarten12100

25 more minutes better make myself some snacks hopefully there is at least something of interest in the first 2 presentations.


----------



## btupsx

Team AMD recruitment call for FFW '13! Put that AMD interest where it counts, in the PPD column.


----------



## maarten12100

stream is up


----------



## Caldeio

Yes it's very nice, talking about kaveri and SR now


----------



## maarten12100

8 GCN blocks confirmed so that would be 512GCN cores


----------



## Caldeio

live demo now

bf4 1080p
kaveri a10 vs
4770k and gt630

double fps on kaveri, no mantle on live demo.
12fps to 31fps


----------



## Gungnir

Initial availability Jan. 14, 2014!

EDIT: They're also giving Kaveri A10s to the attendees, apparently. Wish I was there...


----------



## Caldeio

If you look on the amd dev site. You can sign up for some prizes. I haven't found the sign up in the play menu. I'm looking though.

Hopefully we'll hear more from the winners of these a10s though!


----------



## Schmuckley

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *maarten12100*
> 
> Cinebench 11.5 gimps non Intel processors please think before posting it isn't just a little it is a lot


AMD Cine: http://www.hwbot.org/submission/2385949_schmuckley_cinebench_r11.5_phenom_ii_x4_960t_be_7.82_points

4670K Cine: http://www.hwbot.org/submission/2388463_flanker_cinebench_r11.5_core_i5_4670k_7.84_points

It doesn't look like it gimps it to me..The IPC is just lower on AMD


----------



## MrJava

It might just be that the winners get their A10 and motherboard when they are available to the general public (i.e. at retail release time).

Kaveri is friggin awesome though.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gungnir*
> 
> EDIT: They're also giving Kaveri A10s to the attendees, apparently. Wish I was there...


----------



## Clocknut

where the heck is the link for live stream? share please?


----------



## maarten12100

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clocknut*
> 
> where the heck is the link for live stream? share please?


https://vts.inxpo.com/scripts/Server.nxp?LASCmd=AI:1;F:US!100&ShowName=APU365&UserName=maarten%20Zwart&PreviousLoginCount=0&ForceProfileToBeFilledOut=0&DisplayItem=NULL&ShowFrameFormatOverride=NULL&RandomValue=1384179388174
you might need to sign up with your email though.


----------



## krisz9

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clocknut*
> 
> where the heck is the link for live stream? share please?


http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/webcast-apu13-keynotes-2013oct31.aspx

clcik on hyperlink apu365 and make a quick login to get to webcast


----------



## Caldeio

quad core with 8gcn is 35w.


----------



## maarten12100

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Caldeio*
> 
> quad core with 8gcn is 35w.


Only in that 100.000 node enviroment








There will be higher TDP parts for sure and if not we'll just push them


----------



## Caldeio

repped.
Sure will!

Amd is doing good so far


----------



## MrJava

Very few details on Kaveri presented. I told y'all this conference would mainly be aimed at developers.


----------



## krisz9

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrJava*
> 
> Very few details on Kaveri presented. I told y'all this conference would mainly be aimed at developers.


still interesting! The guy's coughing is starting to really bug me though. Least we got some info already on the first day, I cant complain.


----------



## Caldeio

Yeah it's making me tired..

That java benchmark they used. did they use the gpu alone or was that cpu and gpu? I say single core, then all cores and then wasn't paying attention.


----------



## krisz9

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Caldeio*
> 
> Yeah it's making me tired..
> 
> That java benchmark they used. did they use the gpu alone or was that cpu and gpu? I say single core, then all cores and then wasn't paying attention.


looked to me like 1 core --> 4 core --> offloaded to gpu. since the cpu cores werent highlighted during the igpu


----------



## maarten12100

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *krisz9*
> 
> looked to me like 1 core --> 4 core --> offloaded to gpu. since the cpu cores werent highlighted during the igpu


and FPS numbers with that were ~120 > ~350 > ~1200


----------



## Caldeio

Ok that's what I thought.


----------



## Caldeio

and its over.

Well hopefully at least on wednesday the mantle news is good.


----------



## MrJava

Tune in again on Wednesday. Mark Papermaster will be talking about "future cores and SoCs". Also Wednesday is "Kaveri Tech Day" at the convention center.


----------



## Alanim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *maarten12100*
> 
> and FPS numbers with that were ~120 > ~350 > ~1200


It was 1.20FPS for single core, 3.50FPS for multicore, and 12FPS for offloaded to the GPU

Was a good presentation. Sad I missed the first 30 minutes.


----------



## MrJava

You missed the Kaveri vs i7 + GT630 BF4 demo.

Personally I thought the Java stuff was really interesting. Parallelize a single threaded program in three lines of code! Admittedly it is one of those divde and conquer problems where this is relatively easy.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alanim*
> 
> It was 1.20FPS for single core, 3.50FPS for multicore, and 12FPS for offloaded to the GPU
> 
> Was a good presentation. Sad I missed the first 30 minutes.


----------



## Clocknut

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *maarten12100*
> 
> https://vts.inxpo.com/scripts/Server.nxp?LASCmd=AI:1;F:US!100&ShowName=APU365&UserName=maarten%20Zwart&PreviousLoginCount=0&ForceProfileToBeFilledOut=0&DisplayItem=NULL&ShowFrameFormatOverride=NULL&RandomValue=1384179388174
> you might need to sign up with your email though.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *krisz9*
> 
> http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/webcast-apu13-keynotes-2013oct31.aspx
> 
> clcik on hyperlink apu365 and make a quick login to get to webcast


Thanks guys, +Rep.


----------



## piledragon

AMD has got their nose to the grindstone, it's going to be a very exciting couple of days. hard work and dedication


----------



## sdlvx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Schmuckley*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *maarten12100*
> 
> Cinebench 11.5 gimps non Intel processors please think before posting it isn't just a little it is a lot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD Cine: http://www.hwbot.org/submission/2385949_schmuckley_cinebench_r11.5_phenom_ii_x4_960t_be_7.82_points
> 
> 4670K Cine: http://www.hwbot.org/submission/2388463_flanker_cinebench_r11.5_core_i5_4670k_7.84_points
> 
> It doesn't look like it gimps it to me..The IPC is just lower on AMD
Click to expand...

Not only is CB 11.5 compiled with ICC, but it uses Intel performance libraries. If you want to see how bad CB 11.5 is, compare the difference between FX 8350 stock and 3770k stock in CB 11.5 and CB 15, FX 8350 is a lot closer in CB 15.

I'm looking forward to tomorrow, lots of interesting talks coming up. Is there somewhere you can watch these online if you missed them?


----------



## AMDZombie

I think at the very end of the conference they will have them on youtube.


----------



## MrJava

The A10-7850K (856 GFLOPs) has 3.7GHz CPU and 720MHz GPU. The model name is a little strange for the top-end so maybe there is an A10-7900K with 4GHz CPU and 900MHz GPU to get their projected figure of 1050 GFLOPs.

In any case this is OCN, so it shouldn't be an issue.


----------



## iRUSH

Subscribing


----------



## yawa

Yeah that's my guess, the reveal I predicted is coming. The chip shown was midrange.

We know there will be one with a 100W TDP.

I'm still calling 3 modules 832 Stream Processors on the top of the line one.

Don't let me down AMD.


----------



## krisz9

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sdlvx*
> 
> Not only is CB 11.5 compiled with ICC, but it uses Intel performance libraries. If you want to see how bad CB 11.5 is, compare the difference between FX 8350 stock and 3770k stock in CB 11.5 and CB 15, FX 8350 is a lot closer in CB 15.
> 
> I'm looking forward to tomorrow, lots of interesting talks coming up. Is there somewhere you can watch these online if you missed them?


"Real-time video webcasts of the keynote presentations can be accessed on the Investor Relations homepage: ir.amd.com. Replays of the webcasts can be accessed approximately one hour after the conclusion of each live event and will be available for 12 months after the event.

At the conclusion of APU 13 the webcast replay of Keynote presentations may also be accessed on AMD's YouTube channel."

source: http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/webcast-apu13-keynotes-2013oct31.aspx


----------



## MrJava

Nah, I'm thinking along the lines of higher clocks for CPU and GPU. Even 3.7GHz is a bit of a relief since we were all worried that 28nm bulk would bring Kaveri down to around 3GHz.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yawa*
> 
> Yeah that's my guess, the reveal I predicted is coming. The chip shown was midrange.
> 
> We know there will be one with a 100W TDP.
> 
> I'm still calling 3 modules 832 Stream Processors on the top of the line one.
> 
> Don't let me down AMD.


----------



## anujsetia

Anandtech has posted release date & official slides of the presentation. Kaveri will be launched on January 14th, 2014

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7507/amd-kaveri-apu-launch-details-desktop-january-14th


----------



## NaroonGTX

We should be seeing some actual benches either later this month or in Dec. for Kaveri. Can't wait.
Quote:


> Yeah that's my guess, the reveal I predicted is coming. The chip shown was midrange.
> 
> We know there will be one with a 100W TDP.
> 
> I'm still calling 3 modules 832 Stream Processors on the top of the line one.
> 
> Don't let me down AMD.


Lol, setting yourself up for disappointment again. Top-end Kaveri parts are 95W and 512 GCN cores. There won't be any 3+ module parts until Excavator/Carrizo on 20nm.


----------



## MrJava

Curiously, the Anandtech article failed to mention the Kaveri BF4 demo. Wonder why.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *anujsetia*
> 
> Anandtech has posted release date & official slides of the presentation. Kaveri will be launched on January 14th, 2014
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/7507/amd-kaveri-apu-launch-details-desktop-january-14th


----------



## LuckyStarV

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrJava*
> 
> Curiously, the Anandtech article failed to mention the Kaveri BF4 demo. Wonder why.


Anandtech has an entire AMD portal....
I don't think anyone would be really surprised at Kaveri owning the GT630

Also can't wait for some benches, sooner rather than later


----------



## CptDanko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Caldeio*
> 
> 30% ipc increase puts it at 3770k/4770k. Multithreaded, its prolly ilke the i5's since rumors are that it's a 4 core.


Kaveri will be 4 cores, I expect the real steamrollers to be 8 and 12 cores


----------



## EniGma1987

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> Lol, setting yourself up for disappointment again. Top-end Kaveri parts are 95W and 512 GCN cores. There won't be any 3+ module parts until Excavator/Carrizo on 20nm.


One of AMD's slides from today specifically says up to 12 compute units at the top. Which is weird because Anand goes on to say that they have confirmation the highest end APU will only be a 4 core 512 sp APU.

8 CU = 512, so 12 CU would be 768 GCN cores.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yawa*
> 
> We know there will be one with a 100W TDP.
> 
> I'm still calling 3 modules 832 Stream Processors on the top of the line one.
> 
> Don't let me down AMD.


95w and 100w could be used interchangeably in *some* situations. Or things could have been refined or better classed and that 100w is now called a 95w. Anyway, I have not seen anything substantially hinting of a 3 module part so I doubt on will exist in an APU. That slide though does seem to indicate at least one higher end part with a bigger CPU though. WHich seems to be AMD's thing, stick around 4 CPU cores and keep cramming as big a GPU as possible in.


----------



## NaroonGTX

12 Compute Units

8 GPU CU's + 4 CPU CU's










edit: Here's the image:


----------



## sepiashimmer

Will it crossfire with HD 7750? How many TFLOPs will crossfiring it get?


----------



## os2wiz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> Will it crossfire with HD 7750? How many TFLOPs will crossfiring it get?


----------



## os2wiz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *os2wiz*


Sorry incorrect entry.


----------



## sepiashimmer

So will it or will it not? What will be the price of this whole setup? Around $300 or less in India?


----------



## NaroonGTX

Seeing as how Richland could xfire with the 7750, it only stands to reason that Kaveri will be able to. I don't know what the combined GFLOPs will be like, and it's unknown currently if Dual Graphics will eliminate the micro-stutter that Llano/Trinity/Richland had.


----------



## PandaX




----------



## Kuivamaa

1080p, medium settings. Can anyone that has an intel haswell quad and a comparable to GT630 video card report their [email protected] campaign?


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Can anyone that has an intel haswell quad and a comparable to GT630 video card report their [email protected] campaign?


Isn't that basically integrated hd graphics?


----------



## Tsumi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> 1080p, medium settings. Can anyone that has an intel haswell quad and a comparable to GT630 video card report their [email protected] campaign?


I doubt anyone that has a 4670k or 4770k will be pairing it with a GT630.


----------



## Kuivamaa

GT630 is pretty low end but it is backed up by serious cpu horsepower so I'd like to see what actual people and not AMD officials can get. Perhaps even the actual integrated haswell HD graphics are better than that 630. Then again getting [email protected] medium on such a demanding game is no small feature for an igpu.It probably beats a GDDR5 6670 at that.


----------



## Tsumi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> GT630 is pretty low end but it is backed up by serious cpu horsepower so I'd like to see what actual people and not AMD officials can get. Perhaps even the actual integrated haswell HD graphics are better than that 630. Then again getting [email protected]1080p medium on such a demanding game is no small feature for an igpu.It probably beats a GDDR5 6670 at that.


http://technewspedia.com/intel-hd-graphics-4000-vs-nvidia-geforce-gt-630/

GT630 flat out beats the HD4000.

My guess is the reason they chose the 4770k to power the 630 is to remove any CPU bottlenecks, so that they can showcase both the CPU power and the iGPU power. The CPU is powerful enough not to hold the iGPU back in a demanding CPU intensive game.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Well 4770k has the 4600HD ,not that it matters much.


----------



## mothrpe

I never really put stock in synthetic benchmarks, doesn't really mean anything to me, lets see the real benchmarks.


----------



## EniGma1987

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> 12 Compute Units
> 
> 8 GPU CU's + 4 CPU CU's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edit: Here's the image:


lol. Ya looking at the slide again in the morning now I see when AMD said 12 CU's what they meant was 4 CU's on the CPU side and 8 on the GPU. I have just never really thought of the term CU for a CPU core since we talk about Integer and Floating point cores, not as compute units like we have on the GPU.


----------



## kcklub

Lol I am thinking I bought the first gen i7 and its still kicking butt.i dont see a need to upgrade I have a 7970 amd gpu already. I am itching but not scratching yet.


----------



## NaroonGTX

Am I the only one itching to see a high-quality Kaveri die-shot? I dunno, I guess I'm a die-shot fiend. Really interested in seeing the final layout.


----------



## Asterox

In case someone missed this detail, Dual Core Steamroler Kaveri APU obviously has noticeably different L1 Cache configuration compared to Dual Core Piledriver Trinity APU.


----------



## NaroonGTX

Yeah, and Kaveri also seems to require a lot less voltage for the clocks it produces. Looks good.


----------



## Kuivamaa

[email protected] ,my llano mobile A6 quad can do [email protected] and I thought it was a good undervolter







Not to mention the big difference in performance.


----------



## NaroonGTX

For the lack of OC headroom it had, Llano sure did seem to be a good undervolter. I have my 3850 running at stock clocks with custom P-states via K10STAT. I have it at 2.9ghz @ 1.2v right now, never tried going lower but I probably could squeeze out a bit more...


----------



## Kuivamaa

Well technically, mobile llano was a great overclocker since it was released with very low stock clocks/huge voltage and an unlocked multiplier.Mine was prime [email protected] with around the same volts as its stock 1.4Ghz had and it could go much higher (probably 3.0) but temps were out of hand on a laptop case and lets not forget the tiny heatsink it shared with the discreet 6650m. Realistically, it's limit was 2.2Ghz on gpu intensive games because of the shared heatsink.


----------



## Alatar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tsumi*
> 
> http://technewspedia.com/intel-hd-graphics-4000-vs-nvidia-geforce-gt-630/
> 
> GT630 flat out beats the HD4000.
> 
> My guess is the reason they chose the 4770k to power the 630 is to remove any CPU bottlenecks, so that they can showcase both the CPU power and the iGPU power. The CPU is powerful enough not to hold the iGPU back in a demanding CPU intensive game.


HD 4600 is about 33% faster than HD4000.

Not quite as fast as the 630 but somewhat close.


----------



## Alanim

the GPU should compare closer to a 640.

I'd like to see how the iGPU compared to THAT.


----------



## NaroonGTX

Quote:


> HD 4600 is about 33% faster than HD4000.
> 
> Not quite as fast as the 630 but somewhat close.


Lol the HD 4600 doesn't even BOOT BF4, it just shows an error. Pretty sure that's one of the reasons they used a GT 630. Showcase the incompetence of Intel's iGPU while also trolling Nvidia.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> Lol the HD 4600 doesn't even BOOT BF4, it just shows an error. Pretty sure that's one of the reasons they used a GT 630. Showcase the incompetence of Intel's iGPU while also trolling Nvidia.


Oh yeah, you are probably right. ΒF4 is finicky,I got artifacts and crap quality on both nvidia and AMD on old drivers. Just imagine running it on intel...


----------



## sdlvx

Since you guys brought up Anandtech, I'd like to mention that the AMD portal doesn't mean anything. If you use a little google, Anand recommended GTX 480 when it was _louder_ than 290x yet they didn't recommend 290x when it wasn't as loud, because 290x was "too loud". That's a massive double-standard that is too huge to simply pass up.

And for the Nvidia generation, the GTX 480 was actually more expensive and not massively faster.

As for the 4770k and GT 630 comparison, they are trying to show that the built in GPU is not that bad and they are doing a marketing trick to get you to say "look, it's 4770k and A10 APU is winning, so A10 CPU must be just as good".

They probably could have gone with Core i3 + GT 630 but it wouldn't have had the same effect. The demo they showed didn't seem overly CPU impressive and a lot of it looked like scripted areas of the game. But now everyone who saw it saw Kaveri beating 4770k in a benchmark and it looks good to them.

What AMD is saying with that presentation is (and note I don't know if they're true or not, it's just what AMD is trying to convey)

1. Kaveri is just as good as 4770k for gaming
2. You can spend the same amount for those parts or go AMD for double the performance
3. We care about gaming, a lot
4. You can put together an APU system for gaming and it'll cost as much as a PS4 or XBone.
5. You can have a pretty enjoyable experience on budget hardware, you don't need a $1500 gaming rig with Titan or 290x to enjoy games

The thing is that this is a great gateway platform, kind of like a gateway drug, to get people onto PC gaming. The thing I don't get is that there's NO way to upgrade from A10. I mean this platform would be godly if you could get people to buy into the platform for cheap ($100 for high end mobo, $150 for high end APU) and then drop in a serious CPU like FX 8000 series with a big dGPU and have a high end gaming system.

Then PC gaming turns into "well I spent $300 on a new GPU and now I can crank my settings) instead of "I need a new gaming PC, lets drop $1000+ on a decent one".

I am telling you guys, it makes no sense for AMD to not release a common platform for APU and dCPU + dGPU that is HSA enabled.

To be honest I wouldn't be surprised if we saw FM2+ get one more release after Kaveri and then a unified socket. AMD has hinted several times that HEDT users need to keep the faith or similar messages but pushing that platform doesn't align with what I think AMD's long term and short term goals are (long term: large install base of HSA enabled systems, short term: promote gaming to push install base of HSA enabled systems).


----------



## Kuivamaa

Yeah, I never understood what on earth Ryan Smith was thinking over there when he decided that only quiet mode 290X results matter when compairing it to 780Ti.


----------



## Nilareon

Quick! EVERYONE!!!! HOP BACK ON THE AMD BANDWAGON!!!!!!!!!

Geez... amazing at how much a rumor can sway peoples opinions on a company.


----------



## Durquavian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kirus2012*
> 
> Quick! EVERYONE!!!! HOP BACK ON THE AMD BANDWAGON!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Geez... amazing at how much a rumor can sway peoples opinions on a company.


Sure you are posting in the right thread or maybe you could link what you are referring to. This thread is full of AMD players from the start and have seen no one swayed as of yet.


----------



## piledragon

Quote:


> Quick! EVERYONE!!!! HOP BACK ON THE AMD BANDWAGON!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Geez... amazing at how much a rumor can sway peoples opinions on a company.


,

i never got off the bandwagon, i stuck with them through thick and thin, and let me let you in on something, technology is going in a different direction. AMD is truly leading the way,.

but don't let it get you down, there's always room for one more you'll be wecomed with open arms


----------



## NaroonGTX

Quote:


> Quick! EVERYONE!!!! HOP BACK ON THE AMD BANDWAGON!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Geez... amazing at how much a rumor can sway peoples opinions on a company.


What exactly are you talking about? Most people in this thread besides any trolls were AMD fans from the get-go. Who exactly was supposedly swayed?


----------



## dimwit13

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kirus2012*
> 
> Quick! EVERYONE!!!! HOP BACK ON THE AMD BANDWAGON!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Geez... amazing at how much a rumor can sway peoples opinions on a company.


Pentium 2 400Mhz, was my last Intel system-10 AMD systems since.
I plan on matching the high end Kaveri with a R9 290-Both under water
Yeah Baby!!!

Now, giving you S*$#-That's jumping on the band wagon!!!

-dimwit-

But I do buy NVidia also.


----------



## polyzp

Proof that IPC goes up atleast 20-25% with Steamroller!!

3.7 Ghz A10-7850k

VS

4.4 Ghz A10-6800k

Will be at least a 10-15% increase in CPU performance! But with an 18% Decrease in Clock..

IPC for steamroller looks great!


----------



## LuckyStarV

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> Proof that IPC goes up atleast 20-25% with Steamroller!!
> 
> 3.7 Ghz A10-7850k
> 
> VS
> 
> 4.4 Ghz A10-6800k
> 
> Will be at least a 10-15% increase in CPU performance! But with an 18% Decrease in Clock..
> 
> IPC for steamroller looks great!


I would think the 3.7ghz is stock for Kaveri and the 4.4ghz is max boost for Richland.

Given past APU boost clocks of about 300mhz, that could put Kaveri boost clocks at 4ghz, so a 10% decrease in clocks


----------



## Brutuz

SR looks to be a little beast, I wonder how fast it'll OC?


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dimwit13*
> 
> Pentium 2 400Mhz, was my last Intel system-10 AMD systems since.
> I plan on matching the high end Kaveri with a R9 290-Both under water
> Yeah Baby!!!


If you want to match R9 290, match it with FX series, not Kaveri.


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sdlvx*
> 
> 4. You can put together an APU system for gaming and it'll cost as much as a PS4 or XBone.


Are you sure Kaveri APU based system will cost the same as PS4 or XBone?


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> Are you sure Kaveri APU based system will cost the same as PS4 or XBone?


Depending how fancy or how many laying around parts you have it can be less or more.


----------



## senna89

Steamroller most important news is the dedicated FPU for each core and ..... floating score is lower ? fail by AMD.


----------



## NaroonGTX

More like fail by you since you're going off pure rumors right now. Also there is no dedicated FPU for each core.


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> Depending how fancy or how many laying around parts you have it can be less or more.


Not many. Just motherboard, processor and RAM. How much will the top end Kaveri APU cost?


----------



## NaroonGTX

Once again lol, prices have not been announced.


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> Once again lol, prices have not been announced.


I remember what you said. I thought that user might know. Do you think I can get it in $300?


----------



## NaroonGTX

Oh wait, you're in India, so it'll probably be more expensive for you. I think the top-end Kaveri will be around $150~$160, so convert that to how much it would be in your country. That's my best guestimate.


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> Oh wait, you're in India, so it'll probably be more expensive for you. I think the top-end Kaveri will be around $150~$160, so convert that to how much it would be in your country. That's my best guestimate.


Oh thanks. Usually it costs $20-40 more. I might be able to get it, I was planning on getting it in April thinking it'll release in February.


----------



## NBAasDOGG

Is there gonna be any FX based Steamtoller CPU's


----------



## Tsumi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NBAasDOGG*
> 
> Is there gonna be any FX based Steamtoller CPU's


Try reading the thread. It has been asked at least 20 times in every Steamroller related thread.


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NBAasDOGG*
> 
> Is there gonna be any FX based Steamtoller CPU's


No.


----------



## NaroonGTX

Quote:


> Is there gonna be any FX based Steamtoller CPU's


Would've been easier for you to just read any Steamroller/Kaveri-based thread and you would've gotten the same answer you're about to get now: _*Most likely not.*_


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *senna89*
> 
> Steamroller most important news is the dedicated FPU for each core and ..... floating score is lower ? fail by AMD.


Bulldozer family has had a dedicated FPU for each core from the get-go.

"Bulldozer is the first major redesign of AMD's processor architecture since 2003, when the firm launched its K8 processors, and also features two 128-bit FMA-capable FPUs which can be combined into one 256-bit FPU. This design is accompanied by two integer clusters, each with 4 pipelines (the fetch/decode stage is shared). Bulldozer also introduced shared L2 cache in the new architecture. AMD's marketing service calls this design a "Module". A 16-core processor design would feature eight of these "modules",[7] but the operating system will recognize each "module" as two logical cores."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_%28microarchitecture%29

8 128bit FMA-capable FPUs for 8 cores in the case of FX-8xxx series.


----------



## SkateZilla

There will be SteamRoller Based CPUs, they will not Bear the "FX" Label


----------



## BenC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SkateZilla*
> 
> There will be SteamRoller Based CPUs, they will not Bear the "FX" Label


Are you basing this on common sense or can you link a statement from someone in the know?

Not being a jerk, just really am curious and hopeful.


----------



## NaroonGTX

Quote:


> There will be SteamRoller Based CPUs, they will not Bear the "FX" Label


*[citation needed]*


----------



## PandaX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SkateZilla*
> 
> There will be SteamRoller Based CPUs, they will not Bear the "FX" Label


If this is true, this will the greatest post ever regarding steamroller!


----------



## NBAasDOGG

If no Steamtoller CPU's..... Then bye bye AMD, hello Intel. AMD Apu's are doing great, but they are running almost 2 years behind in de CPU market. If AMD not going to release any Steamroller based CPU's this year, then they are literaly killend by Intel.


----------



## LordOfTots

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NBAasDOGG*
> 
> If no Steamtoller CPU's..... Then bye bye AMD, hello Intel. AMD Apu's are doing great, but they are running almost 2 years behind in de CPU market. If AMD not going to release any Steamroller based CPU's this year, then they are literaly killend by Intel.


Not really "killend" behind Intel. amd apu's have little competition from Intel, they have been behind on cheap integrated graphics for quite a while.

If kaveri brings a quad core with ipc in the Sandy bridge ballpark for $150-170, I'm sold







more than enough for my needs


----------



## Namwons

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LordOfTots*
> 
> Not really "killend" behind Intel. amd apu's have little competition from Intel, they have been behind on cheap integrated graphics for quite a while.
> 
> If kaveri brings a quad core with ipc in the Sandy bridge ballpark for $150-170, I'm sold
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more than enough for my needs


its saddens me...you know its time to upgrade your system when an APU is stronger than your computer.../checks own rig...cries.

im being patient though. im getting a PS4 this year, and build a complete new rig (maybe ITX







) when 20nm and DDR4 hits market. i need to stay patient till then.


----------



## sdlvx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tsumi*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *NBAasDOGG*
> 
> Is there gonna be any FX based Steamtoller CPU's
> 
> 
> 
> Try reading the thread. It has been asked at least 20 times in every Steamroller related thread.
Click to expand...

But I thought HEDT was dying? Why so much interest in this antiquated traditional CPU?!?!??!?!?!!!?!?! _but the desktop is dead!!!!_

Scuttle along and buy your 50w desktop APU so you can put it in a mini-ITX case, it's a perfect replacement for your high end overclocked gaming rig.


----------



## NaroonGTX

Kaveri will be more than adequate CPU-wise for any "gaming". The fact there will be a big single-threaded perf boost alone will make it more viable than any current AMD chip out there.


----------



## krisz9

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Namwons*
> 
> its saddens me...you know its time to upgrade your system when an APU is stronger than your computer.../checks own rig...cries.
> 
> im being patient though. im getting a PS4 this year, and build a complete new rig (maybe ITX
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) when 20nm and DDR4 hits market. i need to stay patient till then.


lol you need upgrading?...look at mine!


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> Kaveri will be more than adequate CPU-wise for any "gaming". The fact there will be a big single-threaded perf boost alone will make it more viable than any current AMD chip out there.


Against vishera octocores It will fall short on BF4,BF3,Crysis 3,Far Cry 3 and _possibly_ Star Citizen,Dragon Age Inquisition,new Mass Effect and generally speaking, every Cryengine/Frostbite title from now onwards. AMD needs more than a quad to stay competitive even for gaming.


----------



## cresuso

Any news about the socket, will it be compatible am3+ ??


----------



## MrJava

I think its not so much HEDT, but AMD's server marketshare may suffer.

They need a chip with lots of cores, good single-threaded performance and lots of SoC style integration. I'm predicting AMD will stop their MCM methodology and instead sell one bigger die with 8 or so Excavator modules + L3 cache, quad-channel DDR4 memory, 10/40GbE links, SATA, USB, wide PCIe interface and 3 HT links. AMD's ARM Seattle chip has all of these features except for the HT Links, so I expect the x86 opterons to be similar. As before, this die will form the basis of HEDT CPUs for gaming, video editing, rendering, CAD etc. possibly on the same socket as the opterons.

Maybe for added bonus they have small 2-4 CU GCN GPU as well given the addition of HSA to Java, and to remove the need for a discrete GPU in some workstations.

Remember to tune in to Mark Papermaster's keynote tonight, he will be talking about future cores and SoC's from AMD as well as market strategy.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sdlvx*
> 
> But I thought HEDT was dying? Why so much interest in this antiquated traditional CPU?!?!??!?!?!!!?!?! _but the desktop is dead!!!!_
> 
> Scuttle along and buy your 50w desktop APU so you can put it in a mini-ITX case, it's a perfect replacement for your high end overclocked gaming rig.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> Kaveri will be more than adequate CPU-wise for any "gaming". The fact there will be a big single-threaded perf boost alone will make it more viable than any current AMD chip out there.


I think i speak for a lot of people on OCN when i say that "adequate" is unfortunate when a lot of people wish to spend more money for superior performance and would like the option of a CPU with twice as many cores


----------



## NaroonGTX

Quote:


> Against vishera octocores It will fall short on BF4,BF3,Crysis 3,Far Cry 3 and possibly Star Citizen,Dragon Age Inquisition,new Mass Effect and generally speaking, every Cryengine/Frostbite title from now onwards. AMD needs more than a quad to stay competitive even for gaming.


If the Intel quads can take the lead in those benches, it seems to me that 4 cores would be enough. The game engines will support many cores, but it doesn't mean it will use all of them at 100% or anything. There's a thread around here which had BF3 being tested on FX-8xxx processors, and while generally all cores were being used, most of the load was on two or three threads with the rest of the cores being used sparingly at best. It'll depend on the game, but not even the console versions will be using all eight threads. The X1 has 3 threads reserved for OS functions, and the PS4 has 1 or 2 threads reserved for the OS IIRC.


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> Against vishera octocores It will fall short on BF4,BF3,Crysis 3,Far Cry 3 and _possibly_ Star Citizen,Dragon Age Inquisition,new Mass Effect and generally speaking, every Cryengine/Frostbite title from now onwards. AMD needs more than a quad to stay competitive even for gaming.


Why?


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cresuso*
> 
> Any news about the socket, will it be compatible am3+ ??


I don't understand your question, but Kaveri APU will be compatible with FM2+ socket.


----------



## cresuso

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> I don't understand your question, but Kaveri APU will be compatible with FM2+ socket.


I was asking about steamroller cpu


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cresuso*
> 
> I was asking about steamroller cpu


It's highly unlikely that there will be a steamroller based CPU.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> It's highly unlikely that there will be a steamroller based CPU.


Correction, highly unlikely for a steamroller AM3. Kevari is a Steamroller based CPU.


----------



## SkateZilla

it's an APU


----------



## LordOfTots

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SkateZilla*
> 
> it's an APU


Its an apu and A cpu, an apu is just a cpu with integrated graphics. Technically the 4770k is an apu


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

So if we don't see Steamroller on AM3+, is a Phenom or Athlon III series on FM2+ possible? The IIs used FM2, didn't they? Or was it AM3?


----------



## Gungnir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LordOfTots*
> 
> Its an apu and A cpu, an apu is just a cpu with integrated graphics. Technically the 4770k is an apu


An APU is a bit more than just a CPU with an IGP, but suppose that simplification works.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> So if we don't see Steamroller on AM3+, is a Phenom or Athlon III series on FM2+ possible? The IIs used FM2, didn't they? Or was it AM3?


The Athlon IIs were AM3 originally, though the name was also used for Llano and Trinity APUs with their IGPs disabled, so there have been Athlon IIs for AM3, FM1, and FM2. Kaveri-based Athlons for FM2+ are possible, but we don't know if they're going to make them, as AMD is really pushing HSA with Kaveri. Those chips wouldn't give you anything that Kaveri doesn't, anyway, other than a slightly lower price.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Other than MOAR COARS, of course. Maybe sell one with 6 CPU CUs and 6 GPU CUs, assuming they're the same physical size? You've still got HSA, albeit not as powerful, but it's also CPU oriented.


----------



## krisz9

uploaded from my phone. roadmap.


----------



## Gungnir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Other than MOAR COARS, of course. Maybe sell one with 6 CPU CUs and 6 GPU CUs, assuming they're the same physical size? You've still got HSA, albeit not as powerful, but it's also CPU oriented.


No, they'd just be Kaveri APUs without IGPs, so no moar coars than Kaveri has. A three module APU with six GCN CUs might be technically possible, but don't expect one anytime soon. Not until Carrizo, at the earliest, I'd say.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *krisz9*
> 
> uploaded from my phone. roadmap.


Both Puma-based; nothing new about Steamroller or Excavator, unfortunately.


----------



## krisz9

yea unfortunately nothing but a bit more info on kaveri from the opening announcement. do you think this is all they're offering for 2014? not just apu-exclusive but cpu's as well?


----------



## NaroonGTX

That roadmap was for low-power devices. They said they'll talk more about the desktop and whatnot chips at CES 2014.

Athlon II was only brought over to FM1, because technically the cores _were_ Athlon II since they were Stars-based. The FM2 Athlon's don't use the *II* nomenclature, instead only being called Athlon X2 or Athlon x4 again.
Quote:


> Other than MOAR COARS, of course. Maybe sell one with 6 CPU CUs and 6 GPU CUs, assuming they're the same physical size? You've still got HSA, albeit not as powerful, but it's also CPU oriented.


Moar coarz would require a totally unique die design, something I'm positive they wouldn't bother with as the amount of money and R&D time needed to construct a new die for an extremely niche market segment wouldn't be worth it. The FM1 and FM2(+) Athlon's are nothing more than APU chips with disabled GPU's. They salvage the silicon rather than wasting it -- why throw the silicon away when it can be repackaged as a CPU-only part and sold for a lower price?


----------



## Tsumi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sdlvx*
> 
> But I thought HEDT was dying? Why so much interest in this antiquated traditional CPU?!?!??!?!?!!!?!?! _but the desktop is dead!!!!_
> 
> Scuttle along and buy your 50w desktop APU so you can put it in a mini-ITX case, it's a perfect replacement for your high end overclocked gaming rig.












The true purpose of HSA and the iGPU is to vastly speed up the CPU by diverting code the iGPU would be good at processing to the iGPU rather than running it through the FPU, leaving the CPU to work on code it's better at running. It just isn't there yet, but with Kaveri, the only piece of the puzzle left is dev support, which AMD is pushing greatly with all the tools they're releasing. Who says an APU can't be an enthusiast class?


----------



## SkateZilla

Part of the Improvements to SteamRoller and the "Feed the Cores Faster" Motive, was Improvements to L2 and L3 Cache..... Seeing as the APUs Dont have L3 Cache... One Can Start to Assume things.


----------



## Gungnir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *krisz9*
> 
> yea unfortunately nothing but a bit more info on kaveri from the opening announcement. do you think this is all they're offering for 2014? not just apu-exclusive but cpu's as well?


IIRC, there's a Piledriver-based refresh for Opterons that might trickle down to FX, but other than that, I don't think so. Oh, they're also doing quadcore Cortex-A57s with DDR4 later next year, but that's not of much relevance to desktop users.


----------



## EniGma1987

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *krisz9*
> 
> 
> 
> uploaded from my phone. roadmap.


While good info, I notice that the previous year just lists up to 35w processors, and this year has the same. So this has to be a mobile roadmap right? because we know there were much higher wattage CPUs from the Richland core's on desktop.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SkateZilla*
> 
> Part of the Improvements to SteamRoller and the "Feed the Cores Faster" Motive, was Improvements to L2 and L3 Cache..... Seeing as the APUs Dont have L3 Cache... One Can Start to Assume things.


No, it is changes to L1 and l2 cache. Nothing has been said about L3.


----------



## krisz9

yea sorry, i was wanting to post the pic up here and meanwhile i missed out on what exactly was being talked about during that slide lol.


----------



## NaroonGTX

Quote:


> Part of the Improvements to SteamRoller and the "Feed the Cores Faster" Motive, was Improvements to L2 and L3 Cache..... Seeing as the APUs Dont have L3 Cache... One Can Start to Assume things.


No, the improvements have been for the L1 and L2 caches, nothing was ever mentioned about L3 caches for Steamroller. AMD said previously that they isolated the reason(s) for the L3 caches terrible performance, but that it wasn't a priority and that they would work on it for Excavator. So either there will be an EX-based Opteron part or FX will come back with something EX-based (or the APU's might get L3 cache.)


----------



## MrJava

Yep. I guess they'll continue to sell piledriver FX and Kaveri for desktop.
Mobile adds Beema and Mullins (2W SDP for fanless tablets). Kaveri is 15-35W in laptops.

Edit:
I was expecting Mark Papermaster to drop some knowledge on the Excavator core like he did at hotchips, but no dice.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *krisz9*
> 
> yea unfortunately nothing but a bit more info on kaveri from the opening announcement. do you think this is all they're offering for 2014? not just apu-exclusive but cpu's as well?


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> That roadmap was for low-power devices. They said they'll talk more about the desktop and whatnot chips at CES 2014.
> 
> Athlon II was only brought over to FM1, because technically the cores _were_ Athlon II since they were Stars-based. The FM2 Athlon's don't use the *II* nomenclature, instead only being called Athlon X2 or Athlon x4 again.
> 
> Moar coarz would require a totally unique die design, something I'm positive they wouldn't bother with as the amount of money and R&D time needed to construct a new die for an extremely niche market segment wouldn't be worth it. The FM1 and FM2(+) Athlon's are nothing more than APU chips with disabled GPU's. They salvage the silicon rather than wasting it -- why throw the silicon away when it can be repackaged as a CPU-only part and sold for a lower price?


Right, since all FX-whatevers are either 8150s or 8350s with disabled modules and/or altered clocks, and each 6000 APU is a 6800k with some GPU and/or CPU cores disabled and/or lowered clocks. But everything is the same chip overall. Thanks, and that's too bad.


----------



## MrJava

I think their exact words were that they would talk more about Kaveri at CES 2014. Don't give people false hope for anything more than that.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> That roadmap was for low-power devices. They said they'll talk more about the desktop and whatnot chips at CES 2014.


Edit:
Desktop roadmap shows Kaveri and Piledriver FX through 2014.
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MjAxMjA5fENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> If the Intel quads can take the lead in those benches, it seems to me that 4 cores would be enough. The game engines will support many cores, but it doesn't mean it will use all of them at 100% or anything. There's a thread around here which had BF3 being tested on FX-8xxx processors, and while generally all cores were being used, most of the load was on two or three threads with the rest of the cores being used sparingly at best. It'll depend on the game, but not even the console versions will be using all eight threads. The X1 has 3 threads reserved for OS functions, and the PS4 has 1 or 2 threads reserved for the OS IIRC.


In those games even intel quads often lose. SR quad won't be as strong so it will naturally lose as well and by a bigger margin. These games behave like well threaded apps,in those types of workloads FX-83x0 ipc is around quad i7 level, that's why. Check cpu usage of BF3 on i7-3770k and FX-8350.








SR quad leaves much to be desired in state of the art games.


----------



## sdlvx

I heard FM2+ had about a 100w socket limit, so it's not the unified socket folks have been conjecturing about.

I'd reckon AMD is keeping PD around to try and turn it into a more profitable product by adding value through better performing games through software optimizations.

AMD must feel that FX 8350 will stay competitive in the next gen console ports we're about to get and they must be thinking that it's not worth the money to bring in an SR AM3+ chip when they can just keep selling FX 8350 and going "look at how much better it is now when it's not playing Skyrim, Starcraft 2, and Shogun 2"

All AMD needs to do to sell a bunch of FX 8350 chips is to have it place between 4670k and 4770k and maintain a sub $200 price and then load reviews with benchmarks of games that work well on AMD hardware.

It shouldn't be that difficult to do considering AMD is getting so buddy buddy with game developers now. My guess is that AMD is just gonna put the HEDT on hold until 22nm shows up in 2015.

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2011/8/30/globalfoundries-announces-20nm-process-no-to-soi.aspx

I read that and the last little bit had an interesting tidbit,
Quote:


> However, GlobalFoundries will continue to extensively utilize SOI on the 32nm node, as well as on the upcoming 22nm and 14nm nodes, when an even more advanced generation of SOI will make its debut. SOI is more tied to AMD and the newly engaged SOI customers, while the 28nm and 20nm customers all utilize bulk silicon.


There is no way AMD is doing well selling a fully enabled chip that's 315mm^2 for less than $200 and it more than likely wouldn't be cost effective to release an FX 8450 or FX 8550 for $200 if it was still a 315mm^2 chip.

Another reference to 22nm SOI.
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1253788

Is it just me or did I have no idea there was a 22nm SOI node coming out of GloFo?

Apparently this is a really optimistic number because not every part of the chip scales with die shrink, but

22^2 / 32^2 * 315 = 148mm^2 for a 4m/8c part best case scenario.

Selling that for $200 would be much, much more feasible.


----------



## NaroonGTX

Quote:


> I think their exact words were that they would talk more about Kaveri at CES 2014. Don't give people false hope for anything more than that.


I wasn't giving anyone false hope since I thought it was obvious by desktop, Kaveri would be the focus. I've already said many times here how the likelihood of a SR FX chip being announced were almost nonexistent.

As for Battlefield, even then the game is more than playable on modern quad-cores, and this is just a single game. I mean most games won't have 64 players, let alone 32 and definitely not on maps that big. I can't see octocores or anything becoming the "standard".


----------



## MrJava

You sell what you have, and right now all they have for desktops is Kaveri and Vishera. Expect some price cuts too, the FX-8320 looks like a reasonable option at $139.99.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sdlvx*
> 
> I'd reckon AMD is keeping PD around to try and turn it into a more profitable product by adding value through better performing games through software optimizations.


----------



## Kuivamaa

It is not about "playable", it is about pushing the envelope, it is playable on an FX-4100 even ,that doesn't mean AMD should stop progressing or stay with good enough. It has to both look good on reviews (octocores will continue pushing higher framerates than Kaveri in cryengine and frostbite games) and cater at the crowd that wants xfire (high cpu load) and more than 60fps. I sure hope that AMD is just pulling an intel, releasing their new architectures at mainstream first (1150/FM2+) and a year later bring it to their multicore stuff (HW-E/AM3+ successor or whatever that will be) and not leaving that space totally.


----------



## NaroonGTX

I never implied they should "stop progressing" or anything, so not sure why you brought that up. All I'm saying is that the "zomg consolez haz 8 coarz tiem 4 revolution on PC!!11!" hype isn't warranted. Yes -- it's a good thing that games are starting to finally take advantage of higher CPU parallelization, but it doesn't mean anything less than a hexacore will somehow make a game "just barely acceptable" or anything. It's not like even BF3/4 are totally CPU-bound or anything. I've seen a guy in another thread here post results using an A10 APU quad-core paired up with a discreet and easily pulling well over 60fps on a 60+ man server. So clearly if a Piledriver APU could do that, a Kaveri can do much better.

Not that it matters anyway since BF4 is just one game, one that not every gamer will be interested in. I don't even see why that game has such lower performance than BF3 when it barely looks better than said game.


----------



## MrJava

Crossfire/SLi on non-Mantle games is all about IPC. So you should see better results with Kaveri if the IPC is indeed higher and clocks around the same.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> It is not about "playable", it is about pushing the envelope, it is playable on an FX-4100 even ,that doesn't mean AMD should stop progressing or stay with good enough. It has to both look good on reviews (octocores will continue pushing higher framerates than Kaveri in cryengine and frostbite games) and cater at the crowd that wants xfire (high cpu load) and more than 60fps. I sure hope that AMD is just pulling an intel, releasing their new architectures at mainstream first (1150/FM2+) and a year later bring it to their multicore stuff (HW-E/AM3+ successor or whatever that will be) and not leaving that space totally.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrJava*
> 
> Crossfire/SLi on non-Mantle games is all about IPC. So you should see better results with Kaveri if the IPC is indeed higher and clocks around the same.


Perhaps with poorly threaded stuff. People are already seeing 90%+ cpu usage on BF4 with an i5-4670k which should be faster than a quad kaveri in all traditional workloads. The latter will get saturated from the get-go,not sure if it will have the headroom to push properly 2 cards.We'll see.

BF4 is not "just one game". It is based on Frostbite 3,fully multithreaded engine. Most EA games from now on (besides sports titles that is) will be using that very engine. Dragon Age Inquisition, Mirror's Edge 2, new Mass Effect, Need for speed , you name it. Big titles. Something similar with cryengine (Star Citizen, Homefront 2,and who knows, perhaps Ryse at a point). I am not saying kaveri won't be a potent gaming processor,it will most certainly be. But without a 6 or 8 core product, AMD is destined to keep making poor man's i5s (or a good match for those eventually) in an era i5s themselves will start to be outclassed by i7s.


----------



## Kuivamaa

dp.


----------



## MrJava

Well as for performance, Kaveri is probably somewhere between i3-3220 and i5-3470. If we're comparing to AM3+ CPUs, then Kaveri should be able to push 2 cards better especially if you overclock.

This is not high-end performance and no one should expect it to be for the price. However I think if you're going AMD then its going to be choice between Kaveri or spending a bit more and getting FX-83XX. Btw, all of the chips should be priced lower than the locked i5's so its still decent value.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> Perhaps with poorly threaded stuff. People are already seeing 90%+ cpu usage on BF4 with an i5-4670k which should be faster than a quad kaveri in all traditional workloads. The latter will get saturated from the get-go,not sure if it will have the headroom to push properly 2 cards.We'll see.
> 
> BF4 is not "just one game". It is based on Frostbite 3,fully multithreaded engine. Most EA games from now on (besides sports titles that is) will be using that very engine. Dragon Age Inquisition, Mirror's Edge 2, new Mass Effect, Need for speed , you name it. Big titles. Something similar with cryengine (Star Citizen, Homefront 2,and who knows, perhaps Ryse at a point). I am not saying kaveri won't be a potent gaming processor,it will most certainly be. But without a 6 or 8 core product, AMD is destined to keep making poor man's i5s (or a good match for those eventually) in an era i5s themselves will start to be outclassed by i7s.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrJava*
> 
> Well as for performance, Kaveri is probably somewhere between i3-3220 and i5-3470. If we're comparing to AM3+ CPUs, then Kaveri should be able to push 2 cards better especially if you overclock.
> 
> This is not high-end performance and no one should expect it to be for the price. However I think if you're going AMD then its going to be choice between Kaveri or spending a bit more and getting FX-83XX. Btw, all of the chips should be priced lower than the locked i5's so its still decent value.


It goes without saying that kaveri is great value. And that it is a higher priority than 6 or 8 core parts since those cannot be used in laptops (these are the money makers). With that in mind,i strongly believe AMD has a mobile winner ,enough cpu grunt and the best igpu out there.


----------



## NaroonGTX

BF4 is one game in that it's pretty much one of the only games to have 64-player servers and such today. You won't be playing Mirror's Edge 2 with 63 other players, or playing NFS Rivals against that many people. It's one isolated game which barely even works from what I've been hearing from people who've been playing it, lol. I know full-well what Frostbite 3 is capable of -- just because BF4 stresses the CPU (only in MP and only when there's more than 40+ players) doesn't mean every game on the engine will require an FX-9590 or a $550 i7 hexacore. Kaveri's removal of the full-load penalty and higher single-threaded perf will make it a better choice for games overall for the most part, over any of its predecessors. Even with an 8350, you're only getting ~6.5x scaling rather than 8x.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Not really, even the campaign fully utilizes multiple cores.



Unless you really think kaveri will match a haswell quad, there is a big possibility it will consistenly trail (a great deal) FX-8350 in all EA AAA games for starters.


----------



## NaroonGTX

I saw another benchmark for BF4's campaign where practically every CPU was getting the same FPS, almost regardless of how many cores were used. BF3's campaign was the exact same. Didn't matter if it was AMD or Intel, as long as you have 3 or 4+ cores, you generally got the same performance no matter what. Not to mention, lol @ BF4's barely-4 hour campaign. I see the FX-4300 pulling well over 60fps right there at stock clock, but I guess that's not good enough either, lol.

Kaveri won't match a Haswell's IPC, probably not even Ivy Bridge. That chart is a joke anyway since it's stock clocks only. What type of gamer would have an i5 2500k and not OC it? I bet if that 2500k were OC'd, it'd be high up on that chart as well.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> I saw another benchmark for BF4's campaign where practically every CPU was getting the same FPS, almost regardless of how many cores were used. BF3's campaign was the exact same. Didn't matter if it was AMD or Intel, as long as you have 3 or 4+ cores, you generally got the same performance no matter what. Not to mention, lol @ BF4's barely-4 hour campaign. I see the FX-4300 pulling well over 60fps right there at stock clock, but I guess that's not good enough either, lol.
> 
> Kaveri won't match a Haswell's IPC, probably not even Ivy Bridge. That chart is a joke anyway since it's stock clocks only. What type of gamer would have an i5 2500k and not OC it? I bet if that 2500k were OC'd, it'd be high up on that chart as well.


The bench is using an Asus Ares II as a gpu,which is the equivalent of a pair of 7970Ghz in crossfire. See where I am getting at ?








We don't know exactly how kaveri will game. What do we know?
1) It will have significantly higher single thread performance than vishera.
2) It will have lower ST performance than ivy/haswell (probably sandy too but one can only hope). And since it has the same core count with i5, it will be slower in non gpu bound scenarios.

Now, FX-8350 stock often outperforms sandy or newer i5s in multithreaded games like those that i mentioned earlier. It does trail those in older DX9 (sometimes badly) or not so well threaded DX11 titles. They break even often as well. SR kaveri,on the cpu part will most likely behave like an intel Quad, albeit a bit worse (lacks L3 cache too). We can make an educated guess on where kaveri will stand by checking i5-2500k numbers (ceiling) and FX-4300 numbers (floor). Not that it will go that low just putting it into perspective, it will be in-between.


----------



## NaroonGTX

The lack of L3 cache won't impact performance by any reasonable measure since the L3 cache in BD/PD was abysmal, and hardly got utilized in most desktop workloads. Kaveri performance will leave any Piledriver quad and possibly hexacore behind simply because of the lack of the CMT penalty and higher individual core performance, not to mention overclockability. AMD said they wouldn't work on the L3 until EX, whatever that means.

I think this is that bench I was talking about:


Quote:


> As was the case with Battlefield 3, as long as your processor has four cores/threads, it shouldn't have a problem in EA's latest shooter. The only processors to struggle were the dual-core AMD Phenom and Athlon CPUs, while the game can utilize up to eight threads if your chip has them on tap.
> 
> For example, the AMD FX-8350 had all eight of its threads allocated to BF4 with a total CPU utilization of around 60% in our benchmark. This is likely the reason why AMD's processors perform so well in this game, as the FX-8350 roughly matched the powerful Core i7 processors.


Sawce

That bench pretty much reiterated what we both said lol, but yeah. I guess the only reason there was so much variance in the bench you linked is because it was Xfire. People who only run a single-card don't run into those CPU bottleneck scenarios as often.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> The lack of L3 cache won't impact performance by any reasonable measure since the L3 cache in BD/PD was abysmal, and hardly got utilized in most desktop workloads. Kaveri performance will leave any Piledriver quad and possibly hexacore behind simply because of the lack of the CMT penalty and higher individual core performance, not to mention overclockability.


Lack of L3 cache will be a drawback against intel quads, this is what I mean.


----------



## NaroonGTX

Ah lol, dunno how I missed that. True. Since AMD is working on L3 for EX, I wonder if the FX line will be brought back or they'll put L3 on the APU's?


----------



## Clocknut

Anything that is close to clock for clock vs 90% of 2500K IPC = I am happy will be using Kaveri over FX8350


----------



## Kuivamaa

Well an APU with L3 it isn't all that much different on the cpu part compared to the FX line, is it.







We know by now that there are two realistic ways of getting an FX successor. Either AMD makes SR opterons and FX versions (just like it did with BD/PD) or brings the APU design one step higher and start making 6/8core APU variants. The first scenario seems off right now, I don't think AMD will modernize AM3+ and its chipsets and SR multicore opterons are MIA. I hope they can make a big die that can result in both an opteron and a desktop cpu/apu that fits FM2+ at some point. I don't think we are gonna see hexacore and octocore APU in laptops any time soon.


----------



## Cyro999

Battlefield 3/4 singleplayer performance is quite irrelevant for multiplayer, 64 player server vs campaign might as well be 2 different games


----------



## Demonkev666

actually if anyone look up the cpu comparison chart on Anandtech you, can compare a FX 4300 vs a A10 5800K

The FX with L3 cache wins gaming usually, can by as little as 5% and as high as 25% in some games.

Although the FX 4300 doesn't even have that Full 8mbs of L3 cache like the FX 4350 does.


----------



## SkateZilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> The lack of L3 cache won't impact performance by any reasonable measure since the L3 cache in BD/PD was abysmal, and hardly got utilized in most desktop workloads. Kaveri performance will leave any Piledriver quad and possibly hexacore behind simply because of the lack of the CMT penalty and higher individual core performance, not to mention overclockability. AMD said they wouldn't work on the L3 until EX, whatever that means.
> 
> I think this is that bench I was talking about:
> 
> Sawce
> 
> That bench pretty much reiterated what we both said lol, but yeah. I guess the only reason there was so much variance in the bench you linked is because it was Xfire. People who only run a single-card don't run into those CPU bottleneck scenarios as often.


Which Means we prolly wont See a High performance 4 Module/8Core CPU Until Excavator.

Im Happy with my FX8350, fixes everything I found wrong with my FX8120, and if prices keep dropping, I'll get an FX8350 to replace my 8120 in my brother's system.

I'm sitting pretty at 5.15 Ghz with a lil wiggle room (5.2 is possible), (Im at 5148MHz - 232MHz x 22 @ 1.47 v ) I refuse to go above 1.5v, so if I can adjust the FSB and MP to get 5.2 without needing More Juice, I'll be happy, But for now 5.15 GHz is what I have been using for the last 5 or 6 months.


----------



## MrJava

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> Lack of L3 cache will be a drawback against intel quads, this is what I mean.


i3 3220 - (3.5MB Cache L2 + L3)
Kaveri (4MB L2)
i5 3470 (7MB Cache L2 + L3)

Depends mostly on workload whether the amount of cache will actually matter. But otherwise I'd say Kaveri is somewhere between those two intel parts. The cache model in the Bulldozer family also apparently has some advantages for data sharing between cores (especially in the same module).

Maybe Carizzo will rebalance the caches (smaller L2 and a larger L3). Heck, even the Apple A7 has a 4MB L3 cache.


----------



## Namwons

My predictions on what AMD's APU will look like in the future. They will get rid of the FP64 units all together, leaving that task up to the iGPU, and replace them with two more integer units, making each module a 4 core mod. Connect 2-4 of these CPU mods to the iGPU via L3/L4 cache, and BAM...the merger of CPU/GPU into one will be complete


----------



## EniGma1987

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> Battlefield 3/4 singleplayer performance is quite irrelevant for multiplayer, 64 player server vs campaign might as well be 2 different games


If you say so. I dont get any performance differences at all and I only play on 64-man MP servers.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EniGma1987*
> 
> If you say so. I dont get any performance differences at all and I only play on 64-man MP servers.


It's common knowledge, and why CPU is at all relevant. That graph you linked showing i3 a whole 3fps away from 4960x? Not at all the case in MP for bf3 or bf4, the performance difference is massive, otherwise people would only play the game on fx quad cores and i3's


----------



## NaroonGTX

I've seen many people playing 64man servers on quads with no problems. Like I said earlier, even people with A10 APU's were pulling well over 60 sustained fps on those servers.


----------



## LordOfTots

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> I've seen many people playing 64man servers on quads with no problems. Like I said earlier, even people with A10 APU's were pulling well over 60 sustained fps on those servers.


I can say from personal experience on my A10+7950, I rarely dip below 55fps on 64 player servers maxed out


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

I am curious as to why you have an APU in a stationary gaming rig. Your motherboard is FM2+; I assume it's a placeholder for Kaveri? Question: why is multiplayer so much more CPU intensive than singleplayer?


----------



## LordOfTots

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> I am curious as to why you have an APU in a stationary gaming rig. Your motherboard is FM2+; I assume it's a placeholder for Kaveri? Question: why is multiplayer so much more CPU intensive than singleplayer?


Yeah it's just a placeholder, I plan to get a A10-7850k upon release







I take this rig to LAN-parties once in a while, plus i needed the size for my dorm room.

The CPU handles all the player models and physics in frostbite 3, so the more characters and bigger the map, the more tasks offloaded onto the CPU

(if I'm wrong at all here feel free to correct me anybody)


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> I've seen many people playing 64man servers on quads with no problems. Like I said earlier, even people with A10 APU's were pulling well over 60 sustained fps on those servers.


Can i have a fraps frametimes.csv file of that? Would be greatly appriciated.

A 6800k is way stronger than i3 in multithreaded, though


----------



## NaroonGTX

What do you need frametimes for? The A10's and A8's work just fine when they're used as a CPU when you use a dGPU by itself.

People need to stop grossly exaggerating the CPU strength needed for BF MP. Yes, it's higher than SP, but not exponentially.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> What do you need frametimes for? The A10's and A8's work just fine when they're used as a CPU when you use a dGPU by itself.
> 
> People need to stop grossly exaggerating the CPU strength needed for BF MP. Yes, it's higher than SP, but not exponentially.


I'd just like to see the performance of the game, cause it seems to struggle on CPU's - the open beta when i played i saw 100 average yet still 5% of my frames took longer than 16.7ms due to being CPU bound. I've not actually seen numbers yet for live, and if an APU can outperform what my [email protected] did on beta, it's probably a good step towards me actually buying the game









If not, well, that's also interesting to show why people want more cores

In terms of exaggerating CPU strengh needed - i was just saying, it's clear like you showed that CPU is almost irrelevant for singleplayer. That's not the case for MP, where certain CPU's outperform others by wide margins - especially comparing for example stock i3 against [email protected] and targetting 98% of frames faster than ~80fps


----------



## NaroonGTX

I don't think an APU's CPU would outperform your chip or anything. That would require black magic, lol. I know BF4 has been having all sorts of issues from what friends tell me, and some of them were CPU-related. Don't know if they've been fixed yet or not. Oddly enough BF4 seems a lot more intensive despite not having much that's new... The destruction isn't too extensive or anything. I guess the game will become more optimized as time goes on.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> I don't think an APU's CPU would outperform your chip or anything. That would require black magic, lol.


That's why i'd like to see frametime data to see how strong it is in comparison, and i'd also like more data from fx/haswell/sb-e/ib-e on live environments


----------



## os2wiz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> Ah lol, dunno how I missed that. True. Since AMD is working on L3 for EX, I wonder if the FX line will be brought back or they'll put L3 on the APU's?[/quote
> 
> I saw nothing relating to L3 cache for Excavator. I believe that are working to improve the cache algorhthm for L1 and L2. I never saw anything about reintroducing L3 cache. Correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## MrJava

Those game benches are questionable. Look at every other CPU benchmark - either the difference is negligible or Trinity is slightly faster.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Demonkev666*
> 
> actually if anyone look up the cpu comparison chart on Anandtech you, can compare a FX 4300 vs a A10 5800K
> 
> The FX with L3 cache wins gaming usually, can by as little as 5% and as high as 25% in some games.
> 
> Although the FX 4300 doesn't even have that Full 8mbs of L3 cache like the FX 4350 does.


----------



## EniGma1987

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> ... the open beta when i played...


lol! you are basing your entire position in the argument on the beta performance?!?!


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EniGma1987*
> 
> lol! you are basing your entire position in the argument on the beta performance?!?!


Why on earth would you make that assumption?

I said i'd like to see the performance now, and if it's better now on an APU than it was on 4770k in beta, or if not, how much worse.

Also it's not an argument or even a debate, but a discussion. You can come into a thread without spamming exclamation marks.


----------



## kahboom

Subbed


----------



## NaroonGTX

Quote:


> I saw nothing relating to L3 cache for Excavator. I believe that are working to improve the cache algorhthm for L1 and L2. I never saw anything about reintroducing L3 cache. Correct me if I am wrong.


I think you may be right, my memory is pretty fuzzy on what AMD said. I'm gonna look it up and see if I can find the actual quote soon. I remember AMD talking about the L3 cache and saying that they'd isolated the problem for the poor cache performance and then they said something else, not sure if they themselves said it or if it was the article writer who added in their two cents at the end, lol. But yeah, officially they've said they've been working on the L1 & L2 caches.


----------



## Tsumi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> I think you may be right, my memory is pretty fuzzy on what AMD said. I'm gonna look it up and see if I can find the actual quote soon. I remember AMD talking about the L3 cache and saying that they'd isolated the problem for the poor cache performance and then they said something else, not sure if they themselves said it or if it was the article writer who added in their two cents at the end, lol. But yeah, officially they've said they've been working on the L1 & L2 caches.


I believe you're referring to the Anandtech preview article.

It says that they have isolated the reason for high latency in L3, but they're not working on fixing it for Steamroller. Since APUs do not have L3 and server processes aren't really affected by slow L3, their position makes sense.


----------



## NaroonGTX

^Yeah, that was it.


----------



## os2wiz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> ^Yeah, that was it.


I must say that I am disappointed that a new desktop apu-cpu roadmap was not made public as I was promised by John Taylor. I am emailing him about this issue. Waiting until CES is another 2 months and who knows if it will materialize then.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *os2wiz*
> 
> I must say that I am disappointed that a new desktop apu-cpu roadmap was not made public as I was promised by John Taylor. I am emailing him about this issue. Waiting until CES is another 2 months and who knows if it will materialize then.


What do you mean?Another type of roadmap besides the one we saw already?


----------



## NaroonGTX

Yeah, it was odd how the roadmaps were pretty much hidden on the website. I haven't seen a single website report on the maps yet.


----------



## os2wiz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> What do you mean?Another type of roadmap besides the one we saw already?


The roadmap mentioned by Mark Papermaster only mentioned Mullins after Kaveri. Mullins is not a desktop apu. I believe it is for mobile devices, but correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## NaroonGTX

Yeah, Mullins is the successor to Temash, it's the mobile SoC.


----------



## EniGma1987

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *os2wiz*
> 
> I must say that I am disappointed that a new desktop apu-cpu roadmap was not made public as I was promised by John Taylor.


This isnt the desktop roadmap you were hoping for?


----------



## Demonkev666

The problem is that road map isn't new.
the only thing new to that road map is the color has been changed.


----------



## EniGma1987

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Demonkev666*
> 
> The problem is that road map isn't new.
> the only thing new to that road map is the color has been changed.


When did it come out? I was under the impression that it was released at APU13. All I have seen before that was server, embedded, and mobile roadmaps.


----------



## Demonkev666

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EniGma1987*
> 
> When did it come out? I was under the impression that it was released at APU13. All I have seen before that was server, embedded, and mobile roadmaps.


http://techreport.com/news/24883/amd-roadmap-suggests-kaveri-apus-will-use-new-fm2-socket

The only thing new added to that map was beema and a color change.


----------



## NaroonGTX

Those roadmaps are totally new. AMD never showed what was coming on desktop in 2014.

The last desktop roadmap before the new ones:


The last server roadmap before the new ones which showed all of 2014:


----------



## Kuivamaa

What I am getting from this roadmap is that AMD most definitely doesn't consider quad kaveri to be a Performance unit. Now I have no idea what their plans for this segment are, or if they have any plans at all after vishera. If they had something solid in the works, they would have included it in the roadmaps. On the other hand, performance segment seems to matter still for AMD (it is mentioned right there) and they are still pushing big PD opterons in the market. Oh yeah,server roadmaps insinuates we will be seeing "warsaw" visheras in 3-4 months.


----------



## NaroonGTX

"Performance All-in-One" seems to denote it offers good performance. Perhaps since it has a GPU on its die or something, it's considered an "All-in-One" unit? Clock for clock the Trinity/Richlands are just as fast as the FX-43xx chips were. All AM3+ really offers is more cores.


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> What I am getting from this roadmap is that AMD most definitely doesn't consider quad kaveri to be a Performance unit. Now I have no idea what their plans for this segment are, or if they have any plans at all after vishera. If they had something solid in the works, they would have included it in the roadmaps. On the other hand, performance segment seems to matter still for AMD (it is mentioned right there) and they are still pushing big PD opterons in the market. Oh yeah,server roadmaps insinuates we will be seeing "warsaw" visheras in 3-4 months.


Well, I think that the fx-8k series is still a very powerful cpu line-up... it just hasn't shown it's teeth yet and Mantle is supposed to make them fly... As far as I know, hsa and huma aren't really meant for gaming right now, so they are probably leaving the vishera line-up because mantle will keep them competitive for another year or so. For everything else, there is hsa and huma, so that's where kaveri comes in. That year or so of bought time for the vishera line-up should give AMD enough time to start making performance cpu's (6-8 cores) that are on the fm(2+/3) platform.

It's the only way I can rationalize AMD not releasing another steamroller fx part.


----------



## decimator

So the impression that I get is that if any new CPU's are coming out for AM3+, they will be Piledriver refreshes. I'm cool with that, but how much more can they refine Piledriver? Are we looking at just higher clocked parts or will we see some IPC increases too?


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *decimator*
> 
> So the impression that I get is that if any new CPU's are coming out for AM3+, they will be Piledriver refreshes. I'm cool with that, but how much more can they refine Piledriver? Are we looking at just higher clocked parts or will we see some IPC increases too?


Maybe it could be like a trinity-> richland evolution.... vishera with rcm?


----------



## NaroonGTX

Quote:


> So the impression that I get is that if any new CPU's are coming out for AM3+, they will be Piledriver refreshes. I'm cool with that, but how much more can they refine Piledriver? Are we looking at just higher clocked parts or will we see some IPC increases too?


Warsaw has the same efficiency improvements that we saw with Richland. In other words, they will simply enable RCM (it was already physically on the dies of Trinity and Vishera/PD Opterons) which would allow for higher clocks within the same previous power envelope. We saw Trinity usually topping out around 4.4ghz, then RIchland allowing 5+Ghz on air. So I guess people who want higher OC's would be able to buy Vishera 2.0 -- IF they actually decide to release parts like that.


----------



## SkateZilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> Warsaw has the same efficiency improvements that we saw with Richland. In other words, they will simply enable RCM (it was already physically on the dies of Trinity and Vishera/PD Opterons) which would allow for higher clocks within the same previous power envelope. We saw Trinity usually topping out around 4.4ghz, then RIchland allowing 5+Ghz on air. So I guess people who want higher OC's would be able to buy Vishera 2.0 -- IF they actually decide to release parts like that.


AMD Prolly wont even say anything, but someone will notice the FX8350s will have a new stepping and stuff.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> "Performance All-in-One" seems to denote it offers good performance. Perhaps since it has a GPU on its die or something, it's considered an "All-in-One" unit? Clock for clock the Trinity/Richlands are just as fast as the FX-43xx chips were. All AM3+ really offers is more cores.


No, If you see closely, vishera line enters mainstream too, that's where FX-43x0 belongs. "All in ones" are APU and the top dog there is Kaveri ofc, but it doesn't make it to pure performance by AMD standards.


----------



## NaroonGTX

I see. Marketing lingo is always so pseudo-deceptive, lol.


----------



## Caldeio

Hmm I'm not really liking this AMD...

I might have to go intel. I get a 3dmark11 physics score of 5200 with my 1045t at 3.0 no turbo boost. I would preferably like to double that. Would a 8350 with this new revision get me there oc'd? I'd like to try my 1045t on a new board and see if I can oc more or if it was a crap chip. With intel, I'd have to go at least haswell. I like the asus sabertooth board.

I do play alot of dayz, and planetside 2. both cpu limited games.
STOCK:
1045t-4200score
8350-7350score
i5-4670k-7571score
4770k-9906score


----------



## EniGma1987

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> What I am getting from this roadmap is that AMD most definitely doesn't consider quad kaveri to be a Performance unit. Now I have no idea what their plans for this segment are, or if they have any plans at all after vishera. If they had something solid in the works, they would have included it in the roadmaps. On the other hand, performance segment seems to matter still for AMD (it is mentioned right there) and they are still pushing big PD opterons in the market. Oh yeah,server roadmaps insinuates we will be seeing "warsaw" visheras in 3-4 months.


Remember though that Warsaw processors are an MCM design with 12 and 16 core options only and are only going to be made for the multi-socket server systems. We dont have enough pins to accommodate that processor with Am3+, and moving down to a single die would put us right back at Vishera with a couple tweaks (maybe). I think AMD has plans for higher performance processors for sure, that is why they have not officially EOL'd the AM3 platform. However it seems as if they will not have anything right now and will be planning a massive update to their performance line to come a year from now(ish). This update will most likely switch to a new socket anyway and it definitely wont be drop in compatible to any current AM3+ boards, so the platform is basically done, it just wont be official until about a year from now.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultracarpet*
> 
> Maybe it could be like a trinity-> richland evolution.... vishera with rcm?


yep exactly. With some better refinements to the process node and with enabled resonant clock mesh we could see a 200-300MHz increase in speeds with the same power draw, maybe a bit more. It would be nice, but it isnt really a significant update.


----------



## Namwons

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EniGma1987*
> 
> Remember though that Warsaw processors are an MCM design with 12 and 16 core options only and are only going to be made for the multi-socket server systems. We dont have enough pins to accommodate that processor with Am3+, and moving down to a single die would put us right back at Vishera with a couple tweaks (maybe). I think AMD has plans for higher performance processors for sure, that is why they have not officially EOL'd the AM3 platform. However it seems as if they will not have anything right now and will be planning a massive update to their performance line to come a year from now(ish). This update will most likely switch to a new socket anyway and it definitely wont be drop in compatible to any current AM3+ boards, so the platform is basically done, it just wont be official until about a year from now.
> yep exactly. With some better refinements to the process node and with enabled resonant clock mesh we could see a 200-300MHz increase in speeds with the same power draw, maybe a bit more. It would be nice, but it isnt really a significant update.


*/Waterboy voice* "Mama told me your post is the devil"


----------



## MrJava

From: John Taylor
To: os2wiz
Subject: RE: Desktop Roadmap

Hi os2wiz,

Thanks for reminding me about the desktop CPU/APU roadmap. We got carried away during APU13 and forgot to present it to the public!
If it weren't for you people wouldn't have known about the exciting stuff coming in 2014 including 3M/6C Kaveri variant and 8M/16C Excavator CPU for AM3+.
We're working on the press release right now. Man, investors are gonna love this!

Thanks again,
John
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *os2wiz*
> 
> I must say that I am disappointed that a new desktop apu-cpu roadmap was not made public as I was promised by John Taylor. I am emailing him about this issue. Waiting until CES is another 2 months and who knows if it will materialize then.


----------



## krisz9

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrJava*
> 
> From: John Taylor
> To: os2wiz
> Subject: RE: Desktop Roadmap
> 
> Hi os2wiz,
> 
> Thanks for reminding me about the desktop CPU/APU roadmap. We got carried away during APU13 and forgot to present it to the public!
> If it weren't for you people wouldn't have known about the exciting stuff coming in 2014 including 3M/6C Kaveri variant and 8M/16C Excavator CPU for AM3+.
> We're working on the press release right now. Man, investors are gonna love this!
> 
> Thanks again,
> John


whaaaaaaat??...i watched the entire thing live all 3 days and they just so happened to forget to mention something important (imo)??..come on!


----------



## bfromcolo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrJava*
> 
> From: John Taylor
> To: os2wiz
> Subject: RE: Desktop Roadmap
> 
> Hi os2wiz,
> 
> Thanks for reminding me about the desktop CPU/APU roadmap. We got carried away during APU13 and forgot to present it to the public!
> If it weren't for you people wouldn't have known about the exciting stuff coming in 2014 including 3M/6C Kaveri variant and 8M/16C Excavator CPU for AM3+.
> We're working on the press release right now. Man, investors are gonna love this!
> 
> Thanks again,
> John


HA HA I wish...


----------



## azanimefan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *krisz9*
> 
> whaaaaaaat??...i watched the entire thing live all 3 days and they just so happened to forget to mention something important (imo)??..come on!


clearly a joke... but we can wish...


----------



## SkateZilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EniGma1987*
> 
> Remember though that Warsaw processors are an MCM design with 12 and 16 core options only and are only going to be made for the multi-socket server systems. We dont have enough pins to accommodate that processor with Am3+, and moving down to a single die would put us right back at Vishera with a couple tweaks (maybe). I think AMD has plans for higher performance processors for sure, that is why they have not officially EOL'd the AM3 platform. However it seems as if they will not have anything right now and will be planning a massive update to their performance line to come a year from now(ish). This update will most likely switch to a new socket anyway and it definitely wont be drop in compatible to any current AM3+ boards, so the platform is basically done, it just wont be official until about a year from now.
> yep exactly. With some better refinements to the process node and with enabled resonant clock mesh we could see a 200-300MHz increase in speeds with the same power draw, maybe a bit more. It would be nice, but it isnt really a significant update.


Or they didnt solve the L3 Cache Latency problem in steam roller, and instead of putting out another low performing big arse 8-core CPU at a loss, they are holding off for the L3 Latency problem to be fixed in excavator.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EniGma1987*
> 
> Remember though that Warsaw processors are an MCM design with 12 and 16 core options only and are only going to be made for the multi-socket server systems. We dont have enough pins to accommodate that processor with Am3+, and moving down to a single die would put us right back at Vishera with a couple tweaks (maybe). I think AMD has plans for higher performance processors for sure, that is why they have not officially EOL'd the AM3 platform. However it seems as if they will not have anything right now and will be planning a massive update to their performance line to come a year from now(ish). This update will most likely switch to a new socket anyway and it definitely wont be drop in compatible to any current AM3+ boards, so the platform is basically done, it just wont be official until about a year from now.


I don't really disagree with you, I just think that since they will be producing "improved piledriver" dies for MCM units, they might as well spill those over to desktop. [email protected]/4.2turbo and [email protected] base/4.4Turbo, same TDP if possible, something to look better on benchmarks,a new SKU to "seem fresh" (FX-83x0 being more than a year old might put people off), these kind of things probably have little cost and may even boost sales.


----------



## os2wiz

[quote name="bfromcolo" url="/t/1437732/amdfx-amd-steamroller-ipc-leaked-cosmology-benchmark/660_30#post_21198354
HA HA I wish...[/quote]

Nice gag. I was almost fooled by it, until I remembered I never received such an email from John Taylor. I did send my concerns and am hoping I get a reply soon.


----------



## os2wiz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrJava*
> 
> From: John Taylor
> To: os2wiz
> Subject: RE: Desktop Roadmap
> 
> Hi os2wiz,
> 
> Thanks for reminding me about the desktop CPU/APU roadmap. We got carried away during APU13 and forgot to present it to the public!
> If it weren't for you people wouldn't have known about the exciting stuff coming in 2014 including 3M/6C Kaveri variant and 8M/16C Excavator CPU for AM3+.
> We're working on the press release right now. Man, investors are gonna love this!
> 
> Thanks again,
> John


I like your sense of humor. But the truth hurts.


----------



## btupsx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrJava*
> 
> From: John Taylor
> To: os2wiz
> Subject: RE: Desktop Roadmap
> 
> Hi os2wiz,
> 
> Thanks for reminding me about the desktop CPU/APU roadmap. We got carried away during APU13 and forgot to present it to the public!
> If it weren't for you people wouldn't have known about the exciting stuff coming in 2014 including 3M/6C Kaveri variant and 8M/16C Excavator CPU for AM3+.
> We're working on the press release right now. Man, investors are gonna love this!
> 
> Thanks again,
> John


Lulz good stuff....


----------



## MrJava

I have to admit I was a little disappointed with the announcements at APU13. No issue with the current products - exactly what I was expecting - but there was no mention of 2015 APUs (Carizzo). At every previous event, we at least got a hint of what the next APU could achieve.


----------



## NaroonGTX

Seems like all the juicy stuff will be at CES 2014.


----------



## krisz9

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> Seems like all the juicy stuff will be at CES 2014.


hopefully we'll hear more, a lot more.

I think AMD is going to be great in 2-3 years, but for now I think intel is where it's still at. Waiting for a unified socket and really seeing the technologies AMD has in mind being put to use.


----------



## os2wiz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *krisz9*
> 
> hopefully we'll hear more, a lot more.
> 
> I think AMD is going to be great in 2-3 years, but for now I think intel is where it's still at. Waiting for a unified socket and really seeing the technologies AMD has in mind being put to use.


Not 2-3 years, more like 14 to 15 months from now when Carrizo ships.


----------



## svenge

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *os2wiz*
> 
> Not 2-3 years, more like 14 to 15 months from now when Carrizo ships.


Because surely AMD won't have any delays putting out a new hardware revision on a new process node, right? Of course not...


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EniGma1987*
> 
> This isnt the desktop roadmap you were hoping for?


Where are 8-core 28 nm Steamrollers?


----------



## AnnoyinDemon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> Where are 8-core 28 nm Steamrollers?


They wont be any until 2015


----------



## NaroonGTX

There's no guarantee there will ever be any SR FX processors.
Quote:


> Because surely AMD won't have any delays putting out a new hardware revision on a new process node, right? Of course not... rolleyes.gif


It's unwise to assume either way what the outcome would be.


----------



## os2wiz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrJava*
> 
> I have to admit I was a little disappointed with the announcements at APU13. No issue with the current products - exactly what I was expecting - but there was no mention of 2015 APUs (Carizzo). At every previous event, we at least got a hint of what the next APU could achieve.


That was my point. The roadmap is supposed to be forward looking otherwise it is nonsense. That was not a real roadmap as far as I am concerned.


----------



## os2wiz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *svenge*
> 
> Because surely AMD won't have any delays putting out a new hardware revision on a new process node, right? Of course not...


Look you can only go by the timetables that are laidout.Carrizo should be available in the first half of 2015. Foundries just do not work in serial mode. They have engineers begin the work on a process a couple of years before it is ready for prime time. Global did screw up on the .28 nm timetable. The result is they no longer have exclusivity with AMD. It is their put-up or shut-down time. They have to be on time this time or AMD will transfer all their business to another foundry. By the way does anybody know if IBM still has their own foundry?


----------



## NaroonGTX

I agree on the roadmap, AMD is much quieter and almost trollish than they have been in the past. Usually the roadmaps would extend into 2015, now it's more like "half a year into the future". The "new" roadmaps told us nothing we didn't already know.


----------



## Caldeio

Ok looking at this roadmap. I'm assuming the block in 2013 for kaveri is all of december. So this roadmap goes 2 1/2 months into 2014. When is the next electronics event?


----------



## NaroonGTX

CES 2014, pretty much a few days before Kaveri is initially available, i.e. for OEM systems and possibly ISV's. Kaveri still probably won't hit retail/e-tail until Feb. 2014.

The roadmaps don't seem to cover all of 2014, but in regards to Warsaw, a previous roadmap showed that Warsaw will be in the multi-processor segment for all of 2014. So we still don't know if there will be a refresh for Kaveri or not, or if there will be Piledriver+ Vishera's released.


----------



## sdlvx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *EniGma1987*
> 
> This isnt the desktop roadmap you were hoping for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are 8-core 28 nm Steamrollers?
Click to expand...

They got thrown out with 28nm SOI. SR FX on bulk would probably yield parts that overclock like Intel's CPU since Intel uses bulk. Meaning brick wall of frequency you can't get over, chips that don't scale with voltage, etc.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *svenge*
> 
> Because surely AMD won't have any delays putting out a new hardware revision on a new process node, right? Of course not...


That's never been known to happen.









I still remember arguing with OS2Wiz about no FX Steamroller parts coming next year to AM3+. The writing has been clear on the wall for a while now, but he and others just have a hard accepting the truth....



Oh wait, they DID put out a "NEW" roadmap, which we were told over and over again to "wait" for.











Since there were no Server SR parts in 2014 it was OBVIOUS, there would be no FX SR parts, if only common sense prevailed, this place would be a lot more peaceful.


----------



## NaroonGTX

One is a server roadmap and the other is a desktop roadmap. Your point?

I don't recall ever seeing os2wiz ever say _*there would be*_ a SR FX. He and others (me included) merely told people to not get their hopes up and that they should wait for the roadmaps for *CONFIRMATION* either way.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> One is a server roadmap and the other is a desktop roadmap. Your point?
> 
> I don't recall ever seeing os2wiz ever say _*there would be*_ a SR FX. *He and others (me included) merely told people to not get their hopes up* and that they should wait for the roadmaps for *CONFIRMATION* either way.


Point is I along with others have been saying there would be NO FX parts in 2014, and what do you know? NO FX parts in 2014.









All you have to do is connect the dots.

Most of his posts have been deleted, due to the offensive nature of them, I will give you an example of one. This is in response to me pointing out that you can't buy Kaveri until 2014.



And what do you know? *You can't buy Kaveri until 2014!*









Spare me that he "merely" told people not to get their hopes up. You may have, but he certainly did not.


----------



## NaroonGTX

You post an image where you basically said the same thing that he did? AMD never once said Kaveri would be in the hands of enthusiasts and DIY builders in 2013. The only time Kaveri was gonna be available for purchase in 2013 was the VERY old original projected release of Kaveri, before they even had Richland planned apparently, and that was clearly back when Steamroller v1 was still a thing. They then decided to scrap that and go with Steamroller 2.0 (bdver3b) and Kaveri itself was pushed back, as was Carrizo.

AMD has only said Kaveri would ship in 2013, which it is, and that is to retailers. They don't sell the chips directly to consumers, they sell them to retailers and OEM's/ISV's, who then sell them to us. Even the "initial availability" in Jan. 14th 2014 will be for said OEM's and ISV's, Kaveri won't be available for direct purchase until Feb. 2014.

So I'm not sure why you're trying to act like you've done some god-like homework and came across an omega revelation, because the fact that there would most likely not be a SR FX in 2014 was surmised by many people when they saw that Warsaw would last for all of 2014.


----------



## AlphaC

subject to change...

What's with the Kaveri hate.

It is almost as revolutionary as AMD's AMD64 , but with developer and industry support this time to accelerate HSA adoption.

Kaveri was supposed to be this year, yes. It was supposed to be DDR4 / GDDR5. That's no reason to hate it though.

If it's successful it will make waves in the CPU market; if it's not it's still likely to be faster than an A10-6800k due to double the decode front end. For ~$200 you can get the A8 CPU+mobo , vs $300+ for a i3 with a GT630 or GT640.

What we should be mad about is the lack of FM2+ ITX boards other than Gigabyte's GA-F2A88XN-WIFI (since AsRock's *FM2A88X-ITX+* doesn't inspire me after their FM2 ITX boards went up in flames) and the severe lack of heatsinks on the VRM across all the motherboard manufacturers except on their fullsize ATX A88X models.

edit: I'm interested in whatever ~$60-80 A78 ITX solutions can come in , contrast to H81 ITX boards. Gigabyte and AsRock's FM2+ A88X ITX boards are ~$100 which is reasonable but compared to a G1 Sniper , GA-F2A88X-UP4 , ASRock FM2A88X Extreme6+, or A88XM-PLUS it seems like it should be cheaper given the smaller board. We need the likes of $150-180 Asus Maximus VI Impact or Asus Z87i-deluxe too, at the high-end. The A55 chipset seems like a waste at this point.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> You post an image where you basically said the same thing that he did? AMD never once said Kaveri would be in the hands of enthusiasts and DIY builders in 2013. The only time Kaveri was gonna be available for purchase in 2013 was the VERY old original projected release of Kaveri, before they even had Richland planned apparently, and that was clearly back when Steamroller v1 was still a thing. They then decided to scrap that and go with Steamroller 2.0 (bdver3b) and Kaveri itself was pushed back, as was Carrizo.
> 
> AMD has only said Kaveri would ship in 2013, which it is, and that is to retailers. They don't sell the chips directly to consumers, they sell them to retailers and OEM's/ISV's, who then sell them to us. Even the "initial availability" in Jan. 14th 2014 will be for said OEM's and ISV's, Kaveri won't be available for direct purchase until 2014.
> 
> So I'm not sure why you're trying to act like you've done some god-like homework and came across an omega revelation, because the fact that there would most likely not be a SR FX in 2014 was surmised by many people when they saw that Warsaw would last for all of 2014.


You just don't get what I'm saying, nor do you know the posts I am referring to. Like I said most of his posts have been deleted due to the offensive nature to them, I just gave you an example of one.

And yes, many of us have been saying there would be NO FX CPU's for a few months now, but were met with the usual denials from a lot of people here. And no, I wasn't talking about YOU specifically.

Anyway, Kaveri was not delayed, and it's on track like AMD said it would.









2014 = 2H 2013 now I get it!
Quote:


> The follow-on to "Richland" will be the 28nm APU codenamed "Kaveri" with revolutionary heterogeneous system architecture (HSA) features *which is expected to begin shipping to customers in the second half of 2013.* AMD




My initial post wasn't talking about the Kaveri delay, but rather that no FX SR CPU's would be coming out in 2014, which some people had a hard time accepting months ago when it was so blatantly obvious, that's my point.

I feel for those who were expecting a drop in upgrade to 8 Core Steamroller on their AM3+ mobo's this or next year. I don't blame them for having those expectations.



At this point, I don't care about all that, *I want to know if AMD will put out 8 core FX parts again.*


----------



## NaroonGTX

When they say "shipping to customers", they mean the OEM's and ISV's like I said before. And since that is happening in Dec. this year, that's still technically 2H 2013 lol. People just jumped the gun and thought they'd be able to toy with Kaveri around Sept./Oct. 2013, which we know wasn't the case. To me, the only confusing part was the roadmaps themselves -- the way they looked. It made it seem like Kaveri would actually have been sent to companies and then eventually purchasable by us around that time. However comments from AMD execs (such as Lisa Su's at Computex 2013) made it clear what they meant.


----------



## Kuivamaa

AMD eventually spoke of "Shipping" and they are starting shipping those in the very end of 2H 2013.Their plan was to have them out by the end of 2013, so they got delayed for 2-3 months, practically a non issue, intel delayed haswell a bit too. The true delay was of the original Kaveri, that led to that S/A story 1 year ago, that got refuted by AMD straight away.

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/11/19/amd-kills-off-big-cores-kaveri-steamroller-and-excavator/
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/140870-amd-refutes-kaveri-cancelation-rumor-claims-big-cores-still-a-priority

Digitimes originally spoke of as late as April 2014 for desktop,which turned to be FUD.

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20130716PD202.html

So let's stop beating that dead horse.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> When they say "shipping to customers", they mean the OEM's and ISV's like I said before. And since that is happening in Dec. this year, that's still technically 2H 2013 lol. People just jumped the gun and thought they'd be able to toy with Kaveri around Sept./Oct. 2013, which we know wasn't the case. To me, the only confusing part was the roadmaps themselves -- the way they looked. It made it seem like Kaveri would actually have been sent to companies and then eventually purchasable by us around that time. However comments from AMD execs (such as Lisa Su's at Computex 2013) made it clear what they meant.


Honestly, at this point I don't care about all that, I just updated my post, check out the vid.

I just hope that the 9590 isn't the last FX CPU. It just *seems* like they're more focused on APU's from here on out.


----------



## NaroonGTX

I understand that people wanted SR FX, but AMD never promised there would be one. Hell, AM3+ as a socket itself wasn't supposed to even have a Piledriver successor. Originally the Piledriver FX was meant for Socket FM2 via the Komodo platform, and it would've had 5 modules for a total of 10 cores. Something happened, and that was canned (the 1090FX platform itself was canned well before even this got canned) and they ended up sending Vishera over to AM3+.

I guess since everyone saw Piledriver reach AM3+, they assumed there would be an FX variant. The only chance for there to have been an FX chip based on SR was if the follow up to the Orochi 2.0 Piledriver Opterons being SR-based, and that chance was murdered and thrown into a shallow grave the moment it was revealed that Warsaw would succeed those parts. We don't know what, if anything, would follow Warsaw in 2015. Perhaps FX would return then. We don't know yet, but for now, people can either make due with the current Vishera series, they can go to FM2+, or they can go Intel. There's not really anything else to be said.


----------



## Moragg

I don't care about the FX line, but I do want to know when AMD plan their next performance CPU. If SR can fix IPC by huge amounts I don't see why AMD aren't releasing it for the FX line, that would be a great upgrade for those still on older chips.


----------



## MrJava

I remember John Taylor at APU13 promising the winners of the giveaway that they would get their A10 Kaveri's on Jan. 14 (retail availability). They should've got that in writing!








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> CES 2014, pretty much a few days before Kaveri is initially available, i.e. for OEM systems and possibly ISV's. Kaveri still probably won't hit retail/e-tail until Feb. 2014.
> 
> The roadmaps don't seem to cover all of 2014, but in regards to Warsaw, a previous roadmap showed that Warsaw will be in the multi-processor segment for all of 2014. So we still don't know if there will be a refresh for Kaveri or not, or if there will be Piledriver+ Vishera's released.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> I understand that people wanted SR FX, but AMD never promised there would be one. Hell, AM3+ as a socket itself wasn't supposed to even have a Piledriver successor. Originally the Piledriver FX was meant for Socket FM2 via the Komodo platform, and it would've had 5 modules for a total of 10 cores. Something happened, and that was canned (the 1090FX platform itself was canned well before even this got canned) and they ended up sending Vishera over to AM3+.
> 
> I guess since everyone saw Piledriver reach AM3+, they assumed there would be an FX variant. The only chance for there to have been an FX chip based on SR was if the follow up to the Orochi 2.0 Piledriver Opterons being SR-based, and that chance was murdered and thrown into a shallow grave the moment it was revealed that Warsaw would succeed those parts. We don't know what, if anything, would follow Warsaw in 2015. Perhaps FX would return then. We don't know yet, but for now, people can either make due with the current Vishera series, they can go to FM2+, or they can go Intel. There's not really anything else to be said.


The problem with this explanation is that AMD themselves said AM3+ will get yet another CPU after vishera, I recall that story from the Inquirer. FX-9370/9590 isn't that CPU, since they are exactly the same stepping as normal visheras (OR-C0), new SKU=/=new CPU. Now unless that story was bogus, people had every right to expect SR to come to AM3+ as well, although I suppose a new stepping,a sibling to Warsaw would qualify as another cpu.


----------



## MrJava

Even official statements from AMD are worth next to nothing IMO. Remember when they said 1050 GFLOPs for Kaveri?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> The problem with this explanation is that AMD themselves said AM3+ will get yet another CPU after vishera, I recall that story from the Inquirer. FX-9370/9590 isn't that CPU, since they are exactly the same stepping as normal visheras (OR-C0), new SKU=/=new CPU. Now unless that story was bogus, people had every right to expect SR to come to AM3+ as well, although I suppose a new stepping,a sibling to Warsaw would qualify as another cpu.


----------



## NaroonGTX

Most likely (if that story is true), the 'new' CPU would just be Vishera 2.0 with RCM enabled.

To be fair, wasn't that original 1050 TFlop figure from some point in 2012? No idea what happened between then and now, but yeah, that figure dropped some. I was doing calculations earlier and if the 7850k is indeed the flagship part, it would need to be OC'd heavily to break to theoretical 1 TFlop barrier.


----------



## MrJava

Forget overclocking the CPU as it would contribute too little. GPU needs about a 190MHz overclock to get to 1050GFLOPs. Don't think an overclock of that magnitude is impossible.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> Most likely (if that story is true), the 'new' CPU would just be Vishera 2.0 with RCM enabled.
> 
> To be fair, wasn't that original 1050 TFlop figure from some point in 2012? No idea what happened between then and now, but yeah, that figure dropped some. I was doing calculations earlier and if the 7850k is indeed the flagship part, it would need to be OC'd heavily to break to theoretical 1 TFlop barrier.


----------



## NaroonGTX

Yeah, in my calculation OC'ing the CPU didn't add much. If Kaveri's GPU can reach 1ghz+ like Trinity/Richland could, it should pass that barrier fairly easily.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrJava*
> 
> Even official statements from AMD are worth next to nothing IMO. Remember when they said 1050 GFLOPs for Kaveri?


I don't debate that, just saying that the notion we might get SR on AM3+ wasn't made out of thin air. I wonder what 2015 will bring, though. Will EX materialize or will it be a victim of GloFo? Is that massive module even feasible on 28nm?


----------



## Papadope

Perhaps the steamroller modules ended up being larger than originally planned which only left room for 512 gpu cores. We know steamroller cores couldn't fit on 32nm, and these are rumored to be Steamroller B cores which have almost everything doubled up. I think it was a wise decision as they have a large lead over intel in igpu especially with the GCN cores and the CPU needed as much as a improvement as possible.


----------



## nub

re. the gflops being lower than 1050..... Kaveri is probably clocked so low because of the stock cooler that comes with it.... Put a decent cooling solution on it and overclock.


----------



## NaroonGTX

I don't think it had much to do with the size of the SR modules, especially with the die-shrink to 28nm. 8 GPU CU's seems to have been a sweet spot, since putting more than that would've been largely pointless due to the constraints of the 128-bit dual-channel DDR3 memory bottleneck.


----------



## MrJava

You only need around 910MHz.

(3.7GHz * 4 FMACs * 8 FLOPs) + (512 SPUs * 2 FLOPS * 0.910 GHz) ~= 1050 GFLOPs
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> Yeah, in my calculation OC'ing the CPU didn't add much. If Kaveri's GPU can reach 1ghz+ like Trinity/Richland could, it should pass that barrier fairly easily.


I don't think 4GHz CPU + 900 MHz GPU is a difficult overclock.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nub*
> 
> re. the gflops being lower than 1050..... Kaveri is probably clocked so low because of the stock cooler that comes with it.... Put a decent cooling solution on it and overclock.


----------



## NaroonGTX

It shouldn't be if Kaveri is a good overclocker. I can't think of a good reason why it wouldn't be, but as long as it's not like Llano, then I'm down.


----------



## Papadope

Quote:


> Again, we've spoken about Steamroller in detail, but the basic gist is that it's meant to be a lot faster. Best-case, though, we're still probably only talking about Thuban (K10/Phenom II) levels of performance. On the CPU front, a quad-core Kaveri (two Steamroller modules) might just be able to keep up with a dual-core Core i7 from Intel.


http://www.extremetech.com/computing/170847-amd-reveals-kaveri-details-release-date-can-the-first-heterogeneous-apu-save-amd








Are they serious? "Might just be able to keep up with a dual-core Core i7 from Intel". I didn't know intel makes dual core i7's now. Also, Richland is already better than a i3. I also think richland is better than Phenom II except the 6 core variants.

They're numerous sites downplaying Kaveri as a disappointment while no benchmarks have been revealed yet. Very interesting.


----------



## sugarhell

Dual core i7?


----------



## NaroonGTX

Haha, I saw that article yesterday, my mind was blown. The fact that he said that Steamroller should -- in a best-case scenario -- offer Phenom II-level performance blew my mind. Nevermind the fact that Piledriver already did that. Dual-core i7 just took the cake.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Papadope*
> 
> http://www.extremetech.com/computing/170847-amd-reveals-kaveri-details-release-date-can-the-first-heterogeneous-apu-save-amd
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are they serious? "Might just be able to keep up with a dual-core Core i7 from Intel". I didn't know intel makes dual core i7's now. Also, Richland is already better than a i3. I also think richland is better than Phenom II except the 6 core variants.
> 
> They're numerous sites downplaying Kaveri as a disappointment while no benchmarks have been revealed yet. Very interesting.


There are dual core i7s, just not true ones, just low power HT units.For example:

http://ark.intel.com/products/75460/

This i7 is a glorified i3 with turbo. I am not sure what the author means, though. Mobile efficiency? Comparing 2 desktop clocked SR modules vs 2 desktop clocked haswell hyperthreaded cores?


----------



## Gungnir

Aren't the ULV i7s dual cores? Kaveri isn't even in that TDP range, so the comparison is pretty much useless regardless... But yeah, Kaveri's going to be much faster than an i3 or Phenom II.

That's one of the trolliest, most misinformed articles I've read in a very long time.

EDIT: ninja'd


----------



## Papadope

Fixed the link,









http://www.extremefail.com/failing/Miss-Informed-Author-Gives-His-Thoughts-On-Upcoming-Kaveri-APU-And-Future-For-AMD


----------



## sugarhell

What a stupid article.Because HSA will only save amd from what? Hsa foundation has more than 60% of market share and hsa is a revolution on developing not an effort to save amd from intel


----------



## Kuivamaa

I don't know, it just doesn't make sense. With a desktop APU in question (A10-7850k) why would any sane person bring up ULV parts in comparison. Thuban level of performance? He means Stars hexacores? A quad kaveri will probably beat even equally clocked stars hexacores everywhere. If he means the so called ST performance, then it is just BS. Clueless.


----------



## MrJava

He should've been more specific but I actually think its a good comparison on the CPU Side.
i7-3520M

2C/4T:
2.9/3.6 GHz
4MB Cache

So Kaveri could have similar ST performance, higher MT performance and obviously much higher graphics performance.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> I don't know, it just doesn't make sense. With a desktop APU in question (A10-7850k) why would any sane person bring up ULV parts in comparison. Thuban level of performance? He means Stars hexacores? A quad kaveri will probably beat even equally clocked stars hexacores everywhere. If he means the so called ST performance, then it is just BS. Clueless.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SkateZilla*
> 
> Or they didnt solve the L3 Cache Latency problem in steam roller, and instead of putting out another low performing big arse 8-core CPU at a loss, they are holding off for the L3 Latency problem to be fixed in excavator.


Or perhaps L3 is dated to their architecture and using it only creates problematic loop backs that may have improved IPC in previous core to core designs but not in one where two cores already share the L2 cache.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrJava*
> 
> He should've been more specific but I actually think its a good comparison on the CPU Side.
> i7-3520M
> 
> 2C/4T:
> 2.9/3.6 GHz
> 4MB Cache
> 
> So Kaveri could have similar ST performance, higher MT performance and obviously much higher graphics performance.


Still,this is a 35W TDP mobile part. A10-7850k is a 95W TDP desktop part. Useless article is useless.


----------



## Nintendo Maniac 64

Derp, wrong Kaveri thread. Is there really a difference between the two topics?


----------



## HowHardCanItBe

I'll remind everyone again, there is no need to get so hostile in here. That is not what this forum is designed for.


----------



## yawa

Yeah please cool out guys. It would be fairly embarassing at this point to get our main Kaveri thread closed and locked before the chip is even released.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> Or perhaps L3 is dated to their architecture and using it only creates problematic loop backs that may have improved IPC in previous core to core designs but not in one where two cores already share the L2 cache.


I think this is most likely the case. Honestly though, we shouldn't even be arguing about this as One, it's an engineering sample and a mobile part to boot things could still be turned off or buggy and Two, Floating point stuff is very likely going to be handled by the GPU portion of the chip, giving us no idea beyond theoretical claims of it's actual performance.


----------



## Clocknut

Basically by Jan 14 I will know if i decide to buy Budget Kaveri or top up to buy 4820K. *1150 sucks due to TIMS and the Sabertooth board is about the same price, might as well go 4820K.

btw is X79 capable for dual GPUs @ 3.0?


----------



## Asterox

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaroonGTX*
> 
> It shouldn't be if Kaveri is a good overclocker. I can't think of a good reason why it wouldn't be, *but as long as it's not like Llano,* then I'm down.


Ok each APU sample is not the same, but yes LIano APU is certainly a bad overclocker as in this example from 600MHz to 800MHz GPU frequency.


----------



## Usario

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clocknut*
> 
> Basically by Jan 14 I will know if i decide to buy Budget Kaveri or top up to buy 4820K. *1150 sucks due to TIMS and the Sabertooth board is about the same price, might as well go 4820K.
> 
> btw is X79 capable for dual GPUs @ 3.0?


There's no way 2M Kaveri is going to compete with a 4820K...


----------



## Brutuz

Roadmaps are subject to change, for all we know AMD is going to wait for Excavator and for 28nm yields to go up on Kaveri first. It could be that they're unsure of the ability to have a fast clocking FX 8 core with a good TDP, and wanna use Kaveri to get a good idea of SR thermals and clocking on the 28nm node, hopefully it hits 5Ghz left and right like Richland because that'd be very competitive with an OCed Intel chip.


----------



## tjwolf88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> There's no way 2M Kaveri is going to compete with a 4820K...


I want to believe it will, logic prevents me though...if it does come within 85% clock for clock I'll be supremely happy.


----------



## Seronx

Just to point out, the retail for Kaveri is in 2Q 2014. Not in January unless you are part of the channel.


----------



## LuckyStarV

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seronx*
> 
> Just to point, the retail for Kaveri is in 2Q 2014. Not in January unless you are part of the channel.


I can't wait that long, January maybe, but not till June.


----------



## Clocknut

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> There's no way 2M Kaveri is going to compete with a 4820K...


I am hoping it to be complete against 2500K only, if it isnt near that performance, I top up and go 4820K. Simply because I dont want another i5.


----------



## os2wiz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seronx*
> 
> Just to point out, the retail for Kaveri is in 2Q 2014. Not in January unless you are part of the channel.


You know that is a falsehood. Kaveri will be available at Newegg and retail by February 15 th. Why are you disseminating misinformation?


----------



## Usario

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *os2wiz*
> 
> You know that is a falsehood. Kaveri will be available at Newegg and retail by February 15 th. Why are you disseminating misinformation?


I wonder.. can someone find any prediction from Seronx that actually came true?


----------



## Seronx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *os2wiz*
> 
> Why are you disseminating misinformation?


The better question is why are you pulling out dates out of your behind.

It is known that AMD is having difficulty with these Kaveri chips. With roadmaps and actual dates leaning towards 2Q 2014 for GA.


Note: It says January 14th, 2014.

Llano styled launch woo!


----------



## os2wiz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seronx*
> 
> The better question is why are you pulling out dates out of your behind.
> 
> It is known that AMD is having difficulty with these Kaveri chips. With roadmaps and actual dates leaning towards 2Q 2014 for GA.
> 
> 
> Note: It says January 14th, 2014.
> 
> Llano styled launch woo!


January 14 is the launch date. The time the channel will start to have availabilty on wholesale level. It takes time from beginning of availabilty for the channel to have sufficient stock to ship to retail, hence the projection of mid February availability at retail . The 2nd quarter projection was bantered about as rumor on several previously unreliable web sites like semi-accurate. AMD has strenuously denied that rumor. Seronx is churning baseless disinformation. You want to believe him be my guest.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> I wonder.. can someone find any prediction from Seronx that actually came true?


After the 290X launched, he predicted the performance of the card, does that count?


----------



## Tsumi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tjwolf88*
> 
> I want to believe it will, logic prevents me though...if it does come within 85% clock for clock I'll be supremely happy.


Clock for clock remains a stupid comparison to use though. Stock vs stock and average max overclock and average max overclock are what matters.

Also, it will vary depending on whether you're talking about single-threaded vs multi-threaded. The 4820k has the hyperthreading benefit.


----------



## NaroonGTX

Not sure where this "2Q" nonsense came from. AMD has said countless times that Kaveri is a Q1 product; Jan. 14th is the initial launch to OEM's/ISV's and some time in February it'll hit retail.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tsumi*
> 
> Clock for clock remains a stupid comparison to use though. Stock vs stock and average max overclock and average max overclock are what matters.
> 
> Also, it will vary depending on whether you're talking about single-threaded vs multi-threaded. The 4820k has the hyperthreading benefit.


Clock for clock is a good way to compare architectures, but you need to take clockspeed into account to compare chips. Intel does always win in single-threaded, but twice the physical cores in an FX-8000 helps with multithreaded performance. Of course, the hexacore i7 Extremes get even more logical cores to utilize and tend to edge out, but those are $1000 chips compared to $200 chips. I hope that Steamroller has the same overclock potential (and look at how easily Richland hit 5GHz) as Piledriver and Intel-like IPCs, but it's too early to tell.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Biggest victory for Kaveri will be on mobile front. 500 euro laptops that can run [email protected] ultra/40+ fps on igpu, I just hope they will be using fast ram on those. It will take machines with discreet graphics and at least twice the price to beat them and even those won't have the same battery life.


----------



## PureBlackFire

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> *After* the 290X launched, he predicted the performance of the card, does that count?


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PureBlackFire*


----------

