Read more.Leaked partner slides show exceptional improvements in graphical performance.
Read more.Leaked partner slides show exceptional improvements in graphical performance.
Hmm, only 10-15% faster then SB then.....except for the integrated GPU.
Still, a decent boost I suppose....although the GPU figures look really good for corporate and laptop sales.
Main PC: Asus Rampage IV Extreme / 3960X@4.5GHz / Antec H1200 Pro / 32GB DDR3-1866 Quad Channel / Sapphire Fury X / Areca 1680 / 850W EVGA SuperNOVA Gold 2 / Corsair 600T / 2x Dell 3007 / 4 x 250GB SSD + 2 x 80GB SSD / 4 x 1TB HDD (RAID 10) / Windows 10 Pro, Yosemite & Ubuntu
HTPC: AsRock Z77 Pro 4 / 3770K@4.2GHz / 24GB / GTX 1080 / SST-LC20 / Antec TP-550 / Hisense 65k5510 4K TV / HTC Vive / 2 x 240GB SSD + 12TB HDD Space / Race Seat / Logitech G29 / Win 10 Pro
HTPC2: Asus AM1I-A / 5150 / 4GB / Corsair Force 3 240GB / Silverstone SST-ML05B + ST30SF / Samsung UE60H6200 TV / Windows 10 Pro
Spare/Loaner: Gigabyte EX58-UD5 / i950 / 12GB / HD7870 / Corsair 300R / Silverpower 700W modular
NAS 1: HP N40L / 12GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Arrays || NAS 2: Dell PowerEdge T110 II / 24GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Hybrid arrays || Network:Buffalo WZR-1166DHP w/DD-WRT + HP ProCurve 1800-24G
Laptop: Dell Precision 5510 Printer: HP CP1515n || Phone: Huawei P30 || Other: Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 Pro 10.1 CM14 / Playstation 4 + G29 + 2TB Hybrid drive
Yeah they've improved what needed improving the most, for most of their users.
These figures have been out for a while. There are more slides which indicates most of the range will have the HD2500 IGP;the HD4000 IGP seems to be limited ATM to the Ivy Bridge K series CPUs.
The GPU performance increase is nowhere as much as the slide claims. If you look carefully you will realise they are comparing the HD4000 to the HD2000 IGP. On top of this the HD2000 IGP in the Core i7 2600 has a maximum Turbo Boost frequency of 1350MHZ compared to the 1100MHZ found in the HD2000 IGPs found in the Core i3 and Core i5. The HD2000 and HD3000 IGPs found in the Core i7 CPUs seem to have much higher Turbo Boost frequencies than found in the Core i5 and Core i7.
According to Intel they mentioned a 60% improvement in performance overall.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 06-12-2011 at 01:04 PM.
shaithis (06-12-2011)
Intel have no need to improve on CPU performance as they have no real competition any more. GPU performance is where they have always been lacking and now they have this wrapped up nicely , there will be little room for AMD to exist in the desktop market.
cost wise you can build an entire AMD machine for the price of an intel cpu - so there needs to be competition.
Main PC: Asus Rampage IV Extreme / 3960X@4.5GHz / Antec H1200 Pro / 32GB DDR3-1866 Quad Channel / Sapphire Fury X / Areca 1680 / 850W EVGA SuperNOVA Gold 2 / Corsair 600T / 2x Dell 3007 / 4 x 250GB SSD + 2 x 80GB SSD / 4 x 1TB HDD (RAID 10) / Windows 10 Pro, Yosemite & Ubuntu
HTPC: AsRock Z77 Pro 4 / 3770K@4.2GHz / 24GB / GTX 1080 / SST-LC20 / Antec TP-550 / Hisense 65k5510 4K TV / HTC Vive / 2 x 240GB SSD + 12TB HDD Space / Race Seat / Logitech G29 / Win 10 Pro
HTPC2: Asus AM1I-A / 5150 / 4GB / Corsair Force 3 240GB / Silverstone SST-ML05B + ST30SF / Samsung UE60H6200 TV / Windows 10 Pro
Spare/Loaner: Gigabyte EX58-UD5 / i950 / 12GB / HD7870 / Corsair 300R / Silverpower 700W modular
NAS 1: HP N40L / 12GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Arrays || NAS 2: Dell PowerEdge T110 II / 24GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Hybrid arrays || Network:Buffalo WZR-1166DHP w/DD-WRT + HP ProCurve 1800-24G
Laptop: Dell Precision 5510 Printer: HP CP1515n || Phone: Huawei P30 || Other: Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 Pro 10.1 CM14 / Playstation 4 + G29 + 2TB Hybrid drive
CAT-THE-FIFTH (06-12-2011),Platinum (06-12-2011)
No they haven't. The GPU is still an unknown in actual games.The test compares the HD4000 IGP against the HD2000 IGP. If they compared the HD4000 against the HD3000 IGP the difference would be far less. The HD3000 has twice the number of EUs of the HD2000. Remember it is still a synthetic test and a DX10 one at that. How is DX11 performance?? Do you know?? Until reviews comes out you cannot say.
However,Anandtech has said the performance is meant to be upto 60% better. This would mean even the top-end HD4000 IGPs will be probably not even surpass the gimped IGP in the A6 GPUs.
Remember this. The HD3000 IGPs in the Core i3 2105 and Core i5 2500K have only a 1100MHZ Turbo Boost frequency. The same goes with the HD2000 in my Core i3 2100;the Core i7 HD2000 IGPs have the higher Turbo Boost frequencies for the IGP. The Core i7 2600K has a 1350MHZ Turbo Boost frequency. It is most likely the Core i7 CPUs will have the highest clocked HD4000 IGPs and the few Core i3 and Core i5 SKUs which have an HD4000 IGP will have lower clocked ones. The same leak has confirmed that the majority of the CPUs will have the HD2500 IGP. Looking at the numbering I suspect it means it won't surpass the HD3000 IGP and probably will have DX11 like the HD4000.
On top of this you make the assumption that the AMD IGPs won't increase in speed either. So NOW AMD cannot make decent GPUs!!
With cheap 1600MHZ DDR3 RAM the HD6550D in an A8-3850 is between to two to three times faster than the HD3000 IGP in the Core i3 2105:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/21208/15
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...8-3800_18.html
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 06-12-2011 at 02:03 PM.
?? No they are not. They simply stated that they need to consider other competition,namely companies like ARM.
Here is a comment from the main chap at Hardware Canucks:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=1#post5005083
"This is a prime example of reading too much into a PR person's statement.
How does:
"We're at an inflection point," said AMD spokesman Mike Silverman, according to a Mercury News report. "We will all need to let go of the old 'AMD versus Intel' mindset, because it won't be about that anymore."
Become:
In a move than could very well be interpreted as exchanging one problem for another, Advanced Micro Devices has decided to stop focusing so much on the PC business and get its act closer together on the mobile front.
All the spokesperson said is that the market isn't JUST about competing with Intel anymore. That is 100% true. With ARM-based cores making some serious inroads, the traditional "PC" space has evolved a lot in a very short time. AMD and Intel now have to think of everyone from Samsung to Qualcomm.
Heck, Bulldozer may not be the greatest but is it a product without a future? No way. It has plenty left in the tank and could become a go-to option in certain circles once the kinks are worked out."
I am quite happy with a 10-15% performance increase, providing that overclocking headroom also goes up and this increase is not just down to increased turbo frequencies. Intel will be getting my money again next year, it seems.
Would be great to have more competition like the Athlon XP/P4 days.... hopefully this will return!
hexus trust : n(baby):n(lover):n(sky)|>P(Name)>>nopes
how do you spend your time online? (Hexus link)
Well no, it started with the failure of the first phenom, and AMD have not been able to catch up since, and have now said they wont be trying to anymore:
"We're at an inflection point," AMD spokesman Michael Silverman said in an interview with the San Jose Mercury News. "We will all need to let go of the old 'AMD versus Intel' mind-set, because it won't be about that anymore."
As for Intel not having to push as hard, the evidence is already there. Just take a look at ivy bridge. No hex-core chips in their lineup. They just dont need to. Leave 6-8 core chips to the 'enthusiast'/ripoff platform of LGA2011.
No, they have not managed to out-perform Intel on raw performance.....but they did completely out-class them on price to performance ratio in many areas.
Read CATs post.....I think you may be reading something into that that is not there....but then most Intel fanboys/AMD haters seem to....it's normal"We're at an inflection point," AMD spokesman Michael Silverman said in an interview with the San Jose Mercury News. "We will all need to let go of the old 'AMD versus Intel' mind-set, because it won't be about that anymore."
I fail to see how what platform they release hex cores on has any bearing at all on the discussion TBH.As for Intel not having to push as hard, the evidence is already there. Just take a look at ivy bridge. No hex-core chips in their lineup. They just dont need to. Leave 6-8 core chips to the 'enthusiast'/ripoff platform of LGA2011.
Main PC: Asus Rampage IV Extreme / 3960X@4.5GHz / Antec H1200 Pro / 32GB DDR3-1866 Quad Channel / Sapphire Fury X / Areca 1680 / 850W EVGA SuperNOVA Gold 2 / Corsair 600T / 2x Dell 3007 / 4 x 250GB SSD + 2 x 80GB SSD / 4 x 1TB HDD (RAID 10) / Windows 10 Pro, Yosemite & Ubuntu
HTPC: AsRock Z77 Pro 4 / 3770K@4.2GHz / 24GB / GTX 1080 / SST-LC20 / Antec TP-550 / Hisense 65k5510 4K TV / HTC Vive / 2 x 240GB SSD + 12TB HDD Space / Race Seat / Logitech G29 / Win 10 Pro
HTPC2: Asus AM1I-A / 5150 / 4GB / Corsair Force 3 240GB / Silverstone SST-ML05B + ST30SF / Samsung UE60H6200 TV / Windows 10 Pro
Spare/Loaner: Gigabyte EX58-UD5 / i950 / 12GB / HD7870 / Corsair 300R / Silverpower 700W modular
NAS 1: HP N40L / 12GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Arrays || NAS 2: Dell PowerEdge T110 II / 24GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Hybrid arrays || Network:Buffalo WZR-1166DHP w/DD-WRT + HP ProCurve 1800-24G
Laptop: Dell Precision 5510 Printer: HP CP1515n || Phone: Huawei P30 || Other: Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 Pro 10.1 CM14 / Playstation 4 + G29 + 2TB Hybrid drive
CAT-THE-FIFTH (06-12-2011)
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5174/w...till-quad-core
I'm sure competition is part of it, but equally I think there is more to it. I remember when the discussion was all about 2 core vs a single core at a higher frequency and the multi threaded loads were not there to justify the frequency hit of the 2nd core. That argument still applies and for my usage, I'm pretty confident the TDP is better spent on higher frequency rather than more cores.
Of course the lack of fierce competition on performance has meant Intel has chosen to lower the TDP on the new line-up rather than ratchet up the Mhz as much as it possibly can. For the majority of users that's probably no bad thing.
As for AMD, I have zero doubt that without the pressure AMD is still applying on value at the low to mid range, Intel would be raising it's prices much higher - as they are doing on the very high end stuff.
I cant see AMD even thinking about leaving the market... simply saying they arent going to be trying to get Intels ass at every single thing, which to be honest is exactly what they have done with BD they have made a forward thinking CPU and its a very sensible approach.
If Intel can only get ~15% performance from the CPU then it looks extremely good for AMD, AMD had already projected 15% increases year on year but its the first grade so i think its safe to say that an improvement on 15% is certainly on the table. With increased yields and along with Windows 8 improving performance it could well see BD be atleast on par with IB.
I guess its still a reasonable jump in GPU performance but im still not seeing what ~60% is... 60% of a low value to begin with isnt really impressive, AMD have already been invading that market and their chips just seem a whole let better for mobile devices so i will be waiting until AMD announce their new chips for laptops etc as im pretty sure they will be more impressive.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)