Features - Roy Taylor Blog: The real price of productivity

[scaryjim]

I just meant in general, that CPUs would be under load during the working hours rather than mostly idle ....

This probably feels like you're being picked on a bit, which isn't my intention, but can I suggest you start task manager next time you're doing general office work? I've done that this morning, and I've hardly seen CPU usage over about 20%, and then only in very short spikes. If you used a logging power meter I suspect you'd find that office PCs spend most of their time nearer their idle power draw than their full load draw. When I wrote up my review of the A6-3670k bundle I won on hexus, DVD playback and web browsing were only 10W - 15W above idle, while gaming and high CPU loads were more like 45W above idle. The former are for more representative of office workloads than that latter...

[crossy]

Well I have talked to people who have experience of government IT,where they have seen OTT PCs and laptops are bought/leased at times for relatively light tasks. I even read somewhere,that in one instance a laptop was leased to several times the upfront purchasing cost of the laptop. Too many people who are involved in buying IT equipment are either clueless,or are fiddling things. Its not even helped by the fact that trying to save money,ends up with budgets being reduced the next year,so it ends up being a war of trying to keep the funding intact.

I wouldn't necessarily say that the Govt IT are "fiddling things" ... there's aspects of that which are unsavoury. Maybe more accurate to say that they're choosing to maximise their budget. And I'm sure we've all seen those situations where the boss has a fancy high performance desktop while the engineers are struggling with something more "mainstream".

Back to the article, an interesting spin and only an idiot would see this and not think that it's trying to present AMD in the best light. Problem I have is that there's a definite perception that AMD desktop chips - including the APU's - are woefully under powered. So while AMD is definitely up with a shot against an i3 or even i5 based system, against an i7 they're not usually considered. Whether this is based on truth or not I leave up to others to say...

I'm also curious about the focus on power - especially as the perception seems to be that Intel does bang/W better than AMD unless you enable those power saving features. Then again, there's the continual AMD/ATi v's NVidia discussion - I've not found anyone yet saying that the red team parts don't need more power and are louder than their "green team" compatriots.

For servers though, AMD does seem to still have a pretty strong following.

He's got a point about the APU's though - in my mind there's still a resistance to these - preferring the dedicated CPU plus GPU, although it's becoming darned difficult to find a GPU-less CPU these days. As I said an interesting short article.

[abychristy]

First of all add power consumption then put a performance per power comparison secondly PCM8 score is just what the PC alone can do please don't leave the 4770k, you think gamers want onboard graphics performance NO, they wanna see how it performs with a kickass GPU.

[J3FFW1SH]

I Work for a sixth form College and we have been buying and using AMD APU based machines for the last 4 years - they are truly awesome for us. Coupled with an SSD and three video outputs (Main monitor, secondary monitor and projector) we simply could not have achieved the speed of our workstations without AMD pricing. As far as performance - we run Solidworks, Photoshop 6.5, Protools, Cubase and Reason. We have NEVER had a problem with processing power. Thank you AMD

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I wouldn't necessarily say that the Govt IT are "fiddling things" ... there's aspects of that which are unsavoury. Maybe more accurate to say that they're choosing to maximise their budget. And I'm sure we've all seen those situations where the boss has a fancy high performance desktop while the engineers are struggling with something more "mainstream".

That technically fiddling though! Basically getting your hardware hit on the taxpayers payroll!

[wwwendigo]

"Let’s take a look at the price comparisons between us and our competitor:

A10 7850K $170 4,287 vs i5 4670K $240 4,243"

Ohohohohhhh!!! you make me a funny day, Roy. This delusional state of mind, or use of RDF is epic.

So, Hexus accepts whatever crap/bull**** that a salemans (VIP, but a sales boy) **** from his mouth, as this delirant comparation of the performanca of the 4670K, against this crappy cpu that is the 7850K.

This isn´t a non retributed relation, Hexus.net, don't lie to your readers, is a well paid relation. Your reputation, whatever of it that you still have, isn't free for a salesman. Don't lie.

[shaithis]

So, Hexus accepts whatever crap/bull**** that a salemans (VIP, but a sales boy) **** from his mouth, as this delirant comparation of the performanca of the 4670K, against this crappy cpu that is the 7850K.

Fancy telling us why instead of foaming at the mouth?

[MaverickWill]

This is all part of AMD's plan, started 3 years ago, to encourage OpenCL adoption. AMD's processors since Bulldozer have fared poorly in traditional benchmarks, but OpenCL is always a saving grace. The big problem is, OpenCL adoption isn't great, and discrete GPUs are far better at this sort of thing.

What we're used to seeing in a traditional benchmark chart that isn't OpenCL-based:



When it comes to OpenCL for CPUs, AMD leads the charge in benchmarks such as Musemage (taken from here). However, even a score of 6,433 for the 7850K is nothing compared to the 13,278 of a Radeon 7770 (results taken from here), of which the R7 250X is essentially a faster version, and available for £70.

So yes, AMD CPUs have better integrated graphics than Intel CPUs, but their performance is still at the bottom of the rung. I'd rather get the faster processor in the traditional sense, and then add in a GPU.

[scaryjim]

What we're used to seeing in a traditional single threaded benchmark chart that isn't OpenCL-based:

FTFY

... AMD CPUs have better integrated graphics than Intel CPUs, but their performance is still at the bottom of the rung.

Only in single threaded performance, which isn't the be all and end all any more because so very few tasks that most people do with their PCs are so absolutely dependent on single-threaded performance. For instance, how often do you run pi fast on aa average day? Any?

The real issue for AMD is not that their performance is lower than Intel's - it's persuading people that that fact is mostly irrelevant. Years back I filled a complete office with low-end single-core Sempron based PCs. I didn't have a single complaint about any of those computers not being fast enough for the basic office tasks they were used for. Any modern dual or quad core processor will be orders of magnitude more responsive than those PCs, and the bottleneck in office tasks hasn't changed: it's still the users. OpenCL is utterly irrelevant to the point being made in this article (the chosen PC Mark benchmark is one that doesn't heavily favour OpenCL or GPU-based tasks), which is that for basic office tasks you can use a cheaper AMD processor and get the same level of productivity.

[shaithis]

So yes, AMD CPUs have better integrated graphics than Intel CPUs, but their performance is still at the bottom of the rung. I'd rather get the faster processor in the traditional sense, and then add in a GPU.

Then you must be speccing for a gaming PC. Probably the rarest type of PC.

It is this mindset that the article is trying to get people to re-address.

[Brian224]

...Then you must be speccing for a gaming PC. Probably the rarest type of PC.

It is this mindset that the article is trying to get people to re-address.

There may not be much manufacturing left in the UK, but there is still some demand for CAD/CAM even if the mindset you are demonstrating makes it a struggle getting graphics hardware (or even decent monitors) out of IT managers.

[scaryjim]

There may not be much manufacturing left in the UK, but there is still some demand for CAD/CAM even if the mindset you are demonstrating makes it a struggle getting graphics hardware (or even decent monitors) out of IT managers.

If an IT Manager can't see the difference between a CAD/CAM workstation and a basic office machine, they shouldn't be an IT Manager. But that equally means not over-speccing/over-spending on basic office machines, as much as it means ensuring you spec/spend enough on your workstations (and the less you spend on office PCs, the more money you have left for proper workstations... ).

[Attila the Bun]

Fancy telling us why instead of foaming at the mouth?

That'll be a no then

[grayg1]

Your problem is companies like Dell, businesses will soley buy their PC's from them and they do not sell AMD machines. You're fighting a bit of a losing battle without getting those top IT guys at businesses to lobby Dell for change, which isn't really going to happen.
A business we do consultancy for has entirely Dell PC's (50+ machines), the only AMD ones are a handful of really old AMD 64's which need retiring, guess what their replacement will be?
You need to knock on the big guys door and say "stop ripping your customers off" or partner with someone who will make AMD machines for businesses.

[zsde]

If AMD was really serious about this perspective, then one would expect that they ensure a fixed USD/EUR price worldwide, like Intel does. Unfortunately the unscrupulous importers in other parts of the world don't have the same intentions.
Your mentioned A10-7850K being sold locally at an equivalent 250USD nullifies all the arguments for such considerations. If the AMD APU costs the same as the Intel equivalents you used, then guess what the general consumer will continue to buy.
If AMD is serious about growing the market share, and on the back of your arguments, you have valid reason to do just that, then it's about time that you seriously looked at the importers and their profiteering at your cost. These importers are killing the local sales, yet AMD does seemingly nothing about it.
If AMD however believes that the US market alone suffices, then the price point is valid.

Unfortunately it won't hold true for the other potential consumers/customers outside the US that can't be convinced for as long as they are being exploited on AMD products whilst AMD seemingly turns a blind eye to those outside the US.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Your problem is companies like Dell, businesses will soley buy their PC's from them and they do not sell AMD machines. You're fighting a bit of a losing battle without getting those top IT guys at businesses to lobby Dell for change, which isn't really going to happen.
A business we do consultancy for has entirely Dell PC's (50+ machines), the only AMD ones are a handful of really old AMD 64's which need retiring, guess what their replacement will be?
You need to knock on the big guys door and say "stop ripping your customers off" or partner with someone who will make AMD machines for businesses.

HP seems to be having a go at AMD based business machines ATM.