News - AMD FX-Series CPUs pack quite a punch?

[HEXUS]

Price-to-performance ratio aims to be bang on.

Read more.

[kalniel]

Because of course the i7-980X is the gamer chip of choice for performance/price.. Come on AMD, you can do better than that nVidia-esque spin.

PS, please mention your sources Hexus. This is a news item after all.

[MSIC]

I agree that it's clearly spun to favour AMD, but then it is their marketing so they are entitled to.
Lets wait for the reviews to start coming in first.

I know a certain moose-themed individual who will soon have to change his phrase of "lets wait for Bulldozer to come out"

For me, i'm quite excited about all of this - i have a fond recollection of when AMD came out with 64 bit extensions, was kicking Intel's netburst architecture where it hurt, and it thoroughly benefited us all as consumers... seems like too long ago now

[badass]

It seems they've taken the i7-980x - a chip that has monster performance once more than 4 threads are involved, but in single/dual ish threaded performance, substantially slower than the current Sandy bridge CPU's and compared their Chip to this in single/dual threaded performance.

They have then taken their chip with more cores and compared it to Sandy bridge in benchmarks that benefit from more cores.

Looks like bulldozer won't be taking any performance crowns from any high end intel chips or they would have chosen fair and representative tests.

[Noxvayl]

AMD's last launch wasn't able to release results like these, skewed or not. At least, according to reports, we have something from AMD worth considering when purchasing a high end CPU.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I know a certain moose-themed individual who will soon have to change his phrase of "lets wait for Bulldozer to come out"

I am not sure what you are trying to insinuate???

Hexus has only showed part of the presentation. The CineBench results show it only a tiny bit ahead when compared to a Phenom II X6 1100T. Look at the CineBench slide for instance. It does not even have the CPU it claims to have and lists OS X as the OS used.

Here are all the slides:

http://www.donanimhaber.com/islemci/...onuclari_1.htm

[MSIC]

I am not sure what you are trying to insinuate???

Oh hang on ... you have a moose theme too!! Gosh!
In all seriousness sir, you are one very helpful individual who has been (probably quite rightly) cautioning people to wait for Bulldozer since... well, longer than I can recall!

[Brewster0101]

At least, according to reports, we have something from AMD worth considering when purchasing a high end CPU.

We already do in the form of Phenom II X6 1100T - this is no slouch of a CPU and most will consider high end.

[crossy]

AMD's last launch wasn't able to release results like these, skewed or not. At least, according to reports, we have something from AMD worth considering when purchasing a high end CPU.

Hmm, I think you're doing them a disservice there - the "old" PhenomII hexcore's aren't exactly slow. Sure, they're not matching the 980X benchmark-for-benchmark, but given the huge price difference (£460 v's £150) I'm willing to cut AMD a little slack.

Looking forward to reading the Hexus benchmarks on the FX's when they finally arrive - I'm in the market for a multicore processor (the more the better!) with lowish power requirements for a virtual machine host I'm going to build. A Sandy Bridge quad core is in the frame at the moment, but if the FX's are as keenly priced as rumour has it, then I'll happily plump for one of them instead.

[Fraz]

So... AMD's new chip is as good as an i7 980X in games (where probably only 2 cores are being used tops - I imagine the 2600K probably beats it), and about the same as an i7 2600K in multi-threaded tests, but clearly not as good as i7 the 980x.

Comparing system cost against a 980x is just silly. They should be comparing system cost against the 2600K. Silly and transparent marketing spin.

I'm not exactly overwhelmed. The 980x is an old chip now... 18 months old? So, they are probably still more than 18 months behind Intel. I'm sure they'll compete nicely on price, and it'll be a great overclockers CPU, but I still really want AMD to compete properly at the high end :-/

[shaithis]

I'm sure they'll compete nicely on price, and it'll be a great overclockers CPU, but I still really want AMD to compete properly at the high end :-/

I fail to see it happening any time soon. Intels current processes are better. They got to 22nm first and have had experience of it for longer, they have a much higher cache density to allow shoe-horning more "ummph" into their chips, they have 3D transistor technology coming online soon and they have substantially more money to throw at the next round of RnD.

Unless AMD make some serious in-roads soon, they are stuck playing Intel at the price game.......we may see it happen though, I have a feeling Llano is going to be hugely successful, on top of their awesome showing in he GPU market over the last couple of years, which could give them a bit more momentum.

Just wish they would release BD! My HTPC is awaiting an ugrade...

[Tunnah]

the problem is no matter how good AMD does, as long as intel chips are doing even a little bit better they're gonna get picked in most cases.

high end builds (or upgrades) are quite a big investment and when you're spending the sort of sums that they require, you want to get the best for your money

[MadduckUK]

your not getting the best for your money with a hgh-end build by definition

[Tunnah]

sorry meant you want the best because you're spending so much money, as in you'd rather pay that bit extra for best in class

[crossy]

the problem is no matter how good AMD does, as long as intel chips are doing even a little bit better they're gonna get picked in most cases. high end builds (or upgrades) are quite a big investment and when you're spending the sort of sums that they require, you want to get the best for your money

If you're lucky enough to be in the "money no object" situation then sure. Otherwise you have to evaluate what they call "the value proposition" - is the price premium that Intel charge (which I have no problem with) worth the perceived extra performance?

My understanding is that - generally speaking - AMD cores are less "powerful" than the contemporary Intel ones. On the other hand, the price differential means that you can usually afford more of those less powerful cores. E.g. when I was looking for a replacement rig I could either get a quad Intel or a hexa AMD for about the same £200 figure, (luckily Scan dropped the price of the part I eventually chose just before I bought it - which was darned decent of them).

The stuff I'm doing is highly parallel/threaded, so in my case a top end PhenomII hexa core made a lot more sense than a "mere" quad. On the other hand if your applications are stubbornly single threaded, then you'd be mad not to go with Intel's "better" cores. Getting back to the article, the idea of going octacore with FX is very appealing, but there's just no way I could afford the up-to-£800 that Intel would charge me for their parts. Please don't assume that these are the ramblings of an AMD fanboy however - my main machines for work (one of which I bought) are both sporting the "Intel Inside" sticker. If Intel can deliver a 6 or 8 core processor for £300-400 then I'll gladly put them on my "must consider" list.