Steamroller!!

whiteshadow · 3 Dec 2012 at 13:26

I was thinking about upgrading my mobo, possibly my CPU too but just decided I'm better off waiting until next year to see if Steamroller is any good.

I like AMD as a company, they used to provide great value for money and didn't rip off their customers by changing socket on their new CPU's all the time.

My problem is, after the poor performance of the bulldozers (in terms of gaming), do you think Steamroller will put AMD back on track for gamers looking for a competitively priced CPU.

If Steamroller isn't impressive I'm going to switch over to Intel, not that I like their ruthless marketing strategy but I won't have much choice.

Thoughts?

PS. I currently own a 965 3.4Ghz Phenom II (really love this CPU) and from what I can make out none of the bulldozer's will improve my gaming performance so it doesn't seem worth switching to one of them for me.

Martini1991 · 3 Dec 2012 at 13:32

Afaik, SR's coming 2014 now, and there's no 100% guarantee it'll come out on AM3+, it's touted as such, but we've all been there before.

If you're coping fine now with your Phenom II X4, then just keep that until you feel the need to upgrade, then look what's out at the time.

whiteshadow · 3 Dec 2012 at 13:53

2014 ........ gutting.

I want to go Xfire but my current mobo isn't up to it so I need to upgrade soon so I was hoping I could stay with AMD, not looking so likely now. If I have to upgrade my mobo I want to get a better CPU but AMD haven't got any that will give my rig a boost.

Looks like I may have to go Intel in the future.

Thanks for the info.

Martini1991 · 3 Dec 2012 at 14:07

Hold off as long you can with what you have.
It's in no way gospel that SR will be 2014.

d_brennen · 3 Dec 2012 at 14:10

Squeeze some more from the 965 or buy a shiny SSD/GPU/Monitor to sate the itch

whiteshadow · 3 Dec 2012 at 15:06

Good idea. lol

PCZ · 3 Dec 2012 at 16:14

Martini1991 said:
Hold off as long you can with what you have.
It's in no way gospel that SR will be 2014.

Yes it may never actually see the light of day.

braveheart · 3 Dec 2012 at 18:46

No new cpu from amd during into 2013 so sr will be using am3+ by 2014... as piledriver will keep using for all in 2013

Alkalinepro5 · 5 Dec 2012 at 11:47

d_brennen said:
Squeeze some more from the 965 or buy a shiny SSD/GPU/Monitor to sate the itch

Agreed.. Just OC it to 3.8-4Ghz and enjoy.

You will gain 10FPS average tops going to a 3570k with a 7970. Complete waste of money

humbug · 5 Dec 2012 at 11:58

It will come out but not until 2014, that is unless they bring it forward again to late 2013.

AMD's boss has gone on record as saying SR will be an AM3+ socket chip.

Performance should also be close to Ivy Bridge.

Martini1991 · 5 Dec 2012 at 12:04

humbug said:
It will come out but not until 2014, that is unless they bring it forward again to late 2013.

AMD's boss has gone on record as saying SR will be an AM3+ socket chip.

Performance should also be close to Ivy Bridge.

Things change.

Performance close to Ivybridge? Consistently, or what we have now?

humbug · 5 Dec 2012 at 12:15

Martini1991 said:
Things change.

Performance close to Ivybridge? Consistently, or what we have now?

Depends on how what you want it for, the FX-8350 is already faster than the 3570K in most productivity app's, the same performance in some games and slower in badly codded / low threaded games.

if you play games like Crysis 2/3 BF3/4 and modern car racing games @ 1080P there is no advantage going Intel, for day to day apps like rendering, encoding and general archiving the FX-8350 is better.
The only advantage you would have going for the 3570K now is if you play adventure games (which are usually the ones that are low threaded)
The FX-8350 is also cheaper.

So take it from any improvement on that.

Martini1991 · 5 Dec 2012 at 12:21

So what we have now plus a bit then.
Not too bad I guess.

Although, you've only mentioned gamers without taste

humbug · 5 Dec 2012 at 12:24

Martini1991 said:
So what we have now plus a bit then.
Not too bad I guess.

Although, you've only mentioned gamers without taste

I don't do adventure games,

well, Skyrim is ok i guess

Nightglow · 5 Dec 2012 at 13:50

Martini1991 said:
Afaik, SR's coming 2014 now, and there's no 100% guarantee it'll come out on AM3+, it's touted as such, but we've all been there before.

If you're coping fine now with your Phenom II X4, then just keep that until you feel the need to upgrade, then look what's out at the time.

AMD will continue with Socketed CPU's through 2013 and 2014 with the "Kaveri" APU and FX CPU lines, & they won't be using BGA only packaging.

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/27119...ving_socketed_cpus_glares_at_intel/index.html

Martini1991 · 5 Dec 2012 at 14:19

Wasn't what I was on about, they could throw in another socketed platform as they've done in the past.

passey89 · 5 Dec 2012 at 14:28

u could always upgrade to a 8350 / 8320 piledriver.

Was an upgrade from my 1075t

PCZ · 5 Dec 2012 at 16:07

humbug said:
Depends on how what you want it for, the FX-8350 is already faster than the 3570K in most productivity app's, the same performance in some games and slower in badly codded / low threaded games.

if you play games like Crysis 2/3 BF3/4 and modern car racing games @ 1080P there is no advantage going Intel, for day to day apps like rendering, encoding and general archiving the FX-8350 is better.
The only advantage you would have going for the 3570K now is if you play adventure games (which are usually the ones that are low threaded)
The FX-8350 is also cheaper.

So take it from any improvement on that.

I went and checked your profile after i read 'adventure games'.
Was sure you had to be as old as me.
Haven't heard them called that for a very long time.

You are playing down the poor gaming performance of PD
Only a handfull of titles work well well with PD.

This is not poor coding as you are trying to imply, it is the poor performance of PD.
Intel chips are far far stronger running legacy code.

AMD chose to save costs by not having hardware support for x87 etc, and it is users that suffer as that code is far from dead.

humbug · 5 Dec 2012 at 16:19

PCZ said:
I went and checked your profile after i read 'adventure games'.
Was sure you had to be as old as me.
Haven't heard them called that for a very long time.

You are playing down the poor gaming performance of PD
Only a handfull of titles work well well with PD.

This is not poor coding as you are trying to imply, it is the poor performance of PD.
Intel chips are far far stronger running legacy code.

AMD chose to save costs by not having hardware support for x87 etc, and it is users that suffer as that code is far from dead.

I'm not playing it down, your playing it up, PD does not have any trouble playing any game, it just performs less than Intel in some games.

Name 5 new Games that run on x87.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 5 Dec 2012 at 18:14

PCZ said:
This is not poor coding as you are trying to imply, it is the poor performance of PD.

It is poor coding though. They are using old engines which are not multi-threaded to save on development costs,because it would cost more money otherwise.

Any modern engine which has had decent money spent on it,threads well.

If you isolated the CPU power consumption on a game which only uses one thread of my Core i5,or say something like BF3 ,what do you think will show greater power consumption with my CPU??

It would be BF3 as it is pushing my CPU more.

The other game cannot use the resources of my CPU,meaning it is poorly coded,as the other cores will be mostly idle.

The bottleneck is the software,not the CPU. These are the very kinds of games people keep saying they need their 4.5GHZ Core i5 for. I don't overclock since I am a SFF PC user. Moreover,the vast majority of Intel desktop CPUs sold are not even overclocked too. If the single thread performance of my Core i5 is not enough for these games,I am not that bothered in supporting developers who are just cost cutting,and increasing their bottle line,and making me spend more. Screw them,until they actually spend some dosh and make the engines support three or four threads. The are just holding back PC game development,especially when the consoles versions of some of these games seem to get away with multi-threading and not the PC version!! :mad:

I will only upgrade,when my CPU has been pushed fully and the performance is not enough.

Even Intel and AMD are looking at things like TSX,to improve MT performance.