Potential successors FX: AMD shows 16-core processor scheme in Programming Guide

Boomstick777 · 17 Jan 2014 at 09:42

This diagram shows a "real" 8-module processor with 16 cores. "Real" is because AMD indeed already models with 8 modules on offer has in the Opterons, but these consist of two silicon chips that are connected together on a support HyperTransport. As in the above scheme but hang all the cores in a System Request Interface (SRI), describes the schema undoubtedly one The.

Translated Source - http://translate.google.com/transla...zessorschema-in-programmierleitfaden/&act=url

Cooper · 17 Jan 2014 at 10:45

Yet more meaningless promises of jam tomorrow from AMD.

Time to move on boys & girls, as painful as it is to admit it, Intel is the only serious option if you want a high performance desktop CPU, today or tomorrow.

...but I'll stick with them for my GPU.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 17 Jan 2014 at 11:03

Interesting. Supposedly Warsaw is a 16 thread CPU AMD is introducing for the server side and is PD based.

That diagram is meant to be from the Kaveri programming guide.

gpuerrilla · 17 Jan 2014 at 11:15

Cooper said:
Yet more meaningless promises of jam tomorrow from AMD.

Time to move on boys & girls, as painful as it is to admit it, Intel is the only serious option if you want a high performance desktop CPU, today or tomorrow.

...but I'll stick with them for my GPU.

Not like we didn't already know this. Some of us have respectable performance in the Desktop market from AMD. Nice that you selectively choose them for the GPU though...

Boomstick777 · 17 Jan 2014 at 11:41

Would love an 8 core or more AMD chip that's built on a better die process and has better IPC, if they can do that, they will get my money for sure.

ALXAndy · 17 Jan 2014 at 12:28

Cooper said:
Yet more meaningless promises of jam tomorrow from AMD.

Time to move on boys & girls, as painful as it is to admit it, Intel is the only serious option if you want a high performance desktop CPU, today or tomorrow.

...but I'll stick with them for my GPU.

Only Intel are moving away from the desktop market. They have to to survive.

dmferrett · 17 Jan 2014 at 13:41

Intel may be seeing that AMD's Mantle will reduce the need for super powerful cpu's, combined with the increase in the tablet and smart phone market, Intel seem to be focussing on the mass mobile chip market. The high performance desk top cpu sells in comparatively small numbers (and very much is in decline.)

Andrei23 · 18 Jan 2014 at 01:25

dmferrett said:
Intel may be seeing that AMD's Mantle will reduce the need for super powerful cpu's, combined with the increase in the tablet and smart phone market, Intel seem to be focussing on the mass mobile chip market. The high performance desk top cpu sells in comparatively small numbers (and very much is in decline.)

It is known.

alex_123_fra · 18 Jan 2014 at 07:48

Boomstick777 said:
Would love an 8 core or more AMD chip that's built on a better die process and has better IPC, if they can do that, they will get my money for sure.

They can do that, but they don't want to as it would cost them extraordinary amounts of money for very little return if not a loss. You see, as a company, they couldn't really care for the 0.5% of the market which are ultra enthusiasts (i.e. us) in terms of CPUs.

See....Mantle.

gpuerrilla · 18 Jan 2014 at 10:36

alex_123_fra said:
They can do that, but they don't want to as it would cost them extraordinary amounts of money for very little return if not a loss. You see, as a company, they couldn't really care for the 0.5% of the market which are ultra enthusiasts (i.e. us) in terms of CPUs.

See....Mantle.

+1

It will pay more to perfect APU's, HSA etc that they are currently developing with the look to capture 'us' enthusiasts in a couple of years time when the current intel hardware is due an upgrade.

By this time it will be a great transition and instead of a behemoth full tower system I will probably build the SFF neat looking unit which should be playing games better than the consoles.

There will still be high end to buy, it's just something I do not like throwing money into as it moves pretty fast.

regulus · 18 Jan 2014 at 13:25

My 'lowly' 8320 barely breaks a sweat when I'm running ALL my games on Ultra, including BF4 and Crysis 3. I don't see why I need a more expensive CPU.

gpuerrilla · 18 Jan 2014 at 22:05

OMG he has an FX!

*whispers with hand covering mouth

almighty15 · 18 Jan 2014 at 22:15

regulus said:
My 'lowly' 8320 barely breaks a sweat when I'm running ALL my games on Ultra, including BF4 and Crysis 3. I don't see why I need a more expensive CPU.

Dude I'm happy that you're happy with the performance you're getting from your FX but please don't make it sound amazing...we all know that

1. It does break a sweat in BF and Crysis 3
2. It can't play every game at Ultra with playable frame rates.

It's a nice chip but don't go putting it on a podium....

gpuerrilla · 18 Jan 2014 at 22:17

almighty15 said:
Dude I'm happy that you're happy with the performance you're getting from your FX but please don't make it sound amazing...we all know that

1. It does break a sweat in BF and Crysis 3
2. It can't play every game at Ultra with playable frame rates.

It's a nice chip but don't go putting it on a podium....

Meeeeeeeeeeoow!!!

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 19 Jan 2014 at 01:15

almighty15 said:
It can't play every game at Ultra with playable frame rates.

Neither can yours. It needs a discrete card.

almighty15 · 19 Jan 2014 at 10:51

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Neither can yours. It needs a discrete card.

It's not struggling with anything so far......

regulus · 19 Jan 2014 at 19:20

almighty15 said:
Dude I'm happy that you're happy with the performance you're getting from your FX but please don't make it sound amazing...we all know that

1. It does break a sweat in BF and Crysis 3
2. It can't play every game at Ultra with playable frame rates.

It's a nice chip but don't go putting it on a podium....

I play BF4 on Ultra and same with Crysis. Frame rates perfectly fine. :confused:

I could link you screen shots if you need convincing? :confused:

It only runs a small overclock. Why is it so hard to believe?

almighty15 · 19 Jan 2014 at 19:25

regulus said:
I play BF4 on Ultra and same with Crysis. Frame rates perfectly fine.

I could link you screen shots if you need convincing?

It only runs a small overclock. Why is it so hard to believe?

Depends on what Crysis??

Not the first one..... I can show you Intel chips being a good 30% faster in that compared to an FX chip.

The 2nd and 3rd game..... yea they tend to fair better then the first game.

regulus · 19 Jan 2014 at 19:35

almighty15 said:
Depends on what Crysis??

Not the first one..... I can show you Intel chips being a good 30% faster in that compared to an FX chip.

The 2nd and 3rd game..... yea they tend to fair better then the first game.

Crysis 3 off course. I was actually playing it right now before I came on here. I also installed Crysis 2 earlier with the official texture pack. Obviously I'll play that on max settings too. Unless I'm seeing it wrong, BF4 nor Crysis 3 doesn't even stress the chip. If i run a dedicated CPU stress like CineBench the temps barely break 40C, during an hour or two of gaming at Ultra settings, it doesn't touch 40c

Nobody is saying that the Intel chips aren't better, I'm just saying that the AMD chip is plenty good for what 'I' want to do with it. Play any game on Ultra settings.

regulus · 19 Jan 2014 at 19:47

Ah right, I see. I visit the CPU/GPU sections about 2-3 times a year so don't know all the characters and crazies that frequent these parts.

If I were doing heavy rendering or 3D work I'd more than likely go for an Intel chip. But for someone like me that only plays games and don't bother running pointless benchmarks in order to engage in pointless and worthless arguments, the AMD is by far the best bang for my buck