Lol. it's not expensive because its cheaper than the most expensive gpu on the planet.
Good reasoning as usual, Mal!
well yea, and who sais it's 1100 quid....... well i suppose it is if you're daft enough to buy it here
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD Desktop Processors Not Getting DDR4 and a Post Bulldozer Architecture till 2016 – Claims Italian
- Thread starter Gregster
- Start date
well yea, and who sais it's 1100 quid....... well i suppose it is if you're daft enough to buy it here
no totally wrong..... they've sub-contracted out the new cpu for someone else to do, they're not lazing around doing nothing, this takes time, it cant be made any quicker
this is a whole new architecture, this isn't a Haswell rehash or a rip off Xeon clone...nobody knows, not even AMD; what this new cpu will be like
finally, if you start upgrading to DDR 4 next year then this is too early, i'd wait to see this new AMD cpu first
no DDR4 Mobos till 2016 ?..........of course not, they've no idea what the socket will look like until late 2015
Last edited:
nope you are. i suggest removing the rose tinted glasses you have and view the truth.
unfortuantely for your argument intel are bringing out the next gen cpus early next year. The refresh was simply a development from consumer outrage for so little increase of performance from the 3000's and made it look like AMD could be in the race but are really not. So the refresh is like adding some extra power to something it already should have had...
why wait for AMD? AMD's products are so underdeveloped it's ridiculous. Why would i wait 2 years for something that is completely redundant by that time
why is DDR4 to early? is it perhaps youre identifying yourself to older tech and so view a change a threat to youre ego? (btw this is the reason why people get upset when tallking about such things)...
The faster the better everything gets. Computer technology is growing at a vast rate. Why hold back. Infact it is being held back by commercialism. If money was no object you'd see radical improvements are stupidly fast speed.
i dont see their 8 core cpu at only 3.0 to 3.3 an increase in power, it's a step back, most games are only 3 or 4 core.........8 cores arent needed, that CPU sucks, the other two aren't worth having either for only +5%
the only good CPU was the IVY/ Sandy back in the day when i had the i5 2500.....at 5.0...... my new cpu is an improvement yes, but not much considering it's 3 years later.
i'm all up for upgrading...that's what i'm doing now, but i'm not silly enough to buy DDR4 next year, when it wont be as powerful as mine till 2016........
what will the RAM speed be next year for DDR4 ?......... yes exactly !
so if you're going to upgrade next year to DDR4 then you're making a big mistake
Last edited:
again you have to stop comparing clock speed. You really havent got the right mind set.
view it like electricity
Power = Volts x Amps
In this metaphor amps = clock speed and volts = Size of Data packs.
as you increase the amps there is less and less efficiency and more and more heat and burning. The cables would then have to be made bigger and bigger to accomodate this current. (people die becuase of amps not volts if shocked)
Increasing the volts means for the same current you get more power.
Power stations convert the power to reduce the amps dramatically and increase the volts to 10's of thousands of volts. This allows a reduction in cable size and less wastage.
Apply this metaphor to cpus and that is what intel are doing. Whereas AMD are adding more and more "amps" making a more and more inefficient system.
if intel would really want to blow AMD out of the water they could. Having the same power consumption as a top end AMD cpu would bring an stupidly overpowered for the market CPU
Last edited:
Hold your ramblings for a moment.
What's the fastest mainstream CPU available at the moment? 4790K
How much faster than the best AMD CPU? Much faster, cooler and consumes less electricity.
So, Intel are by far in the lead already. 4790K and it's new chipset, Z97, having all the latest technologies onboard which AMD users can only dream of at this point.
Instead of Intel sitting back, doing nothing, they are releasing Haswell -E (E means enthusiast, so high priced, more suited for those using software/games that will actually use 6/8 cores). No-one is forcing you to buy a £350-100 enthusiast CPU, but it's still good for the industry that Intel are pushing forward and offering them.
This new AMD cpu that is rumoured to release in 2016 - by then we'll have had TWO new intel architectures, Broadwell and Skylake. Each will put Intel further in the lead on the mainstream platform, in terms of performance per mhz, TPD, electricity consumption.
I think you're slightly mad if you're seriously advising people to wait 2 years for this rumoured new AMD cpu - it might be total garbage, just like 'Bulldozer' was.
Bulldozer wasn't garbage, it was just poorly supported. You'll be seeing the same from the 8 core Haswell E.
The only people disappointed were those who expected too much. If you knew your onions you'd have known what it was, where it came from, and what to expect.
LOL at those who still don't get it. AMD say "We are no longer competing for the performance crown and will stick to making affordable products"
Silly deaf people are silly, still thinking AMD care about IPC and the performance crown.
That was over years ago.
Thankfully AMD know where the market is. Tis a good thing they don't listen to megalomania obsessed willy wavers really.
In future I suggest you realise what has actually happened over the last decade instead of being in denial.
Competing over willy waving costs money. Money that's foolishly wasted now. You don't make up the majority and you haven't for years.
The vast majority all agree Bulldozer was pathetic. I don't really care if it's meant as an 'affordable' cpu - all I care about is performance relative to the Intel offerings at the time.
Even as this moment, lets compare the top mainstream CPU offerings available, today:
9590 Black Edition 4.70GHz (5.00GHz Turbo) £229.99 inc VAT
vs
4790K 4Ghz, (4.4Ghz Turbo) £269.99 inc VAT
Suddenly the AMD offering doesn't seem 'super' affordable compared to the 4790k.
I could go ahead and post all the performance, temperature, power consumption data but it's been done a thousand times, we all know the results.
4790K costs £40 more than the 9590. What does the £40 get you?
A far faster cpu in every application.
A cooler running CPU
A CPU that consumes far less electricity
PCI-E V3
Sata Express
M.2
Many more SATA 3 6GB ports
All resulting in a far faster, cooler running, less power hungry, futureproof CPU with all the new chipset techologies included.
The vast majority all agree Bulldozer was pathetic. I don't really care if it's meant as an 'affordable' cpu - all I care about is performance relative to the Intel offerings at the time.
Even as this moment, lets compare the CPU offerings available, today:
9590 Black Edition 4.70GHz (5.00GHz Turbo) £229.99 inc VAT
vs
4790K 4Ghz, (4.4Ghz Turbo) £269.99 inc VAT
Suddenly the AMD offering doesn't seem 'super' affordable compared to the 4790k.
I could go ahead and post all the performance, temperature, power consumption data but it's been done a thousand times, we all know the results.
4790K costs £40 more than the 9590. What does the £40 get you?
A far faster cpu in every application.
A cooler running CPU
A CPU that consumes far less electricity
PCI-E V3
Sata Express
M.2
Many more SATA 3 6GB ports
All resulting in a far faster, cooler running, less power hungry, futureproof CPU with all the new chipset techologies included.
Now bear in mind the rumour that AMD won't release any new FX series CPU until 2016. By then, Intel will have released Haswell-E, broadwell and probably Skylake. Each of these will further increase their performance and feature set and will further annihilate any of AMD's offerings.
Are £500 Intel CPU users going to migrate to AMD if they come up with a similar performance CPU for £450?
Some might, most wont, so there is no sense for AMD investing in developing a CPU like that. its better for them that they don't as the cost is going to out weigh the benefit.
AMD's CPU's do offer good Value at their price point, for those who want better they can spend up to £500 or whatever on Intel CPU's.
Everyone is happy, i don't see the problem.
Some might, most wont, so there is no sense for AMD investing in developing a CPU like that. its better for them that they don't as the cost is going to out weigh the benefit.
AMD's CPU's do offer good Value at their price point, for those who want better they can spend up to £500 or whatever on Intel CPU's.
Everyone is happy, i don't see the problem.
Why not?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,505
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Sometimes I think people forget bulldozer launched at 200 quid.
Who needs logic when you've bias.
Amidoingitright.
Who needs logic when you've bias.
Amidoingitright.
Can't blame them for trying but inevitably few would pay £200+ for an AMD CPU. even if it is good. ^^^^
Because of a name, Intel have 10 times the brand power of AMD, even if AMD offer the same performance for less money most people will still buy the Intel because in their minds Intel are still so much better.
Because of a name, Intel have 10 times the brand power of AMD, even if AMD offer the same performance for less money most people will still buy the Intel because in their minds Intel are still so much better.
I'd buy an AMD cpu in a heartbeat, if it offered the same performance of an Intel CPU.
My first PC's were AMD chips, back in the athlon days. Swapped to intel when the Core2 series came out , AMD haven't had a competitive CPU since then, sadly.
My first PC's were AMD chips, back in the athlon days. Swapped to intel when the Core2 series came out , AMD haven't had a competitive CPU since then, sadly.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,505
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Your opinion doesn't equate fact.
Brand loyalty absolutely should never affect ones purchase.
I agree it shouldn't. its not so much about Brand loyalty, its more about Brand perception. as i explained.
Again more information is needed before arguing such points.
branding is when you "stamp" ownership to something (say a cow with a metal iron).
A brand in the commercial sense gives each of us an identity to the product. For example why are Apple computers considered "pristine" and PC's are not.
People are proud of buying an apple computer and showing if off. No apple computer will be covered with stickers... Yet apple computers are not the best buy for your money...
People identify with what the company values are and this is then transferred to the brand name. Why is giorgio armani considered top fashion wear? its just a coat...
Intel are considered the leading CPU manufacturer. Efficient, top of the range...
AMD are considered "cheap and cheerful". (really only because they are out classed by Intel).
Therefore Intel will be identified with people who want the best and even if AMD do something to even the playing field, will still not be considered top (eg 295x2 - fast but unreliable and inefficient)
to express the point, view this you tube clip of simon sinek explaining company "whys":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sioZd3AxmnE
branding is when you "stamp" ownership to something (say a cow with a metal iron).
A brand in the commercial sense gives each of us an identity to the product. For example why are Apple computers considered "pristine" and PC's are not.
People are proud of buying an apple computer and showing if off. No apple computer will be covered with stickers... Yet apple computers are not the best buy for your money...
People identify with what the company values are and this is then transferred to the brand name. Why is giorgio armani considered top fashion wear? its just a coat...
Intel are considered the leading CPU manufacturer. Efficient, top of the range...
AMD are considered "cheap and cheerful". (really only because they are out classed by Intel).
Therefore Intel will be identified with people who want the best and even if AMD do something to even the playing field, will still not be considered top (eg 295x2 - fast but unreliable and inefficient)
to express the point, view this you tube clip of simon sinek explaining company "whys":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sioZd3AxmnE
Last edited:
The vast majority were stupid, then. At the end of the day AMD have pointed out plenty of times what sort of a company they are. If people want to delude themselves into wishing it was different, then being all disappointed that's their stupid fault.
Performance is only relative if the R&D costs are relative and the sale price is relative. They weren't.
That's a very warped and twisted way of doing it. FX 8320 is exactly the same CPU, usually hits a good 4.7ghz and costs £100. So your argument is completely loaded. As such it's inaccurate, but any one here will know that.
Save that stuff for an idiot would you? you know? some one who didn't know it ?
You're still wrong with your cooler running CPU part. The AMD can only hit an absolute maximum of 72c. Haswells can hit the 90s.
So?
If you said "All of this stuff will put AMD out of business" I would care. But it won't, and I don't care because I know the facts. The facts are AMD are not competing because there's just absolutely and utterly no point. Instead of building themselves up and then having to close factories they are just plodding along at their own happy pace making money.
Broadwell is a die shrink of Haswell, BTW. So expect the obligatory 5%. It's also not intended for desktop users, given it's a die shrink. But no doubt it will confuse those who think it was and make them buy it any way.
Every time Intel wave their willy it costs them money. Even the most die hard Intel fan had issues with Devil's Canyon giving it was a complete rip off. If the best they could do was reduce the thermal output by actually making the CPU properly (didn't see them refunding every one who bought a Haswell) then good on them.