thanks for link,it seems like intel remains the far superior one when it comes to desktop cpu's. the power consumption under full load on the new amd cpu's is scary.
**NEW AMD PILEDRIVER CPU's NOW AVAILABLE!!**
- Thread starter Gibbo
- Start date
thanks for link,it seems like intel remains the far superior one when it comes to desktop cpu's. the power consumption under full load on the new amd cpu's is scary.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 1,699
- Location
- Rothesay
This has me in a quandry now as im in the market for a new systen which does include a motherboard and ram
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 6,691
Hopefully this is the start of things getting better with AMD, 8 Cores at 4Ghz is nice!
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 6,233
Over 250 watts at full load. 
wats the bit up roar for the power draw when overclocked??
Its only like having a high end GPU in your system.
If your that bothered about how much power it draws go put some solar panels on your roof.
300W in nothing compared to a tuble dryer / dish washer / power shower.
Its only like having a high end GPU in your system.
If your that bothered about how much power it draws go put some solar panels on your roof.
300W in nothing compared to a tuble dryer / dish washer / power shower.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 956
lol isn't that dodging the issue... it draws a lot of power for a cpu, not a household appliance. power = money, heat, noise. obviously it's a secondary concern but the number is still a little high. not gonna stop people who want multicore performance from buying of course
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Aug 2012
- Posts
- 171
4ghz 8 core for 170 quid!!! whattttttt
These look good compared to intel actually. First time I've seen AMD as a competitor for a couple of years when I look at my system. Refreshing. 5GHZ is good and I don't give a damn about how much power it takes as long as it's not too stupid like 400watts. This @ 5.2ghz vs 3820 @ 4.5ghz in single thread?
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,582
Not that impressive if you actually think about it. 4.0-4.2GHz still behind at stock clock i5 2500K at 3.30GHz on gaming performance, and crazy high power consumption and temp when pushing the overclock....
Also on overclock, because of the high default clock, the PD at 4.0GHz pretty much only got half the overclock mileage/headroom comparing to the i5 2500K; i5 2500K 3.30GHz to 4.6GHz=39% overclock, PD 4.0/4.2GHz to 4.6GHz=10~15% overclock.
Last edited:
Bulldozer & Piledriver Processors still remain the best Overclocking solution on a budget, except maybe I would exclude the 4 core and 8 core versions because of the price. What I want to talk about is the much overlooked 6 core version, only slightly more expensive as compared to the 4 core and quite a bit cheaper than 8 cores, with less power usage and heat.
Although they do eat a lot of power overclocked its still the absolute best performance on a budget for people who really know how to overclock systems for 24/7 stability.
Intel still remains the best all round but you have to spend quite a bit extra. While you can get a 6 core Bulldozer/Piledriver cheaply(look out for AMD's more cores more cash back promo which runs every now and then!) add a cheapish mainboard with the features you need and a cheap cooling solution. Your looking at maybe £150-£170 for a new system that can run at a high frequency and have some extra cores for multi-threaded applications.
With Intel on the other hand on a budget your options for roughly the same cash is a 2 core i3 and no overclock.
Many people at this point will just go that extra £100 higher and get a i5 k series but some times it's just not worth it. My main system is a i5 k series but when I build a second system I chose the FX-6100 simply because I LOVE overclocking and the idea of a vanilla 2 core i3 seemed so mundane I just could not bare the thought
Adding yet another i5 k series just was not in the budget nor would it be utilized fully. (This is the spot where AMD has a niche)
I'm glad AMD increased performance in Piledriver but I do think they need to do a bit more with the next iteration. They need to look at increasing single threaded performance and they need to bring down power usage. Easier said than done, I learned a bit about processors inner workings this year and can imagine those AMD engineers having sleepless nights!
Although they do eat a lot of power overclocked its still the absolute best performance on a budget for people who really know how to overclock systems for 24/7 stability.
Intel still remains the best all round but you have to spend quite a bit extra. While you can get a 6 core Bulldozer/Piledriver cheaply(look out for AMD's more cores more cash back promo which runs every now and then!) add a cheapish mainboard with the features you need and a cheap cooling solution. Your looking at maybe £150-£170 for a new system that can run at a high frequency and have some extra cores for multi-threaded applications.
With Intel on the other hand on a budget your options for roughly the same cash is a 2 core i3 and no overclock.
Many people at this point will just go that extra £100 higher and get a i5 k series but some times it's just not worth it. My main system is a i5 k series but when I build a second system I chose the FX-6100 simply because I LOVE overclocking and the idea of a vanilla 2 core i3 seemed so mundane I just could not bare the thought
Adding yet another i5 k series just was not in the budget nor would it be utilized fully. (This is the spot where AMD has a niche)I'm glad AMD increased performance in Piledriver but I do think they need to do a bit more with the next iteration. They need to look at increasing single threaded performance and they need to bring down power usage. Easier said than done, I learned a bit about processors inner workings this year and can imagine those AMD engineers having sleepless nights!
Bulldozer & Piledriver Processors still remain the best Overclocking solution on a budget, except maybe I would exclude the 4 core and 8 core versions because of the price. What I want to talk about is the much overlooked 6 core version, only slightly more expensive as compared to the 4 core and quite a bit cheaper than 8 cores, with less power usage and heat.
Although they do eat a lot of power overclocked its still the absolute best performance on a budget for people who really know how to overclock systems for 24/7 stability.
Intel still remains the best all round but you have to spend quite a bit extra. While you can get a 6 core Bulldozer/Piledriver cheaply(look out for AMD's more cores more cash back promo which runs every now and then!) add a cheapish mainboard with the features you need and a cheap cooling solution. Your looking at maybe £150-£170 for a new system that can run at a high frequency and have some extra cores for multi-threaded applications.
With Intel on the other hand on a budget your options for roughly the same cash is a 2 core i3 and no overclock.
Many people at this point will just go that extra £100 higher and get a i5 k series but some times it's just not worth it. My main system is a i5 k series but when I build a second system I chose the FX-6100 simply because I LOVE overclocking and the idea of a vanilla 2 core i3 seemed so mundane I just could not bare the thought
I'm glad AMD increased performance in Piledriver but I do think they need to do a bit more with the next iteration. They need to look at increasing single threaded performance and they need to bring down power usage. Easier said than done, I learned a bit about processors inner workings this year and can imagine those AMD engineers having sleepless nights!
If Intel can do it, why can't AMD?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,390
- Location
- Dormanstown.
The PC's on for a lot longer.
And if you put them with say a 7850, the OC'ed CPU will be using more than your GPU by quite a lot.
Last edited:
Can't they just copy?
Lol
They used to back in the day believe it or not but long ago the complexity of the chips put a stop to reverse engineering them within a reasonable time frame to get them to market.
It boils down to 2 distinct advantages. A massive research budget means they can throw more engineering resources at the architectural development whereas AMD have to take into account diminishing returns far sooner and take a more foccused approach.
Secondly (and I reckon slighlty more importantly) their fabs mean they simply have more space to fit more transitors in less area. Alongside that they have a regular cadence in advancement of their fab process. I can't remember who said it, but essentially their engineers can rely on 30% more die space and lower consumption to shove more transistors in for more performance every 2 years. They can also work more tightly (design and fab engineers) to ensure problem free production with sufficient cap. And all that years ahead of any of the other fabs out there meaning a reliable 22nm process compared to 32nm that AMD have access to.
It boils down to 2 distinct advantages. A massive research budget means they can throw more engineering resources at the architectural development whereas AMD have to take into account diminishing returns far sooner and take a more foccused approach.
Secondly (and I reckon slighlty more importantly) their fabs mean they simply have more space to fit more transitors in less area. Alongside that they have a regular cadence in advancement of their fab process. I can't remember who said it, but essentially their engineers can rely on 30% more die space and lower consumption to shove more transistors in for more performance every 2 years. They can also work more tightly (design and fab engineers) to ensure problem free production with sufficient cap. And all that years ahead of any of the other fabs out there meaning a reliable 22nm process compared to 32nm that AMD have access to.