• 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.

Wait for Piledriver?

Vishera out 23rd? oooooh! :)
If it keeps up with my SB clocked @ 4.6Ghz I might just switch back to AMD!

Guess I can only hope! - fingers crossed lol
 
zoomee said:
Vishera out 23rd? oooooh! :)
If it keeps up with my SB clocked @ 4.6Ghz I might just switch back to AMD!

Guess I can only hope! - fingers crossed lol
Click to expand...

it might not be close. but if its as fast as a 2500k @ stock with some mild overclocking taking it past a stock 2500k then its still a FAST cpu with a low price tag (hopefully)

lets hope both tdp and price a relevant
 
phill1978 said:
it might not be close. but if its as fast as a 2500k @ stock with some mild overclocking taking it past a stock 2500k then its still a FAST cpu with a low price tag (hopefully)

lets hope both tdp and price a relevant
Click to expand...

But then you could have had OC'ed 2500k performance for over a year and 8 months already, surely the value in that is well worth the likely extra money? Bearing in mind 2500k's were 150 quid on deals a lot during those days.

But hopefully you'll be able to clock it to get consistently good performance (As that's the thing everyone should care about, not those situations where it comes ahead, but its consistent performance) Could be a decent budget CPU again with the lack of choice from Intel at (Locked Dual core, and then a locked quad core 40-50 quid more)
 
Last edited:
wolvers said:
It looks expensive, if those prices are true. Both the 8320 and 8350 are listed at a higher price than a 3570k.
Click to expand...

There is a US retailer which leaks prices consistently earlier,and they tend not to be far off in price. They indicated around Core i5 level pricing. A retailer in Europe also leaked Euro pricing too,which indicated something similar. Of course,prices at launch in the UK could be higher,if certain retailers just add another £10 to £20 for the LOLs.
 
Last edited:
They're not going to be as fast as IB, I guess, so the price is disappointing. For me it's perfectly OK that AMD can't compete on raw performance, just as long as they are more than competitive on price.
 
wolvers said:
They're not going to be as fast as IB, I guess, so the price is disappointing. For me it's perfectly OK that AMD can't compete on raw performance, just as long as they are more than competitive on price.
Click to expand...

this ^

plus there good for virtualisation which is becoming very popular. And although Intel is top end, its a bit like buying the same German car, the same apple product, the same designer glasses etc.. I know that shouldn't matter but in a way having an AMD build seems a bit different / left field in this world of Intel dominance

of course that view point seems to be met with a hoard of Dalek voiced "Inferior, Inferior.. must hate blaarrg" type responses
 
Last edited:
I fully expect Piledriver to be priced at Bulldozer launch prices, eg. £200 for the 8350. Given that the difference in performance is only about 10-15% the 8150 will probably be far better value at £140 if you insist on going with AMD.
 
Last edited:
In single threaded performance they will not be a match for a 3570K. they should match an 1100T stock for stock (3.3Ghz vs 4Ghz) and overclocked (4Ghz vs 4.6Ghz) on a reasonable cooler.

In multithreaded app's is where they will be strong, faster than an 1100T.

They will probably cost around a 3570K to start with, but drop below that in time.
 
phill1978 said:
this ^

plus there good for virtualisation which is becoming very popular. And although Intel is top end, its a bit like buying the same German car, the same apple product, the same designer glasses etc.. I know that shouldn't matter but in a way having an AMD build seems a bit different / left field in this world of Intel dominance

of course that view point seems to be met with a hoard of Dalek voiced "Inferior, Inferior.. must hate blaarrg" type responses
Click to expand...

Brilliantly put, it's good to see that there are some more interesting views floating around on this forum rather than the childish drivel that fills large parts of it's pages. It's also point of view that sits very comfortably with me. It feels a bit boring, predictable even, to go for yet another Intel set up but balancing that against cold hard facts is tricky.
 
wolvers said:
Brilliantly put,
Click to expand...

I have my moments. Now wheres that damn rep button? oops wrong forum :D

"It feels a bit boring, predictable even, to go for yet another Intel set up but balancing that against cold hard facts is tricky." -- Its only as tricky as you want it to be, in the end its mine, yours and others cash. Nobody forces me to buy a particular product from whining or bullying I make my own choices and I build, we use computers for fun and part of the fun is to try different setups. I don't see how building another generic watercooled intel beast in a typical case with an overspecced power supply is actually any different from clicking the buy button on a pre-built from a shop other than the minor cost saving.

Its what attracts me to an APU build, Linux O/S, Ubuntu with ARM, Raspberry PI, etc.. If anything the ultra Intel performance is stagnating creativity
 
Last edited:
Creativity in processors?
You can make plenty creative systems, the CPU has nothing to do with going for a fancy out of the ordinary system.

If I switched out my 2500k and Maximus IV Extreme for an FX8150 and a CHV, my system wouldn't look any different except for having a slightly smaller board and different heatsinks on the board, and my sound card and GPU being in a different location.

I too didn't want to just go for an Intel system, thought it was plain, but meh, I'd rather be plain and have the performance I want.
 
Last edited:
There's also a case of this:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-cpu-sandy-bridge-e-c2-virtualization,14252.html

The original Sandybridge-E had completely non-functional hardware virtualisation, despite being sold as having such. Technically this is worse than the Barcelona TLB bug. There's also a security issue on Intel chips running hardware virtualisation, which does not affect AMD chips:

http://www.csoonline.com/article/708568/us-cert-discloses-security-flaw-in-intel-chips

So there is definitely an argument for using AMD hardware for virtualisation.
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
Creativity in processors?
You can make plenty creative systems, the CPU has nothing to do with going for a fancy out of the ordinary system.

If I switched out my 2500k and Maximus IV Extreme for an FX8150 and a CHV, my system wouldn't look any different except for having a slightly smaller board and different heatsinks on the board, and my sound card and GPU being in a different location.

I too didn't want to just go for an Intel system, thought it was plain, but meh, I'd rather be plain and have the performance I want.
Click to expand...

Your logic is impeccable

its not about a 'creative processor" this is exactly what someone who is after pure performance, the top end wants, fair enough. But if you have one Intel system then you have them all right? you go lower down the food chain in CPU's and the gap narrows as the GPU power increases in an APU for example, or the cost of the CPU becomes more of a factor and AMD isn't miles away.

That's not to say AMD is 'worst' but serious perspective is needed here! we are talking about multi-core 32nm processors that at almost any price level can do almost anything a typical user needs. More importantly even a top end productivity user only usually shaves mere seconds of a task at best from programs that 99% of users don't use day to day by choosing a faster cpu.
So the real question is why are CPU's just a CPU? why isn't the chip evolving into the whole computer.. RAM/GPU/CPU ?? well of course it is and with that you will see lower % gains from intel too as many functions are merged onto the Die and space is taken up. This means we are at a milestone where by Raw CPU doesn't increase too much for the kind of chips most people will be buying (laptop, HTPC, small form, Tablet) and functions are merged, and this is where AMD is heading

All of this misses the original point though. If computers are to remain interesting to enthusiasts then multiple options need to exist.

Imagine a world where there was only one (admittedly fast) car brand, nothing else. Would that be a good place to be for car enthusiasts? how many forums do you need for 'Another Intel build' how many shops do you need for another expensive no-discount intel purchase?

I think the industry will literally die without at least two players for CPU and GPU to keep the balance interesting and fair, it may not need to be AMD it could be ARM for example? but intel only is going to really stagnate peoples interest in hardware and tub thumping about how much better it is in any AMD related thread isn't helping anyone.
 
Last edited:
We have a diversity in AMD vs Intel, they are different chips and do well in different ways.

So if you really do need the performance for a certain task you need a certain chip.
The reality is most people don't need that performance and wouldn't benefit from one chip or the other, and would be equally well off with either one.

For most people making a choice between AMD or Intel results in the same user experience.
But they are different chips. so you can have something different.
I'm sure AMD could have matched Intel in single threaded performance had they taken a similar rout.
But i'm glad they didn't, yes single threaded performance on Bulldozer is to low, but they can fix that and bring it up to a level that's perfectly acceptable.
The last thing, the very last thing i would want to see is AMD being an Intel clone.

And its sad to see daleks snatching at the single threaded performance as if the computer would be unworkable with an AMD in it.

I have yet to find where my CPU is bottlenecking me, or where it makes me wish it was as seemingly everyone else's rig is, an Intel.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
For most people making a choice between AMD or Intel results in the same user experience.
Click to expand...

exactly.

people focus on latency timings, and power usage all important in their own way, but there are many variables in a persons life where by some gains are just on paper.

This is a bit outside the box but hell given the blindness of many Intel Daleks I may aswell go for broke :p


Point: You could literally pick up your coffee cup and be almost near your mouth before any reasonable productivity task would be completed as much as it mattered to you the human, with either AMD or Intels finest. In terms of the difference you wouldn't care if it was 2 seconds better on intel as you were picking up your coffee cup at the time

Question: You are Mr.Intel stood at a bus stop waiting for the next one to arrive and its late. You are Mrs.AMD and you have a car (which in this instance gets you home earlier, using some of the saved money to pay for petrol). The AMD owner is over the course of a year 100 hours better off..
So, question; Which computer archives faster?

Now to be fair you say it should be like for like ^ but the point is everybody is different and has a different work / life pattern there is no way to realistically quantify a proper tangible benefit of a piledriver 8 core over a ivy bridge i7 throughout the course of our often disrupted lives. Even if it was about power usage, the Intel owner might not have a heat efficient home and waste more that way for example?


*I might be the only person who has though this.. but over the last few years on countless forum threads, where by intel lovers trash AMD threads for fun, has it occurred to anyone that any time the Intel owner spends ages checking / typing / thinking of a smart quip there actually taking up more of their own time thus wiping out the difference in performance between the two processors in real world tasks? And is it actually improving your life to do so?
 
Last edited:
I totally get what you're saying. I personally would love an AMD APU to mess about with even though I'm aware it's a slight dowgrade from my current i5 760, its perfectly capable and would be fun to push.

I think we have to remember however that a large chunk of users on these boards (including lurkers) are not enthusiasts to the same level as others and especially with many of the spec me threads value or performance towards their particular uses (mostly gaming) it tends to generally be more in their interest to put forward an intel reccomendation for their build. If they are enthusuasts and want something a little diff there is nothing stopping them going that route, but otherwise I think it is a better default choice.
I don't think this is true in the long term. I suspect that in a years time, the majority of games will be far more amd/intel agnostic and amd's chip's stock performance that much better than now that it won't be so clear cut in those instances as now.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom