AMD vs Intel again!

[tonicmole]

I've been looking at the PC market and have seen some interesting trends and wonder what the future holds for our builds. First, as the speed of SSD increases there is talk of the end of Ram/memory. That'll be interesting. More importantly is the battle between AMD and Intel. As the first multicore processor's appeared Intel seemed lost, focusing instead on hyper threading, while AMD made huge gains with duel and quadcores. In the end however Intel dropped the bomb showing that in fact combining multi-core and hyper-threading made an unstoppable beast. Six Intel HT cores can blow away eight AMD core's. So, it seems AMD has been running in the wrong direction and Intel has won....BUT, (in a columbo voice) "There is just one more thing!"

AMD is currently knee deep in APU development. An APU works as both CPU and GPU. This has been useful in both gaming consoles and laptops. Though this is nothing new.....at all, I suspect AMD isn't just playing with their pud here. I assume they are on the verge of something big. They could merely be trying to get a strangle hold on consoles, portables, and laptops, but they seem to think they can make something a little more impressive. Imagine a high-end PC running on an APU. A 4ghz Octo-core with integrated AMD 7850 graphics. As far as gaming is concerned, graphics have reached a financial peak. Developers just can't put much more work into games and still make profit. It's possible AMD is pulling an Intel and coasting this generation while developing for the next. We'll see.

 

[Eye ZiS]

Personally I use an Intel(I7), don't really know if AMD is better for gaming or not.
SSD's are faster than SATA's though they are expensive they are well worth it(your programs load faster) and I've seen a big difference in startup time.

 

[Minimaul]

I've been looking at the PC market and have seen some interesting trends and wonder what the future holds for our builds. First, as the speed of SSD increases there is talk of the end of Ram/memory. That'll be interesting. More importantly is the battle between AMD and Intel. As the first multicore processor's appeared Intel seemed lost, focusing instead on hyper threading, while AMD made huge gains with duel and quadcores. In the end however Intel dropped the bomb showing that in fact combining multi-core and hyper-threading made an unstoppable beast. Six Intel HT cores can blow away eight AMD core's. So, it seems AMD has been running in the wrong direction and Intel has won....BUT, (in a columbo voice) "There is just one more thing!"

AMD is currently knee deep in APU development. An APU works as both CPU and GPU. This has been useful in both gaming consoles and laptops. Though this is nothing new.....at all, I suspect AMD isn't just playing with their pud here. I assume they are on the verge of something big. They could merely be trying to get a strangle hold on consoles, portables, and laptops, but they seem to think they can make something a little more impressive. Imagine a high-end PC running on an APU. A 4ghz Octo-core with integrated AMD 7850 graphics. As far as gaming is concerned, graphics have reached a financial peak. Developers just can't put much more work into games and still make profit. It's possible AMD is pulling an Intel and coasting this generation while developing for the next. We'll see.

Four intel HT cores blow away eight* AMD cores.

*Piledriver/Bulldozer/whatever-fancy-codename-they-use cores are not really full cores. Each module of two cores is remarkably similar to an Intel core with HT.

Integrated 7850 graphics would make too much heat in one place - and then think of (for example) my 7970. That thing has a _massive_ heatsink on it.

APUs are designed to flood the low end of the market with cheap, affordable PCs with mostly reasonable graphics performance, not to replace high end dedicated hardware.

Talk of the end of RAM/memory is BS. My system can do over 20GB/s in memory bandwidth. SSDs are not even _close_ to that. We're more likely to see SSDs replaced with newer storage tech as conventional flash is hitting limits now.

 

[tonicmole]

Four intel HT cores blow away eight* AMD cores.

*Piledriver/Bulldozer/whatever-fancy-codename-they-use cores are not really full cores. Each module of two cores is remarkably similar to an Intel core with HT.

Integrated 7850 graphics would make too much heat in one place - and then think of (for example) my 7970. That thing has a _massive_ heatsink on it.

APUs are designed to flood the low end of the market with cheap, affordable PCs with mostly reasonable graphics performance, not to replace high end dedicated hardware.

Talk of the end of RAM/memory is BS. My system can do over 20GB/s in memory bandwidth. SSDs are not even _close_ to that. We're more likely to see SSDs replaced with newer storage tech as conventional flash is hitting limits now.

PS 4 uses an AMD APU which is a 1.6 ghz Octcore with a next gen Radeon which is compared to a AMD 7850. You are right that high end runs too hot, but what if the processor (which doesn't need all that much power) used more cores at lower clock speeds? Evidently that does the trick.

As for SSD's replacing memory, that's just the current gossip, but who thought AMD could fit highend graphics on an APU?

UPDATE: BWAAAAA! Okay, minimaul wins. So I've continued looking into AMD's APU's and I think I saw the face of the devil for a second. Kinda like the first time someone sent you to goat.ce.......Jasus. So, the next gen APU's will in fact have some impressive power behind them in both CPU and GPU. They do now, but are basically bottlenecked reducing the whole effect. The new APU "or so the rumor goes" will use DDR 5, but it will be soldered in. Which means no memory upgrades...possibly. Also DDR 5 seems to have some major limits. I do see a future in which a single processor handles all calculations, but it looks like it won't be till 2015 at the soonest.

 

[tonicmole]

I found this pretty entertaining. It's fairly true. I updated from a Intel core 2 quad last year. That's a 6 year old processor. It is still more powerful then any game demands. I now have an AMD 8350 which is a little faster. It will possibly be 2020 before I need to advance. I do need an SSD, and a better monitor, then I'm good till 2020....
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2030...-mobility-is-killing-the-pc.html#comment-form

 

[Minimaul]

I found this pretty entertaining. It's fairly true. I updated from a Intel core 2 quad last year. That's a 6 year old processor. It is still more powerful then any game demands. I now have an AMD 8350 which is a little faster. It will possibly be 2020 before I need to advance. I do need an SSD, and a better monitor, then I'm good till 2020....
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2030...-mobility-is-killing-the-pc.html#comment-form

That's wrong - in many games, a C2Q shows demonstrably lower FPS than an i7 920 or the more recent i7s - 2000 or 3000 series. Normally you'll see an improvement in the minimum FPS before anything else. Improvements in minimum FPS primarily help you resolve stuttering.

I remember seeing an old article around the time of the i7 920 and Phenom II releases showing these performance differences on some games - GTA4 was used as one of the examples. Couldn't tell you where now.

Edit: of course, if you're graphics-limited this is a moot point anyway, but when you are no longer graphics limited it makes a difference.

 

[tonicmole]

That's wrong - in many games, a C2Q shows demonstrably lower FPS than an i7 920 or the more recent i7s - 2000 or 3000 series. Normally you'll see an improvement in the minimum FPS before anything else. Improvements in minimum FPS primarily help you resolve stuttering.

I remember seeing an old article around the time of the i7 920 and Phenom II releases showing these performance differences on some games - GTA4 was used as one of the examples. Couldn't tell you where now.

Edit: of course, if you're graphics-limited this is a moot point anyway, but when you are no longer graphics limited it makes a difference.

It makes a difference at an insane price point most are not interested in paying. My AMD FX 8350 boosted me by about 15 or so FPS with a GTX 660. Now, we have to remember that's amazing considering that games aren't using even half of the cores available (but that's a whole nother story).....but that would mean few were using all of the C2Q's either. As applications (games) are designed to operate on more cores then the power of that C2Q will begin to show. It's like an C2D vs a Pentium 4 HT playing Doom or something. All that power hidden in the C2D is pointless (kinda) because this is like a "Bat Fight". A gentlemen's game! Core vs core. No cheap Octo core tricks. This is the Powerwall Olympics baby!