So what do you think about amd

B

BeastFromTheEast

New Member
I want some suggestions AMD FX-8150 8 core processor or i7 3770k which is better
and if you think amd better which board?
im thinking if i get amd to get asus crosshair V formula
 
if you got the money, intel, if you dont, go with a i5, shaves 100 off and you still get better average performance than the amd.
 
if you go for i7, make sure the board you buy has more than 2 sata 3 connections, if you plan to use more than 2 sata 3 drives.i was checking last nite and most of the boards only had 2- where as most amd3+ platforms
had 6 sata 3 for hdd, just a heads up for you.
 
gigabiteme said:
if you go for i7, make sure the board you buy has more than 2 sata 3 connections, if you plan to use more than 2 sata 3 drives.i was checking last nite and most of the boards only had 2- where as most amd3+ platforms
had 6 sata 3 for hdd, just a heads up for you.
Click to expand...

Yes i know if i get i7 i will get the Asus Maximus Formula V Eatx with 6 sata connections
 
The 3770k destroys the 8150 in every aspect, not even close of a comparison.

Here's a link, and note that sometimes lower is better-

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/551?vs=434

Just for gaming, the I5 3570k is the ticket. No game uses more than 4 cores anyway, so the I7's hyper threading is practically useless unless you have things running in the background. I would take an I5 3570k over an 8150 anyday for anything a computer could be used for. The new FX processors are not true cores. An 8 core cpu is actually 4 ''modules''. It's AMD's version of hyper threading, but the way they did it they can call them cores so it's extremely misleading.
 
Last edited:
BeastFromTheEast said:
I want some suggestions AMD FX-8150 8 core processor or i7 3770k which is better
and if you think amd better which board?
im thinking if i get amd to get asus crosshair V formula
Click to expand...

The i7 3770

87dtna said:
The new FX processors are not true cores.
Click to expand...

Not really true completely. Its alot more of a % of two cores then not. Just because the two sets of pipelines share some top end and the L2 cache doesnt mean a module isnt two cores. What people consider a traditional core, yeah maybe. But technically the definition of a core, the module has two cores, doesnt matter if it shares or not.

87dtna said:
An 8 core cpu is actually 4 ''modules''.
Click to expand...

True

87dtna said:
It's AMD's version of hyper threading, but the way they did it they can call them cores so it's extremely misleading.
Click to expand...

Has nothing in common with HT at all. Was never meant to be. (Other then people in reviews claming it.) Its a off shoot of the server processor with the reasoning of getting as many cores in a smaller space as you can. AMD from the begining said it was a module thats shared some upperend and L2. From the technicial/hardware view a module is a 2 core. Not extremely misleading at all. Maybe could be slightly misleading if you dont understand the reason why above and keep reading reviews comparing it to HT. I have said since the begining that they should have called it a 2/3/4 module and 4/6/8 thread processor. Which in a way would have confused people. So I understand why they just called it by cores.
 
Last edited:
Only in IPC. In concept its brilliant. Look at it like this, Intel as far as IPC is more or less at a deadend with the core 2 achitecture with the Sandybridge. Ivy even going to 22nm and 3D only raised IPC slightly, plus has heat issues in high mhz. They have been on the same achitecture for 6 years. Intel will have to come out with a new achitecture to really jump up the IPC again. The same thing that happen to AMD with the Athlon achitecture that ran through the Phenom II, the Phenom II had it stretched in IPC as far as it would go.

The fact is Piledriver is nothing but really a stepping with up to 15% better IPC over bulldozer and lower wattage. Steamroller that comes out next year is really the next generation of bulldozer and from what I have heard has a big bump in IPC. With higher IPC and the module concept could turn out really well. Look at it this way, when AMD had the IPC crown it took Intel with the R&D money they have 6 years to beat them. They have had the IPC crown now for 6 years and its ruuning into a IPC and heat issue. Haswell is still technically the same achitecture. Intel is at the end of the core 2 achitecture and AMD is at the begining of the bulldozer achitecture. All I am saying is if AMD doesnt run out of money 2013 might be a good year for processors competition .
 
They're US companies and due to antitrust laws and whatever, monopolies are basically illegalish and amd would be bailed out.

And what i saw was 7% IPC, 7% clock speed, and 15% more efficient, and it was straight from an AMD spokesperson's mouth. And how would it be if intel used the module design? Throw a second ALU or FPU in there maybe.
 
StrangleHold said:
They have been on the same achitecture for 6 years.
Click to expand...

Nehalem was released in november 2008 :confused: Sandy bridge is not just a die shrink of Nehalem either, it's new architecture. SB hasn't even been out for 2 years.


StrangleHold said:
Not really true completely. Its alot more of a % of two cores then not. Just because the two sets of pipelines share some top end and the L2 cache doesnt mean a module isnt two cores. What people consider a traditional core, yeah maybe. But technically the definition of a core, the module has two cores, doesnt matter if it shares or not.
Click to expand...

There's only one floating point processor per module, thats not 2 true cores.

I garauntee that a high percentage of people that buy FX processors over intel is because of the ''core'' count. They see the I5 and I7 are only a quad cores, FX 8120 is an 8 core and quite a bit cheaper.

Intel doesn't need to increase IPC because they aren't being pushed too by AMD. There's no competition anymore, so why spend the money developing new architecture when the current one blows AMD away. I mean, even the very first nehalem chip, the I7 920, which was released 4 years ago, whips anything AMD has to offer now.
 
Last edited:
Think hes saying it is a new one but they dont start from the ground up, would take too much, they just heavilly modify the previous gen.
 
Nehalem is way different than Core architecture. True sandy bridge has a lot in common with nehalem though.

With that said, why start from the ground up when what you have is a lot better than the competition already? Just make minor tweaks to make it even better and it stays ahead.
 
87dtna said:
Nehalem is way different than Core architecture. True sandy bridge has a lot in common with nehalem though.

With that said, why start from the ground up when what you have is a lot better than the competition already? Just make minor tweaks to make it even better and it stays ahead.
Click to expand...

which is how progress slows and what could be performance in a few years takes 10 years.
 
87dtna said:
Nehalem was released in november 2008 :confused: Sandy bridge is not just a die shrink of Nehalem either, it's new architecture. SB hasn't even been out for 2 years.
Click to expand...

They are stiill a continuation of the core 2 architecture. No more then the difference from the first Athlon to Athlon XP/Athlon 64/Phenom/Phenom II. Bulldozer was AMD first true architecture change. Just because you tweak the core/add L3/HT/Memory Controller/ blah/blah its still a tweak of the same architecture. Same with Intel from the Core 2 to Ivybridge. Plus you missed my point anyway. Before the Core 2 come out AMD felt confident with the Athlon 64 performance over the P4. So they released the Phenom with really nothing but added L3 and a monolith cores with Brisbane cores. Got caught with there pants down by the core 2. Being said running the same updated architecture to long.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top