New amd processors?

[c0d0ps]

I made this thread to gather as much info as possible on the new amd processors.

I will make a new pc in 3-5 years since I recently got one and I wonder will they be able to pull ahead in gaming or will the intel side still be stronger(but more expensive) ?

What do you guys think and what do you know so far about the new processors?

 

This thread is not for team red vs team blue keep it relevant.

Since I can't remove ignorant/childish comments I ask you to not do it.

[Archangel1994]

So far the only thing we know (don't have link sorry, just saw it on here once) is that they are getting a new architecture and something about ArmV8 I think

[i_build_nanosuits]

AMD would have to spend billions of dollars in R&D to catch up with intel's technology, i don't see that or anything of that nature happening anytime soon. AMD is pretty much done they are focusing on APU and budget gaming consoles they've left the boat of high end CPU long ago with the fiasco that bulldozer was...piledriver was a late attempt at a market they've forever lost i'm affraid.

[Guest Kloaked]

AMD would have to spend billions of dollars in R&D to catch up with intel's technology, i don't see that or anything of that nature happening anytime soon. AMD is pretty much done they are focusing on APU and budget gaming consoles they've left the boat of high end CPU long ago with the fiasco that bulldozer was...piledriver was a late attempt at a market they've forever lost i'm affraid.

 

I don't have a link, but an AMD rep said they are making new FX processors based on a new architecture. Even with how much they've put into R&D for the current FX CPU's compared to Intel, they've got good competition to Intel's CPU's regardless. No, they're not as good, but they're good enough for most people.

 

They are certainly not just focusing on APU's and consoles, lol.

[Enderman]

Intel will still be better than amd in 3-5 years. No matter what AMD does.

[i_build_nanosuits]

I don't have a link, but an AMD rep said they are making new FX processors based on a new architecture. Even with how much they've put into R&D for the current FX CPU's compared to Intel, they've got good competition to Intel's CPU's regardless. No, they're not as good, but they're good enough for most people.

 

They are certainly not just focusing on APU's and consoles, lol.

performance per core on intel's haswell cpu's are over 60% better clock for clock, AMD is no competition to intel, not even close...they've stopped being competitive since the phenom's CPU's.

The Phenom's X6 are in fact faster clock for clock than vishera based FX chips believe it or not...they've made a step backward.

[Priller]

They got Jim Keller back so I am holding onto hope.

[Sintezza]

AMD is comming in 2016 with a new architecture called zen.

It will be a similar design to intels SMT.

[c0d0ps]

AMD is comming in 2016 with a new architecture called zen.

It will be a similar design to intels SMT.

I have no idea what that means but it sounds good :-)

[i_build_nanosuits]

I have no idea what that means but it sounds good :-)

sounding good and performing good in an efficient way is two seperate things...AMD has always sounded good and looked good: just look at the FX cpu marketing, nice agressive black and red box (they've even shipped them in metal cans at one point) and the name of the CPU : FX ...that is a killer name for a chip...yet they are just slow and power hungry micro-processors.

[Toasted Waffles]

Personally looking at this I see two companies Intel and AMD. Intel just focuses on the CPU and their "APU" and doesn't do much with the Graphics part of the chip. Where AMD has their feet in may different types of projects - GPUS, APUs, CPUS.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Personally looking at this I see two companies Intel and AMD. Intel just focuses on the CPU and their "APU" and doesn't do much with the Graphics part of the chip. Where AMD has their feet in may different types of projects - GPUS, APUs, CPUS.

and gaming consoles...which they excel at offering good prices for the parts they put out...the FX line of CPU's are fantastic multi-threading CPU's for someone on a budget looking at rendering videos and editing without breaking the bank...AMD GPU's have always been somewhat cheaper than similar performance nvidia counterparts (yes nvidia is more efficient but if you compare performance to performance AMD is cheaper in most segment)...APU's are to me a waste of time same goes for IGPu they should be included as basic 2d function for office work machine and webbrowsing...anyone doing any kind of 3d on a machine should/will have to consider a dedicated GPU anyway.

[c0d0ps]

sounding good and performing good in an efficient way is two seperate things...AMD has always sounded good and looked good: just look at the FX cpu marketing, nice agressive black and red box (they've even shipped them in metal cans at one point) and the name of the CPU : FX ...that is a killer name for a chip...yet they are just slow and power hungry micro-processors.

I haven't looked much at electricity prices but amd cpu's doesn't use a whole lot more energy it has been proven. 

I don't remember the link though but if you want to look it up, it should be pretty easy to find.

[Admire]

I don't have a link, but an AMD rep said they are making new FX processors based on a new architecture. Even with how much they've put into R&D for the current FX CPU's compared to Intel, they've got good competition to Intel's CPU's regardless. No, they're not as good, but they're good enough for most people.

 

They are certainly not just focusing on APU's and consoles, lol.

 

I see a future as an AMD marketing guru there......"AMD - Good Enough for Most People"

 

I fundamentally object to that statement. AMD is great for either very specific purposes or VERY budget solutions.....Everybody else should go intel.

 

 

 

[Guest Kloaked]

 

I see a future as an AMD marketing guru there......"AMD - Good Enough for Most People"

 

I fundamentally object to that statement. AMD is great for either very specific purposes or VERY budget solutions.....Everybody else should go intel.

 

Most people in the world aren't playing games or doing work that requires Intel-like performance - if they are, many of them don't want to spend a ton of money. So yes, it is good enough for most people.

 

Don't imply that I'm red team, please. I don't associate myself with either side too much because of the blind opinions people form, like you are.

[Priller]

Jim Keller is looking to make "Big Steps Forward".

 

[Admire]

Most people in the world aren't playing games or doing work that requires Intel-like performance - if they are, many of them don't want to spend a ton of money. So yes, it is good enough for most people.

 

Don't imply that I'm red team, please. I don't associate myself with either side too much because of the blind opinions people form, like you are.

 

Never claimed you were.....I just found the quote too funny to not make a joke about it.

 

If people aren't gaming, they should buy intel. Single core performance of an I3 or even something cheaper than that will almost always give a better experience. If you are doing very specific things like heavy duty video editing, AMD would make sense, but I don't see that many other places where it would. Unless you are ONLY gaming, and you want something cheap.

[Lazmarr]

AMD would have to spend billions of dollars in R&D to catch up with intel's technology, i don't see that or anything of that nature happening anytime soon. AMD is pretty much done they are focusing on APU and budget gaming consoles they've left the boat of high end CPU long ago with the fiasco that bulldozer was...piledriver was a late attempt at a market they've forever lost i'm affraid.

AMD has currently been focussing on the APU and mobile market, which in my opinion was the right decision for them.They have also said that they are going to start competing with intel again in 2015/2016

[The_Strict_Nein]

I still don't understand all this hoora about Jim Keller. He's one man leading a team of engineers who havn't beat Intel since the Athlon 64 days versus a team of engineers who have pushed Intel's IPC consistantly higher every generation.

I can't believe that one man can make up a 60% IPC deficeit in the space of two years.

[Admire]

i'm sorry but if all you're doing is surfing the web, typing documents, and lightly multitasking, you don't need to spend $100 on an i3. 99% of average consumers don't care about the fact that an i3 is 20% faster at opening up excel than an AMD APU.

 

it's crazy to think you should only go intel for simple tasks on a computer. go for whatever is cheaper

Its not as simple as 20% faster starting excel. I've worked with alot of really budget builds aimed as simple computer tasks and watching videos and the difference with an I3 is very, very noticeable.

[ComradeHX]

i'm sorry but if all you're doing is surfing the web, typing documents, and lightly multitasking, you don't need to spend $100 on an i3. 99% of average consumers don't care about the fact that an i3 is 20% faster at opening up excel than an AMD APU.

 

it's crazy to think you should only go intel for simple tasks on a computer. go for whatever is cheaper

You are right, I don't.

I can spend $60 on a Pentium G3258 that will be even faster at opening excel.

[Krytopsy]

Whatever AMD fan boys says, Intel is way better for gaming. AMD fan boys are the ones that like to make unfair comparaison between products that aren't made for the same purpose at all. Like comparing Titan cards (double precision focus for professionnal 3D stuff, etc.) with cheap Radeon graphic cards that overheat. They compare 1000$ Intel CPU (5960X) saying Intel suck 'cause 1000$ CPU don't give as much as games performance scaling between this one and mainstream i7 denying at first that 5960X isn't there for gaming but way more about rendering and professional stuff at a beast level. They usally forget about the existence of the i5 because it's about the same price of their most expensive FX series processor which is a fair comparison this time and unfortunatly, i5 is better in gaming on any AMD FX processor to date. If you need the additonnal cores of the FX for rendering stuff, that's another story. Hope you liked my post and hope that make some AMD fan boys hurt

[Opcode]

I have no idea what that means but it sounds good :-)

Right now AMD architecture uses cluster based multithreading. Each module can have two threads running but can actually only execute a single thread at a time. Intel uses SMT, which means they can execute two threads at the same time. AMD's shared cache and FlexFPU are SMT, but they dropped the ball on the integer side of things otherwise FX would be some number crunching monsters.

[biggiebigs123]

Nha intel all the way !!!!!  amd sucks they can continue to make crappy apu's for game consoles but true performance is with intel.

[Veil]

Whatever AMD fan boys says, Intel is way better for gaming. AMD fan boys are the ones that like to make unfair comparaison between products that aren't made for the same purpose at all. Like comparing Titan cards (double precision focus for professionnal 3D stuff, etc.) with cheap Radeon graphic cards that overheat. They compare 1000$ Intel CPU (5960X) saying Intel suck 'cause 1000$ CPU don't give as much as games performance scaling between this one and mainstream i7 denying at first that 5960X isn't there for gaming but way more about rendering and professional stuff at a beast level. They usally forget about the existence of the i5 because it's about the same price of their most expensive FX series processor which is a fair comparison this time and unfortunatly, i5 is better in gaming on any AMD FX processor to date. If you need the additonnal cores of the FX for rendering stuff, that's another story. Hope you liked my post and hope that make some AMD fan boys hurt

Goodness. You must really be secure in your purchase of non-AMD stuff.