AMD Radeon Fiji XT Spotted in Shipping

[mr.skyrim_pc]

That kids got such a big head. I'm guessing that it's photoshopped.

He has no neck.....

[SpaghettiCarbonara]

I would say $2000 is pocket change for most companies, however, having worked for a few smaller companies specifically making things more efficient, one of the things that makes a company successful is attention to detail.  That is, not dismissing $20 here and $40 there.  You should see the how quickly a managers ears spring up when you say you've identified a potential $100's or $1000's per year saving.  This is because just like a small problem or issue that goes unresolved can snowball into a big issue that costs money, a small financial saving/investment can just as easily snowball into a huge saving/growth.

 

Yeah that makes sense

[patrickjp93]

Profit is profit? It's better than not selling them. That is the definition of investment and development. Making money off nothing, its great! 

 

The only 8 core cpu's that wernt server grade were amd. Amd has offered 8 core cpus on the mainstream socket for 5-10 years....intel had 6 cores..... Let me tell you, those amd chips and motherboards are waaaaaaaaaaaaay cheaper than the intel ones. 

You do know investors care far more about margins than raw profits, right? Without investors AMD is trapped under its debt from the ATI buyout. If you want margins, you have to sell to enterprise/HPC people. It only takes $40 to make a 15-core Xeon, but that Xeon sells for $6700. 

 

AMD does not offer octal-core CPUs to consumers. They offer glorified 4-cores and think a 2-integer unit module with a shared floating pint unit constitutes 2 cores. It's a sham. Also, they barely have any market share in server CPUs or GPUs.

 

Yes, cheaper, and it shows in the lack quality with which those boards are made and the performance which AMD lacks.

[Geekazoid]

He has no neck.....

I think it must've sunk into his body from the weight of his head.

[Opcode]

You do know investors care far more about margins than raw profits, right? Without investors AMD is trapped under its debt from the ATI buyout. If you want margins, you have to sell to enterprise/HPC people. It only takes $40 to make a 15-core Xeon, but that Xeon sells for $6700. 

 

AMD does not offer octal-core CPUs to consumers. They offer glorified 4-cores and think a 2-integer unit module with a shared floating pint unit constitutes 2 cores. It's a sham. Also, they barely have any market share in server CPUs or GPUs.

 

Yes, cheaper, and it shows in the lack quality with which those boards are made and the performance which AMD lacks.

The FX series chips are indeed eight core microprocessors as there are eight full integer cores on package (what ultimately determines "core count"). I'm pretty sure AMD wanted to market them as quad cores with "advanced threading" tho for the fact of their designs they couldn't get away with it due it being a logical eight core microprocessor. If they could of gotten away with calling the FX-8150 a quad core microprocessor everyone's outlook on the entire FX series would be completely different than it is now. Then again AMD does now hold the title for being the worlds first to bring eight core microprocessors to the consumer market. Just about everything in the Bulldozer architecture is fine just they weren't able to squeeze out enough integer performance to live up the massive hype. I don't think a single one of us would turn down an FX-8350 if it had at least equivalent IPC to the i5-2500k. Tho AMD can't change the past and all they can do is push forward with Zen. In which they called in the big guns for so I'm pretty sure AMD will return the desktop market competitive in 2016.

[HalGameGuru]

The FX series chips are indeed eight core microprocessors as there are eight full integer cores on package (what ultimately determines "core count"). I'm pretty sure AMD wanted to market them as quad cores with "advanced threading" tho for the fact of their designs they couldn't get away with it due it being a logical eight core microprocessor. If they could of gotten away with calling the FX-8150 a quad core microprocessor everyone's outlook on the entire FX series would be completely different than it is now. Then again AMD does now hold the title for being the worlds first to bring eight core microprocessors to the consumer market. Just about everything in the Bulldozer architecture is fine just they weren't able to squeeze out enough integer performance to live up the massive hype. I don't think a single one of us would turn down an FX-8350 if it had at least equivalent IPC to the i5-2500k. Tho AMD can't change the past and all they can do is push forward with Zen. In which they called in the big guns for so I'm pretty sure AMD will return the desktop market competitive in 2016.

 

I've made mention of the website Emulators.com before, his posts about CPU architecture over the last couple decades is quite enlightening, especially on the more recent faux pas that Intel and AMD have weathered. As for the FX series I understand the semantics involved in choosing to call them 8 core CPUs, but I personally think it would have been more appropriate, and probably helped their image, to call them what they are, 4 discrete cores with robust hardware multithreading.

[patrickjp93]

The FX series chips are indeed eight core microprocessors as there are eight full integer cores on package (what ultimately determines "core count"). I'm pretty sure AMD wanted to market them as quad cores with "advanced threading" tho for the fact of their designs they couldn't get away with it due it being a logical eight core microprocessor. If they could of gotten away with calling the FX-8150 a quad core microprocessor everyone's outlook on the entire FX series would be completely different than it is now. Then again AMD does now hold the title for being the worlds first to bring eight core microprocessors to the consumer market. Just about everything in the Bulldozer architecture is fine just they weren't able to squeeze out enough integer performance to live up the massive hype. I don't think a single one of us would turn down an FX-8350 if it had at least equivalent IPC to the i5-2500k. Tho AMD can't change the past and all they can do is push forward with Zen. In which they called in the big guns for so I'm pretty sure AMD will return the desktop market competitive in 2016.

If integer units consitute cores, Intel offers 16-core chips for just $200. They are modules, not cores. They can simultaneously manage two tasks if those tasks do not use floating point registers or mathematical operations. The moment you do that, you have effectively 4 cores. This is thoroughly documented and uncontested by experts in the industry as well as tech pundits like Linus and @Slick.

 

I would in fact say AMD's marketing was deceptive. Intel fully admits its I7 Quads with Hyperthreading are not really 8-core machines, but they can make an OS believe they are and increase throughput by using advanced subroutines for thread management.

 

AMD doesn't really own that title legitimately as per the information above. 

 

As per turning down an 8150, I would, but only because now the 8370 has tolerable TDP for the clock rates. If it had the IPC to match Intel and the throughput, I'd switch in a heartbeat. Still, my 4960X is going to last clear into Cannonlake if not beyond so help me God.

[LukaP]

You do know investors care far more about margins than raw profits, right? Without investors AMD is trapped under its debt from the ATI buyout. If you want margins, you have to sell to enterprise/HPC people. It only takes $40 to make a 15-core Xeon, but that Xeon sells for $6700.

AMD does not offer octal-core CPUs to consumers. They offer glorified 4-cores and think a 2-integer unit module with a shared floating pint unit constitutes 2 cores. It's a sham. Also, they barely have any market share in server CPUs or GPUs.

Yes, cheaper, and it shows in the lack quality with which those boards are made and the performance which AMD lacks.

Oj now they have barely any market share in gpus? And a month ago I had to prove to you that nVidia had a 7x% market share...

[boboman342]

You do know investors care far more about margins than raw profits, right? Without investors AMD is trapped under its debt from the ATI buyout. If you want margins, you have to sell to enterprise/HPC people. It only takes $40 to make a 15-core Xeon, but that Xeon sells for $6700. 

 

AMD does not offer octal-core CPUs to consumers. They offer glorified 4-cores and think a 2-integer unit module with a shared floating pint unit constitutes 2 cores. It's a sham. Also, they barely have any market share in server CPUs or GPUs.

 

Yes, cheaper, and it shows in the lack quality with which those boards are made and the performance which AMD lacks.

One of the biggest factors for inventing is if you think/know they are making a profit...

 

And I think the 8 core cpu's had 4 modules with 2 cores in each module, thus making a total of 8 cores?

 

Of course amd is cheaper and way weaker, but if you couldn't afford server tech, amd was the only way to go for 8 core on their mainstream socket.

 

 

Just stop making non-intelligent posts that are easily misinforming the forum members...and make it clear when you are speculating, not talking facts.

[Opcode]

If integer units consitute cores, Intel offers 16-core chips for just $200. They are modules, not cores. They can simultaneously manage two tasks if those tasks do not use floating point registers or mathematical operations. The moment you do that, you have effectively 4 cores. This is thoroughly documented and uncontested by experts in the industry as well as tech pundits like Linus and @Slick.

 

I would in fact say AMD's marketing was deceptive. Intel fully admits its I7 Quads with Hyperthreading are not really 8-core machines, but they can make an OS believe they are and increase throughput by using advanced subroutines for thread management.

 

AMD doesn't really own that title legitimately as per the information above. 

 

As per turning down an 8150, I would, but only because now the 8370 has tolerable TDP for the clock rates. If it had the IPC to match Intel and the throughput, I'd switch in a heartbeat. Still, my 4960X is going to last clear into Cannonlake if not beyond so help me God.

Integer cores are what generally define the term core. AMD calls them modules which is their own terminology but at the end of the day there are eight logical cores in a FX microprocessor (FlexFPU, shared L2, etc mean nothing). Each module also cannot handle two tasks simultaneously, this is another reason how CMT destroyed their architecture design. Bulldozer up until Steamroller only had one designated decoder per module. Which means the module could have two active threads at one time but are only capable of executing one at a time. As for Hyper-Threading nothing special happening there either. Microsoft and other operating systems were adapted so their scheduler could utilize them extra threads. There shouldn't be any kind of super special code in place other than recognizing a quad core with Hyper-Threading as an eight core, from there the scheduler takes over.

[LukaP]

One of the biggest factors for inventing is if you think/know they are making a profit...

And I think the 8 core cpu's had 4 modules with 2 cores in each module, thus making a total of 8 cores?

Of course amd is cheaper and way weaker, but if you couldn't afford server tech, amd was the only way to go for 8 core on their mainstream socket.

Just stop making non-intelligent posts that are easily misinforming the forum members...and make it clear when you are speculating, not talking facts.

It's useless... Imagine trying to convince a puberty raged teen into something... Exact same situation and im pretty sure he is about 14 and thinks everything he says is correct... And anyone who isn't a new member here has seen through his bullshit already...

[boboman342]

It's useless... Imagine trying to convince a puberty raged teen into something... Exact same situation and im pretty sure he is about 14 and thinks everything he says is correct... And anyone who isn't a new member here has seen through his bullshit already...

I'm disproving him every time, he ignores it, and I get my post count up. We all win.

[LukaP]

I'm disproving him every time, he ignores it, and I get my post count up. We all win.

No. Believe me I've been there about 10 times...

There is one big loss, way more important than postcount. Content quality on the forums. Imagine someone lurking, find his post first, seems kinda logical if you know nothing, and from then on he is misinformed and will be the exact. Copy of the idiot...

[boboman342]

No. Believe me I've been there about 10 times...

There is one big loss, way more important than postcount. Content quality on the forums. Imagine someone lurking, find his post first, seems kinda logical if you know nothing, and from then on he is misinformed and will be the exact. Copy of the idiot...

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I THOUGHT! I clicked on his profile because I like MTG. Saw like 1-2 posts, looked very intelligent and looked at his bio (if its true, looks dam good). After a few more posts I read....he seemed fishy.

 

His BS assumptions that amd only focuses on gaming, their micro architecture lies to us, and amd not having any substantial offerings over intel makes it seem like "why does he even try". TBH I'm done responding to him, it doesn't add anything to the thread and is just tiring. 

[LukaP]

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I THOUGHT! I clicked on his profile because I like MTG. Saw like 1-2 posts, looked very intelligent and looked at his bio (if its true, looks dam good). After a few more posts I read....he seemed fishy.

His BS assumptions that amd only focuses on gaming, their micro architecture lies to us, and amd not having any substantial offerings over intel makes it seem like "why does he even try". TBH I'm done responding to him, it doesn't add anything to the thread and is just tiring.

Yes exactly. Don't forget, in a few years Intels igpu will be better than anything nVidia and amd will have to offer.

And nVidia isn't dominating the market. Oh now it suddenly is.

And all Intel needs in its gpus is conveniently the two (nVidia trademarked) hardware engines I once mentioned when lecturing him about why Intel doesn't stand a real chance even with a X TFLOPS gpu...

Please... Just report him for trolling, he is bound to get banned...

[patrickjp93]

Oj now they have barely any market share in gpus? And a month ago I had to prove to you that nVidia had a 7x% market share...

It's not no market share, it's barely any, and they haven't been selling well in recent years in the enterprise markets. When power and heat are as big a concern as performance, the only logical choices are Teslas and Xeon Phis.

[patrickjp93]

One of the biggest factors for inventing is if you think/know they are making a profit...

And I think the 8 core cpu's had 4 modules with 2 cores in each module, thus making a total of 8 cores?

Of course amd is cheaper and way weaker, but if you couldn't afford server tech, amd was the only way to go for 8 core on their mainstream socket.

Just stop making non-intelligent posts that are easily misinforming the forum members...and make it clear when you are speculating, not talking facts.

I'm not misinforming anyone. AMD's FX cpus are only octal-cores when doing integer operations. Once you start doing floating point you see performance fall clean in half. They're glorified 4-cores with a cute trick.

[Faa]

One of the biggest factors for inventing is if you think/know they are making a profit...

 

And I think the 8 core cpu's had 4 modules with 2 cores in each module, thus making a total of 8 cores?

 

Of course amd is cheaper and way weaker, but if you couldn't afford server tech, amd was the only way to go for 8 core on their mainstream socket.

Just stop making non-intelligent posts that are easily misinforming the forum members...and make it clear when you are speculating, not talking facts.

Well the 8350 can be considered as a 8 core back-end wise (execution resources), FPU count or having one doesn't matter since FPU's aren't a requirement for x86 cpu's so patrick is wrong about this, mind you the first x86 didn't have one. You'd need them for extensions like avx but defining a what core is has little to do with that. If you'd look at this picture;

AMD has only doubled the ALU cluster. (Why the hell are they calling doubling resources Hyperthreading? Hyperthreading/SMT re-uses the existing resources. Why is their single core which doesn't even have the resources doubled at all called as a hyperthreaded single core?) Lets look at Haswell;

Forget Sandy Bridge. The ones that are marked with 256 bit are the FPU's forget about them so we have 4 ALU's with one scheduler. If Intel modifies their architecture slightly so we have two integer schedulers and give each scheduler a pair of ALU's would make the 5960x a true 16 core then? Not really. A module can't be a dual core without being CMP at all. A quad core has at least 4 front-ends, an octacore has at least 8 front-ends which we do not have on the 8350 but only on their "16" core opterons.

You're actually better off moving the 2 ALU's to a different core(module is a core) so the front-end isn't shared which would yield much better performance. I've heard of doing CMT with 2 front-ends but that makes almost no sense at all because the main reason to do CMT is for space saving (using one FE saves a lot more space than using two obviously). 

[patrickjp93]

Well the 8350 can be considered as a 8 core back-end wise (execution resources), FPU count or having one doesn't matter since FPU's aren't a requirement for x86 cpu's so patrick is wrong about this, mind you the first x86 didn't have one. You'd need them for extensions like avx but defining a what core is has little to do with that. If you'd look at this picture;

AMD has only doubled the ALU cluster. (Why the hell are they calling doubling resources Hyperthreading? Hyperthreading/SMT re-uses the existing resources. Why is their single core which doesn't even have the resources doubled at all called as a hyperthreaded single core?) Lets look at Haswell;

Forget Sandy Bridge. The ones that are marked with 256 bit are the FPU's forget about them so we have 4 ALU's with one scheduler. If Intel modifies their architecture slightly so we have two integer schedulers and give each scheduler a pair of ALU's would make the 5960x a true 16 core then? Not really. A module can't be a dual core without being CMP at all. A quad core has at least 4 front-ends, an octacore has at least 8 front-ends which we do not have on the 8350 but only on their "16" core opterons.

You're actually better off moving the 2 ALU's to a different core(module is a core) so the front-end isn't shared which would yield much better performance. I've heard of doing CMT with 2 front-ends but that makes almost no sense at all because the main reason to do CMT is for space saving (using one FE saves a lot more space than using two obviously).

Thank you for the more technical explanation. I'm limited to my phone right now, and this microeconomics lecture is so boring...

[boboman342]

-snip-

Yes, very true sir! If only amd would realize their architecture needs to change....(for the better) but it seems they will not... Aren't they headed in the way of more powerful "apus" and not the actual cpu cores themselves?

[mark201200]

Awesome, can't wait to see how this compares to Maxwell

it will destroy maxwell. but it will consume more.

[flibberdipper]

I'll bet you a 390x that AMD will still get "oven" and "space heater" jokes.

I'm literally going to be using my 480 for a space heater when I get a rig at my grandma's (hopefully).

[LukaP]

Yes, very true sir! If only amd would realize their architecture needs to change....(for the better) but it seems they will not... Aren't they headed in the way of more powerful "apus" and not the actual cpu cores themselves?

No, AMD have a new core design planned for H2 2015 IIRC. or it may be H1 2016. and taht is going to be SMT, lots of ipc and apparently on 16nm

[coen113]

Ya it's actually pretty amazing how AMD and Nvidia have remained neck and neck for so many years.

Even when one of them gets ahead it's only by a small margin, and rarely across all the benchmarks.

It's one of the reasons why graphics has continued to evolve so fast... long may that competition continue.

It could have been faster. The 680 was supposed to be the 660

[Faa]

Yes, very true sir! If only amd would realize their architecture needs to change....(for the better) but it seems they will not... Aren't they headed in the way of more powerful "apus" and not the actual cpu cores themselves?

Thats what people were assuming. And no, they aren't going to ignore improving their CPU performance, you don't want to end up your CPU bottlenecking your IGP like madness in every game out there. Such an APU wouldn't make any sense to buy then.