Why didn't AMD stick with Phenom II?

[Fate]

So as some of you may know, at the same clockspeed, Phenom II has superior per-core performance to that of FX43xx/FX63xx/FX83xx, so why didn't AMD just improve upon their Phenom II line? (I'm not too knowledgeable on the technical aspects of CPU's and the restrictions Phenom II may have had)

[Ceatra]

This: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[vm'N]

The K10 design had hit a speed/performance-limit.

Every architecture have a limit.

[Faceman]

Marketing perhaps?  As nanosuits put it:  "How could an 8 core, 4.0Ghz CPU possibly be bad for gaming?"

[zappian]

Because moar cores = moar powa.

 

The new amd cpus will have 256 cores each runing at 0.1 ghz and it will be insane.

 

/s 

 

I have no idea seriously , i loved my phenom that was the last good amd cpu.

 

For the price it was insane.

[vm'N]

Marketing perhaps?  As nanosuits put it:  "How could an 8 core, 4.0Ghz CPU possibly be bad for gaming?"

They only marketing tricks AMD used was changing the core/cluster terminology.

[Opcode]

They invested way too much into R&D to just let Bulldozer go. Bulldozer wasn't all bad tho single core performance was.

[Fate]

@zappian @Faceman @DEcobra11 @vm'N @Ceatra @Opcode

Why couldn't they just throw more cores/GHz onto the Phenom II? Sure it would be hella inefficient, but that's basically what FX is. Does an architecture have to be designed around a specific amount of cores? Is an FX-4300 just an FX-8350 with cores/modules disabled?

[zappian]

People be like: ZOMG LE 8 COREZ, DEM I WANT LE SUPERCOMPWOOTAH!!!!

Disclaimer: I'm bored

[zappian]

@zappian @Faceman @DEcobra11 @vm'N @Ceatra @Opcode

Why couldn't they just throw more cores/GHz onto the Phenom II? Sure it would be hella inefficient, but that's basically what FX is. Does an architecture have to be designed around a specific amount of cores? Is an FX-4300 just an FX-8350 with cores/modules disabled?

 

They did that already with the phenom II x6.

[zappian]

 

Start designing new architecture from ground up, revolution is in mind, halfway through process, get fucked in the arse by dirty Intel and Nvidia tricks like biased compilers and bribing retailers, start losing control over economy and as a result, research and development, release half finished "best we could do" product.

 

Could have happened, could have been the Jews sinking AMD from the inside, could be le Illuminati, no idea what happened.

 

 

FX cpus still sell quite well people still think AMD = super amazing budget cpus that cure cancer.

[vm'N]

@zappian @Faceman @DEcobra11 @vm'N @Ceatra @Opcode

Why couldn't they just throw more cores/GHz onto the Phenom II? Sure it would be hella inefficient, but that's basically what FX is. Does an architecture have to be designed around a specific amount of cores? Is an FX-4300 just an FX-8350 with cores/modules disabled?

Because thermals.

[harrynowl]

K10h was at a clock speed wall and they couldn't get power consumption to scale... the plan was Zambezi would clock 30% higher than Thuban... it got 7%.

[kpreg]

SNIP

I actually laughed really hard.

[Vaub]

Because K10 was probably at its limit given how much R&D was spent on Bulldozer (which was supposed to land earlier).

AMD does not have the R&D of Intel so it can't focus on two CPUs architecture at once and they certainly wouldn't be able to make a quick switch like Intel did from Netburst (Pentium IV) to Pentium III-like architecture (Core 2 Duo).

[zappian]

I actually laughed really hard.

 

hahah np , thanks for the upboat m8.

[sgloux3470]

My understanding is bulldozer architecture was built to cater to a server or rendering environment by being heavily multithreaded.  Their Opteron chips were (and afaik still are) fairly competitive in this environment depending on specific application.

 

Pared down to the desktop environment, they're still competent chips.  (Contrary to what this forum would like you to believe.)  But they also haven't been improved for the better part of 3 years now in terms of performance.  

[zappian]

My understanding is bulldozer architecture was built to cater to a server or rendering environment by being heavily multithreaded.  Their Opteron chips were (and afaik still are) fairly competitive in this environment depending on specific application.

 

Pared down to the desktop environment, they're still competent chips.  (Contrary to what this forum would like you to believe.)  But they also haven't been improved for the better part of 3 years now in terms of performance.  

 

Amd went full apu unfortunately.

[D3MON]

Phenom II has superior per-core performance to that of FX43xx/FX63xx/FX83xx

 

 but not overall performance...
ghz dont matter
ipc doesnt matter
per-core performance doesnt matter
perf/watt doesnt matter
bang/buck doesnt matter
tdp doesnt matter

they all matter overall, no single factor can dictate whether a cpu is good or bad.
an fx4300 at 4.5 can match a phenom at 4ghz while consuming less power and at stock speeds WAY less power though some of this will inevitably be due to 32nm
phenom was great architecture (i know ive had 2, my friends have had them and soon i may buy a phenom x6 on the cheap)
fx was designed with 2.5ghz servers in mind hence the huge l3 cache and doubled resources, they just made it work on desktop by clocking it to 3.5ghz...and then we clocked it to 5ghz double what was intended and hence they ran hot and drank power.
piledriver improved on things and made it on par with the phenoms with the exception that an fx8 will beat a PH6 in overall performance and a 4ghz phenom and 4.5 phenom will either be matched or fx will even beat them in single core still.
ive now i woudnt buy an athlonII with phenoms existing, I wouldn't buy a bulldozer unless i had a use case that it suits and it was cheap (hence i have an fx81XX in spare rig), piledriver however is pretty damn good for the price so long as you avoid the fx43XX, fxX350, fxX370 etc..

phenom was the end of its limit after yeears of refining the K architectures in the same way intels been going on with the core architecture, not sure if they;re still using a derivation of it or whether its so different its nothing like core2...

im looking to see what zen holds, being able to run android/ios software nativly on the desktop, console, htpc, mobile, laptop, tablet thing makes allot of sense (as much as i dont care about mobile generally) and should be a good money maker for amd. if i can get a true 8 core with 16 threads for £100 like i did with my fx8 (which i personally see as a cluster threaded phenom really) then ill probably get that or depending on prices a 5820k because power as simple as that.

[zappian]

Phenom II has superior per-core performance to that of FX43xx/FX63xx/FX83xx

 

 but not overall performance...

ghz dont matter

ipc doesnt matter

per-core performance doesnt matter

perf/watt doesnt matter

bang/buck doesnt matter

tdp doesnt matter

they all matter overall, no single factor can dictate whether a cpu is good or bad.

an fx4300 at 4.5 can match a phenom at 4ghz while consuming less power and at stock speeds WAY less power though some of this will inevitably be due to 32nm

phenom was great architecture (i know ive had 2, my friends have had them and soon i may buy a phenom x6 on the cheap)

fx was designed with 2.5ghz servers in mind hence the huge l3 cache and doubled resources, they just made it work on desktop by clocking it to 3.5ghz...and then we clocked it to 5ghz double what was intended and hence they ran hot and drank power.

piledriver improved on things and made it on pay with the phenoms with the exception that an fx8 will beat a PH6 in overall performance and a 4ghz phenom and 4.5 phenom will either be matched or fx will even beat them in single core still.

ive now i woudnt but an athlonII with phenoms existing, I wouldn't buy a bulldozer unless i had a use case that it suits and it was cheap (hence i have an fx81XX in spare rig), piledriver however is pretty damn good for the price so long as you avoid the fx43XX, fxX350, fxX370 etc..

 

Is piledriver good for the price for gaming?

 

I wouldnt agree with that statement at all.

 

Unless you oc them like crazy but that adds addicional costs.

[D3MON]

Is piledriver good for the price for gaming?

 

I wouldnt agree with that statement at all.

 

Unless you oc them like crazy but that adds addicional costs.

in well made engines that intel users dont seem to play (league of legends fans huh?)

there's next to no point in overclocking.

http://www.techspot.com/review/712-arma-3-benchmarks/page5.html

arma 1.0 less optimised example (devils advocate here)

so long as you have enough cores at a decent speed you're okay)

YES intel can perform better (in version 1.0 atleast) because its actually still impacted by ipc x clock speed and cpu caches.

thats why a 3.5ghz 3770k beats a 3960x which has more threads, but a 3570k at 3.4 cant keep up with the i7E or the 3770k despite only 100mhz core speed difference. once you see dual cores (noone tests the tri cores eh?) the performance really tails off.

[zappian]

in well made engines that intel users dont seem to play (league of legends fans huh?)

there's next to no point in overclocking.

 

Wow one heavily multithreaded game with a cherry picked benchmark,

 

Anyone here in the forums can tell that in that test scenario that game was completly gpu bound.

Come on ask anyone.

[I/O]

The AMD Phenom II x4 940 was a great CPU back in 2009 and it was the original Phenom II chip. The Phenom II x4 980 and x6 1100T where also good in their day but that was along time past.

[D3MON]

Wow one heavily multithreaded game with a cherry picked benchmark,

 

Anyone here in the forums can tell that in that test scenario that game was completly gpu bound.

Come on ask anyone.

i edit'd go check. im not a blind fanboy, there's plenty of those on here.

[Interfectorem]

Wow one heavily multithreaded game with a cherry picked benchmark,

 

Anyone here in the forums can tell that in that test scenario that game was completly gpu bound.

Ok, just stop hating on AMD FX CPUs. Please. That's what most of your posts consist of. I'm tired of it.