When are Steamroller Desktop CPUs releasing?

[sotiris.bos]

I am not talking about APUs or server chips or ARM. I can't find anywere information about desktop CPUs replacing the current FXs. I read something about an FX-9450 designed to take on the 4770K. Is anything like that coming out soon or should i just buy an 8350? Please do not recommend Intel I am not going to go that way.

[Xelithium]

Why aren't you going with Intel if I may ask? They are the superior choice in most cases.

 

Anyways, I doubt AMD will be releasing Steamroller in it's current state. If they are releasing it I would expect it this year cause honestly it would be the most dumb idea in this entire universe to release a terrible CPU based on the faildozer architecture to compete with Intel's 14nm Broadwell.

[Vbgf]

Why aren't you going with Intel if I may ask? They are the superior choice in most cases.

 

Anyways, I doubt AMD will be releasing Steamroller in it's current state. If they are releasing it I would expect it this year cause honestly it would be the most dumb idea in this entire universe to release a terrible CPU based on the faildozer architecture to compete with Intel's 14nm Broadwell.

To be honest i would go AMD too, i am a fanboy and i know that intel is better at performance, i will give em that. But i'm kinda curious why he doesn't want intel too.

[sotiris.bos]

Why aren't you going with Intel if I may ask? They are the superior choice in most cases.

Anyways, I doubt AMD will be releasing Steamroller in it's current state. If they are releasing it I would expect it this year cause honestly it would be the most dumb idea in this entire universe to release a terrible CPU based on the faildozer architecture to compete with Intel's 14nm Broadwell.

Too expensive, don't want 4 threads, want to support AMD, want to get 5ghz or higher overclocks, don't like Intel's strategy burrying desktop cpus in favor of mobile. The only reason that i would now go for Intel would be a passively cooled low power Xeon for a home server-NAS build. Also i think gaming is going to be better on AMD because of the consoles and multithreaded software is the future.

[Guest GRRigger]

If they stay cheap, steamroller will be the thing to buy for gamers.

[Xelithium]

Too expensive, don't want 4 threads, want to support AMD, want to get 5ghz or higher overclocks, don't like Intel's strategy burrying desktop cpus in favor of mobile. The only reason that i would now go for Intel would be a passively cooled low power Xeon for a home server-NAS build.

AMD doesn't have a true 8 core CPU. Sorry to hurt your feelings. 5GHz won't happen unless you are really lucky, and if I might ask, since you want 5GHz OC on a faildozer CPU architecture. Do you have a personal nuclear powerplant at your disposal?

 

And why support a company that doesn't deliver good products? I never understood that. If AMD had better products than Nvidia or Intel then sure, but the truth is that they don't.

[sotiris.bos]

AMD doesn't have a true 8 core CPU. Sorry to hurt your feelings. 5GHz won't happen unless you are really lucky, and if I might ask, since you want 5GHz OC on a faildozer CPU architecture. Do you have a personal nuclear powerplant at your disposal?

And why support a company that doesn't deliver good products? I never understood that. If AMD had better products than Nvidia or Intel then sure, but the truth is that they don't.

I know very well that the 8350 is not a "real" 8-core (the term core defined by a false Intel standard). I said i don't want a 4 thread cpu (i5 at similar price), not that I want an 8 core. 5ghz is very easy because AMD binns like crazy. Haswell is not a good product either from my point of view. You sound a lot like an Intel and Nvidia fanboy to me. Let's not make this thread the third WW about AMD vs Others.

And please don't call it a faildoser. There is nothing about it that is a fail. It is designed for multithreaded software and crappy software programmers as well as the mobile market are to blame for the relatively lower performance. Single threaded software is not going to exist in a couple of years besides Blizzard's games that are made to be playable on any conceivable platform.

Edited July 6, 2013 by sotiris.bos

[Vbgf]

The faildozer was the 8150 , 8350 is not. The topic isn't why Intel is better for performance or AMD for the price to performance but should the guy get 8350 now or w8 for something that is coming in the future from AMD. He is scratching Intel out of the game so please don't tell em to buy something that he does not want to.

 

Now, i would look first at your current build and ask you for your specs, also what games you play or what kind of work do you do? If your PC is good enough for them for the next 1 year or so, i would w8 to get the new thing. If your PC is not doing so well with the things you want it to now, go for the 8350, i have heard a lot of positive things for it. Power consumption for me personally doesn't make a difference, 10$ a year between OC 8350  at 5Ghz and OC 3770k at 4,5Ghz (quoted Logan on his video) is not that much.

[sotiris.bos]

The faildozer was the 8150 , 8350 is not. The topic isn't why Intel is better for performance or AMD for the price to performance but should the guy get 8350 now or w8 for something that is coming in the future from AMD. He is scratching Intel out of the game so please don't tell em to buy something that he does not want to.

 

Now, i would look first at your current build and ask you for your specs, also what games you play or what kind of work do you do? If your PC is good enough for them for the next 1 year or so, i would w8 to get the new thing. If your PC is not doing so well with the things you want it to now, go for the 8350, i have heard a lot of positive things for it. Power consumption for me personally doesn't make a difference, 10$ a year between OC 8350  at 5Ghz and OC 3770k at 4,5Ghz (quoted Logan on his video) is not that much.

 

Well said.

 

Current pc is i7 860 @2.8Ghz... I added a Samsung 840 Pro and a Sapphire 7950 but I am getting 20 fps lower in games compared to modern cpus at stock. Motherboard is a crappy Intel mATX so overclocking is out of the question.

I'm not playing many different games right now but it is due to not having the processing power. Old cpu at low speeds really discourages from buying and playing more games. I also need some solid video encoding to stream to my mobile devices.

[YellowDragon]

Why aren't you going with Intel if I may ask? They are the superior choice in most cases.

 

Anyways, I doubt AMD will be releasing Steamroller in it's current state. If they are releasing it I would expect it this year cause honestly it would be the most dumb idea in this entire universe to release a terrible CPU based on the faildozer architecture to compete with Intel's 14nm Broadwell.

I really dont like comments like this, this screams pure fanboy, Intel and AMD both have diffrent strategies in how to make a chip, Intel prefers goinging with a higher IPC on a lower number of cores and since they have the dominant market-share most programs are coded to operate on one or two cores only, whereas AMD decided to go with the greater parallelism architecture which has a lower IPC per core but a higher number of cores. Im looking at the architectures themselves and their core idea behind it rather than the current performance numbers. From a design standpoint the FX series is a very interesting CPU design with a lot of potential if it can be properly utilized, I admit there are faults in the architecture, but nothing that cant be ironed out once they get a hang of this new style of  architecture, look at the performance leap from 8150 to 8350, almost 15-30% across the board. The chip performs exactly as in should under the original designer specifications, it was designed based on the idea that applications would be heavily threaded and in benchmarks that can properly utilize the chip it really is a wolf in sheeps clothing. The problem is not the chip, the problem is most programs still don't utilize large amounts of cores properly, for the longest time both Intel and AMD focused on IPC Amd all the way up to the Phenon IIs, Now AMD wants to change to this newer style of CPU and the reason why it dosent perform as well is its not really operating in ideal circumstances. Any of these CPU companies is far from "FAIL" in my eyes, the fact that a cpu even operates in the first place is a marvel of engineering and design, if you dont believe me then go ahead and make your own cpu, you will find that making even the most basic integrated hardware circuits and hardware logic can be challenging. I actually applaud AMD for going this route because we are reaching a point where silicon is not going to be a viable processor material and die shrinks wont be possibly anymore due to electron migration. Everyone tends to forget that bulldozer and Vishera both are on the 32nm process, intel soon wont be able to squeeze out more performance from a processor shrink anymore (minimal it may be in comparison to architecture) I see the FX designs as being a superior design to the Intel designs in the future. As soon as AMD catches up i hope Intel trys something a little different so we can continue to advance in computer technology.

[FireFox]

Too expensive, don't want 4 threads, want to support AMD, want to get 5ghz or higher overclocks, don't like Intel's strategy burrying desktop cpus in favor of mobile. The only reason that i would now go for Intel would be a passively cooled low power Xeon for a home server-NAS build. Also i think gaming is going to be better on AMD because of the consoles and multithreaded software is the future.

 

The only way you'll get one of those 5Ghz AMD's is buying a pre-built system unless I've misread.

 

EDIT: Damn not reading the post thoroughly anyway you don't want 4 threads? I'm sure AMD have 4 thread CPU's as well :P

[Humbug]

I am not talking about APUs or server chips or ARM. I can't find anywere information about desktop CPUs replacing the current FXs.

I have made a few posts about this and nobody has an answer. Basically we have a scary situation where AMD has stopped talking about successor to FX-8350. Up until piledriver release they showed Steamroller high end on their roadmaps for 2013. Since then they have deleted it and are yet to confirm whether it will be coming in 2014. They talk about all their other future products except this...

[YellowDragon]

I have made a few posts about this and nobody has an answer. Basically we have a scary situation where AMD has stopped talking about successor to FX-8350. Up until piledriver release they showed Steamroller on their roadmaps for 2013. Since then they have deleted it and are yet to confirm whether it will be coming in 2014. They talk about all their other future products except this...

Already confirmed for early 2014, this has been said time and time again by AMD, They said it would be delayed to 2014 hence it dosent show up on the roadmap for this year. 

[Xelithium]

I really dont like comments like this, this screams pure fanboy, Intel and AMD both have diffrent strategies in how to make a chip, Intel prefers goinging with a higher IPC on a lower number of cores and since they have the dominant market-share most programs are coded to operate on one or two cores only, whereas AMD decided to go with the greater parallelism architecture which has a lower IPC per core but a higher number of cores. Im looking at the architectures themselves and their core idea behind it rather than the current performance numbers. From a design standpoint the FX series is a very interesting CPU design with a lot of potential if it can be properly utilized, I admit there are faults in the architecture, but nothing that cant be ironed out once they get a hang of this new style of  architecture, look at the performance leap from 8150 to 8350, almost 15-30% across the board. The chip performs exactly as in should under the original designer specifications, it was designed based on the idea that applications would be heavily threaded and in benchmarks that can properly utilize the chip it really is a wolf in sheeps clothing. The problem is not the chip, the problem is most programs still don't utilize large amounts of cores properly, for the longest time both Intel and AMD focused on IPC Amd all the way up to the Phenon IIs, Now AMD wants to change to this newer style of CPU and the reason why it dosent perform as well is its not really operating in ideal circumstances. Any of these CPU companies is far from "FAIL" in my eyes, the fact that a cpu even operates in the first place is a marvel of engineering and design, if you dont believe me then go ahead and make your own cpu, you will find that making even the most basic integrated hardware circuits and hardware logic can be challenging. I actually applaud AMD for going this route because we are reaching a point where silicon is not going to be a viable processor material and die shrinks wont be possibly anymore due to electron migration. Everyone tends to forget that bulldozer and Vishera both are on the 32nm process, intel soon wont be able to squeeze out more performance from a processor shrink anymore (minimal it may be in comparison to architecture) I see the FX designs as being a superior design to the Intel designs in the future. As soon as AMD catches up i hope Intel trys something a little different so we can continue to advance in computer technology.

Yes yes, nice wall of text.

 

Keep on calling me a fanboy for stating the truth.

[FireFox]

Yes yes, nice wall of text.

 

Keep on calling me a fanboy for stating the truth.

 

Sure is a nice wall of text, looks like it took some time to build

[YellowDragon]

Yes yes, nice wall of text.

 

Keep on calling me a fanboy for stating the truth.

Stating what truth? I just said that look at the designs of the chips and how things work, instead of playing benchmark-warrior and wondering why something does not perform as well, If you look at the actual methodology behind the chip design you can see that AMD does have a really good idea with greater parallelism, as this typically scales better then the intel hyper-threading equivalent. Performance gained from unthreaded to threaded, Im more interested in seeing an advancement in tech, I really think AMD has something here that if they can perfect the design and change the market stigma of making programs run on a single core they have one hell of a chip. I care about how CPUs are designed and the FX series is a farcry from previous designs, and I think its a change for the better as Im at least familiar with the internal working of a CPU and its design and manufacturing as well as coding applications that work properly with a chip.

 

I work on a daily basis with a MICROLOKII Cardfile system, a train interface control system that is over 20 years old and the thing is that it does not need updated in its hardware because programs are properly developed for it, take the same idea that all programs should be properly coded and be threaded friendly and you can realize the AMD chips really are hidden gems, The concept is that an Application should be limited by a cpu and not vise versa.   

 

I love though how your response was that I basically had a wall of text, that just screams to me that you are basically saying "ok here is a well worded and detailed response, Im just going to ignore its arguments because I dont want to read it or dont want to debate its contents"

[sotiris.bos]

AMD's greater parallelism really is the future. Looking at the architectures, the cpus that need muscle to power through are not AMD but Intel. Having greater clock per core makes them faster in poorly threaded applications whereas an AMD processor would be faster even at lower clock speeds than Intel if it run the same software but designed for multiple threads. An exaggerated example would be a CPU and a GPU where a 4Ghz cpu would do terrible against an 800Mhz GPU running multi threaded software (take a look at bitcoin mining, you will see that the more slower cores on a GPU burry much faster CPUs). It is up to software developers to make AMD's architecture far superior in real life. AMD really took a glimpse at the future while Intel stays in the past. If something like this happened to the software you could take your fastest i7s with their Hyperthreading and shove them up yours Intel and your fanboys. More cores will dominate and if AMD continue their brilliant work they will be KING again. We have gone so much off topic here.

 

If only Intel fanboys stopped looking at numbers and saw beyond...

YellowDragon I like you  :P

[Scia]

I am not talking about APUs or server chips or ARM. I can't find anywere information about desktop CPUs replacing the current FXs. I read something about an FX-9450 designed to take on the 4770K. Is anything like that coming out soon or should i just buy an 8350? Please do not recommend Intel I am not going to go that way.

 

It's rumored somewhere around Q2 2014. But no guarantee ofc.

 

Why aren't you going with Intel if I may ask? They are the superior choice in most cases.

 

Anyways, I doubt AMD will be releasing Steamroller in it's current state. If they are releasing it I would expect it this year cause honestly it would be the most dumb idea in this entire universe to release a terrible CPU based on the faildozer architecture to compete with Intel's 14nm Broadwell.

 

The 5ghz OEM chips show leaked benchmarks beating a 3970x at multicore performance and being barely beneath it single threaded.

 

Your posts do not acctualy contribute to your credibility.

[sotiris.bos]

The 5ghz OEM chips show leaked benchmarks beating a 3970x at multicore performance and being barely beneath it single threaded.

 

But i suppose stock clocks on the 3970X?

[Ultimate_PIMP]

AMD doesn't have a true 8 core CPU. Sorry to hurt your feelings. 5GHz won't happen unless you are really lucky, and if I might ask, since you want 5GHz OC on a faildozer CPU architecture. Do you have a personal nuclear powerplant at your disposal?

And why support a company that doesn't deliver good products? I never understood that. If AMD had better products than Nvidia or Intel then sure, but the truth is that they don't.

Yah this comment was very annoying to read. Props to op for keepin his cool.

I saw a chart that said the next desktop cpu was coming next year. I would honestly go 8350 now with a good oc mobo.

[Scia]

But i suppose stock clocks on the 3970X?

 

5ghz is the stock clock for the Fx96xx ^^ aswell ^^

[sotiris.bos]

5ghz is the stock clock for the Fx96xx ^^ aswell ^^

Yyyyyeeeaaah buuuuuut the 3970X can be overclocked to 5 but i don't think there is much headroom for the Fx

[os2wiz]

I am not talking about APUs or server chips or ARM. I can't find anywere information about desktop CPUs replacing the current FXs. I read something about an FX-9450 designed to take on the 4770K. Is anything like that coming out soon or should i just buy an 8350? Please do not recommend Intel I am not going to go that way.

I spoke to an AMD executive from Austin about this issue0. They are not allowed to pre-relase information on product introductions. however he did say there would be more offerings on AM3+ for users. Sometime in 4th quarter those 2 FX Vishera highly binned chips are likely to be released for mass production at a price point we will be happy with. He hinted there would be at least one other release for AM3+, we can only assume that will be steamroller.  2-3 years down the road by the drift of pour conversation we will be moved over to  the apu offerings , which are liekly to have an enthusiast line. The apus will only be 4 core . He says they will be able to handle all the software out there and will have huge graphic cores that will be HSA. He said he is confident we will be quite happy with the offerings.  One other note. There will be a conference in New York in the not too distant future for AMD enthusiasts.

[Mombasa69]

Why aren't you going with Intel if I may ask? They are the superior choice in most cases.

 

Anyways, I doubt AMD will be releasing Steamroller in it's current state. If they are releasing it I would expect it this year cause honestly it would be the most dumb idea in this entire universe to release a terrible CPU based on the faildozer architecture to compete with Intel's 14nm Broadwell.

 

Because the next gen consoles all use AMD 8 core cpu's and nearly all pc games are console ports, are developers programming with Intel in mind? I think not, well duh.

[Guest GRRigger]

Gpu and Cpu central processing unit is completelly different, so you cant compare em. Gpu deals with floating point much better while cpu does not. Exept if its APU.