What's up with AMD's CPU's?

[woox]

First of all I would like to start by saying that the last thing I want to do is start and AMD vs Intel CPU war. My question is this: I see AMD CPUs all over the place with 4, 6 or 8 cores at 4.00+ GHz stock speed at very low prices compared to Intel's. Why are AMD CPUs so cheap compared to intel's while at the same time providing more cores/higher spped? Take Intel's 5960x and AMD's FX 9590 for example. Both have 8 cores, while the AMD one has a much higher stock speed and at the same time costs a quarter of the Intel one. So what exactly is the difference?

 

PS: please refrain from posting answers like "5960x has more lanes/threads/supports DDR 4 ram". I already know all this (and I know that the 5960x is better than the FX 9590, duh), my question is why exactly is there a performance difference between the two if their specs so similar?

[Guest]

Intel cpus are faster in real life for same core number/frequency.

Also those amds 8 cores are not really full cores. They work in pairs and inside of every pair they share some stuff.

[TheSLSAMG]

Their CPUs are cheaper because they're worse. The IPC is far lower, therefore performance is worse. As well, AMD's CPUs are running on a 2+ year old platform, Intel's chips are as new as can be for now.

[Gofspar]

performance per clock is higher because it has a non shit arcitecture.

[QueenDemetria]

 So what exactly is the difference?

Intel CPU's have a higher IPC(instructions per clock), so each core is more powerful than AMD's core's.

[Syntaxvgm]

bulldozer is  a pile of shit they've been rehashing for the past few years now. They might be competitive again if and when they release a new architecture, which promises to have their own version of SMT and not be a pile of shit. 

[SimpleG]

-wrong thread-

[david cassar]

Architecture. Intel's architecture is much better and much more efficient.

[Briggsy]

The FX architecture is nearly a decade old. Add to that, an FX 8-core has the same max theoretical IPC (instructions per cycle) as an intel i5 quad core. That automatically means that each Intel core is capable of twice the instructions of 2 AMD cores per cycle, if all things were equal, which they are not. The make up of an Intel core is different than an AMD core. And, once you add hyper threading, you add an additional IPC for each extra thread. 

 

if you were to compare a 5960X to an FX 8-core (any FX 8-core), you are looking at ~64 (i believe) maximum IPC for a 5960X, compared to ~28 maximum IPC on the FX 8-core. 

[sgloux3470]

AMD doesn't perform as well, so it is priced more competitively.

The current AMD architecture is rather dated. Bulldozer launched in 2011 and was pretty much the same as the Phenom II lineup that launched in 09.

The 9590 launched at a price much closer to the 5960x before being laughed out of the room. I like the FX lineup but that was ridiculous.

Right now the FX CPU's are between Ivy bridge i3's and i5's in terms of performance, but don't really compete with Haswell even at the i3 level. (At least as far as gaming is concerned, a 9590 is pretty close to a haswell i5 in multithreaded situations)

Most of the new stuff AMD has done in the last few years has been with its APU lineup. They haven't released any real revisions since the Piledriver lineup in 2012. (Just new SKUs of piledriver) Zen is slated to come out somewhere around the end of 2016, so we have awhile to wait yet to see if AMD can start competing again in performance.

[spwath]

The FX architecture is nearly a decade old. Add to that, an FX 8-core has the same max theoretical IPC (instructions per cycle) as an intel i5 quad core. That automatically means that each Intel core is capable of twice the instructions of 2 AMD cores per cycle, if all things were equal, which they are not. The make up of an Intel core is different than an AMD core. And, once you add hyper threading, you add an additional IPC for each extra thread. 

 

if you were to compare a 5960X to an FX 8-core (any FX 8-core), you are looking at ~64 (i believe) maximum IPC for a 5960X, compared to ~28 maximum IPC on the FX 8-core. 

Nearly a decade?

The oldest i found was 2012

[Briggsy]

Nearly a decade?

The oldest i found was 2012

 

Maybe I was stretching it a bit, but it took them forever to launch the architecture. It was brought into the public eye about 8 years ago, but they were developing it before then. There were even supposed to be 16 core/8 module Desktop CPU's iirc.

 

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2007/07/28/amd_goes_modular/1

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Analyst-Day-Barcelona-Fusion-and-Beyond/AMDs-Bulldozer-and-Bobcat

 

and when it released

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested

[Faceman]

First of all I would like to start by saying that the last thing I want to do is start and AMD vs Intel CPU war. My question is this: I see AMD CPUs all over the place with 4, 6 or 8 cores at 4.00+ GHz stock speed at very low prices compared to Intel's. Why are AMD CPUs so cheap compared to intel's while at the same time providing more cores/higher spped? Take Intel's 5960x and AMD's FX 9590 for example. Both have 8 cores, while the AMD one has a much higher stock speed and at the same time costs a quarter of the Intel one. So what exactly is the difference?

 

PS: please refrain from posting answers like "5960x has more lanes/threads/supports DDR 4 ram". I already know all this (and I know that the 5960x is better than the FX 9590, duh), my question is why exactly is there a performance difference between the two if their specs so similar?

 

Because of architecture and IPC.  That is the name of the game.  Not cores and Ghz.  AMD is WAY, and I mean WAY WAY WAY behind Intel when it comes to per core performance, which is king for the vast majority of tasks.  Programs that make use of all 8 cores are a very niche area.

[harrynowl]

AMDs architecture was from a 2007 design and it's really showing compared to what Intel is bringing up... and Intel aren't even trying.

[i_build_nanosuits]

There you go, that's why...AMD FX vishera core performance is 62% slower than intel running at the same clockspeed:

 

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-vs-AMD-FX-8350/2384vs1489

[JustCallMeVlad]

First of all I would like to start by saying that the last thing I want to do is start and AMD vs Intel CPU war. My question is this: I see AMD CPUs all over the place with 4, 6 or 8 cores at 4.00+ GHz stock speed at very low prices compared to Intel's. Why are AMD CPUs so cheap compared to intel's while at the same time providing more cores/higher spped? Take Intel's 5960x and AMD's FX 9590 for example. Both have 8 cores, while the AMD one has a much higher stock speed and at the same time costs a quarter of the Intel one. So what exactly is the difference?

PS: please refrain from posting answers like "5960x has more lanes/threads/supports DDR 4 ram". I already know all this (and I know that the 5960x is better than the FX 9590, duh), my question is why exactly is there a performance difference between the two if their specs so similar?

Try to think of it this way. AMDs 8 cores are as fast as intels 4 without hyperthreading.

9590/9370/8370/8350/8320 = 4690K

6350/6300 = Core I3

For multithreaded performance, for gaming performance the I3's trounce the 8 cores

[Hieb]

There you go, that's why...AMD FX vishera core performance is 62% slower than intel running at the same clockspeed:

 

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-vs-AMD-FX-8350/2384vs1489

 

About 38% slower. Reciprocals.

 

62% faster = 1.62

 

1 ÷ 1.62 = 0.62

 

0.62 * 1.62 = 1

 

0.62 = 1 - 0.38

 

62% faster (or 162%/1.62x of original value) <-> 38% slower (or 0.62%/0.62x of original value)

100% faster (or 200%/2x of original value) <-> 50% slower (or 50%/0.5x of original value)

200% faster (or 300%/3x of original value) <-> 25% slower

 

Problem with % faster/slower is you're adding or subtracting an amount to a number that you then multiply.

 

(yay math)

[i_build_nanosuits]

About 38% slower. Reciprocals.

yeah right...i worded this the wrong way...sry!

Still, 62% faster for haswell then i guess

[idieorudie]

Amd should really change their platform and concentrate on cpus too and not just apus and also bring in a new architecture

If they don't increase the competition this side of the market will remain stagnant

[Hieb]

Amd should really change their platform and concentrate on cpus too and not just apus and also bring in a new architecture

If they don't increase the competition this side of the market will remain stagnant

 

I'm guessing AMD is waiting until Zen because there is nothing they can do with the Bulldozer family architectures in the mainstream/enthusiast segments. Releasing more Steamroller or Excavator desktop CPUs, including FX-6/8 CPUs, would be a waste since the performance increase is marginal. They're focusing on mobile where they can actually make some gains... Excavator should bring some significant improvements to clock speed at low wattages. They can't quickly pump out a totally new architecture right now because they don't have much money for R&D, plus are probably limited in which silicon can be produced and for how long it's going to be produced. Finally they need to make sure that the majority of the previous generation chips have already been sold before they can ship new ones... kinda like how R9 300 series is taking so long to release since there are still so many R9 200 cards on shelves.

 

And I think that Intel will still advance the same. Even if AMD was totally out of the picture, Intel would need to release compelling products for people to continue giving them money. Nobody upgrades unless there is something worthwhile to upgrade to.

[Ja Krispie]

Think of the AMD 6 and 8 cores differently. Cinebench recognizes my FX6350 as a 3 core with 6 threads even though it's advertised as a 6 core CPU it really isn't.

[flibberdipper]

The FX architecture is nearly a decade old. Add to that, an FX 8-core has the same max theoretical IPC (instructions per cycle) as an intel i5 quad core. That automatically means that each Intel core is capable of twice the instructions of 2 AMD cores per cycle, if all things were equal, which they are not. The make up of an Intel core is different than an AMD core. And, once you add hyper threading, you add an additional IPC for each extra thread. 

 

if you were to compare a 5960X to an FX 8-core (any FX 8-core), you are looking at ~64 (i believe) maximum IPC for a 5960X, compared to ~28 maximum IPC on the FX 8-core. 

Isn't it still based on the K7 architecture or something?

 

Think of the AMD 6 and 8 cores differently. Cinebench recognizes my FX6350 as a 3 core with 6 threads even though it's advertised as a 6 core CPU it really isn't.

AIRC, it's 3 modules split into two cores. Which is just three larger cores split in half. I think.

[illitero]

This was informal to me. It was cool to see rational comparisons and explanations.

 

...For the most part. Still a few dildos flaming like children, haha.

[harrynowl]

 

Isn't it still based on the K7 architecture or something?

 

AIRC, it's 3 modules split into two cores. Which is just three larger cores split in half. I think.

 

No, I don't think so. Most of Zambezi was a new design/implementation compared to K7/8/10/10h, for example they moved to a 4 way front end decode but because of the increased core count effective instruction throughput across all threads was lower.

 

And pretty much, it's 3 modules each with 2 integer processing 'cores' that share the front end resources and the single FPU for each module can be used as two 128bit decoders.

[flibberdipper]

No, I don't think so. Most of Zambezi was a new design/implementation compared to K7/8/10/10h, for example they moved to a 4 way front end decode but because of the increased core count effective instruction throughput across all threads was lower.

 

And pretty much, it's 3 modules each with 2 integer processing 'cores' that share the front end resources and the single FPU for each module can be used as two 128bit decoders.

Neato. For an LGA 775 guy, you know a lot about the newer Kx architectures (compared to good 'ol K6 which I like the most).