AMD Kaveri Refresh "Godavari" Confirmed

[ComradeHX]

It shouldn't matter which CPU you have as they all are designed to leverage the H.264 encoding capabilities of your GPU.

It should when you DO NOT HAVE a discrete gpu.

[ComradeHX]

it will help but i heard it only helps in reducing cpu usage by like 50%

You heard wrong.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-benchmark-core-i7-3770k,3181-7.html

[Opcode]

It should when you DO NOT HAVE a discrete gpu.

Then you're probably staring at a blank screen.

[ComradeHX]

Then you're probably staring at a blank screen.

Not when I have Pentium, i3, i5, and i7.

[Opcode]

Not when I have Pentium, i3, i5, and i7.

We're talking about FX. You'll need to jump down to AMD's 8 series chipset to get on-board graphics and even then you're not going to be doing much gaming with an integrated HD 4250. I have a discrete HD 4350 and the heaviest game that it could handle is Battlefield 2. Plenty of CPU power to spare for game recording.

[s3ns3]

I would take a 860k over a G3258 all day long. Which will be a lot better for today's games and have life years down the road thanks to DirectX 12

except that its not better. and the 860k is on fm2+,dead socket with these rebrands in sight.

 

amd apus are in the wrong market.in the desktop market you have better alternatives. it would be great if they would pull out something like they did with the ps4.an all in one small pc with fast unified memory.

[Opcode]

except that its not better. and the 860k is on fm2+,dead socket with these rebrands in sight.

 

amd apus are in the wrong market.in the desktop market you have better alternatives. it would be great if they would pull out something like they did with the ps4.an all in one small pc with fast unified memory.

Massively better I would rather have a 860k that doesn't choke BF4 like the G3258 does. DirectX 12 and titles will also be out long before the platform is end of life.

 

There's not many better alternatives. You name one at $70 that bests the 860k (G3258 doesn't) and you'll have reasoning.

[s3ns3]

There's not many better alternatives. You name one at $70 that bests the 860k (G3258 doesn't) and you'll have reasoning.

sure. the 860K gets reckd by the pentium g3258 in all games,especially the games you would play on a budget build ,mmos,rpgs. it has integrated graphics and most important it offers an upgrade path. 

but thats not what i said,its not an apu. apu alternatives are the x750k, x860K or the haswell pentiums, or even fx 41xx + a gpu like the 250X. 

 

couse as you can see,they are in the desktop enviroment . the wrong place to be

[spartaman64]

You heard wrong.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-benchmark-core-i7-3770k,3181-7.html

thats a i7

[TheMidnightNarwhal]

And..?

 

Oh god!!!

[GeathX]

Keller wasn't part of A8X. He was part of A7 only. Also, must I go over again how Samsung/GloFo's 14nmFF node is far from being near 14nm? It's approximately equal to their 20nm planar in density, but with FinFETs added the leakage current goes way down.

 

The severe problem AMD may have to face with DX 12 is the life it breathes back into the Vishera FX chips. If suddenly all of AMD's CPU bottlenecks disappear, it won't matter what it comes out with. For gamers they will see no reason to upgrade (at least until PCIe 2.0 x16 gets saturated). AMD may face a decent gain in the HPC world (which is far from guaranteed even with their APU design and HSA fully fleshed out on a new architecture), but then gain nothing in the consumer realm apart from professionals who could leverage the extra iGPU power under the HSA umbrella.

 

I enjoy the fact that you have some how turned the massive possitive of the FX series being fully utilised in games into something that would hurt AMD. It would mean they have a viable product for BOTH gaming and multimedia work that could carry them nicely till Zen is released with a fully upto date chipset. We will see that there will be actual contention in deciding on what brand to go for, i5 might not be the automatic response for gaming performance and feature wise 990FX covers a lot of bases for a very affourdable price point. It certainly isn't a servere problem.

[patrickjp93]

I enjoy the fact that you have some how turned the massive possitive of the FX series being fully utilised in games into something that would hurt AMD. It would mean they have a viable product for BOTH gaming and multimedia work that could carry them nicely till Zen is released with a fully upto date chipset. We will see that there will be actual contention in deciding on what brand to go for, i5 might not be the automatic response for gaming performance and feature wise 990FX covers a lot of bases for a very affourdable price point. It certainly isn't a servere problem.

It's a double-edged sword. Zen has to compete either in single-threaded performance against Skylake (you're deluded if you think Zen will win) or multithreaded against FX 8/9. If DX 12 and Vulcan scaling is expanded to make use of 8 cores, there isn't enough GPU horsepower in 4-way XFire for 1080p to be bottlenecked by such a scenario. People will buy FX 8/9, the prices of which have dropped to rock bottom, giving AMD razor thin profits. Yes, the FX 8/9 series will hurt AMD in the event these APIs are fully up to date. The market will either be saturated by Broadwell/Skylake quads which can fight on even footing against 8 Piledriver cores at full tilt or be owners of the FX-series chips waiting for a worthy upgrade from AMD. You'll get some newcomers and some Core2Duo/Quad users who might see Zen as the price-efficient solution (assuming you can't buy FX 8/9 at that point), but that won't be enough to bring AMD roaring back in the market.

 

Like I said, AMD is going to be dealing with the curse of Bulldozer until the end of the decade at the rate things are going, brand new architecture or not. The only saving grace may be if PCIe2.0 gets saturated before the release of Zen, making their FX boards less appealing and thus the platform less appealing.

[ComradeHX]

We're talking about FX. You'll need to jump down to AMD's 8 series chipset to get on-board graphics and even then you're not going to be doing much gaming with an integrated HD 4250. I have a discrete HD 4350 and the heaviest game that it could handle is Battlefield 2. Plenty of CPU power to spare for game recording.

And you missed the point entirely...

[ComradeHX]

thats a i7

AND?

The igpu only got better in newer i3.

[spartaman64]

AND?

The igpu only got better in newer i3.

http://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/2dsvoi/i_did_some_tests_with_handbrake_and_intel/looking at this test it still cuts like 32% of the cpu which is more than enough to impact game performance

[ComradeHX]

http://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/2dsvoi/i_did_some_tests_with_handbrake_and_intel/looking at this test it still cuts like 32% of the cpu which is more than enough to impact game performance

In theory.

 

In actual practice(when I use it, or when almost everyone else use it), there is no noticeable impact on game performance.

https://youtu.be/Z6uaPD_5r4w?t=7m14s

[john.weland]

So we have the old Intel v AMD fight going on here. I use Intel at work (its what we're issued) and I use AMD at home. I can't say which is better on an equivalency because at work I use an i7-4600M coupled with 16GB ram at home I use an A8-3870k coupled with 8GB ram. While it's hardly fair to compare them with all the crap I have to have on my work system and the control I have over my home system. My home system performs better and cost FAR less. When comparing top of the line to top of the line. $500-$1000 CPUs is a little ridiculous. 

[ComradeHX]

So we have the old Intel v AMD fight going on here. I use Intel at work (its what we're issued) and I use AMD at home. I can't say which is better on an equivalency because at work I use an i7-4600M coupled with 16GB ram at home I use an A8-3870k coupled with 8GB ram. While it's hardly fair to compare them with all the crap I have to have on my work system and the control I have over my home system. My home system performs better and cost FAR less. When comparing top of the line to top of the line. $500-$1000 CPUs is a little ridiculous. 

In your case, one of them is overpriced mobile cpu without any other info.

 

Which makes rest of your comparison fairly pointless.  I can use a slow hdd with i7 and fast ssd with a8 and claim that a8 system is faster(loading...); but it means nothing on CPU comparison.

 

And I seriously doubt $500 is anywhere close to the cost of i7-4600M.

http://ark.intel.com/products/76349/Intel-Core-i7-4600M-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-3_60-GHz

Suggested price is mid 300s.

[john.weland]

In your case, one of them is overpriced mobile cpu without any other info.

 

Which makes rest of your comparison fairly pointless.  I can use a slow hdd with i7 and fast ssd with a8 and claim that a8 system is faster(loading...); but it means nothing on CPU comparison.

 

And I seriously doubt $500 is anywhere close to the cost of i7-4600M.

http://ark.intel.com/products/76349/Intel-Core-i7-4600M-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-3_60-GHz

Suggested price is mid 300s.

I never said the i7-4600M was $500, If you read what I said "When comparing top of the line to top of the line. $500-$1000 CPUs is a little ridiculous." The i7-4600M is hardly "top of the line".

The laptop that the i7 I mentioned is in is an HP ProBook 650 G1

i7-4600M 2.90Ghz

16GB DDR3 1600Mhz

238GB (assuming 250GB) Sata III SSD

 

If you want more specs Google the configurations for the model number. 

Also you'll note as I worth in my previous post (again I'm assuming you did read it). Its hardly fair to compare the two as the DoD loads a crap-ton of unneeded software on this thing. I also simply stated my experiences, and never claimed any sort of pound for pound performance benchmarks or the like.  

If the MSPR is $300 I am sure I could find more than a worthy contender for that same price point. I will venture to say this, since I mentioned $1000 CPUs. Here is an Intel Core i7-5960X for just over that $1000, I couldn't find an AMD cpu near that price point, but if AMD designed the exact same CPU (disregarding patent infringements I'm sure) I would bet it would be a fraction of the price. The argument though is moot as it boils down to the fact that people like what the like. 

[Opcode]

And you missed the point entirely...

I don't believe I did. FX chips don't have an iGPU so surely they cannot offer what QuickSync does. Tho you pretty much are required to run a discrete GPU which all offer the same H.264 encoding capabilities that QuickSync does. The only advantage is QuickSync will off-load the discrete GPU not sacrificing frames for encoding.

[EpicAdom]

I think AMD should give up on CPU's and stick with GPU's.

AMD has been doing CPU's for a long time. They just went into GPU's when they acquired ATI.

[Totallycasual]

AMD has been doing CPU's for a long time. They just went into GPU's when they acquired ATI.

 

Which is why its sad that they're so bad at it? not sure what you're getting at here. 

[ComradeHX]

I don't believe I did. FX chips don't have an iGPU so surely they cannot offer what QuickSync does. Tho you pretty much are required to run a discrete GPU which all offer the same H.264 encoding capabilities that QuickSync does. The only advantage is QuickSync will off-load the discrete GPU not sacrificing frames for encoding.

You did miss the point.

 

The point was that i3 has a very relevant igpu while fx series does not have it.

The "only" advantage is a very significant one since shadowplay isn't supported on every nvidia gpu(certainly not the extreme low end ones) and Raptr has significant performance cost.

[ComradeHX]

 

 

If the MSPR is $300 I am sure I could find more than a worthy contender for that same price point. I will venture to say this, since I mentioned $1000 CPUs. Here is an Intel Core i7-5960X for just over that $1000, I couldn't find an AMD cpu near that price point, but if AMD designed the exact same CPU (disregarding patent infringements I'm sure) I would bet it would be a fraction of the price. The argument though is moot as it boils down to the fact that people like what the like. 

Which is what I posted before: pointless.

 

No, if AMD made the exact same CPU; Intel would be around the SAME price for obvious reasons.

 

[Opcode]

You did miss the point.

 

The point was that i3 has a very relevant igpu while fx series does not have it.

The "only" advantage is a very significant one since shadowplay isn't supported on every nvidia gpu(certainly not the extreme low end ones) and Raptr has significant performance cost.

There's more than just them two that offer GPU encoding. You can leverage CUDA for any Nvidia GPU and you can leverage AMD APP for any AMD GPU.