AMDs enthusiasts find themselved no where....

[-rascal-]

Tdp is not an issue here which one will you chose to begin based on raw performance

 

How is TDP not an issue here?

It is the amount of heat generated, Q, measured in Watts.

 

If I am building a HTPC of small form factor, heat is a big issue.

 

If heat was not an issue...

• GTX 480?
• R9-290X?

[souviksundargh2]

And also hav u seen the issues with 390 and 390x that your pc would boot but you wont reach the desktop as the gpu doesn't sink up with the drivers that the amd offers..
Of your r building an itx then surely but i am talkimg about atx

[PillowSmoke]

Fury x is the titan killer so i think 390 will do better than 980 and 980ti

 

Not really, atm.

 

 

And also hav u seen the issues with 390 and 390x that your pc would boot but you wont reach the desktop as the gpu doesn't sink up with the drivers that the amd offers..

 

Not sure what you're trying to say.

 

Of your r building an itx then surely but i am talkimg about atx

 

what?

[Brady23]

I don't really know what you're trying to say

[JefferyD90]

AMD where is your pure enthusiasts CPU line pure gamer i.e. Hardcore gamers don't want cpu with a little bit of integrated graphics they want raw cpu power.....fx9590 this is what you call enthusiasts cpu then AMD then will laging a million miles behind intel.....those crap APUs will not cut off. If AMD doesn't do anything then AMD might lose their enthusiasts to over intel.....stop making rebranded GPUs and make some asskicking cpu....

#i_said_cpu_not_apu

Why you no engrish?

[Blebekblebek]

you are not enthusiast if you are using AMD.

[bomerr]

AMD where is your pure enthusiasts CPU line pure gamer i.e. Hardcore gamers don't want cpu with a little bit of integrated graphics they want raw cpu power.....fx9590 this is what you call enthusiasts cpu then AMD then will laging a million miles behind intel.....those crap APUs will not cut off. If AMD doesn't do anything then AMD might lose their enthusiasts to over intel.....stop making rebranded GPUs and make some asskicking cpu....

#i_said_cpu_not_apu

The year 2013 called; they want their tech news back.

 

 

 

65W APU for a mini-ITX HTPC.....or FX-6300 + R9-260X (95W + 115W) in ATX size.

 

Not trying to bias this towards AMD but...

 

 

If you put it this way:

• Intel followed AMD with multi-core CPUs. Athlon 64 X2 came out in 2005
• AMD first used GDDR5 on their graphics cards on the HD 4870. Now GDDR5 is used by NVidia as well
• AMD has now implemented HBM on their GPUs; Nvidia is to follow with Pascal

 

Might as well throw this in too:

• Intel first implemented x64 in 2001. AMD followed in 2003.

 

I had an Athlon X64 and it was a total POS. It was completely unstable with both XP 64 bit and Vista 64 bit. 

[IanDrexP]

AMD are not bad CPU manufacturers by any means, they have excellent CPUs for different kinds of users and markets. Intel has just been very good with their research and development for more powerful (and expensive) CPUs. This topic is a waste of time because you just rant and rant like a kid that dropped their candy.

Intel and NVIDIA have also had problems, which I think every tech company has. Dont cry like a baby and focus on the downs of AMD, also look that they have done very good in filling markets that Intel has not addressed.

[Umeshwarnath]

Look in india an apu costs around 15k ok and in that price i can get a fx6300 and r7 260x.... Which would be great....

?? a10 6800k costs 8800 INR. !!

[zander1256]

Look in india an apu costs around 15k ok and in that price i can get a fx6300 and r7 260x.... Which would be great....

This is the first message I have seen you post where the grammar actually makes sense.

[You_are_a_cunt]

Someone's postcount farming today.

If AMD doesn't suit your needs just buy Intel CPUs. sorted.

[harrynowl]

Eh well a company like AMD that has bled money from its CPU department since 2010 has no interest in putting the R&D into producing a 5960X equivalent product which is a pure lossleader as not enough people buy them, the only thing that would work is if AMD made a whole new server line and just used parts from that like Intel does for their extreme editions... except AMD has such a small hold in the server market these days.

 

If you put it this way:

• Intel followed AMD with multi-core CPUs. Athlon 64 X2 came out in 2005
• AMD first used GDDR5 on their graphics cards on the HD 4870. Now GDDR5 is used by NVidia as well
• AMD has now implemented HBM on their GPUs; Nvidia is to follow with Pascal

 

Might as well throw this in too:

• Intel first implemented x64 in 2001. AMD followed in 2003.

I was under the impression that AMD had 64bit instructions first with the Athlon64, or was that just on the consumer side? Pretty sure Intel added 64bit with the Prescott CPUs which came out early 2004.

 

Fury x is the titan killer so i think 390 will do better than 980 and 980ti

The benchmarks suggest otherwise right now, and from what we know about the refreshed Grenada cores used in the 390/390X they will be competitive but not perform better.

 

I had an Athlon X64 and it was a total POS. It was completely unstable with both XP 64 bit and Vista 64 bit. 

On the other hand I had 3 (well, one was a 64x2) machine and they all still run just fine today- one of them is actually used in the invoice computer at the shop I work at :rolleyes: . The 64x2 on Windows 7 runs just fine

 

Unfortunately a sample size of 4 is not a good representation of a product that was mass produced

 

But the overall impression of K8 was that it was far superior to the P68 CPUs produced by Intel.

[kipper]

[Kherm]

Fury x is the titan killer so i think 390 will do better than 980 and 980ti

That is so not true. So not true. 

[Nena Trinity]

But FX is good in many mainstream games! AMD just has no i7...

https://youtu.be/Rutk9ErhKG4?t=4m9s

Yet the FX-9K series are just meh...

[rjfaber91]

I was under the impression that AMD had 64bit instructions first with the Athlon64, or was that just on the consumer side? Pretty sure Intel added 64bit with the Prescott CPUs which came out early 2004.

 

Pretty much that. AMD and Intel released their first 64-bit microarchitectures around the same time, but Intel decided to break compatability with x86, while AMD actively built their 64-bit solution on the well-established x86 base. Suffice to say OS and software developers preferred AMD's solution, so Intel was forced to switch to x86-64 as well, which it did a few years after AMD introduced it.

 

I've actually had very good experiences with K8 processors as well; I had a Sempron 64 as my first ever CPU, and then I had an Athlon 64 X2, and both served me very well without any problems.

[harrynowl]

Pretty much that. AMD and Intel released their first 64-bit microarchitectures around the same time, but Intel decided to break compatability with x86, while AMD actively built their 64-bit solution on the well-established x86 base. Suffice to say OS and software developers preferred AMD's solution, so Intel was forced to switch to x86-64 as well, which it did a few years after AMD introduced it.

 

I've actually had very good experiences with K8 processors as well; I had a Sempron 64 as my first ever CPU, and then I had an Athlon 64 X2, and both served me very well without any problems.

Project Itanium right?

 

And yes, K8 was AMDs golden days

[Elapo]

Intel first implemented x64 in 2001. AMD followed in 2003.

 

wait, really? Weird if you think about it, since AMD actually created the x64 specification

[Prysin]

Look in india an apu costs around 15k ok and in that price i can get a fx6300 and r7 260x.... Which would be great....

 

Actually, the APU would be better

 

So the FX would IN THEORY pull ahead in FPS, and in many cases it would, but at the severe cost of power usage.

 

An A10 7850k has the same TDP of a 6300, and most likely even less REAL power draw. Add in a 260X which is a 115W card and BAM, you can see that even electricity wise, adding in 115W more draw for 10-15 FPS is ridiculous

 

The APUs are also based on steamroller, which is BETTER then the piledriver modules used in the FX series. Sadly, only Carizzo get to use Excavator (if only they had gotten around and used Excavator on desktops). Now, steamroller has 5-10% higher IPC then piledriver, so while the piledriver FX chips get better scores they do so because their usually clocked higher. Their not really stronger.

 

 

 

65W APU for a mini-ITX HTPC.....or FX-6300 + R9-260X (95W + 115W) in ATX size.

 

Not trying to bias this towards AMD but...

 

 

If you put it this way:

• Intel followed AMD with multi-core CPUs. Athlon 64 X2 came out in 2005
• AMD first used GDDR5 on their graphics cards on the HD 4870. Now GDDR5 is used by NVidia as well
• AMD has now implemented HBM on their GPUs; Nvidia is to follow with Pascal

 

Might as well throw this in too:

• Intel first implemented x64 in 2001. AMD followed in 2003.

 

however X64 was written by AMD, it is an extension of intels x86 instructions. However it is such a large deviation and addition that it is legally seen as a AMD IP.

 

So yeah... This is why AMD MUST NEVER DIE. Or else, CPU world goes into chaos for a while.

[SkilledRebuilds]

That I can remember...

 

AMD 486 DX4 100Mhz @ 120Mhz (Dip switch overclocking ftw)

AMD K6-2 300Mhz I think it was...

Celeron 300A @ 400Mhz

PIII 667Mhz (May have been PII, pretty sure it was III)

Duron 1.3Ghz

Athlon XP 1800+

Pentium4 3.0+HT

Dual E4400 2.0-2.2Ghz I think @ 3.1Ghz via increased FSB (Stock voltage)

Phenom X4 9950

Phenom 980

Sandy Bridge 2600K @ 4.8Ghz for 4 years, then 5.2Ghz for 2 days and I killed it. (No real fucks were given that day, I had replacement moneys and OC was for curiosity, plus I wasn't doing as much work as I used to, so the i7 was way overkill, not that thats an excuse to kill one)

 

Currently running - I5 4690

[-rascal-]

The year 2013 called; they want their tech news back.

I had an Athlon X64 and it was a total POS. It was completely unstable with both XP 64 bit and Vista 64 bit. 

 

I'm still using a Athlon 64 X2 6000+ in my HTPC, and it does the good job at it.

You have to consider though, 64-bit operating systems were a pain in the ass back then -- due to compatibility and stability issues.

 

Project Itanium right?

And yes, K8 was AMDs golden days

 

wait, really? Weird if you think about it, since AMD actually created the x64 specification

 

AMD created the x86-64 specification...but not pure x64 specification (not 110% sure).

 

I had believed AMD did come out with the 64-bit instruction set (x86-64 or whichever was first)...it made sense from the Athlon64 on socket 939 / AM2, and their Opteron CPUs -- which came out in 2003 / 2004.

 

Then I found out about Intel's Itanium, like @harrynowl mentioned, which started in 2001.

 

 

Another note: Spoilers are fixed. Thank 'bout time Linus..

[rjfaber91]

Project Itanium right?

 

And yes, K8 was AMDs golden days

 

Itanium indeed, yes.

 

I just like how back in the early 2000s, you could actually be quite proud of yourself if you bought an Athlon 64 instead of the ubiquitous Pentium 4, because the Athlon was just so much better. Imagine that today, eh, AMD being the connaisseur's choice of CPU manufacturer?

[harrynowl]

Itanium indeed, yes.

 

I just like how back in the early 2000s, you could actually be quite proud of yourself if you bought an Athlon 64 instead of the ubiquitous Pentium 4, because the Athlon was just so much better. Imagine that today, eh?

Hehe probably not today... although I do have a softspot for FM2 purely because my A8 luck has been pretty good (both 5ghz+ chips).

 

I do run a G3258 though as I prefer the Z97 platform and upgrade path.. although right now I have no need to upgrade

[Elapo]

I'm still using a Athlon 64 X2 6000+ in my HTPC, and it does the good job at it.

You have to consider though, 64-bit operating systems were a pain in the ass back then -- due to compatibility and stability issues.

 

 

 

AMD created the x86-64 specification...but not pure x64 specification (not 110% sure).

 

I had believed AMD did come out with the 64-bit instruction set (x86-64 or whichever was first)...it made sense from the Athlon64 on socket 939 / AM2, and their Opteron CPUs -- which came out in 2003 / 2004.

 

Then I found out about Intel's Itanium, like @harrynowl mentioned, which started in 2001.

 

 

Another note: Spoilers are fixed. Thank 'bout time Linus..

 

x64 = x86_64 = AMD64

 

It's all the same, just different names.