|
On October 13 2011 04:06 Djzapz wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 13 2011 04:00 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 03:58 Djzapz wrote:
Dear lord AMD, you almost managed to take a step backward...
Hopefully Intel will keep their prices honest -_- BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA. I LOL'ed IRL. For one, "keep"? That's a good one. For two, yeah right. Right now they charge more for an i5 2500 non-k than a 2300. Same piece of silicon. Well it's probably binned, isn't it? Regardless, hardware manufacturers have been doing that even when competition was pretty even. Like between NVIDIA and ATI, they would literally shut down some pipelines on their cards to sell them cheaper. Sometimes you could even turn them back up. Recently there was a GTX465 that was just a gimped GTX470 that you could flash back to GTX470 firmware. Anyway, $170 for a 2500k that'll last me for years is pretty alright. They could almost act like a monopoly at this point and they'd get slapped fees for it but that'd probably be covered by their profits. By "keeping their prices honest", I meant that I hope they won't start acting like a monopoly.
Intel does a good job at pretending they're not a monopoly. They delayed Ivybridge, stripped down X79 chipset, and hasn't invaded AMD's $100-$150 segment with quads yet.
On October 13 2011 04:07 FIStarcraft wrote:
I just want to see one of their 4 core Bulldozers benchmarked. Just glancing at the titles, and reading the Tom's Hardware article, those aren't available to be benchmarked yet? Or what?
Only Techspot has benchmarked the FX4170 but that is not being released until 2012... the one being released is the FX4100 which is 600MHz slower. AMD probably asked reviewers not to benchmark FX4 since it's performance is so embarassing that a Phenom II can beat it...
|
On October 13 2011 04:11 skyR wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 04:06 Djzapz wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 13 2011 04:00 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 03:58 Djzapz wrote:
Dear lord AMD, you almost managed to take a step backward...
Hopefully Intel will keep their prices honest -_- BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA. I LOL'ed IRL. For one, "keep"? That's a good one. For two, yeah right. Right now they charge more for an i5 2500 non-k than a 2300. Same piece of silicon. Well it's probably binned, isn't it? Regardless, hardware manufacturers have been doing that even when competition was pretty even. Like between NVIDIA and ATI, they would literally shut down some pipelines on their cards to sell them cheaper. Sometimes you could even turn them back up. Recently there was a GTX465 that was just a gimped GTX470 that you could flash back to GTX470 firmware. Anyway, $170 for a 2500k that'll last me for years is pretty alright. They could almost act like a monopoly at this point and they'd get slapped fees for it but that'd probably be covered by their profits. By "keeping their prices honest", I meant that I hope they won't start acting like a monopoly. Intel does a good job at pretending they're not a monopoly. They delayed Ivybridge, stripped down X79 chipset, and hasn't invaded AMD's $100-$150 segment with quads yet. Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 04:07 FIStarcraft wrote:
I just want to see one of their 4 core Bulldozers benchmarked. Just glancing at the titles, and reading the Tom's Hardware article, those aren't available to be benchmarked yet? Or what? Only Techspot has benchmarked the FX4170 but that is not being released until 2012... the one being released is the FX4100 which is 600MHz slower. AMD probably asked reviewers not to benchmark FX4 since it's performance is so embarassing that a Phenom II can beat it...
Kind of like not lifting the FX-8 NDA until they released the junk, so people wouldn't hear in advance how not competitive it was in the consumer market?
|
On October 13 2011 03:07 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 03:03 TadH wrote:On October 13 2011 02:46 Bibdy wrote:On October 13 2011 02:40 TadH wrote:On October 13 2011 02:37 Shikyo wrote:On October 13 2011 02:05 B00ts wrote:On October 13 2011 02:01 Bibdy wrote:
Well, where's the test that shows off its merits? If it was intended for a specific niche, shouldn't that be the benchmark? I find it more likely that they hedged a lot of bets on a single research line that was not particularly fruitful, and they've decided to release something to try and get some of that investment back. If you follow the industry at all... You would know that the new platform was designed for The Server market. However, I'm fully aware that not everyone is as nerdy as I when it comes to this stuff... But any google search for Bulldozer will eventually get you search results from prior to today and you can plainly see this fact.  afaik servers stay on 24/7 and you ideally don't want to spend 50$ a day on the electricity bill for your computer, please correct me if I'm wrong. Wrong. Any large scale server/noc centre would have no issue at all paying 50 dollars per day for a solid reliable server. EDIT: For clarification, the Data Centre/Noc I work for spends roughly $25,000 per month on our electricity bill, and we use the AMD platform in most of our servers. I'm no server/performance guy, but isn't the total cost of ownership of a server farm dominated by both the salary of the guy you pay to maintain it, and the long-term power consumption costs? I can't think of any business that would just up and go "Yeah, fuck it, get the super heavy-duty chips, and to hell with the power costs!" If you want a detailed answer here you go. The total cost of a server farm or data centre is completely IRRELEVANT. You're paying for good equipment for a couple reasons: Stability, failsafe mechanisms' and data retention. If you end up making money from the server farm then, great. People don't invent all this money into a huge data centre to make a profit, it's a guaranteed loss (in it's own respect) It's there to run the company, the infastructure and to make sure everything works as it should. It's a necessity. A data centre tech or NOC manager makes about oh I don't know 70~90k a year, which is a few months of electricity. Believe it or not, the cooling and air conditioners in a data centre cost more then most hardware (to operate 24/7) so it's somewhat of a moot point. the only way you can make a profit from a data centre is to rent out a collocation to another company, perhaps a reseller of your services, or a smaller fish who's renting some pipe from you. these usually cost about 15k, for a small 4x6 or 6x8 foot area. Irrelevant? Really? So you're saying a 1% increase in core capacity, would justify 500% more power consumption? Those three metrics are the ONLY ones under consideration? Please. Maybe to a business that likes to hemorrhage money, but over here in the real world, the total cost of ownership is a huge deal. It's pretty much the sole reason my company's IPBX product wins deals against the equivalents from Cisco and Avaya. At least in this industry, people give much less of a shit about the simpler, intuitive interface and the distributed architecture, than they do the simple fact that power consumption is stupid-low and you only need one guy to maintain it.
I don't know where you're pulling 1% and 500% respectively. Keep in mind we're not talking about future gen BD architecture in servers. We're talking about current AMD platforms that are in place. which don't have all that much difference in power consumption (Right now) than that of Intel.
The fact of the matter is, they're in use and obviously I can't speak on behalf of the total price, or cost/revenue associated with running AMD chips, it obviously works and there are reasons for it. Which have been outlined by others in this thread. And another thing to consider, people running these server farms or data centres, have deals with the local/provincial/state run power companies, and get their power at almost cost. So like I said, it's totally irrelevant.
|
If you OC it to like 5ghz with water it could be decent, but looks like I'm gonna get ivybridge
|
On October 12 2011 23:41 Duban wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 18:38 Cocoabean wrote:
So judging by the benchmarks, AMD basically did the impossible and reversed Moore's Law.
/clap Not true. Moore's law simply states that you can purchase a processor twice as powerful for the same price every 2 years. This fact still holds true. You just can't buy that processor from AMD.
No it doesn't. Moore's law just involves the transistor count (or density) on an integrated circuit. And "integrated circuit" isn't just the processor - it includes RAM, NAND, etc.
Anyway, on the topic of Bulldozer, looks disappointing, but I'm holding out hope that later iterations will make great enterprise server processors. That's the high margin market (the gaming market is a much lower margin niche).
AMD claims that the architecture was designed for scaling up clockspeeds, and rumors say that it's the shitty yield at Global Foundries that's preventing AMD from cranking it up. Though the "architecture designed for scaling up clockspeed" sounds ominously similar to Intel's NetBurst/P4 fiasco...
I'm really hoping that AMD's long-term strategy pays off - an Intel monopoly on high-end processors would suck for us all.
|
On October 13 2011 04:09 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 04:06 Djzapz wrote:On October 13 2011 04:00 JingleHell wrote:On October 13 2011 03:58 Djzapz wrote:
Dear lord AMD, you almost managed to take a step backward...
Hopefully Intel will keep their prices honest -_- BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA. I LOL'ed IRL. For one, "keep"? That's a good one. For two, yeah right. Right now they charge more for an i5 2500 non-k than a 2300. Same piece of silicon. Well it's probably binned, isn't it? Regardless, hardware manufacturers have been doing that even when competition was pretty even. Like between NVIDIA and ATI, they would literally shut down some pipelines on their cards to sell them cheaper. Sometimes you could even turn them back up. Recently there was a GTX465 that was just a gimped GTX470 that you could flash back to GTX470 firmware. Anyway, $170 for a 2500k that'll last me for years is pretty alright. They could almost act like a monopoly at this point and they'd get slapped fees for it but that'd probably be covered by their profits. By "keeping their prices honest", I meant that I hope they won't start acting like a monopoly. So because everybody is ripping you off in the same ways it's ok they rip you off? And they're not always better binned, depending on demand. And if you think they aren't acting like a monopoly, look at 1366 pricing. And GTX 465 was the most insulting piece of hardware released in the last 2 years. Although reference 6950s were kind of a nice gesture.
I don't see how it's so outrageously wrong of me to call Intel "honest" when their pricing for LGA1155 has been relatively honest if we compare it to the industry... No reason to full caps "bwahaha..." at me unless you really want some attention.
As for 1366 pricing, it's for stupid people or enthusiasts, but I would agree that it's not particularly honest.
They could be so, so much worse.
|
On October 13 2011 04:23 Boblhead wrote:
If you OC it to like 5ghz with water it could be decent, but looks like I'm gonna get ivybridge
Yeah, and if you use it in combination with a gtx 590 you no longer need any additional heating in your room!
|
On October 13 2011 04:30 nam nam wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 04:23 Boblhead wrote:
If you OC it to like 5ghz with water it could be decent, but looks like I'm gonna get ivybridge Yeah, and if you use it in combination with a gtx 590 you no longer need any additional heating in your room!
...... Temps wouldnt be higher than like 40c idle and like 55c full load....... My 6850 doesnt go over like 45c full load. :O
|
He said a GTX 590... not a 6850??
5GHz will probably require 1.5v.. I'm not sure if most people would be comfortable running 32nm at 1.5v...
|
That is.. disappointing, but I'm not surprised one bit. *le sigh*. Maybe AMD just shouldn't bother with high-end CPUs and only target budget-gamers, because there is no way in hell they can compete with Intel now. The monopolizing begins~
|
Looks like they really shot themselves in the foot going for a longer pipeline. As long as they continue to ignore their problems with memory management, no improvement in specific computational architecture is going to net a win over Intel.
|
On October 13 2011 04:27 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 04:09 JingleHell wrote:On October 13 2011 04:06 Djzapz wrote:On October 13 2011 04:00 JingleHell wrote:On October 13 2011 03:58 Djzapz wrote:
Dear lord AMD, you almost managed to take a step backward...
Hopefully Intel will keep their prices honest -_- BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA. I LOL'ed IRL. For one, "keep"? That's a good one. For two, yeah right. Right now they charge more for an i5 2500 non-k than a 2300. Same piece of silicon. Well it's probably binned, isn't it? Regardless, hardware manufacturers have been doing that even when competition was pretty even. Like between NVIDIA and ATI, they would literally shut down some pipelines on their cards to sell them cheaper. Sometimes you could even turn them back up. Recently there was a GTX465 that was just a gimped GTX470 that you could flash back to GTX470 firmware. Anyway, $170 for a 2500k that'll last me for years is pretty alright. They could almost act like a monopoly at this point and they'd get slapped fees for it but that'd probably be covered by their profits. By "keeping their prices honest", I meant that I hope they won't start acting like a monopoly. So because everybody is ripping you off in the same ways it's ok they rip you off? And they're not always better binned, depending on demand. And if you think they aren't acting like a monopoly, look at 1366 pricing. And GTX 465 was the most insulting piece of hardware released in the last 2 years. Although reference 6950s were kind of a nice gesture. I don't see how it's so outrageously wrong of me to call Intel "honest" when their pricing for LGA1155 has been relatively honest if we compare it to the industry... No reason to full caps "bwahaha..." at me unless you really want some attention. As for 1366 pricing, it's for stupid people or enthusiasts, but I would agree that it's not particularly honest. They could be so, so much worse.
If all the casinos use rigged slot machines for net payouts 20% below what they should be, does that make any individual casino honest?
And just because they could be worse also doesn't make them honest. When Ivy Bridge comes out, we'll see if you still think they're honest.
|
So much for AMD's new advert they where playing at IPL. 500w on the cpu only while oced at load are we getting a Nuclear reactor to power the whole rig for the price tag ?.
the new Bulldozer they made i would compaire to the Hummer H1, big powerfull but uses too much gas for everyday use
|
|
|
On October 13 2011 04:27 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 04:09 JingleHell wrote:On October 13 2011 04:06 Djzapz wrote:On October 13 2011 04:00 JingleHell wrote:On October 13 2011 03:58 Djzapz wrote:
Dear lord AMD, you almost managed to take a step backward...
Hopefully Intel will keep their prices honest -_- BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA. I LOL'ed IRL. For one, "keep"? That's a good one. For two, yeah right. Right now they charge more for an i5 2500 non-k than a 2300. Same piece of silicon. Well it's probably binned, isn't it? Regardless, hardware manufacturers have been doing that even when competition was pretty even. Like between NVIDIA and ATI, they would literally shut down some pipelines on their cards to sell them cheaper. Sometimes you could even turn them back up. Recently there was a GTX465 that was just a gimped GTX470 that you could flash back to GTX470 firmware. Anyway, $170 for a 2500k that'll last me for years is pretty alright. They could almost act like a monopoly at this point and they'd get slapped fees for it but that'd probably be covered by their profits. By "keeping their prices honest", I meant that I hope they won't start acting like a monopoly. So because everybody is ripping you off in the same ways it's ok they rip you off? And they're not always better binned, depending on demand. And if you think they aren't acting like a monopoly, look at 1366 pricing. And GTX 465 was the most insulting piece of hardware released in the last 2 years. Although reference 6950s were kind of a nice gesture. I don't see how it's so outrageously wrong of me to call Intel "honest" when their pricing for LGA1155 has been relatively honest if we compare it to the industry... No reason to full caps "bwahaha..." at me unless you really want some attention. As for 1366 pricing, it's for stupid people or enthusiasts, but I would agree that it's not particularly honest. They could be so, so much worse.
I'm more annoyed by lack of overclocking on most of their chips now. The days of grabbing a $100 chips and overclocking the pants off it are over until AMD's Bulldozer beta test is done and they release the real deal.
|
|
|
Just ordered my AMD FX-8150
|
On October 13 2011 04:46 Antisocialmunky wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 04:27 Djzapz wrote:On October 13 2011 04:09 JingleHell wrote:On October 13 2011 04:06 Djzapz wrote:On October 13 2011 04:00 JingleHell wrote:On October 13 2011 03:58 Djzapz wrote:
Dear lord AMD, you almost managed to take a step backward...
Hopefully Intel will keep their prices honest -_- BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA. I LOL'ed IRL. For one, "keep"? That's a good one. For two, yeah right. Right now they charge more for an i5 2500 non-k than a 2300. Same piece of silicon. Well it's probably binned, isn't it? Regardless, hardware manufacturers have been doing that even when competition was pretty even. Like between NVIDIA and ATI, they would literally shut down some pipelines on their cards to sell them cheaper. Sometimes you could even turn them back up. Recently there was a GTX465 that was just a gimped GTX470 that you could flash back to GTX470 firmware. Anyway, $170 for a 2500k that'll last me for years is pretty alright. They could almost act like a monopoly at this point and they'd get slapped fees for it but that'd probably be covered by their profits. By "keeping their prices honest", I meant that I hope they won't start acting like a monopoly. So because everybody is ripping you off in the same ways it's ok they rip you off? And they're not always better binned, depending on demand. And if you think they aren't acting like a monopoly, look at 1366 pricing. And GTX 465 was the most insulting piece of hardware released in the last 2 years. Although reference 6950s were kind of a nice gesture. I don't see how it's so outrageously wrong of me to call Intel "honest" when their pricing for LGA1155 has been relatively honest if we compare it to the industry... No reason to full caps "bwahaha..." at me unless you really want some attention. As for 1366 pricing, it's for stupid people or enthusiasts, but I would agree that it's not particularly honest. They could be so, so much worse. I'm more annoyed by lack of overclocking on most of their chips now. The days of grabbing a $100 chips and overclocking the pants off it are over until AMD's Bulldozer beta test is done and they release the real deal.
You can thank AMD for slacking off during the Athlon 64 days. Since we haven't had a competitive market for years, there is no reason why Intel would give you free performance.
|
On October 13 2011 04:49 skyR wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 04:46 Antisocialmunky wrote:On October 13 2011 04:27 Djzapz wrote:On October 13 2011 04:09 JingleHell wrote:On October 13 2011 04:06 Djzapz wrote:On October 13 2011 04:00 JingleHell wrote:On October 13 2011 03:58 Djzapz wrote:
Dear lord AMD, you almost managed to take a step backward...
Hopefully Intel will keep their prices honest -_- BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA. I LOL'ed IRL. For one, "keep"? That's a good one. For two, yeah right. Right now they charge more for an i5 2500 non-k than a 2300. Same piece of silicon. Well it's probably binned, isn't it? Regardless, hardware manufacturers have been doing that even when competition was pretty even. Like between NVIDIA and ATI, they would literally shut down some pipelines on their cards to sell them cheaper. Sometimes you could even turn them back up. Recently there was a GTX465 that was just a gimped GTX470 that you could flash back to GTX470 firmware. Anyway, $170 for a 2500k that'll last me for years is pretty alright. They could almost act like a monopoly at this point and they'd get slapped fees for it but that'd probably be covered by their profits. By "keeping their prices honest", I meant that I hope they won't start acting like a monopoly. So because everybody is ripping you off in the same ways it's ok they rip you off? And they're not always better binned, depending on demand. And if you think they aren't acting like a monopoly, look at 1366 pricing. And GTX 465 was the most insulting piece of hardware released in the last 2 years. Although reference 6950s were kind of a nice gesture. I don't see how it's so outrageously wrong of me to call Intel "honest" when their pricing for LGA1155 has been relatively honest if we compare it to the industry... No reason to full caps "bwahaha..." at me unless you really want some attention. As for 1366 pricing, it's for stupid people or enthusiasts, but I would agree that it's not particularly honest. They could be so, so much worse. I'm more annoyed by lack of overclocking on most of their chips now. The days of grabbing a $100 chips and overclocking the pants off it are over until AMD's Bulldozer beta test is done and they release the real deal. You can thank AMD for slacking off during the Athlon 64 days. Since we haven't had a competitive market for years, there is no reason why Intel would give you free performance.
You can also thank Intel for their illegal deals :3
|
On October 13 2011 04:49 skyR wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 04:46 Antisocialmunky wrote:On October 13 2011 04:27 Djzapz wrote:On October 13 2011 04:09 JingleHell wrote:On October 13 2011 04:06 Djzapz wrote:On October 13 2011 04:00 JingleHell wrote:On October 13 2011 03:58 Djzapz wrote:
Dear lord AMD, you almost managed to take a step backward...
Hopefully Intel will keep their prices honest -_- BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA. I LOL'ed IRL. For one, "keep"? That's a good one. For two, yeah right. Right now they charge more for an i5 2500 non-k than a 2300. Same piece of silicon. Well it's probably binned, isn't it? Regardless, hardware manufacturers have been doing that even when competition was pretty even. Like between NVIDIA and ATI, they would literally shut down some pipelines on their cards to sell them cheaper. Sometimes you could even turn them back up. Recently there was a GTX465 that was just a gimped GTX470 that you could flash back to GTX470 firmware. Anyway, $170 for a 2500k that'll last me for years is pretty alright. They could almost act like a monopoly at this point and they'd get slapped fees for it but that'd probably be covered by their profits. By "keeping their prices honest", I meant that I hope they won't start acting like a monopoly. So because everybody is ripping you off in the same ways it's ok they rip you off? And they're not always better binned, depending on demand. And if you think they aren't acting like a monopoly, look at 1366 pricing. And GTX 465 was the most insulting piece of hardware released in the last 2 years. Although reference 6950s were kind of a nice gesture. I don't see how it's so outrageously wrong of me to call Intel "honest" when their pricing for LGA1155 has been relatively honest if we compare it to the industry... No reason to full caps "bwahaha..." at me unless you really want some attention. As for 1366 pricing, it's for stupid people or enthusiasts, but I would agree that it's not particularly honest. They could be so, so much worse. I'm more annoyed by lack of overclocking on most of their chips now. The days of grabbing a $100 chips and overclocking the pants off it are over until AMD's Bulldozer beta test is done and they release the real deal. You can thank AMD for slacking off during the Athlon 64 days. Since we haven't had a competitive market for years, there is no reason why Intel would give you free performance.
Not so much slacking off but more like Intel throwing enough money at Pentium 3 architecture to fund a Nuclear program for a rouge state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
