FX 6300? Anyone use this CPU?

[nsahawks7]

Quote:You should be able to hit 4.5GHz on air just fine.

@ThorhiantheUltimate

Just for reference they need a 40% increase in IPC with no drop in clock rate to match the performance of ivy bridge in dolphin. They will need an 80% increase to match the performance of haswell. So they will remain far behind even under the best case scenario. Not to mention haswell has integrated graphics and a lower power consumption (and if you turn off the IGP it has half the power consumption of vishera so its performance per watt is about 3.5 times as high in dolphin). They are so far behind now that there is virtually no chance of them ever catching up.
<@Sonicadvance1> skid_au, One day we'll have the technology to examine your brain and learn why you thinkg wrong things

Theoretically yes, but in real life perspective, that probably won't be the case honestly.

[DatKid20]

(07-25-2013, 05:03 PM)MaJoR Wrote: To patch a small hole in what NV said and beat any potentially bad comebacks using said hole, the division of modern games into 2-3 cores proves his point, and doesn't negate it. Most PC games (and Dolphin) use 2-3 cores because certain parts of them were already mostly separate: the parts didn't need to have data from the other parts during operations so it was pretty simple to break them apart into separate threads. That's why 2 cores for low end and 4 cores for high end has been the standard for non-server CPUs since 2007 (excluding AMD's (and now Samsung's) more-cores-mean-better marketing). With most programs using a single core and most games using only 2 or 3 cores, there is simply no benefit for anyone to go above four cores for personal computing.

If there is going to be change, it's going to have to come on the hardware side with some sort of inter-core communication technique. AMD has tried to do that kind of stuff but nothing has really come of it. It is apparently very hard.

Just want to comment on the Samsung thing. You can't use all 8 cores. 4 cores are for heavy lifting and 4 are for low power usage and if you are not doing any thing heavy they will most likely be used. So no it's not 8 cores, It's a quad core processor. AMD however has no excuse for the moar cores thing.

[ThorhiantheUltimate]

Can someone tell me the IPC gains on Haswell over Ivy? I can't really find an exact answer anywhere, and benches vary.

@NaturalViolence: Sorry for not using the reply button, but I'm stuck on my ipad again Anyways, You don't need to hit the IPC of Ivy bridge, you only need to get close to it at this point. Especially if you decide to use an older build on some of the intensive games, and OC the thing. In my case, I honestly could care less about wattage consumption, Im in it for a cheap performance upgrade. I do say that Haswell is quite good in the mobile department, especially since they are getting their iGPUs in line, so that they don't suck horribly. Wonder how Kaveri will stack up this time around with Haswell (GPU wise, HSA will be interesting to see when used correctly, not in dolphin of course if my understanding is correct).

All I'm saying is, AMd doesn't need to directly compete with Intel to get a good CPU, if they can get the money 25-30% IPC gain, and keep clocks around the same, I'll definately retire my 1055T.

[NaturalViolence]

nsahawks7 Wrote:So far AMD is a bit behind but you have to remember, they said they're done competing with Intel

They never said that. They said they were retargeting away from desktop performance more towards mobile performance and energy efficiency. Very important difference. As usual the media blew it up to "AMD is giving up!" in order to boost page views.

DatKid20 Wrote:Just want to comment on the Samsung thing. You can't use all 8 cores. 4 cores are for heavy lifting and 4 are for low power usage and if you are not doing any thing heavy they will most likely be used. So no it's not 8 cores, It's a quad core processor. AMD however has no excuse for the moar cores thing.

It's still stupid. Out of the few applications that can use more than two cores effectively nearly all of them are content creation applications that run on desktops/laptops. There are almost no apps for android/IOS that use more than 2 cores and since mobile apps are usually focused around content consumption not content creation it's unlikely that there ever will be (maybe games, I can't think of much else).

So why did they do it then? Part of the reason may have been for marketing but I think the larger reason is simply the fact that it's harder and more expensive to try to boost single threaded performance and energy efficiency. And you'll never get the same kind of gains that you would get going the multicore route no matter how good of a job you do. By increasing core count you can substantially boost maximum throughput and performance per watt with minimal cost. The only downside is you shift some of the performance burden onto the programmers and many apps won't be able to take advantage of the improvements you made. On paper you also have a product that looks better and is easier to market.

ThorhiantheUltimate Wrote:Can someone tell me the IPC gains on Haswell over Ivy? I can't really find an exact answer anywhere, and benches vary.

It depends on the application. It ranges from 0% to 30%. For most applications it's in the 7-13% range. For dolphin it's in the 20-30% range depending on the game.

ThorhiantheUltimate Wrote:All I'm saying is, AMd doesn't need to directly compete with Intel to get a good CPU, if they can get the money 25-30% IPC gain, and keep clocks around the same, I'll definately retire my 1055T.

If AMD continues to make products that consume more power than the competition while achieving less performance they will continue to lose sales and be forced to sell their cpus for next to nothing.

For the record I understand where you're coming from. Since you already own an AMD motherboard it will be a cheaper upgrade for you which factors into your decision.

ThorhiantheUltimate Wrote:I honestly could care less about wattage consumption

The reason why power consumption is important on desktops is it limits overclocking potential and causes the system to heat up your room more quickly. For those of us who don't have the luxury to live in a large house and/or have poor AC (or no AC) this is a serious issue.

nsahawks7 Wrote:Theoretically yes, but in real life perspective, that probably won't be the case honestly.

What do you mean by this?

[DatKid20]

(07-26-2013, 07:15 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote:

DatKid20 Wrote:Just want to comment on the Samsung thing. You can't use all 8 cores. 4 cores are for heavy lifting and 4 are for low power usage and if you are not doing any thing heavy they will most likely be used. So no it's not 8 cores, It's a quad core processor. AMD however has no excuse for the moar cores thing.

It's still stupid. Out of the few applications that can use more than two cores effectively nearly all of them are content creation applications that run on desktops/laptops. There are almost no apps for android/IOS that use more than 2 cores and since mobile apps are usually focused around content consumption not content creation it's unlikely that there ever will be (maybe games, I can't think of much else).

So why did they do it then? Part of the reason may have been for marketing but I think the larger reason is simply the fact that it's harder and more expensive to try to boost single threaded performance and energy efficiency. And you'll never get the same kind of gains that you would get going the multicore route no matter how good of a job you do. By increasing core count you can substantially boost maximum throughput and performance per watt with minimal cost. The only downside is you shift some of the performance burden onto the programmers and many apps won't be able to take advantage of the improvements you made. On paper you also have a product that looks better and is easier to market.

The Exynos 5 Octa is only sold in South Korea (Unless you really want one.) so unless you live in South Korea you have the option of not buying it. After all there are 49.78 million (2011 estimate) compared to the 7.05 billion people around the world. My last point is that it is only in the Galaxy S4 it sold 20 million worldwide. How many of those are the Exynos 5 Octa? Most likely very few. If you're talking about the Galaxy S4 lets bring in Qualcomm who's Qualcomm 600 SoC is also in the Galaxy S4. It is a quad core part. Not 4 core sometimes being used and 4 mostly being used. If you're going to talk about the Octa it's pretty stupid seeing as how not many people have it. If you're going to talk about anyone you should talk about Qualcomm who has made another quad core, the Qualcoom 800 SoC.

[NaturalViolence]

The fact that it's not widely used doesn't really make it any less stupid.

[DatKid20]

(07-26-2013, 08:15 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: The fact that it's not widely used doesn't really make it any less stupid.

You still haven't said Qualcomm is being equally as stupid.

[NaturalViolence]

I don't see why that matters, but sure. Qualcomm is equally stupid.

[nsahawks7]

Spoiler: (Show Spoiler)

(07-26-2013, 07:15 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote:

nsahawks7 Wrote:So far AMD is a bit behind but you have to remember, they said they're done competing with Intel

They never said that. They said they were retargeting away from desktop performance more towards mobile performance and energy efficiency. Very important difference. As usual the media blew it up to "AMD is giving up!" in order to boost page views.

DatKid20 Wrote:Just want to comment on the Samsung thing. You can't use all 8 cores. 4 cores are for heavy lifting and 4 are for low power usage and if you are not doing any thing heavy they will most likely be used. So no it's not 8 cores, It's a quad core processor. AMD however has no excuse for the moar cores thing.

It's still stupid. Out of the few applications that can use more than two cores effectively nearly all of them are content creation applications that run on desktops/laptops. There are almost no apps for android/IOS that use more than 2 cores and since mobile apps are usually focused around content consumption not content creation it's unlikely that there ever will be (maybe games, I can't think of much else).

So why did they do it then? Part of the reason may have been for marketing but I think the larger reason is simply the fact that it's harder and more expensive to try to boost single threaded performance and energy efficiency. And you'll never get the same kind of gains that you would get going the multicore route no matter how good of a job you do. By increasing core count you can substantially boost maximum throughput and performance per watt with minimal cost. The only downside is you shift some of the performance burden onto the programmers and many apps won't be able to take advantage of the improvements you made. On paper you also have a product that looks better and is easier to market.

ThorhiantheUltimate Wrote:Can someone tell me the IPC gains on Haswell over Ivy? I can't really find an exact answer anywhere, and benches vary.

It depends on the application. It ranges from 0% to 30%. For most applications it's in the 7-13% range. For dolphin it's in the 20-30% range depending on the game.

ThorhiantheUltimate Wrote:All I'm saying is, AMd doesn't need to directly compete with Intel to get a good CPU, if they can get the money 25-30% IPC gain, and keep clocks around the same, I'll definately retire my 1055T.

If AMD continues to make products that consume more power than the competition while achieving less performance they will continue to lose sales and be forced to sell their cpus for next to nothing.

For the record I understand where you're coming from. Since you already own an AMD motherboard it will be a cheaper upgrade for you which factors into your decision.

ThorhiantheUltimate Wrote:I honestly could care less about wattage consumption

The reason why power consumption is important on desktops is it limits overclocking potential and causes the system to heat up your room more quickly. For those of us who don't have the luxury to live in a large house and/or have poor AC (or no AC) this is a serious issue.

nsahawks7 Wrote:Theoretically yes, but in real life perspective, that probably won't be the case honestly.

What do you mean by this?

Basically this: http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/amd_not_competing_with_intel_anymore.html

The AMD spokesperson said that you should forget about the "AMD vs Intel" deal because they're over it. Although they are focusing on mobile cpu's now, after bulldozer released and ended up being a bust, AMD as a whole decided to go their own way and forget their CPU rivalry with Intel.


http://www.hwcompare.com/13467/geforce-gtx-650-vs-radeon-hd-7770/

Technically, the GTX 650 should overall be better than the HD 7770 and @ higher resolutions. Is it? No. Synthetically, to reach the potential of a GTX 650 through a Radeon 7770, you need to overclock it about 15%, but is that true? Not at the slightest.

Not sure if the architecture is the same for CPU but that's my two cents. Also, an FX 9xxx (Basically an 8350 OC to 5 Ghz) is similar to an i7/high end i5 in performance overall.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz-9.html

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz-8.html

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz-7.html

Look at 3D Mark and such, what you said is partially true but even in 3D Mark, a synthetic benchmark, it still does a good job.
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz-5.html
so yeah Synthetically, your statement is true, but real life benchmarks it probably won't happen evident in the links above. Single thread is still an issue though, but the rest, AMD isn't too far behind.

[ThorhiantheUltimate]

(07-26-2013, 07:15 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: If AMD continues to make products that consume more power than the competition while achieving less performance they will continue to lose sales and be forced to sell their cpus for next to nothing.

For the record I understand where you're coming from. Since you already own an AMD motherboard it will be a cheaper upgrade for you which factors into your decision.

Yep, of course. Im just hoping that their revenue pick when the next gen consoles come out. Plus, if these gains really do happen, then their APU's will pretty sweet just for about anything (except hardcore dolphin and maybe SC2 lol) that a normal consumer would want. Hopefully Excavator will see power efficiency increase by a large margin, since I think they were trying to aim for that in their roadmap. We'll just have to wait and see.


TBH, for just desktop chips in general, besides in dolphin, Haswell was a bit disappointing (along with Ivy). At least Haswell gave mobile/ the lower end devices quite a bit of love.