Wait.. so Haswell already can? Other members made it sound like even Haswell had trouble achieving full speed in Hyrule Field without the speedhack. I thought that claim was odd since I could achieve 20fps to 25fps without the speedhack on my overclocked i7 950. However something happened in recent revisions and now I can't get any more than 12fps to 16fps without the speedhack. :/
Guess I can wait until hardware is powerful enough to handle interpreter mode full speed lol. See ya'll in around in a few decades.
Every time I think it can't get any worse for AMDs cpu division they continue to surprise me:
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-kaveri-refresh-released-mid-2015.html
So now no FX cpus are planned to be released in 2015, which means AMD users will be forced to continue using cpus that came out in 2012 until at least 2016. Carrizo is cancelled, we're only getting a kaveri refresh with slight clock rate bumps instead. And it seems that AMD is backpedaling hard away from the bulldozer architecture while working on a suitable replacement (Zen). Excavator has likely been cancelled entirely at this point.
How is AMD performance looking these days? What generation Intel processor is the most recent AMD processor equivalent to?
(02-13-2015, 01:21 PM)Xtreme2damax Wrote: [ -> ]How is AMD performance looking these days? What generation Intel processor is the most recent AMD processor equivalent to?
Lower IPC than Phenom II X6's. Most likely comparable to first gen i7.
Depends which cpu you're looking at and which apps you're running. But I'll try to answer your question as best I can anyways without delving into specifics.
Overall I would say they're most comparable to nehalem/westmere Intel cpus. If AMDs bulldozer uarch had launched in 2009 it would have been competitive with Intels nehalem uarch. If piledriver has launched the next year in 2010 it would have been competitive with westmere. For an example let's take a look at AMDs flagship piledriver FX cpu, the FX 8350. If you compare it to Intels gulftown cpus (6 core westmere) they are nearly identical in both singlethreaded and multithreaded performance, die size, transistor count, manufacturing technology, power consumption, features, etc. AMDs 8 core piledriver cpus could have competed perfectly with Intels 6 core gulftown cpus, AMDs 6 core piledriver cpus could have competed with Intels 4 core bloomfield/lyynfield cpus, and AMDs 4 core piledriver cpus could have competed with Intels 2 core clarkdale cpus. Both companies would have had lineups covering products from $50-$1,000 with competitive products at every price point, just like in the athlon 64/X2 days. But AMDs tech was 2 years behind Intel at the time so their flagship cpus could only compete with Intels midrange cpus at the time (I know that nobody likes to think of $200-400 as midrange since that's what most people buy but it is).
If we instead compare them with modern "affordable" Intel cpus (as most people do) we find that Intels haswell architecture has about a 70% lead in per core performance (with no HT/CMT) even with piledriver cpus generally having around 10-20% higher clock rates. For applications using 4 or less cores Intel haswell i5s generally have about a 70% performance over piledriver FX cpus. In heavily multithreaded application that use all 8 cores and load balance well over all of them the 8 core FX cpus have similar performance to the 4 core haswell i5s. Sometimes slightly beating them. Against the quad core i7s with HT they generally lose even in those tests. For applications in between performance is generally better on haswell but not by as large of a margin. Both architectures can be overclocked by around 20% (to 5GHz for piledriver and to 4.6GHz for devils canyon) so overclocking doesn't really change the big picture. So if you're just comparing them against the quad core midrange Intel cpus their singlethreaded performance is similar to nehalem and their multithreaded performance is similar to haswell. Intel of course has 6 and 8 core haswell-E models that knock the socks off them in both single and multithreaded tests.
Zee530 Wrote:They're still swimming in console money
That's a funny joke.
Zee530 Wrote:i just hope that freesync actually works when it comes out
It will. But it will require displayport to work. I have no doubt that it will eventually take off but that may take a few more years and its use will likely be restricted to "gaming monitors".
While I'm back, if my brother is upgrading from an HD 6450, and wants to spend about £140, and will potentially be playing a game twice on two different 1080p screens to achieve splitscreen, but will otherwise just be using a single 1080p screen, and is, as always with my family, buying from Scan, is there an obvious better choice than this:
http://www.scan.co.uk/products/4gb-msi-radeon-r9-270x-gaming-4g-5600mhz-gddr5-gpu-1030mhz-boost-1120mhz-1280-streams-dp-dvi-hdmi ?
It being that he's currently on an out-of-date multimedia-at-best GPU, he's ideally not like to wait forever, especially as it was his birthday yesterday, and he was mostly getting the card as his present. Unless someone's sure there's going to be a replacement model out in just a couple of months, he'd prefer something now rather than waiting for a better deal.
Is it weird that MSI's OC genie can over clock my CPU to 4.3ghz with 1.25v yet I can't get 4.4ghz fully stable with 1.35v?