rumor control amd piledriver 8 core results stares gen 1 i7 in the face

supposedly these are results from a corona piledriver (vishera) cpu. specifically a low end 8-core 8-thread creation clocked @ 3.3ghz. (there are likely 3 8-core cpu's and a 10-core according to amd roadmaps)

super pi: 24min 20seconds. (approx.)

cinebench 11.5: 5.73 points (to compare the 1100t scored 5.9 and the 2600k nets you around a 6.7-6.8)

take em with a grain of salt. as this could be bogus and is from an unreliable source. however this would put piledriver alot clsoer to the turf of gen 1 i7's

http://www.hardocp.com/news/2012/08/07/amd_piledriver_fx_vishera_engineering_sample_benchmarks63

So if I get this right... AMD might have CPU that are as good as the first generation i7? horgen123

[QUOTE="horgen123"]So if I get this right... AMD might have CPU that are as good as the first generation i7? Elann2008

Why would that suck?ydnarrewop

[QUOTE="ydnarrewop"]Why would that suck?C_Rule

but as stated keep in mind that these benches reek of shady generation and while the angineering sample photo seems legit the is fairly easy to fabricate. and assuming its not it tells us very little about their single-core preformance this is more dual or tri core than anything. and those benchmarks are made further odd by not comparing bulldozer itself to the engi sample and that all the intel cpu's have been overclocked to no end on a barebones PoS system with barely any system ram and a turd of a gpu.

Disappointing.

And it will probably still cost about half as much as Intel's offerings, and if most people say they need more power than a 1st gen i7 then I'll call them liars. While yes, it's dissapointing that AMD isn't blowing the doors off of Intel, they're keeping up reasonably well and filling a niche.General_X

People always throw the pricing factor under the bus as if it's irrelevant. I go with AMD when I want decent power for a good price. Modern CPU and GPUs are so powerful that I'm finally content with not having bleeding-edge tech. I could encode HD footage, do what I need in photoshop and even to a little CGI on a budget AMD rig. I don't feel very compelled to spend over 200$ or even 150$ on a new CPU.

is that clock for clock? if so then it is good, since ivybridge is only a 20% or so improvement ipc over nehalem, which isnt that much.

You're not giving your street urchins enough food for reliable information ;)

I posted in another thread Coolaler's results of piledriver, which weren't too promising. Bottom line: AMD in the CPU industry is now relegated to nothing more than a budget oriented joke when it comes to the desktop segment.

I think part of the problem is the inferior fabs they're forced to use (TSMC, Globalfoundries) that simply can't match up with Intel's. That's a huge part of it, as much as the engineering aspect of it.

IF AMD wants to regain some crediblity in their high end CPU line, they need to ditch the Faildozer architecture and come up with something more efficient than their crap module design which isn't well catered to most software today. Also, they need to seriously look at improving their node cadence cycle. Be more aggressive. Lastly, their idiot CEO has to stop coming out and basically saying they've given up in the high end segment. Only an idiot fesses up to something like that. Keep it under your nose you clown.

I posted in another thread Coolaler's results of piledriver, which weren't too promising. Bottom line: AMD in the CPU industry is now relegated to nothing more than a budget oriented joke when it comes to the desktop segment.

I think part of the problem is the inferior fabs they're forced to use (TSMC, Globalfoundries) that simply can't match up with Intel's. That's a huge part of it, as much as the engineering aspect of it.

IF AMD wants to regain some crediblity in their high end CPU line, they need to ditch the Faildozer architecture and come up with something more efficient than their crap module design which isn't well catered to most software today. Also, they need to seriously look at improving their node cadence cycle. Be more aggressive. Lastly, their idiot CEO has to stop coming out and basically saying they've given up in the high end segment. Only an idiot fesses up to something like that. Keep it under your nose you clown.

SolidPandaG

You speak as if you are some sort of an expert, yet you talk like some kid that is cutting class.

[QUOTE="SolidPandaG"]

I posted in another thread Coolaler's results of piledriver, which weren't too promising. Bottom line: AMD in the CPU industry is now relegated to nothing more than a budget oriented joke when it comes to the desktop segment.

I think part of the problem is the inferior fabs they're forced to use (TSMC, Globalfoundries) that simply can't match up with Intel's. That's a huge part of it, as much as the engineering aspect of it.

IF AMD wants to regain some crediblity in their high end CPU line, they need to ditch the Faildozer architecture and come up with something more efficient than their crap module design which isn't well catered to most software today. Also, they need to seriously look at improving their node cadence cycle. Be more aggressive. Lastly, their idiot CEO has to stop coming out and basically saying they've given up in the high end segment. Only an idiot fesses up to something like that. Keep it under your nose you clown.

NailedGR

You speak as if you are some sort of an expert, yet you talk like some kid that is cutting class.

I'm not an expert. I'm THE expert. And I invented cutting class.

[QUOTE="SolidPandaG"]

I posted in another thread Coolaler's results of piledriver, which weren't too promising. Bottom line: AMD in the CPU industry is now relegated to nothing more than a budget oriented joke when it comes to the desktop segment.

I think part of the problem is the inferior fabs they're forced to use (TSMC, Globalfoundries) that simply can't match up with Intel's. That's a huge part of it, as much as the engineering aspect of it.

IF AMD wants to regain some crediblity in their high end CPU line, they need to ditch the Faildozer architecture and come up with something more efficient than their crap module design which isn't well catered to most software today. Also, they need to seriously look at improving their node cadence cycle. Be more aggressive. Lastly, their idiot CEO has to stop coming out and basically saying they've given up in the high end segment. Only an idiot fesses up to something like that. Keep it under your nose you clown.

NailedGR

You speak as if you are some sort of an expert, yet you talk like some kid that is cutting class.

Not bad for a cheap build, could probably max most or even all games with that.JohnF111

[QUOTE="JohnF111"]Not bad for a cheap build, could probably max most or even all games with that.Toxic-Seahorse

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"][QUOTE="JohnF111"]Not bad for a cheap build, could probably max most or even all games with that.C_Rule

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"][QUOTE="JohnF111"]Not bad for a cheap build, could probably max most or even all games with that.C_Rule

ionus please stop trying to get my attention and impress me. It's just not happening brodawg.

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"][QUOTE="JohnF111"]Not bad for a cheap build, could probably max most or even all games with that.C_Rule

nah bruh

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"] A Phenom II X4 can max all games, so I'd be surprised if piledriver couldn't.GummiRaccoon

nah bruh

mmhmm unless you do something impractically ridiculous like nexus wars in SC2 mp phenom II x4's dun flinch but those will make any system suffer due to high unit counts

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"][QUOTE="JohnF111"]Not bad for a cheap build, could probably max most or even all games with that.C_Rule

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"]
A Phenom II X4 can max all games, so I'd be surprised if piledriver couldn't.Elann2008

[QUOTE="Elann2008"][QUOTE="C_Rule"]
I know people get upset when someone says this, but Phenom II X4s and C2Qs cannot max all games.

I just upgraded from a 3.6GHz C2Q to a 3570K and GTA IV went from borderline playable to 60-90 fps. Granted GTA IV is not a well optimized game, but there are other games with similar results. C_Rule

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]

[QUOTE="Elann2008"]
Phenom II X4 965 @3.8GHz with the right GPU certainly can. Does that count? :PionusX

my q9550 at 4ghz with a 5850 had no porblems with gta4 or any other game

My FX-4100/HD 6850 can play GTAIV at medium settings and get 60 FPS. I'm thinking there's something wrong on your end brah.muffinduck01

Medium settings?!?!?

UNACCEPTABLE! Must be maxed out on all settings or the game is fail! And the CPU is fail! And the GPU is fail! How dare you play on anything less then maxed out settings! ARHG! [/sarcasm]

Sadly, that's how some people think when they play games. If they can't max a game out completely with 60+fps, then their hardware is crap and they'll swear up and down that if their hardware is crap for running a game, then that same hardware is bad and no one else should enjoy using it.

I know people get upset when someone says this... C_Rule

[QUOTE="C_Rule"] I know people get upset when someone says this... C_Rule

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"] I know people get upset when someone says this... ionusX

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]
Yep...

Funny how I was talking about both Phenom II quads AND Core 2 quads, but it's just the AMD bros that jump on me about Phenom IIs.

Yeah, didn't see that coming.

C_Rule

sure is confirmation bias

C2Q are fine as long as they are over 3GHz. Most phenom IIs are well beyond 3GHz, that is why you see more people with those now

[QUOTE="Elann2008"][QUOTE="C_Rule"]
I know people get upset when someone says this, but Phenom II X4s and C2Qs cannot max all games.

I just upgraded from a 3.6GHz C2Q to a 3570K and GTA IV went from borderline playable to 60-90 fps. Granted GTA IV is not a well optimized game, but there are other games with similar results. C_Rule

AMD x2 6000+ runs GTA 4 smooth on high. umirin?

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="ionusX"] its primarily b/c very few ppl on these forums rock core 2 quads anymore. umm daytona i think does but he is rarely on and 04 maybe?

GummiRaccoon

sure is confirmation bias

C2Q are fine as long as they are over 3GHz. Most phenom IIs are well beyond 3GHz, that is why you see more people with those now

[QUOTE="C_Rule"] I know people get upset when someone says this... C_Rule

AMD x2 6000+ runs GTA 4 smooth on high. umirin?

jakes456

[QUOTE="jakes456"]

AMD x2 6000+ runs GTA 4 smooth on high. umirin?

04dcarraher

never dropped to 20 for me. This was like when it came out. Windows XP, AMD x2 6000+ and GTS 250. same setup I have now except I use w7.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="jakes456"]

AMD x2 6000+ runs GTA 4 smooth on high. umirin?

jakes456

never dropped to 20 for me. This was like when it came out. Windows XP, AMD x2 6000+ and GTS 250. same setup I have now except I use w7.

Well my PC did not under-perform in other games, so I dunno what the problem is.

And no, I do not go out of my way to hate of love one company.

GTA4 is random: On high settings my older(now 2nd) rig had a AMD Athlon II X4 645 and 2 GTX 460s and I still get below 30FPS half the time:

And the expansion isn't any better either, lol:

Well I can only go off my experience, but I paired my 670 with my old C2Q and framerate in GTA IV was still pretty poor. I guess it depends what people class as playable, but to me, playing GTA IV at 20-40 fps was not very enjoyable.

But on my 3570K, like I said I get 60-90 fps, the difference is massive.

C_Rule