Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AMD Making a 5 GHz 8-Core Processor At 220 Watts

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the numbers-getting-bigger dept.

AMD 271

Vigile writes "It looks like the rumors were true; AMD is going to be selling an FX-9590 processor this month that will hit frequencies as high as 5 GHz. Though originally thought to be an 8-module/16-core part, it turns out that the new CPU will have the same 4-module/8-core design that is found on the current lineup of FX-series processors including the FX-8350. But, with an increase of the maximum Turbo Core speed from 4.2 GHz to 5.0 GHz, the new parts will draw quite a bit more power. You can expect the the FX-9590 to need 220 watts or so to run at those speeds and a pretty hefty cooling solution as well. Performance should closely match the recently released Intel Core i7-4770K Haswell processor so AMD users that can handle the 2.5x increase in power consumption can finally claim performance parity."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Awesome (4, Funny)

redmid17 (1217076) | about a year ago | (#43977927)

I always wanted to have a computer running my freezer

Re:Awesome (1)

wjcofkc (964165) | about a year ago | (#43978063)

I think you mean in your freezer...

Re:Awesome (2)

dicobalt (1536225) | about a year ago | (#43978097)

It can do both.

Re:Awesome (4, Funny)

redmid17 (1217076) | about a year ago | (#43978131)

No I meant running my freezer. Hence the reason I typed: "I always wanted to have a computer running my freezer" instead of "I always wanted to have a computer running IN my freezer"

Re:Awesome (4, Funny)

ArcherB (796902) | about a year ago | (#43978193)

No I meant running my freezer. Hence the reason I typed:

"I always wanted to have a computer running my freezer"

instead of

"I always wanted to have a computer running IN my freezer"

Oh. Then I don't get it.

As a side note, I've always wanted to take an old mini fridge and turn it into a computer case.

Re:Awesome (3, Interesting)

trum4n (982031) | about a year ago | (#43978221)

Done it. It was fun and functional, but you have to do everything you can to keep the condensation out. Fast a hell tho!

Re:Awesome (2)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#43978297)

There is a type of freezer that can operate using a heat source for power [howstuffworks.com] (strange but true).

I'm, guessing that's what he meant anyway.

Re:Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43978347)

I just bought an RV; that's how their fridges work. Most can run for a week or two on a tank of propane.

Re:Awesome (1)

Cito (1725214) | about a year ago | (#43979355)

yea I have a propane fridge and freezer, I pulled it out of an old RV at a junk yard for free :)

but it works, and I keep it for emergency purposes. Few years ago my town was without power for 5 days after a Hurricane came through southern Ga. So I connected the freezer/fridge duo to a propane tank and was able to keep most my food from spoiling.

Re:Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43978263)

Well, then, thanks for sharing, I guess. *walks away slowly*

Re:Awesome (1)

wjcofkc (964165) | about a year ago | (#43978307)

If your freezer is less than fifteen years old, it is most likely already being run by a computer.

Re:Awesome (2)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about a year ago | (#43978331)

i think it would work better running a heated swimming pool, or a grill. But to each their own.

Re:Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43978849)

he's well monged int 'e

Re:Awesome (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#43978955)

Whoosh! He was making a joke as to the hideous heat released.

Re:Awesome (5, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#43978491)

I would urge those that wonder WTF AMD is doing copying all the old mistakes Intel did with netburst to read this post by a former employee [insideris.com] who lays out exactly why this is happening, the former CEO did the usual Wall street move of slash and burn, get a stock bounce, and cash out.

They are stuck with the Netburst that is Bulldozer/Piledriver/Suckavator or whatever other names they want to give it because the former CEO FIRED everybody that knew how to make a chip over there and replaced them with computer layouts which as you can see blow through power like shit through a goose while giving worse performance on a per watt basis than the previous Stars arch.

This isn't coming from some Intel fanboy, I own and sell nothing but AMD at the shop, but when I can no longer get Stars and Liano chips I'm gonna have to seriously look at Intel because these new designs just suuuuck. There is a good reason why you don't see Thuban chips in most benchmarks against the new chips, its because if you matched clock for clock the Thubans and Denebs will win. That is pretty damned sad, when your old chips are actually better while using less power but the CEO they had closed down production of all the Stars cores (again to get a stock bounce and cash out) so there really is no plan B here.

I just hope the game console chips can give them enough operating capital to keep them afloat while hopefully the new chip designer they hired, the same one that did the Athlon64 and the Apple A6, can come up with a new design to make AMD at least kinda competitive. Until then I'll hang onto to AM3+ and Stars as long as I can and then start looking at the i3s and i5s.

Re:Awesome (3, Insightful)

Tough Love (215404) | about a year ago | (#43978751)

You got that one wrong. Netburst was about deepening the pipeline to ridiculous extremes in order to ramp the clock. The new AMD story is pure clock ramp via process technology and power management. Big difference there.

Re:Awesome (4, Interesting)

gman003 (1693318) | about a year ago | (#43978973)

No, this particular story is analogous to a 2004-era story about Intel releasing a new Pentium IV at yet-higher clocks. The current story is about a clock ramp, but the overarching narrative is the same.

The Bulldozer architecture is fundamentally broken, this time due to simple negligence (mainly in management) rather than a faulty assumption. The only way to get reasonable performance from it is to clock it to high speeds, which gives very diminishing returns. Power consumption scales with the *cube* of the clock speed, so you pretty quickly run into a power/heat wall. They clocked the early ones pretty aggressively already, but at the cost of power and heat (and thus, noise). But it's the same story as the Pentium IV - the smart people are on something else.

AMD seems to be trying to put itself back together. Hopefully the PS4/Xb1 wins will give them enough of a cash flow to keep them solvent until they can get a new architecture out, or at least hammer out the IPC problems with Bulldozer. On the bright side, Intel's been distracted by ARM - they threw away a year's lead on performance to chase idle power draw, which should give AMD a bit of time to catch up on performance on the desktop.

Re:Awesome (1)

Tough Love (215404) | about a year ago | (#43979169)

No it's not analogous to anything. It is about observing that AMD did not deepen the pipeline, therefore this story is not like the Netburst debacle.

Re:Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43979053)

On one hand we have Slashdot reader say to hell with hand optimizing software because _THEIR_ own time are so important and let the compiler/interpreters do their job and yet the same people complain that the chip designers should do the exact opposite.

AMD seem to be doing fine with their GPU that are developed on the same methodology. Going the SoC path (aka your "replaced them with computer layouts") is what make AMD quick in coming up with the custom APU for Sony and their new hUMA architectures. Since AMD went to outside fab house, it is important that they keep the machine do the routing so that it is more portable across FAB shops.

Re:Awesome (1)

Applekid (993327) | about a year ago | (#43978665)

I always wanted to have a computer running my freezer

With that kind of power consumption, I wouldn't expect it to stay being your freezer for very long.

Grilled bratwurst anyone?

2013 AMD has a message for 2005 AMD (4, Insightful)

CajunArson (465943) | about a year ago | (#43977953)

The message is: You got the Megahertz myth wrong! The only myth is that Megahertz isn't important!

Oh, and all that performance-per-watt stuff? You might want to walk that back. Oh and, pull those Youtube videos where you accuse Nvidia users of being fake-pot farmers because their cards pull so much power. Sure it was funny at the time, but we'd rather not have to live that one down now.

Re:2013 AMD has a message for 2005 AMD (2)

jellomizer (103300) | about a year ago | (#43978143)

The problem is they are so many ways to judge performance.
GHZ are good for comparing like processors.
MIPS are good for similar instruction sets.
FLOPS are good for similar code (That uses floating points)

You then add these per watt if you want to show it off for a mobile device.

Re:2013 AMD has a message for 2005 AMD (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year ago | (#43979363)

> You then add these per watt if you want to show it off for a mobile device.

Or any data center.

Re:2013 AMD has a message for 2005 AMD (1)

bored (40072) | about a year ago | (#43978209)

You got the Megahertz myth wrong! The only myth is that Megahertz isn't important!

Tong in cheek and all that, but....

Frankly, today both AMD and Intel are at an IPC wall nearly as much as they have been at a clockrate wall. So, yes faster clock rate is pretty much the only way to get performance if your application doesn't scale with cores. Which is a shocking number of them.

The part I find interesting, is that if they can beat the haswell with this part then they probably have an IPC advantage over intel again. Remember the top end haswell turbo boosts to 4.9Ghz.

The only real difference then is how much power they take doing it. Which may not be as significant for an average system that is idle or running without the turbo boost for a significant portion of the time.

If AMD is within a few percent in the single thread area (especially on specint) and the thing is priced like a traditional AMD then they my next machine will probably be something like this.

Re:2013 AMD has a message for 2005 AMD (1)

CajunArson (465943) | about a year ago | (#43978257)

You sed: "The part I find interesting, is that if they can beat the haswell with this part then they probably have an IPC advantage over intel again. Remember the top end haswell turbo boosts to 4.9Ghz."

Please re-read everything you just said very very carefully. Especially the parts about how a design with a known IPC will magically get huge IPC boosts by only increasing the core clock and power draw (hint: it won't). Please also remember that Haswell only has a 4.9GHz boost speed for incredibly small values of "4" (it's 3.9GHz, not 4.9GHz).

Re:2013 AMD has a message for 2005 AMD (1)

bored (40072) | about a year ago | (#43978505)

My point was, that if they can match or beat a 4.9 Ghz part with a 5Ghz part, then the IPC's are going to be similar.

I didn't say the IPC changes with clock rate...

Re:2013 AMD has a message for 2005 AMD (1)

CajunArson (465943) | about a year ago | (#43978621)

That's like saying if Intel increases it's IGP performance by a factor of 10 then AMD will have to worry... of course it would, but the whole problem with that statement is the pesky word "if"

My 4770K is overclocked to 4.6GHz without that much tuning right now, and I guarantee it beats these new parts even in the perfectly multithreaded synthetic benchmarks that are best-case scenarios for AMD. It does that without being a space heater, and if the rumors about prices are true, the 4770K is an outright bargain to boot.

TDP for 4770k == 84W (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43978315)

TDP for this amd part: 220W

I'm certainly rooting for AMD, but this part looks like a failure.

Keep in mind in addition to providing up to that 220W of power you also have to provide 220W worth of cooling. If that's really how hot this part is going to run then it's gonna need a *HUGE* heatsink, or high end watercooling setup to keep it at acceptable temps (Which at least for me is 30-40C, not the 50-70C all the manufacturers seem to accept nowadays.)

Re:TDP for 4770k == 84W (1)

bored (40072) | about a year ago | (#43978489)

TDP for this amd part: 220W

Well its a lot, but I think you overestimate the cooling. 120-130W is pretty common for most high end CPUs today. And GPU's do 200+ in a double high PCI slot.

Re:TDP for 4770k == 84W (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43978623)

GPU power-draw is dropping every generation. 200watt GPUs is not "normal", even high and GPUs are now around 130watts, but where near 180watts only a few years back. Now if you're talking about $900 SLI/CrossFire Dual-GPU-per-card beasts, then yes, wattage is going up.

Re:TDP for 4770k == 84W (1)

bored (40072) | about a year ago | (#43978585)

Just to reply again, but my desktop PC probably runs at 100% for less than 30 hours a month. The extra 100 watts for 30 hours or so is going to be pennies. So over 3-5 years, making up even $50 in processor price difference is going to be hard to do.

Re:TDP for 4770k == 84W (1)

mhajicek (1582795) | about a year ago | (#43978723)

I don't think the cost of power will be significant, but it would suck to have something processing for an hour and then overheat the CPU and lose all your progress. When time is money that gets expensive real quick.

AMD does slightly different TDP. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43978651)

Intel does TDP based on normal possible maximum loads. This will be indicative of TDP when your CPU is pegged at 100%.
AMD does TDP based on maximum possible stress. This will be higher than the TDP you get with normal loads but means that you'll never get a brownout.

Re:TDP for 4770k == 84W (1)

Applekid (993327) | about a year ago | (#43978681)

TDP for this amd part: 220W

I'm certainly rooting for AMD, but this part looks like a failure.

Keep in mind in addition to providing up to that 220W of power you also have to provide 220W worth of cooling. If that's really how hot this part is going to run then it's gonna need a *HUGE* heatsink, or high end watercooling setup to keep it at acceptable temps (Which at least for me is 30-40C, not the 50-70C all the manufacturers seem to accept nowadays.)

Just curious, why is 50-70C not acceptable to you? If the whole system is designed to live happily at that range, what does it matter?

Re:TDP for 4770k == 84W (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43979407)

Actually, it's physics. Heat, over time, destroys electronics,
and nothing you can do will change that reality.
Just because something can run at 50-70C doesn't mean it should.

Just sayin'

CAPTCHA = 'micros'

Re:2013 AMD has a message for 2005 AMD (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year ago | (#43978501)

The first 4 GHz are easy.

Here's Ivy Bridge chips pushing ~220 Watts to reach 4.7 GHz
http://www.legitreviews.com/images/reviews/1924/power-consumption.jpg [legitreviews.com]

/AMD's FX-9xxx series uses a 32nm process.
/Intel's Ivy Bridge and Haswell use a 22nm process.

Re:2013 AMD has a message for 2005 AMD (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | about a year ago | (#43978747)

It'd be interesting to see the numbers on my own system, I suppose... I have an i5-2500k (sandy bridge) that I bought right when ivy bridge came out, which I have clocked at 4.8GHz. That's running with a Cooler Master Hyper 212+ [coolermaster.com] , and doesn't exceed 65'C even when transcoding blu-ray/dvd videos to h.264... I've kept it pegged at 100% CPU for 6 days straight without exceeding that temperature....

I'd be surprised if that heatsink could provide >200W of cooling, given that it's a big radiator with a fan. To be fair the case has a *ton* of airflow (Antec Eleven Hundred), but I'm still doubtful that it's capable of providing *that* much cooling... Cooler Master's own specs say it can only handle about 180W of TDP....

Re:2013 AMD has a message for 2005 AMD (2)

CajunArson (465943) | about a year ago | (#43978775)

Did you bother to read that graph? Try looking at the bottom where it says "Wattage At the Wall"

You must be an enormous Intel fanboy to think that they have invented technology that allows every single component in the whole computer outside of the CPU to consume zero power in highly-overclocked systems....

Big deal (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43977959)

Power 6 was running at 5.0ghz 5-6 years ago.

Re:Big deal (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43978217)

And it seemed to run 4 times slower than old opterons on all the operations I saw it run. Awesome.

Re:Big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43978541)

Guess you never saw one then, because that is complete bullshit.

Re:Big deal (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#43978377)

Power 6 is quite a bit more expensive per processor & system.

Power 6 is corporate, FX-9590 is power to the people.

Re:Big deal (1)

aliquis (678370) | about a year ago | (#43978431)

Yeah.. power at least ..

Global warming is coming.

Poor AMD... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43977969)

That 220W figure is astonishing and makes me feel bad for AMD. They are getting kicked in the balls not because of any merits or demerits of their design but simply because they don't have access to the advanced process technology that Intel does.

Re:Poor AMD... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43978081)

That 220w figure is not correct, that is why it is so hard to believe. There has never been a cpu with a TDP that high, and this one won't be either. I would guess 125w or 140w. The 220w number is probably total power consumption, which won't be anywhere near 2.5x more.

Re:Poor AMD... (2)

Khyber (864651) | about a year ago | (#43978279)

"That 220w figure is not correct, that is why it is so hard to believe. There has never been a cpu with a TDP that high,"

Um, I think the Itanium II MX2 actually got higher than that, with a TDP of 260.

Re:Poor AMD... (2)

robthebloke (1308483) | about a year ago | (#43978457)

yeah, this article [anandtech.com] is guessing at about 125w....

Re:Poor AMD... (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#43978511)

That makes a lot more sennse and is entirely in-line with some of Intel's Xeon line at 120-150W.

Re:Poor AMD... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43978705)

For the past decade, AMD has been releasing "Average" TDP draws while Intel has been releasing "Maximum" TDP draws. Which is why AMD can burst past it's rated TDP for a little in many real-world situations, while Intel CPUs will almost never reach peak, except when using hand-made ASM that can work every execution-unit at 100%.

One thing that AMD has been doing quite well is total system power consumption. Intel typically beats AMD in actual CPU draw, but then loses its edge once you include the chipsets/etc.

Re:Poor AMD... (1)

kdogg73 (771674) | about a year ago | (#43978091)

Then along comes Apple...

Re:Poor AMD... (2)

ltwally (313043) | about a year ago | (#43978555)

According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] , AMD is worth $4.5b. Possibly more. Perhaps Apple could convince their shareholders to take less. But we'll call it $4.5b for our purposes.

You think Apple wants to spend that much money to acquire a microprocessor company? A microprocessor company that doesn't even have its own fabrication plants [wikipedia.org] ? A microprocessor company that is noticeably lagging behind their main competitors: Intel and nVidia? Whatever your feelings towards AMD, you cannot refute that their market share has been on a decline the past few years, and that the Bulldozer lineup has not been able to resuscitate them.

About the only truly positive aspect for Apple would be that they would also get the ATI assets as well. But that's a double-edged sword. What if the ATI lineup slides? As things are, they can easily switch to nVidia GPU's. If they bought out AMD, they'd have little choice to be to stick with ATI gpu's no matter how good or bad things got.

And let's not forget, there are certainly some folks at Apple that were around for the joys of the G5 series -- another processor that was effectively a space-heater. They had problems with that, and took some flack for that. I imagine they'd like to avoid that unpleasant memory.

Personally, I would be shocked if Apple wanted to spend $4.5b, end a successful relationship with Intel, only to acquire a less efficient and often less powerful CPU lineup without acquiring a chip foundry as well. If there was the fabrication plant in there, then perhaps they could use it to make their own ARM chips for their phones/tablets. But they don't even get that.

Re:Poor AMD... (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year ago | (#43979013)

They already bought PA Semi. They don't need AMD.

They need to buy TSCM to get their own fab plants and get out from under Samsung's nose & thumb.

Re:Poor AMD... (1)

Kjella (173770) | about a year ago | (#43979163)

According to Wikipedia, AMD is worth $4.5b. Possibly more. Perhaps Apple could convince their shareholders to take less. But we'll call it $4.5b for our purposes.

That's the balance sheet, in practice the market cap is 2.8 billion - right before Christmas it was about 1.4 billion. At any rate, AMD's technology sucks at power efficiency which makes it a horrible match for all the mobile devices (iPhone, iPad, MacBook Air, MacBook Pro) that Apple wants to sell. Even trying to make "fashionable" non-mobile products like the Mac Mini, iMac or the new Mac Pro would be very much harder with an AMD processor. If you don't mind a big case, big heatsink and big fans AMD will get the job done but it's totally the opposite of everything Apple stands for.

Re:Poor AMD... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43978129)

There is no way that cpu has a 220w TDP. The figure shown is probably total system power consumption, which won't be anywhere near 2.5x more.

Re:Poor AMD... (1)

synapse7 (1075571) | about a year ago | (#43978405)

If I had the time and money I'd buy it just to see what happens.

Re:Poor AMD... (1)

elwinc (663074) | about a year ago | (#43978439)

True, no CPU chips draw 220 watts. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to cool a 220 watt chip

The Nvidia Titan GPU card, with a 7 billion transistor chip at its heart, draws an additional 236 watts [guru3d.com] when it goes from idle to full load. It's not hard to imagine 200 watts feeding into the GPU chip. Other GPU cards on that page draw even more power than the Titan. The Radeon HD 6950 CFX card drew 329 watts. It's not hard to imagine the chip at its heart drew over 220 watts.

If you want to cool a 220 watt CPU you might need water cooling, but it's by no means impossible.

Re:Poor AMD... (2)

bws111 (1216812) | about a year ago | (#43978565)

There are CPUs that draw that much. IBMs EC12 draws about 300 watts.

Re:Poor AMD... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43978515)

the 220W is pure speculation!
  from the article :(em is mine)

The top end product is the FX-9590 which has a top turbo speed of 5 GHz. This will be a full four module implementation with the 8 MB of L3 cache. AMD did not give any other details for this particular part. We do not know what the base clock is, we do not know what the TDP is, and we can only assume that the northbridge/L3 cache will be clocked at the standard 2.2 GHz that we have seen on previous Vishera parts.

Re:Poor AMD... (1)

serbanp (139486) | about a year ago | (#43978837)

... because they don't have access to the advanced process technology that Intel does

That's a wrong way to put it. It's their own process, they paid for it, that's why they have access to it.

Intel's process is at least two generations ahead of everybody else because they understood long time ago that technology alone can crush the competition and decided to pour an insane amount of money into creating the said forefront technology.

What did AMD do? Become a fabless chip maker, at the mercy of the likes of TSMC or GF...

So (1)

maroberts (15852) | about a year ago | (#43977985)

I've reduced my power consumption by replacing all my light bulbs with LED versions, only for my computer to negate the savings I've made....

Re:So (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#43978449)

ppppffffft.

I had to install a separate air conditioner to cool my computers. It's like I bought a 100lb CPU cooler.

Turbo Core (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43978009)

Is the turbo button making a comeback?

Re:Turbo Core (1)

Mike Frett (2811077) | about a year ago | (#43979289)

If you put it in an ASUS Mobo, in the UEFI there are 3 buttons: Power Saving, Normal and Performance; Performance being the 'Turbo' mode. I accidentally had mine in Turbo mode when I assembled my Computer, then dropped it back to normal once I knew what was going on; it was a noticeable difference. By the way, it auto-overclocks to the Turbo mode, requiring you to only turn on Performance mode.

This post should be deleted. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43978013)

There is no way this cpu has a 220w TDP. I can't believe a website as reputable as slashdot would post such utter nonsense. That figure is probably total system comsumption, which won't be anywhere near 2.5x more.

Re:This post should be deleted. (1)

johkir (716957) | about a year ago | (#43978203)

I agree. All the chips in the FX TDP [amd.com] arena are 95-125W. I'm thinking it'll be more, but not almost double. More in the 140-165W range. AMD is going for the 5 GHz media sensation buzz, not power buzz.

Re:This post should be deleted. (1)

Khyber (864651) | about a year ago | (#43978311)

Scroll down to Hondo MCM (The Itanium II MX2.) [wikipedia.org]

See that 260W TDP?

Re:This post should be deleted. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43978517)

Tough choice. I'll just buy both for winter.

Re:This post should be deleted. (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#43978429)

I can't believe a website as reputable as slashdot would post such utter nonsense.

Welcome to Slashdot.

Re:This post should be deleted. (0)

CajunArson (465943) | about a year ago | (#43978815)

AMD Fanboy: This Post should be deleted because it doesn't agree with my pro-AMD RDF.

Can we please have another article about how Haswell is such a failure instead? Oh, and can you please not do any benchmarks between Haswell and any AMD products whatsoever except for a couple of IGP benchmarks that we will pretend represent the only types of systems gamers care about? K-thanks!

History repeating itself? (2)

Carnildo (712617) | about a year ago | (#43978067)

Why am I having flashbacks to the Pentium 4?

Re:History repeating itself? (1)

mdielmann (514750) | about a year ago | (#43978239)

Awesome sig - how appropriate.

Re:History repeating itself? (2)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#43978477)

Probably because the cores aren't really cores. They're four cores that are basically hyperthreading.

Re:History repeating itself? (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | about a year ago | (#43978545)

It's hard not to. Intel wrote the book on "best way to screw-up a microarchitecture and let your competitor gain an advantage", which they have been taking into account since dropping Netboost. Now comes AMD and follows that very same book quite closely...

"Performance should closely match" (3, Insightful)

somarilnos (2532726) | about a year ago | (#43978133)

The summary suggests that the "performance should closely match the recently released Intel Core i7-4770K Haswell processor", but nothing in the article, or anything released about this chip so far, supports that. It's all just guesswork until we see some actual benchmarks from the chip.

I don't honestly expect we're going to be seeing performance parity from this chip (although I'd love it to be true). But that hasn't been AMD's selling point for me for a long time. Chances are, we're going to see a chip that breaks the 5.0 GHz barrier, under-performs relative to Intel's top end chip, but costs about half as much. That's been their game for a long time now, and I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe that this chip is changing that.

AMD slower / MHz (3, Insightful)

SpaceManFlip (2720507) | about a year ago | (#43978235)

you're probably right - I was slightly shocked recently when I compared the performance benchmarks of an 8-core AMD to a 4-core Intel. I saw the 8-core on sale for about $179 and thought "wow!" but then I was more like "wow...." after seeing the benches.

basically, the 8-core AMD was slower performance-wise the 4-core Intel with the AMD running a few MHz faster

Re:AMD slower / MHz (4, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#43978765)

Yeah but how much was the 4 core Intel? And you can probably buy that 8 core for $150 or less now if you watch the sales. I'm running the Thuban X6 and what did 6 cores cost me? $105 shipped, if you compare like to like the only chip I could get from Intel at $105 was the Pentium Dual core which the X6 outperforms so in that case the bang for the buck squarely landed in the AMD camp.

The problem with the X8s (well other than the arch, see my previous post with a link on why the BD/PD/EX platform is AMD's netburst) is they simply cost too much to make, for every X8 that comes out with all functioning core they probably get 2 dozen X4s or X6s thanks to bad cores so THAT is where the bang for the buck is, although if given a choice I'd take a Deneb or Thuban over Bulldozer any day of the week.

But if you are strictly wanting the most bang for your bucks and like most of us don't have unlimited budgets the best bets would probably be the Athlon X4 for $67 [tigerdirect.com] although for an extra $8 I'd probably go for the Phenom II X4 for $75 [tigerdirect.com] and for more than 4 cores the best bang is probably the FX6100 for $99 [tigerdirect.com] or the Phenom II 1035T X6 for $106 [tigerdirect.com] . I think in the benches the Thuban beats the FX6100 but both are good deals. Nice thing about the 1035T is I have one and have sold several and with a low end gaming board like the Asrock boards they have a hell of a lot of OCing room, before deciding I didn't want to deal with the temps I had mine up to nearly 3GHz with a turbocore of nearly 3.5GHz. I probably could have gone higher with a better cooler but my apt gets hot enough as it is without adding a major OC to my system.

As you can see though you can still get crazy cheap deals on the AMD side if you just know where to look. These chips have more than enough power to do anything your average person is gonna want to do with a PC, heck my youngest is gaming on a 3.4Ghz Athlon X3 and is quite happy with the performance and with my 1035T I can game AND do a transcode AND burn a DVD at the same time with no slow downs so I would say I'm getting my $105 out of it.

Re:AMD slower / MHz (2)

Kjella (173770) | about a year ago | (#43978999)

The problem with the X8s (well other than the arch, see my previous post with a link on why the BD/PD/EX platform is AMD's netburst) is they simply cost too much to make, for every X8 that comes out with all functioning core they probably get 2 dozen X4s or X6s thanks to bad cores so THAT is where the bang for the buck is, although if given a choice I'd take a Deneb or Thuban over Bulldozer any day of the week.

None of them are good bang for the buck for AMD, the FX-8150/8350 is a big chip of 315 mm^2 versus 216 mm^2 for Sandy Bridge, 160 mm^2 for Ivy Bridge and 177 mm^2 for Haswell. Granted the last two are on 22nm but even the 32nm Sandy Bridge was way smaller than AMD's chip, which means more chips per wafer and lower defect rates. And Intel is planning to move to 14nm next year, so there's absolutely no chance of AMD closing any gap, at best they avoid widening it.

Re:AMD slower / MHz (2, Interesting)

Omestes (471991) | about a year ago | (#43978787)

basically, the 8-core AMD was slower performance-wise the 4-core Intel with the AMD running a few MHz faster

Take all benchmarks with a grain of salt. While Intel has been generally winning for awhile now, that doesn't really mean AMD is completely inferior. With like chips there are certain things a modern AMD will out-perform Intel on, such as single threaded tasks. Intel will generally smoke AMD on multithreaded tasks, though. There is also cost, while AMD might be 10% less benchmark happy than a like Intel chip, it generally is over 25% less expensive, and will generally run without need to buy a new costly motherboard.

My last big upgrade, several years ago now, the price difference between the AMD (Phenom II 4x 965 Black) and Intel (i7 something or another) was hugely dramatic, considering the fact that I'd need a new motherboard and new RAM on top of the CPU. It was about $300-400 difference (fully upgrading 8gb of RAM, with a new mobo). I took the 10% performance hit, happily. For enthusiast CPUs, you'd best take the hit, and use the cash on a better GPU.

Re:AMD slower / MHz (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43979309)

Apparently mods are high; I see nothing either "Troll" or "Flamebait" about this post.

Re:AMD slower / MHz (0)

bored (40072) | about a year ago | (#43978803)

What benchmark?

I've been running a bunch of single thread in house application benchmarks under linux using GCC and a generic x86_64 target.

The results of AMD machines (4300's) vs the Intel (E5's) machines are not reflected in the benchmarks being run at places like tom's hardware. Those benchmarks are pretty split, AMD wins some, Intel wins some but the price difference between the machines is about 3x. Oh and the AMD machine stomps the intel machine when all the cores load up. But that could have something to do with the fact it has 2x the cores.

Just as an example try running nbench...

Of course if I use ICC, I can shift the results one way or the other by 50% or more. And its not always the way one expects. I was trying to speed up a Reed-Solomon calculation, and I optimized it for the specific intel I was using, and it doubled in performance. Then I ran the same code on the AMD and it doubled too. The result was the AMD still won.

So, there are lies, damn lies, and benchmarks.

Re:AMD slower / MHz (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43978893)

Intel are hugely inefficient at multicore performance in the x86 line.

So you'd really be better off checking off the 4-Core AMD rather than the 8-Core AMD if you want to compare performance on metrics designed for or predicated on Intel. Alternatively, get the cheapest 8-Core Intel.

Re:"Performance should closely match" (2)

Animats (122034) | about a year ago | (#43978351)

The summary suggests that the "performance should closely match the recently released Intel Core i7-4770K Haswell processor", but nothing in the article, or anything released about this chip so far, supports that. It's all just guesswork until we see some actual benchmarks from the chip.

If they're just cranking up the clock speed of an existing design, the performance should be quite predictable. The difficult-to-predict thing is the lifespan of the part. Atoms migrate faster as heat and voltage go up.

The limit on clock speed today is from heat dissipation. AMD got 8GHz out of a CPU a few years ago by cooling with liquid helium, but it's not worth the trouble.

220W Peak (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43978151)

If the thing idles low, who cares? Your high end GPU already pulls more power than your CPU. If AMD convinces motherboard manufacturers to build boards that handle 250W, they will certainly release a high performance APU that could replace a lot of discrete GPUs. This is the longer term strategy that people miss when they see that high TDP.

Re:220W Peak (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#43978843)

Never had one of the Intel Pentium D 9xx chips have you? Sure with speedstep they would idle nicely but every time you actually tried using the thing the temps would just shoot through the roof and if you wanted decent performance out of the system you pretty much had to OC. Having the CPU alone hitting 140F even with a cooler with a copper center? Not much fun, especially in the summer.

I had a box with the Pentium D 805 and just to see how big a difference it would make swapped it for the 915, know what I found? It wasn't even worth the whole $8 difference to swap the 805s for 915s because while idle naturally was lower, if the system is gonna be idling all the time? Frankly you might as well turn it off. When you began to actually use the thing the temps would shoot back up to the same as the 805 so it really wasn't worth the bother to switch.

Low idle temps is all well and good but most of the things you are gonna be doing won't leave the system idling and THAT is when those hotter chips really become a PITA.

Do not want (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43978189)

Too much cooling. Too much heat. Too much power. In that order.

Whatever you might imagine using this for I will do without and stick with whatever Intel makes at 65-75w TDP, tyvm.

Frying eggs with your CPU is now a feature (2)

sinij (911942) | about a year ago | (#43978509)

Frying eggs with your CPU is now a feature.

New AMD CPU, comes bundled with George Foreman grill heatsink.

I still run software written in 1999 (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year ago | (#43978551)

Why the fuck do I need new processors that I can cook my breakfast with?

Re:I still run software written in 1999 (1)

BLToday (1777712) | about a year ago | (#43978757)

Because the P4 is out of production and toasters can't play games.

Re:I still run software written in 1999 (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43978777)

Because bacon.

I don't get it. (2)

zacherynuk (2782105) | about a year ago | (#43978589)

When did CPU become a bottleneck? Is there a new version of java or flash I haven't got yet ?

Re:I don't get it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43978667)

Just because you don't do anything requiring CPU cycles, doesn't mean the rest of us don't need this..

I'm just glad they might have an upgrade solution for me in the pipeline. I run an opensource OS project and we regularly compile thousands of software packages resulting in days of time to rebuild everything.

Gamers, programmers, researchers, .... it will get used.

Re:I don't get it. (2)

zacherynuk (2782105) | about a year ago | (#43978987)

I am a gamer and my 920 @ 3.5 with twin GTX690's doesn't get touched.
I am a programmer (of sorts) and my striped SSD is still the bottleneck.
I have clients who do geological research and the AMD GPU's do everything for them.

As a user, the only thing that ever fucks me is Adobe, Oracle, HP and the windows print spooler. And these are always flaws.
enlighten me as to you bottlenecks.

Re:I don't get it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43979125)

I seriously doubt gaming will see any benefit from having faster processors. The big companies only really put in enough effort to have feature parity with the consoles, consoles which make use of hardware that's just barely better than low end PC gaming hardware. The smaller companies can't really afford to up the specs for their games, they would cut off far too much of their potential customer base. People making Flash games will still produce prototypes that they call a complete product. People making games on top of Java will continue to ask "why would we need enums" while writing sluggish code that simulates what an enum does.

Can't argue against programming side of things. Faster compile times gives us more time to actually test our stuff before concluding it's good enough.

220W Seems Resonable for an overclock (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43978819)

The FX-8350 runs at 4.2GHz (turbo) with 1.35V stock and is rated at 125W TDP. If you overclock it to 5Ghz and need to increase the core voltage to 1.6V then we're looking at 125W * (5GHz/4.2Ghz) * (1.65V/1.35V)^2 ~= 222W. So 220W seems resonable if you're just overclocking their current top of the line chip. What i'm skeptical about is why would AMD sell what is bascially an overclocked chip.

Fastest thing on this board anyhoo. (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#43979033)

I like several cores to keep the UI from locking up, and for this or that idiotic java app hogging one of the cores.

But in general, I don't care about processors anymore. They just have to be fast enough to feed data to graphics cards. Any serious number crunching (SETI, e.g.) runs on the graphics GPU anyway.

It's not even close. My CUDA SETI doubled 8 years of normal processor totals in two weeks.

Even servers, isn't the bottleneck still I/O?

Sockets? (1)

GioMac (862536) | about a year ago | (#43979051)

That's untrue. AM3+ sockets or CPU pins can't handle that power.
CPU's are powered with less than 5 Volts. In case of 220W it's 220/5 = 44 Amps!!!!
OK, pins are short and 44 amps might be possible, but powering such device even with a multilayer M/B will be scary and still - doesn't look like real.
11 mm^2

Re:Sockets? (1)

zacherynuk (2782105) | about a year ago | (#43979171)

I concur.
I would add something to your score.. but that's beyond my CPU's threshold.

Lets overclock a Core i7-4770K to 5GHz (2)

Glasswire (302197) | about a year ago | (#43979071)

and see how the new AMD chip compares. I assure you the i7 won't need to draw 220W to do this.
Or let's look at performance per watt at normal frequencies where, if the AMD processor really does match a 4770K in raw perf, that will mean the Intel processor will be about 2.5x better on perf / watt.
As some people have mentioned, IBM routinely clocks Power architecture processors into the 4-5GHz range AND they draw several hundred watts each. If you think that's progress, I suggest you'll want to reconsider when you see the net throughput of a dense array of low-wattage Haswells cranking out aggregate SPECcpu numbers far beyond an IBM Power 7+ processor with the same total number of watts the IBM socket draws.

Ignore this rubbish- look to Kaveri (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43979215)

AMD's current so-called high-end, CPU only parts, are terrible. Sure they can be clocked high, but then their power consumption figures explode (a far larger than linear relationship with clock speed). Clocked up FX parts also fail to gain a linear improvement with the higher clock speed. Worse again is that, no matter how high the clock, the parts are beaten by the high end Intel equivalents.

AMD's good stuff is the Richland (reworked Trinity), Temash/Kabini 'low-end' Jaguar based parts, and the extremely important Kaveri design that replaces Richland near the end of this year.

In comparison, AMD's old bulldozer/piledriver rubbish struggles to make any sense against AMD's extremely well priced 6-core phenom2, although the 6-core FX-piledriver part has made strides to replace this part from 2 generations back.

In the near future, HSA (with Huma) becomes essential for modern PC computing, and Kaveri is the first proper step in this direction. Ironically, the Sony PS4 is the first x86 part on the planet to have full HSA features, and AMD will not be releasing a PC part with such abilities until Summer 2014 at the earliest. Not only is Kaveri much weaker than the PS4 part (designed by AMD), Kaveri is only a partial HSA design.

Anyway, there is no sane reason to pay top-dollar to buy an 8-core FX part from AMD. They are obsolete, and even AMD admits this, having described their first attempts at their new CPU architecture as a disaster. Bulldozer/Piledriver are buggy slow power-hungry rubbish. Steamroller, AMD's first serious attempt to fix the architecture, is the core used in the Kaveri part.

It should be noted that for power reasons, the XBox One and PS4 use the Jaguar core from AMD, a core created from the famous 'stars architecture' that formed the heart of every AMD CPU from the first x64 part (and first proper dual-core) all the way through to the Phenom2. Bulldozer/piledriver/steamroller are all variants of a completely new architecture that so far has not show any benefits over 'stars'. Steamroller adds massively more resources to each CPU core, and hopefully fixes the broken cache system that is mostly responsible for the FX's current poor performance.

Unfortunately for some, Kaveri will only have 4 Steamroller cores (two modules) and so will only compete (on the CPU side) with Intel's i5 parts. The GPU side threatens to be very good (and obviously clobbers Intel's dire integrated GPU) but will be really more of interest as a 'compute' engine since power users will own a discrete graphics card.

The real change (from Intel and AMD) comes some time next year when both companies move to a 256-bit memory interface for the CPU/APU (currently 128 as 2x64) and solders the RAM on the motherboard so much faster RAM can be used as well (as with the PS4).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?