Jump to content
Banner by ~ Wizard

technology The Glorious PC master race thread


Yourmomsponies

Recommended Posts

  On 2014-11-06 at 7:53 PM, Lunatic Envy said:

Poor AMD. I fear they've all but given up on competing in the enthusiast desktop space.

Their next FX processors aren't due out until 2016 or 2017. Next architecture is supposed to undo all the mistakes made with Bulldozer, but this means another 2 - 3 years before they're truly competitive again in the high-end processor market.

One of my friends, who has sworn by AMD for both his processor and GPU (he has an FX-8350 and R9 290 on an Asus M5A99FX PRO R2.0), told me he's considering switching to Intel the next time he upgrades because of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2014-11-06 at 8:03 PM, Daring said:

Their next FX processors aren't due out until 2016 or 2017. Next architecture is supposed to undo all the mistakes made with Bulldozer, but this means another 2 - 3 years before they're truly competitive again in the high-end processor market.

One of my friends, who has sworn by AMD for both his processor and GPU (he has an FX-8350 and R9 290 on an Asus M5A99FX PRO R2.0), told me he's considering switching to Intel the next time he upgrades because of this.

 

Hopefully that'll get them back in the game. My three builds prior to this i5 were all AMD. That being said, 2-3 years is a long time in computing. Bulldozer was supposed to be a game-changer for them. The lead engineer for K12 headed Athlon 64 and Opteron development which smacked Intel around back in the day, so maybe there's something there.

Edited by Lunatic Envy
  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2014-11-07 at 1:14 AM, Lunatic Envy said:

Hopefully that'll get them back in the game. My three builds prior to this i5 were all AMD. That being said, 2-3 years is a long time in computing. Bulldozer was supposed to be a game-changer for them. The lead engineer for K12 headed Athlon 64 and Opteron development which smacked Intel around back in the day, so maybe there's something there.

Really hoping it does too, Intel needs a competitor. Even if it takes three years.

GTX 750 Ti FTW is now $99... well.

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2014-11-07 at 2:04 AM, Daring said:

Really hoping it does too, Intel needs a competitor. Even if it takes three years.

 

GTX 750 Ti FTW is now $99... well.

 

I advise anyone that either doesn't have a dedicated GPU but has a system that card could go in, or has a really shitty one that needs to go snap one up. It's a really damn good card for that cheap. 


 

 

"You know, I don't know who or what you are Methos, and I know you don't want to hear this, but you did teach me something. You taught me that Life's about change, about learning to accept who you are, good or bad. And I thank you for that."

 

-Duncan McLeod.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2014-11-07 at 2:39 AM, Regulus said:

Last I heard, AMD was planning on dropping out of the high-end desktop market completely. A few years from now is better than never, though.

They said that was false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2014-11-07 at 2:39 AM, Regulus said:

Last I heard, AMD was planning on dropping out of the high-end desktop market completely. A few years from now is better than never, though.

Well, I'm glad that's over. 5 years of running off AMD and nothing but a shitstorm of a computer.


420 snug it

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2014-11-07 at 3:03 AM, Daring said:

http://www.hardwareluxx.com/index.php/news/hardware/cpu/31164-amd-working-on-new-x86-cpu-design-for-high-end-market.html

 

Here you go. An article saying they're working on a new processor for the high-end market.

 

So they're ditching the FX design and starting from scratch? This aught to be good.


AluKfrD.png

Tumblr

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2014-11-07 at 3:08 AM, Regulus said:

So they're ditching the FX design and starting from scratch? This aught to be good.

Hopefully. The FX was horrible. It served no purpose for me, especially since I can get something better.


420 snug it

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2014-11-07 at 3:10 AM, Snuggie Lord said:

Hopefully. The FX was horrible. It served no purpose for me, especially since I can get something better.

 

The FXs are good for getting something mid-range for a cheaper price. 

  • Brohoof 1

 

 

"You know, I don't know who or what you are Methos, and I know you don't want to hear this, but you did teach me something. You taught me that Life's about change, about learning to accept who you are, good or bad. And I thank you for that."

 

-Duncan McLeod.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2014-11-07 at 3:17 AM, Shoboni said:

The FXs are good for getting something mid-range for a cheaper price. 

Yeah, but the i-7's were better imo, considering that my pc was running overtime for many different reasons (audio and video encoding, gaming, intensive programs, etc)

Edited by Snuggie Lord

420 snug it

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2014-11-07 at 3:19 AM, Snuggie Lord said:

Yeah, but the i-7's were better imo, considering that my pc was running overtime for many different reasons (audio and video encoding, gaming, intensive programs, etc)

 

I'd argue that at current prices, the FX chips are pretty decent. Not at launch though.

 

People paid nearly $1000 for the 9590 when it dropped. What.

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2014-11-07 at 3:19 AM, Snuggie Lord said:

Yeah, but the i-7's were better imo, considering that my pc was running overtime for many different reasons (audio and video encoding, gaming, intensive programs, etc)

 

i7s cost a lot more than a FX. The cheapest newer-model i7 I could find was $300 and even a FX-8350 is only $180. 

  On 2014-11-07 at 3:30 AM, Lunatic Envy said:

I'd argue that at current prices, the FX chips are pretty decent. Not at launch though.

 

People paid nearly $1000 for the 9590 when it dropped. What.

 

Holy shit, that's a lot of money for a experimental fire-hazard of a CPU. 

  • Brohoof 2

 

 

"You know, I don't know who or what you are Methos, and I know you don't want to hear this, but you did teach me something. You taught me that Life's about change, about learning to accept who you are, good or bad. And I thank you for that."

 

-Duncan McLeod.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

  On 2014-11-07 at 3:33 AM, Shoboni said:
i7s cost a lot more than a FX. The cheapest newer-model i7 I could find was $300 and even a FX-8350 is only $180. 
 An i7 will get you better performance though, especially in single-threaded applications, even though it's a quad-core on the LGA115x platform and hexa-core and octa-core options are only available on the much more expensive LGA2011 platform.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2014-11-07 at 3:33 AM, Shoboni said:

i7s cost a lot more than a FX. The cheapest newer-model i7 I could find was $300 and even a FX-8350 is only $180. 

 

Holy shit, that's a lot of money for a experimental fire-hazard of a CPU. 

 

The thing that got me was what people were expecting from it. AMD bins the crap out of their FX line and releases the very highest OC chips as the 9000 family.

 

FX-9590 THIS IS GOING TO PUT AMD BACK ON THE MAP, EAT YOUR HEART OUT INTEL FANBOYS

 

"Aw man I only get 5.2GHz out of my OC"

 

 

 

 

You are playing with a force that you cannot even begin to understand.

 

*the shrill cries of VRMs screaming in unison*

Edited by Lunatic Envy
  • Brohoof 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2014-11-07 at 3:39 AM, Daring said:

 An i7 will get you better performance though, especially in single-threaded applications, even though it's a quad-core on the LGA115x platform and hexa-core and octa-core options are only available on the much more expensive LGA2011 platform.

 

I know, I'm talking about value for the price. Of course a $300 CPU is going to out-perform a $140 one. I merely said the FXs are good for the money because they're so cheap relative to their performance now. 


 

 

"You know, I don't know who or what you are Methos, and I know you don't want to hear this, but you did teach me something. You taught me that Life's about change, about learning to accept who you are, good or bad. And I thank you for that."

 

-Duncan McLeod.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2014-11-07 at 3:39 AM, Lunatic Envy said:

The thing that got me was what people were expecting from it. AMD bins the crap out of their FX line and releases the very highest OC chips as the 9000 family.

 

FX-9590 THIS IS GOING TO PUT AMD BACK ON THE MAP, EAT YOUR HEART OUT INTEL FANBOYS

 

"Aw man I only get 5.2GHz out of my OC"

 

 

 

 

You are playing with a force that you cannot even begin to understand.

 

*the shrill cries of VRMs screaming in unison*

 

lol... there's so much truth to this.

 

Overclocking a FX chip is like increasing the running speed on a treadmill and expecting to be going faster than a snail.

  • Brohoof 1

AluKfrD.png

Tumblr

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2014-11-07 at 3:39 AM, Lunatic Envy said:

The thing that got me was what people were expecting from it. AMD bins the crap out of their FX line and releases the very highest OC chips as the 9000 family.

 

FX-9590 THIS IS GOING TO PUT AMD BACK ON THE MAP, EAT YOUR HEART OUT INTEL FANBOYS

 

"Aw man I only get 5.2GHz out of my OC"

 

 

 

 

You are playing with a force that you cannot even begin to understand.

 

*the shrill cries of VRMs screaming in unison*

 

I just don't get the point, power means nothing if it's going to be profoundly unstable and at risk of burning itself up and taking the motherboard with it,.

  On 2014-11-07 at 3:42 AM, Regulus said:

lol... there's so much truth to this.

 

Overclocking a FX chip is like increasing the running speed on a treadmill and expecting to be going faster than a snail.

 

Does that mean getting a 8350 over a 8320 is useless, then? I'm curious because I'm hearing a lot about it the 50 just being a OC'd 20. 

  • Brohoof 1

 

 

"You know, I don't know who or what you are Methos, and I know you don't want to hear this, but you did teach me something. You taught me that Life's about change, about learning to accept who you are, good or bad. And I thank you for that."

 

-Duncan McLeod.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2014-11-07 at 3:42 AM, Regulus said:

lol... there's so much truth to this.

 

Overclocking a FX chip is like increasing the running speed on a treadmill and expecting to be going faster than a snail.

 

To be fair, it's not a SLOW chip by any means, but it's still being beaten by a $330 4770K stock, so selling something like that at a grand is just, come on AMD, what are you doing?

 

  On 2014-11-07 at 3:43 AM, Shoboni said:

I just don't get the point, power means nothing if it's going to be profoundly unstable and at risk of burning itself up and taking the motherboard with it,.

 

Initially they only allowed shipments of these chips in pre-built systems with their watercooling solutions for fear people would destroy their systems trying to cool it with a $30 air cooler or pair it with some cheap motherboard. There's only a small handful of boards that will even support this thing without either throttling or burning up. I read a guy put one of those behemoth Noctua coolers on this thing and all it did was keep it from overheating at stock.

 

This chip is amazing.

 

:lol:

 

I kinda wish Intel would pull out all the stops and put out a crazy high TDP high power chip but that's not going to happen...

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2014-11-07 at 3:44 AM, Shoboni said:

I just don't get the point, power means nothing if it's going to be profoundly unstable and at risk of burning itself up and taking the motherboard with it,.

 

Does that mean getting a 8350 over a 8320 is useless, then? I'm curious because I'm hearing a lot about it the 50 just being a OC'd 20. 

 

I can't say for sure. Of course a clock speed increase does produce an increase in performance, often a linear one. But what's more important is the architecture, and the FX architecture just sucks for what it is. Its 8 cores can barely compete with 4 from an i5 processor, and that's only in multithreaded scenarios. 8 cores operating at 5 GHz is not the same as 4 more efficient cores at 3 GHz.

Edited by Regulus

AluKfrD.png

Tumblr

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

  On 2014-11-07 at 3:48 AM, Lunatic Envy said:
I kinda wish Intel would pull out all the stops and put out a crazy high TDP high power chip but that's not going to happen...
 The 5960X is a 140W CPU. I think that's the highest they'll go in the consumer market, though.
  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2014-11-07 at 3:49 AM, Regulus said:

I can't say for sure. Of course a clock speed increase does produce an increase in performance, often a linear one. But what's more important is the architecture, and the FX architecture just sucks for what it is. Its 8 cores can barely compete with 4 from an i5 processor, and that's only in multithreaded scenarios.

 

To be fair, it basically is a qaud-core with extra threading, mine seems to be good for gaming though because so far even CPU heavy stuff like Skyrim hasn't choked on it. 

  • Brohoof 1

 

 

"You know, I don't know who or what you are Methos, and I know you don't want to hear this, but you did teach me something. You taught me that Life's about change, about learning to accept who you are, good or bad. And I thank you for that."

 

-Duncan McLeod.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Join the herd!

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...