I'm all for the underdog, but what is AMD up to... I was thinking of getting myself a phenom II but it seems the more efficient chips are being phased out (facepalm). AMD have essentially brought out a new generation of CPU's which are not very much faster than its predecessors and chow more power, so how efficient are they really?
However we'll have to see how it does in real world tests. I am still in the corner of AMD as they make high performance more affordable to the average joe.
@KDaniels: Get an Intel. Save up, if you have to. There's nothing from AMD's current CPU lineup that is worth the money. Unless you want to pay >$200 for an 1100T. AMD's chipsets usually have more features (eg more Sata III ports) than Intel, but their I/O performance is lower than Intel chipsets.
I want AMD to do well too, but these things consume a lot of power. They may be cheaper upfront but they are not power efficient and if you care about being 'green' AMD is not it. There will most definitely be damage on some user's electricity bill.
Well so much for B3....hopefully piledriver will bring the tdp's down where they need to be and bring performance up a bit.
@KDaniels: Going to have to agree with dejasoul here, if youre building a new system its better to go intel right now. On the other hand, i upgraded my old AMD 785g chipset rig from a phenom II x2 to a x4 (960T thuban quad) for 109 bucks on sale, and i can tell you that was well worth it.
I would be surprised if AMD catches up to intel any time soon. Unlike intel they've never been particularly quick to bring out new products. However they are doing well with their Brazos platform. I think that AMD's future success will relay more on finding unique optimization's and value like the Brazos platform. It's not like AMD's CPU's don't perform well, they just don't perform as well as intel's cpu's. I have a Brazos system for my home theatre and the performance is excellent for that task. My old phenom II 945 desktop workstation has been moved to file server duty - and it does that task very well, especially since I underclocked it to keep it cool and efficient. However my new workstation is an intel system, for some things best performance does matter :)
AMD has already said that it won't be catching up with Intel -- and Brazos is stuck on 40nm through the rest of this year.
The best-case scenario for Piledriver is modestly better TDP and IPC, but the focus is on tuning Trinity for mobile not pushing PD for desktop. A 4.5GHz PD at 125W TDP with a clock-per-clock performance increase of 5-8% over BD is probably reasonable.
The combination of the two would finally give BD cores an edge over Phenom II X6 / X4.
It's weird that they seem to be stuck trying to beat themselves, and not just the competition.
For me, I like to support AMD as often as possible. I feel that they are necessary to help reign-in Intel's prices a little.
I have two FM1 Socket APU's here and they work fine for the ~middle of the road~ performing PC's that they were designed to be. I also have a Phenom-II X4-980 Quad core in a 990FX motherboard and that's plenty fast enough to run my games without any problem.
None of them can compete with the i7-2600K system at my gaming station, but they all do well.
Dogs are great judges of character, and if your dog doesn't like somebody being around, you shouldn't trust them.
Sadly If we talk about processor, I won't go with AMD for now until piledriver come out.
NEWS TIPS |
This site is intended for informational and entertainment purposes only. The contents are the views and opinion of the author and/or hisassociates. All products and trademarks are the property of their respective owners. All content and graphical elements areCopyright © 1999 - 2014 David Altavilla and HotHardware.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy and Terms