backtop


Print 73 comment(s) - last by 7Enigma.. on Jun 17 at 12:43 PM


  (Source: AMD)
Chip may be competitive with Haswell on basis of price, multi-threaded performance

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) is dropping the Gigahertz hammer on rival Intel Corp. (INTC) announcing a new Vishera (the Piledriver-core based line of "FX"-branded processors) octa-core chip that has a turbo clock of 5.0 GHz.

I. AMD Announces "First Commercial 5.0 GHz CPU"

While some may consider the fact that the stock (non-turbo) clock speed of the FX-9590 is something lower than the 5.0 GHz (AMD didn't announce the exact speed, but expect ~4.5 GHz), this marks the first time that a commercially available (x86 consumer) CPU has broken this speed barrier.

There's no word on how much power the chip is sucking down to attain that impressive clock speed.

AMD also announced that it would offer a 4.7 GHz turbo-clocked octa-core chip (FX-9370).  Together the chips will release in pre-built PCs this summer, with packaged availability trailing somewhat.  AMD also mentions that both chips are unlocked, allowing for even greater overclocks, cooling permitting.

AMD FX

Bernd Lienhard brags, "This is another proud innovation for AMD in delivering the world's first commercially available 5 GHz processor."

Computer history buffs will recall that AMD was the first chipmaker to break the 1.0 GHz barrier with a stock x86 commercial CPU.  By Mar. 2006 Intel had released the 3.73 GHz Pentium "Extreme Edition" 965 dual-core chip, built on the 65 nm node.  So far the fastest Haswell chip announced has been the Core i7-4930MX, a quad-core design turbo-clocked to 3.9 GHz.

II. The Gigahertz Myth 2.0?  Sort Of

Benchmarks have shown Piledriver to outperform Ivy Bridge in heavily threaded loads, while falling behind in lightly threaded application performance.  Pricing has allowed AMD to stay competitive (for example a FX-8350 commands $199.99 currently, while an Intel i7-3770K costs $319.99).  

So will the new FX processors truly be faster than Intel's just-launched Haswell processors? It certainly looks to have a shot in multi-threaded performance. 

AnandTech's benchmarking shows the i7-4770K (the Haswell successor to the i7-3770K) outperforming the FX-8350 by anywhere from 2 to 9 percent in heavily threaded applications like pixel pushing demoes or x264 transcoding. [source 1source 2].  Given the 20 percent boost in raw core clock while in Turbo mode, it's very possible that the 32 nm FX-9590 may top Intel's 22 nm Haswell processors in multi-threaded applications.

Haswell v. FX
AMD is unlikely to be able to keep up with Haswell in single-threaded performance.

In single-threaded benchmarks where Intel's Haswell (i7-4770K) often has a 50-60 percent lead over the FX-8350, the 20 percent bump may close the gap somewhat, but it seems unlikely that it will match Intel's single-threaded performance.  Thus the most important thing may boil down to price.  Intel's i7-4770K costs $349.99 USD.  If AMD can hit a price point around $200 USD when the chips finally air, it could be very competitive.

After all, even if it surrenders 30-40 percent in single threaded performance, if it costs 40 percent less, it may make sense to buyers, especially considering its strong multi-threaded performance and (generally) more affordable chipsets.

Source: AMD



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Opteron?
By Argon18 on 6/11/2013 5:12:50 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder when we'll see the Opteron version of this? The low and middle range Opterons are extremely price-competitive with intel, but it would be nice if they could get the performance up a bit.




RE: Opteron?
By ritualm on 6/11/2013 5:57:39 PM , Rating: 2
How about never? It takes an awful amount of electricity to run that 4.7/5.0 leaker. Now multiply that by thousands of these (as is typical for server farms/clusters). Then tell me whether you're willing to pay through the nose for what little net performance gains offered by AMD versus Intel Xeon's.

AMD processors never make sense as soon as price is not a major deciding factor.


RE: Opteron?
By BRB29 on 6/12/2013 8:06:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How about never? It takes an awful amount of electricity to run that 4.7/5.0 leaker. Now multiply that by thousands of these (as is typical for server farms/clusters). Then tell me whether you're willing to pay through the nose for what little net performance gains offered by AMD versus Intel Xeon's.

LMAO!! did you just compared AMD's consumer performance parts to Intel's server parts?
It's not even apple to oranges, it's apple vs....robots.


RE: Opteron?
By retrospooty on 6/12/2013 10:33:35 AM , Rating: 2
I believe if you re-read it, you will see he simply said we will not see this high end AMD chip in servers responding to a specific question from Argon - "I wonder when we'll see the Opteron version of this?" he simply answered a question.

He is right. We won't see an Opteron version of this, its way too power hungry. Not only that, its too hot. Throw a bunch of these in a server room and your AC will probably need upgrading. There is just no point for it. Intel has the server space wrapped up pretty well as far as price/performance. If AMD wants to make gains they have alot of work to do.


RE: Opteron?
By BRB29 on 6/12/2013 10:59:01 AM , Rating: 2
Of course he is right. That was never a question in anyone's mind since there's 0 motherboard support for that power envelope Both the comments were stupid to begin with.

AMD's server solution is actually quite competitive overall. Most businesses choose intel for many reasons. It'll take pages to explain. But intel's solution more often superior but cost more.

Then he finished it with this
quote:
AMD processors never make sense as soon as price is not a major deciding factor.

I guess intel processors never make sense as soon as performance is not a major deciding factor. The bias is clear.


RE: Opteron?
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/12/13, Rating: -1
RE: Opteron?
By retrospooty on 6/12/2013 11:56:07 AM , Rating: 2
LOL... I must aggressively point out my ambiguous stance on an issue that I am really not clear on!!!


RE: Opteron?
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/12/2013 4:38:15 PM , Rating: 1
Awww, someone butthurt by the truth?


RE: Opteron?
By retrospooty on 6/12/2013 11:49:17 AM , Rating: 2
I am just not getting your point here... Yes, it wasn't a great question, but the answer (the one you replied to) was correct.

"AMD processors never make sense as soon as price is not a major deciding factor."

Again, that is pretty much correct. Especially true in the server environment, as the few dollars saved on a CPU are far less important than in consumer. Intel has it on performance and power. It cant be beat in either, not with AMD's current architecture.

"I guess intel processors never make sense as soon as performance is not a major deciding factor. The bias is clear."

What BIAS? He is just correct, its not a bias to point out the obvious.


RE: Opteron?
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/12/13, Rating: -1
RE: Opteron?
By tamalero on 6/16/2013 9:41:40 PM , Rating: 2
no offense.. but you guys forgot some servers even used PRESCOTT and similar NETBURST burners that required very specific cooling to work?


RE: Opteron?
By Argon18 on 6/12/2013 3:31:11 PM , Rating: 2
Itanium has a 260 watt SKU. Also a 170 watt and 185 watt. 220w is not a big deal in the server room.

Most server owners don't pay for their actual power usage in the server room. They pay a flat colocation rate. Or a flat rackspace rate. They don't pay the actual usage like your residential power bill at home.


"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki