Steamroller will fix the bottleneck involving multi-threaded performance thus increase multi-threaded performance by 20% while there will be also 15 to 20% improvements in IPC/IPO.
FX 8350 "Piledriver" cinebench 11.5 multi-threaded: 6.89pts
FX 8550 "Steamroller" cinebench 11.5 multi-threaded: 9.91pt(estimation)
Steamroller will fix the bottleneck involving multi-threaded performance thus increase multi-threaded performance by 20% while there will be also 15 to 20% improvements in IPC/IPO.
FX 8350 "Piledriver" cinebench 11.5 multi-threaded: 6.89pts
FX 8550 "Steamroller" cinebench 11.5 multi-threaded: 9.91pt(estimation)
I find it hilarious that ppl actually think amd can compete with intel when the closest thing that amd has to 'competing' to intels 4 cores cpu is an 8 core. And that's not even a true 8 core either.
too long didn't read, will it have a die shrink? does it still have the ass backwards deffinition of "core" where each pair shares a FPU, because unless they change that or some how double the FPU strength then its just going to be overwelmingly average just like veshera is, yeah great for budget gaming but that is about it
This, I was telling Cosmosus this reasoning of why Steamroller doesn't have a chance. If AMD doesn't drastically change the layout and design, then it's going to be like the Russian moon program.
I do love AMD, but this fanboy shit needs to stop X_X but steamroller is unknown in terms of performance. We will have to see how it goes when people get their paws on it. Till then, please keep the fanboy shit from getting out of control
Give us some real info here. How is AMD not competing? Where does Intel win and why is it better? We don't need fanboy nonsense on the site... I am not saying that you are a fanboy, I'm just encouraging you to participate in a more scientific argument. Show us some numbers and forget the mild condescension.
For me, I really like the raw per-core performance of the Intel parts, but I love the price/performance ratio with the AMD parts. Who cares how many cores it takes for AMD to compete. They are over $100 cheaper than the i7 parts. Intel fans need to take that into account as well. It's like when I would go to a bar in Brooklyn and all the fucking hipsters would be staring at each other shoes and jackets, as if to say, "Look how much money I spent." Is there a real point to the fanboyism?
I use Intel in my rig. I like the speed of my i7 and I will probably upgrade to Ivy Bridge-E. The six core parts are monsters, but they are expensive. AMD gives you a lot for the money and both parts have their place in the market. Sorry for the rant. Fanboyism is the same as religion to me: no scientific basis for it.
haha! They've come up against other review sites. They seem to get on everyones nerves.
I found videos and forums where LavcoPriceTech were getting bashed by viewers of TastyPC. I mean, that Lauren chick is hot. You can't compete with that, fellas.
Why does someone need to crush someone else? For me FX-8320 for the price of i3 totally crushes everything that I need it to crush. For most people (and most gamers too) there's no reason to get anything more powerful than that. Most owners of i7s bought them just because they can, not because they need that power.
I think AMD will catch up with intel. Haswell has better performance clock for clock than Ivy Bridge, but it doesn't overclock as well usually. Also Intel has focused more on power draw and integrated graphics. I think if AMD is going to catch up in terms of performance to intel it has to be Steamroller UNLESS it is true that Broadwell may very well be delayed then MAYBE AMD will be able to catch up with the generation after steamroller.
I build computers for clients and i Often choose Amd becouse of the price performance ratio .. I personally have two Amd Rigs Phenom x4 965 , and a Fx 8350 both great machines , and also have got Intel 3770k its awsome but i reallyy expected more form my euros ...
i use both intel and Amd since x80386 cpus , personaly i think amd allways gives more to my money.
Still Intel as certeain appeal to who want to get the absolut extreme in performance with out looking in the extra money expent ..
AMD is very competitive with Intel from a technical and price/performance standpoint. It was AMD, and not Intel, who developed the 64-bit extension to x86 and first put it out into the market. Intel now calls that x86-64, its real name is AMD64.
AMD, just a couple generations ago, was the first to integrate the memory controller into the CPU die, rather than as part of the north bridge. Everybody said it was a terrible idea, then Sandy Bridge came out with an integrated memory controller.
The performance numbers for CPUs forget that most professional software is compiled using Intel's own compiler, and almost all other software is compiled assuming the target is an Intel CPU. Open source software compiled with open source compilers set to optimize for AMD's architecture (Bulldozer) show anywhere from 0-100% performance increases. And that's not some trivial program designed specifically to compile better on AMD hardware. From what I've seen, Blender, the widely used 3D modeling program, doubles in speed on an AMD CPU when the compiler is instructed to optimize for it. On top of that, almost all literature on x86 assembly language programming assumes an Intel processor. Intel has huge advantages that have nothing at all to do with their engineering.
Steamroller has been said for a long time to have 30% better per-core performance, which is where the real gains need to be had by AMD. 30% may be optimistic, but if they can come through on that, they will match Haswell at every test they don't outright win at.
But the real competition won't be Steamroller, it'll be HSA. If HSA takes off (and it should, it's in the consoles), Intel won't even have a horse in the race.