Hey guys, I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on the fact that AMD is making the GPU's and CPU's for the new consoles, how do you think this will effect PC performance?
With the consoles being 8 cores, will that give cpu's like the 6350 or the 8350 any sort of major advantage over Intel CPU's with lower thread counts?
And with the GPU's being AMD architecture, with that translate into an increase in performance for AMD cards?
I'm curious to see what people think about this, with the not so great reaction or Ivy Bridge E, and haswells issues, could this be a turn around for AMD?
the APUs(gpu and cpu in one) in the consoles run around 1.8 Ghz and have a gpu speed of around 830 Mhz, It will increase sales for amd however because of the console hype. Essentially what it is, is an underclocked amd A-4 apu.
I understand the hardware, But what Im wondering, if someone was planning on building a new system, would it be worth it to wait till after the consoles come out? Cause since the console's hardware are AMD, any games designed for the consoles would have to be build on AMD architecture, would that translate into better performance for AMD parts for desktops?
My new system is going to be a AMD FX-8350 as I think games will start to take advantage of the 8 cores which the consoles are designed for so this will help get this movement.
i think that jameswhite1979 made a good choice think of it in this way: if you now buy a 8350 you have a very good cpu for gaming. and if the games will perform better on 8 cores because of the consoles you'll even have a bigger advantage of your new 8 core. so the choice is good cpu which becomes an awesome cpu because of 8 cores. or a intel cpu which is a good cpu but will most likely stay an good cpu (i dont expect that they will support multithreaded i7 cpu's). however i dont want to say that you shouldnt buy a intel cpu if you do a lot of rendering go for the intel cpu's.
I think AMD offers a complete package. If you want to game and do some editing, the 8350 is a really good chip. If you're considering a new build, that is what I would recommend. It is just so incredibly versatile. Intel has a pretty big performance advantage in editing, but the platform is expensive.
I'm unsure about the next-gen performance advantages. Intel and AMD have strengths and weaknesses, and I think the status quo will always remain. As games get a little heavier on our resources, AMD has more threads, but less performance per core. I'm no expert, but it looks to be a double edged sword. One of my favourite series of games has zero support for multi-threading, which kills AMD's advantage. It can swing either way, depending on the games.
The main thing to take away, is that consoles will be using hardware and instruction sets which are comparable to PC hardware, it makes cross-plat games easier to port. So, consoles will certainly benefit PC gamers in one way or another.
Agreed. Games are getting more and more optimized for more cores. The FX Hexacore and Octacore chips may be a more relevant CPU for a gaming platform In the near future but that doesn't mean games will only just be more optimized for AMD. Some game companies just actually perfer Nvidia.
Not necessarily, Intel's per-core performance is much better than AMD's, you would be better off going Intel for heavy video editing, but if you can use CUDA or OpenCL and rely on that, you could go with an AMD cpu.
The gap is going to close between AMD and Intel chips, how much is still up for debate but the strong single core performance of the Intel chips is going to be mitigated by games that use multiple threads more effectively.
With video editing/rendering Intel probably have the slight advantage but again it does depend on the software your using and the kind of editing your doing as thread count still applies here.
If your editing software can use multi thread and the kind of rendering can be done in parallel the 8350 times are very similar to the i7 (3770) but if its linear (which a fair few are) the 8350 performance is similar to that of an i5 (3570).
If your ever going to stream the 8350 makes more sense aswell. Personally i switched to AMD at the end of last year for 2 reasons, Price, lifes generally more expensive now so AMD made more financial sense to me and console hardware, not because they use AMD tech specifically but because of the more modern architecture and use of threads. Things seems to be switching towards AMD's style (No. of core over performance) over Intels (performance over No. of cores).
I'm not saying AMD chips are gunna own Intel chips for gaming but when you look at both price and performance together i think AMD will look like a better deal.
in all honesty, you would be better going with an 8320 which is still an 8 core cpu, and when the next gen amd cpu's come out the 8350 will drop in price, and judging from the performance increase from bulldozer to piledriver you should just stay with second gen fx cpus. and it wouldnt really be worth upgrading if you overclocked.
i'd wait for steamroller, the cores on next gen are going to be using the steamroller revision. Personally, from what all of the engineers at AMD they are more so optimistic on steamroller than bulldozer and piledriver. with the new super fetch and more efficiency in power usage, it's going to be a big difference over piledriver, this time it's for real, Also i recommend Windows 8 for any fx users. Windows 7 has problems with amd fx modules and even after the hotfixes bugs are still there. Windows 8 solves a lot of those problems.
FX line of CPUs for steamroller have been abandoned. The only thing you will see out of steamroller is an FM2 APU lineup. Excavator is where we are probably going to see a new line of FX processors which may in fact be 6 and 8 core APUs with a low-mid range GPU for doing hardware acceleration and native DDR4 support.
There's been a lot of rumors of AMD possibly abandoning the FX line of CPUs. I hope they don't they were really good CPUs for the price and they overclocked beautifully