Trends of 12: High-Performance PC: Intel Platform Remains Unchallenged.
[font="Arial"][left][i]From 2003 to 2006 the world's second largest maker of central processing units - Advanced Micro Devices - was an indisputable leader in high-performance desktop personal computer as its processors offered something that Intel-based systems simply could not. In 2012, the situation is entirely different: Intel Corp. is not only the indisputable leader on high-end desktop market, but is the only player on this market as its arch-rival simply has no offerings to seriously compete against it.[/i][/left][/font]

[img]http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/news/2012-04/bulldozer-fiasco.png[/img]
[font="Arial"][left][i]
[/i][/left][/font][left][font="Arial"]Story at[i] [url="http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20120429101741_Trends_of_12_High_Performance_PC_Intel_Platform_Remains_Unchallenged.html"]XBITLABS[/url][/i][/font][/left]
From 2003 to 2006 the world's second largest maker of central processing units - Advanced Micro Devices - was an indisputable leader in high-performance desktop personal computer as its processors offered something that Intel-based systems simply could not. In 2012, the situation is entirely different: Intel Corp. is not only the indisputable leader on high-end desktop market, but is the only player on this market as its arch-rival simply has no offerings to seriously compete against it.




Image



Story at XBITLABS



ImageImage


Image

Join the NVidia Forum Team - Please Help Medical Research - Folding@home


#1
Posted 04/30/2012 07:00 PM   
It saddens me to see how things turns out for AMD. At the moment, they are no competition for Intel (and Nvidia in the near future?). This is not healthy for the market at all, specially us who is going to buy overpriced Intel and Nvidia products /unsure.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':unsure:' />
It saddens me to see how things turns out for AMD. At the moment, they are no competition for Intel (and Nvidia in the near future?). This is not healthy for the market at all, specially us who is going to buy overpriced Intel and Nvidia products /unsure.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':unsure:' />

Image
In Memory of Chris "ChrisRay" Arthington, 1982-2010
I'm a ninja. Not a pirate.

#2
Posted 04/30/2012 09:19 PM   
I feel like AMD's Bulldozer CPUs are severely underrated. They may have some issues, but they're excellent performers when it comes to running many applications at once, and they're even more reasonably priced right now, with the 8150 only costing about $210 right now.
I feel like AMD's Bulldozer CPUs are severely underrated. They may have some issues, but they're excellent performers when it comes to running many applications at once, and they're even more reasonably priced right now, with the 8150 only costing about $210 right now.

#3
Posted 05/01/2012 12:38 AM   
Doesn't the i7-3770k literally sell for twice as much as the 8150? ($185 v. $360) That has to account for something, right?
Doesn't the i7-3770k literally sell for twice as much as the 8150? ($185 v. $360) That has to account for something, right?



8130p @ 5.1Ghz : GTX 570 x2 - cuda workstation



i5-2500k @ 4.4Ghz : GTX 570 - itx media pc

#4
Posted 05/01/2012 12:57 AM   
Thats kinda the point though Luke. AMD don't have anything better to compete with the 3770k.
[quote name='Luke_SLI' date='30 April 2012 - 08:57 PM' timestamp='1335833831' post='1402819']
Doesn't the i7-3770k literally sell for twice as much as the 8150? ($185 v. $360) That has to account for something, right?
[/quote]

Pretty much. I'd still recommend Bulldozer over Ivy Bridge for non-gamers, since the drop in single-thread performance is negligible to anyone who just wants a workhorse that can handle several things at once.
[quote name='Luke_SLI' date='30 April 2012 - 08:57 PM' timestamp='1335833831' post='1402819']

Doesn't the i7-3770k literally sell for twice as much as the 8150? ($185 v. $360) That has to account for something, right?





Pretty much. I'd still recommend Bulldozer over Ivy Bridge for non-gamers, since the drop in single-thread performance is negligible to anyone who just wants a workhorse that can handle several things at once.

#6
Posted 05/01/2012 01:32 AM   
I was just talking about this with someone the other day. Even when you compare Intel's first gen SB processors to AMD's latest and greatest, Intel's chips offer a little over 50% more performance per core. Mind you, that's before any OC's are applied. Once the SB is OC'ed, this gap widens even further. Yeah, AMD's chips can be OC'ed, but they don't have nearly as much headroom. In addition to that, performance scales nicely as SB's clocks are raised, however BD does not.

The bottom line is that AMD needs to substantially increase their architecture's performance per core. Adding more cores isn't going to cut it when your this far behind.

I'm really let down with the current state of things. I never would have expected to see AMD this far behind at this point.
I was just talking about this with someone the other day. Even when you compare Intel's first gen SB processors to AMD's latest and greatest, Intel's chips offer a little over 50% more performance per core. Mind you, that's before any OC's are applied. Once the SB is OC'ed, this gap widens even further. Yeah, AMD's chips can be OC'ed, but they don't have nearly as much headroom. In addition to that, performance scales nicely as SB's clocks are raised, however BD does not.



The bottom line is that AMD needs to substantially increase their architecture's performance per core. Adding more cores isn't going to cut it when your this far behind.



I'm really let down with the current state of things. I never would have expected to see AMD this far behind at this point.

EVGA E758 A1 X58 // Core i7 920@4Ghz // OCZ Platinum DDR3 1600 // EVGA GTX 670 SLI // Seasonic X Series Gold 1050w // Corsair 800D // Dual Dell Ultrasharp U2410 displays // Dell Ultrasharp 2408WFP

#7
Posted 05/01/2012 02:02 AM   
[quote name='-{RaptoR}-' date='30 April 2012 - 06:29 PM' timestamp='1335835788' post='1402826']
Thats kinda the point though Luke. AMD don't have anything better to compete with the 3770k.
[/quote]

Yea, I can see that I guess. Yet this is still a comparison of two cpu's of very different costs.
[quote name='-{RaptoR}-' date='30 April 2012 - 06:29 PM' timestamp='1335835788' post='1402826']

Thats kinda the point though Luke. AMD don't have anything better to compete with the 3770k.





Yea, I can see that I guess. Yet this is still a comparison of two cpu's of very different costs.



8130p @ 5.1Ghz : GTX 570 x2 - cuda workstation



i5-2500k @ 4.4Ghz : GTX 570 - itx media pc

#8
Posted 05/01/2012 11:10 AM   
AMD should now concentrate on getting a high number of Instructions per clock and boost the per core performance.
AMD should now concentrate on getting a high number of Instructions per clock and boost the per core performance.

Core i7 960 @4.14Ghz 180x23 1.3v Liquid cooled

Gigabyte G1. Assassin

EVGA GTX 560 Ti "Maximum Graphics Crysis 2"

Cooler Master HAF-X

Corsair Dominator GT CMT12GX3M3A2000C9 RAM

RMA broke my 580 SLI. Now I have a 7970 and a GTX 580 gathering dust, looking for a buyer.

#9
Posted 05/01/2012 11:14 AM   
Considering how excellent GCN is in terms of processing power and efficiency, maybe AMD's CPU division should look to their own GCN engineers for help in getting those creative juices flowing again.
Considering how excellent GCN is in terms of processing power and efficiency, maybe AMD's CPU division should look to their own GCN engineers for help in getting those creative juices flowing again.

EVGA E758 A1 X58 // Core i7 920@4Ghz // OCZ Platinum DDR3 1600 // EVGA GTX 670 SLI // Seasonic X Series Gold 1050w // Corsair 800D // Dual Dell Ultrasharp U2410 displays // Dell Ultrasharp 2408WFP

#10
Posted 05/01/2012 12:59 PM   
Scroll To Top