3 ms·

AMD tried and failed. Multiple cores is what the FX is all about. What's the one type of application that drives processor sales on the desktop? Right, games. W

by onli 10y ago

AMD tried and failed. Multiple cores is what the FX is all about. What's the one type of application that drives processor sales on the desktop? Right, games. What's one of many types of applications that do profit more from fewer stronger cores than from more slower ones? Right again, games. That said, over the last 5 years processors did get beefier. They just did not got more cores. The i5-2500K (from 2011) is slower than the i5-6600K, both have 4 cores though. But if we go back 10 years, we are looking at the Core 2 Duo, those had only two cores. And games are also changing. Not too long ago you could still play games (like Fallout 3) with a single core. New games (like Fallout 4) rely on the processor having multiple cores, some don't even start with a dual core (Hyperthreading is needed then and saves the i3). And games supporting DX12 (and probably Vulcan) work better on the FX processors than those using DX11. More cores become more useful now, and processors will have to add more of them also in the consumer desktop area soon.

geezerjay 10y ago
> AMD tried and failed. What's your personal definition of "failed"? AMD may not be the market leader but for the same price, their multicore processors are far better than Intel's offering. Old games that haven't been properly designed to take advantage of more than 2 or 3 cores don't benefit from AMD's 8-core processors, but calling a marketing issue a failure, particularly a technical one, is simply disingenuous. > Multiple cores is what the FX is all about. What's the one type of application that drives processor sales on the desktop? Right, games. What's one of many types of applications that do profit more from fewer stronger cores than from more slower ones? Right again, games. False dilemma. All processes take advantage from faster cores, but more cores don't mean faster cores. More cores offer the ability to run more processes concurrently. If an application isn't developed to take advantage of the available cores, you end up with a system where over half of the available computational resources remain idling while only 3 or 4 are taxed. Inefficient software isn't a hardware problem. > And games are also changing. Not too long ago you could still play games (like Fallout 3) with a single core. That's precisely the issue. Game developers need to target the computer hardware that gamers use, and the computer hardware that the average gamer uses is very old. For instance, let's look at Steam's hardware and software survey: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey Nearly half of the hardware runs with less than 2 cores, and around 95% runs harware with up to 4 cores. Yet, AMD offers 6 and 8-core processors, which appear to be used by less than 2% of Steam's gaming community. Why would video game developers spend their resources designing software that take advantage of the available computational resources provided by AMD's 6 and 8-core line of processors if this only impacts less than 2% of the gaming community? Therefore, games keep being developed based on constrained hardware requirements. But this is by no means a technical failure on behalf of AMD.
- onli 10y ago
  > What's your personal definition of "failed"? AMD may not be the market leader but for the same price, their multicore processors are far better than Intel's offering. They are not. I talk mainly about gaming performance here, because it's the one thing where cpu performance actually matters for a relevant market. Have a look at http://www.techspot.com/review/991-gta-5-pc-benchmarks/page6.html http://www.techspot.com/review/991-gta-5-pc-benchmarks/page6... as an example. The i3-4130 (that wasn't even their fastest i3 at that time) as fast as the FX-6350, the FX-8350 slower than the old i5-2500K. AMD has not one processor that can compete with an i5-6600K in current games. It's not like you can't play modern games with an FX-8370, but with that you pay as much as with intel, you get worse FPS and your processor uses more energy. Ah, and you buy into a dead socket. Other criteria for failure: Market share. AMD has a little bit more than 20% of the PC-gaming market, http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/processormfg/ http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/processormfg/. It gets less and less since the disastrous FX started. > Inefficient software isn't a hardware problem. If you want to sell your hardware of course it is. > Why would video game developers spend their resources designing software that take advantage of the available computational resources provided by AMD's 6 and 8-core line of processors if this only impacts less than 2% of the gaming community? Despite all, the FX-6300 is a popular processor. I highly doubt that number. The FX line can't have sold that bad. > But this is by no means a technical failure on behalf of AMD. I'm not talking technique. I'm talking about performance, both in real existing applications and on the market. In both the FX was a disaster for AMD, and I really hope the coming Zen-Architecture can make AMD relevant again. A Intel-Monoculture would be horrible, as is already visible in prices and customer-friendliness of the offerings.

by onli 10y ago

geezerjay 10y ago

> AMD tried and failed. What's your personal definition of "failed"? AMD may not be the market leader but for the same price, their multicore processors are far better than Intel's offering. Old games that haven't been properly designed to take advantage of more than 2 or 3 cores don't benefit from AMD's 8-core processors, but calling a marketing issue a failure, particularly a technical one, is simply disingenuous. > Multiple cores is what the FX is all about. What's the one type of application that drives processor sales on the desktop? Right, games. What's one of many types of applications that do profit more from fewer stronger cores than from more slower ones? Right again, games. False dilemma. All processes take advantage from faster cores, but more cores don't mean faster cores. More cores offer the ability to run more processes concurrently. If an application isn't developed to take advantage of the available cores, you end up with a system where over half of the available computational resources remain idling while only 3 or 4 are taxed. Inefficient software isn't a hardware problem. > And games are also changing. Not too long ago you could still play games (like Fallout 3) with a single core. That's precisely the issue. Game developers need to target the computer hardware that gamers use, and the computer hardware that the average gamer uses is very old. For instance, let's look at Steam's hardware and software survey: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey Nearly half of the hardware runs with less than 2 cores, and around 95% runs harware with up to 4 cores. Yet, AMD offers 6 and 8-core processors, which appear to be used by less than 2% of Steam's gaming community. Why would video game developers spend their resources designing software that take advantage of the available computational resources provided by AMD's 6 and 8-core line of processors if this only impacts less than 2% of the gaming community? Therefore, games keep being developed based on constrained hardware requirements. But this is by no means a technical failure on behalf of AMD.

onli 10y ago
> What's your personal definition of "failed"? AMD may not be the market leader but for the same price, their multicore processors are far better than Intel's offering. They are not. I talk mainly about gaming performance here, because it's the one thing where cpu performance actually matters for a relevant market. Have a look at http://www.techspot.com/review/991-gta-5-pc-benchmarks/page6.html http://www.techspot.com/review/991-gta-5-pc-benchmarks/page6... as an example. The i3-4130 (that wasn't even their fastest i3 at that time) as fast as the FX-6350, the FX-8350 slower than the old i5-2500K. AMD has not one processor that can compete with an i5-6600K in current games. It's not like you can't play modern games with an FX-8370, but with that you pay as much as with intel, you get worse FPS and your processor uses more energy. Ah, and you buy into a dead socket. Other criteria for failure: Market share. AMD has a little bit more than 20% of the PC-gaming market, http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/processormfg/ http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/processormfg/. It gets less and less since the disastrous FX started. > Inefficient software isn't a hardware problem. If you want to sell your hardware of course it is. > Why would video game developers spend their resources designing software that take advantage of the available computational resources provided by AMD's 6 and 8-core line of processors if this only impacts less than 2% of the gaming community? Despite all, the FX-6300 is a popular processor. I highly doubt that number. The FX line can't have sold that bad. > But this is by no means a technical failure on behalf of AMD. I'm not talking technique. I'm talking about performance, both in real existing applications and on the market. In both the FX was a disaster for AMD, and I really hope the coming Zen-Architecture can make AMD relevant again. A Intel-Monoculture would be horrible, as is already visible in prices and customer-friendliness of the offerings.