8 ms·

"Given AMD's recent poor track record in terms of $$$/performance for desktop CPUs..." Are you kidding or did you mistype? Current AMD processors don't general

by mrb 10y ago

"Given AMD's recent poor track record in terms of $$$/performance for desktop CPUs..." Are you kidding or did you mistype? Current AMD processors don't generally compare favorably to Intel with respect to some metrics, like absolute performance per core or performance per Watt. However if there is any metric where they match or surpass Intel, it's actually perf/$. The reason is simple: perf/$ is the only metric where AMD has some control: they can decide to lower and lower their price down to wherever they need to be. If AMD wasn't competitive on at least perf/$ they would be in a much worse situation. Here is one example I witnessed first hand recently when doing some video work: a good old $100 3.2 GHz 8-core Phenom matches or surpasses most ~$200 Intel processors when encoding MPEG2 files to H.264 with the Linux x264 encoder.

walrus01 10y ago
Even there, they're not currently competitive if you look at the lower end skylake (i3 and pentium branded CPUs) processors versus the same price range $100 to $150 AMD CPUs. I would dearly wish that were not the case, because more competition is better for the buyer...
- VintageCool 10y ago
  I have never spent that much on a CPU. I always buy CPUs in the $60-$80 range.
  - majewsky 10y ago
    I think the CPU on my 2015 home server cost even less (€40-€50). I went with an AMD Athlon because Celerons (which are about the same price) didn't support AES-NI, which I need for reading from my encrypted disks.
- geezerjay 10y ago
  > if you look at the lower end skylake (i3 and pentium branded CPUs) processors versus the same price range $100 to $150 AMD CPUs. This is bullshit through and through. Between $100 and $150, you get any of AMD's FX 6xxx and 8xxx line. We're talking about 6 and 8-core processors whose performance are, in the very least, comparable with some of Intel's i5 and i7 offerings. And Intel's comparable offerings cost over twice what AMD's processors sel for.
  - onli 10y ago
    It's not bullshit. Those FX-processors are 4 years old by now and indeed do not compare favorably even against the smallest current Core-Processor, the i3-6100, in almost any metric. That is not surprising, as Skylake is a lot newer, and has a lot faster cores, which matters most for typical workloads. The FX-8320E when overclocked can compete in multi-threaded computational workloads, but will use a lot more energy. For games (which is the main area where users stress their processor), the i3-6100 will still be faster. See http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1709?vs=1682 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1709?vs=1682. The bigger FX-8s are too expensive and would be pitted against i5s, where they always lose. The only recent exception I ran across is Watch Dogs 2, which is sufficiently optimized for multiple cores and AMD processors to make the FX-8370 for once competitive against Intels i5. But that is the first game since the release of those processor where that is happening. What does work for AMD is the Athlon X4 8.0K, the area under 100€. Intels Alternative is the Pentium G4.00, which is worse for most things.
    - powercf 10y ago
      Games are a very specific workload, and I find the focus placed on gaming performance in CPU reviews to be ridiculous. For another specific workload: software that can use 100% of 8+ threads, the FX CPUs are probably ahead of Intel CPUs in the same price range. They do run hotter, but that's not necessarily a huge drawback in a cold country.
      - onli 10y ago
        No, they are not faster anymore. Really check the anandtech-benchmarks, http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1709?vs=1646 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1709?vs=1646. Also in areas that are not gaming performance, but resemble more pure computations – like video encoding – the i5 easily beats the fastest FX-8-processor. Same is true when comparing against the FX-9590. If I see that right in every single benchmark.
        powercf 10y ago
- michaelmrose 10y ago
  You are saying dual core cpus are faster than 6-8 core amd? Do you have benchmarks to back this up?
  - topkekz 10y ago
    When AMD says 8 cores, it's actually 8 ALUs and 4 SIMDs/FPUs. http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/2 http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/06/amd_sued_cores/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/06/amd_sued_cores/ Note that they changed that with ZEN http://wccftech.com/amd-one-fpu-per-core-design-zen-processors/ http://wccftech.com/amd-one-fpu-per-core-design-zen-processo...
    - powercf 10y ago
      That case seems* to have been dismissed. My (very brief) reading of it is that there is no industry-standard definition of what a "core" is (other than possibly being able to simultaneously execute), and what can or cannot be shared among cores. I see no issue with AMD calling a module of two integer units and one floating point unit "two cores" * http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020160408M22/DICKEY%20v.%20ADVANCED%20MICRO%20DEVICES,%20INC http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020160408M22/DICKE....
flamedoge 10y ago
Perf / ($ * $/s) / ((cost) * (power))
mbell 10y ago
> they can decide to lower and lower their price down to wherever they need to be. AMD has been teetering on the edge of bankruptcy for quite awhile now. It's unclear how much rope they have left.
- trome 10y ago
  Just enough to keep going, but not enough to mass produce new chips without an order and cash from an OEM in hand.
- HugoDaniel 10y ago
  What about their GPU business ? And the deals with this gen consoles and next gen consoles (they sport AMD APU's).
  - theandrewbailey 10y ago
    I've always wondered how much that brought in, and how much they depended on it. AMD (ATI) have been in every Nintendo console since Gamecube until now (but not Switch), and they also were in the Xbox 360.
- Tuna-Fish 10y ago
  > AMD has been teetering on the edge of bankruptcy for quite awhile now. It's unclear how much rope they have left. They have actually dug themselves out of that hole over the past two years or so. Their engineers are good, but their CFO is a wizard. Somehow he managed to take a company with bad short-term prospects and very questionable long-term ones that was up to it's eyeballs in very expensive short term debt and convert that into cheap long-term debt. Then once things started going better for them and the stock started going up, they have been turning their debt into equity pretty much as soon as possible. AMD currently is in no risk of bankruptcy: http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/AMD-CFO-Commentary-Slides-Q3-16-page-011-840x630.jpg http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/AMD-CFO-C...
olegkikin 10y ago
$100 buys you Intel Xeon E5-2665 ($80 on eBay) = 8 cores, 2.3-3.1GHz Intel Xeon E5-2660 ($60-65 on eBay) = 8 cores, 2.2-3Ghz (so you can buy two for $120-130) Intel Xeon E5-1650 ($97 on eBay) = 6 cores, 3.5-3.8GHz E5-2665 beats FX-8350 hands down, and is cheaper. http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Xeon-E5-2665-vs-AMD-FX-8350 http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Xeon-E5-2665-vs-AMD-FX-8350 http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Xeon-E5-1650-vs-AMD-FX-8350 http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Xeon-E5-1650-vs-AMD-FX-8350
- daveguy 10y ago
  Buying CPUs on eBay is generally a bad idea. When people consider price/performance they don't generally include second hand cpu markets in the equation. Also, xeon MBs are more expensive.
  - olegkikin 10y ago
    Buying on eBay from reputable sellers is just fine. I do it all the time. I can buy a whole workstation with E5-2665, motherboard, 32GB RAM, 1TB HDD, all for $414, shipped. http://www.ebay.com/itm/162274529994 http://www.ebay.com/itm/162274529994 I doubt you can find something like that with FX-8350 and cheaper. And it will still be slower.
    - voltagex_ 10y ago
      What's the power usage of those things? I think I'd notice the difference in my power bill vs buying something like an i5.
      - walrus01 10y ago
        A xeon e5 2665 is rated at 115W thermal, so two of them at full load (let's say, calculating prime numbers) would be 230W... plus the overhead for fans, motherboard, hard drive other heat producing components in the system. I would guess that the lenovo workstation in the ebay link is probably 310W electrical load as measured by a kill-a-watt if you run simultaneous full cpu, ram and disk benchmarks on it. Depends a lot on your electrical cost. Some people live in places where the power costs $0.05 per kWh. Some people live in places where it cost $0.36 per kWh (Hawaii).
gregmac 10y ago
For me personally, I've benefited from another aspect: AMD doesn't constantly change their sockets (edit: or at maintains some level of compatibility). My wife's laptop died, and she just wanted me to do put together something cheap for her office (she has a tablet and work laptop). I bought myself a new motherboard (keeping my CPU), gave her my old one and put in an older CPU I had. A year and half later, I upgraded my CPU to an FX-8350. My old CPU (Phenom x4) moved to the basement NAS/Plex server, a nice upgrade to Athlon II CPU (without requiring a new motherboard). Had I been on Intel, I would simply not done those upgrades because they wouldn't have been worthwhile. Basically every CPU upgrade requires a new motherboard. And in my experience, nearly every time I've had to get a new motherboard, my memory or video card or some other component is now outdated, and suddenly I'm basically building a completely new PC.
- RUG3Y 10y ago
  I'm in the same boat. Every computer I build is on a shoestring budget, re-using old components, etc. AMD has been a lifesaver. They provide acceptable performance at a price I can afford.
  - soupbowl 10y ago
    This is exactly what I have done also. It enables me to upgrade a lot of computers with every upgrade. I also end up with a lot of older spare parts, enabling me to build computers for elderly and people in need.
    - RUG3Y 10y ago
      It's really cool that you do that. I hate when hardware ends up in a landfill, when somebody can use it.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  That is highly dependent on how often you swap motherboards but do not swap CPUs.
  - 10y ago
gruez 10y ago
>8-core Phenom those don't exist
- mrb 10y ago
  Sorry I meant an FX-8300. I forgot AMD had dropped the "Phenom" brand for this line.
mSparks 10y ago
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html top of the range $200 amd fx 9590 less performance than a $133 intel e5 2650 and neither are worth buying today.
- luca_ing 10y ago
  What do they measure, and how?
  - mSparks 10y ago
    pcmark and passmark measure a vast range of cpu performance use cases. currently, amd does terribly in pretty much every measure. absolute performance, performance per $, throughput. absolutely anything that matters. There are some promoted intel chips that are worse. but the only thing amd have been doing well at in recent years is hyperbole with a healthy dose of shilling. So i cant disagree with anyone on here that wont believe anything they say until they see it. around this time last year we had http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/06/amd_sued_cores/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/06/amd_sued_cores/
user5994461 10y ago
And who cares about perf/$ in the high range? Gamers need perf/core. Datacenters need perf/power. They're only viable for "cheap CPU" in the < $100 range which is low margin.

by mrb 10y ago

walrus01 10y ago

Even there, they're not currently competitive if you look at the lower end skylake (i3 and pentium branded CPUs) processors versus the same price range $100 to $150 AMD CPUs. I would dearly wish that were not the case, because more competition is better for the buyer...

VintageCool 10y ago
I have never spent that much on a CPU. I always buy CPUs in the $60-$80 range.
- majewsky 10y ago
  I think the CPU on my 2015 home server cost even less (€40-€50). I went with an AMD Athlon because Celerons (which are about the same price) didn't support AES-NI, which I need for reading from my encrypted disks.
geezerjay 10y ago
> if you look at the lower end skylake (i3 and pentium branded CPUs) processors versus the same price range $100 to $150 AMD CPUs. This is bullshit through and through. Between $100 and $150, you get any of AMD's FX 6xxx and 8xxx line. We're talking about 6 and 8-core processors whose performance are, in the very least, comparable with some of Intel's i5 and i7 offerings. And Intel's comparable offerings cost over twice what AMD's processors sel for.
- onli 10y ago
  It's not bullshit. Those FX-processors are 4 years old by now and indeed do not compare favorably even against the smallest current Core-Processor, the i3-6100, in almost any metric. That is not surprising, as Skylake is a lot newer, and has a lot faster cores, which matters most for typical workloads. The FX-8320E when overclocked can compete in multi-threaded computational workloads, but will use a lot more energy. For games (which is the main area where users stress their processor), the i3-6100 will still be faster. See http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1709?vs=1682 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1709?vs=1682. The bigger FX-8s are too expensive and would be pitted against i5s, where they always lose. The only recent exception I ran across is Watch Dogs 2, which is sufficiently optimized for multiple cores and AMD processors to make the FX-8370 for once competitive against Intels i5. But that is the first game since the release of those processor where that is happening. What does work for AMD is the Athlon X4 8.0K, the area under 100€. Intels Alternative is the Pentium G4.00, which is worse for most things.
  - powercf 10y ago
    Games are a very specific workload, and I find the focus placed on gaming performance in CPU reviews to be ridiculous. For another specific workload: software that can use 100% of 8+ threads, the FX CPUs are probably ahead of Intel CPUs in the same price range. They do run hotter, but that's not necessarily a huge drawback in a cold country.
    - onli 10y ago
      No, they are not faster anymore. Really check the anandtech-benchmarks, http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1709?vs=1646 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1709?vs=1646. Also in areas that are not gaming performance, but resemble more pure computations – like video encoding – the i5 easily beats the fastest FX-8-processor. Same is true when comparing against the FX-9590. If I see that right in every single benchmark.
      - powercf 10y ago
michaelmrose 10y ago
You are saying dual core cpus are faster than 6-8 core amd? Do you have benchmarks to back this up?
- topkekz 10y ago
  When AMD says 8 cores, it's actually 8 ALUs and 4 SIMDs/FPUs. http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/2 http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/06/amd_sued_cores/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/06/amd_sued_cores/ Note that they changed that with ZEN http://wccftech.com/amd-one-fpu-per-core-design-zen-processors/ http://wccftech.com/amd-one-fpu-per-core-design-zen-processo...
  - powercf 10y ago
    That case seems* to have been dismissed. My (very brief) reading of it is that there is no industry-standard definition of what a "core" is (other than possibly being able to simultaneously execute), and what can or cannot be shared among cores. I see no issue with AMD calling a module of two integer units and one floating point unit "two cores" * http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020160408M22/DICKEY%20v.%20ADVANCED%20MICRO%20DEVICES,%20INC http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020160408M22/DICKE....

flamedoge 10y ago

Perf / ($ * $/s) / ((cost) * (power))

mbell 10y ago

> they can decide to lower and lower their price down to wherever they need to be. AMD has been teetering on the edge of bankruptcy for quite awhile now. It's unclear how much rope they have left.

trome 10y ago
Just enough to keep going, but not enough to mass produce new chips without an order and cash from an OEM in hand.
HugoDaniel 10y ago
What about their GPU business ? And the deals with this gen consoles and next gen consoles (they sport AMD APU's).
- theandrewbailey 10y ago
  I've always wondered how much that brought in, and how much they depended on it. AMD (ATI) have been in every Nintendo console since Gamecube until now (but not Switch), and they also were in the Xbox 360.
Tuna-Fish 10y ago
> AMD has been teetering on the edge of bankruptcy for quite awhile now. It's unclear how much rope they have left. They have actually dug themselves out of that hole over the past two years or so. Their engineers are good, but their CFO is a wizard. Somehow he managed to take a company with bad short-term prospects and very questionable long-term ones that was up to it's eyeballs in very expensive short term debt and convert that into cheap long-term debt. Then once things started going better for them and the stock started going up, they have been turning their debt into equity pretty much as soon as possible. AMD currently is in no risk of bankruptcy: http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/AMD-CFO-Commentary-Slides-Q3-16-page-011-840x630.jpg http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/AMD-CFO-C...

olegkikin 10y ago

$100 buys you Intel Xeon E5-2665 ($80 on eBay) = 8 cores, 2.3-3.1GHz Intel Xeon E5-2660 ($60-65 on eBay) = 8 cores, 2.2-3Ghz (so you can buy two for $120-130) Intel Xeon E5-1650 ($97 on eBay) = 6 cores, 3.5-3.8GHz E5-2665 beats FX-8350 hands down, and is cheaper. http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Xeon-E5-2665-vs-AMD-FX-8350 http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Xeon-E5-2665-vs-AMD-FX-8350 http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Xeon-E5-1650-vs-AMD-FX-8350 http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Xeon-E5-1650-vs-AMD-FX-8350

daveguy 10y ago
Buying CPUs on eBay is generally a bad idea. When people consider price/performance they don't generally include second hand cpu markets in the equation. Also, xeon MBs are more expensive.
- olegkikin 10y ago
  Buying on eBay from reputable sellers is just fine. I do it all the time. I can buy a whole workstation with E5-2665, motherboard, 32GB RAM, 1TB HDD, all for $414, shipped. http://www.ebay.com/itm/162274529994 http://www.ebay.com/itm/162274529994 I doubt you can find something like that with FX-8350 and cheaper. And it will still be slower.
  - voltagex_ 10y ago
    What's the power usage of those things? I think I'd notice the difference in my power bill vs buying something like an i5.
    - walrus01 10y ago
      A xeon e5 2665 is rated at 115W thermal, so two of them at full load (let's say, calculating prime numbers) would be 230W... plus the overhead for fans, motherboard, hard drive other heat producing components in the system. I would guess that the lenovo workstation in the ebay link is probably 310W electrical load as measured by a kill-a-watt if you run simultaneous full cpu, ram and disk benchmarks on it. Depends a lot on your electrical cost. Some people live in places where the power costs $0.05 per kWh. Some people live in places where it cost $0.36 per kWh (Hawaii).

gregmac 10y ago

For me personally, I've benefited from another aspect: AMD doesn't constantly change their sockets (edit: or at maintains some level of compatibility). My wife's laptop died, and she just wanted me to do put together something cheap for her office (she has a tablet and work laptop). I bought myself a new motherboard (keeping my CPU), gave her my old one and put in an older CPU I had. A year and half later, I upgraded my CPU to an FX-8350. My old CPU (Phenom x4) moved to the basement NAS/Plex server, a nice upgrade to Athlon II CPU (without requiring a new motherboard). Had I been on Intel, I would simply not done those upgrades because they wouldn't have been worthwhile. Basically every CPU upgrade requires a new motherboard. And in my experience, nearly every time I've had to get a new motherboard, my memory or video card or some other component is now outdated, and suddenly I'm basically building a completely new PC.

RUG3Y 10y ago
I'm in the same boat. Every computer I build is on a shoestring budget, re-using old components, etc. AMD has been a lifesaver. They provide acceptable performance at a price I can afford.
- soupbowl 10y ago
  This is exactly what I have done also. It enables me to upgrade a lot of computers with every upgrade. I also end up with a lot of older spare parts, enabling me to build computers for elderly and people in need.
  - RUG3Y 10y ago
    It's really cool that you do that. I hate when hardware ends up in a landfill, when somebody can use it.
digi_owl 10y ago
That is highly dependent on how often you swap motherboards but do not swap CPUs.
- 10y ago

gruez 10y ago

>8-core Phenom those don't exist

mrb 10y ago
Sorry I meant an FX-8300. I forgot AMD had dropped the "Phenom" brand for this line.

mSparks 10y ago

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html top of the range $200 amd fx 9590 less performance than a $133 intel e5 2650 and neither are worth buying today.

luca_ing 10y ago
What do they measure, and how?
- mSparks 10y ago
  pcmark and passmark measure a vast range of cpu performance use cases. currently, amd does terribly in pretty much every measure. absolute performance, performance per $, throughput. absolutely anything that matters. There are some promoted intel chips that are worse. but the only thing amd have been doing well at in recent years is hyperbole with a healthy dose of shilling. So i cant disagree with anyone on here that wont believe anything they say until they see it. around this time last year we had http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/06/amd_sued_cores/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/06/amd_sued_cores/

user5994461 10y ago

And who cares about perf/$ in the high range? Gamers need perf/core. Datacenters need perf/power. They're only viable for "cheap CPU" in the < $100 range which is low margin.