AMD 6 core $300 fail???

75 replies [Last post]
undeadkingpr
undeadkingpr's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2009
Posts: 511

Well I just got through reading 2 long reviews of the new amd 6 core cpu's and my conclusion=fail

 Other than marginally better power management the new cpus fall behind a slightly OC'd 930/920 in almost every media/multitasking benchmark. Then if the 920 or 930-especially the 930- is OC'd it just flat out dominates the OC'd amds despite having 2 less cores.

Moving on to gaming the news just get worse as the new cpus perform worse than a 965BE in 80% of games.

The only market I see for these products is for people who already have an AM3 board looking to upgrade to do more encoding but not gaming.

 

Even the gtx 400's are more successful new products then this...

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/04/27/amd-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-black-edition/10

@University rig-Haf 922-i7 920- ASUS GENE MB- 6gb OCZ ddr3 1600-GTS 250- Acer 23'-ocz 700w psu-Altec expressionist bass speakers-LG dvd multi drive-Rosewill media reader

Tiv
Tiv's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/12/2009
Posts: 3584

No more a fail than any of Intels newest processors. Look at the prices of the cheapest i7's that have been out for months now. Amd has X6's in the lower 200$ range. "AMD Phenom II X6 1055T" is 222$, not bad for 6 cores! At least the AMD X6 will drop in price unlike Intel and yes, some games now actually use all 6 cores. AMD motherboards seem to be cheaper and the over system cost lower. I see this as a Win Win, we need competition to keep the power moving and the prices dropping. Lets also keep in mind that AMD has the new the AMD Opteron™ 6000 Series! (12-Core).

AMD Opteron 6172 12-core Magny-Cours 2.1GHz Processor OS6172WKTCEGOWOF- Retail 989$
http://www.amazon.com/AMD-Opteron-Magny-Cours-Processor-OS6172WKTCEGOWOF/dp/B003BYRHLM

I sleep fine at night knowing we are banning people who deserve it.  Tivon
Don't test my skills, I was trained by myself! Check out my Gaming Videos!

undeadkingpr
undeadkingpr's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2009
Posts: 511

No price drop? Then what is a 930 replacing a 920 for the same price? a 930 can perform up to 10% better in some situations and can easily be found at microcenter for $200-THE SAME PRICE AS THE CHEAPER 6 CORE AMD!

Why would intel drop prices when there is no competition? They are making a ton of money as it is so until something changes I doubt much will happen

Clearly as shown by every benchmark 6 cores means nothing if all 6 are older architecture.

Shown me TWO popular games that perform better on the AMD vs. a 930 both OC'd and I might change my mind about the gaming fail.

Opteron is a totally different subject-it is 1k so of course you should expect more.

On that subject though a 980x can actually outperform the Op in some tests despite having HALF the cores-Clearly # of cores is not everything-Oh and Intel is working on 12 cores but not as hard as its other projects as less than 1% of the market is that extreme.

Tiv
Tiv's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/12/2009
Posts: 3584

Clearly this negativity of AMD Phenom X6 is completely your own biased opinion. I also like Intel based CPU's or I would not have a Q6600 Overclocked to the insane limits of silicon. If you read the article they have links that show improvements over Intel. Keep in mind that some of these Benchmarks are coded in favor of Intel. Crysis for example was 2006-2007 and failed to support Quads, so what is Six cores going to do for that old game now? The software needs to catch up to support the hardware, simple as that.

Cinebench R10 64-bit

Keep in mind that these processors just hit the streets. Just like Nvidia and ATI it takes time for drivers and software to run code that provides good performance. Intel has had the i7 out longer than the X6, so time will only tell is what I'm saying here. Even if AMD does not beat Intel at every benchmark at least they are keeping up and providing a fare alternative. You probably wouldn't even notice a few benchmark scores in Intel's favor anyway.

A 930 is not replacing a 920, it is hardly a price drop at all, rather a price increase!! $271 for the cheapest i7 and AMD X6 just came out in stores!!! 6 CORES for $208.99!!! Clearly if you don't find that assume on a new release product then I can't convince you of the truth.

Also the Nvidia 400's by the way are a FAIL IMHO, but that's another story.

undeadkingpr
undeadkingpr's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2009
Posts: 511

Did you follow the bit tech link I posted earlier? In 8/10 media benchmarks the 6 core lost STOCK and in all 10/10 it lost to the OC'd 930.

When the 920 came out it was $300 now the 930 WHICH IS BETTER is $270 at newegg OR $200 at microcenter OR $245 on ebay -still has warranty. How is that not a price drop given a small one.

It is not my biased opinion-If on air cooling I can get a 930 to pwn a x6 in EVERY benchmark + at microcenter I could grab either FOR THE SAME PRICE OR EVEN LESS FOR THE 930 then which would I chose?

 Yes, Drivers will be specialized but the 920 has only improved maybe 5% in most applications since launch so that is not the primary issue here.

 6 cores of 2003 architecture< 4 cores of 2008 architecture

Oh and btw the Nvidia 400's were not a fail as now I can get a 5850 from newegg for ~300-not bad eh?

Tiv
Tiv's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/12/2009
Posts: 3584

It's all good to me. I'd take any of those and make a nice system. I agree ATI is doing a good job this year unlike Nvidia. AMD is a little behind, but when they are up against a giant like Intel that has complete control of the CPU market and holds important patents, it's a freak of nature that AMD is able to compete given the fact that they were going so far into dept.

Salavat23
Salavat23's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2007
Posts: 72

To judge the processors fairly, forget about the cores, and look at the performance figures. Intel is still way ahead of AMD in terms of performance and price/performance. You have the 2.8GHz i7 930 outperforming the 3.2GHz 1090T by a longshot. Couple that with the fact that the i7 has much more air overclocking headroom, and this isn't even a competition. Until AMD understands that they won't get anywhere by glueing their old, underperforming (relatively) processors together, they won't get anywhere fast.

Come on, their 1090T will have problems competing with the i5 750, a CPU which undercuts AMD's by $100.

Doesn't matter if their 6-cores are $200. That 6-core still has the 3.5 year old Q6600 within plain sight in its rear view mirror.

undeadkingpr
undeadkingpr's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2009
Posts: 511

Well Put Sala-

Oh and at microcenter the faster clocked amd x6 is $300 while a i7 930 is $200 thus removing any price benefit the x6 may have so my conclusion is still AMD=FAIL AT EDGE MARKET

Tiv
Tiv's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/12/2009
Posts: 3584

Salavat23 wrote:

To judge the processors fairly, forget about the cores, and look at the performance figures. Intel is still way ahead of AMD in terms of performance and price/performance. You have the 2.8GHz i7 930 outperforming the 3.2GHz 1090T by a longshot. Couple that with the fact that the i7 has much more air overclocking headroom, and this isn't even a competition. Until AMD understands that they won't get anywhere by glueing their old, underperforming (relatively) processors together, they won't get anywhere fast.

Come on, their 1090T will have problems competing with the i5 750, a CPU which undercuts AMD's by $100.

Doesn't matter if their 6-cores are $200. That 6-core still has the 3.5 year old Q6600 within plain sight in its rear view mirror.

I don't agree because per watt Intel uses more power than AMD. Thinking in reverse if AMD used more power per watt they would be about the same as Intel maybe. Need to keep in mind that it was AMD that had the better scaling when it was Intel back in days that was doing the Rambust and P4's. Maybe if Intel didn't change sockets at the drop of the hat people could save more money?

It really does not matter to me if they keep using old cores so long as the performance keeps going up for the dollar amount paid. I paid way more than 200$ for my Q6600 back in the days and it's 4 cores compared to 6. The Q6600 is my money cash cow and I shale milk it for as long as possible..lol But we can't really harp on AMD for adding more cores. Now that AMD has made some money the Investors will be less scared to hand them money and fuel the fires for better AMD processors to come. Waiting for the 12-Cores to make their way into the home computers and force Intel to counter. I know Intel has a 256 and 128-Core CPU in a vault some place guarded by a Terminator. hehe

Alexander Morou
Offline
Joined: 04/28/2010
Posts: 10

Jared Maynard wrote:I don't agree because per watt Intel uses more power than AMD. Thinking in reverse if AMD used more power per watt they would be about the same as Intel maybe. Need to keep in mind that it was AMD that had the better scaling when it was Intel back in days that was doing the Rambust and P4's. Maybe if Intel didn't change sockets at the drop of the hat people could save more money?

It really does not matter to me if they keep using old cores so long as the performance keeps going up for the dollar amount paid. I paid way more than 200$ for my Q6600 back in the days and it's 4 cores compared to 6. The Q6600 is my money cash cow and I shale milk it for as long as possible..lol But we can't really harp on AMD for adding more cores. Now that AMD has made some money the Investors will be less scared to hand them money and fuel the fires for better AMD processors to come. Waiting for the 12-Cores to make their way into the home computers and force Intel to counter. I know Intel has a 256 and 128-Core CPU in a vault some place guarded by a Terminator. hehe

It's funny, because Intel's processors are still faster.  Isn't that what this is about?

Tiv
Tiv's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/12/2009
Posts: 3584

Alexander Morou wrote:

Jared Maynard wrote:I don't agree because per watt Intel uses more power than AMD. Thinking in reverse if AMD used more power per watt they would be about the same as Intel maybe. Need to keep in mind that it was AMD that had the better scaling when it was Intel back in days that was doing the Rambust and P4's. Maybe if Intel didn't change sockets at the drop of the hat people could save more money?

It really does not matter to me if they keep using old cores so long as the performance keeps going up for the dollar amount paid. I paid way more than 200$ for my Q6600 back in the days and it's 4 cores compared to 6. The Q6600 is my money cash cow and I shale milk it for as long as possible..lol But we can't really harp on AMD for adding more cores. Now that AMD has made some money the Investors will be less scared to hand them money and fuel the fires for better AMD processors to come. Waiting for the 12-Cores to make their way into the home computers and force Intel to counter. I know Intel has a 256 and 128-Core CPU in a vault some place guarded by a Terminator. hehe

It's funny, because Intel's processors are still faster.  Isn't that what this is about?

Well, no, but people have their reasons for everything. Most of us just buy the best hardware for the money. Some of us don't need a i7 and only surf the Internet, so they might as well buy an AMD and save money. There are programs that AMD processors run better than Intel, so it depends on what you need. Intel has their anti-competitive behavior that makes me support AMD when possible.

Salavat23
Salavat23's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2007
Posts: 72

How does AMD have the performance/watt advantage in the high end market segment?

The i7 8x0 series are faster than AMD's 6 cores, and have a lower TDP as well (95W vs 125W). So you've got a faster CPU that uses less power.

Not only that, but when overclocking, the increase in voltage neccessary on the i7's is but merely a fraction of what you need to use on AMD's Phenom II's for the same OC.

AMD needs to go back to the drawing board and make a new architecture. K10.5 is basically K10, which is a heavily tweaked K8 from god knows when. But yes, as you mentioned, AMD is slowly gaining investor confidence, which is very good news.

Tiv
Tiv's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/12/2009
Posts: 3584

The TDP and real world watts seems conflict more often than not. Maybe next year they will have something better with the 8-cores 32nm and improve multithreading performance with two INT schedulers, an a FP scheduler to separate data caches for each of the four cores. Good times man. :)

Alexander Morou
Offline
Joined: 04/28/2010
Posts: 10

I'm not sure about this, but I've read that AMD's power advantage isn't the CPU itself, but rather the chip sets that control everything beyond the processor itself.  An Intel system might have a better performing CPU per watt, but the chip set tends to mitigate that advantage.

Either way, I'm not really sure what the logical focus of Jared Maynard is, but he seems to be mixing his personal prejudice as a logical argument.  Your views over Intel's business practices are generally irrelevant.

Most benchmarks results I've read towards AMD processors tend to tell a completely different tale: AMD's performance is hardly what you'd call stellar.  The fact that it's struggling to compete with Intel's lowest Core i7 should say something.  Sure there are instances when it can beat out the core i7 975 extreme edition, but those are few and far between.

lestat692k9
lestat692k9's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/26/2010
Posts: 53

Yeah but who broke a world record at 7 ghz amd and, intel did not even come close lolI am talking raw power thats all i am saying. I ama a loyal amd fan and will remian one  for the simple fact when intel introduces a super gaming cpu it is almost over 1000 $ that to me says one thing about a company. that it doe's not care that much for the average consumer...

viperman5686
viperman5686's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/22/2003
Posts: 13

"Blah blah blah fanboy talk"

Make all the trivial arguments you want about wattage, MHz, cores, and optimization.  IT DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

Price to performance ratio is the ONLY thing that matters.

If Grand Theft Auto teaches me how to kill, then Need For Speed teaches me how to drive.

lestat692k9
lestat692k9's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/26/2010
Posts: 53

Me a fan of amd that took a lot of detective work! Price vs performance yes i agree there my 965 be is at 4.3 ghz on water cooling. cheap water cooling at that. If I went with a better water cooling system I could probobly reach the 5 ghz + range on a 180.00 dollar cpu.

Tiv
Tiv's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/12/2009
Posts: 3584

Alexander Morou wrote:

I'm not sure about this, but I've read that AMD's power advantage isn't the CPU itself, but rather the chip sets that control everything beyond the processor itself.  An Intel system might have a better performing CPU per watt, but the chip set tends to mitigate that advantage.

Either way, I'm not really sure what the logical focus of Jared Maynard is, but he seems to be mixing his personal prejudice as a logical argument.  Your views over Intel's business practices are generally irrelevant.

Most benchmarks results I've read towards AMD processors tend to tell a completely different tale: AMD's performance is hardly what you'd call stellar.  The fact that it's struggling to compete with Intel's lowest Core i7 should say something.  Sure there are instances when it can beat out the core i7 975 extreme edition, but those are few and far between.

If my views over Intel's business practices are generally irrelevant. Then why did Intel give AMD $1.25 Billion dollars? Boy when you step into my arena sounding smart you will take a punch to the face, come prepared next time..lol

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/technology/companies/13chip.html?_r=1&hp

 

undeadkingpr
undeadkingpr's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2009
Posts: 511

Well put Alex

Also something to consider is why is power such a big deal?

I've done the calculations before and if my computer on average was drawing .4k/h 24h/d and I NEVER turn it off and the power remains at peak usage (gtx 275+920+rest of system is about ~400W draw at peak) then my desktop would cost me ~90 in the space of a year.

Even if AMD uses 10-20% less power that's 9-18 bux of savings a year assuming your computer is ALWAYS at peak which is ridicules so really $5 of savings is generous. You might as well turn off the lights in your computer room to save far more $. This is precisely why Intel does not really both worrying about power in its desktop line. The only way power draw actually effects the CPU is generating heat but an i7 can OC well beyond AMD's competition despite this and have equal if not superior life span.

Don't get me wrong, its good AMD is here to offer some competition - particularly in the mid-low end market to help reduce prices but in the ultra high end it really is no match for Intel.

Intel is not an obnoxious company, Nvidia on the other hand is a totally different story (FIRE THAT MOTHER F%^K$N CEO ALREADY AND HIRE SOMEONE COMPETENT!!!!!)

Tiv
Tiv's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/12/2009
Posts: 3584

Yeah, the Nvidia CEO is a tard for sure. As for power it adds up. We have super computers at my day job that use AMD Opterons.. I repeat thousands of AMD Processors and the reasoning is very simple. Cheap & Lower Power. AMD is making a name for themselves in the industry markets.

undeadkingpr
undeadkingpr's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2009
Posts: 511

Les- an i7 930 is $200 and it outperforms EVERY desktop amd processor in 90% of applications especially games. It overclocks to 4.33 ghz ON AIR smashing a 965 even more if you watercool it let alone custom watercool it.

Wow big deal some dude with multi-grand to spare can pour liquid nitrogen into a dragon f1 cooler to cool down his cpu to -100C. How exactly does this affect me as the average consumer?

 Yes Intel is slightly shady but certainly not a terrible company with dubious practices. And don't even get me started on the E.U-THEY HATE AMERICAN COMPANIES AND ARE COMPLETELY CURROPT. NOT TO MENTION THE CURRENT PRESIDENT VOWED TO DESTROY THE E.U 2.5 YEARS AGO!

 

Salavat23
Salavat23's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2007
Posts: 72

lestat692k9 wrote:

Yeah but who broke a world record at 7 ghz amd and, intel did not even come close lolI am talking raw power thats all i am saying. I ama a loyal amd fan and will remian one  for the simple fact when intel introduces a super gaming cpu it is almost over 1000 $ that to me says one thing about a company. that it doe's not care that much for the average consumer...

Intel's Cedar Mill's have been going past 8GHz since 2006. Intel has other chips beyond the EEs FYI.

undeadkingpr
undeadkingpr's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2009
Posts: 511

Jared- As far as the server market is right now yes AMD is in the momentary lead but Intel is working on it. For starters one MB can have dual 6 core Xeon's which dominate an OP but are a bit power hungry...

Yes, as a business the $ adds up but still it should not be the main influencer of what processor to buy just to save 5-10% on the power bil..

What a lively discussion-reminds me of old forums!!!

lestat692k9
lestat692k9's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/26/2010
Posts: 53

thats a total diff class of cpu give me a break not intended for average consumer use   and this was sponcered by amd to prove potential i have not seen it done with the competition sponcering someone like this

lol

 

 

read before you watch

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Hf6d404QY

Tiv
Tiv's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/12/2009
Posts: 3584

undeadkingpr wrote:

Jared- As far as the server market is right now yes AMD is in the momentary lead but Intel is working on it. For starters one MB can have dual 6 core Xeon's which dominate an OP but are a bit power hungry...

Yes, as a business the $ adds up but still it should not be the main influencer of what processor to buy just to save 5-10% on the power bil..

What a lively discussion-reminds me of old forums!!!

Let's hope that the money used in the DX11 cards can help pay way for better competition with Intel. 5 and 10% energy saved in a super computer or server farm can actually mean thousands of dollar a day. These are not your home computers playing games and porn, but rather more like washers and dryers running 24/7!

Tiv
Tiv's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/12/2009
Posts: 3584

lestat692k9 wrote:

Me a fan of amd that took a lot of detective work! Price vs performance yes i agree there my 965 be is at 4.3 ghz on water cooling. cheap water cooling at that. If I went with a better water cooling system I could probobly reach the 5 ghz + range on a 180.00 dollar cpu.

It was cheap and it performs pretty good right. You don't feel like you needed to spend 300$ on an Intel CPU. Just think of what you can do with 6 cores! I bet your games run great! AMD is Kickass alternative! yes

omega8300
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2010
Posts: 17

hey guys, ima complete noob, my mate got the amd phenom II 1055 x6 (using a cmaster v8 or coolit eco watercool) , and he tells me to get it to, but im wondering if an intel i7 930 will be better...

Tiv
Tiv's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/12/2009
Posts: 3584

omega8300 wrote:

hey guys, ima complete noob, my mate got the amd phenom II 1055 x6 (using a cmaster v8 or coolit eco watercool) , and he tells me to get it to, but im wondering if an intel i7 930 will be better...

i7 930 = 271$US (only 4 cores)

amd phenom II 1055 x6 = 208.99$US (massive amounts of 6 cores)

Motherboards and Memory are about the same dollars with AMD offering cheaper solutions and Intel with basically more expensive boards and no added gains other than Tri memory. Both offer DDR3, SLI  & Crossfire or Both, along with USB 3 and SATA6.

However, the Phenom II X6 is limited to the dual channel memory controller, this is needed for backwards compatibility. The Intel i7 has a triple channel DDR3 memory controller, more than enough for 4 cores. These are however mostly nitpicks on the grand scheme of things. Motherboard manufacturers are already talking about Phenom II X4 to X6 unlocking tools. You can read more about this information here where I stole most of these words to explain what was on my mind..lol

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3674/amds-sixcore-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-1055t-reviewed

lestat692k9
lestat692k9's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/26/2010
Posts: 53

exactly lol a year old child  could oc a amd system it is so easy. i found this video amusing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p-Viq7Q-6c   I also feel amd is a gamers platform look at the crosshair formula 4 and 3 motherboards endorsed by the republic of gamer's. I only make about 40 k a year. so i am going for price vs. performance. I dont feel the extra cost for an intel based system is justifyable. You know where i am coming from thats why i joining this discusion/argument lol  I give amd a big thumbs up for thier work and i know it will only get better. Another note to what i was saying I personly think amd  is more for the average comsumer than intel is well that is all i have for now i will check back in later work calls lol

Tiv
Tiv's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/12/2009
Posts: 3584

Everyone overclocks, it kind of makes these benchmarks void unless kept at default speeds. I've yet to push my Quads to 100% with any games. I need a DX11 video card more than another processor like the i7 or X6, but if someone gave me the parts I'd use them without question.

I think Tom said it best:

Perhaps the most impressive point from this launch is the fact that AMD is increasing core count by 50%, transistor count by just under 30%, and maintaining the same 125W of its fastest quad-core CPU. It’s almost a shame that price increases by more than 50% at the same time. Fortunately, there are plenty of heavily-threaded workloads that justify a sub-$300 six-core CPU.

undeadkingpr
undeadkingpr's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2009
Posts: 511

Jared- I think you are putting WAY to much emphasis on core count.

What is the purpose of more coreS?

Multitasking, faster encoding, better fps?

AMD FAILS to improve 2/3 of these compared to the 965 AND FAILS to beat an i7 IN 99% of situations DESPITE A 930 HAVING 4 CORES! Further to the point a x6 amd is WORSE at gaming than a 965 b.c of the reduced L3 cash per core. A core means NOTHING if it does nothing for you.

I challenged you yesterday to find 2 situations in which a 930 is beaten by the $300(more expensive) x6 AMD both being OC'd. I can only assume you could not or if you can then do so soon as I can not find ONE let alone TWO.

Les- The ease with witch you overclock an Intel vs AMD is not determined significantly by the chip. That is the BIOS which the motherboard manufactorer provides. ASUS (especially ROG) provides GREAT bios for both intel and AMD. That is the reason I am currently using a Rampage II. If anything an Intel OC's easier than an AMD and FURTHER with LESS overvoltage. a 930 can go up to 4.33ghz coming from ~2.8. In comparison a 965 goes from 3.4 to ~3.95. Clearly AMD is NOT either to overclock NOR overclocks further.

Price/performance is MUCH higher going for i7 as long as you are doing what an i7 excells at-mutlitasking+encoding. For gaming it will not beat a 965 as neither a 930 nor 965 are bottlenecks but rather the GPU. The price of a good AM3 system compared to an i7 rig will be on average $50-$100 less. In the process however you receive dual channel memory, lower motherboard quality, less overclocking headroom, less performance for many applications, less overclocking headroom, and less upgradability as of yet.  So if you are gaming than grabbing a 955/965 is not at all a bad option right now but for many other tasks the i7 rig will outperform the AMD system by up to 40% for only a $50 increase. Also the 980x OWNS at encoding and just about everything so if in the future you wish to get into that type of stuff then the i7 MB will support it. Furthermore tripple channel ram greatly improves PS and ADOBE products performance.

I have not said AMD is a fail as a whole-that is not the truth-it prodcues quality products at a competetive rate and drives Intel's prices down. The EPIC FAIL are the x6 processors which perform WORSE or the same than a 965 while being double the price. So it got 2 extra cores-WHO CARES??? Unless AMD drastically improves the performance of these CPU's I see no reason for anyone to buy one over a good old 955/965BE.