AMD roadmap leaked, x86 possibly over for the high end.

[glo]

The only way to compare IPC is having the CPUs clocked at the same speed, you were talking about IPC right?

Nope. If you read the post, it's talking about how the performance of the A10-7850k will be an incredible value, and rival that of Haswell entry-mid end performance. If I added the word "performance" after IPC, I suppose you wouldn't be trying to twist words for no apparent reason.

Keep in mind that your first response was:

Keep in mind that the 3220 runs at 3.3GHz while 6800k runs at 4.1GHz.

Which we could turn around and change to:

Keep in mind that the Pentium 4 Extreme runs at 3.8GHz while i7 3770k runs at 3.9GHz.

See? It doesn't matter.

[n0cturnal]

AMD enthusiasts also have the A10-7850K releasing soon. A true 4 core chip with hyperthreading, (much less module nonsense) that should (in theory) come very close to Haswell IPC. Why should it come very close? Because Richland got kinda close to Ivy Bridge with the A10-6800K.

So you are not saying that Richland is close in IPC to Ivy bridge while the picture obviously shows that it isn't?

[Toffie]

Keep in mind that the 3220 runs at 3.3GHz while 6800k runs at 4.1GHz.

Different architecture = different speed.
It doesn't mean anything.

[n0cturnal]

Different architecture = different speed.
It doesn't mean anything.

It does when you are talking IPC.

Glo specifically bolded the IPC part, we are not talking about single thread performance but actual IPC. Clock speed matter a lot.

[glo]

So you are not saying that Richland is close in IPC to Ivy bridge while the picture obviously shows that it isn't?

Holy hell, are you seriously not understanding this? Is it a language barrier? I'll break it down:

That (as in the performance of the 7850K) should (in theory) come very close (as in close to the performance) to Haswell IPC (as in the IPC performance of the i3-4130 or similar, since I brought up discussing relative improvements in performance over architecture changes in Intel).

And finally, as you're still not grasping it, IPC between major architecture differences means next to nothing. I've already linked you reputable proof, I'm not sure what else you need to properly understand it.

[n0cturnal]

Holy hell, are you seriously not understanding this? Is it a language barrier? I'll break it down:

That (as in the performance of the 7850K) should (in theory) come very close (as in close to the performance) to Haswell IPC (as in the IPC performance of the i3-4130 or similar, since I brought up discussing relative improvements in performance over architecture changes in Intel).

And finally, as you're still not grasping it, IPC between major architecture differences means next to nothing. I've already linked you reputable proof, I'm not sure what else you need to properly understand it.

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to discuss now, the post says IPC several times but it sounds like you are trying to compare single threaded performance.

[glo]

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to discuss now, the post says IPC several times but it sounds like you are trying to compare single threaded performance.

IPC performance of an Intel part is relative to IPC of another Intel part. Not sure why it's difficult to comprehend comparing an AMD part's performance to two generations of Intel parts (said Intel performance most easily compared with IPC).

You're majorly derailing the thread now for no reason whatsoever, other than to pick an unprovoked fight with me. All the while with incorrect assumptions and (intentionally?) poor understanding of what is being said over and over.

[noteworthynerd]

Thread warning: Discussing and even debating the topic (and things related to the topic) is fine, but please refrain from unnecessary/unfounded accusations and overly-combative posting.

[MasterNewbie]

glo, I'm not sure if when you mentioned a language barrier it was due to n0ct's lack of english or yours, but I am also leaning towards what n0ct is saying. To legitimately compare IPC (as n0ct linked in another post), they have to be clocked the same. The i3-3220 is clocked at 3.3 stock, the 6800k at 4.1 stock. That would be ~24% increase in clock speed, so if they had similar IPC, the 6800k would score ~24% higher in single-threaded benchmarks. Based on the chart you provided, the difference in single threaded performance (where as far as I know, IPC is more easily compared), the 3220 scored 1.39 and the 6800k 1.14, or the 3220 scored ~22% higher than the 6800k. I'm not entirely sure if I did the math right, but the IPC of the 3220 is about 52% higher than the 6800K.

If AMD is claiming a 25% increase in IPC, it still wouldn't be sufficient to push the IPC performance into Haswell territory, but if they keep it up with the higher stock clocks, they might match the overall performance.

[chazus]

AMD enthusiasts also have the A10-7850K releasing soon. A true 4 core chip with hyperthreading, (much less module nonsense) that should (in theory) come very close to Haswell IPC. Why should it come very close? Because Richland got kinda close to Ivy Bridge with the A10-6800K.

And by rough math, that single thread Cinebench score should be around 1.425, exceeding the IPC of an i3-3220.
[/I]

What that sounds like to me is... The newest 'high end' (assuming Kaveri wants to be high end), trades blows with Intels weakest, previous generation CPU. I can't tell if AMD still has something planned (Because it looks like we have an FX-8350 until most people's next upgrade cycle) and ... A 'great' low end cpu. Not very promising.

I'm more worried about what this will do to intel, if there isn't proper high end competition at all. Higher prices? Less innovation? I hear a lot about Mantle, but doesn't that apply to Intel AND AMD CPU's with an AMD GPU? If that's the case, I don't see that benefitting AMD at all on the CPU side.

[glo]

glo, I'm not sure if when you mentioned a language barrier it was due to n0ct's lack of english or yours, but I am also leaning towards what n0ct is saying. To legitimately compare IPC (as n0ct linked in another post), they have to be clocked the same. The i3-3220 is clocked at 3.3 stock, the 6800k at 4.1 stock. That would be ~24% increase in clock speed, so if they had similar IPC, the 6800k would score ~24% higher in single-threaded benchmarks. Based on the chart you provided, the difference in single threaded performance (where as far as I know, IPC is more easily compared), the 3220 scored 1.39 and the 6800k 1.14, or the 3220 scored ~22% higher than the 6800k. I'm not entirely sure if I did the math right, but the IPC of the 3220 is about 52% higher than the 6800K.

If AMD is claiming a 25% increase in IPC, it still wouldn't be sufficient to push the IPC performance into Haswell territory, but if they keep it up with the higher stock clocks, they might match the performance (the benchmark performance).

You can't compare IPC vs speed of different architectures... Why? Because this and that part is designed to be ran at a certain speed. If this logic was applied to the GPU world, it would be silly. It shouldn't be applied here either.

- - - Updated - - -

What that sounds like to me is... The newest 'high end' (assuming Kaveri wants to be high end), trades blows with Intels weakest, previous generation CPU. I can't tell if AMD still has something planned (Because it looks like we have an FX-8350 until most people's next upgrade cycle) and ... A 'great' low end cpu. Not very promising.

I'm more worried about what this will do to intel, if there isn't proper high end competition at all. Higher prices? Less innovation? I hear a lot about Mantle, but doesn't that apply to Intel AND AMD CPU's with an AMD GPU? If that's the case, I don't see that benefitting AMD at all on the CPU side.

It should be trading blows or be extremely close with Haswell i3 and entry level i5 if AMD's claims turn out to be true. That would be huge! They haven't been close whatsoever over the past 3 or 4 years. You also have to admire a 25% increase in performance over a single generation no matter how it comes. It's a massive leap in a world with many small steps as of late.

And really, if it does turn out to be true, a $140 chip that matches Intel's $140-220~ chips would be good for the market. It's really cool that it's overclockable at that price point.

As far as the high end segment, yeah. I don't know. Maybe they're postponing for DDR4 or something.

[MasterNewbie]

You can't compare IPC vs speed of different architectures...

In benchmarks they are invariably tied together. By comparing benchmarks, you are comparing both IPC and clock speed.

[Deleted]

If you can't beat em..... give up?

To be honest, I was under the understanding that the enthusiast market (I.e. the FX line) was a poor profit area on the whole, and that the mobile/apu area was better because it outsources to OEMs. Also, there was this other thing...

PS4: AMD CPU, AMD GPU
XB1: AMD CPU, AMD GPU
Wii U: AMD GPU, IBM CPU

Nvidia: =(

It may be that AMD is simply starting to 'move on' to more profitable markets, or at least more secure ones. The PC market may become very volatile soon as computers become too powerful for the software, and GPU because the only upscaling hardware aspect. Consoles on the other hand will -always- be in demand, virtually forever.

No chip makers cares about the console market. It's like 5% of the total market.

Nvidia reigns supreme over AMD, as Intel also destroys AMD.

-

Consoles have been decreasing year after year, just like any other product, PCs haven't noticeably. The only difference is that tablets and smartphones have taken a few percent, which is expect, but that's just until the next hype comes. The only thing that will happen to PCs it that it will evolve at some point into something new.

[Steelfox]

Someone talked to AMD and they confirmed the slide as a fake http://www.gamersnexus.net/news/1240...pus-fx-not-eol

[Jtbrig7390]

Consoles have been decreasing year after year, just like any other product,

Offtopic: I disagree and the current sells figures for the XboxOne and Ps4 prove this to not be true.

At the Release of the Xbox 360 and Ps3 both sold around 500k consoles on day one. This time around the Ps4 and XboxOne sold over 1 million systems and when the Ps4 release it only did it in 2 places until 2 weeks later. Both consoles have sold over 2 million and there is still many reserves to be taken care of before you can just walk into walmart and buy a system. Hell even the Nintendo Wii-U has sold nearly 4 million systems since its release. Also the sells of titles of Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty/Battlefield on there console counter part prove this statement to not be true ether.

Sorry for going offtopic.

[eschatological]

God, I remember investing 300k in Intel right before they came out with the P6 architecture and the Pentium II. What heady times those were.

I even won the Wall Street club in my high school for the highest returns on my (sadly) imaginary portfolio.

This is like watching the culmination of that fake investment, oh so long ago.

[Deleted]

Nvidia reigns supreme over AMD, as Intel also destroys AMD.

In which way?

[Drunkenvalley]

No chip makers cares about the console market. It's like 5% of the total market.

Even if you were correct this is a huge opportunity for AMD, who've been posting a lot in the red in most departments that I can recall.

[Toffie]

No chip makers cares about the console market. It's like 5% of the total market.

Nvidia reigns supreme over AMD, as Intel also destroys AMD.

-

Consoles have been decreasing year after year, just like any other product, PCs haven't noticeably. The only difference is that tablets and smartphones have taken a few percent, which is expect, but that's just until the next hype comes. The only thing that will happen to PCs it that it will evolve at some point into something new.

Everything you said is false, consoles have the highest profit for developers by FAR. Consoles sales this generation have been better than ever before.
The profit from GTA 5 was higher than atleast 10 AAA games on the PC.

[Deleted]

Well, not like nVidia is confined to PC market. While they aren't involved in console market, they're going strong with mobile devices, namely tablets and phones.

Anyway last years have been kind of sad in the CPU market. There has been no competition from AMD in the enthusiast market since i7 release so we haven't seen significant performance improvements from generation to generation.