Wanna join the discussion?! Login to your HotHardware Forums forum account, or Register a new forum account.
"Unfortunately, AMD's new CPU comes with a significant clock loss."
You have to remember that it's quite a different architecture (both CPU and GPU) than that of the A10-6800k. The A10-6800k was just an overclocked Trinity. Much like during the Trinity launch, clock speeds start low. As time goes on, yields get a bit better, and they can push out slightly higher clocked chips.
I agree. This one article actually flies in the face of many more out there which "show" a 20% CPU performance increase and a 30% GPU performance increase. I honestly think AMD is being conservative here. What he also failed to directly mention is with Kaveri AMD have developed their own version of Hyper Threading. You'll notice on some WCCFTech slides that Kaveri is a 4-core/8-thread chip. So you'll get a very decent, actually to date the best, iGPU with a quad core that could handle 8 threads at near FX-8350 performance levels. I believe that based on the many articles I've read, AMD's slides, and the performance demonstrations at APU13 that Kaveri will be on par with an Ivy Bridge i7 depending on HSA/OpenCL support. Yes, that's still a generation behind in terms of raw CPU performance, but keep in mind this thing will have THE BEST iGPU combined with Mantle and True Audio. Mantle/HSA will leverage the iGPU, and an R7-260X if you'd like, to offload not just the more paralleled workloads, but also the floating point math from the CPU cores to the GPU cores which help isolate the APUs strengths. Not to mention each part will be an equal citizen when it comes to RAM utilization so we'll actually be able to start utilizing RAM efficiently for the first time this decade! I'm thoroughly excited for Kaveri because it'll be a benchmark in processing history if HSA takes off. What I really appreciate is AMD has nearly completely embraced the Open Source community. They don't have half the resources Intel or nVidia have, yet they're right there in terms of commitment and support of the Linux Kernel. The FX-8350 was a monster under Linux, actually it matched the i7-3770, and Kaveri is slated to be even better. I just hope the Wintel..err I mean Windows at-least tries to fully utilize Kaveri. It's sad when a single partnership can stranglehold an entire industry.
"This one article actually flies in the face of many more out there which "show" a 20% CPU performance increase and a 30% GPU performance increase."
Kaveri is clocked 10% below Richland. That means that if Kaveri is 20% faster than Richland clock for clock, you wind up with a 10% net performance gain. The idea that Kaveri would pick up more than 20% on Richland is not backed up by the changes AMD has made to the architecture or an evaluation of the Bulldozer core's biggest problem.
Kaveri does not increase the L1 data cache size. It does not increase the set associativity of the L1 cache. The L1 is still write-through, which means the L1's perf is still going to be tied to the L2's performance. It *does* increase the size of the L1 instruction cache and improve the chip's branch prediction, but Bulldozer's branch prediction was weak to start with.
2). "with Kaveri AMD have developed their own version of Hyper Threading. "
Incorrect. AMD has never used Hyper-Threading. Bulldozer and Piledriver/Richland use CMT, or Cluster-Multi-Threading. This is nothing like Hyper-Threading.
Hyper-Threading interleaves instructions from two separate threads into the same execution cycle. It does not add execution units. These diagrams are old, but explain the basic difference: First, here's CMT, which is what AMD uses. Ignore the CMP_CMT diagram on the right, it's not accurate for this purpose.
Now, here's Hyper-Threading: http://archive.[censored]technica.com/paedia/images/figure-4.html
Note that execution units are duplicated in the first diagram, but not in the second.
"that Kaveri is a 4-core/8-thread chip."
Kaveri is a two module / 4-core chip. Bulldozer/Piledriver parts lose about 20% of their possible performance when running in this configuration as opposed to running with one thread per module. There are no plans to launch a quad-module / eight-core Kaveri.
Kaveri will be marketed as a quad-core processor. It is not an eight-thread chip.
See here. Four cores: http://images.bit-tech.n...d-kaveri-2-1920x1080.jpg
"Kaveri will be on par with an Ivy Bridge i7. "
No, it won't. AMD has already stated that they cannot go head to head with Intel on this one. Kaveri would need to improve on Richland's single-threaded performance by 50-75% in order to do that. The best-case for AMD is that Kaveri offers Shanghai / Deneb levels of single-threaded performance. This would be 20% higher than their current rate.
"The FX-8350 was a monster under Linux, actually it matched the i7-3770, and Kaveri is slated to be even better"
Chris, the world would like to have a word with that nonsense post. Clock for clock the 3770 is almost 50% faster, and even the fastest 8350 is ~14s while a 3770 at only 70% the clock speed gets ~10.5s. Saying the 8350 matched the 3770 is like saying your turbocharged ford focus matched a stock ferrari, not even a close match when both are tuned to optimal levels.
He's just subscribing to the same tired theory that somehow, some combination of Linux and magic pixie dust makes the FX family fly. I reviewed the FX-9590 for a different website in a comprehensive gaming match-up between it and the Core i7-4960X. In high-end gaming, the two chips are actually fairly competitive -- Intel does better equipped with the 7990 than the AMD does; the gap is closer when tested with the single-GPU 290X.
But that's gaming. And of course, it doesn't compare power consumption. In workstation applications or high-end content creation, the FX family struggles, even at 5GHz.
To illustrate how great the gap is:
In the latest, just-released version of Cinebench 15, the FX-9590 scores 115cb single-thread and 727 in the multi-threaded test. The Core i7-4770K scores 165cb single-threaded and 822 multi-threaded.
That's a single-thread performance gap of 43%, and that's before we touch the fact that the Intel chip is running at 4GHz while the AMD core is running at 5GHz for the single-thread test. Adjust for clock speed, and the clock-for-clock gap between Intel and AMD is 1.79x. An Intel core is literally nearly twice the speed of an AMD core.
The multi-threaded gap is much smaller at 13% unadjusted, 30% adjusted. But even if Kaveri improved single-core performance by 30% and simultaneously boosted multi-core scaling (which it should), it cannot close the gap with Ivy Bridge or Haswell. The gap is too large. The very top-end, best-case scenario was that Kaveri would be able to match Sandy Bridge performance. I no longer expect this, and am hoping that it can manage to match Thuban.
It's not "quite a different architecture." Architectural details here:
It is a modest tweak to Bulldozer that hopefully addresses some of Bulldozer's greatest deficiencies.
I'm willing to see how they perform upon release. I can wait to see as I'm in no rush to buy.
The A10-6800 is pretty good for what it costs and I could make do with one of them if these are a bust. :)
If these new A series APUs do well, then maybe I'll go for one of them instead.
-I’m going to try and respond to everyone in one post –
To Quote Michael Larabel at Phoronix:
"From the initial testing of the brand new AMD FX-8350 "Vishera", the performance was admirable, especially compared to last year's bit of a troubled start with the AMD FX Bulldozer processors.
For many of the Linux computational benchmarks carried out in this article, the AMD FX-8350 proved to be competitive with the Intel Core i7 3770K "Ivy Bridge" processor. Seeing the FX-8350 compete with the i7-3770K at stock speeds in so many benchmarks was rather a surprise since the Windows-focused AMD marketing crew was more expecting this new high-end processor to be head-to-head competition for the Intel Core i5 3570K on Microsoft's operating system. "
So yes, according to Phoronix under Linux the FX-8350 was competitive with the i7-3770(K) since Linux was further optimized to use AMD's architecture. Unfortunately Windows has always favored Intel which is where the “Wintel” pet name comes from.
"Kaveri + Hyper Threading" When I said Hyper Threading I was using it as a general term since most people do not understand the different architectures and think of core multi-threading as "Hyper Threading" since Intel has been far more successful with it's endeavors in this regard, so more people are familiar with that term. I should have explained it differently. Yes I know about CMT but I appreciate you sharing that info rather than simply blasting me. I never said it'd be an 8 core chip however. Based on a slide within an article I read it's supposed to be 2 modules, 4 cores, and handle 8 threads. AMD made many changes to its Steamroller core so it's now "SteamrollerB". I haven't found much information on the exact differences, but see the following article which illustrates that it is a 4-core/8-threaded chip. ->http://wccftech.com/amd-announces-a107850k-kaveri-apu-specifications-architectural-details-launching-14th-january-512-gcn-cores-28nm-steamroller/ [correction - this article was updated redacting the "4/8" on the Kaveri slide. Kaveri is NOT able to handle 8 threads]
And where did you get the idea that it’d be on par with Deneb as far as single threaded performance goes?
-->http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-4350-vs-AMD-A10-6800K The A10 Piledriver matches the quad core FX-Piledriver for the mysterious reason of it being the exact same CPU architecture.
-->http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-Phenom-II-X4-965-vs-AMD-FX-4350 The quad core FX chip beats the Deneb
-->http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-Phenom-II-X4-965-vs-AMD-A10-6800K The A10 beats the Deneb quad core in single threading and matches it in multi-threading performances.
So if we all accept that Kaveri will be “some measure” better than Richland, then Kaveri will also be “some measure” better than the Piledriver quad core and the Deneb Phenom quad core according to the benchmarks cited on CPUBoss. Truly I’m not a huge CPUBoss fan, but it is flashier than CPU-World.
What you’re missing from my statements is that with the advent of HSA, OpenCL, and Mantle AMD will be able to leverage its better assets, namely its Radeon cores, to help out its weaker x86 cores. It’s the exact inverse of Intel who has a weaker iGPU and stronger CPU core which is why they invented Crystal Well with it's eDRAM L4 cache. So overall, granting that HSA, OpenCL, and Mantle for games and possibly content creation software, is utilized properly Kaveri could give the stock Ivy Bridge i7 a run for its money under the right conditions. Intel, NVidia, Adobe, and Apple also have a stake in OpenCL, and HSA has AMD, ARM, Samsung, TI, and Qualcomm. Plus both have various other Open Source supporters and along with built in support under Linux & Mac OS. So it’s safe to say that both Open Source standards will be utilized in the future.
Also don’t forget that Mantle is supported by all 3 next gen consoles, and R-X GPUs, so it will also be adopted very well within the near future. Since it has to be for anyone to enjoy new games on the next gen consoles. To give you a taste of it check out this video from APU13 showing Kaveri out-do an i7-4770K paired with a GeForce 630 while playing BF4
Truthfully, we all know if you’re using GeForce 630 you would use an i5 and not i7, but the point they’re making about threading is valid.
Here's the bottom line - I love my 3930K and in the past I only used Intel CPUs because I wasn't much of a gamer and kind of a Mac fan to begin with. After someone at U of M finally talked me into buying an FX-8350 for VMs under Linux for some labs we set up I found myself questioning a lot of the synthetic benchmarks out there after I played with around with it.
Check out these pages:
Then I discovered that not only was Windows specifically optimized for Intel's architecture, but many of the compilers under Windows were as well. The GCC compiler, which Intel and AMD support quite a bit, is a good example of what can be done with AMD's module approach when fully utilized. The FX-8350 under those benchmarks above is nearly on par with the i7-3770K under the right conditions. Also, as Michael Larabel shows on Phoronix, the FX-8350 performs great under Linux and on par with the i7-3770(K). These are facts that many try to suppress out of nothing other than bias. I personally use both Intel and AMD processors now and both have their place depending on how they’re used. Intel definitely has its advantages, and so does AMD. AMD’s price to performance ratio is pretty legendary and compelling with many of its products, although not all.
I’ve been working with computers since my first PowerPC back in the early 90s before IBM’s architecture took over. I’ve seen both of these companies go at each other time and again, and the different approaches they’ve taken to do so. AMD has been in a pretty dismal position the last 2-3 years, but just as they did in the 90s and early 2000s they’ll bounce back and bring the competition to Intel which is good for all of us. In some ways AMD is a tad more innovative than Intel, but they have to be since Intel has a lot more resources to leverage. AMD’s chip-sets tend to be more resourceful and last a long time while still being relevant. The 990FX chipset, in my opinion, was more compelling than what Intel used for Sandy Bridge. Plus, how happy have we been with the dismal increases from Sandy Bridge to Ivy and Haswell? I personally feel as though AMD has been working on its "module" pretty aggressively since Bulldozer flopped on the scene. I was very surprised with the A10-6800K’s performance and floored by Kaveri’s potential. In the mobile arena AMD without a doubt has given Intel a real run for their money, and both have almost made low to mid-grade mobile Nvidia dGPUs obsolete.
The undeniable truth is this: we all need AMD and others (ARM) to be successful, no matter what our bias may be, because without real competition Intel has shown that it’s a tyrant and cares little for the consumer or a free market economy. Without competition Intel can charge whatever ridiculous price they wish by their own terms. They’d simply rather “out-buy” their competition and place a stranglehold on the entire industry as they did in the 90s and early 2000s with Andy Grove's “always be paranoid” motto. Until the FCC, the European Trade Commission, Japanese FTC, and even the trade commissions in China and some in South America found Intel guilty of violating fair market trade agreements and restricting consumer choice by forcing retailers to only sell Intel products, or else Intel wouldn’t sell to them, and in exchange Intel would give them hefty lump sum bonuses which is illegal across the globe. Now Intel HAS something to be “paranoid” about.
For those of you in denial about that last fact, here’s a pretty unbiased article lightly chronicling Intel’s many run-ins with the law.
You don’t have to agree with any of my opinions, but facts are simply facts. Don’t let your bias cloud your judgment. Both companies have great products to offer across multiple markets.
I typed that up at work, so I know it reads rough.
Clock for clock you can't compare them since those architectures are radically different. I think the world would like to have a word with your nonsense! :) LOL!
So the author got a little ticked and threw on a skirt to defend his lousy article? Good job "Joel H." LOL!
I like the APUs. I don't care about benchmarks too much, but I think they're a great value for what you get. I don't think single core performance is all that important anymore since software seems to be a bottleneck these days. Either way, I don't care. I think the APUs represent the best bang for the buck and if this new chip is even better than my A10-6800K then I'll upgrade since I can afford to do so with how low cost they are. Have fun guys! LOL ; )
AMD v Intel.....haven't heard this one before!
I've seen Kaveri running in task manager. Two modules, four cores, four threads.