i recently saw that amd has released a 6 core processor. has anyone tried it yet and how do they perform?
Have not tried them...but based on the specs, I think their best hex core is slower than the quad core i5. I know AMD has been making a hex core server processor line for a while...and they are widely regarded as trash, good only for a "quickfix" upgrade on a server that is compatible. Given the fact that the new hex-cores are virtually identical to the old server hex-cores, don't expect much from these. AMD needs to step up and release a new processor! We are still waiting for the unified chip (Phenom 2 + 4870 in a single chip)...it has been over a year since they announced it, and they are not even creating anything new, just combining two chips into one! WTF! By the time it comes out it, there will probably be onboard graphics chips faster than the 4870 anyway! Oh, and what ever happened to their supercloud gaming? Seems like they realized how incredibly stupid that was. Oh, and now nVidia has faster graphics cards for less money than ATI (a division of AMD), and without supply shortages...AMD didn't just drop the ball...they dropped at least 4 balls in one year.
Well, I beg to differ concerning the 6 core processor and there excellent 890 motherboards in GX and especially FX series. AMD's Thuban is immensly popular and doing very, very well: http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=935
They're good sellers, and in situations where you can use 6 cores they're decent value. However, it costs little to more to find a competing core i5/i7 that does the same work with four cores and there are a large number of programs that only work with four cores or often less, and thus the better performance/core overall of the Intel CPUs makes them a better buy for most people. There are people who I'd recommend a 6 core AMD to, but very few. To say that nvidia produce faster graphics cards than ATI for less cost, and that they are hard to find, is an absolute joke, nothing could be further from the truth. ATI is currently keeping AMD afloat in the consumer environment. I wish the success of ATI could be put to use with AMD CPUs, to get them truly back in the game.
sammorris just to be clear, I fully agree that Intel is in the driver seat here. I was responding to the statement that AMD's hexacore "are widely regarded as trash." They are far from regarded as trash and are very popular. And as the article points out Intel is indeed in "the catbird seat." As for Cloud Computing and the server sector check this out: http://www.techspot.com/news/39403-amd-announces-powerefficient-opteron-4000-series-chips.html And it even mentions Bulldozer! *** By the way, Im no fanboi of either Intel or AMD or ATI/Nvidia. I have built systems from every one of these camps.
AMD's server hex cores are the chips that are "widely regarded as trash"...they were slower than a quadcore i5, and they cost over $1000. It seems that AMD finally killed these off not long after the 8 and 12 core versions were released. (yes, AMD makes 12 core processors, and you can put two on one mainboard, but they are very slow in GHZ, and thus are slower with most apps than an old Core2Duo...they are just for servers and application-specific workstations) The benchmarks I saw showed the 480 topping the 5970...but they did say there were driver issues with ATI...and i only read the initial reviews.
There are almost no tests that show the 480 beating the 5970. To the extent that I have read over 100 game tests of them both and don't remember seeing a single one where that was the case. Generally the performance stacks up roughly like this: 8800GTS G80/8800GS: 0.4x HD3850: 0.4x 9600GT: 0.45x HD3870/HD4670: 0.45x HD5670: 0.55x GT240: 0.55x HD4830: 0.6x 8800GT/9800GT: 0.6x 8800GTS 512: 0.7x 9800GTX/8800GTX: 0.75x HD5750: 0.75x HD4850: 0.8x GTS250: 0.8x HD5770: 0.9x GTX260: 0.9x HD4870: 1.0x GTX260-216: 1.0x HD4890: 1.12x GTX465: 1.25x HD5830: 1.3x HD5850: 1.55x GTX470: 1.6x HD5870: 1.8x GTX480: 1.95x HD5970: 1.55-3.1x dependent on scaling [typically c. 2.8x]
Better than what I saw by far. I guess only half of AMD is trailing...and not by a far as they were a few months ago.
They've recovered well since the disastrous original Phenom but they're still a little way behind. For stock systems they do well for cheap low-end stuff since they're very cheap. They're just lacking for enthusiasts due to their relative lack in overclockability.
Not as fast is relative, they're cheap, so actually, they are. AMD don't produce anything as fast as Intel's top products, but neither do they produce anything as costly [X6 aside]. The X4 965 is a direct competitor to the Q9650, and it's relatively cheap as a result. Arguably, it's not a very worthwhile chip because an i5 750 system can be built for little more. Scale further down though, into CPUs like the X4 630, and the Core 2 Quads, largely thanks to Intel's abandonding of the 775 architecture and thus not competing on price, are just overpriced and underpowered by comparison. If you want a fast system, you buy an Intel, no question. If you want the best system you can get on a low budget, AMD are a pretty hot contender.
