Slashdot Mirror
AMD Next-Gen Kaveri APU Shipments Slip To 2014
MojoKid writes "The story around AMD's upcoming Kaveri continues to evolve, but it's increasingly clear that AMD's 3rd generation APU won't be available for retail purchase this year. If you recall, AMD initially promised that Kaveri would be available during 2013 and even published roadmaps earlier in May that show the chip shipping in the beginning of the fourth quarter. What the company is saying now is that while Kaveri will ship to manufacturers in late 2013, it won't actually hit shelves until 2014. The reason Kaveri was late taping out, according to sources, was that AMD kept the chip back to put some additional polish on its performance. Unlike Piledriver, which we knew would be a minor tweak to the core Bulldozer architecture, Steamroller, Kaveri's core architecture, is the first serious overhaul to that hardware. That means it's AMD's first chance to really fix things. Piledriver delivered improved clock speeds and power consumption, but CPU efficiency barely budged compared to 'Dozer. Steamroller needs to deliver on that front."
I don't like Intel lack of PCI-e in the i5 and lower range i7.
also where are the nexgen higher end i7's with QPI?
An unnecessarily overpowered chip will be delayed, so more of the hardware features no one asked for will be delivered to a market that usually works in symbiosis with the Microsoft inefficiency treadmill but is now being destroyed entirely by that same company.
The new Kaveri APU is so fast I came back in time to post first!
It seems broken. You weren't first. Or second.
The doctors said I was getting better, I was making really good progress. I could see the light at the end of the tunnel. But now... this. THIS. I am utterly destroyed.
I like AMD now for budget builds. I loved AMD when they were smacking intel. However, this line of chip names has to end soon. There just that many more cool sounding pieces of heavy construction equipment.
The New Phenom VIII x16, based on Suction Excavator technology!
or
From the new Skip Loader core comes the AMD Skippy x8!
or
Our new Pipelayer core provides all the uumph you need to penetrate difficult projects.
These just don't have the same ring.
Silence is a state of mime.
I know Intel can do it, but they simply don't want to cannibalize their sales of power inefficient high-end chips.
Missed the newest Haswell line, eh?
Huh, even ivy bridge is pretty power efficient.
20-30W on idle, the great energy efficiency for work completed, enough processing power for everything except high end gaming.
Sure, I'm looking forward to more improvements in idle efficiency in future computers, and it would be nice if my computers idled as low as an ARM processor. but when you actually have a bit of a workload, the x86 processors are far better, both in performance and power efficiency.
I am NOT willing to give up a good performance for a slight reduction in my power bill.
AMD and to a lesser extent, Intel, are misreading the mass market. What everybody else except those hardcore GamerZ (rhymes with lamers) want isn't more "powerful" desktop systems that consume enough watts to power a third world household with room to spare but more power efficient APUs, aka SoCs or systems on a chip. I know Intel can do it, but they simply don't want to cannibalize their sales of power inefficient high-end chips.
How has Intel misread the market? Ivy Bridge was Sandy Bridge with much lower load power. Haswell is Ivy Bridge with much lower idle power. True, Intel is still struggling to compete in the smartphone/tablet segment that is dominated by ARM, but Haswell is far superior to past Intel chips when it comes to power consumption.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The AMD APUs really are a great melding of price vs performance. Sure Intel has faster CPUs, but they're also more than twice as much! The highest end APU is $150, and the highest i7 is $340. The i7 will have higher CPU performance, but most games aren't CPU bound, they're GPU bound. The AMD APUs have decent GPUs. They won't replace your high end GPU if you're playing Battlefield at 1080p, but if you're a mid-level gamer they perform great. Plus you can always add a decent GPU for $150 and you're still less than that 4700 i7!
This has been known for a couple months or three months, and even then was not a big surprise as the original target was "H2 2013" with no commitment.
Both Intel and AMD have low power CPU/GPU combos that are less or equal 65W thermal. You can get 35W stuff too. So what's your point?? Maybe you are buying 100+W then complaining it runs hot.
PS = APU is NOT a SoC.
Better then that. My ivy bridge i7 2,6 Ghz Mac Mini (the entire computer, not just the CPU) idles at below 15w and maxes out below 60w at max load.
So basically, you havent looked at Intel CPUs of the past 2 years at all, right?
Sure Intel has faster CPUs, but they're also more than twice as much! The highest end APU is $150, and the highest i7 is $340.
This just in: high-end line of one company is more expensive than lower-priced low-to-mid-tier option of other company. The AMD APUs are comparable to the i3s and i5s.
Comparing most expensive chips isn't fair or useful. Intel's most expensive chips can cost a lot more because AMD doesn't have anything competitive.
A AMD FX-8350 costs $200. In Intel land, a i5-3750 is the right cost equal, at about $215. Intel's lead is so large that even a previous generation unit from their line up is approximately equal performance to AMD's current models. Which of those two is faster depends on the benchmark.
At the $100 end of the market, there are a few really cheap models where AMD has a price performance lead over Intel. But the minute you get to even $200, they are at best evenly matched. And Intel's built in HD graphics chips are getting better fast enough that even the AMD APU models won't have a lead at any price level for much longer.
I'd consider an ARM desktop if there actually were motherboards to buy!
I only know of one, it's 349 euros and has a Tegra 3 which is outdated but has PCIe. Tegra 4 is a better fit for a desktop, CPU wise, but doesn't have PCIe.
http://shop.seco.com/gpudevkit/gpudevkit-detail.html
What you would need is a Tegra 5 which will just come with desktop graphics, so the feature level and driver support will both be easier. Just use nvidia driver or nouveau, presumably, and have real OpenGL not OpenGL ES. But we don't know if it will be available with PCIe. Funny that the "fuck you!" company is the only one that is building the chip you wish for.
As you can see ARM desktop is just a specialty item with a price that makes it useless. And when it becomes fast (e.g. Cortex A15 cores and not throttled down when it's put to use) ARM goes into 5W to 10W territory, meeting with the x86 guys (Atom, Jaguar, even Haswell/Ivy Bridge!)
ISA doesn't matter that much, low power x86 gives you a desktop. The current problem is Atom 32nm has no GPU drivers other than giving you raw X11 at correct res (given the GPU is a PowerVR, which is maybe the major brand of GPU for ARM SoCs, we can see that indeed the GPU support is indeed non existant in ARM land). And Kabini has been paper launched but we're waiting for the motherboards.
Kabini/New Atom mostly solve your desktop needs and even then Celeron 847 and Intel NUC have been available too.
The AMD APUs really are a great melding of price vs performance....
Even though I loath the 70% gross margin that Intel insists on. They have http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTI5MTI 20-30 people working on Linux Drivers vs 5 from AMD. There is more than one way to measure bang for buck. That said when I buy a separate graphics card it will be AMD.
How about a decent Linux driver for once.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
I went to go upgrade my quad core FX last year, in order to get the 8 core I needed a new fan (cause the ones amd ship are a joke ... they keep it cool, running at 6k rpm and loud as a jet) and a new power supply
by the time I bought those two things I was at the price of a 3770k and still didnt get close to performance .. bought intel
until AMD can get their power to power ratio in line they are just not worth looking at in the mid to upper end, and no one cares about the low end, go get yourself a 99$ off lease core2 duo, why not, its got about the same power consumption and is still slightly faster chip than what AMD has in the low end market
FX-8350 is 180$, I just bought one. That is, the price difference is 20%, but the comparable motherboard was about 40$ cheaper with AMD. In the 180-220$ range of processors, 75$ is nothing to sneeze at.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Xeons are that far behind the desktop chips anyway :(
I hope that AMD fixed the bugs with the APU so they aren't doomed to repeat them. There is a well known bug that if your display goes to sleep while graphical acceleration is being used, you get a flickering effect whenever hardware acceleration is again activated. This alone is enough to make me leary of AMD as trying to get it fixed until I found a workaround was passing the buck to the max. AMD to manufaturer and back over and over blaming drivers, the chip, the thermal control, the bios, the OS, etc. Just got suck of it and I'm not sure I trust AMD anymore because of that and the other problems from the past.
the highest i7 is $340
The fuck you smoking? Intel's highest-end CPUs go for over $1000. Their entry-level i7's go for ~$300.
According to Tomshardware an Icore3 can fucking beat that 8 core. Especially in Skyrim and Crysis.
FYI I am typing this on an AMD phenom II sadly as I am not an intel troll. The FX really is a crappy chip and there is no sense trying to defend it as the people who play games or do any graphics work use dedicated graphics anyway. The intel integrated crap is fine for Office work and web browsing in this day and age.
Here is hoping this next generation one fixes the problems.
http://saveie6.com/
See: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kaveri
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
damnit. and i was hoping to get some good I/O (2 gigabit, SATA6 and usb3, etc.) ...
and virtualization tech with low power usage soon
i need a board with lots of RAM and oodles of connectors.
i want the main-board with connected peripherals to look like a
japanese radioactive mutant octopus with 16, pls?
srsly, it'll be a SATA6 to gigabitLAN converter for me.
There are image processing techniques that are still too compute-intensive for routine use. Linear motion blur correction for a 4000x3000 image can run several minutes on a state-of-the-art processor. Now upgrade that to an algorithm that searches for the sharpest possible image from a set of nonlinear multi-direction blurs: come back tomorrow, and if the CPU hasn't fried itself it still won't be done.
The ability to use CPU power far exceeds any likely improvement in the foreseeable future.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
> ARM goes into 5W to 10W territory, meeting with the x86 guys
Wow, so half the max power usage of CPU+GPU of one is half of the _idle_ usage of the other CPU-only and they are _meeting_?
I truly planned to article a word to i would like to show some gratitude to the entire fabulous guides you happen to be writing as of this site. Our difficult world wide web investigation has really been compensated along with high quality info to share with our spouses. .PSD Free download Rankings file for a large number of among us traffic tend to be rather fortunate to reside an awesome web site several particular people with valuable styles. I am incredibly fortunate to get employed all your web site and appear forward to extra enjoyable minutes reading the following. Cheers quite a lot once more for a lot of items.PSD Free download
Throw in motherboard and ram and possibly graphics card in that mix and picking that CPU vs the Intel one make less of a difference.
For me personally I need to get a new HDD, PSU, want to get a case and need a new monitor to.
Reason to pick AMD? None.
Are there really that many people playing Skyrim and Crysis? Particularly playing those games with low graphic settings in order to not be GPU limited? A lot of my clients still have Core 2 duo or Phenom II and don't need more power. Even worst, a lot of their employees still have P4 at home and see no reason to upgrade. Also, considering the Xbox One and the PS4 both have an AMD processor (and not a fast one), it's kind of obvious there is very little use of a Core i7 for most people, even for gaming.
Personally, I think it's a shame we can't buy something like a 70$ Athlon II X3 anymore, because with its ECC memory support, it was is the perfect desktop machine for regular people. I did buy a Xeon e3-1230 for myself, but it's a waste of money for most people. I'd say it was even a waste of money for myself.
The only place where I clearly recommend Intel is for laptops, where heat and power consumption is important.
Indeed, for the first time Intel is the clear winner in power consumption. Until Haswell, the intel CPU+chipset would always consume more power than the AMD CPU+chipset. To me, that is the real story of the modern CPU, not whose CPU is fastest.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
> Ivy Bridge was Sandy Bridge with much lower load power.
Ain't that the truth. I have Xeon 1230v2 in my gaming PC and it's actually passive cooled because all it needs is a heatsink to stay under 65 celsius at all times. The PC case has also only one fan.
> Haswell is far superior to past Intel chips when it comes to power consumption.
Only the laptop chips. The desktop chips are actually more power hungry. On top of that the laptop chips are only more power effient when doing light work, when fully loaded they have no advantage over Ivy Bridge.
Temash has 3.5W to 5.9W TDP, that's the max power use for a CPU+GPU+southbridge. Low end Kabini is 9W. Haswell at 10W.
So yes I say fast ARM and slow x86 meet at a similar point, a few years ago you had an Atom smartphone which was fast and worked. You have a Toshiba tablet with Tegra 4 that overheats, though it's bad design and that ARM SoC is a semi-failure.
Note that "idle" on a modern desktop is not so much 0 to 1% CPU use, I have firefox using 30 to 50% of one CPU core right now doing who knows what. To idle my desktop I have to shut it down, stand by or close firefox.
you will have to spend that extra 75 bucks on cooling and a power supply though so you really end up spending about the same for a lower performing chip
that's what kind of happened to me, havent had an intel system since the pentium 1, went to go upgrade / make a new box, so getting a new mb and video card anyway, both the AMD and INTEL gigabyte brand motherboards were 80ish bucks, the 8 core AMD was cheaper, but knowing from my quad core I instantly needed a 40$ fan cause the OEM fans work, but sound like a jet engine under the slightest load (clocked it at 6,000 rpm, little 60mm thing) and my 600 watt corsair was about 120 watts underpowered to sustain the cpu and video card.
so boom instantly my cpu costs were the same as a i7 3770K, which is faster than the 8 core 4ghz FX, and leaves almost 100 watts of breathing room on my 600 watt supply.
intel won that battle hands down
the FX is pretty garbage, I have a FX4170, and its noticeably better than my old phenom II 720, it can outrun an i5 in daily operations, it cant hold a candle to the i7
most disappointing AMD chip I have ever bought
Intel fabs process technologies run 1 to 1.5 years ahead of TSMC, and Global Foundaries runs 6 months to a year behind TSMC. Since AMD is contractually obligated to take a huge number of GloFo wafers they need as much low end business as they can get. I bet dollars to donuts that this slip was caused by moving Kaveri from GloFo to TSMC. I wish GloFo would go bankrupt already instead of dragging AMD down the drain with them.
The boxed processor I bought (FX4300, quad @ 3.8ghz OC'd to 4.1ghz) is using the stock AMD HSF that it came with. It usually runs around 42C and gets up to maybe 53-54C under a load that pegs all 4 cores (movie encoding, which I often do).
At no point is the CPU fan ever even audible. The only thing I can hear other than some HDD whine is the PSU fan on my Antec Neo Eco 520.
And how are you getting that the AMD processor uses 220w more than the Intel? The Bulldozer TDP is 125w (AMD FX-8350 Vishera 4.0GHz). The i7 3770K is 77W. And AMD rates at peak while Intel rates at average.
Even with the beast of an nVidia card I have in there the 520w PSU is more than enough. Sounds like you just want there to be price parity for some reason. AMD is cheap, they do it well, it's their niche.
The AMD branded cooler master that came with mine in the amd box never had a problem keeping things cool, but it was so damn loud my wife complained about it from across the apartment 2 rooms down the hall
TDP has little to do with how much power a CPU sucks out of the supply, the 8 core 4.2 ghz under full load will suck almost 300 watts of power
my 4170 quad sucks down 198 watts and my old ATI6870 sucks 247 under full load so without thinking about motherboard, fans, optical disk's, shit plugged into the ports, hard drive or goofy lights I am at 445, so just plopping in a new CPU breaks my power budget
sounds like you just dont know what your doing
The AMD APUs really are a great melding of price vs performance. Sure Intel has faster CPUs, but they're also more than twice as much! The highest end APU is $150, and the highest i7 is $340. The i7 will have higher CPU performance, but most games aren't CPU bound, they're GPU bound. The AMD APUs have decent GPUs. They won't replace your high end GPU if you're playing Battlefield at 1080p, but if you're a mid-level gamer they perform great. Plus you can always add a decent GPU for $150 and you're still less than that 4700 i7!
This is why my next machine will be an AMD APU. While I have a standalone card now, if it dies I'd likely just move to using the APU alone. I don't think it'd present a major problem, especially whenever it is I upgrade. They're only getting better.
http://www.accountkiller.com/en/delete-slashdot-account Stop visiting Slashdot.
Something's wrong with your wattage figures, like you're taking the whole system's power use when stressing the CPU with a burn program, likewise with the GPU (with something like Furmark)
The point still stands, but to me the more annoying point is paying for the electrical utility bill.
To min/max the game what you need to do is build an Intel system with a lowest end mobo (around $50), Intel 3770 or 4770 or 4570, a good 300W or 350W PSU, stock cooler, max it out at 16GB. You can't run your 4170 on a low end mobo (or you suffer throttling, or are stuck at 800MHz), while the Intel system will be 100% stable due to not using much power.
agreed, that's why my most recent build was an i7 3770K, in the middle high end AMD just cant wrangle the numbers, and in the low end no one cares whats in their 299 walmart machine
I don't think you can be power efficient when using max power for gaming, editing, etc
The boxed processor I bought (FX4300, quad @ 3.8ghz OC'd to 4.1ghz) is using the stock AMD HSF that it came with. It usually runs around 42C and gets up to maybe 53-54C under a load that pegs all 4 cores (movie encoding, which I often do).
Here's a dirty little secret about the "temperatures" that are reported by AMD (and probably Intel) processors. They are *not* calibrated against anything. You can't say that the processor runs at 53-54C with any certainty (it can be +/- 10% or more when compared to a calibrated sensor), all you can say is that it runs about 11-12C warmer under load then idle.
Very few temperature sensors inside of PCs are calibrated. You can have multiple sensors, all within an inch of each other, all taking the same airflow, and one will report a 5C difference.
Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
1) AMD highest end APU is not 150$, it's 330$. With tiers all the way down.
2) If GPU bound, you can get an i5 for 100$ less or an i3 for even less, and put that towards a GPU.
3) Games are also mostly limited to 1 core more or less. Making about 7 of AMD's cores more less useless in this regard.
AMD are not great price vs performance. AMD ARE good at price at the low end. If you are building a basic machine on the cheap, AMD is your chip right now (or a business server). However if you wish to use it for any gaming, don't waste your time.
Actually more relevant to this conversation, are the integrated graphics on each offering for entry level laptops without a dedicated video card. Both have made big (well relatively speaking) improvements to integrated graphics. Since MOST laptops fall within this category, and the popularity to which laptops seem to be happening over desktops, this metric is one that won't be trivial for very much longer.
I think a FX6300 is half decent, esp. if you want to play with virtualisation with Vt-d. You had the worst of the bunch with that FX 4100.
Indeed, for the first time Intel is the clear winner in power consumption. Until Haswell, the intel CPU+chipset would always consume more power than the AMD CPU+chipset. To me, that is the real story of the modern CPU, not whose CPU is fastest.
Are you on drugs or something? This is not even close to being true. Intel has held the lead in total CPU+chipset power at equivalent performance for a long time.
Here's an easy, easy example. Their 2 generations old Sandy Bridge CPUs topped out at 95W for the fastest i7 mainstream desktop CPU (i7-2600K). The matching chipset was under 7W, for a grand total of about 102W. AMD's best contemporary product was the FX-8150, which used 125W for the CPU alone.
To me, that is the real story of the modern CPU, not whose CPU is fastest.
The two are not completely independent parameters. The reason why Intel is able to offer much better performance is inextricably linked to better power efficiency.
Take two competing core designs, A and B. If A is significantly more power efficient than B (that is, uses fewer joules of energy to do the same amount of computation), that means you can offer the same performance at lower power, or higher performance at the same power, or any tradeoff in between.
For the past 5+ years, Intel has been so far ahead of AMD in the power efficiency department that they've had the luxury of not even bothering to match AMD's TDP operating points. A 95W Sandy Bridge smoked a 125W Bulldozer so badly that Intel had no pressure to release a similar 125W product.
Back when the shoe was on the other foot the roles were naturally reversed. Much like Bulldozer today, Intel's Pentium 4 architecture had a lot of performance potential but it was very inefficient and needed huge amounts of power to realize that potential. AMD's Athlon 64 architecture was much more efficient and as a consequence AMD was able to beat Intel's performance while hitting lower power targets.
That relationship got completely flipped on its head with Intel's Core 2 product line, and in most years since Intel has widened the gap. You're basically living in a pre-2006 world. I hate to break it to you but the last seven years really did happen.