It's looking like I'll be getting a <= 65 W TDP Haswell i3 or i5 for my mini-ITX PC if I guess how the 65 W TDP Kaveri chips might perform based on this article.
Thanks but seeing that the 95 W TDP AMD APU has issues beating a 54 W Core i3, I'm pretty sure the 65 W AMD APUs are just going to do worse. I'm just waiting on actual retail prices for the APUs before making a final decision.
Originally Posted by Michael
I'm not a premium subscriber but I do occasionally donate through PayPal (using a different email than the one for this account) because I have ad blocking on. It's actually costing me more than the subscription during the span since I've started visiting phoronix, haha. Even compared to the $14 per 3 month subscription plan during the same time, I still come out behind. Oh well, I have my reasons.
Probably it is not a catalyst issue. It seems like CPU is not fast enough for GPU.
Originally Posted by Nille_kungen
I'd say it's limited by the system ram speed, I'd like to see some ram OC gaming tests. Remember it's got 512 GCN shaders @ 720Mhz but is sharing the memory bus with the CPU.
Originally Posted by Rakot
Either way it looks like this will be in my new HTPC/Steambox.
Originally Posted by kbios
Not all that impressive since those are both single-threaded benchmarks where a 4 GHz (with turbo-boost on a single core) Kaveri is... somewhat ahead of Piledriver. The trick is, AMD's roadmaps have shown that four coars is it for Steamroller. There's no replacement for the FX-8350.. it literally doesn't exist. It's APUs only until at least 2016 (and that's only because AMD hasn't put out any roadmaps into 2016, not because there are known plans for 8/16/etc. core chips). That's fine if you want to use the IGP, which is strong even under Linux with the less than perfect Catalyst driver, but the 4-core version can't keep up in the multithreaded tests with a real quad-core chip or a 6 or 8 core FX part.
well unless you can compile hsail code i think kaveri will remain uncompetitive against intel cpu's
Why the frack is the Intel CPU running the Radeon R 290 and not the AMD FX-8350 paired with it?
Show me something buy utililzing Code XL 1.3 on Linux and Windows, showing the OpenCL pairing capabilities of this arrangement and how much it matters versus using a mixed case of the Intel i4770 which gets the beef while you throw shit at the FX-8350 running a 512MB 6570/7570.
Seriously, what a fucked up pairing.
You aren't the target audience, the vast majority of home and buisness boxes out there are already plenty fast CPU wise, the thing they've been lacking in is a half decent GPU for the light video, 3D and compute loads they'll be seeing in corner cases.
Originally Posted by chuckula
The days where even the gamer needs the high end CPU are gone, just get a top end GPU and 3-5 1080p~1600p screens or a 4K screen and the CPU stops being the limiting factor again as the high end GPUs from both AMD and Nvidia are not optimized for a single 1440p or under screen anymore, they are expecting very large resolutions being run by the people looking to drop $300+ on a GPU.
On the server side, AMD is updating, if your dream is another high end AMD workstation see what ends up coming out for single and dual socket Opteron systems.
Last edited by Kivada; 01-17-2014 at 12:34 AM.