Intel kicks the crap out of AMD procs

[Sam DeathWalker]

http://techreport.com/discussions.x/20207


Notice what this guy says:


shank15217
Jan 710:34 PM
+-+1

Sandy bridge shoots it self in the foot with the integrated PCI-e controller (just like annandale). Its a high end cpu with very limited I/O options. Making a high end board with Sandy Bridge is an oxymoron. High end platforms need flexible and large bandwidth not unlike a server platform. Socket 1366 was good platform and X58 chipset deserves a replacement. AMD has a really strong opening if they can release their desktop bulldozer with 880FX/990FX (most advanced, highest bandwidth desktop chipset in the market right now). At the super high end, pci-e bandwidth matters and connectivity options matter even more so than raw cpu speed.Edited 1 time(s). Last edit by shank15217 on Jan 7 at 10:34 PM.


I don't know; looking and SB and looking at BD I kinda liking BD better:

http://www.techpowerup.com/129392/AM...ture.html?cp=9



Clearly two obvious errors for SB; the onchip gpu and the onchip pci-e.

Look at the pics of the BD architecture; just as stright forward as can be.

Also the first BD's will be out in April; lets see what the situation is by March.

[Unded]

Well-thanks for the post Sam!
Now I'm a bit on the fringe.Was going to try Intel,but for bang for the buck and not a huge change I may stick with AMD.
I guess both a Chevy and a Cadillac do the same thing-but at a price/performance difference.
Same here with hardware-both will get us what we need/want-but is the extra money needed?
I'm going to wait a bit for next upgrade-doing ok so far as long as Blizz makes no major change.

[MiRai]

http://techreport.com/discussions.x/20207

This new Gigabyte motherboard has nothing to do with what you're quoting or this thread.

Notice what this guy says:


shank15217
Jan 710:34 PM
+-+1

Sandy bridge shoots it self in the foot with the integrated PCI-e controller (just like annandale). Its a high end cpu with very limited I/O options. Making a high end board with Sandy Bridge is an oxymoron. High end platforms need flexible and large bandwidth not unlike a server platform. Socket 1366 was good platform and X58 chipset deserves a replacement. AMD has a really strong opening if they can release their desktop bulldozer with 880FX/990FX (most advanced, highest bandwidth desktop chipset in the market right now). At the super high end, pci-e bandwidth matters and connectivity options matter even more so than raw cpu speed.Edited 1 time(s). Last edit by shank15217 on Jan 7 at 10:34 PM.

I don't know; looking and SB and looking at BD I kinda liking BD better:

http://www.techpowerup.com/129392/AM...ture.html?cp=9



Clearly two obvious errors for SB; the onchip gpu and the onchip pci-e.

Look at the pics of the BD architecture; just as stright forward as can be.

Also the first BD's will be out in April; lets see what the situation is by March.

What the hell is annandale? Did he mean Arrandale, the mobile Intel chips? I'm not sure I understand what the problem
is here... I mean, the 1156 platform had the same on-die PCIe controller as well, which had the same hardware limitation
of 16 PCIe lanes total. I didn't see anyone bitching about it back then, but all of a sudden it becomes a big deal with SNB?
As we can all see HERE, the difference between 8x and 16x means dick, so don't worry about the 16 lane hardware limitation.

The guy you quoted makes it sound as if SNB's 1155 is handicapped because of the fact that you can't have a "high end"
motherboard or because of the on-die PCIe controller [or combination of the two]. Socket 1156 was priced mid-range
[mainstream] and it is no secret that 1366 had the higher end hardware setups. Socket 1155 is following suit, and I
consider it mid-range as well seeing as it is just 1156 "suped up." Hell, you can even plug your 1156 processors into
ASRock's new 1155 board and they'll work.

I don't go out of my way to call people out, but it seems like you're attempting to portray SNB as sub-par by quoting a
random person from the comments section of a hardware review, when every benchmark shows Intel on top. It's almost
like saying that your Uncle's friend's mother's brother, who knows someone on the 'inside,' said that all of SNB, present
and future, is crap because the socket 1155 on-die PCIe controller, which isn't new, has a hardware limitation of 16
lanes. If you want a high-end system, build it with a high-end socket that supports it [*cough*LGA 2011*cough*]. If you
want a mid-range system, build it with a mid-range socket that supports it. It's just that simple...

I'm not knocking on AMD in any way, shape, or form. In fact, I'm hoping they do well because it will give Intel a reason to
drop their prices. If Bulldozer is barely on par with the current SNB 1155 processors, you can expect that Intel's new 22nm
Ivy Bridge will be priced nice and high. Oh, and don't hate on Intel for high prices, AMD did the same shit back in the day.

[burningforce]

also from what i read on various forums, using a video card at 8x is no different then using the video card at 16x. This of coarse gets thrown out the window when you use eyeifinity/surround 3d with multi monitors and high resolutions.

I do believe if you are just gaming with a 1920x1200 resolution and below on ONE monitor, you will not see a difference in speed. Not too sure about multi-monitor non-eyeifinity/surround 3d setups though.

[Bollwerk]

What Fenril said.

The 1155 socket is not intended as a replacement for 1366. 1155 is mid-range. The upcoming LGA 2011 in 2H 2011 will be the replacement for 1366.

Bottom line .. Sandy Bridge kicks ass (for the time being). Bulldozer may end up trouncing it. If so, great. But it isn't out yet.

[Sam DeathWalker]

This new Gigabyte motherboard has nothing to do with what you're quoting or this thread.


What the hell is annandale? Did he mean Arrandale, the mobile Intel chips? I'm not sure I understand what the problem
is here... I mean, the 1156 platform had the same on-die PCIe controller as well, which had the same hardware limitation
of 16 PCIe lanes total. I didn't see anyone bitching about it back then, but all of a sudden it becomes a big deal with SNB?
As we can all see HERE, the difference between 8x and 16x means dick, so don't worry about the 16 lane hardware limitation.

The guy you quoted makes it sound as if SNB's 1155 is handicapped because of the fact that you can't have a "high end"
motherboard or because of the on-die PCIe controller [or combination of the two]. Socket 1156 was priced mid-range
[mainstream] and it is no secret that 1366 had the higher end hardware setups. Socket 1155 is following suit, and I
consider it mid-range as well seeing as it is just 1156 "suped up." Hell, you can even plug your 1156 processors into
ASRock's new 1155 board and they'll work.

I don't go out of my way to call people out, but it seems like you're attempting to portray SNB as sub-par by quoting a
random person from the comments section of a hardware review, when every benchmark shows Intel on top. It's almost
like saying that your Uncle's friend's mother's brother, who knows someone on the 'inside,' said that all of SNB, present
and future, is crap because the socket 1155 on-die PCIe controller, which isn't new, has a hardware limitation of 16
lanes. If you want a high-end system, build it with a high-end socket that supports it [*cough*LGA 2011*cough*]. If you
want a mid-range system, build it with a mid-range socket that supports it. It's just that simple...

I'm not knocking on AMD in any way, shape, or form. In fact, I'm hoping they do well because it will give Intel a reason to
drop their prices. If Bulldozer is barely on par with the current SNB 1155 processors, you can expect that Intel's new 22nm
Ivy Bridge will be priced nice and high. Oh, and don't hate on Intel for high prices, AMD did the same shit back in the day.

Ya the motherboard is X58 and we not talking about that here.

Well ummm I guess you are basically right, the 1155 isnt the X58 upgrade at all.

And yes, X58 beats anything AMD has at the comparable price.

Maybe no one was complaining about the PCI controler on the chip but imho AMD bulldozer implementation is superior in that they are not wasting die space with the pci controller and the usless onchip GPU.

Its obvious enough that offchip GPU and offchip PCI controllers will be superior to anything on chip so should not that space be used for more cores or more ram?

Sure it going to be cheaper to provide the GPU and PCI on chip if you want a minimal chip solution, but for us who want the high end performance this kind of archtechture is inferior to bulldozer.


But ya as stated X58 is the best right now BD might take it out, might not (or might be something better from intel by then); time will tell.

Here is the current SB infos:

http://www.overclockers.com/intel-i7...-bridge-review



You can drop a SB into a X58 board but then you have wasted the onchip GPU and PCI stuffs .....

[Sajuuk]

You can drop a SB into a X58 board but then you have wasted the onchip GPU and PCI stuffs .....

Link or shens, Mr. Walker. Also, on-die GPU isn't really a waste.

"But I don't use it! IT IS WASTE!"

What if...*gasp* (depending on setup) I wanted to power down my super-mega-awesome-fapfapfap-gahoooooooona-expensive-powerhungry GPU for...Gasp....NORMAL THINGS like....EMAIL...and....SHIT, I could switch to the on-cpu GPU and save power!

And while the above might not be feasible, just think of the MOBILE MARKET. YES. SOME PEOPLE ARE MOBILE.

Also, same/better performance as previous generation, equal/more cores (including hyperthreading) PLUS A GODDAMN ON-DIE GPU, ALL FOR LESS POWER!?


Sometimes I wonder about you, Sam. You gyrate between a complete retard to somebody thinking outside the box juuust a little bit.

[Sam DeathWalker]

So its better for mid and low range systems, but worse for high end systems.

We use high end systems for multiboxing wow ....

Of course the GPU has a purpose and will help sell SB to the low and mid range users. And of course its an improvement over prior generation product.

But Bulldozer, using the same amount of transistors, in what I assume will be an equal cost cpu will have either more cores or more ram instead of the gpu/pci stuffs. For high end users thats a win for Bulldozer.


Frankly looks to me AMD is doing things right and Intel making a bit of a misstep.

Of course Intel might have some chips planed without GPU/PCI. I find it hard to belive that every CPU they sell from SB on out will have a GPU in it.

[Sajuuk]

To create a SB CPU without a GPU/with more cores they'd need to design/tweak the die, then test it, put it into production, market etc.

I don't think the cost is worth it just to benefit us "Super high performance" folks.

And if I remember correctly they've only released the mainstream variant of the CPU. Enthusiast variants are yet to come.

[icecore]

Hmm, Its true intel beats amd in a single instance of wow, but how would it handle 5? 4 core 8 thread intel vs 6 core amd. I'm guessing the difference may not be as pronounced.

Kudos to intel, those are pretty good benchmarks.