Samsung Reaches a New Milestone : 14 nanometer process : Time to call AMD

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Intel needs some competition.
I found the article on PCMag.

Samsung 14 nanometer CPUs

The new AMD Fusion CPUs need to be made with a 14 nanometer process.
Samsumg should buy a 5% stake in AMD and make some chips.
How does a warm running 4.5 GHz AMD Fusion APU sound?




posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by TauCetixeta
 


Not Great as AMD have always been a budget choice.
AMD are fine if you cant afford anything else. Otherwise, not so much.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quadraphobe
reply to post by TauCetixeta
 


Not Great as AMD have always been a budget choice.
AMD are fine if you cant afford anything else. Otherwise, not so much.


Maybe Intel should have a price to performance ratio similar to AMD. A 10% performance increase over an AMD chip and they think it merits costing a couple hundred bucks more.

Cool news though, should be a pretty good bump in speed.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
It takes about one year to get a CPU onto retail shelves once the chip reached tape out status. GPUs on the other hand are expected to need about three to six months.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TauCetixeta
 


Well, ARM technology is used in mobile devices, I very much doubt they're going to spend time and money to implement mobile developed technology for the desktop machine. And the article itself mentions that Samsung have signed with ARM.

Problem with mobile devices is that if you look at the hardware, it makes stuff from 20 years ago look like a very large calculator. But back then, things didn't need so much to run, so that calculator could program a game of yahtzee while you lived on an remote island, or play games, or whatever really, as a portable 386 laptop at the time allowed.

Now, even things that were designed to make the internet look pretty, are deemed too power hungry for mobile devices and are basically ignored features. Web browsing can hog your system to a halt. Constant pausing while swapping or trading off stored memory to a cache.

You have more power than you did then, but it's rendered down to a crawl because even nothing takes up chunks of ram and a slice of power.

They've built bigger, faster cars, but the roads have become so cluttered with pedestrian rubbish that you take twice as long to get half way up the road.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quadraphobe
reply to post by TauCetixeta
 


Not Great as AMD have always been a budget choice.
AMD are fine if you cant afford anything else. Otherwise, not so much.


AMD being a budget choice is you buying propaganda. Nothing more. Completely untrue.
Crysis II
www.tomshardware.com...
Intel Core i7 3770K
122 FPS $345,
AMD FX 8350
116 FPS $189.

3D Mark
www.tomshardware.com...
Intel Core i7 3770K
6431 $345,
AMD FX 8350
6278 $189.


Very little performance increase, huge price difference.

Intel has the best performing CPU's, but AMD is not "budget" material at all. They have very high quality CUP's for half the price, with very little performance loss.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Toms Hardware
PC Mark 7
Score: 5360 - Core i7 3770k 3.5 Ghz (turbo 3.9Ghz) $329 new egg
Score: 4538 - AMD FX 8350 4Ghz (Turbo 4.2 Ghz) $189.99 Amazon

4538 / 5360 = 0.8466417910447761
AMD chip is 84.6% as fast as Intel one.

Toms Hardware
SiSoftware Sandra 2012 SP4c Pro

Score: 216.72 - Core i7 3770k 3.5 Ghz (turbo 3.9Ghz) $329 new egg
Score: 114.30 - AMD FX 8350 4Ghz (Turbo 4.2 Ghz) $189.99 Amazon

114.30 / 216.72 = 0.5274086378737542
AMD chip is 52.7% as fast as Intel one.

Dont just pick the two you like... And think that matters.

Why would you even think the "Crysis 2 - low detail" Frames Per Second benchmark would matter anyway?
If you want game benchmarks to matter, then have the games run at different detail settings low medium high ultra on numerous games using the same extremely high performing graphics cards.

Like this one:
Toms Hardware

edit on 22-12-2012 by DaRAGE because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by DaRAGE
 


I picked 2 at random, it seems the only one who cherry picked data is you. Especially since you LIED.

SiSoftware Sandra 2012 SP4c Pro

Score: 216.72 - Core i7 3770k 3.5 Ghz (turbo 3.9Ghz) $329 new egg
Score: 114.30 - AMD FX 8350 4Ghz (Turbo 4.2 Ghz) $189.99 Amazon

This is the ACTUAL data, not your lie.
SiSoftware Sandra 2012 SP4c Pro

Score: 157.26 - Core i7 3770k 3.5 Ghz (turbo 3.9Ghz)
Score: 114.30 - AMD FX 8350 4Ghz (Turbo 4.2 Ghz)

The score you listed wsas from the was by the Intel Core i7 3960x, a mere $1070. You go buy that, I will stick with my $189 AMD which is comparable in performance on many tests.
www.tomshardware.com...
Do you have Intel stock or something?



Your link shows the AMD getting 70fps on medium settings.

Here is a complete listing, they differences are negligible on almost every single test. 99.9% of users will see little to no difference, except to their wallet.
www.tomshardware.com...
edit on 23-12-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Actually you are right. I missed that I was getting the wrong CPU on that 216.72 score... My apologize. My mistake.

SiSoftware Sandra 2012 SP4c Pro
Score: 157.26 - Core i7 3770k 3.5 Ghz (turbo 3.9Ghz)
Score: 114.30 - AMD FX 8350 4Ghz (Turbo 4.2 Ghz)
114.30 / 157.26 = 0.7268218237314002

AMD CPU is 72.6% of the Intel one.

This is why it is budget priced!

$189.99 / $329 = 0.5774772036474164

AMD CPU is 57.7% the price of the Intel one.

But the intel on gets you an extra 27.4% performance in SiSoftware Sandra 2012 SP4c Pro.

Some people want performance.

Most people want more performance out of a new computer that will hopefully last them longer. Most people are willing to spend more for this speed bump. How do I know this?
Intel market share is at 80%!!! What is AMD's?

Everyone loves a good under-dog. But that under-dog is cheaper for a reason. And that reason is performance.

Also if you look at that chart you will notice 3 CPU's from some generations ago of intel.
Intel Core i7 970 (Gulftown 6c/12t)

Intel currently has Ivy Bridge 22nm
Before that was Sandy Bridge 32nm
Before that was Westmere microarchitecture, the 32 nm shrink of Nehalem.
The first release was the Core i7 980X in the first quarter of 2010

AMD's latest CPU is getting beaten by a die shrink released at the start of 2010. Both are 32nm.

Intels latest is 22nm and it has a performance buff.

Why Am I even discussing this?

The results speak for themselves.
Anandtech results

I look at these charts, And I see more than a little performance loss.
edit on 23-12-2012 by DaRAGE because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:38 AM
link   
These comparisons are folly. If you're getting a budget gaming rig you're either looking for an amd apu, else cheap descrete card and like a g530 or something. Intel pwnsraw cpu wise, but amd may give you a nice gaming experience while shaving a few dollars.

All of this is irrelevant. Samsung is pushing arm tech for lightweight portable devices. Tge desktop will be extict by the end of the decade. Looks like samsung is positioning their selves to be king of the successor and stay that way for at least a few years yet.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
These comparisons are folly. If you're getting a budget gaming rig you're either looking for an amd apu, else cheap descrete card and like a g530 or something. Intel pwnsraw cpu wise, but amd may give you a nice gaming experience while shaving a few dollars.

All of this is irrelevant. Samsung is pushing arm tech for lightweight portable devices. Tge desktop will be extict by the end of the decade. Looks like samsung is positioning their selves to be king of the successor and stay that way for at least a few years yet.


I got my gaming system over 2 years ago with a "budget" AMD and I play new games with no problems. Unless you are a hardcore gaming freak who wants to blow several thousand on a gaming rig AMD is the best choice, every time.

As to the desktop being extinct, I really don't think so. You'll see.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by DaRAGE
 


I placed side by side results. You cherry picked ONE test where the results were more significant. I sent a link to all the tests, many show little to no noticeable difference. Most users will see zero difference, .1% will. Do a price comparison of AMD and Intel with same priced CPU, AMD wins every time there as well.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
This is not a thread about comparing AMD and Intel processors, the topic is:

Samsung Reaches a New Milestone : 14 nanometer process : Time to call AMD

Please keep on topic.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Oh ArMAP you're such a spoilsport!


As for tape-outs like i said it will take about a year for a CPU to go from tape-out to on the shelves for retail sales.

So as it's just 8 days away from 2013, lets say that samsung releases it's 14nm products to come out in early 2014.

That also is the same time that Intel's 14 nm products are meant to come out. But i'm betting that Intel's 14nm products come out at about half way through 2014.
It's not much of a product lead but anyone gaining a manufacturing process lead on Intel is a good gain.

The faster we get down to 4nm or less the better ;-p



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaRAGE
Oh ArMAP you're such a spoilsport!


As for tape-outs like i said it will take about a year for a CPU to go from tape-out to on the shelves for retail sales.

So as it's just 8 days away from 2013, lets say that samsung releases it's 14nm products to come out in early 2014.

That also is the same time that Intel's 14 nm products are meant to come out. But i'm betting that Intel's 14nm products come out at about half way through 2014.
It's not much of a product lead but anyone gaining a manufacturing process lead on Intel is a good gain.

The faster we get down to 4nm or less the better ;-p


Maybe Samsung should just buy AMD.
AMD needs the 14 nm Fusion Chips now. Call it the A12.
That should speed things up.

Check the Market Cap.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Turq1
 


I will never buy an Intel over an AMD, their affordable stuff overheats. Everything we have is AMD now.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Most people just surf the internet.
The AMD chips run all browsers very well.
The A10 Fusion works well.

It's 32 nm chip.
The AMD stock price would pop if they pushed a 14 nm A12 Fusion out the door.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Hat's off to AMD though for pushing the competition-envelope. I remember very clearly when they hit the 1Ghz mark and Intel quickly responded (with a massively-overclocked Pentium and a heatsink/fan the size of a toaster lol)

We, as consumers, only stand to benefit
edit on 26-12-2012 by TXRabbit because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
I have no idea what any of you are talking about.

Second line of absolute confusion.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by selfharmonise
 


The intel CPUs are using a superior manufacturing process. ( 22 nm)
AMD is doing the best that it can with a 32 nm manufacturing process.
AMD needs some help from Samsung. That's all.





new topics
top topics
 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join