AMD Launches AM1 Platform

Look good for net-tops, POS units, that kinda thing.

 

This time I am not sure what AMD meant by this stunt.
- new features: NO
- smaller than miniITX: NO
- HSA CPU available: Not Yet
- Better feature set than intel solution: YES
- smaller than notebook of equivalent power: NO
- more versatile than notebook of same power: NO

I believe it would be smarter to bring kaveri HSA to notebooks instead jaguar to to desktops.

I am actually waiting for AMD to make either 13" (or smaller) HSA notebook or beema tablet/convertible netbook (optimally with thicker keyboard hosting additional battery like HP slatebook x2).

 

This just begs for the "Build your own XBOX ONE or PS4".

 

It's really not a bad idea considering Intel bought the Haswell Celeron ULV processors to the desktop. AMD has absolutely nothing to compete against the Celeron ULV processors right now.... The A4 4000 is the closest they get, and it lacks in performance while having higher power draw.

 

Amd hasnt had anything that could compete with Intel in forever. Lack of competition for intel at some point is gona be bad thing

 

Being an AMD fan, I just want to refute your nothing to compete with Intel. The 8350 processor is on average $100 cheaper than the 3770/4770k Intel processors, while delivering equal performance on modern multithreaded games, including Battlefield 4.

http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html

That is unbelievably competitive dude, you pay $100 more for 1-2 fps? For video work, it beats the 4770k in some cases, and that's ignoring the fact that you can overclock it on average 600-800mhz. Try being a bit more objective please.

Also, this new line of processors will definitely appeal to those of the PC base who want a cheap PS4 or Xbone with the benefits of a good OS. We can expect that ports of "next gen" console games will be optimized for lots of threads vs. single core power. These should perform well enough.

 

AMD always head a edge on intel when it comes to MULTI-THREAD/CORE, but saddly alot programing lack proper multi-thread/core including games. so to mean that means exactly nothing single thread performance is what alot programing including games still use need more.

With proper MULT-THREAD/CORE support in all programs/games then the can compete and would probably beat out intel, But that is lacking in alot support in programin/games so no i dont think AMD make anything that can compete with intel.

Intel knows there lack of poper support to multi-thread/core so they focus more in single thread power, which exactly what AMD fails at

 

Those who want so low power CPU will not want to get high power GPU with it, so they may as well go for netbook as I wrote. It's smaller, quieter, draws less energy, USB 3.0 is enough for external drives if needed and you can take it with you as a bonus.

And are better competition to celerons anyway.

 

If only they had something that's not built on a fairly outdated plarform. Judging by their APU-only focus, that's not going to change. :flame2:

 

There's a quite a few multi-threaded games that AMD can't keep up with Intel in. Just simply being multi-threaded, doesn't give AMD any advantage. It's easy to write an application to be multi-threaded, but not multi-core aware. On multi-threaded apps, AMD is at a disadvantage because of the lower "per core" performance. It's multi-threaded, multi-core aware applications that are capable of using more than 4 cores where AMD benefits. We've had multi-threaded software for decades now. Windows is probably the most well known multi-threaded software on the market. Being multi-threaded just means it runs more than 1 thread. Has nothing to do with how many cores the application actually utilizes.

 

All valid points, I'm going Intel cpu next build. There are people who mainly play Battlefield 4, and they go for AMD cpu's in order to invest more on a graphics card, which is reasonable.

 

i don't think anyone around here would get a 4770k for gaming. a 3570 is more than enough, as that benchmark points out.

you're talking about objectiveness but fail to realize that the i7 can also be overclocked, maybe even more than 600-800 mhz (considering the lower clock speed of 3.5 ghz). clock-per-clock, intel's architecture always comes out ahead.

 

You'd be lucky to get that given Haswell's heat problem.

 

I've got my 4770k running at a solid and stable 4.6Ghz, a nice 1.1Ghz higher than its stock speed, and used the same board, ram and cpu,(which is cooled nicely by a H80i) as in the ASUS Maximus VI Hero review here on Guru. Not to mention I got all my parts on Black Friday from Newegg when they were super cheap. I've yet to even tinker around with individual settings to try and push it any higher. I just let the board do its simple OC.

 

Are AMD deliberately trying to confuse people? The AM1 designation is terrible. What's next..... Athlon 1?

 

Just seen fairly comprehensive reviews of these in a few places. You going to be running one too Hilbert?