Slimebeast said:
Pemalite said:
Slimebeast said:
VitroBahllee said:
Nice, but why spend as much on a tower as a CPU? You should have futureproofed that CPU with a couple levels higher up. Then again what do I know. I spent a lot on my CPU but after a couple years its crap anyway, while that case you got will still rock in two years.
|
Well, a tower can last at least 5 years while a CPU is hard to futureproof. The FX-6300 is not much slower than the fastest AMD has to offer, and it's easy to overclock. And honestly, the FX-6300 or FX-8350 works just as well as any Intel CPU in all normal home PC scenarios, the difference is marginal. The performance overhead from strong CPUs simply has no use today unless you run a server or run lots of compression tasks or something.
I'm betting on AMD releasing new high end CPUs in the future so I can upgrade. There's talk they might leave the high-end market and only do APUs and budget CPUs but I'm still hoping.
|
They can't leave the high end.
If AMD leaves the high-end, then they leave the server business.
And the server business brings in *allot* of cash, it's a very high-premium sector, one that AMD is actually still competitive in for the time being.
You see, AMD and Intel builds a high-end CPU, not for the high-end/enthusiast market, but for the server market, then it's just a case of moving the processors onto a different package and making a few changes to the memory controller at most(Sometimes they just disable ECC support) and bringing it to the Enthusiast/High-End consumer segment, it's a very low cost approach.
Intel did this with Socket 2011, they were simply just 8-core Xeons with 2 cores disabled and ECC and Multi-processor support dropped and released as high-end enthusiast gear.
AMD actually uses two octo-core FX chips fused together for the 16 core Xeons, when AMD was under pressure with it's Stars architecture AMD brought it's 6-core processor to the desktop in the form of the Phenom 2 x6.
AMD's problem right now is simply one of engineering resources... As a company compared to Intel they are incredibly tiny, they simply cannot focus on APU's, Consoles, GPU's and regular plain-jane CPU's and all their other derivatives (Like low powered versions such as Brazos/Jaguar etc').
They simply don't have the engineering to focus on every single segment.
I think what AMD intends to do is just iterate on the Bulldozer and it's derived architectures in the APU space and eventually bring it to the High-End and Server segments, even if it's not untill 2016 untill they release a successor, they will get there eventually.
You will probably require a new motherboard by then too. :P
|
This is great news! So there is hope!
I was thinking around that logic myself just from an amaetur perspective, despite all the rumors that the FX series of high end CPUs from AMD will be terminated... that somehow, sooner or later AMD should be able to derive something out of their tech and research to eventually be able to offer a fairly competitive high end CPU for the millions of loyal AMD fans.
I'd be happy to replace my mothaboard for a new socket and get a high end AMD CPU some time in 2016. That would be the perfect time (when next gen games have truly kicked in).
|
Well.
Don't quote me on the 2016 figure, that's just my guess.
However in the meantime, AMD has shaken up the industry with Mantle which makes the CPU less of a burden for games and because of that, Microsoft's reactionary response was to bring similar kinds of low-level improvements into Direct X 12.
So even if AMD doesn't bring new CPU's any time soon, you can rest in comfort that games will be more CPU friendly at any rate.
