rpsgcThat can't be right...

Same price for A8-5500 and 5600K?
Same price for A10-5700 and 5800K?

LionheartCan't wait for the reviews for these :rockout:

MxPhenom 216These are going to be some nice chips. I think I would choose these over intel i3s, I hope they do well in reviews.

No_AsylumGiven AMD's recent track record, I wont hold my breath that they are even close to competitive with Intel's equivalent.

Atleast not until Steam Roller.

THGA pair of Piledriver modules technically makes this a quad-core APU, though, as we know, each module shares certain resources.

cdawallHopefully they perform well :)

InitialisedLets hope so.

Dent1As much as I've been waiting for Piledriver. Now it's almost here I'm having second thoughts. My Athlon II x4 is still doing the job. Think I've grown out of the constantly spending money on component stage.

Dent1What track record? AMD only once was uncompetitive - Bulldozer.

In total, Intel has had a worse track record for behind uncompetitive.

As much as I've been waiting for Piledriver. Now it's almost here I'm having second thoughts. My Athlon II x4 is still doing the job. Think I've grown out of the constantly spending money on component stage.

SteevoLOL wut? All the early designs were ripoffs of Intel, which meant AMD was always a generation behind Intel, up till the original athlon cores, and then only due to Intel making a Mhz mistake, they had a architecture that scaled with frequency, and unfortunately it made too much heat, and the process(s) were just not ready for it. They learned and C2D started raping Phenom, which was a flop, and the moderately better Phenom II, which was still slower than Intel, and now Bulldozer, which is slower at most things than Phenom II clock for clock.

SteevoAMD was cheaper, and sometimes managed to be faster by tweaking the design between Intel's new processes and designs, and or by exceeding the power and thermal design. But that is where the speed wars came from, and why AMD had to start naming processors by their frequency equal instead of actual speed.

Dent1The original C2D conroe wasn't that fast, in actuality even the Athlon X2 could keep up with it. The Phenom I could even keep up with the original Core 2 Quad Kentfield. People only opted for the original Core 2 series because they overclocked like a beast! Whereas the Athlon X2 and Phenom I could barely break 3.4GHz without blue screening. But at stock they held their own.

It was only when C2D went through lots of stepping and revision, predominately the last Wolfdale and Yorkfield iteration was significantly better in raw performance and overclocking. It was only at this point the Athlon X2 and Phenom I became uncompetitive and couldn't compete.

Phenom II however was able to compete with C2D Wolfdale and Yorkfield just fine though and could overclock just as well.





Who cares how AMD did it. All I know is my Duron was spanking the P4 back in the day and my Sempron raped the Pentium 4 and the Intel Celerons were only good as coasters lol


From 1999 to about 2006 AMD had a lot of success in performance and price. Intel had nothing to offer until the late core family - present.

SteevoI don't know what you are smoking but the 9850 I owned sucked compared to the C2D system I put together out of the early conroes and kentfields.

www.legitreviews.com/article/682/12/ And this was a late B3 stepping.

And once you started overclocking the Intel's they really raped the Phenom.

SteevoYou are talking about a window for AMD of about 6 years where they had a superior product, and partially due to Intel and their size, and poor marketing they failed to capitalize. Sucked for them that few of the majority knew what was going on, but those who did used them. I started with some Athlon socket A boards and tweaked and played with pencils too. I also owned a prescott, and Athlon X64, and X64 DC, and many others.

SteevoI was there, did it and still do. Since the launch of C2D AMD has been back in second place, and unfortunately they have had a mediocre showing of late chips with issues.