# AMD FX Making a Comeback, to Challenge Intel Core i7 Extreme Edition



## btarunr (Dec 31, 2010)

Come 2011, and AMD is looking to give Intel its much awaited fightback at all market segments of consumer processors including the enthusiast-grade models. It will be made possible with AMD's new Bulldozer architecture, which gives the processor a much higher degree of inter-core integration, sharing of common components, higher instructions per clock-cycle, and Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX). AMD's Bulldozer "Zambezi" desktop chips will be reportedly available in two ultra high-end SKUs: the 8-core AMD Vision Black FX, and performance segment AMD Vision Ultimate FX. AMD suspended the use of "FX" identifier with its Phenom and Phenom II series processors, because it couldn't compete in higher-end market segments, and didn't want to dilute the "FX" identifier. It was replaced with "Black Edition" to help identify models with unlocked BClk multipliers. AMD's Vision Black FX processors will be competitive with Intel's highest-end processors, including Extreme Edition models.





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## suraswami (Dec 31, 2010)

Nice!  If AMD keeps the price reasonable then happy to buy another toy to play with.


----------



## wahdangun (Dec 31, 2010)

wow,  i can't express my excitement, wow i hope they can bring a can of whoop ass, like they do to nvdia on the GPU front


----------



## Batou1986 (Dec 31, 2010)

Best news all year


----------



## scazbala86 (Dec 31, 2010)

Amd ftw


----------



## GSquadron (Dec 31, 2010)

I think it was Ati which made amd to look so far, or better saying gpu money made them jump so high. Even though i am an AMD fan, i must say that this looks more like a speculation, because beating intel or even matching them in the enthusiast level from a weaker "enemy" in cpu market seems very difficult because they didn't do that in so much time. I just hope this dream comes true and both amd and us will benefit from this. Also watching Intel's new cpu increasing by 100 mhz seems terrible.


----------



## PopcornMachine (Dec 31, 2010)

Something to look forward to.


----------



## toyo (Dec 31, 2010)

I expect another HD6900 vs GTX 580 type of failure. By the time Bulldozer will be on the market, Intel will be riding on Sandy's back.
I hope I'm wrong though.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Dec 31, 2010)

Very good news for me, but they are saying it will compete with Corei7 Extreme. I hope it will compete with Sandy bridge too. If not, then it will be super cheap and I will be able to afford it.[claps hands] AMD FX Ftw!


----------



## OneCool (Dec 31, 2010)

I wonder if the saying is copyrighted because thats not how you say it?


----------



## happita (Dec 31, 2010)

o rly?

Interesting to see that they are bringing back the FX line. I hope that doesn't go along with crazy power consumption. Here's hoping for some decent high-end competition finally.


----------



## KainXS (Dec 31, 2010)

not raising my hopes but I hope they're decent


----------



## AndreiD (Dec 31, 2010)

Please AMD, I want to throw my money at you, I wants 8 core FX.




toyo said:


> I expect another HD6900 vs GTX 580 failure. By the time Bulldozer will be on the market, Intel will be riding on Sandy's back.
> I hope I'm wrong though.



How is the 6900 series a failure? The 6950 can be flashed into a 6970 and the 6970 isn't all that bad. Sure, their price could use an adjustment but since when did a card fail when it had better performance/watt than it's competitor?
"Oh no, I wish AMD would of made a 300Watt heater so it could beat GTX580".


----------



## beautyless (Dec 31, 2010)

When AMD rises the bar of CPU performance to be same as 6-Cores 32nm Gulftown i7.
Then Intel releases it's new Sandy Bridge.

AMD remain behind Intel again. Let's hope AMD FX not just the same but better than today i7 6-Cores.


----------



## toyo (Dec 31, 2010)

AndreiD said:


> How is the 6900 series a failure?


Nice surprise with the 6950 unlocking. 6970? Taking the hype around the card before it's launch in consideration, it is a fail. The 6900 were meant by AMD to go straight to the top, but somehow they failed to predict that Nvidia can refine Fermi so fast. 
Any product meant for the No. 1 position that ends somewhere else, even if it is on the podium, it is a FAIL.
Even it sells good, has nice reviews, is energy efficient, the world will remember the 6970 as the card that tried, and it will be forever associated with that "meh" attitude.


----------



## btarunr (Dec 31, 2010)

toyo said:


> I expect another HD6900 vs GTX 580 type of failure. By the time Bulldozer will be on the market, Intel will be riding on Sandy's back.
> I hope I'm wrong though.



Bulldozer is anti-SandyBridge, not [just] anti-Westmere/Nehalem.


----------



## toyo (Dec 31, 2010)

I can only hope that it will be better than Sandy. It's time for AMD to retake the crown for a while.


----------



## Imsochobo (Dec 31, 2010)

btarunr said:


> Bulldozer is anti-SandyBridge, not [just] anti-Westmere/Nehalem.



I doubt its like that.
Its a bulldozer, meaning it can bulldozer everything, paves the road.

For those who isnt aware of what bulldozer can do, just wait, in the server space i can tell you, it will bulldoze alot.
It's limitation is increased delay in internal workings, it will give very much power, and it will really rock many benchmarks, but i'm sceptical about singlethread.

I Don't know how it is in a number by number basis, i just know server space its impressive! seen it in action, and i know our current I7 alike servers cant do it.


----------



## Widjaja (Dec 31, 2010)

When I hear AMD FX CPU I think REALLY expensive CPU for what you're getting.
The FX series has always been expensive in the past so I don't see why it would change.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 31, 2010)

Meh, all this means is that AMD will start selling $1000 processors again...


----------



## Imsochobo (Dec 31, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Meh, all this means is that AMD will start selling $1000 processors again...



still indication that it can live up to its name, bulldozer.
am liking this turning up to be a knife battle again! and the end of nvidia chipsets.


----------



## Neo4 (Dec 31, 2010)

Wow so much negativity from the fanboys. AMD will be competitive in the new year just as they are competitive right now. Why quibble about a few performance percentage points? The new FX will not be like the old FX series either in price or performance. AMD has learned a great deal over the years when it came close to going out or business and it will not repeat past mistakes (at least for the foreseeable future).

AMD rocks and Intel rocks. The only difference is that Intel defeated itself by trying to destroy AMD and control all market share. Too bad they're not smart enough to see what AMD has done for them with the pressure to excel and how pathetic they would be without AMD nipping at their heels. Count me in big time for an AMD FX CPU! I'm seriously excited at the developments on tap for this year!


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Dec 31, 2010)

Great news! Competition (and more nice toys to choose from) are always a good thing no matter how you slice it!


----------



## CDdude55 (Dec 31, 2010)

Hopefully they can actually start doing some damage now with the FX brand and Bulldozer. If the parts are nicely priced then i'll bite.


----------



## phanbuey (Dec 31, 2010)

newtekie is right, $1k procs again.  Also means that AMD marketing thinks its time to bring back the ill-fated FX moniker, because the bulldozer performs like an i7 Nehalem Exreme Edition, which is... err the OLD performance model.

i am almost sure that AMD marketing has a giant poster of baghdad bob in their offices.  these are the same guys that drumbeat the first phenom line out the door.


----------



## jpierce55 (Dec 31, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> I think it was Ati which made amd to look so far, or better saying gpu money made them jump so high. Even though i am an AMD fan, i must say that this looks more like a speculation, because beating intel or even matching them in the enthusiast level from a weaker "enemy" in cpu market seems very difficult because they didn't do that in so much time. I just hope this dream comes true and both amd and us will benefit from this. Also watching Intel's new cpu increasing by 100 mhz seems terrible.



Yes, I think it does looks like ATI kept AMD's head above the water. I just hate they killed the ATI name.


----------



## LittleLizard (Dec 31, 2010)

OneCool said:


> http://www.techpowerup.com/img/10-12-31/166a.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the saying is copyrighted because thats not how you say it?



Probably no, BUT the saying + terminator probably is.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Dec 31, 2010)

ill believe it when i see it


----------



## overclocking101 (Jan 1, 2011)

this is good news! if the high end segment has competition it will drive prices on high end gear down! finally something good!


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jan 1, 2011)

But will the $1,000 dollar price tag return as well ?

I don't think the world is quite ready for AMD to go boutique, as AMD has worked hard for 3-4 years now to cultivate an image of value over preformence.

If these are 800-1000 dollars like the original FX's they will fail.


----------



## hellrazor (Jan 1, 2011)

Come on AMD *crosses fingers*, I know you can make it!


----------



## Super XP (Jan 1, 2011)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> I think it was Ati which made amd to look so far, or better saying gpu money made them jump so high. Even though i am an AMD fan, i must say that this looks more like a speculation, because beating intel or even matching them in the enthusiast level from a weaker "enemy" in cpu market seems very difficult because *they didn't do that in so much time.* I just hope this dream comes true and both amd and us will benefit from this. Also watching Intel's new cpu increasing by 100 mhz seems terrible.


That was AMD's CEO Hector Ruiz fault. He did some good for the company but he did a lot worst overall for the company IMO which took AMD to greatness with the Athlon 64 but then road on that success way too long which enabled Intel to kill AMD with the Core2 with AMD answering back with absolutely Jack. The issue here was Hector Ruiz IMO thought Intel would just stick to the aging Pentium design and just jack up the clock speed, but no Intel was smart and released a somewhat newer design. 

Thank goodness AMD finally has a strong, intelligent CEO Dirk Meyer. All I have to say is, look out Intel, this guy knows his stuff Big Time... Here comes Bulldozer...


[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> But will the $1,000 dollar price tag return as well ?
> 
> I don't think the world is quite ready for AMD to go boutique, as AMD has worked hard for 3-4 years now to cultivate an image of value over preformence.
> 
> *If these are 800-1000 dollars like the original FX's they will fail.*


Those prices were yesteryear. I don't see that happening anymore, that would be a kick in the nuts for AMD. I can see approx: $600 max for a super fast Bulldozer based FX CPU but that is about it. Not even Graphics cards should cost that much money. Technology just moves way too fast. You buy something today and tomorrow it's old...


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jan 1, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Those prices were yesteryear. I don't see that happening anymore, that would be a kick in the nuts for AMD. I can see approx: $600 max for a super fast Bulldozer based FX CPU but that is about it. Not even Graphics cards should cost that much money. Technology just moves way too fast. You buy something today and tomorrow it's old...



We shall see, I'm going off what has happened in the past your going of pure opinion and speculation.

IMO $600 is far too much for an AMD CPU ( I had a 2800+ (barton) and a FX50( and have many AMD CPU's now), and as I stated earlier AMD has yet to place itself in a position where, they are ready to be seen as high end CPU maker. If a company made say cars, and they specialized in say hybrids (see Toyota, or Honda), and they said they were going to start making super cars, would you have the same interest and perception as if it were a Mercedes (doubtful).

I think AMD just needs to continue to pump out bang for your buck solid processors and getting closer to Intel in performance with every next gen, and gaining market share, as the average AMD buyer buys because they are cheap and get the job done, not because they are as fast as an Intel CPU.

But as I said we shall see.


----------



## GSquadron (Jan 1, 2011)

As far as i have read lately, it was amd move to buy ATI which costed an arm to amd and that made intel win. But, always remember that there has been a time for AMD as the best too 
This is the first logic that come out of my mind, after reading the history of amd i was sure than, that ati was the most important buy. I have another idea too, which is not confirmed of course!
Why did AMD "delete" ATI in 6xxx series and not sooner or later? Because the revenues showed that Ati become so powerful that payed back the "arm" to amd and now it is amd's arm  (the terminator is the resemblance of AMD, so great idea for me!)
Expect that it will surpass both intel and nvidia. Also imagine as amd was a human without the arm. Now that it has it, it is like fusion and this move is just like UNIFICATION, the most important view of Albert Einsten. If things do not change, Amd will be like Intel is now for decades!!! This were my 50 cents


----------



## sunil (Jan 1, 2011)

Well if $600 max for a super fast Bulldozer based FX CPU . then why not buy Intel high end CPU


----------



## DigitalUK (Jan 1, 2011)

great news i highly doubt AMD would resurect the FX brand again just to be beaten down by sandy bridge afew months later, looks like bulldozer is going to bring it this time either by a total kicking or trading blows. only problem is when FX was king they cost an arm and a leg.


----------



## Over_Lord (Jan 1, 2011)

welcome back too the GAME, AMD, april 2011 it is


and HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE


----------



## Mussels (Jan 1, 2011)

sunil said:


> Well if $600 max for a super fast Bulldozer based FX CPU . then why not buy Intel high end CPU



because its going to be faster?


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 1, 2011)

Mussels said:


> because its going to be faster?



If history tells us anything Intel will probably already counter act with something else that beats it for a bit of a higher price. Whether that be Sandy Bridge or the current i7's.

But if Bulldozer can blow through the i7's and come in at a nice price, i definitely will be looking their way.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 1, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> If history tells us anything Intel will probably already counter act with something else that beats it for a bit of a higher price. Whether that be Sandy Bridge or the current i7's.
> 
> But if Bulldozer can blow through the i7's and come in at a nice price, i definitely will be looking their way.



if AMD has 8 cores out while intels still on 6 for the same price, the extra cores will pwn hyperthreading in a lot of tasks.


despite what various people think, AMD IS ahead in some areas

my housemate and i do a lot of video encoding - and stock vs stock, my 1090T (cheaper) is faster than his i7 930.

an 8 core AMD should do the same to a 6 core intel, unless they fail and release really low clock speeds.


----------



## Super XP (Jan 1, 2011)

sunil said:


> Well if $600 max for a super fast Bulldozer based FX CPU . then why not buy Intel high end CPU


Because this Super Fast Bulldozer FX CPU should be "MUCH" faster or equal to Intel's super charged High End CPU. What I think will happen is a good Price Fight for both AMD & Intel for the ultra High End. Remember the FX will not be for everybody, AMD and Intel will still have a lot more competitive and affordable priced CPU's. We are really talking about a niche based CPU IMO for both the FX and the Core i7/i9/i11 etc... IMO...

*Who on God's green earth would buy these CPU's *
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770 = $ 1,815.99
Intel Core i7 965 Extreme Edition = $ 1,336.99 
http://www.canadacomputers.com/index.php?cPath=4_65&page=1&sort=3d

Need I say More!!!


----------



## micropage7 (Jan 1, 2011)

after a while intel has been a king on the block, amd will challenge him on new battle field: top of the top, its gonna be interesting and it will be a hard, bloody and painful battle
so just wait who will gonna be the next king of the block


----------



## Melvis (Jan 1, 2011)

Love that slogan (I will be back) nice touch.

Bring back the FX i say 

I still own a FX-57, great CPU


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jan 1, 2011)

wahdangun said:


> wow,  i can't express my excitement, wow i hope they can bring a can of whoop ass, like they do to nvdia on the GPU front



id watch what you say.:shadedshu


----------



## johnnyfiive (Jan 1, 2011)

Awesome news!!!


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jan 1, 2011)

Mussels said:


> if AMD has 8 cores out while intels still on 6 for the same price, the extra cores will pwn hyperthreading in a lot of tasks.
> 
> 
> despite what various people think, AMD IS ahead in some areas
> ...



Really Intel 4 cores still pwn AMD 6 cores.  MATH?



Super XP said:


> Because this Super Fast Bulldozer FX CPU should be "MUCH" faster or equal to Intel's super charged High End CPU. What I think will happen is a good Price Fight for both AMD & Intel for the ultra High End. Remember the FX will not be for everybody, AMD and Intel will still have a lot more competitive and affordable priced CPU's. We are really talking about a niche based CPU IMO for both the FX and the Core i7/i9/i11 etc... IMO...
> 
> *Who on God's green earth would buy these CPU's *
> Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770 = $ 1,815.99
> ...



Huh ignored my comment (Truth hurt ?)



Super XP said:


> Those prices were yesteryear.



Both those processors are no longer made, and Canadian prices are always inflated!



Super XP said:


> Need I say More!!!



:shadedshu


----------



## cdawall (Jan 1, 2011)

well i for one am excited


----------



## Melvis (Jan 1, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> IMO $600 is far too much for an AMD CPU ( I had a 2800+ (barton) and a FX50( and have many AMD CPU's now), and as I stated earlier AMD has yet to place itself in a position where, they are ready to be seen as high end CPU maker.



They did, just no one new about it, poor marketing ether on AMD or BS marketing by Intel, ether way no one new they had great performing CPU's at that time let alone new what AMD even was. The fact is they was but that all ended when conroe came in, and hasn't realy changed since. O and the price of a AMD CPU back then was still cheaper then Intel even though intel's was slower, so nothing has realy changed has it?



[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> I think AMD just needs to continue to pump out bang for your buck solid processors and getting closer to Intel in performance with every next gen, and gaining market share, as the average AMD buyer buys because they are cheap and get the job done, not because they are as fast as an Intel CPU.



That would be nice i must admit.


----------



## theubersmurf (Jan 1, 2011)

KainXS said:


> not raising my hopes but I hope they're decent


If they put out a chip that performs comparably to my i7 920, I'm going to change platforms. Intel's decision to put out a single chipset in association with this socket doesn't do much to foster any sort of faith that they'll maintain another. You could argue that USB 3.0 and Sata 6GB/s were sort of a rarified thing, and that socket 2011 is there to provide a platform capable of handling those newer standards (remember, PCIe 3.0 is not far away) But the idea that socket 1366 has no more life, and that newer platforms couldn't be created for that socket strikes me a load of $*&)#.


----------



## largon (Jan 1, 2011)

jpierce55 said:


> Yes, I think it does looks like ATI kept AMD's head above the water. I just hate they killed the ATI name.


ATi's role in AMD's financials is insignificant. CPU business is what floats (or sinks) AMD. 


toyo said:


> Taking the hype around the card before it's launch in consideration, it is a fail. The 6900 were meant by AMD to go straight to the top, but somehow they failed to predict that Nvidia can refine Fermi so fast.


You got a _source to quote_? 
Or was it just your personal expectation?


----------



## Zubasa (Jan 1, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> Really Intel 4 cores still pwn AMD 6 cores.  MATH?


He said AMDX6 is ahead *in some areas*, READ?



[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> Huh ignored my comment (Truth hurt ?)


Making a comment does not make it a fact.


----------



## RejZoR (Jan 1, 2011)

toyo said:


> I can only hope that it will be better than Sandy. It's time for AMD to retake the crown for a while.



Last time the AMD was holding the crown, Intel delivered Conroe core and the performance ba was significantly raised. Nehalem was cool but the increase of performance wasn't all that high.
It was similar with graphic cards. If one was holding the crown for too long, the performance was stagnating. But if each was on top for a while we've seen larger leaps in performance.


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Jan 1, 2011)

phanbuey said:


> newtekie is right, $1k procs again.  Also means that AMD marketing thinks its time to bring back the ill-fated FX moniker, because the bulldozer performs like an i7 Nehalem Exreme Edition, which is... err the OLD performance model.


Much like how Deneb was on par to Yorkfields in terms of performance. Heck even Kentsfield


----------



## Neo4 (Jan 1, 2011)

phanbuey said:


> newtekie is right, $1k procs again.  Also means that AMD marketing thinks its time to bring back the ill-fated FX moniker, because the bulldozer performs like an i7 Nehalem Exreme Edition, which is... err the OLD performance model.
> 
> i am almost sure that AMD marketing has a giant poster of baghdad bob in their offices.  these are the same guys that drumbeat the first phenom line out the door.



This is not the same AMD that marketed the Phenom. The company has been through some seriously tough times, laid off thousands of employees and they rolled up their sleeves and fought hard to survive and get to where they are today. Major difference!



jpierce55 said:


> Yes, I think it does looks like ATI kept AMD's head above the water. I just hate they killed the ATI name.



Ati didn't keep AMD's head above water, Abu Dhabi oil cash investments/spin off of their fabs, anti-competitve fines levied against Intel for their attempts to destroy AMD and a whole lot of heart to survive is what kept AMD going.



sunil said:


> Well if $600 max for a super fast Bulldozer based FX CPU . then why not buy Intel high end CPU



AMD won't charge $600 for a high end CPU and Intel's cost over a grand for years now.



theubersmurf said:


> If they put out a chip that performs comparably to my i7 920, I'm going to change platforms. Intel's decision to put out a single chipset in association with this socket doesn't do much to foster any sort of faith that they'll maintain another. You could argue that USB 3.0 and Sata 6GB/s were sort of a rarified thing, and that socket 2011 is there to provide a platform capable of handling those newer standards (remember, PCIe 3.0 is not far away) But the idea that socket 1366 has no more life, and that newer platforms couldn't be created for that socket strikes me a load of $*&)#.



Yeah, Intel doesn't care about it's own customers in it's arrogance and AMD has done a masterful job of keeping their hardware backwards compatible while still increasing performance. I look forward to buying an AM3+ mobo knowing that I can still use my X6 CPU with it until I scrape together enough cash to get a Bulldozer chip.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jan 1, 2011)

Melvis said:


> They did, just no one new about it, poor marketing ether on AMD or BS marketing by Intel, ether way no one new they had great performing CPU's at that time let alone new what AMD even was. The fact is they was but that all ended when conroe came in, and hasn't realy changed since. O and the price of a AMD CPU back then was still cheaper then Intel even though intel's was slower, so nothing has realy changed has it?
> 
> 
> 
> That would be nice i must admit.



You need to take personal preference out of the equation, you can't blame Intel for everything.confused:


----------



## Melvis (Jan 1, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> You need to take personal preference out of the equation, you can't blame Intel for everything.confused:



Huh???  You lost me...

I haven't put any personal preference into it, just stating a fact.


----------



## HalfAHertz (Jan 1, 2011)

Count me interested


----------



## TAViX (Jan 1, 2011)

Finally!!!!!!!! Intel 6 core crap needs a challenger immediately, its ridiculous overpriced....


----------



## qubit (Jan 1, 2011)

toyo said:


> Nice surprise with the 6950 unlocking. 6970? Taking the hype around the card before it's launch in consideration, it is a fail. The 6900 were meant by AMD to go straight to the top, but somehow they failed to predict that Nvidia can refine Fermi so fast.
> *Any product meant for the No. 1 position that ends somewhere else, even if it is on the podium, it is a FAIL.*
> Even it sells good, has nice reviews, is energy efficient, the world will remember the 6970 as the card that tried, and it will be forever associated with that "meh" attitude.



Yep, I have to agree there, toyo. I remember that feeling of shock and disappointment when I read W1zzard's review. It was merely "almost as fast" as the GTX 480 and priced "competitevely". Oh wow. 

I then read a few other sites to check that I wasn't dreaming and of course they came out the same.

No wonder it's so much cheaper than the GTX 580.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 1, 2011)

qubit said:


> Yep, I have to agree there, toyo. I remember that feeling of shock and disappointment when I read W1zzard's review. It was merely "almost as fast" as the GTX 480 and priced "competitevely". Oh wow.
> 
> I then read a few other sites to check that I wasn't dreaming and of course they came out the same.
> 
> No wonder it's so much cheaper than the GTX 580.



who said it ever aimed for #1?


----------



## entropy13 (Jan 1, 2011)

toyo said:


> Nice surprise with the 6950 unlocking. 6970? Taking the hype around the card before it's launch in consideration, it is a fail. The 6900 were meant by AMD to go straight to the top, but somehow they failed to predict that Nvidia can refine Fermi so fast.
> Any product meant for the No. 1 position that ends somewhere else, even if it is on the podium, it is a FAIL.
> Even it sells good, has nice reviews, is energy efficient, the world will remember the 6970 as the card that tried, and it will be forever associated with that "meh" attitude.



What's the 6990 for then? #0.5?


----------



## qubit (Jan 1, 2011)

Mussels said:


> who said it ever aimed for #1?



That's what I and lots of others understood from the prelaunch hype. Just check out the comments after W1zz's review and you'll see what I mean. Disappointing as hell.

Can you imagine how things would be if the performance would have leapfrogged the GTX 580? Performance leapfrogging is what _should_ happen, not almost as good as the competition's previous generation.

Without leapfrogging, graphics advancements are happening at a glacial pace and prices stay high. All this is bad for us, the knowledgeable customers.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 1, 2011)

qubit said:


> That's what I and lots of others understood from the prelaunch hype. Just check out the comments after W1zz's review and you'll see what I mean. Disappointing as hell.
> 
> Can you imagine how things would be if the performance would have leapfrogged the GTX 580? Performance leapfrogging is what _should_ happen, not almost as good as the competition's previous generation.
> 
> Without leapfrogging, graphics advancements are happening at a glacial pace and prices stay high. All this is bad for us, the knowledgeable customers.



I agree.

Personally i thought a nice performance boost was going to be inevitable with the 6900's, but apparently not, they disappointed many. Even with the quick arrival of the 570 and 580, it's still based on the same design just focused on improved efficiency and only about a 12% push in performance over the previous design, besides still being on 40nm Cayman is a top down design, it's not slightly tweaking the same architecture and i personally expected a lot more, to me the 6900's were a step back instead of a solid leap forward for AMD in the GPU realm.


----------



## Super XP (Jan 1, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> Really Intel 4 cores still pwn AMD 6 cores.  MATH?
> 
> *Huh ignored my comment (Truth hurt ?)*
> 
> Both those processors are no longer made, and Canadian prices are always inflated!


No didn't ignore your comment, I even thanked you for your post. Perhaps I missed your point, though I thought I picked up on it and added a little more.

Also Intel is playing with new arcitecture where as AMD is still playing with the same old with a few mods here and there. Intel wipes the floor clean when it comes to clock vs. clock. That's been fact for a long time now despite the fact in games, there's not too much of a major difference in performance. GPU's are a different story...


CDdude55 said:


> I agree.
> 
> *Personally i thought a nice performance boost was going to be inevitable with the 6900's, but apparently not, they disappointed many.* Even with the quick arrival of the 570 and 580, it's still based on the same design just focused on improved efficiency and only about a 12% push in performance over the previous design, besides still being on 40nm Cayman is a top down design, it's not slightly tweaking the same architecture and i personally expected a lot more, to me the 6900's were a step back instead of a solid leap forward for AMD in the GPU realm.


My sentiments exactly though I think the HD 6900 series disappoint only individuals that bought into ATI’s Evergreen series, and good on them, that was a killer series.
I’ve held onto my HD 4870 512MB for about 2 years now and when the HD 5870 was released, I just picked up another HD 4870 and Crossfire them to keep up in performance. So for me that never touched Evergreen, I am very satisfied with my new Sapphire Radeon HD 6970 2GB GDDR5 card. I am probably going to do the same thing when the HD 7900's get released, just buy a cheaper HD 6970 for Crossfire or if the price is right I will buy one sooner.

Don’t know what AMD/ATI did for this round of graphics, just looking at the benchmarks, they’ve really fixed the CrossfireX scaling. Performance is so much better. It is that impressive and a lot better than any other generation they’ve released so far IMO.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jan 1, 2011)

*value over performance?*



[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> But will the $1,000 dollar price tag return as well ?
> 
> I don't think the world is quite ready for AMD to go boutique, as AMD has worked hard for 3-4 years now to cultivate an image of value over performance.
> 
> If these are 800-1000 dollars like the original FX's they will fail.




value over performance?   I hope not!  They are the performance FOR a value company I love  their vid cards and while nvidia did a  Mike Tyson in his prime on them  the competition is great for OUR wallets and rigs.  Forces everyone to step their game up!  That 6 core I7 is a monster!  But intel would b a fool to believe they cant be beat... for less.  Amd will go all out with their next (6990?) vid card because the 460/470 were sleepers and the 5 series aint no joke.  Amd vid cards and the boutique builders use to go hand and hand now its all Nvidia.  The battle has begun!


----------



## cdawall (Jan 1, 2011)

Well first off this isn't a video card debate or a amd's current cpus don't handle intel's who cares? A new platform is on its way and they are bringing back fx chips which back in the day handed intels ee p4s and pds there ass on a platter  maybe amd is onto something maybe they aren't all I can say is I can't wait to see the next fx series chip.


----------



## Fourstaff (Jan 1, 2011)

aaaaaannd, we are fighting again 

Personally, I think more competition in the top end chips will filter down to the middle and bottom, but if AMD takes the clear lead, then we will have stupidly expensive AMD chips again


----------



## AddSub (Jan 1, 2011)

Hopefully, it will at least be able to match i7 platform 80% clock-for-clock, albeit *three years* after i7 hit the street. I don't think AMD has the resources and the cash to pull a C2D/C2Q type of technological innovation like Intel did back in 2006. This upcoming architecture will still have it's roots in the K8 architecture which is almost a decade old at this point. They need to undertake a Manhattan project type of thing if they really want to surpass i7 and whatever Intel has coming to replace it, not just match it, barely, years after the fact.


----------



## OneCool (Jan 1, 2011)

I think alot of the people here miss a big point that AMD dont care what nvidia does.

When they say something is going to be faster than some other video card their almost always referring to THEIR previous generation card not the competition.


----------



## (FIH) The Don (Jan 1, 2011)

as if amd even can make a cpu that IS as fast as the 980x

i almost fell of the chair laughing

i mean come on, goals are nice to have, but unrealistic ones? geez

so the 8core will be as good as what? a 980x? i doubt it, 920/50 yes, but again, those chips are OVER!!!! 2 yrs old , AMD really need to do something insanely extreme to make a 2 yrs+ jump in time to keep up.

stay with what you do now AMD, and let Intel do the madness with 1000$ consumer chips,

and yes, bash me if you want, but its the truth


----------



## cdawall (Jan 1, 2011)

(FIH) The Don said:


> as if amd even can make a cpu that IS as fast as the 980x
> 
> i almost fell of the chair laughing
> 
> ...



You know its great that its not like amd ever did it before and intel took two years to produce a chip faster than amd. Oh wait k8 vs netburst damn well its a good thing intels fab is so much better. Oh wait intel admitted they couldn't do what amd did with phenom on 65nm.



AddSub said:


> Hopefully, it will at least be able to match i7 platform 80% clock-for-clock, albeit *three years* after i7 hit the street. I don't think AMD has the resources and the cash to pull a C2D/C2Q type of technological innovation like Intel did back in 2006. This upcoming architecture will still have it's roots in the K8 architecture which is almost a decade old at this point. They need to undertake a Manhattan project type of thing if they really want to surpass i7 and whatever Intel has coming to replace it, not just match it, barely, years after the fact.



And i7 founds its roots with p3 and p4m's that innovation was done a long time ago unless my memory is fading p3 is older than k8


----------



## GSquadron (Jan 1, 2011)

Maybe we should open a thread to support AMD FX


----------



## cdawall (Jan 1, 2011)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> Maybe we should open a thread to support AMD FX



why cause this thread is titled bash AMD because intels better right?

*"AMD FX Making a Comeback, to Challenge Intel Core i7 Extreme Edition"*


----------



## A Cheese Danish (Jan 1, 2011)

Looks like it will be a good year after all


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 1, 2011)

cdawall said:


> why cause this thread is titled bash AMD because intels better right?
> 
> *"AMD FX Making a Comeback, to Challenge Intel Core i7 Extreme Edition"*



Fact of the matter is that Intel IS better than AMD, performance-wise. I don't caer about cost, power consumption, etc...just real performance. I wish INtel's chips were cheaper, and AMD faster, but I'm not one to deny the obvious.


But at the same time...I've spent extensive time with both. The actual performance difference in daily tasks is near zero.


Now, because this news comes so late, and SandbyBridge boards and cpus are floating around, this clearly indicates to me that AMD thinks it can compete with Intel in the high-end segment.

But...is it the 2600K they are fighting? Or the 980X?

Also, donanim haber lists no source, and the details are vague(Turkish site, BTW). So while I think that this may indicate Bulldozer is really good, I cannot say for sure without any real sources for the story...as far as I am concerned, this isn't even news, because there is NO SOURCE!!!



Just keep in mind the 69--series hype, and the letdown there. Don't fall victim to misplaced hype again.


Now, if AND wants to send me some parts, and prove otherwise...My testbench is waiting. Would be nice to have a couple of newer platforms to play with from either side....

C'mon, JF-AMD. Hook a brotha up.  I'm only waiting for you, now...


----------



## cdawall (Jan 1, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Fact of the matter is that Intel IS better than AMD, performance-wise. I don't caer about cost, power consumption, etc...just real performance. I wish INtel's chips were cheaper, and AMD faster, but I'm not one to deny the obvious.
> 
> 
> But at the same time...I've spent extensive time with both. The actual performance difference in daily tasks is near zero.
> ...



i'm not saying intel isn't better i am saying this isn't an intel vs AMD thread its a AMD is releasing a new product thread personally i think every on of the oh well amd suck go intel posts is thread crapping/trolling and the posters should be warned as such.


----------



## Neo4 (Jan 1, 2011)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> Maybe we should open a thread to support AMD FX



Count me in on that.


----------



## wolf (Jan 1, 2011)

fantastic to see the legendary FX chips making a comeback!

I remember being so jealous of my my friends FX-51 back in the day 

good to know too, because it seemed AMD only released them when they kicked ass. so I have high hopes for a new FX enthusiast chip!

Black Editions are awesome and all, but a BE FX would but off the hook


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 1, 2011)

wolf said:


> good to know too, because it seemed amd only released them when they kicked ass. So i have high hopes for a new fx enthusiast chip!



+1


----------



## Baam (Jan 1, 2011)

wolf said:


> fantastic to see the legendary FX chips making a comeback!
> 
> I remember being so jealous of my my friends FX-51 back in the day
> 
> ...



True, and they had a codename indicating it would kick ass like sledgehammer. I just hope Bulldozer can at least match Intel or come close in performance. Doubt it will roll over Intel like sledgehammer did.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 1, 2011)

Back in the Athlon 64 days the FX chips were WAY out of my price range, so im hoping this time they come in at a reasonable price for reasonable performance, otherwise them bringing the FX name back has little significance to me.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 1, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> Back in the Athlon 64 days the FX chips were WAY out of my price range, so im hoping this time they come in at a reasonable price for reasonable performance, otherwise them bringing the FX name back has little significance to me.



I want the price but I don't want just reasonable performance I want these chips to do what the old ones did and whipe the floor with intels ee chips


----------



## wolf (Jan 1, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> Back in the Athlon 64 days the FX chips were WAY out of my price range, so im hoping this time they come in at a reasonable price for reasonable performance, otherwise them bringing the FX name back has little significance to me.



+1 to that, I love how reasonable AMD prices are at the moment, Hec I just dropped only ~200 Euro on a 3.2ghz 6 core CPU with an unlocked multiplier, value is selling them a lot of chips. but if it does beat out Intels top of the chop, it will be priced accordingly...


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 1, 2011)

wolf said:


> I love how reasonable AMD prices are at the moment, Hec I just dropped only ~200 Euro on a 3.2ghz 6 core CPU with an unlocked multiplier, value is selling them a lot of chips.



Price/performance will be 6 core and 4 core models:
"AMD is seeking to target all market segments, including an enthusiast-grade 8-core segment, a performance 6-core segment, and a mainstream 4-core segment."

So if I can't afford 8 core, then 6 core will still be a kick ass upgrade.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jan 1, 2011)

It reminds me of the old "good" days... Yo Ho Ho And A Bottle Of LN2 - Fifteen men on a dead man's chest 

I just wonder, these will be just  re-branded Opterons again?


----------



## (FIH) The Don (Jan 1, 2011)

they even wrote Arnolds line wrong:shadedshu


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jan 1, 2011)

cpu wise we will all see what happens in the coming months for those bitching about 6900 series it depends what platform your on  AMD cpu 6900 series is faster with the same CPU same ram same clock speeds then a gtx 580 on intel its reversed and its a big gap. Eitherway dosent really matter people really just need to learn to shut the fuck up and buy what they want complain which is better dosent really mean jack you get what you can afford and live with it.


----------



## (FIH) The Don (Jan 1, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> Eitherway dosent really matter people really just need to learn to shut the fuck up and buy what they want complain which is better dosent really mean jack *you get what you can afford and live with it.*



Bra-fucking-vo!


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jan 1, 2011)

why thank you i do try and aim to please in a mocking and derogatory manner that and im hungover so glad someone saw the point i was sorta trying to make.


----------



## Makaveli (Jan 1, 2011)

qubit said:


> That's what I and lots of others understood from the prelaunch hype. Just check out the comments after W1zz's review and you'll see what I mean. Disappointing as hell.
> 
> Can you imagine how things would be if the performance would have leapfrogged the GTX 580? Performance leapfrogging is what _should_ happen, not almost as good as the competition's previous generation.
> 
> Without leapfrogging, graphics advancements are happening at a glacial pace and prices stay high. All this is bad for us, the knowledgeable customers.



I think alot of you guys set yourself up for disappointment. 

I never saw anything official from AMD saying they were making a NV killer with a product refresh. 

Then you had alot of people just running their mouths off with specs etc yet again nothing official from AMD. This same nonsense happens at every GPU release and people get caught up in the hype drama.

AMD's current vision of not making monster single gpu's and going with dual at the highend works fine for them.

If these cards are such a disappointment why are people buying them?


----------



## Mussels (Jan 2, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Fact of the matter is that Intel IS better than AMD, performance-wise.



then you'll be glad to know that AMD can in fact be faster than intel, if you stop looking at such a narrow subset.

look here:


being slower clock vs clock doesnt tell the whole story when they have two more cores. the FX line they mention is going to improve the IPC, and if they maintain the advantage of having more cores then thats going to make quite an impact.


----------



## SeanG (Jan 2, 2011)

Remember,Amd was first to hit the 1000 mhz mark.I bet that there the first to hit 4000 mhz at stock speeds too.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 2, 2011)

Mussels said:


> then you'll be glad to know that AMD can in fact be faster than intel, if you stop looking at such a narrow subset.
> 
> look here:
> 
> ...



It's really only in those certain pieces of software that the Phenom II X6 CPU's excel past the i7's, largely the i7's have the upper hand in the majority of software. It definitely is a misconception that the AMD 6 cores just can't compete, because they can, just not on the scale Intel has currently laid out overall. No doubt you'll see the chips trade blows, but ultimately one lineup is overall better in the performance category of things, and right now it's still in Intel's favor.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 2, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> It's really only in those certain pieces of software that the Phenom II X6 CPU's excel past the i7's, largely the i7's have the upper hand in the majority of software. It definitely is a misconception that the AMD 6 cores just can't compete, because they can, just not on the scale Intel has currently laid out overall. No doubt you'll see the chips trade blows, but ultimately one lineup is overall better in the performance category of things, and right now it's still in Intel's favor.



yes and im not arguing that they dominate anything, or that they are a clear winner - but the i7 doesnt exactly win in every category all the time.

these new CPU's are meant to improve the CPU speed per clock cycle, and if they do a new challenger will have appeared.


it just annoys me when i see people scream 'i7 is faster!' when its certainly not as simple as that. in the encoding i do (handbrake/H264) the AMD 6 cores have quite an advantage over the i7's


----------



## suraswami (Jan 2, 2011)

All being said about FX line, I hope the big 3 board manufacturers keep up or give the best quality boards to compliment the chip, I mean they better build the boards from ground up, not a patch work and make the chip look bad.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jan 2, 2011)

zubasa said:


> he said amdx6 is ahead *in some areas*, read?
> 
> 
> Making a comment does not make it a fact.



qq?



suraswami said:


> not a patch work and make the chip look bad.



You mean like all the normal AMD chipsets?


----------



## suraswami (Jan 2, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> You mean like all the normal AMD chipsets?



What I meant was use quality high end circuit and design like I see on most I7 platforms.  Doesn't matter if the board is based on AMD or NV chipset.


----------



## wolf (Jan 2, 2011)

speed per clock cycle is IMO what they really need to work on, they've shown they can readily make multi core CPU's like 6 for example, but when a single core @ 3.2ghz competes with intel's @ 2.66-2.8, theres a lot to improve on there.

hec if they can get per core up to Intel's i5/i7 speed or better, and slam down cheap quads, affordable hexa's and high end octo's, that will be fan-freakin-tastic.


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 2, 2011)

I thought most of the FX models were ones that thrashed Intel parts back in the day when AMD was kicking some major ass, i would hope the fact that AMD wants to bring back the FX line would suggest to me they have a fair bit of faith in what the new bulldozer cores will be able to do.



wolf said:


> speed per clock cycle is IMO what they really need to work on, they've shown they can readily make multi core CPU's like 6 for example, but when a single core @ 3.2ghz competes with intel's @ 2.66-2.8, theres a lot to improve on there.
> 
> hec if they can get per core up to Intel's i5/i7 speed or better, and slam down cheap quads, affordable hexa's and high end octo's, that will be fan-freakin-tastic.



I agree.

To be honest i would like bulldozer to pass the current i7's as far as IPC goes for them to keep my business for my gaming rig, the main reason i have stayed with AMD so long is because i have been able to keep a combo of CPU, RAM and motherboard for years on end and just grab a single component at a time and my coming upgrade i will be replacing motherboard, CPU and RAM at the same time so Intel and AMD both have a chance at getting my money this year.

I'm probably asking for a lot but really i want bulldozer to beat the i7's clock for clock and preferably be close to sandy bridge, have a good amount of overclocking ability while not costing too much for the 8 core models.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 2, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Those prices were yesteryear. I don't see that happening anymore, that would be a kick in the nuts for AMD. I can see approx: $600 max for a super fast Bulldozer based FX CPU but that is about it. Not even Graphics cards should cost that much money. Technology just moves way too fast. You buy something today and tomorrow it's old...


 Apparently Intel did not get your memo....







Don't fool yourself. AMD has been price over performance because it HAD TO. What the F#$K would you have expected them to do? Price a 1090T the same as a 980X and expect them to sell with sub-par performance comparatively speaking?

They are bringing back the FX because they think they can. They also know they can charge for the FX name.


----------



## Cheeseball (Jan 2, 2011)

The FX-models are going to be top of the line, just like it was 3 to 4 years ago. I would not be surprised if they're priced the same as the Intel 980X (around $950-$1000), especially if they're similar in performance.


----------



## GSquadron (Jan 2, 2011)

+1 
I think the prices would be around 1000$, but the most important thing is that we will see performance jumps from both camps. I have heard that GPU companies needed to fulfill their products in base of the cpus, meaning that if there is not enough cpu power, there can't be any new jumps in gpus. Also the fight for the king of cpu, will make big jumps in gpu technology!


----------



## Frick (Jan 2, 2011)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> +1
> I think the prices would be around 1000$, but the most important thing is that we will see performance jumps from both camps. I have heard that GPU companies needed to fulfill their products in base of the cpus, meaning that if there is not enough cpu power, there can't be any new jumps in gpus. Also the fight for the king of cpu, will make big jumps in gpu technology!



This maybe was true some years ago, but with stuff like CUDA its not.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 2, 2011)

suraswami said:


> What I meant was use quality high end circuit and design like I see on most I7 platforms.  Doesn't matter if the board is based on AMD or NV chipset.



No idea if this fits what your saying but the best designed and most reiliant board I have had for overclocking was an old 780a crosshair ii and it still blew phases with a quad frozen to it.


----------



## suraswami (Jan 2, 2011)

cdawall said:


> No idea if this fits what your saying but the best designed and most reiliant board I have had for overclocking was an old 780a crosshair ii and it still blew phases with a quad frozen to it.



Nothing can withstand your level of torture, companies will pray not to get a RMA request from you lol 

May be you should try a high end I7 based board and chip and see how soon you make the board fart or poop


----------



## cdawall (Jan 2, 2011)

suraswami said:


> Nothing can withstand your level of torture, companies will pray not to get a RMA request from you lol
> 
> May be you should try a high end I7 based board and chip and see how soon you make the board fart or poop



ask freaksavior not long


----------



## wolf (Jan 2, 2011)

bear jesus said:


> I'm probably asking for a lot but really i want bulldozer to beat the i7's clock for clock and preferably be close to sandy bridge, have a good amount of overclocking ability while not costing too much for the 8 core models.



I dare say this is a lot to ask for, but hope springs eternal.


----------



## Dave65 (Jan 2, 2011)

If this is true it is good news for everyone,competition is awesome


----------



## MicroUnC (Jan 2, 2011)

What is the point buying the same priced CPU's? I mean what is it 4 u guys? Only if FX will smoke the intel's extremes at least by 1% or more for lets say: $100 less! Than u can call is a win.


----------



## sethk (Jan 2, 2011)

I wonder if these are 8 full cores or the 4 x dual shared cores that most of the hardware sites implied after Hot Chips 2010 (i.e. 2 int schedulers, one fp scheduler, 2 full int pipelines, 1 full FP pipeline, shared fetch and decode stages for each 'dual core' block. This could end up in performance that somewhere between 2 full cores and 1 hyper threaded i7 core, depending on the application.

Link

Even so, a high-end 4/8 core could be competitive with a 980x if the IPC is high enough and clock speeds are competitive. Here's hoping...


----------



## GSquadron (Jan 2, 2011)

I must mention that 6-cores against 8-cores is not the same, so if amd wants to claim the winner with 8 cores that would be a big lie! As if 6 workers against 8 workers, but you must pay them all equally. The 6 core would be more power efficient.


----------



## Frick (Jan 2, 2011)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> I must mention that 6-cores against 8-cores is not the same, so if amd wants to claim the winner with 8 cores that would be a big lie! As if 6 workers against 8 workers, but you must pay them all equally. The 6 core would be more power efficient.



That is only true if the 8-core actually uses more way more power than the 6 core. Or any number or cores. But I doubt it will. I don't know anything about Bulldozer power draw (have there been any info on that? I'm completely lost in new tech), but I assume it will be pretty power effecient. IF it's less effecient than Intels 6 cores it's pretty failish imo. I can live with more power, but if it's too bad I mean.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 2, 2011)

Mussels said:


> then you'll be glad to know that AMD can in fact be faster than intel, if you stop looking at such a narrow subset.
> 
> look here:
> 
> ...



I can never speak for every situation. I use my PC for games, primarily, and as such, with multiple gpus, Intel is much faster for me and my uses.

Of course it's a narrow subset...I ran my AMD with 1600mhz CAS6, and Intel with i5 760 and i7 870, with the exact same memory in 4x2gb, I run @ CAS 7 at 2000mhz. I recently got a kit @ 2400mhz on Intel, if you check peet's memory thread.

That's 800mhz of memory speed Intel gives me. Those tests were done with equal memory speed, but for me, they are NOT equal in that department.

And with that said, you are also looking within a narrow context.

I never said AMD was bad...overall, they are cheaper to build, for me. But I don't care about cost...performance is number one...

To me.

Lots of "me" in there. I can only speak for myself here, not overall.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jan 3, 2011)

Man I stayed quiet because I knew a post like this would bring the claws out.

Good show people, good show.


----------



## R_1 (Jan 3, 2011)

Yep, ATI managed to kick Nvidia's, arse when these green goblins were sitting on 10 billion $ cash. Can AMD push Bulldozer so hard in CPU world?


----------



## Athlonite (Jan 3, 2011)

It would be nice to Assume AMD could pull the proverbial rabbit out of the hat but to assume just makes an ASS out of U and ME so we'll be waiting for reviews before making up my mind on which way to go in the next great Upgrade


----------



## Dave65 (Jan 3, 2011)

Athlonite said:


> It would be nice to Assume AMD could pull the proverbial rabbit out of the hat but to assume just makes an ASS out of U and ME so we'll be waiting for reviews before making up my mind on which way to go in the next great Upgrade



Yeah people tend to jump the gun when you have false reviews out 4 months before the product is released that shows a 1000% improvement over the competition only to find out its just meant for the bargain type shopper..AMD is known for that..


----------



## cdawall (Jan 3, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I can never speak for every situation. I use my PC for games, primarily, and as such, with multiple gpus, Intel is much faster for me and my uses.
> 
> Of course it's a narrow subset...I ran my AMD with 1600mhz CAS6, and Intel with i5 760 and i7 870, with the exact same memory in 4x2gb, I run @ CAS 7 at 2000mhz. I recently got a kit @ 2400mhz on Intel, if you check peet's memory thread.
> 
> ...


With a good kit I can get the same performance on am3 as 1156 it depends on the ics and clocker memory is not equal on diff platforms. Cas6 2000 and cas 8 2400 won't be much if any different and 890 series chipsets can push 2000 and higher for amd.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 3, 2011)

All I have to say about this press release is: I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jan 3, 2011)

Dave65 said:


> Yeah people tend to jump the gun when you have false reviews out 4 months before the product is released that shows a 1000% improvement over the competition only to find out its just meant for the bargain type shopper..AMD is known for that..



*Whistle blow*  Fanboy Foul.  Spouting unprovable non-sense to make a point about nothing that has been discussed.

First, a product preview is not a review, nor does AMD ever market it as such.  They have never boasted a 10 fold improve....hell I don't think any technology in history have even come close to that in a one generation jump.

So far AMD, to my knowledge has not directly compared Bully to Sandy, but I could be wrong about that.  What they have promised is significant improvement across the board when compared to their current gen. CPU's.  They have practically bragged about the Fusion system and where they plan to push the market.  

This FX returns is the first time AMD has said anything about going after the performance section of chips.  I am glad to hear (even if they fail) that the new chips have shown them enough potential in lab testing to justify the return of FX and direct competition with Sandybridge's top end.  Since Sandy has shown to be, from what I gather, only a marginal improvement over the current chips, AMD may not be just hoping for the best outcome here.  They maybe hold something back that has not been released to the public.  Either way, 2011 is going to be a good show.


----------



## BorgOvermind (Jan 3, 2011)

OneCool said:


> I wonder if the saying is copyrighted because thats not how you say it?


No, it's not copyrighted.


----------



## Super XP (Jan 3, 2011)

Mussels said:


> yes and im not arguing that they dominate anything, or that they are a clear winner - but the i7 doesnt exactly win in every category all the time.
> 
> these new CPU's are meant to improve the CPU speed per clock cycle, and if they do a new challenger will have appeared.
> 
> ...


Though I agree with you, truthfully it all has to do with spanking new CPU architecture completely built from the grounds of hell. I too have seen many times AMD’s Phenom II x4 & X6 compete with Intel’s Nehalem in games very well though other apps not so. The 2 extra cores do indeed make a plethora of difference though.

It's been clearly identified that AMD’s last CEO which stepped down took the company on a rollercoaster ride into the ditch. Hence AMD's been greatly struggling ever since, i.e.: we have an unsuccessful Barcelona etc.... This is where AMD’s current CEO (Dam Smart I may add) that’s pushing the new Bulldozer Architecture and helped make Phenom II what it is today just to buy AMD some time until Bulldozer gets released.

If my sources are correct, we are going to witness with Bulldozer, another Hammer Core style release but this time with more computing power that should bring AMD equal or better in Clock for Clock with Intel’s latest and greatest.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 3, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Though I agree with you, truthfully it all has to do with spanking new CPU architecture completely built from the grounds of hell. I too have seen many times AMD’s Phenom II x4 & X6 compete with Intel’s Nehalem in games very well though other apps not so. The 2 extra cores do indeed make a plethora of difference though.
> 
> It's been clearly identified that AMD’s last CEO which stepped down took the company on a rollercoaster ride into the ditch. Hence AMD's been greatly struggling ever since, i.e.: we have an unsuccessful Barcelona etc.... This is where AMD’s current CEO (Dam Smart I may add) that’s pushing the new Bulldozer Architecture and helped make Phenom II what it is today just to buy AMD some time until Bulldozer gets released.
> 
> If my sources are correct, we are going to witness with Bulldozer, another Hammer Core style release but this time with more computing power that should bring AMD equal or better in Clock for Clock with Intel’s latest and greatest.





even if they only match the i7's out today (and not what comes next) AMD will have a clear winner if they can deliver that performance at a lower price, or with more physical cores.


----------



## Athlonite (Jan 3, 2011)

hmmm it will be interesting to see what sort of pricing they'll have for them I could do with a new quad


----------



## Mussels (Jan 3, 2011)

Athlonite said:


> hmmm it will be interesting to see what sort of pricing they'll have for them I could do with a new quad



quad? why aim so low! go for hexa or octa!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 3, 2011)

Mussels said:


> quad? why aim so low! go for hexa or octa!



I agree. Once you go 6 you can't go back.


----------



## Super XP (Jan 3, 2011)

Mussels said:


> even if they only match the i7's out today (and not what comes next) AMD will have a clear winner if they can deliver that performance at a lower price, or with more physical cores.


Agreed. Though I believe the Bulldozer design is meant to compete with Intel's next gen after the Nehalem. But yes if that was the case it would be a clear winner for both AMD and us gamers.


----------



## theubersmurf (Jan 3, 2011)

Mussels said:


> quad? why aim so low! go for hexa or octa!


I'm sort of expecting 8-12. I can't recall exactly where I read it, but an article saying that in the server market, 12 cores (as opposed to eight) dominated AMD's sales. The idea that they'd trickle down to the desktop space seems appropriate.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 3, 2011)

cdawall said:


> With a good kit I can get the same performance on am3 as 1156 it depends on the ics and clocker memory is not equal on diff platforms. Cas6 2000 and cas 8 2400 won't be much if any different and 890 series chipsets can push 2000 and higher for amd.



That's nice, but doesn't reflect my own experience. 

This graph is AMD @ 2000. Just pay attention to the last line.SOURCE






This is my own system, same timings:





There's a big difference in performance there. WELL OVER 5000MB per sec, to be exact, and basically 33% FASTER. I hope the new AMD chips make up this deficit.


----------



## Cratzky (Jan 3, 2011)

Im not surprised..... AMD Black Vision FX Ultra Extreme 1337 PwNSauce WTF"XXX"ZOMG FTW Edition X will always attract some kids 

Soon they will release something with the name Cryptonite and paint it green instead of the current Vision Black.


----------



## Super XP (Jan 3, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> That's nice, but doesn't reflect my own experience.
> 
> This graph is AMD @ 2000. Just pay attention to the last line.SOURCE
> http://forums.techpowerup.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=39958&stc=1&d=1294069272
> ...


That test was completed with a freshly assembled AMD system. I too am hoping AMD's new improved Quad-Channel DDR3-1866 Integrated Memory Controller inside Bulldozer based CPU's will blow away what they have today.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jan 3, 2011)

its not fucking quad channel god damn it ppl need to read shit and pay attention JF-AMD on this very forum already stated its DUAL CHANNEL for desktop bulldozer cpus and that bandwidth wise it should be comparible to i7s TRIPLE CHANNEL  you will notice the lack of QUAD mentioned anywhere in this post 

thank you and good night


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 3, 2011)

Super XP said:


> That test was completed with a freshly assembled AMD system. I too am hoping AMD's new improved Quad-Channel DDR3-1866 Integrated Memory Controller inside Bulldozer based CPU's will blow away what they have today.



I guarantee you it's not Quad Channel...


----------



## cdawall (Jan 3, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> That's nice, but doesn't reflect my own experience.
> 
> This graph is AMD @ 2000. Just pay attention to the last line.SOURCE
> http://forums.techpowerup.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=39958&stc=1&d=1294069272
> ...



When they retest with the nb @3200+ ill take your random review with more than a grain of salt.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 3, 2011)

cdawall said:


> When they retest with the nb @3200+ ill take your random review with more than a grain of salt.



Sure, that's your choice. even with NB @ 3000-3200, the deficit is only lessened by another 2000MB/sec. You can run those tests yourself, as I already have.

I can only relate my own expereince...but because it's experience, I can back it up, too.

I mean, I only point this out, becuase for me, this is one of the major points that AMD must overcome with thier new products. It's not a terrible thing..it's not gonna mke AMD parts obsolete...but it does need to be addressed.


----------



## Super XP (Jan 3, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> I guarantee you it's not Quad Channel...


I thought it was 2 x Dual-Channel IMC's to feed the Octa-Core's and behond? Something like gang and un-ganding them. Anyway, I am a little late in the game in terms of Bulldozers memory structure, thanks for the guarantee though


----------



## cdawall (Jan 3, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Sure, that's your choice. even with NB @ 3000-3200, the deficit is only lessened by another 2000MB/sec. You can run those tests yourself, as I already have.
> 
> I can only relate my own expereince...but because it's experience, I can back it up, too.
> 
> I mean, I only point this out, becuase for me, this is one of the major points that AMD must overcome with thier new products. It's not a terrible thing..it's not gonna mke AMD parts obsolete...but it does need to be addressed.



Depends how you look at it somehow mad got miniscule improvements going from 1600 6-9-6 to 2000 6-9-6 sounds like some kind of bottleneck to me...also boards have bios updates to very immature there will be vast imrpovements just like when the sb750s came out. Heck in asus's own lineup the 890gx and 890fx perform 2000mb/s different with the same ram and cpus. I also have a fair bit of experience with this whole overclocking thing and can tell you from experience 400mhz (20% faster) doesn't go poof without a reason. Oh and youe pic shows the amd 1600mhz results while you boast 2000mhz results so fair test to start thanks.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 3, 2011)

Super XP said:


> I thought it was 2 x Dual-Channel IMC's to feed the Octa-Core's and behond? Something like gang and un-ganding them. Anyway, I am a little late in the game in terms of Bulldozers memory structure, thanks for the guarantee though



JF-AMD said something about it already a while ago i believe. But really, since he's only in tune mainly with the server side of things at AMD, it's always good to remain skeptical.


----------



## kirtar (Jan 3, 2011)

IIRC it's quad channel on the G34 and maybe C32 *server* motherboards, but dual channel on consumer motherboards.  Also, I believe consumer processors will go 4-8 cores but server should have 8, 12, and 16 cores models available


----------



## cdawall (Jan 3, 2011)

kirtar said:


> IIRC it's quad channel on the G34 and maybe C32 *server* motherboards, but dual channel on consumer motherboards.  Also, I believe consumer processors will go 4-8 cores but server should have 8, 12, and 16 cores models available


you are correct at least according to the AMD slides


----------



## kirtar (Jan 4, 2011)

*hopes that there's an 8-core in his price range*
For some reason I doubt it, but it's possible


----------



## Athlonite (Jan 4, 2011)

I could prolly go hexa but i dont think the Asus M3a32mvp-deluxe will handle a octo core cpu


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 4, 2011)

Athlonite said:


> I could prolly go hexa but i dont think the Asus M3a32mvp-deluxe will handle a octo core cpu



I'm pretty sure it supports the current 6 core phenoms but as far as i knew there would be no support for the AM3+ phenoms (bulldozer cores) on AM2+ boards.

At least i hope not as i need a good excuse to stop using my m3a32-mvp deluxe as it's already been through 3 CPU's, 2 sets of ram and 3 GPU's and i don't want to keep using it anymore


----------



## Athlonite (Jan 4, 2011)

meh it's still a good board but if needs must then a new mobo ram and cpu it will be and your right it does support the PII x6 core cpus from amd via the 2202 bios update


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 4, 2011)

Athlonite said:


> meh it's still a good board but if needs must then a new mobo ram and cpu it will be



Don't get me wrong i love this board and it has served me well for years even with loads of over volting and abuse all around while allowing me to upgrade everything but the board, now i want to move on to DDR3 and either something from sandy bridge or bulldozer thus why it's no longer going to be part of my gaming rig but as it's still running rock solid it may end up as part of a NAS/media streaming pc.

If i was less of an upgrade whore i would happily keep it around but even with the many upgrades this board has received this year will be the year it gets replaced and hopefully with another board that will keep me happy with upgrades for a couple years again.



Athlonite said:


> it does support the PII x6 core cpus from amd via the 2202 bios update



I had considered putting one of the 6 core phenoms in it but with sandy bridge and bulldozer relatively close for me it's not worth it, yet if i intended to keep this board for a year or more then i would defiantly get one in it and love it I'm sure.


----------



## Athlonite (Jan 4, 2011)

I'd say use it as an home server with WHS 

yes it is a great board handles lots of V everywhere without packin a wobly 

but finding a mobo with the same sort of potential is hard many's a time I've looked at AM3 mobo's and think that's worse than the mobo I have or damn that cost an arm n leg retailers here love to jack prices up


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 4, 2011)

cdawall said:


> Depends how you look at it somehow mad got miniscule improvements going from 1600 6-9-6 to 2000 6-9-6 sounds like some kind of bottleneck to me...also boards have bios updates to very immature there will be vast imrpovements just like when the sb750s came out. Heck in asus's own lineup the 890gx and 890fx perform 2000mb/s different with the same ram and cpus. I also have a fair bit of experience with this whole overclocking thing and can tell you from experience 400mhz (20% faster) doesn't go poof without a reason. Oh and youe pic shows the amd 1600mhz results while you boast 2000mhz results so fair test to start thanks.



I don't care about the cause behind performance deficits. it very simply is a deficit, and no explanation will make the performance different go away. I know very simply that a large part of the difference in bios perforamcne is either AGESA code changes, or subtimings. But neither is going to fix the performance gap.

And yes, I did link NOT the wrong graph. the fact of the matter is that I could NOT get the same speeds on AMD as I do on Intel, with the exact same sticks. But the link is there with 2000mhz numbers, anyway.

Anyway, the important part if that if the new FX parts are to compete with Intel's Extreme line(and notice, not the "K" line of unlocked cpus), memory performance, for me, must be equal or better.

You don't have to defend AMD on this...thier memory control sucks. If you want exacty compares, toss up some 1600mhz CAS 6 numbers, and I'll do the same, and we will see what the actual difference is, if you like. I mean, I could toss up my own screenshots...I do ahve many. but I'd rather post info from outside sources.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 4, 2011)

just because the intel has more MB/s in memory speed doesnt mean its faster for most applications, however.


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 4, 2011)

I thought memory bandwidth was only a limit when an application needed more than is available, am i wrong to think this?


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 4, 2011)

Mussels said:


> just because the intel has more MB/s in memory speed doesnt mean its faster for most applications, however.


Yes, of course.

Multi-gpu rendering requires more system memory bandwidth, and hence Intel out-performing AMD with Crossfire.

I very specifically need it. So that thier CPUs can support thier GPUs like the competition does. Agasin, these are my own needs..not the needs of everyone.

cdawall is the only one trying to tell me that AMD is sufficient to meet my needs, when it's not.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jan 4, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I don't care about the cause behind performance deficits. it very simply is a deficit, and no explanation will make the performance different go away. I know very simply that a large part of the difference in bios perforamcne is either AGESA code changes, or subtimings. But neither is going to fix the performance gap.
> 
> And yes, I did link NOT the wrong graph. the fact of the matter is that I could NOT get the same speeds on AMD as I do on Intel, with the exact same sticks. But the link is there with 2000mhz numbers, anyway.
> 
> ...





cadaveca said:


> Yes, of course.
> 
> Multi-gpu rendering requires more system memory bandwidth, and hence Intel out-performing AMD with Crossfire.
> 
> ...



Dave....take your medicine.  You are foaming at the mouth and your typing is becoming erratic.  Let the children play.

New memory control will be better, but actual performance is yet to be seen as the only released info compares their 1866 dual Channel to an i7 Triple channel at 1066.  That was a BS comparison.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 4, 2011)

Yeah, that has me a bit hesitant.


----------



## xtremesv (Jan 4, 2011)

toyo said:


> I expect another HD6900 vs GTX 580 type of failure. By the time Bulldozer will be on the market, Intel will be riding on Sandy's back.
> I hope I'm wrong though.



I don't get it!

When GTX480/470 was out, people didn't say it was a failure, just that Nvidia needed time to perfect the design and they were right. But now, HD6900 is out and everyone, including AMD users, says it's a failure, I don't see how this can be fair. HD6900 design is not flawed by any means, this time though, AMD was taken by surprise and wasn't ambitious enough.

AMD doesn't need to be the king of the hill to be competitive, what matters the most is to deliver sufficient and efficient performance for less, AMD has always competed in pricing (of course there are exceptions). I don't care if Bulldozer can match a $1000 i7 980X but, let's say, it can give 75% of its performance for $600, then we have a winner.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 4, 2011)

xtremesv said:


> I don't get it!
> 
> When GTX480/470 was out, people didn't say it was a failure, just that Nvidia needed time to perfect the design and they were right. But now, HD6900 is out and everyone, including AMD users, says it's a failure, I don't see how this can be fair. HD6900 design is not flawed by any means, this time though, AMD was taken by surprise and wasn't ambitious enough..



You've got to be kidding me, not only did people say the GTX 400 series was a failure at launch, but the ridicule has still continued since then. Hell on this site alone you will find a crap load of bashing in the eyes of Fermi.

The 6900's were not a failure imo, they just ended up performing under what the majority expected. The cards design and functionality are perfectly fine unlike the issues with Fermi, it's just that they failed to deliver on most peoples expectations, hence making it a failure to most.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 4, 2011)

Mussels said:


> just because the intel has more MB/s in memory speed doesnt mean its faster for most applications, however.



Heck aid64 is the end all of memory performance did you forget?


----------



## Super XP (Jan 4, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> You've got to be kidding me, not only did people say the GTX 400 series was a failure at launch, but the ridicule has still continued since then. Hell on this site alone you will find a crap load of bashing in the eyes of Fermi.
> 
> The 6900's were not a failure imo, they just ended up performing under what the majority expected. The cards design and functionality are perfectly fine unlike the issues with Fermi, it's just that they failed to deliver on most peoples expectations, hence making it a failure to most.


I agree 100%. I am one among many in TechPowerUp that helped make people aware of Fermi's major issues. NVIDIA did indeed fix most of Fermi’s issues to a certain extent, personally I really think NV's CEO shot himself in the foot, if anybody is to blame for Fermi's past and current issues, he's the culprit.

Though I am very glad NVIDIA is still in the game full force with the fastest single GPU card in the industry with AMD holding the crown with its Dual GPU card. I am very happy with my Sapphire Radeon HD 6970’s performance, it obliterates my last setup 2 x HD 4870’s in CrossfireX. That said, I did expect the HD 6970 to be faster, but then again what can we expect with 40nm? AMD definitely did their best in this matter IMO…


----------

