# AMD FX Processor Prices Lower Than Expected



## btarunr (Sep 21, 2011)

Sources among retailers told DonanimHaber that retail prices of AMD's next generation performance desktop processor series, the AMD FX, are a lot lower than expected. On October 12, AMD will launch three new parts worldwide, the eight-core FX-8150, FX-8120, and six-core FX-6120, priced at US $245, $205, and $175, respectively. 





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## seronx (Sep 21, 2011)

The prices they keep going down!


----------



## DrunkenMafia (Sep 21, 2011)

That is always great news, that is also the first "real" date I have heard.    hopefully I can get mine just in time for BF3


----------



## 63jax (Sep 21, 2011)

i just hope the price doesn't reflect the performance, at least in this case...


----------



## dieterd (Sep 21, 2011)

at last some great news for Intel fans - SB price drop in sight!


----------



## Goodman (Sep 21, 2011)

63jax said:


> i just hope the price doesn't reflect the performance, at least in this case...



I think so...


----------



## hellrazor (Sep 21, 2011)

So about 3 weeks beforehand we get a date? That's not even enough time for me to get a job and get paid!

*sigh* Although the prices *are* pretty damn good.


----------



## Volkszorn88 (Sep 21, 2011)

8 cores for 245 USD? I'll take that any day.

Now the question is, do I buy the ASRock 990X Fatal1ty or Asus Crosshair V? ^^


----------



## ivicagmc (Sep 21, 2011)

Just hope that it matches performance of intel 2600K (8core) and 2500K (6core)...


----------



## pantherx12 (Sep 21, 2011)

I get paid around then......


----------



## purefun65 (Sep 21, 2011)

priced to sell. performance is what we all would like to know! I believe in my heart that if power consumption is good as well as this rumored price. It will do well with oems. I look at this as like phenom 1, It can only get get better with revisions and stepping.


----------



## qubit (Sep 21, 2011)

This doesn't bode well for performance does it? Once again, instead of leapfrogging Intel like we should see, they'll be forced to set "value" pricing.


----------



## Frick (Sep 21, 2011)

qubit said:


> This doesn't bode well for performance does it? Once again, instead of leapfrogging Intel like we should see, they'll be forced to set "value" pricing.



I never had the thought that they should or would leapfrog intel in performance.


----------



## KooKKiK (Sep 21, 2011)

Frick said:


> I never had the thought that they should or would leapfrog intel in performance.



remember Athlon 64 outclass Pentium 4 ???


----------



## xenocide (Sep 21, 2011)

Frick said:


> I never had the thought that they should or would leapfrog intel in performance.



If they could they would gain substantial market share.  I'm going to assume the price drops reflect performance, ready myself for the reviews.


----------



## purefun65 (Sep 21, 2011)

dieterd said:


> at last some great news for Intel fans - SB price drop in sight!



not until performance is known or until intel displaces 2600k with the rumored 2700k will we see a price drop on those specific k processors. non k cpu price drop looks likely. Intel will imho  lower those non k to pressure amd. Fx processor are overclock-able and are directly marketed to compete with intel k versions. That is the target demographic. you don't get a intel k version in your standard desktop dell! amd has their llano for joe six pack consumer.


----------



## Fx (Sep 21, 2011)

qubit said:


> This doesn't bode well for performance does it? Once again, instead of leapfrogging Intel like we should see, they'll be forced to set "value" pricing.



nah, it doesnt give us a warm fuzzy that performance will be categorically comparative

however, I will be more than happy to keep supporting AMD with these prices since I have plenty of power to do everything I need from web surfing to gaming with their cpus and gpus


----------



## naoan (Sep 21, 2011)

that 8120 is sweet


----------



## claylomax (Sep 21, 2011)

seronx said:


> The prices they keep going down



As well as the performance it seems ...


----------



## H82LUZ73 (Sep 21, 2011)

Volkszorn88 said:


> 8 cores for 245 USD? I'll take that any day.
> 
> Now the question is, do I buy the ASRock 990X Fatal1ty or Asus Crosshair V? ^^



If your budget allows go the V or if you really want to make that gamer richer and his head swelled more go ASrock.

See  i told you guys this just like Phenom 1 all over again .Maybe now they have a leader they will turn around... have faith ....but little of it....


----------



## purefun65 (Sep 21, 2011)

H82LUZ73 said:


> If your budget allows go the V or if you really want to make that gamer richer and his head swelled more go ASrock.
> 
> See  i told you guys this just like Phenom 1 all over again .Maybe now they have a leader they will turn around... have faith ....but little of it....



I agree. amd has proven they can improve their cpus. This cpu is the first step like phenom1.


----------



## Frizz (Sep 21, 2011)

I hope the performance at least compete with the 2500/2600k I want to see price dropping battles .


----------



## caleb (Sep 21, 2011)

What is onanishaber and what are "sources" ?


----------



## Recus (Sep 21, 2011)

claylomax said:


> As well as the performance it seems ...



It's so true.


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Sep 21, 2011)

Well at least its not that overpriced like Phenom 1 in its first release


----------



## purefun65 (Sep 21, 2011)

Bjorn_Of_Iceland said:


> Well at least its not that overpriced like Phenom 1 in its first release



yes this is correct. amd I believe learned that lesson the hard way. They seem to be sensible as to price. Lets hope that performance is respectable to intel.


----------



## RejZoR (Sep 21, 2011)

KooKKiK said:


> remember Athlon 64 outclass Pentium 4 ???



And AthlonXP (Palomino/Thoroughbred/Barton) and before that Athlon K7 (Thunderbird) wrecking Pentium 3 and 4...


----------



## purefun65 (Sep 21, 2011)

RejZoR said:


> And AthlonXP (Palomino/Thoroughbred/Barton) and before that Athlon K7 (Thunderbird) wrecking Pentium 3 and 4...



proud owner of amd for my gaming rigs until conroe. I could no longer use amd as my gaming rig after conroe. Daily driver or budget builds I use amd. Gaming rig I need my fps.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Sep 21, 2011)

Too little too late. Too cheap to compete with the 2600. We'll have to see how these work against 2400, 2500 in games as in multithreading they might do better. The only strong point I see is that the FX will be unlocked and it seems that they oveclock well. I really feel sorry for all those who waited for the next big thing. Maybe next year.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 21, 2011)

It doesn't matter how you look at it, this is bad for AMD.  This new generation of processors is likely to only be marginally faster than the outgoing generation--despite the higher clockspeeds.  AMD wouldn't be practically giving them away if they were competitive with Intel products.


----------



## purefun65 (Sep 21, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> Too little too late. Too cheap to compete with the 2600. We'll have to see how these work against 2400, 2500 in games as in multithreading they might do better. The only strong point I see is that the FX will be unlocked and it seems that they oveclock well. I really feel sorry for all those who waited for the next big thing. Maybe next year.



we wont know that until benchmarks. I believe it wont do well in games until the processor matures. We might be surprised. Leaked benches real or fake are disheartening! I am a gamer and I need moar power in fps games.


----------



## purefun65 (Sep 21, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It doesn't matter how you look at it, this is bad for AMD.  This new generation of processors is likely to only be marginally faster than the outgoing generation--despite the higher clockspeeds.  AMD wouldn't be practically giving them away if they were competitive with Intel products.



we would like them to do well. This statement seems on the surface to be correct.


----------



## mav2000 (Sep 21, 2011)

Looks like performance is not going to be all that great....and I am an AMD fanboy..but if they are priced this low, there is something wrong.


----------



## H82LUZ73 (Sep 21, 2011)

Also Intel is supposed to release SB 2700k In Oct-Nov right.

Intel Users 

Amd Users


----------



## ivicagmc (Sep 21, 2011)

H82LUZ73 said:


> Also Intel is supposed to release SB 2700k In Oct-Nov right.
> 
> Intel Users
> 
> Amd Users



If AMD does bad, we all lose... Intel users should  to AMD if it does well, because that means competition and lower prices for all...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 21, 2011)

mav2000 said:


> Looks like performance is not going to be all that great....and I am an AMD fanboy..but if they are priced this low, there is something wrong.


My guess is that they're having a major leakage problem again (just like they did with Phenom).  In other words, Bulldozer isn't going to shine until it gets a die shrink (just like Phenom II).  It is sad but knowing the history, it seems likely.  AMD has had bad luck with fabs. 90 was good, 65 was bad, 45 was good, 32...


----------



## SlayerJC (Sep 21, 2011)

Radeon 4x00 Series was cheaper than GTX 2x0 and not so far in performance. Lets hope for the best.


----------



## jaspreetsinghbabbra (Sep 21, 2011)

gonna buy them as they come in the market..........!!!!!!!!


----------



## purefun65 (Sep 21, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> My guess is that they're having a major leakage problem again (just like they did with Phenom).  In other words, Bulldozer isn't going to shine until it gets a die shrink (just like Phenom II).  It is sad but knowing the history, it seems likely.  AMD has had bad luck with fabs. 90 was good, 65 was bad, 45 was good, 32...



I am in agreement. This seems to becoming a pattern. One can speculate as to not having a strong ceo and as of until lately any ceo as lack of dare I say mismanagement. I believe amd has some great engineers.


----------



## robal (Sep 21, 2011)

By now it's pretty obvious that BD is not a top performer.
I'm still going to get it from my 990FX mobo though.

Because that's what AMD is for: good performance for price.


----------



## purefun65 (Sep 21, 2011)

robal said:


> By now it's pretty obvious that BD is not a top performer.
> I'm still going to get it from my 990FX mobo though.
> 
> Because that's what AMD is for: good performance for price.



amd despite not being a top performer in all segments. Has some good performance for the money. Im curious to see how interlagos performs. I would like to see some numbers. Cray likes them. I feel the need to remind people that this architecture is not desktop based.  I believe with node shrinks and some tweaks it will be competitive in desktop.


----------



## Fx (Sep 21, 2011)

purefun65 said:


> we wont know that until benchmarks. I believe it wont do well in games until the processor matures. We might be surprised. Leaked benches real or fake are disheartening! I am a gamer and I need moar power in fps games.



I dont know what kind of FPS you are trying to achieve but I game with high settings in all of my games with my XFX 5870 1GB and X4 955 setup. FX is only going to be an improvement and besides, FPS is vastly GPU-dependent


----------



## xenocide (Sep 21, 2011)

Fx said:


> I dont know what kind of FPS you are trying to achieve but I game with high settings in all of my games with my XFX 5870 1GB and X4 955 setup. FX is only going to be an improvement and besides, FPS is vastly GPU-dependent



Except all those pesky CPU-heavy games like L4D, SC2, The BF-Series, GTAIV, etc.  Those see rather large improvements in performance when gaming.  You're also not considering that the entire PC Experience is affected by a better/more efficient CPU.


----------



## Fourstaff (Sep 21, 2011)

I am worried that the 2500K will remain as gamers favourite,even with AMD discount it looks like the 6core/3module of Bulldozer can only equal the 4 cores of 2500K. Which means each Bulldozer "core" is still weaker than each Sandy Bridge's.


----------



## purefun65 (Sep 21, 2011)

Fx said:


> I dont know what kind of FPS you are trying to achieve but I game with high settings in all of my games with my XFX 5870 1GB and X4 955 setup. FX is only going to be an improvement and besides, FPS is vastly GPU-dependent


not in all games. a strong 4 core is becoming the norm. going to an i7 920 was a big improvement especially in minimum fps games. 1920x1200


xenocide said:


> Except all those pesky CPU-heavy games like L4D, SC2, The BF-Series, GTAIV, etc.  Those see rather large improvements in performance when gaming.  You're also not considering that the entire PC Experience is affected by a better/more efficient CPU.


first game game i realized i needed a a 4 core with a high ipc was supreme commander. That was how many years back? I think 2007. amd 4 core with 500 units was very unplayable.


----------



## xenocide (Sep 21, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> I am worried that the 2500K will remain as gamers favourite,even with AMD discount it looks like the 6core/3module of Bulldozer can only equal the 4 cores of 2500K. Which means each Bulldozer "core" is still weaker than each Sandy Bridge's.





I kind of expected that from the get-go.  I never understood exactly why people compared the Core Count on SB\Intel CPU's to the "Core" Count on Bulldozer CPU's.  They are seperate Modules, but they still share a lot of resources so they don't have all of their own implying they are lacking in certain areas.  

The main selling point for me, is that even with matching performance, I'd rather have paid what I did in Feb\March and gotten my PC then, than wait with uncertainty for 6+ months to maybe get a better deal.  I remember when Nvidia was marketing the 5xx series (I think), they were trying to compare it to the 5990, and AMD\ATi's only response was that their 5xxx series GPU was already in gamers PC's, so who cared if they offered similar performance over a year later...


----------



## lashton (Sep 21, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> Too little too late. Too cheap to compete with the 2600. We'll have to see how these work against 2400, 2500 in games as in multithreading they might do better. The only strong point I see is that the FX will be unlocked and it seems that they oveclock well. I really feel sorry for all those who waited for the next big thing. Maybe next year.



Its way too immature to say that you are ionly speculating, the FAB process maybe sufficiently cheap enough


----------



## lashton (Sep 21, 2011)

xenocide said:


> Except all those pesky CPU-heavy games like L4D, SC2, The BF-Series, GTAIV, etc.  Those see rather large improvements in performance when gaming.  You're also not considering that the entire PC Experience is affected by a better/more efficient CPU.



The BF games are definately NOT COPU intensive Im running BFBC on a really low end Phenom X2


----------



## Sihastru (Sep 21, 2011)

xenocide said:


> I never understood exactly why people compared the Core Count on SB\Intel CPU's to the "Core" Count on Bulldozer CPU's.  They are seperate Modules, but they still share a lot of resources so they don't have all of their own implying they are lacking in certain areas.



That's AMD's fault for not calling them by their true name, "a processor with 4 modules and 8 threads" and not "a processor with 8 cores". They will fool a lot of people (average Joe types), so no worries for sales... the downside is "an 8 core AMD CPU struggling against a 4 core Intel CPU" backlash from the community starting next month.


----------



## purefun65 (Sep 21, 2011)

lashton said:


> The BF games are definately NOT COPU intensive Im running BFBC on a really low end Phenom X2



you wont want to play bf3 on that cpu. you will be dissapointed. look the specs up and you need vista or better no xp. dx10 is the lowest it runs so if you have that cpu I will assume you wont meet minimum requirements for an enjoyable gaming experience. its frostbite 2.0. new engine revision for bf3.


----------



## Fourstaff (Sep 21, 2011)

xenocide said:


> I kind of expected that from the get-go.  I never understood exactly why people compared the Core Count on SB\Intel CPU's to the "Core" Count on Bulldozer CPU's.  They are seperate Modules, but they still share a lot of resources so they don't have all of their own implying they are lacking in certain areas.



Gaming uses at most 4 cores, so you would want 4 super strong cores rather than 6 strong cores/3modules. Because of that, while the 6c/3m of the bulldozer might crush the 2500K in terms of raw performance, it often does not translate to gaming advantages because the 6c/3m suffers 1/3 handicap right off the bat. This is all speculation, so don't quote me on this.


----------



## DarkOCean (Sep 21, 2011)

hellrazor said:


> So about 3 weeks beforehand we get a date? That's not even enough time for me to get a job and get paid!
> 
> *sigh* Although the prices *are* pretty damn good.



yeah but you still have tine to rob a bank


----------



## caleb (Sep 21, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> Gaming uses at most 4 cores, so you would want 4 super strong cores rather than 6 strong cores/3modules. Because of that, while the 6c/3m of the bulldozer might crush the 2500K in terms of raw performance, it often does not translate to gaming advantages because the 6c/3m suffers 1/3 handicap right off the bat. This is all speculation, so don't quote me on this.



Why speculate then ? Some cars have V8 Engines and others R4 but it doesn't by definition mean one engine is better/faster than the other. 
Lets wait until there are some results so we don't have to speculate. 
PS. I always though a computing operation can scale up to any number of cores/threads if it supports multi-threading. Why would they cap it to 4?


----------



## Fx (Sep 21, 2011)

eh, I guess we'll have to wait and see. all I know is, I have never had a problem gaming with a single gpu and decent cpu configuration. I have done this as long as I can remember- only upgrading them about once every generation or two at most. in this case I skipped the 6000 series

I agree with you that having a four-core cpu with some higher clocks is essential and that is what I have with a X4 955. I plan on upgrading next year after BD has matured a bit next year. I am waiting for the 7000 series gpus more than anything though

all we can do is hope FX will at least be competetive


----------



## Fourstaff (Sep 21, 2011)

caleb said:


> Why speculate then ? Some cars have V8 Engines and others R4 but it doesn't by definition mean one engine is better/faster than the other.
> Lets wait until there are some results so we don't have to speculate.
> PS. I always though a computing operation can scale up to any number of cores/threads if it supports multi-threading. Why would they cap it to 4?



You can use all the V8 power, but for gaming they only allow you to use half of your rated power, automatically halving your power. Which means for gaming (almost everyone here), the R4 gets a win, because it can utilise all its power. 

Some educated guess is good, but mindless "omg look at this" kind of speculation is not.




Fx said:


> all we can do is hope FX will at least be competetive



It will be competitive no doubt, but to which segment of the market?


----------



## Mussels (Sep 21, 2011)

me likely low prices.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 21, 2011)

Total wait and see on this one even the more.......if numbers are too weak intel might just do an intel and do nothing but release 2700k(salt on a wound).   Prices sug non k performance... would've love 2 see a price war price drop but intel won't if they don't have a reason.


----------



## HossHuge (Sep 21, 2011)

Maybe the price will go down even more.  According to some of you,  that must mean that the CPU's are getting worse....

This is a win/win for everybody.


----------



## Frizz (Sep 21, 2011)

Good timing for a release, same month as BF3, my friend and older brother are building new systems and I am definitely going to recommend these babies if they do well in TPU's reviews. Let's not forget OCing a SB CPU over 4ghz is not needed for personal desktop use eg. gaming/web/playback etc. so the sweet-spot for average users will be lying on their price/perf ratio instead of maximum performance as it yields very minimal differences in those scenarios and so far an 8core CPU that is only a little more expensive ($30AUD more) than the 2500k which is 4core looks much much more attractive. IMO there will definitely be price wars at hand.


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 21, 2011)

robal said:


> By now it's pretty obvious that BD is not a top performer.



Based on which benchmarks. Have you got hold of benchmarks, if so post them we want to see


----------



## Mussels (Sep 21, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> Gaming uses at most 4 cores, so you would want 4 super strong cores rather than 6 strong cores/3modules. Because of that, while the 6c/3m of the bulldozer might crush the 2500K in terms of raw performance, it often does not translate to gaming advantages because the 6c/3m suffers 1/3 handicap right off the bat. This is all speculation, so don't quote me on this.



thats flawed thinking, the age old argument. the same was said about single cores, then dual...


even if TPU users arent likely to stay with one proc for several years, why is gaming the only use for these? i do lots of video encoding, and having 6 cores kicks ass right now. 8 would save me hours and hours off my encodes.


----------



## Fourstaff (Sep 21, 2011)

Mussels said:


> thats flawed thinking, the age old argument. the same was said about single cores, then dual...
> 
> even if TPU users arent likely to stay with one proc for several years, why is gaming the only use for these? i do lots of video encoding, and having 6 cores kicks ass right now. 8 would save me hours and hours off my encodes.



Indeed, but there are also a significant number of us who does not do encoding etc. The market is getting a bit specialised, with different types of processors performing differently for each tasks. My argument takes the perspective of a pure gamer, which is a dying breed.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 21, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> Indeed, but there are also a significant number of us who does not do encoding etc. The market is getting a bit specialised, with different types of processors performing differently for each tasks. My argument takes the perspective of a pure gamer, which is a dying breed.



i just dont like the 'only four cores!' argument. bad company 2 for example, uses all 6 of mine in DX11. as time goes by, more cores get used... and the day that a game needs four cores to run, i'll want 6 or 8 already so that i dont have to quit all my background apps to get smooth gaming...


----------



## Mindweaver (Sep 21, 2011)

I'm seeing a lot of people saying this reflects performance... Why would the under dog come out high priced? Doesn't anyone remember the all mighty E6300? That chip was the driving force for intel to regain leader ship. It would clock as high as there high end chip and then some. That chip was priced at $183 the first time on newegg. I was saving up enough money to buy a A64 x2 chip which the lowest one on newegg was over $400. 805D's where around $140.

EDIT: I ended up buying a E6400 for $224 and was not disappointed.


----------



## Fourstaff (Sep 21, 2011)

Mussels said:


> i just dont like the 'only four cores!' argument. bad company 2 for example, uses all 6 of mine in DX11. as time goes by, more cores get used... and the day that a game needs four cores to run, i'll want 6 or 8 already so that i dont have to quit all my background apps to get smooth gaming...



I don't either, but that is the sad reality. Starcraft 2 takes no more than 2, other popular games (in terms of hours played) like LoL, HoN, WoW, CoD, TF2 etc doesn't use more than that efficiently either. So far there are only few game engines which makes full use of 4 cores, among which I think only BFBC2 is played en masse. The situation might change in the future, but as of now I cannot see masses of games demanding 4cores for optimum performance, hence the argument.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 21, 2011)

This comes from Donanimhaber????







I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## Nesters (Sep 21, 2011)

Hopefully the prices are only to sell them on the market like hotcakes (after delaying it for a few years...) and not indicating low performance.


----------



## DanTheMan (Sep 21, 2011)

Looks like FUD was reporting Oct 12 as the launch date

http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/24152-amd-fx-parts-coming-october-12

Just in time for a promotion like-  buy a FX get BF3 - free- now that would be sweet but unlikely!


----------



## Fatal (Sep 21, 2011)

I'm with DamnSmooth I am not going to believe crap unless its from AMD.


----------



## Mindweaver (Sep 21, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> I don't either, but that is the sad reality. Starcraft 2 takes no more than 2, other popular games (in terms of hours played) like LoL, HoN, WoW, CoD, TF2 etc doesn't use more than that efficiently either. So far there are only few game engines which makes full use of 4 cores, among which I think only BFBC2 is played en masse. The situation might change in the future, but as of now I cannot see masses of games demanding 4cores for optimum performance, hence the argument.



See I don't get that either? I can see the difference from single threaded apps to Multi threaded apps? If i took the time to recode my program i would not limit it to only 4 threads. To me it would be easier to look for the total number of threads then use that number to / or * the end code. It's more believable to me that they use all threads, but just not as efficient. I think the whole it only uses 4 threads is something that started when they were only four threads available. If i recoded my app to take advantage of mutli threads then it would seem harder to only focus on 4 threads and not leave it open to just look for more threads.

EDIT: Now they can improve on that code.


----------



## Fourstaff (Sep 21, 2011)

Mindweaver said:


> See I don't get that either? I can see the difference from single threaded apps to Multi threaded apps? If i took the time to recode my program i would not limit it to only 4 threads. To me it would be easier to look for the total number of threads then use that number to / or * the end code. It's more believable to me that they use all threads, but just not as efficient. I think the whole it only uses 4 threads is something that started when they were only four threads available. If i recoded my app to take advantage of mutli threads then it would seem harder to only focus on 4 threads and not leave it open to just look for more threads.



You are welcome to recode your program, but I don't see many people doing that yet. Game performance (this is my only argument, for all other applications we need to do some maths) doesn't gain significantly from adding more threads after the 4th for almost all the time. My belief is that coding for multiple threads are a bit of a hassle and sometimes not worth the effort, but that is from my friends who have tried/done some multicore programming. Something along the lines of core load balancing and optimisation, and you have to do that for each additional core.


----------



## Mindweaver (Sep 21, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> You are welcome to recode your program, but I don't see many people doing that yet. Game performance (this is my only argument, for all other applications we need to do some maths) doesn't gain significantly from adding more threads after the 4th for almost all the time. My belief is that coding for multiple threads are a bit of a hassle and sometimes not worth the effort, but that is from my friends who have tried/done some multicore programming. Something along the lines of core load balancing and optimisation, and you have to do that for each additional core.



If it were my program i would..  Smart coders are smart... Lazy coders are lazy..


----------



## Fourstaff (Sep 21, 2011)

Mindweaver said:


> If it were my program i would..  Smart coders are smart... Lazy coders are lazy..



You are living in an idealised world, I live in the harsh reality.

There are much more lazy coders than smart coders, and so far the market is saturated with codes done by lazy people, hence I said that core count more than 4 doesn't matter as much for now or the next year or so. Other than users who does a lot of encoding and other multicore stuff, people will be better off getting the best 4thread processor and ignore anything more for now.


----------



## CDdude55 (Sep 21, 2011)

The source isn't completely reliable, but if those prices are true that'd be amazing. Even though my main priority is gaming i'm still going for an 8-core.

These chips should shine real well once multi-threaded games become the norm. But really it still holds true that you can easily grab a 4 core from Intel or even a X4 965 and not see much benefit in gaming. We're still waiting for software to come up to hardware(mainly games), if your concern in video editing and CAD work then only then is really where the difference in cores starts coming in.

While you may not need an 8-core for most games today, im still going to grab one, cause i enjoy having more cores in die.


----------



## Tank (Sep 21, 2011)

looks like i'll have to buy a interim cpu for the moment 

already got someone interested in buying my current setup 

phenom 2 975 worth anything? or should i just go pc less til launch?


----------



## Mindweaver (Sep 21, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> You are living in an idealised world, I live in the harsh reality.
> 
> There are much more lazy coders than smart coders, and so far the market is saturated with codes done by lazy people, hence I said that core count more than 4 doesn't matter as much for now or the next year or so. Other than users who does a lot of encoding and other multicore stuff, people will be better off getting the best 4thread processor and ignore anything more for now.



I don't know if i agree with where you live and where I live.  I do believe 4's is just as good now. I never said it wasn't as good. But i would never tell someone to only buy a 4 threaded processor. Close minded people are close minded. I can see it now... hhehehe "Why use these things called wheels when we can walk there just as fast?" It wasn't until someone used a animal or something to power the wheels did the close minded people say hey it is better!..hehehe What Thread am i in? hehehe Good stuff Fourstaff!  This was fun and i hope that the price drop is good for us all. And i'm siding with you on 4 threads is as good now.. but not later...


----------



## mdm-adph (Sep 21, 2011)

I am fine with this.


----------



## caleb (Sep 21, 2011)

@Fourstaff
If a task is coded for multi-threading its coded for any number of possible threads.They don't code stuff statically for N number of cores. In other words number of possible threads possible is a variable inside the source code. Problem is that the more threads the more communication must be done which lowers code effectiveness factor ( there is some indicator for that but cant remember its name).  They could limit it but why would they cap your PC performance?


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Sep 21, 2011)

Mindweaver said:


> I'm seeing a lot of people saying this reflects performance... Why would the under dog come out high priced? Doesn't anyone remember the all mighty E6300? That chip was the driving force for intel to regain leader ship. It would clock as high as there high end chip and then some. That chip was priced at $183 the first time on newegg. I was saving up enough money to buy a A64 x2 chip which the lowest one on newegg was over $400. 805D's where around $140.
> 
> EDIT: I ended up buying a E6400 for $224 and was not disappointed.



Have a look at my E6300 oc in my sig, was done with a Freezer7 pro air cooler.


----------



## Disparia (Sep 21, 2011)

It's about time we get a price break.

Is Piledriver here yet?


----------



## claylomax (Sep 21, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> I don't either, but that is the sad reality. Starcraft 2 takes no more than 2, other popular games (in terms of hours played) like LoL, HoN, WoW, CoD, TF2 etc doesn't use more than that efficiently either. So far there are only few game engines which makes full use of 4 cores, among which I think only BFBC2 is played en masse. The situation might change in the future, but as of now I cannot see masses of games demanding 4cores for optimum performance, hence the argument.



Some like Stalker series, Cryostasis and Necrovision use 1 core and a half


----------



## Mindweaver (Sep 21, 2011)

caleb said:


> @Fourstaff
> If a task is coded for multi-threading its coded for any number of possible threads.They don't code stuff statically for N number of cores. In other words number of possible threads possible is a variable inside the source code. Problem is that the more threads the more communication must be done which lowers code effectiveness factor ( there is some indicator for that but cant remember its name).  They could limit it but why would they cap your PC performance?



Exactly!.  I think one problem they are having is handling small tasks inside the program. Because it would be a bottleneck to have a small task spread across say 16 thread over 1 to 6 or so threads. This would mean you would have to performance check on each routine and divvy them up between.

*EDIT: It could be possible for them to take the total number of threads then -1 thread and have the 1 thread handle small routines and have the rest of the threads handle the larger routines.*


----------



## MikeMurphy (Sep 21, 2011)

It could be that AMD is simply pre-empting an Intel price drop.


----------



## Rowsol (Sep 21, 2011)

I am patiently waiting for news of the quad core version.  6 and 8 does nothing for me.


----------



## B451L4TOR (Sep 21, 2011)

good news, i hope the 8150 compete with the 2600k


----------



## Steven B (Sep 21, 2011)

that is great to hear


----------



## xXSebaSXx (Sep 21, 2011)

I really don't get some people here man...   We've spent the better part of the last few months speculating about when BD will come and how it will perform... And the moment someone hints at a price that "seems" too low for some; it's "conspiracy theory" time.
The way I see it; the bulk of the market for both Intel and AMD are OEMs anyway and the people that buy "pre-built" computers aren't really going to be spending the time to find out if FX-8150 can compete with 2600K in SPi32M or WPrime1024.   Those people will walk into their "brick and mortar" store of choice and be spoonfed the marketing jargon from salespeople until a computer is sold, nothing more.
The segment of the market that worries about "efficiency", "clock for clock comparisons", etc isn't really large enough for AMD to worry about having to drop prices based on performance IMHO.
When I read that AMD is releasing the chips at a lower price than initially expected all I can think is "Oh joy!"


----------



## Yellow&Nerdy? (Sep 21, 2011)

The harsh reality is, that the price is definitely in direct correlation with the performance. I really doubt that AMD would voluntarily price the top CPU 70$ under the 2600K, unless the performance is corresponding to that price. Although I hope they will be able to offer a good alternative to the 2500K, which is currently the gamer's favorite. If Bulldozer ends up being slow, it's bad for everyone: Bulldozer has bad performance, which means that Intel won't be lowering their prices. It's a lose-lose situation really. I really hope AMD can prove me wrong, but I doubt it.


----------



## Octavean (Sep 21, 2011)

Personally I’ll take the price to be a bad sign but will wait and see how this materializes in the form of actual performance. I’ll hope for the best but prepare for the worst. 

I expect that Intel will release the Core i7 2700k in the current price slot of the Core i7 2600k and then drop the price of the Core i7 2600k. Perhaps the Core i5 2500k will see a price drop as well.   I’m waiting to see not only what Bulldozer can do but the Sandy Bridge-E LGA2011 platform as well.   

Right now I expect the Sandy Bridge-E platform to be the top performer (by a significant margin) and I am willing to pay a little more if this is the case. I’m looking at the Sandy Bridge-E Core i7 3930k and hopefully Microcenter will have some kind of sweet deal. If the AMD Bulldozer FX-8150 can compete the Sandy Bridge-E Core i7 3930k well enough then I’ll pick my jaw up off the floor and buy an FX-8150 (at about half the price of a Core i7 3930k).


----------



## dicobalt (Sep 21, 2011)

This really doesn't instill my confidence.  When I see AMD lower prices all I can think about is the fact that AMD prices their own chips based on the performance of Intel chips.  We will have to wait on the reviews to be sure, but I have my doubts about Bulldozer.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Sep 21, 2011)

In other news AMD announced they are pushing BD back again. .  . .


----------



## scooper22 (Sep 21, 2011)

@hardstuff: source?


----------



## faramir (Sep 21, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> My guess is that they're having a major leakage problem again (just like they did with Phenom).  In other words, Bulldozer isn't going to shine until it gets a die shrink (just like Phenom II).  It is sad but knowing the history, it seems likely.  AMD has had bad luck with fabs. 90 was good, 65 was bad, 45 was good, 32...



1: leakage goes up as transistors decrease in size.

2: 32 nm seems to be performing allright in CPU application - allegedly it is the GPU portion of Llano that is problematic on new production process (SOI being new as far as GPUs are concerned).


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Sep 21, 2011)

scooper22 said:


> @hardstuff: source?



I am being facetious .  . . but I kind of half expect it to happen.:shadedshu


----------



## Matteo Russo (Sep 21, 2011)

Ottimo!! finalmente


----------



## faramir (Sep 21, 2011)

Fatal said:


> I'm with DamnSmooth I am not going to believe crap unless its from AMD.



You're with the idiot who called me a liar the other day when I pointed out that AMD's (then acting CEO) Seifert's statement regarding Bulldozer IPC performance with regards to the previous generation of AMD's microarchitecture, and then didn't even have the decency to apologize after the facts were pointed out to him (he could have located them himself, however he was concerned that that would be an "endless search" ... it took me whole of half a minute to locate the earnings call transcript in question) ? Well, you sure know who to side with


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 21, 2011)

Yellow&Nerdy? said:


> I really doubt that AMD would voluntarily price the top CPU 70$ under the 2600K, unless the performance is corresponding to that price



I think the fact that most ignore is that although AMD is a business, they do not really have the capability to increase their market share right now, as they are pretty constrained by the number of chips they can produce, which, right now, completely sell out.

The best AMD can hope for is *maximizing profits*, not being the top performer. If they were the top performer, everyone would want their chips, and plain and simple, they cannot produce enough to meet a larger demand. BD needs to be attractive...but not TOO attractive.


I really do not understand why everyone feels that BD must be the top performer, or it's a failure...I really doubt AMD was even remotely concerned with beating Intel in the performance market.

Mind you here we sit with people spouting release dates still, when even JF-AMD has said that if it's not on the AMD website, it's NOT OFFICIAL!!!


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Sep 21, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I think the fact that most ignore is that although AMD is a business, they do not really have the capability to increase their market share right now, as they are pretty constrained by the number of chips they can produce, which, right now, completely sell out.
> 
> The best AMD can hope for is *maximizing profits*, not being the top performer. If they were the top performer, everyone would want their chips, and plain and simple, they cannot produce enough to meet a larger demand.
> 
> ...



People myself included feel that way because we want them to compete clock for clock, rather than fade into obscurity and become a maker of "value" chips, which seems more and more to be the case. I would like a price war but I fear AMD will not waist a chance to disappoint.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 21, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> People myself included feel that way because we want them to compete clock for clock, rather than fade into obscurity and become a maker of "value" chips, which seems more and more to be the case. I would like a price war but I fear AMD will not waist a chance to disappoint.



Just because YOU personally want something, doesn't mean that that is the best way for AMD to do things, unfortunately.

I hear what you are saying, and I understand your perspective, for sure, but that doesn't mean that perspective actually has any grounding in reality.

Me, I'll be happy if OVERCLOCKED, I can match a 2500K with a BD chip. I don't need alot.

AMD won't fade into obscurity...they are already one of the most obscure technology makers already!!! Just because you know who they are, doesn't mean NOTHING! You're pumping them up like they are some major force inthe marketplace...but really, they are already that obscure tech maker that has it's own section of the market, like Apple. Except they ARE NOT Apple...

And if Apple can stay around for year, then so can AMD.


----------



## purefun65 (Sep 21, 2011)

If prices are correct. It make sense for bulldozer to be lower. Due to the fact they already have llano covering mobile and budget desktop. AMD would price themselves out of the performance desktop market with oems. I would think their strategy is to sell oems a complete platform with a performance per cost platform. Lets face it bulldozer is server based. llano is exactly the market that was intended. So that leaves bulldozer against intel in performance or enthusiast desktop. less people are buying desktops. So to have any market share sell them a complete platform for bang for buck.


----------



## stupido (Sep 21, 2011)

ivicagmc said:


> Just hope that it matches performance of intel 2600K (8core) and 2500K (6core)...


Correction:
2600K = 4 cores = 8 threads (HT = on)
2500K = 4  cores = 4 threads (HT = NA)


----------



## trickson (Sep 21, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> AMD won't fade into obscurity...they are already one of the most obscure technology makers already!!! Just because you know who they are, doesn't mean NOTHING!



I am not sure I agree with you on this point . AMD has ATI and well ATI is a HUGE GPU chip maker . The word is getting out because of this one small fact . I love ATI and AMD has made ATI stronger . I hope this price dropping is not indicating how they are going to perform against Intel . If so I see another FAIL from AMD ( Not a big FAIL just another one . ) . AMD need to really step up and take the lead soon . Why ? Because Intel is still charging way too much for there CPU's ! If AMD can take the lead it will force Intel to make price changes for there stuff .


----------



## suraswami (Sep 21, 2011)

low price hmm... one way its good I might grab one but me thinking its not going to hold the original 'FX' pride.


----------



## razaron (Sep 21, 2011)

The FX-8120 is basically the same price the 1055t was at release but has 2 more cores, faster "clock-for-clock" speeds and 300Mhz more at stock. Excellent.


----------



## MilkyWay (Sep 21, 2011)

If a 6 core FX-6120 can match a i5 2500k then i might get one of those. Obviously Prices wont be the same in UK Sterling but hopefully its still close.

A i5 2500k in the UK is about £160 so its feasible.

Kinda sick of Bulldozer news but hats off to AMD for keeping the performance a secret for so long.


----------



## DannibusX (Sep 21, 2011)

trickson said:


> AMD has ATI and well ATI is a HUGE GPU chip maker .



ATI no longer exists.  Resistance is futile.  You now love AMD.


----------



## razaron (Sep 21, 2011)

MilkyWay said:


> If a 6 core FX-6120 can match a i5 2500k then i might get one of those. Obviously Prices wont be the same in UK Sterling but hopefully its still close.
> 
> A i5 2500k in the UK is about £160 so its feasible.
> 
> Kinda sick of Bulldozer news but hats off to AMD for keeping the performance a secret for so long.



I bought my 1055t for £165ish last august and it was around $200 in the US then. So hopefully the FX-8120 will be at a similar price in the UK


----------



## jpierce55 (Sep 21, 2011)

63jax said:


> i just hope the price doesn't reflect the performance, at least in this case...



Nobody should (or should have) been expecting something light years beyond SB, if it is a little better and cheaper than SB, that is doing good.


----------



## jpierce55 (Sep 21, 2011)

Yellow&Nerdy? said:


> The harsh reality is, that the price is definitely in direct correlation with the performance. I really doubt that AMD would voluntarily price the top CPU 70$ under the 2600K, unless the performance is corresponding to that price. Although I hope they will be able to offer a good alternative to the 2500K, which is currently the gamer's favorite. If Bulldozer ends up being slow, it's bad for everyone: Bulldozer has bad performance, which means that Intel won't be lowering their prices. It's a lose-lose situation really. I really hope AMD can prove me wrong, but I doubt it.



I don't agree with you at all. I would fully expect the BD to be ~ equal to a 2600k, and probably priced cheaper because 2600k will have a price drop, and in order to sell as many as possible before the SB-e release.

People have decided BD is a fail already, and that is just plain silly.


----------



## Frick (Sep 21, 2011)

trickson said:


> I am not sure I agree with you on this point . AMD has ATI and well ATI is a HUGE GPU chip maker . The word is getting out because of this one small fact . I love ATI and AMD has made ATI stronger . I hope this price dropping is not indicating how they are going to perform against Intel . If so I see another FAIL from AMD ( Not a big FAIL just another one . ) . AMD need to really step up and take the lead soon . Why ? Because Intel is still charging way too much for there CPU's ! If AMD can take the lead it will force Intel to make price changes for there stuff .



Ati is no more. It's only AMD, and it's true that they are big in graphic cards. Maybe not the AMD name is known there but Radeon certinaly is.

And Intel is charging way to much? Just no. The cost is justified imo for the performance you get.


----------



## jpierce55 (Sep 21, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I think the fact that most ignore is that although AMD is a business, they do not really have the capability to increase their market share right now, as they are pretty constrained by the number of chips they can produce, which, right now, completely sell out.
> 
> The best AMD can hope for is *maximizing profits*, not being the top performer. If they were the top performer, everyone would want their chips, and plain and simple, they cannot produce enough to meet a larger demand. BD needs to be attractive...but not TOO attractive.
> 
> ...



I think they expected to equal or beat mainstream competition, and that is all the more that is reasonable to expect.


----------



## jpierce55 (Sep 21, 2011)

RejZoR said:


> And AthlonXP (Palomino/Thoroughbred/Barton) and before that Athlon K7 (Thunderbird) wrecking Pentium 3 and 4...



Thunderbird almost put Intel under. I had one, I also had a 2800+Barton core. Intel really had nothing in competition against either of those. People seem to forget that Intel/AMD and Nvidia/ATI have always swapped back and forth on who is better.


----------



## purefun65 (Sep 21, 2011)

jpierce55 said:


> I think they expected to equal or beat mainstream competition, and that is all the more that is reasonable to expect.



It wasn't designed to compete in mainstream. It was designed for server. This is their goal. That is where amd needs to be judged. Did they succeed at its intended application? we dont know because we dont have those figures on performance.


----------



## Frick (Sep 21, 2011)

jpierce55 said:


> Thunderbird almost put Intel under. I had one, I also had a 2800+Barton core. Intel really had nothing in competition against either of those. People seem to forget that Intel/AMD and Nvidia/ATI have always swapped back and forth on who is better.



With Intel/AMD it has not been so for 4 years now.


----------



## mrw1986 (Sep 21, 2011)

stupido said:


> > Originally Posted by ivicagmc
> > Just hope that it matches performance of intel 2600K (8core) and 2500K (6core)...
> 
> 
> ...



I think he was referring to the 8 core AMD being comparable to the 2600k and the 6 core AMD being comparable to the 2500k. So he was correct.


----------



## reverze (Sep 21, 2011)

all this back and forth about who has the fastest cpu.

to me it doesnt matter, i got a phenom II and it runs all my games flawlessly, if bulldozer is a big upgrade in performance, thats great for AMD, it doesnt need to beat any intel CPU, cause mainstream market doesnt need that performance, and neither do gamers.

If its about Epeen and just having the fastest, then by all means get that intel 8 core, for everyone who doesnt want to spend a dime more than needed, bulldozer is for you, blazing fast running everything smoothly for a good price.


----------



## PopcornMachine (Sep 21, 2011)

Can't wait to find out the performance.  TPU should be getting some to test soon!!! 

Oh never mind.  I guess the prices tells the performance.  No point doing any benchmarks.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 21, 2011)

jpierce55 said:


> I don't agree with you at all. I would fully expect the BD to be ~ equal to a 2600k, and probably priced cheaper because 2600k will have a price drop, and in order to sell as many as possible before the SB-e release.
> 
> People have decided BD is a fail already, and that is just plain silly.



The 2600k is an impressive chip.  Surprised intel selling it so low (for intel) considering its performance.  The 26ook matches/surpasses intels top gun 6 core monster at nearly everything.  Do you really believe amd created something of that magnitude and is giving it away at those prices?  Bd will b a good cpu in its intended category/ target market which how ever is not highend.


----------



## trickson (Sep 21, 2011)

How sad for AMD . It was hyped up and still seems ( by the price point at least ) that it missed the mark every one was expecting . How sad . At any rate time will tell just what all this means . We may have to wait till piledriver is out to see any taking of the crown .


----------



## DannibusX (Sep 21, 2011)

ROFL, you people are brutal.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 21, 2011)

trickson said:


> How sad for AMD . It was hyped up and still seems ( by the price point at least ) that it missed the mark every one was expecting . How sad . At any rate time will tell just what all this means . We may have to wait till piledriver is out to see any taking of the crown .



True, if you consider Donanimhaber anywhere near a credible news source.


----------



## erocker (Sep 21, 2011)

trickson said:


> How sad for AMD . It was hyped up and still seems ( by the price point at least ) that it missed the mark every one was expecting . How sad . At any rate time will tell just what all this means . We may have to wait till piledriver is out to see any taking of the crown .



Give it up. You don't know a thing about performance any more than anyone else does at this point. AMD hasn't said what their market strategy is in relation to their pricing. When actual performance numbers are out, then you can pity poor AMD.


----------



## HossHuge (Sep 21, 2011)

Could one of you people who is saying that BD is a failure please show me one benchmark that backs up your claim?  Anyone?


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 21, 2011)

HossHuge said:


> Could one of you people who is saying that BD is a failure please show me one benchmark that backs up your claim?  Anyone?



They can easily go back to Donanimhaber and find some of OBR's benchmarks.

Just sayin'.


----------



## trickson (Sep 21, 2011)

erocker said:


> Give it up. You don't know a thing about performance any more than anyone else does at this point. AMD hasn't said what their market strategy is in relation to their pricing. When actual performance numbers are out, then you can pity poor AMD.



But from what we gather price is a indicator of performance . So I think in this case you maybe wrong . I hope I am wrong . I want AMD to bitch slap Intel into next year , But I can only gather from what is being put out  ( Yes less than credible information and sketchy at best ) that BD is going to be a good CPU just not what every one was expecting and what all the hype has lead us to think for the last 4 years . This is just my opinion nothing more . please do not take it as an attack or personally . Thank You .


----------



## erocker (Sep 21, 2011)

I don't take it personally, getting emotional over this kind of stuff is a waste of life. I just found your post to be a bit speculative. Besides, if the chip is awful, I feel sorry for those stuck with an older platform. AMD will still sell chips, but those wanting to upgrade won't have much of a choice and Intel won't be lowering their prices.


----------



## HossHuge (Sep 21, 2011)

trickson said:


> BD is going to be a good CPU just not what every one was expecting and what all the hype has lead us to think for the last 4 years.



What exactly was everyone expecting?  

I expect AMD will do what they have always done which is give great price/performance.  

"Assuming leads to the darkside" - Yoda


----------



## de.das.dude (Sep 21, 2011)

i bought my amd 945 last year for $175 FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 21, 2011)

*i blame marketing*

The moment people heard "FX" many, me included, thought that Amd  would come out stomping. setting up shop in intel's zipcode.   I'm seriously considering bd.  But if. It ain't a high  performance product why water down the fx badge.  I've seen many ford mustang cobras but never a ford festiva. Cobra or windstar cobra.  But if I'm wrong I will apologize to amd users  buy a eight core and post my invoice.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 21, 2011)

To me, the FX moniker hints at excellent overclocking, and nothing else. The Guinness record confirms that the FX moniker is quite appropriate...

But yes, I must agree that maybe marketing is missing the mark, but prices are part of marketing too, so you can't just simply say "Oh boy, FX, it should be a top performer!!"...you need to consider everything we know And I say everything, as what we do know now isn't very much.

And please do not forget, that while the "FX" level of chip was around back when AMD was on top for performance, most "hardcore" overclockers were using Opteron chips...NOT the FX. So clearly the situation is not the smae here...I'm pretty sure JF-AMD stated there would be no Opteron chips for the desktop enthusiast space.


----------



## trickson (Sep 21, 2011)

erocker said:


> I don't take it personally, I just found your post to be a bit speculative. Besides, if the chip is awful, I feel sorry for those stuck with an older platform. AMD will still sell chips, but those wanting to upgrade won't have much of a choice and Intel won't be lowering their prices.



Every one has been speculating about BD . No one KNOWS for sure just what it is going to do . The speculation I am doing is biased on the price range . But this is really not a good indicator either as we know AMD likes to keep the prices lower than Intel ( Unless they have a chip that can DOMINATE like the Athlons did ) .


----------



## purefun65 (Sep 21, 2011)

fx bulldozer is merely a pipe cleaner cpu for future trinty apu. fx=k overclocking capable. christ they will probably release trinity b4 bulldozer. Its like fermi with nvidia. release than tweak. next node competitive. IT IS A SERVER BASED CPU!


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 21, 2011)

trickson said:


> The speculation I am doing is biased on the price range . But this is really not a good indicator either as we know AMD likes to keep the prices lower than Intel *( Unless they have a chip that can DOMINATE like the Athlons did ) *.



Unless? Your post makes no sense. AMD was cheaper when they did "dominate"

The Athlon 64 was cheaper than the Pentium 4

The Athlon 64 X2 cheaper than the Pentium D

The Athlon Series dominated and was_ still _cheaper. So whats your point?


This thread has become The Bulldozer Information thread 2.0v - full of speculation and no substance.


----------



## purefun65 (Sep 21, 2011)

llano is the direction AMD is going. trinity is the next step. bulldozer is module for a reason. desktop is not profitable for amd in performance or enthusiast. Amd knows what will sell in their target demograph. llano is selling. interlagos will sell. bulldozer is the red headed step child.


----------



## techtard (Sep 21, 2011)

Well, they need the enthusiast market. If not for the enthusiasts trumpeting how awesome the Athlon cpus were back in the day, nobody would have bought them. Heck, even with proof a lot of people went with Intel because of brand name recognition.

Sadly, AMD is viewed as a second-class, knock-off brand by the vast majority of people.
They need to release some kick ass enthusiast chips to get momentum swinging in their favor. 
The world record overclock is a nice step in that direction. They just need to keep it up.

If they can hit the sweet spot in price/performance on the first gen of this chip, they might be able to bat one out of the park with some tweaking.

Here's to hoping that the FX line is competitive. If it is, that means more aggressive pricing and lower proces for AMD and Intel fans.


----------



## purefun65 (Sep 21, 2011)

techtard said:


> Well, they need the enthusiast market. If not for the enthusiasts trumpeting how awesome the Athlon cpus were back in the day, nobody would have bought them. Heck, even with proof a lot of people went with Intel because of brand name recognition.
> 
> Sadly, AMD is viewed as a second-class, knock-off brand by the vast majority of people.
> They need to release some kick ass enthusiast chips to get momentum swinging in their favor.
> ...



they dont need the enthusiast market. they need more of the server market. we all love our custom desktops. we are a dying breed. smart phones and tablets and laptops are profitable. Its like fast food, people love it. servers are the workhorses with high margins. just look at consoles.The hatred of any true gamer. yet people love them. fast food for ADD sheeple. christ look at gears of war 3. man i didnt think they could have dumbed it down so a 5 year old could play but they did.


----------



## techtard (Sep 21, 2011)

They need that segment of the market, so they can evangelize the product, and convince people to buy AMD desktops, netbooks, notebooks, etc.
It won't matter if fusion or other products are awesome if the public perception is that they are second rate.

And yes, the server market is their bread and butter. But it's nice to have some extra something on the side.


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 21, 2011)

techtard said:


> Well, they need the enthusiast market. If not for the enthusiasts trumpeting how awesome the Athlon cpus were back in the day, nobody would have bought them. Heck, even with proof a lot of people went with Intel because of brand name recognition.



AMD (and Intel) don't care less about the odd system builder like us. Just because we buy a high priced CPU once every 1-3 years doesn't make us desirable consumers or profitable.

AMD are concerned with fullfilling BIG orders of thousands of OEM CPUs to retailers and e-tailers. 1 order from techtard, trickson or anyone else every few years is not profitable. 




techtard said:


> Sadly, AMD is viewed as a second-class, knock-off brand by the vast majority of people.
> They need to release some kick ass enthusiast chips to get momentum swinging in their favor. The world record overclock is a nice step in that direction. They just need to keep it up.




The reason they're viewed as second class is because they've been trying to cater to the enthusiasts in the past with their ultra fast Athlon/Duron series which wasn't appealing to the general public enough for AMD's brand to go mainstream. If AMD keep worrying about performance only and breaking overclocking records they'll always be second class to 99% of the average joe because in REAL LIFE nobody cares about that geeky stuff. 


It's like AMD can't win. They can only build their brand if they go mainstream and appeal to the wider audience, but then you guys complain and want them to deliver spectacular performance which keeps them niche and unknown. Then you complain because they are unknown due to your demands for a niche product.



techtard said:


> If they can hit the sweet spot in price/performance on the first gen of this chip, they might be able to bat one out of the park with some tweaking.
> 
> Here's to hoping that the FX line is competitive. If it is, that means more aggressive pricing and lower proces for AMD and Intel fans.




What AMD need to do is sell more of those low end Llano chips to home users (desktop, laptops, tablets) and force it down their throats until the average joe see them as a credible house-hold name. Once they've got brand loyalty they can focus on other areas, like performance records.


----------



## purefun65 (Sep 21, 2011)

techtard said:


> They need that segment of the market, so they can evangelize the product, and convince people to buy AMD desktops, netbooks, notebooks, etc.
> It won't matter if fusion or other products are awesome if the public perception is that they are second rate.
> 
> And yes, the server market is their bread and butter. But it's nice to have some extra something on the side.



You follow the money.  90% of people can barely operate a computer, click on browser,read email. im someone and post on your wall, play flash game or twitter some crap. They dont even use the potential of their pc. Why would they need more? answer they don't.


----------



## ivicagmc (Sep 21, 2011)

stupido said:


> 2600K = 4 cores = 8 threads (HT = on)
> 2500K = 4 cores = 4 threads (HT = NA)



I tough on bulldozer cores... 8 core to be competition to 2600K and 6 core to 2500k...


----------



## jaydeejohn (Sep 21, 2011)

random said:


> I hope the performance at least compete with the 2500/2600k I want to see price dropping battles .



Me too


----------



## twilyth (Sep 21, 2011)

Just posting to apologize for the double post.  I did see this thread but when I saw it was more than 6 pages long I figured it couldn't have been from today - guess I should have actually read it.  Oh well.  Mea culpa.


----------



## DannibusX (Sep 21, 2011)

I can barely keep all the BD threads straight, Twi!


----------



## rangerone766 (Sep 21, 2011)

the only thing i care about is, will this chip be faster than my q9550@4.1ghz? i'm itching to upgrae and sandy is a bit out of my price range.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 21, 2011)

trickson said:


> I am not sure I agree with you on this point . AMD has ATI and well ATI is a HUGE GPU chip maker . The word is getting out because of this one small fact . I love ATI and AMD has made ATI stronger . I hope this price dropping is not indicating how they are going to perform against Intel . If so I see another FAIL from AMD ( Not a big FAIL just another one . ) . AMD need to really step up and take the lead soon . Why ? Because Intel is still charging way too much for there CPU's ! If AMD can take the lead it will force Intel to make price changes for there stuff .



I say Gen 2 of Bulldozer aka FM2 model, not sure how well the AM3+ Models will roll.

Dont get me wrong ive always noticed AMDs prices were reasonable compared to intels even when AMD Kicked Intel in the ass with the 940 Claw n Sledge Hammer CPUs


----------



## btarunr (Sep 21, 2011)

Added a poll.


----------



## Fx (Sep 21, 2011)

xenocide said:


> Except all those pesky CPU-heavy games like L4D, SC2, The BF-Series, GTAIV, etc.  Those see rather large improvements in performance when gaming.  You're also not considering that the entire PC Experience is affected by a better/more efficient CPU.



AMD's CPUs took care of me on L4D, BF and Supreme Commander and easily handles WinRAR, transcoding and file conversion to suit my needs

FX will be an improvement in all regards since it is a new microarchitecture intended for servers and high-end desktops so it will be another win in my book especially coming out of the gates at these awesome prices

having said that, I am waiting for piledriver because I am altering my buying cycles from early-adopter to buying my CPU & GPU once they have matured at least 6 months from release


----------



## v12dock (Sep 21, 2011)

Intel and AMD exist in a wonderful country where capitalism exist, which allows us to create competition in which companies strive to beat each other. Either way a new processor is always a win win to the consumer


----------



## Swamp Monster (Sep 21, 2011)

If that price tag is real, then it's a win for me. Looks good Price/Performance wise, even if we don't know anything about performance - it's still 8 core. And yes, AMD already explained some time ago, that those are real 8 cores.


----------



## Fatal (Sep 21, 2011)

Like a lot of people have been looking for BD information I see they have a FX-8170 due to come out  in Q1 2012. That makes me wonder why this is so? Unless they added it to compete with the upper performing Intel's.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 21, 2011)

btarunr said:


> Added a poll.



What makes you think this is true?


----------



## JATownes (Sep 22, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> What makes you think this is true?



Uhhh, because I can see the poll?


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 22, 2011)

JATownes said:


> Uhhh, because I can see the poll?



The topic, not the poll. :shadedshu


----------



## trickson (Sep 22, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> Unless? Your post makes no sense. AMD was cheaper when they did "dominate"
> 
> The Athlon 64 was cheaper than the Pentium 4
> 
> ...


Well I disagree with you on this . Hell my 4000+ cost me $400 bucks and the FX and "Black" Chips ? Hell you couldn't touch them unless you were willing to put out a grand or more ! No I remember them days well .


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Sep 22, 2011)

Not 100% convinced those are the real prices.


----------



## seronx (Sep 22, 2011)

2500K has alot of disabled features

I would say the i7 2600K/2700K*if it will exist*/i7 3820 will be the main competition for the FX 8-cores(I am leaning more on the i7 3820 as a competitor, if there will be an i7 3820K or 3820X even better)

i7 3820 and the FX 8150 have the same supposed stock clock rate
@ 3.6GHz
Just hope intel will make the i7 3820 an "Extreme Edition" part with the X moniker so it can have a unlocked clock rate or either an unlocked "K" moniker or both XK since Bulldozer on desktops will have FXBE

Until a 6 compute unit cluster FX comes out the i7 900s/i7 3900s have no clear cut competition on pure thread count


----------



## A Cheese Danish (Sep 22, 2011)

If these are the real prices then that's good news for me.

I guess on October 12 we will see the real prices.


----------



## JATownes (Sep 22, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> The topic, not the poll. :shadedshu



LOL.  I knew what you meant, I just couldn't resist.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 22, 2011)

JATownes said:


> LOL.  I knew what you meant, I just couldn't resist.



I was hoping that was the case, I just wasn't sure.


----------



## Super XP (Sep 22, 2011)

A Cheese Danish said:


> If these are the real prices then that's good news for me.
> 
> I guess on October 12 we will see the real prices.


Now we know why AMD kept on delaying Bulldozer, what do they plan on pricing the current Phenom II CPU's? $50 or something  I sounds like AMD is trying to clear stock as soon as possible to give the way to Bulldozer CPU's. 

Once they get released, it is going to be a great time to build a gaming RIG whether you go for AMD or Intel....


----------



## Melvis (Sep 22, 2011)

How much i wish it was B im going to go with A =/


----------



## Steevo (Sep 22, 2011)

trickson said:


> Well I disagree with you on this . Hell my 4000+ cost me $400 bucks and the FX and "Black" Chips ? Hell you couldn't touch them unless you were willing to put out a grand or more ! No I remember them days well .



Then you were dumb. I just looked up my invoice from 2005 on newegg, I paid $334 for a San Diego core 4000+.

It was a top pick for performance until the Conroe cores hit, then Intel pulled the rug out from under AMD buy selling them cheap. I paid $187 for a E6400 that clocked to 3.4Ghz easily. 

This might be a turn for AMD again, but I still doubt they will have the type of performance increase we saw with the "core " series from Pentium's.


----------



## xenocide (Sep 22, 2011)

v12dock said:


> Intel and AMD exist in a wonderful country where capitalism exist, which allows us to create competition in which companies strive to beat each other.



In theory, yes.  Have you ever looked at the Telecommunications Industry (AT&T, Comcast, Verizon)?  Those companies have all but admitted they care very little about competing and innovating...


----------



## TRWOV (Sep 22, 2011)

Maybe the 8170 will launch sooner than expected? It was scheduled to launch in Q4 at first.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Sep 22, 2011)

claylomax said:


> As well as the performance it seems ...



yeah i was thinking that too. the fx 8150 was rumored to cost clost to the 2600k and ti perform on par if not better. and at that price i have a hard time believing itll beat the 2600k or perform on par


----------



## Baam (Sep 22, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> Not 100% convinced those are the real prices.



I'm 100% sure they are made up considering the original source.


----------



## damric (Sep 22, 2011)

This is good news because I am so poor but I want one so bad


----------



## twilyth (Sep 22, 2011)

Steevo said:


> Then you were dumb. I just looked up my invoice from 2005 on newegg, I paid $334 for a San Diego core 4000+.
> 
> It was a top pick for performance until the Conroe cores hit, then Intel pulled the rug out from under AMD buy selling them cheap. I paid $187 for a E6400 that clocked to 3.4Ghz easily.
> 
> This might be a turn for AMD again, but I still doubt they will have the type of performance increase we saw with the "core " series from Pentium's.


I think that's what AMD could be doing.  They want to get some market penetration and the way you do that is with prices.  It's the same concept as having a loss leader.  You sell something at less than cost in order to gain market share and get people to buy other related stuff on which you have a nice profit margin.

For example, I don't know if anyone else makes the 990FX chipsets, but if not, that's one way they could sell these chips cheaply and still make a nice profit.

But I think ultimately it's all about getting people to recognize and value your brand.  The whole "world's fastest cpu" was designed to serve the same purpose.  No one is going to run their 8150 on liquid helium, but that wasn't the issue or the point.


----------



## Volkszorn88 (Sep 22, 2011)

People here act like they're going to set a new world record. It's just now that (some) games are actually utilizing 4 cores to the fullest let alone 6-8 core cpus. 

Be it an i5/i7 or phenom x6/bulldozer, it will handle anything being thrown at it.

Music, videos, web browsing, gaming, video editing...etc

And like Twilyth said, who here is going to run LH or some other extreme form of cooling every single waking hour 24/7? It's just not practical.  And I highly doubt 99.8% of the peeps here will be setting world records any time soon.

It's the exact same arguement when it comes to Nvidia vs AMD w/ each new generation cards. 

Intel this AMD that blah blah blah Don't worry fellas, no matter which brand of cpu you choose, it will handle any of your tasks just fine. 

I guarantee if you tell some one "hey play this game (bc2 as an example) without fraps on and tell me which cpu you think is running this game an i5/i7 or phenom x6/bulldozer"  You won't able to tell because it will be running smooth and feel very nice.

So who cares as long as it does what you need it to do.


----------



## ViperXTR (Sep 22, 2011)

> I guarantee if you tell some one "hey play this game (bc2 as an example) without fraps on and tell me which cpu you think is running this game an i5/i7 or phenom x6/bulldozer" You won't able to tell because it will be running smooth and feel very nice.


lol i know some folks who refuse to disable their OSD on some games XD, they feel sad whenever it falls below their preferred framerate.


----------



## shb- (Sep 22, 2011)

Eh, anyone sane enough didn't even thought that FX chip will "crush"/"kill"/"eat in breakfast" SB hi end chips. So its no surprise to me that AMD admits this and lowers prices a little bit.

Anyway, i dislike current SB chips because of wasted die space for that crappy IGP. I just dont like it lurking there. So right now i am looking towards 4module FX chips and LGA2011 ; ).


----------



## btarunr (Sep 22, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> What makes you think this is true?



News isn't about reporting truths. It's about reporting facts as they emerge.

And preempting your question "what makes you think this is fact?"

http://www.donanimhaber.com/islemci...ileri-icin-resmi-cikis-tarihi-ve-fiyatlar.htm

The source I cited.

And preempting your question "what makes you think DonanimHaber's is fact?"

It is a fact that DonanimHaber mentioned these prices. That's the factual part. There ends TPU's role. If you want "_to go deeper_", take it up with DH. That's not TPU's headache.


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 22, 2011)

trickson said:


> Well I disagree with you on this . Hell my 4000+ cost me $400 bucks and the FX and "Black" Chips ? Hell you couldn't touch them unless you were willing to put out a grand or more ! No I remember them days well .



Perhaps, but how much was Intels alternative? a fair bit more (for less performance too)


----------



## scooper22 (Sep 22, 2011)

Edit: ./.


----------



## de.das.dude (Sep 22, 2011)

first time i voted on something that others want too


----------



## caleb (Sep 22, 2011)

btarunr said:


> News isn't about reporting truths. It's about reporting facts as they emerge.
> 
> And preempting your question "what makes you think this is fact?"
> 
> ...



News is news, there is always fuzzy logic to whats fact or not, but why do we need to have a poll which says "These latest prices" on non-official information ?


----------



## xenocide (Sep 22, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> Perhaps, but how much was Intels alternative? a fair bit more (for less performance too)



I don't know that it was a fair bit more expensive, but the Price\Performance back in the Athlon XP and Athlon 64 era was definitely in AMD's favor.  AMD also offered FX Chips for upwards of $1200 at the time because they had the top performing Single-Core CPU on the market for about 2 years.  Whomever has the highest performing product gets the rights to set the cost as high as they want, AMD and Intel both have done this.  People just consider Intel to be overpriced because they consistently have the highest performing product.


----------



## qubit (Sep 22, 2011)

xenocide said:


> I don't know that it was a fair bit more expensive, but the Price\Performance back in the Athlon XP and Athlon 64 era was definitely in AMD's favor.  AMD also offered FX Chips for upwards of $1200 at the time because they had the top performing Single-Core CPU on the market for about 2 years.  Whomever has the highest performing product gets the rights to set the cost as high as they want, AMD and Intel both have done this.  People just consider Intel to be overpriced because they consistently have the highest performing product.



Absolutely true, which is why it's worrying that AMD are pricing these new CPUs "competitively". They shouldn't need to.


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 22, 2011)

xenocide said:


> I don't know that it was a fair bit more expensive, but the Price\Performance back in the Athlon XP and Athlon 64 era was definitely in AMD's favor.  AMD also offered FX Chips for upwards of $1200 at the time because they had the top performing Single-Core CPU on the market for about 2 years.  *Whomever has the highest performing product gets the rights to set the cost as high as they want, AMD and Intel both have done this.  People just consider Intel to be overpriced because they consistently have the highest performing product*.




But you are missing the point. Intel's chips were upwards of a grand even back when their chips were consistantly slower.

Yes, if the performance is good you can dictate the price (to an degree) but what was intel's justification for $1,000+ CPUs back when they didnt have the speed to complement.

Heck some of Intel's Extreme Edition $1,000+ CPUs were slower than AMDs sub $300 range - so all this speed dictates price stuff doesnt add up.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 22, 2011)

btarunr said:


> News isn't about reporting truths. It's about reporting facts as they emerge.
> 
> And preempting your question "what makes you think this is fact?"
> 
> ...



I was hoping you might have had another source or something because I would love for these prices to be true.

I guess I'll just continue to be skeptical then.


----------



## alexsubri (Sep 22, 2011)

I can't wait for the FX-6's reviews to come out. If there is a significant jump from i7-2600k in terms of performance, ill buy one.  ...but I am thinking about the 10-core "Komodo" which will replace Bulldozer come early 2012 *pending* AMDs infamous delays


----------



## xenocide (Sep 22, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> But you are missing the point. Intel's chips were upwards of a grand even back when their chips were consistantly slower.
> 
> Yes, if the performance is good you can dictate the price (to an degree) but what was intel's justification for $1,000+ CPUs back when they didnt have the speed to complement.
> 
> Heck some of Intel's Extreme Edition $1,000+ CPUs were slower than AMDs sub $300 range - so all this speed dictates price stuff doesnt add up.



I think I hit the point exactly.  Intel was _trying_ to sell CPU's for that price, but AMD was doing a lot better at actually selling them.  Sure, Intel does overprice some of their stuff, generally a lot more often than AMD, but when they have no solid competition, why not?  They might as well profiteer, that's just good business.  Do I support this?  No.  But it's how business is done.

As for the speed dictating price, it's never direct.  It's usually a result of how the customers react.  When SB came out, people were excited because it was a $250-350 CPU that performed like Intel's $1000 CPU's.  So a lot of people bought them.  If they had cost $1000 out of the gates, do you think anyone would have bought them?  Exactly.  

Customers will always buy a product as long as it offers what they want as long as the price is right, even if there is another company offering the same thing.  Hell, that's the whole reason AMD is still going strong.  If they had priced similar to Intel with the Phenom II line, they would have sold maybe 1/3 the amount they did.  People bought AMD CPU's because they were a great *Value*, and that's what it's all about.



alexsubri said:


> I can't wait for the FX-6's reviews come out. If they is a significant jump from i7-2600k in terms of performance, ill buy one.  ...but I am thinking about the 10-core "Komodo" which will replace Bulldozer come early 2012 *pending* AMDs infamous delays



I wouldn't expect the FX-6's to outperform the i7-2600k if I were you.


----------



## alexsubri (Sep 22, 2011)

Volkszorn88 said:


> 8 cores for 245 USD? I'll take that any day.
> 
> Now the question is, do I buy the ASRock 990X Fatal1ty or Asus Crosshair V? ^^



I was thinking about buying those two. Check out ASUS Sabertooth 990FX. You can finally run SLI/Xfire on an AMD board. I bought this motherboard for the new chips that are coming out. Also, it has 5 year warranty


----------



## TRWOV (Sep 22, 2011)

alexsubri said:


> I can't wait for the FX-6's reviews to come out. If there is a significant jump from i7-2600k in terms of performance, ill buy one.  ...but I am thinking about the 10-core "Komodo" which will replace Bulldozer come early 2012 *pending* AMDs infamous delays



Komodo was cancelled, wasn't it?


----------



## btarunr (Sep 22, 2011)

caleb said:


> News is news, there is always fuzzy logic to whats fact or not,



Our business is with the fact that DH mentioned those prices. If you doubt DonanimHaber, take it up with them, or don't comment on TPU that cites them. Your call. 

We deem DH as a credible source. You have the weapon of choice.



caleb said:


> but why do we need to have a poll which says "These latest prices" on non-official information ?



_We do what we must, because we can™._


----------



## xBruce88x (Sep 22, 2011)

ivicagmc said:


> Just hope that it matches performance of intel 2600K (8core) and 2500K (6core)...



Both of those cpus are 4 core. although the 2600k has 8mb cache and the 2500k has 6mb cache. (probably where you got the core # from)

but yea... its good they're coming in at a low price, hopefully that'll drive down the cost of intel's stuff


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 22, 2011)

xenocid,

Perhaps. Your points are definitely valid. I also think the time period is a factor. In the early 2000s the cost to manfacturer microprocessors were probably higher hence the $1,000+ price tags, but now demand for devices with microprocessors e.g. desktops, laptops, tablets have increased and hence reducing the manfacturing cost and this is reflected in today's humble prices.

Also I believe as budget processors have become fast enough to handle most users needs. I think Intel and AMD find it difficult to justify a $1,000 CPU when consumers know a <$60 i3 or Athlon II X3 will achieve the same results.


----------



## Horrux (Sep 22, 2011)

If it competes performance-wise with intel's similarly priced offerings, I will be a happy camper, upgrading and staying AMD for sure.


----------



## Horrux (Sep 22, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> xenocid,
> 
> Perhaps. Your points are definitely valid. I also think the time period is a factor. In the early 2000s the cost to manfacturer microprocessors were probably higher hence the $1,000+ price tags, but now demand for devices with microprocessors e.g. desktops, laptops, tablets have increased and hence reducing the manfacturing cost and this is reflected in today's humble prices.
> 
> Also I believe as budget processors have become fast enough to handle most users needs. I think Intel and AMD find it difficult to justify a $1,000 CPU when consumers know a <$60 i3 or Athlon II X3 will achieve the same results.



There is also the factor of diminishing returns on higher end CPUs to factor into all this. An example:

Back in the Pentium II days, you had the following variants: 300mhz, 350mhz, and 400mhz, or a 33% difference in performance along the line of P2's.

Nowadays there is no such thing as a CPU model that stretches its clock speed variants by 33%. It's more like 15%. And yet, the price difference from the lowest model to the highest has remained more or less the same.

Heck I remember the old Pentium 1 days when the steps were like 100mhz, 133mhz, 166mhz, etc. One higher model meant 33% difference in performance!

Today you go from 3.2 ghz to 3.4ghz... Ooooooh, 6% better performance! Yet the price difference is (obviously) much greater than 6%.


----------



## PCpraiser100 (Sep 22, 2011)

Te prices keep lowering down, making our lives cheaper! Say something before your opinion is worthless!!!!!!


----------



## Jegergrim (Sep 22, 2011)

Is the 12th of October release Official from AMD or just another speculation?


----------



## Frick (Sep 22, 2011)

Jegergrim said:


> Is the 12th of October release Official from AMD or just another speculation?



Maybe not speculation as it's coming from retailers, but not official.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 22, 2011)

Three words that can't be in the same sentence official, facts and........ U know


----------



## Jegergrim (Sep 22, 2011)

Frick said:


> Maybe not speculation as it's coming from retailers, but not official.



Essentially at this point BD could still be launched in november if need be... My hopes for BD is dying out slowly


----------



## erocker (Sep 22, 2011)

Poll reflects that no one has a clue. The governments of the world should look to AMD to keep their secrets, secret from now on. Keeping BD so secretive in the internet age is nothing short of amazing.


----------



## Ahhzz (Sep 22, 2011)

claylomax said:


> As well as the performance it seems ...



I'm sorry, where did you see benchmarks?? I need those!


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 22, 2011)

*lightbulb!!!.*



erocker said:


> Poll reflects that no one has a clue. The governments of the world should look to AMD to keep their secrets, secret from now on. Keeping BD so secretive in the internet age is nothing short of amazing.



Those who have a e.s(board makers etc). stand to loose a ton of money if weak numbers get out.  Right now. A lot of people are buying boards, ram etc waiting on bd.  So. To recoup their investment quite must be kept.


----------



## erocker (Sep 22, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


> Those who have a e.s(board makers etc). stand to loose a ton of money if weak numbers get out.  Right now. A lot of people are buying boards, ram etc waiting on bd.  So. To recoup their investment quite must be kept.



Those weak E.S. numbers have been out for some time. That isn't what I'm talking about.


----------



## Inceptor (Sep 22, 2011)

OK, I read the first couple of pages of responses to the original post, then I got tired of the moronic logic...
So, this might have already been covered, but it's always good to reiterate a nice point (if it has):

We have a piece of information, regarding _*possible*_ BD FX cpu pricing.  
We have _*no definitive information regarding this pricing*_; as to whether it is accurate (or will become inaccurate).
We _*do not*_ have information that tells us that this pricing is tied to performance parallels with Intel cpus. 

What we _*can't*_ say:  
"Oh no, BD is slower than Intel's mid-range", 
"Oh wow, BD is faster than Intel's mid-range"
"The pricing is telling us that these cpus will be slow"

What we _*can*_ say:
"Perhaps AMD is anticipating Intel's price dropping, and wants to establish competitive pricing."
"Perhaps the surprisingly low prices reflect AMD's wish to steal market share from Intel (i.e. sway people away from i5 and i7 cpus for their new builds)"
"Perhaps AMD is anticipating the release of Ivy Bridge and the inevitable price drops on the 2nd gen i5 and i7 cpus."
"We don't know if those prices are set in stone, especially since they will cause some major ripples across the net, possibly causing AMD to make changes (if they are official prices, that is)."
"We can definitively say, at this point, that we have absolutely no idea how these BD processors (in their 'ready for prime time' iteration) compare to their Intel counterparts on the various and innumerable benchmarks available."

...:shadedshu


----------



## heky (Sep 22, 2011)

The NDA will get lifted on a saturday, so it wont be on the 12.Oct. I have no sources, just hersay, but since it is all speculation, i say my chances are pretty high.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Sep 22, 2011)

Inceptor said:


> OK, I read the first couple of pages of responses to the original post, then I got tired of the moronic logic...
> So, this might have already been covered, but it's always good to reiterate a nice point (if it has):
> 
> We have a piece of information, regarding _*possible*_ BD FX cpu pricing.
> ...



Please stay.


----------



## erocker (Sep 22, 2011)

heky said:


> The NDA will get lifted on a saturday, so it wont be on the 12.Oct. I have no sources, just hersay, but since it is all speculation, i say my chances are pretty high.



So you're in the "it will be released next week" camp. 10-4.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 22, 2011)

Inceptor said:


> OK, I read the first couple of pages of responses to the original post, then I got tired of the moronic logic...
> So, this might have already been covered, but it's always good to reiterate a nice point (if it has):
> 
> We have a piece of information, regarding _*possible*_ BD FX cpu pricing.
> ...



Yeah.....we know all that...so what are you saying?


----------



## WhiteLotus (Sep 22, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


> Yeah.....we know all that...so what are you saying?



That most (including yours and mine) posts in this thread are completely pointless and people are being stupid beyond stupid by stating things that they are just pulling out of their arse.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 22, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


> Yeah.....we know all that...so what are you saying?



I think you're trying to say that being a voice of reason, on the internet, is fighting a battle that can never be won.


And what he is saying is:

I don't care, I'll still say my piece, and you can look silly afterwords just the same.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 22, 2011)

WhiteLotus said:


> That most (including yours and mine) posts in this thread are completely pointless and people are being stupid beyond stupid by stating things that they are just pulling out of their arse.



Ok got ya

Seriously like its been said 100000 times before until amd or. Somebody that actually has one post something its all speculation.  Even the most educated deduction...is just fiction  I come seeking info like everyone else.  If some are so annoyed by others... let the mods not allow any comment and just release the story for all bd updates


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 22, 2011)

*Rick Bergman has left AMD*

Source:

http://semiaccurate.com/2011/09/22/amd-apocalype-rick-bergman-gone/

Can't quote it for very amusing copyright reasons.  But CD (lover of most things AMD/ATI) says it is very very bad for AMD.

I'm sure others here will have a better informed opinion than mine but when CD talks about AMD it is with the opposite emotion to his Nvidian rants.


----------



## twilyth (Sep 23, 2011)

the54thvoid said:


> Source:
> 
> http://semiaccurate.com/2011/09/22/amd-apocalype-rick-bergman-gone/
> 
> ...


Read about this earlier today.  Wish there were some more details about the reasons behind it.  But as I recall, there was the same sort of speculation after Captain Dirk left/was ousted.

If you're a tech guy at AMD, where are you going to go?  I mean really?  Via?  ARM?  Intel (god forbid)?  AMD is still going to be the place to be if you want to have an impact on the market.  There simply isn't anyone else out there even close to competing with Intel.


----------



## Super XP (Sep 23, 2011)

Rick Bergman IMO was a great asset for AMD. Don't know what AMD is thinking. That said, obviously IBM and Lenovo veteran Rory Read AMD's CEO must have the backbone and a darn good reason why he let Rick go.


----------



## Covert_Death (Sep 23, 2011)

^truly do agree^, but not sure what it has to do with pricing or performance of BD haha... jk, anywho, BD needs to be in my damn tower already.


----------



## xenocide (Sep 23, 2011)

twilyth said:


> If you're a tech guy at AMD, where are you going to go?  I mean really?  Via?  ARM?  Intel (god forbid)?  AMD is still going to be the place to be if you want to have an impact on the market.  There simply isn't anyone else out there even close to competing with Intel.



Any of the places you listed impact the market...


----------



## Super XP (Sep 23, 2011)

The AMD FX-4170 interests me with it's stock speed of 4.2GHz. I wonder how much more you can push her? I can easily imagin about 4.8GHz to 5.0GHz yes? I don't buy the Turbo Boost at 4.3GHz, that does not make sense...

LINK:
http://morethanchessagame.forumotio...zer-fx-4170-42-ghz-release-this-year-official


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 24, 2011)

super xp said:


> the amd fx-4170 interests me with it's stock speed of 4.2ghz. I wonder how much more you can push her? I can easily imagin about 4.8ghz to 5.0ghz yes? I don't buy the turbo boost at 4.3ghz, that does not make sense...
> 
> Link:
> http://morethanchessagame.forumotio...zer-fx-4170-42-ghz-release-this-year-official



4170?


----------



## Super XP (Sep 24, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> 4170?


Yes the FX-4170 clocked at 4.2 GHz Quad-Core. This may very well be the sweet spot for a nice Gaming System...
Once again, check it out in this link:
http://www.maximum-tech.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/amd-october-bulldozer.jpg


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 24, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Yes the FX-4170 clocked at 4.2 GHz Quad-Core. This may very well be the sweet spot for a nice Gaming System...
> Once again, check it out in this link:
> http://www.maximum-tech.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/amd-october-bulldozer.jpg



It's been a long time since I thought about anything other than the octocores.

That list does look kind of sketchy though.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Sep 24, 2011)

Is this the place I should post this? Donanimhaber has some interesting slides:

http://www.donanimhaber.com/islemci...lemciler-teknik-ozellikler-test-sonuclari.htm

Check the photo gallery for AMD advertising the FX. Interesting point of view.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 24, 2011)

Don't know if it has been mentioned but it is important nevertheless: Intel and AMD could both be reducing their pricing because of economic forecasts which show global economic weakness for at least a few more years.  They both may have seen a dip in sales and are responding with reduced prices--especially on mid-low range chips.


----------



## heky (Sep 24, 2011)

Ehm...if the slides are true, that means the top bulldozer with its 8 cores and a higher stock clock scores 5.95 points in cinebench(rendering, highly multithreaded) while my 2600K with 4 cores 8 threads at stock scores 6.90.
Bulldozer overclocked to 4.8ghz scores 7.8, while my 2600K @4.8ghz scores 9.38! So much for multithread superiority of BD.


----------



## jagd (Sep 24, 2011)

Dont take donanimhaber seriously .Their news can be considered ''sensational '' at best ,you can see a lot of things without sourse and became wrong sometime later .I know best because im turkish and also they are turkish hardware site but became an advirtesing site telling every hardware is good whom is giving advert .Dont take seriously again.


Crap Daddy said:


> Is this the place I should post this? Donanimhaber has some interesting slides:
> 
> http://www.donanimhaber.com/islemci...lemciler-teknik-ozellikler-test-sonuclari.htm
> 
> Check the photo gallery for AMD advertising the FX. Interesting point of view.


----------



## Super XP (Sep 29, 2011)

heky said:


> Ehm...if the slides are true, that means the top bulldozer with its 8 cores and a higher stock clock scores 5.95 points in cinebench(rendering, highly multithreaded) while my 2600K with 4 cores 8 threads at stock scores 6.90.
> Bulldozer overclocked to 4.8ghz scores 7.8, while my 2600K @4.8ghz scores 9.38! So much for multithread superiority of BD.


AMD still needs to tweak the CPU for maximum performance, but right now it's not out and any review/benchmarks should be taken with an organic grain of salt.



jagd said:


> Dont take donanimhaber seriously .Their news can be considered ''sensational '' at best ,you can see a lot of things without sourse and became wrong sometime later .I know best because im turkish and also they are turkish hardware site but became an advirtesing site telling every hardware is good whom is giving advert .Dont take seriously again.


And I am Greek. That said, the site Donanimhaber were right about many things including AMD's issues with Barcelona, the release of Phenom II and so on, but at the same time they've been far out wrong too...


----------



## Ahhzz (Sep 29, 2011)

I think all of these "Benchmark" posts should be posted with a simple disclaimer: "Not Officially Released". Because that's the thing: NONE of these are official, and all the noise about less than/better than is just that. Noise.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 29, 2011)

nice even ish split in the poll, theirs as much hope as doom still then,

imho these prices if legit would be amazin i may yet be cheered by this mentally exhaustin wait, especially if sandy ex and bd come out close to each other , theres gona be some bargain price chips about for sure.

i do hope theres plenty to go round tho


----------



## btarunr (Sep 29, 2011)

heky said:


> The NDA will get lifted on a saturday, so it wont be on the 12.Oct. I have no sources, just hersay, but since it is all speculation, i say my chances are pretty high.



That hearsay is wrong.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 29, 2011)

btarunr said:


> That hearsay is wrong.



i wish youd stop emplying you know something without disclosing ,go on spill

seriously tho imho if your under nda you should disclose at least that you are

cos reading that reply makes my credit card flutter at the thought of a future thrashin.


----------



## btarunr (Sep 29, 2011)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> i wish youd stop emplying you know something without disclosing ,go on spill
> 
> seriously tho imho if your under nda you should disclose at least that you are
> 
> cos reading that reply makes my credit card flutter at the thought of a future thrashin.



I am not under NDA. My sources, and information at my disposal back the October 12 date that has been floating around the internet.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 29, 2011)

btarunr said:


> I am not under NDA. My sources, and information at my disposal back the October 12 date that has been floating around the internet.



So the 12th is the TPU approved date?


----------



## btarunr (Sep 29, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> So the 12th is the TPU approved date?



No, it's the btarunr approved date.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 29, 2011)

btarunr said:


> No, it's the btarunr approved date.



I'll trust you, and look forward to the 12th then.


----------



## Super XP (Sep 30, 2011)

Haha, my local PC shot is expecting Bulldozer shipments within the 1st week of October. He also told me to keep it hush hush  As for prices, he wouldn't tell me, except that his head office will deside.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 30, 2011)

AMD Announces Preliminary Third Quarter Results (courtsey of btarunr)
AMD Shares Plunged: What You Need to Know (courtesy of twilth)

It's confirmed, AMD has serious issues with 32nm causing a 14% drop in shares upon announcement.

Those who voted for "worrying" got it right.  AMD is selling them for cheap because they can't sell them for more (without a significant drop in volume).  Wait for Bulldozer II on 22nm.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 30, 2011)

Probably Initial Stepping, May change for second stepping, but not to worried at all actually.



FordGT90Concept said:


> AMD Announces Preliminary Third Quarter Results (courtsey of btarunr)
> AMD Shares Plunged: What You Need to Know (courtesy of twilth)
> 
> It's confirmed, AMD has serious issues with 32nm causing a 14% drop in shares upon announcement.
> ...


----------



## Super XP (Oct 1, 2011)

Global Founderies has issues with producing the 32nm, AMD has no issues with 32nm nor with it's design. Hopefully GF takes there heads out of there aries and starts pumping them out fast...


----------



## tilldeath (Oct 2, 2011)

Fatal said:


> Like a lot of people have been looking for BD information I see they have a FX-8170 due to come out  in Q1 2012. That makes me wonder why this is so? Unless they added it to compete with the upper performing Intel's.



This ^ /thread. AMD FTW!


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 7, 2011)

Proof of 6Ghz with phase change. In the comments someone claims 6.4 with 100% load on all cores.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 7, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Proof of 6Ghz with phase change. In the comments someone claims 6.4 with 100% load on all cores.


OFN.

They already benched 6.5Ghz vantage when they came out with the clockspeed WR.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 7, 2011)

I found this too. I hope it's real because this game is what makes me want to upgrade. Does anyone know what the x32 means?

I can't wait to find out max o.c. on air.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 7, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> x32 means



32-bit colour.


----------



## Goodman (Oct 7, 2011)

All we seen so far are ES Bulldozer can't wait to see the final product revision  B2G , B2F or what ever it will be called?


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 7, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> 32-bit colour.



Thanks man, I was drawing a blank there.


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 7, 2011)

Waiting to grab an 8 Core BD chip , is there even a solid release date confirmed? I'm hearing Oct 12th, but as far as i can tell it's still a rumor.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 7, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> Waiting to grab an 8 Core BD chip , is there even a solid release date confirmed? I'm hearing Oct 12th, but as far as i can tell it's still a rumor.



It is still a rumor but a lot of people that know a lot more than I do are suggesting that this one is true, so I'm going with it.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 8, 2011)

I don't think AMD will have another cancelled release date, I believe it is going to be October 12, 2011 or the press will kill them.  Depending on the price, I am aiming for either a nice AMD FX-4170 or AMD FX-8150. The 8-core version maybe better bang for your $, but you never know, that Quad-Core may hit the sweet spot in $.... 

Model Cores Threads Frequency Turbo Frequency L3 cache TDP Price 
FX-Series FX-6100 6 6 3.3 GHz 3.9 GHz 8 MB 95 Watt $175 
FX-Series FX-8120 8 8 3.1 GHz 4 GHz 8 MB 125 $205 
FX-Series FX-8150 8 8 3.6 GHz 4.2 GHz 8 MB 125 Watt $245


----------



## heky (Oct 9, 2011)

http://lab501.ro/procesoare-chipseturi/amd-fx-8150-bulldozer-preview

If this is true, BD is just a big fail. Revolutionary architecture my ass. It has higher clocks, bigger cache and still lags behind Intel. Not to mention SB is almost a year old now. Weak.


----------



## techtard (Oct 9, 2011)

Sihastru said:


> That's AMD's fault for not calling them by their true name, "a processor with 4 modules and 8 threads" and not "a processor with 8 cores". They will fool a lot of people (average Joe types), so no worries for sales... the downside is "an 8 core AMD CPU struggling against a 4 core Intel CPU" backlash from the community starting next month.



Actually, they are 2 physical cores per module, so it is an 8 core. You just have angry internet users who can't tell the difference between hyper-threading with virtual cores, and splitting tasks amongst smaller real cores.

@heky Are you just copy and pasting that same phrase in all FX threads?


----------



## Mussels (Oct 9, 2011)

techtard said:


> Actually, they are 2 physical cores per module, so it is an 8 core. You just have angry internet users who can't tell the difference between hyper-threading with virtual cores, and splitting tasks amongst smaller real cores.
> 
> @heky Are you just copy and pasting that same phrase in all FX threads?



i spent a good 5 minutes figuring out how to reply to his post, but his attitude is just depressing. he seems like the kind of person that if he was involved in horse racing, he'd shoot his horse in the head if it didnt come first in every race.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 9, 2011)

bwaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha! ^^


----------



## heky (Oct 9, 2011)

@techtard
Yes i am, just to inform people who miss out on stuff.
@Mussels
What really is depressing is seeing you grab on that imaginary string that BD will perform. Well guess what, that is just not gonna happen. Get over it.


----------



## SaiZo (Oct 9, 2011)

Is this CPU out in the hardware stores yet?


----------



## Mussels (Oct 9, 2011)

heky said:


> @Mussels
> What really is depressing is seeing you grab on that imaginary string that BD will perform. Well guess what, that is just not gonna happen. Get over it.



since when did i care? i'm not upgrading to it.

your attitude only makes sense if you intended to buy bulldozer, and you are disapointed because of it... but if its slow as you claim, why do you care? you arent being forced to buy it. just posting shit like "OMG SLOWER THAN INTEL HAHAHAHA" is so... i dont know any other word than retarded.

its like you NEED it to be faster, just so you can buy it and brag to everyone who has last generations fastest, that you have something they dont and now your evil plan is ruined.


----------



## heky (Oct 9, 2011)

Ever heard of the term competition? If AMD doesnt bring competition to the table, we are all f-ed. I am not braging about anything. I bought Intel becouse at that time it was the bang 4 buck. And seeing AMD perform would just lower the Intel prices too. Thats why i care, becouse it is a dissapointment to wait for so long for a chip that "underdelivers". And with posting in all BD threads i am jut trying to inform people of the newest news.

But i am not stuck on Intel forever, if AMD performs better, i would switch without breaking a sweat!


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 9, 2011)

heky said:


> What really is depressing is seeing you grab on that imaginary string that BD will perform. Well guess what, that is just not gonna happen. Get over it.


What is really depressing is the constant glass half empty attitude. 

While you may be correct...(and I too am guessing those numbers listed at many sites are not far off and BD is slower than SB) why does it matter? You are poopooing on speculation at this point. Come 10/12, you can poopoo all you want, but until then, you are rumormongoring on the negative side of things which is getting a bit tiresome is, I believe, part of Mussels point.

So just chill until the facts come out, then spread your BD hate.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 9, 2011)

I am calling BS on those numbers. They may have done something terribly wrong.


----------



## techtard (Oct 9, 2011)

It isn't news yet, though. Just speculation until official launch and official benches.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 9, 2011)

heky said:


> Ever heard of the term competition? If AMD doesnt bring competition to the table, we are all f-ed. I am not braging about anything. I bought Intel becouse at that time it was the bang 4 buck. And seeing AMD perform would just lower the Intel prices too. Thats why i care, becouse it is a dissapointment to wait for so long for a chip that "underdelivers". And with posting in all BD threads i am jut trying to inform people of the newest news.



seriously, you bring up the competition angle? for all the performance rumours you believe, you ignore the ones about how BD is going to be priced cheaply?


bang for the buck might be its exact strong point.


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 9, 2011)

heky said:


> Ever heard of the term competition? If AMD doesnt bring competition to the table, we are all f-ed. I am not braging about anything. I bought Intel becouse at that time it was the bang 4 buck. And seeing AMD perform would just lower the Intel prices too. Thats why i care, becouse it is a dissapointment to wait for so long for a chip that "underdelivers". And with posting in all BD threads i am jut trying to inform people of the newest news.
> 
> But i am not stuck on Intel forever, if AMD performs better, i would switch without breaking a sweat!



Not really sure if beating Intel is AMD's goal, if you want performance, then just get the chip that performs best for your needs. For a while now AMD has always been in the best bang for buck category, they perform great for what they're worth, if it's not good enough for you then move on, you're not getting paycheck from them i assume.

And keep in mind Intel will lower prices regardless of performance, as more choices in CPU's, especially if the other choices are cheaper, means they'll lower to stay competitive if they see fit.


----------



## techtard (Oct 9, 2011)

For most games AMD was good enough. But if you work with your computer, and time=money, then it was worth the extra to go Intel.

Once they start actually optimizing software and games for quad-plus cores, it will be interesting to see stronger cores vs more cores.


----------



## heky (Oct 9, 2011)

Mussels said:


> seriously, you bring up the competition angle? for all the *performance rumours you believe*, you ignore the ones about how BD is going to be priced cheaply?
> 
> 
> bang for the buck might be its exact strong point.



Believe what you want, but lab501 is a credible source. Oh and for the low-price claim, we will just have to see about that, becouse all the sites in europe that have the chips up for pre-order, want more money for it than for a 2600K. Where is the bang for the buck in that?


----------



## ensabrenoir (Oct 9, 2011)

techtard said:


> For most games AMD was good enough. But if you work with your computer, and time=money, then it was worth the extra to go Intel.
> 
> Once they start actually optimizing software and games for quad-plus cores, it will be interesting to see stronger cores vs more cores.





As long as it doesn't turn into:   stronger cores vs more cores & more years.  Amd 's future is its apus for the consumer market.  That's their realm. 3 days away and i just want the whole thing to be over with.  If it rocks i'll get one if it sucks I'll get something else.  The sad part is 2 minutes afterward :  I TOLD U SO / JUST WAIT TILL PILE-DRIVER will start.


----------



## techtard (Oct 9, 2011)

Don't worry. They eventually get older and wiser and realize its retarded to blindly back a corporation that would happily slit your throat for the tiniest profit.


----------



## Kantastic (Oct 9, 2011)

Why are people being so presumptuous about a processor's performance based on unsubstantiated benchmarks from questionable sources? I'm hoping that BD will deliver, and I have no reason to believe otherwise until a credible source releases benchmarks after the actual chips are released and BD's NBA has been lifted. If it falls short of my expectations, I will have nothing to say.


----------



## mav2000 (Oct 10, 2011)

Why are prices that high....something does not add up here. AMD/retailers bump up prices on a product that seems to be as good or as bad as the previous Gen and significantly underperforming vs. the competition...

I am confused....this seems to point at AMD holding something back, but what it is nobody knows, and with us being in the current information age of the internet, something would have probably leaked somewhere by now.

In other news, looks like the initial batch being sent out for sales is extremely small, so for eg. our city is only going to get 50 proccys, of all the series put together....could this be the reason for inflated prices?


----------



## techtard (Oct 10, 2011)

Hardware preorders are always priced higher. It's the price you pay to be an early adopter.
It's basically the E-peen tax.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Oct 10, 2011)

This is a shocking price. The quad FX 4100 at 121$. Is it that bad? Or that good for the price?

http://www.shopblt.com/cgi-bin/shop...011003000503_BLA5916P.shtml&order_id=!ORDERID!


----------



## Ahhzz (Oct 10, 2011)

Mussels said:


> seriously, you bring up the competition angle? for all the performance rumours you believe, you ignore the ones about how BD is going to be priced cheaply?
> 
> 
> bang for the buck might be its exact strong point.



not often in the position of throwing Mussels a "thanks", but my point exactly. The AMD procs are throwing out the best ROI (return on investment), almost across the board, and if I remember right, at an assumed $280 price tag, the BD was coming in around a score of 35, which puts it in a very sweet spot, and stompering all over the Intel chips....


Thanks


----------



## Ahhzz (Oct 10, 2011)

heky said:


> Believe what you want, but lab501 is a credible source. Oh and for the low-price claim, we will just have to see about that, becouse all the sites in europe that have the chips up for pre-order, want more money for it than for a 2600K. Where is the bang for the buck in that?



Here. try this. 

http://www.provantage.com/amd-fd4100wmw4kgu~4AAMD2MC.htm


----------



## heky (Oct 10, 2011)

Really, i still dont see the point. The 2 core/4thread sany will probably stomp over it, and costs the same.
Intel Core i3-2100 Sandy Bridge 3.1GHz 2 x 256KB L...


----------



## Ahhzz (Oct 10, 2011)

heky said:


> Really, i still dont see the point. The 2 core/4thread sany will probably stomp over it, and costs the same.
> Intel Core i3-2100 Sandy Bridge 3.1GHz 2 x 256KB L...




Really? hahahahah nice   I want some of what you're smoking 

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html


----------



## Super XP (Oct 10, 2011)

*Performance Comparison - Bulldozer vs. Phenom II Clock for Clock + Same Core Count*

Putting the prices on the side for now, the only way to find out if the new upcoming FX line is faster than PII clock for clock which = RAW Design Improvements.

*AMD Phenom II x6 1100T @ 3.30 GHz*
- L2 = 3MB - L3 = 6MB - AM3 - TDP = 125W - 45nm SOI - 1066 MHz Memory
*Versus:*
*AMD FX 6100 @ 3.30 GHz*
- L2 = 6MB - L3 = 8MB - AM3+ - TDP = 95W - 32nm SOI + HKMG - 1866/2133 MHz Memory

*AMD Phenom II x4 980T @ 3.70 GHz* 
- L2 = 2MB - L3 = 6MB -AM3 - TDP = 125W - 45nm SOI - 1066MHz Memory
*Versus:*
*AMD FX 4100 @ 3.6 GHz* 
- L2 = 4MB - L3 = 8MB -AM3+ - TDP = 95W - 32nm SOI + HKMG - 1866/2133 MHz Memory

Can AMD's new upcoming FX line's superior Design take out CLOCK 4 CLOCK Phenom II's aged design? I think it can Big Time if not, then AMD is in trouble....


----------



## Tank (Oct 10, 2011)

i dunno something about those numbers seem off.

yes the guy is some kind of oc wiz but seriously something does not seem right there.

and i truly doubt they made a cpu that's worse than their own previous generation of processors


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 10, 2011)

Tank said:


> i dunno something about those numbers seem off.
> 
> yes the guy is some kind of oc wiz but seriously something does not seem right there.
> 
> and i truly doubt they made a cpu that's worse than their own previous generation of processors



thats exactly right tank.

Other Point being Im liking how the thermals are less than the prev Gen, with all prices going up there is no need to have to pay for more electricity.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 12, 2011)

If there is any truth to these benchmarks, then all those previews going around are full of shit.


----------



## f22a4bandit (Oct 12, 2011)

Super XP said:


> If there is any truth to these benchmarks, then all those previews going around are full of shit.
> 
> http://wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/amdfxpressdeck_22a_dh_fx57.jpg
> http://wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/amdfxpressdeck_16a_dh_fx57.jpg



Unfortunately, that slide there is comparing last generation i7 to Bulldozer. This seems to be a theme running around on a couple of "slides" I've seen posted on here.

I refuse to judge until official benchmarks come out.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 12, 2011)

Officials are out, not happy by the numbers at all. Dam AMD, is there a light at the end of the tunnel? Hope so, we need strong competition for Intel or we are all finished...


----------

