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

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

hekyEver 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.

hekyEver 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.

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.

Musselsseriously, 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?

techtardFor 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.:banghead:

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.

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.

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?

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

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

www.shopblt.com/cgi-bin/shop/shop.cgi?action=thispage&thispage=011003000503_BLA5916P.shtml&order_id=!ORDERID!

Musselsseriously, 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 :toast:

hekyBelieve 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.

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

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...

hekyReally, 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 :rockout: I want some of what you're smoking :pimp:

www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

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.... :cool:

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

Tanki 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.

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

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

wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/amdfxpressdeck_22a_dh_fx57.jpg
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.

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...