KooKKiKremember Athlon 64 outclass Pentium 4 ??? :)

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

RejZoRAnd 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.

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.

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.

Crap DaddyToo 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.

FordGT90ConceptIt 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.

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.

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

Intel Users :toast:

Amd Users :banghead:

H82LUZ73Also 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 :toast: to AMD if it does well, because that means competition and lower prices for all...

mav2000Looks 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...

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

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

FordGT90ConceptMy 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.

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.

robalBy 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.

purefun65we 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

FxI 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.

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.

FxI 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

xenocideExcept 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.

FourstaffI 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.

:confused:

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... :laugh:

Crap DaddyToo 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

xenocideExcept 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

xenocideI 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.

lashtonThe 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.

xenocide:confused:

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.