I am fine with this.

@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?

MindweaverI'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.

It's about time we get a price break.

Is Piledriver here yet?

FourstaffI 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 :laugh:

caleb@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!. :toast: 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.

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

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

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

that is great to hear

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!"

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.

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).

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.

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

@hardstuff: source?

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...

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).

scooper22@hardstuff: source?

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

Ottimo!! finalmente :)

FatalI'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 ;)

Yellow&Nerdy?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!!!

cadavecaI 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.


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!!!

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.

[H]@RD5TUFFPeople 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.

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.

ivicagmcJust 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)