AMD FX Processor Prices Lower Than Expected

[Damn_Smooth]

Added a poll.

What makes you think this is true?

 

[JATownes]

What makes you think this is true?

Uhhh, because I can see the poll?

 

[Damn_Smooth]

Uhhh, because I can see the poll?

The topic, not the poll. :shadedshu

 

[trickson]

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.

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]

Not 100% convinced those are the real prices.

 

[seronx]

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]

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]

The topic, not the poll. :shadedshu

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

 

[Damn_Smooth]

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]

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]

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

 

[Steevo]

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]

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]

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

 

[MxPhenom 216]

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]

Not 100% convinced those are the real prices.

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

 

[damric]

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

 

[twilyth]

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]

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]

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-]

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]

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]

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]

Edit: ./.

 

[de.das.dude]

first time i voted on something that others want too