AMD Piledriver CPU Pre-Order Pricing Leaks Out

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
With the imminent release of the next AMD CPU, codenamed Piledriver, right around the corner in October, it’s about time that news of the pricing and availability date finally surfaced.

The FX processors will be available in October, while some reports place the launch as early as October 1. October release date seems plausible considering the fact that the CPUs are already available for pre-order in US.
Click to expand...
 
Considering that everything from an i5 chip and up can outperform these in nearly everything, the prices are too high. Which is even laughable that some older AMD cheaps are cheaper and better.

27195330.jpg
 
Ashbringer said:
Considering that everything from an i5 chip and up can outperform these in nearly everything, the prices are too high. Which is even laughable that some older AMD cheaps are cheaper and better.

27195330.jpg
Click to expand...

LOL, best first post ever. Love that guy
 
Are all these leaks AMD's new marketing department? 88xx then 89xx now CPUs...
 
I want to like AMD, I really do. They just make it so hard. I'd love to build a computer to help along with my Handbrake project. But the 8 core CPU is only "maybe" faster then a bottom line i7 sandy bridge, and that would only be on handbrake.

The only thing that looks tempting right now to me is getting a 2x 6 core or 8 core server board.
 
>$253
>125W

What's that top FX chip have going for it? Looks pretty fail at that price.
 
westrock2000 said:
I want to like AMD, I really do. They just make it so hard.
Click to expand...

+1 to this. Been a fan of them since my Tbird days, but it stopped when Intel regained the performance crown and kept it. I really want to build an AMD based rig again, but not at the cost of performance. So Ivy Bridge it is, unless Piledriver can live up to its name and go Zangeif on Intel.
 
I guess most of you didn't get the memo that AMD stopped competing on the high end because it simply can't match Intel's R&D. The prices seem about $25 too high across every level, but without performance numbers I'm assuming only a marginal increase over the past generation with my pricing. I'm sure by the end of the year these will drop in price and provide comparable or slightly better performance then similarly priced Intel chips.

Will AMD's chips win the performance crown and own benchmarks? NO

Will AMD offer 90% of desktop users a great CPU at a reasonable price? YES. And that is where AMD is going to compete.
 
weuntouchable said:
I guess most of you didn't get the memo that AMD stopped competing on the high end because it simply can't match Intel's R&D.
Click to expand...

One of the biggest issues I have is the TDP. I can accept that their 8 cores are only marginal to Intel's 4. But 125 watts for less performance versus Intel 95 watts. That's what really hurts it. Other then price you get absolutly nothing.

The only reason AMD has stayed in the house is because of the discounts they give. Being able to get a quad core plus motherboard for less then $100 from Microcenter is good for me....but can't be great for business.
 
What happened to the AMD that brought us Socket 939? The whole AMD/ATI thing is looking more and more like DAAMIT--get your act together!
 
Sovereign said:
What happened to the AMD that brought us Socket 939? The whole AMD/ATI thing is looking more and more like DAAMIT--get your act together!
Click to expand...

I'm afraid they just can't compete with intel as a company. Intel is too advanced in R&D as mentioned before and AMD just can't afford this. Hopefully they will be able to grow as Intel. But untill then, be prepared for a small performance increase in Haswell. With no competition the milk will be sucked out of the the cow till its dead.
 
Shago said:
With no competition the milk will be sucked out of the the cow till its dead.
Click to expand...

at this point, even Ivy Bridge is so far beyond what most consumers and businesses need that, coupled with the global uncertainty, Intel can just milk it and no one will hardly notice.
 
Sovereign said:
What happened to the AMD that brought us Socket 939? The whole AMD/ATI thing is looking more and more like DAAMIT--get your act together!
Click to expand...

Intel tried to rely on a dated architecture (Netburst) and AMD was able to capitalize. Since then Intel has re-committed itself to innovation and AMD just doesn't have the resources to compete. AMD/ ATI was a good thing, AMD just paid way too much money for ATI and made several other really stupid moves under its former management.
 
Ashbringer said:
Considering that everything from an i5 chip and up can outperform these in nearly everything, the prices are too high. Which is even laughable that some older AMD cheaps are cheaper and better.

27195330.jpg
Click to expand...

You should just wait for official www results benchmarks then we can see how well it performs by diff reviewer, after all let keep mind that it all to eazy to fake and under/over hype things when it not even out.
 
Personally, I hope one of these Piledriver CPU's is a worth upgrade from my current (since I have an AM3+ mobo) or its going to be an expensive upgrade during tax season with an i7 3930 Comp.
 
SamuraiInBlack said:
+1 to this. Been a fan of them since my Tbird days, but it stopped when Intel regained the performance crown and kept it. I really want to build an AMD based rig again, but not at the cost of performance. So Ivy Bridge it is, unless Piledriver can live up to its name and go Zangeif on Intel.
Click to expand...

Bear in mind, you can still build two Phenom II quadcore boxes for about the price of an equivalent in total performance i5 box. Granted, it IS having two separate boxes, but still is still excessively overpriced for the performance you get in the end over AMD.

Phenom II Quads are selling for about $40 and the only thing I have that could even come close to maxing it out is Handbrake. Not one game punches my Athlon II hard. Not one.
 
weuntouchable said:
Intel tried to rely on a dated architecture (Netburst) and AMD was able to capitalize. Since then Intel has re-committed itself to innovation and AMD just doesn't have the resources to compete. AMD/ ATI was a good thing, AMD just paid way too much money for ATI and made several other really stupid moves under its former management.
Click to expand...

More like Intel made bad design decisions with their new (not dated) Netburst architecture and being locked in a 5-year development cycle were unable to correct that bad decision until years later. Meanwhile AMD capitalized on Intel's mistake for that 5-year period.

Intel actually went back to their old architecture. Pentium-M, Core and Core2 make use of the old P6 core, with enhancements here and there. To prevent such a mistake from happening again, Intel implements tick-tock and has parallel teams working on new architectures making itself more agile.
 
El Barto said:
If they're pricing them that low, I predict crap performance.
Click to expand...

The chip has a 15% increase in IPC over Bulldozer. That should put it above any I5 chip and competitive with an I7 2600k Sandybridge. The AMD FX-8350 should kick ass on 2600k I7
on multithreaded apps like Photoshop and run at the same or slightly slower on poorly designed single-threaded gaming apps. There is no reason that gaming apps don't take advantage of multithreading other than poor programming design. Complaiin to EA and the other gaming vendors for producing an inferior product. You gamers are on roid rage and should your brains more and your hormones less. The retail price when the AMD chip ships will be about $245, abargain for a cpu that is superior in my opinion to all but 4 I7 cpu's. Those are all iin the $500 to $900 plus range. So park you mouth somewhere else until you know what you are talking about.
 
I'm hoping that Piledriver is still AM3+, so that at the most, companies like Asus and Sapphire only have to issue a BIOS update to support the chips. Of course, I will wait for Kyle and the crew here at [H] to review PD before I make the switch from Bulldozer to Piledriver.
 
El Barto said:
If they're pricing them that low, I predict crap performance.
Click to expand...

The chip has a 15% increase in IPC over Bulldozer. That should put it above any I5 chip and competitive with an I7 2600k Sandybridge. The AMD FX-8350 should kick ass on 2600k I7
on multithreaded apps like Photoshop and run at the same or slightly slower on poorly designed single-threaded gaming apps. There is no reason that gaming apps don't take advantage of multithreading other than poor programming design. Complaiin to EA and the other gaming vendors for producing an inferior product. You gamers are on roid rage and should your brains more and your hormones less. The retail price when the AMD chip ships will be about $245, abargain for a cpu that is superior in my opinion to all but 4 I7 cpu's. Those are all iin the $500 to $900 plus range. So park you mouth somewhere else until you know what you are talking about.
 
os2wiz said:
The AMD FX-8350 should kick ass on 2600k I7
on multithreaded apps like Photoshop
Click to expand...
Not if the FX8150 is any indication. It may end up being slightly faster than a 2600K, but not by a huge margin where I would use the phrase "kick ass"
44748.png


os2wiz said:
and run at the same or slightly slower on poorly designed single-threaded gaming apps.
Click to expand...

They are going to need a lot more than 15% to run even "slightly slower" in games, let alone have the same performance. Right now the FX8150 is as much as 50% slower than an i5 when it comes to gaming performance, and that is a massive difference. Things look particularly bad if you look at long frame times (as TechReport did), which shows how choppy games will seem.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5771/the-intel-ivy-bridge-core-i7-3770k-review/7
http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-gaming-performance-with-today-cpus/3

os2wiz said:
There is no reason that gaming apps don't take advantage of multithreading other than poor programming design. Complaiin to EA and the other gaming vendors for producing an inferior product.
Click to expand...

I agree more developers need to start utilizing multi-threading (beyond the 2 cores most are using now), but that doesn't change the reality that AMD CPUs have a huge disadvantage when it comes to gaming performance. Blaming game developers won't suddenly make your CPU faster, and AMD shares part of the responsibility for designing CPUs that aren't well suited to the current market realities.

It's pretty funny that you mention EA too, since BF3 is probably the only game in existence that can use more than 4 cores.

os2wiz said:
You gamers are on roid rage and should your brains more and your hormones less. The retail price when the AMD chip ships will be about $245, abargain for a cpu that is superior in my opinion to all but 4 I7 cpu's. Those are all iin the $500 to $900 plus range. So park you mouth somewhere else until you know what you are talking about..
Click to expand...

Buying a product that is slower in the thing we care about most is "using our brains more"? :confused: Piledriver may end up being faster in highly-threaded applications (like video encoding), but when you spend 10x as much time gaming, buying a CPU that is better at video encoding doesn't make much sense.

Likewise if you spend 10x as much time on video encoding as you do gaming, then buying the CPU that is better at video encoding makes more sense. It all comes down to the individual's use-case.

There are a lot of gamers and overclockers on HardOCP though, so they will naturally favor Intel CPUs right now (just as they favored AMD CPUs in the Athlon64 days)
 
os2wiz said:
The chip has a 15% increase in IPC over Bulldozer.
Click to expand...

That might catch back up to PhenonII, but it won't get anywhere near a current i7. Microcenter is selling PIIx4 BE for $90, I can't see piledriver [4-6 core] selling for more (maybe the 6 core can break $100, but it will be competing hard with the i3.)
 
weuntouchable said:
Intel tried to rely on a dated architecture (Netburst) and AMD was able to capitalize. Since then Intel has re-committed itself to innovation and AMD just doesn't have the resources to compete. AMD/ ATI was a good thing, AMD just paid way too much money for ATI and made several other really stupid moves under its former management.
Click to expand...

I would go all the way back to Itanic. Netburst was seen as a "plan B" that eventually trickled out after Itanic 1 (Merced, designed by Intel) flopped and Itanic 2 (McKinley, designed by the pre-Fiorina HP) proved to be extremely limited. It didn't help that Netburst was designed for the Dave Barry ("performance is measured in MHz") school of computer shopping. Once core2 shipped (and Intel started up the "tick-tock" sequence, it was all over for AMD.

AMD has publicly given up building cpus for the [H]ard set (even if it is difficult to find anything that can stress a PhenonII). They are something like 10% the size of Intel and much of that size can't go into keeping up with Intel across the board. The volume is in low-mid end laptops (don't ask me why non-enthusiasts insist "computer=laptop", my guess is that they assume all maintenance/upgrades are somebody else's problem), and trinity excels there.
 
@travbrad: dude, you're feeding the trolls..anyone with a handle that references a defunct operating system is trolling, QED.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top