1100t Going back up in price?

Exeodus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,115
Yup, was 169.00 on BF. I think supply is low and demand is getting high thanks to the fail know as BD.
 

heflys20

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
1,492
Yep. Like me. Why buy a BD when the X6 series pretty much equals it for half-price (well...Not exactly half price)? I guess AMD realized that.

Now, if Newegg would get me my processor!
 

Tsumi

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
13,563
Thuban and all other 45nm CPUs have been discontinued, AMD is no longer producing them. As stock clears out, price will continue to go up since there's a larger demand for Thuban than Bulldozer.
 

BigMacAttack

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
1,563
AMD is painting themselves into a corner by discontinuing the Thubans IMO. There is still money to be made on them. Glad I got my 945 and 1090T when I did.
 

MacLeod

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
8,150
Yeah the 1100 was $180 and now its $200. My 1090 was down to $160 at one point and now its back up to $180.

Well it sucks theyre killing off the Thubans but I guess they have no choice. Since the X6 is faster core for core, why would you buy a FX6100 when you can buy a faster X6 1075 for $10 more? Or a pretty much equal 1055 for $10 less??

The only FX worth having is the 8120 for $210 but again, its only barely better than the 1100 but costs $10 more.

Sad days indeed for AMD fanboys like myself. Bad enough the FX chips arent any better than the Phenom's but now theyre killing off the Phenoms!! Ay caramba!
 

Tsumi

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
13,563
They make more money off Bulldozer. Die is smaller, manufacturing tech is smaller, and current selling prices are higher. I'm sure we'll see Bulldozer prices drop as Thuban and Deneb sells out.
 

SnowBeast

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 3, 2003
Messages
1,312
They make more money off Bulldozer. Die is smaller, manufacturing tech is smaller, and current selling prices are higher. I'm sure we'll see Bulldozer prices drop as Thuban and Deneb sells out.

Being a 1055t owner myself, I think that boat has already sailed...and sunk. You can't up 1090/1100t to $200 and bulldozer over that, when a lot of people do have the option of MicroCenter for an i5 2500. Hell, if you are gonna be near or at $200, you can still get that 2500 at the egg for $225. You just can't raise prices when every review has sunk your new CPU. That is a very bad business idea and only works if your newer CPU IS BETTER.

Really think about it on both sides. Its like shooting yourself in your right foot, ricocheting it into your left ankle.
 

Tsumi

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
13,563
AMD also has the advantage of their motherboards being cheaper than equivalent Intel motherboards. So as a platform, AMD is still cheaper than Intel.

And approximately 70-80% of the US population does not have access to a Microcenter. Think about that too. Additionally, as time passes, I'm sure Microcenter will do bundle deals with Bulldozer also.

You're also talking as if AMD is the one raising prices on Thuban. That's not true. It's the retailers. And think about it if you're a retailer. Why would you raise prices on something that doesn't sell? You don't. You raise prices because it sells.
 

maxius

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 17, 2001
Messages
3,376
AMD has a backup plan the thulban core has been already shrunk in llano if AMD decides to abandon bd for the desktop space and keep it strictly to servers but we won't know what is going on at AMD till ces and when project win is unveiled after both we have a clue
 

pelo

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Messages
2,911
The X6 wont do 4.2+ GHz at stock voltage, and the FX-6100 is $160.

The fx-8150 would have to break 4.5ghz to match the stock clock x6 in single-threaded performance. And that's with a way better turbo that actually works, whereas the turbo in the thubans was completely worthless. The x6 thubans are in comparison 6 completely isolated and separate cores, whereas the 6-core 'dozer is 3 modules, 2 cores each, with shared resources between them, and as a result the thubans perform better in multi-threaded apps as well. For the love of God, don't buy into the "higher clock therefore better" craze.

The prices are naturally on the up as supplies run low. They recently dropped the prices of the 4 core and 6 core bulldozers but only by a measly amount. If they dropped the 8 core bulldozer's prices to the previous thuban range, $180 or so, then they may see fewer people go the Intel route and the chips may be worthy of a sidegrade
 

FireBean

Gawd
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Messages
994
I don't want a side grade, I want an upgrade and AMD has failed to do this for me. Hello Intel!
 

Mr Spocko

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 30, 2011
Messages
339
The FX-6100 sucks.
It doesn't matter about overclocking the FX processors because their performance is so poor anyway they just don't scale up well at all.

I'm FX ready mobo wise not a hope in hell I'm going near the train wreck they call bulldozer.
Prices are bad anyway FX isn't worth the outlay.

A massive revision with far better performance and lower power consumption..maybe we'll see. To date FX= Epic fail
 
Joined
Nov 4, 2006
Messages
589
So basically the AMD upgrade path for Thuban is:

1) Scalp your Thuban for as much as possible
2) Buy an 2500k?
 

Blacklash

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Messages
1,893
If you're primarily a gamer it might be worth considering a 960T for 125usd.

Even if it didn't unlock you'd have a Thuban based BE quad.

I got one for my AMD comp when they were 115usd. It does 4.3GHz on air with 1.40v.

It has no problems running ram @ DDR3 1870. I've not pushed the memory higher.
 
Last edited:

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
22,230
The FX-6100 sucks.
It doesn't matter about overclocking the FX processors because their performance is so poor anyway they just don't scale up well at all.

I'm FX ready mobo wise not a hope in hell I'm going near the train wreck they call bulldozer.
Prices are bad anyway FX isn't worth the outlay.

A massive revision with far better performance and lower power consumption..maybe we'll see. To date FX= Epic fail

FX=FaileXtreme
 

MacLeod

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
8,150
So basically the AMD upgrade path for Thuban is:

1) Scalp your Thuban for as much as possible
2) Buy an 2500k?

Pretty much. Ive thought about sticking with FX by getting a new motherboard and 8120 as that way Id have a much better chance of not having to reinstall Windows and/or buy another copy. But about the time I decide thats the way to go, I start reading benchmarks and seeing these things being equaled and downright outperformed by my current X6. So I think Ill eventually end up with an Intel setup for the first time in 10 years. :(
 

Blacklash

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Messages
1,893
Ya' FX 6100 isn't too impressive and certainly not for the asking price.

I've seen one @ 4.6GHz that does 6084 in the CPU test of 3dmark06. My 960T with just 4 cores on does 6026 @ 4.3GHz.

In the ancient CPUmark bench my i7 920 @ 3.96GHz does 616, my 960T @ 4.3GHz does 607. An FX 6100 @ 4.6GHz does 514. @ 5.0GHz the 6100 will hit 557.
 

heflys20

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
1,492
So basically the AMD upgrade path for Thuban is:

1) Scalp your Thuban for as much as possible
2) Buy an 2500k?

Fortunately, I'm going from an Athlon II X4 with this PC.

If I hadn't been suckered by FX, I would have gotten a 2500k for roughly the same price at Microcenter. But I got this new AM3+ board when my other one burnt out. So.......
 

Michaelius

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 8, 2003
Messages
4,684
Pretty much. Ive thought about sticking with FX by getting a new motherboard and 8120 as that way Id have a much better chance of not having to reinstall Windows and/or buy another copy. But about the time I decide thats the way to go, I start reading benchmarks and seeing these things being equaled and downright outperformed by my current X6. So I think Ill eventually end up with an Intel setup for the first time in 10 years. :(

OT- I booted normally into windows straight from 1055T on 890GX mobo to 2500K on Z68.

And well they did the same with 5770 series - initially noone wanted them for 200$ because 4890 was at 180$ at that time and 4870 was even cheaper.
 

Burticus

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
4,713
Microcenter has the 1090T for $159 and the 1100T for $179. I just read that AMD has officially killed off the Thuban line (all Phenom II / Athlon II lines, actually).

I wonder if I should "last gasp" snap up a 1090T and slap it into my existing system. It could be years before they get the Faildozer mess fixed, and my motherboard doesn't support them anyway.

I currently have a X4 955 which OC's up to 4ghz super easy for games. I wonder if an X6 is worth the effort since games would be the only cpu stressing thing I do on this rig. From what I've read probably not. But still, I want one....

I should spend that $159 towards a new video card methinks. GTX460 getting a little too old for my taste... sheesh it's been a year time for a new $200 video card! (my spending priorities are whacked)
 

kenmore81

n00b
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
1
This is the way to look at it from a performance perspective.
4100 = 3 core
6100 = 4 core
8100 = 6 core
Not literally speaking. Just looking at it from a performance standpoint.
Also the BD architecture isn't being used correctly. Not Microsoft's fault. The way it works is since the cores are labeled as cores, they are treated as equal cores. So the OS assigns processes similar to this. Cores order is 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 when AMD wanted it to be 1,3,5,7,2,4,6,8. The second core in each module only runs at about 80%. So with Windows 8 it is partially fixed right now in BETA. They speculate a 5-10% increase with proper core utilization. I would lean more toward the 5%. Now with Piledriver coming up, it is speculated there will be a 10-15% improvement over BD.
The real question is...is that a 10-15% over current BD on win7 or on win8. If it is on win8 and you take the minimum on both then you will be looking at a minimum of a 15% over current BD. That sound pretty good to me and worth waiting to see how it compares to ivy bridge.
Again those figures are speculation. But there has been win8 testing with BD and there has been a decent performance increase. You can Google that. :) so once win8 us done it may be closer to the 10% they were talking about.
Just some food for thought.
 

2-loc

Weaksauce
Joined
Nov 15, 2011
Messages
91
Yeah, I'm in the same boat, I just want a 6-core cpu, don't know how much better it would be fore me.
 

InternationalHat

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 13, 2004
Messages
1,481
This is the way to look at it from a performance perspective.
4100 = 3 core
6100 = 4 core
8100 = 6 core
Not literally speaking. Just looking at it from a performance standpoint.
Also the BD architecture isn't being used correctly. Not Microsoft's fault. The way it works is since the cores are labeled as cores, they are treated as equal cores. So the OS assigns processes similar to this. Cores order is 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 when AMD wanted it to be 1,3,5,7,2,4,6,8. The second core in each module only runs at about 80%. So with Windows 8 it is partially fixed right now in BETA. They speculate a 5-10% increase with proper core utilization. I would lean more toward the 5%. Now with Piledriver coming up, it is speculated there will be a 10-15% improvement over BD.
The real question is...is that a 10-15% over current BD on win7 or on win8. If it is on win8 and you take the minimum on both then you will be looking at a minimum of a 15% over current BD. That sound pretty good to me and worth waiting to see how it compares to ivy bridge.
Again those figures are speculation. But there has been win8 testing with BD and there has been a decent performance increase. You can Google that. :) so once win8 us done it may be closer to the 10% they were talking about.
Just some food for thought.

I don't know if this is feasible since I don't design chips, but... shouldn't they just have 'labeled' the cores out of order? IE Module 1 is labeled 1,5 and Module 2 is 2,6 etc. Relying on software to fix your hardware problem is usually moronic. It increases cost and complexity in the long run.

I imagine this would be a problem if an 8 core turns out to be crap and they bin it as a 6 core, but... it's stupid anyway.
 

Michaelius

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 8, 2003
Messages
4,684
Not literally speaking. Just looking at it from a performance standpoint.
Also the BD architecture isn't being used correctly. Not Microsoft's fault. The way it works is since the cores are labeled as cores, they are treated as equal cores. So the OS assigns processes similar to this. Cores order is 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 when AMD wanted it to be 1,3,5,7,2,4,6,8. The second core in each module only runs at about 80%. So with Windows 8 it is partially fixed right now in BETA. They speculate a 5-10% increase with proper core utilization. I would lean more toward the 5%. Now with Piledriver coming up, it is speculated there will be a 10-15% improvement over BD.

5-10% maybe if you find some ultra specialistic benchmark. People tested BD with 4 half-cores disabled using only 4 non-shared ones and gains were nowhere near 5-10%.
 

pelo

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Messages
2,911
5-10% maybe if you find some ultra specialistic benchmark. People tested BD with 4 half-cores disabled using only 4 non-shared ones and gains were nowhere near 5-10%.

It's pretty bad, yea.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/21865

They're better off using 1 thread per module rather than 4 threads between 2 modules. Those gains are actually quite decent, but that also negates the Turbo core and its improvements and goes against the point of the processor...

Basically it performs better as a 4 core 8 thread processor rather than an 8 core 8 thread one. Not exactly what AMD was going for...
 

Burticus

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
4,713
Microcenter has a sale on the 1055T for $119.
http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0334812

If this was a black edition with unlocked multi I would jump on it. Unlocked multi's have spoiled me, I don't want to do it the old fashioned way anymore....

UPDATE - oh hey now... it doesn't say anything about the bundle with free motherboard from that link, but I had already added it to cart at $119, then looked up the mobo combo chart ( http://www.microcenter.com/specials/promotions/AMDbundlePROMO.html ) and added a motherboard and that was showing in cart for one cent... so it may still work for the bundles on whatever boards they have in stock. Hmmmm
 
Last edited:

BladeVenom

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
7,707
The Bundle Promo page shows $139.99, but when you actually click on it, it's $119.99. Great for a budget build.
 

naizarak

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
189
lol first they release a useless architecture, then they deactivate the x6's, and now prices are going up on remaining CPU's. no thanks AMD, I'd rather pay the premium and get a 2500k
 

MikeOnBike

n00b
Joined
Apr 17, 2011
Messages
44
I'm glad I picked up my four 1100T when I did in Oct. I paid $175 each. I thought about the 8120 but that would have been another $180 in processors at the time for my build, not to mention that I would have spent more on the 1866 memory and AM3+ motherboards. I couldn't see enough performance difference to justify it.

I do think it is too early for shutdown on the Phenoms. I wonder how many AM3 mobo will be stuck in the sales channel when only AM3+ and FM1 processors are available.
 
Last edited:

MikeOnBike

n00b
Joined
Apr 17, 2011
Messages
44
I know, but after seeing Bulldozer, it's what a lot of people wished would have happened.

Exactly. Just wishful thinking. We get it, we're not clueless.

I do think Bulldozer has some promise. It needs some refinement and may turn out to kick butt eventually. If the 8120 would have been priced the same as the 1100T I would have gone with it.
 

Tsumi

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
13,563
It does show promise in my opinion. I believe the biggest complaint was the power consumption and heat, which at this point seems to be most likely process/manufacturing related. Which also explains all the delays. Once the process matures, the Bulldozer architecture will most likely show it's true potential with significantly higher stock and overclock speeds. But with Ivy Bridge on the 22nm process right around the corner... will a new Bulldozer revision come out on time?
 
Top