AMD FX-Series "Bulldozer" will ship end of June

Q2 2011 ?
patetic AMD !

the prevision is late june, i tell that the lauch will be 31 june, with available in the shops in july, riudicolous !

ALL because AMD wont' write in the roadmap Q3 !
Sandy bridge and Z68 will win !
 
senna89 said:
Q2 2011 ?
patetic AMD !

the prevision is late june, i tell that the lauch will be 31 june, with available in the shops in july, riudicolous !

ALL because AMD wont' write in the roadmap Q3 !
Sandy bridge and Z68 will win !
Click to expand...

What? Last time I looked at a calendar, June has only 30 days, anyways, June 30th is still in Q2. They may surprise everyone, and ship earlier.

I forgot to ask, is June 31st the same as the 1st of Never? You know, just to clarify things, in case I need a new calendar. :D
 
heatlesssun said:
It's not so much that the volume of expensive chips is important, it's the fact that you CAN sell expensive chips. Trying to undercut Intel has not been very sucessful for AMD, they've done their best in the CPU market when that had a great product, even better than Intels. Just five years ago the CPUs of choice for gamers came from AMD and they chips sold for price points similar to Intel and they made money. They have to sell attractive chips, that allows them to sell them at higher prices and that seemed to work for them.
Click to expand...



savantu said:
If you look at ASPs for both Intel and AMD, it is fairly obvious that CPUs below $150 bring 95% of the revenue.Problem is that the remaining CPUs bring 95% of the profit and with AMD out of that area, no wonder they are struggling to stay in black.
Click to expand...

They were having trouble staying in the Black because the CPU business shifted. Expensive CPU's sold back in that day because A.) there was a big difference in performance between have nots and the haves. B.) AMD when it had the Performance crown shadowed Intel's pricing because compared to Netburst, AMD's die size was actually larger so rather then under cut Intel, they let consumers choose on their own what side of the fence they were on. Their saving grace was Nvidia that came out with feature rich chipset's that massively undercut Intel's pricing. C.) this ties into A, but there was tangible performance differences even within the same cpu at different bins.

The shift itself is the lack of CPU intensive applications used by then general people. Mainly saying that IPC or GHz, has little impact on the performance of the standard computer user. With that comes machines like a netbook, or $400 machine that waay exceed the Memory, Storage, and CPU power that your Mother needs or will need for several years. The software has stagnated to a point that just about everything CPU wise and most +$100 GPU's is overkill. Even the most intensive games out there work perfectly fine (including Crysis) on an Athlon II X2 and a 5750. In the future it looks like it might actually get worse, Crytech, the last bastion of video intensive engines, has developed a scaling engine with consoles in mind, that actually makes it less intense on a PC then the last engine did years ago. With that became a massive shift to cheaper CPU's, and AMD has flourished with them selling more PC's then ever before.

That is where the shift also hurt them the most. AMD has never had a lot of capital lying around. Every year they have to retool or build a new fab. In a market where cheaper CPU's are selling more and more, they needed to be more flexible. They needed those higher ASP's and greater margins to be able to afford the loans to build the Fabs. Now ASP's and Margins means shit. All they need to do is make enough to cover R&D and operating costs. AMD is now in a better situation selling $100 CPU's and with slim margins, then they ever where selling .90 nm 939's at $300-$500 a pop and having to build new Fabs.

This is where BD comes in. Its flexible modules will allow it to eventually cover most of the consumer buying experience and make up a lot of the so called missing ASP on the server end. It may not be fast enough to sell a AMD BD FX $1000 CPU but the core build out and FPU design should allow it to become a huge hit in the server business where both the core count in die size and FPU performance could allow it to leapfrog Intel in several if not most Server benchmarks, but where its performance should make them easy $500-$1000 sells. So even if on the Desktop, it doesn't rule the roost, they can easily price it between $150-$300 and have nearly the same CPU sell for $800 in servers. All in a smaller die size and only standard production costs and not the upfront costs of the manufacturing facilities.

Without the Fabs and going the ATI route of more efficient die designs the thirst for ASPs is gone.
 
dnottis said:
Oh yea and the first bulldozer chips will be FX chips, remember the $1000 CPUs. Against a $300 CPU? hmm not looking good... Not seeing any value in Bulldozer... oh but wait... AMD the company that has been in second in performance for the last 10 years has an article on Fudzilla about how they are x amount faster than i7s... really? You are gonna believe the runner up in the CPU battle for the last 10 years and take that as gospel?


...so listen, I've got some beach front property that will go real nice with your bulldozer :)

I have owned AMD in the past, but this thing has been in development way too long. Its going to be a few years late to the party, over priced and over hyped. AMD is still there for the budget crowd and thats as good as it's gonna get.
Click to expand...

I can see you have been a PC/CPU fan for about 5 years if that with this post. :D Probably 2 years tops. :p

Alright n00b Let's take a trip back to 3/23/2005 and see what gaming Performance we could buy for our money ;) http://www.anandtech.com/show/1649/5

See that chart there buddy, see your fanboy processor the Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.73 Ghz that processor on that day the article came out was above 1000.00+ USD.

Now see the processor above it (the faster one)? :p The AMD Athlon 64 +3500 @ a whopping 2.2Ghz :D?

Guess how much it was on Newegg that Day of the article?

Well you won't believe it because you were never around obviously, but it was 269.99 that day on Newegg. Yes the FX 55 at the very Top Destroying all Pentium 4's of the day was 800.00+ (NOT 1000+ like you Intel Fanboys go on and on about) also on that day (you do know that 800 is less than 1000??), but the fact is all the Intel Fanboys now days weren't around.

You mean nothing to me because you don't know CPU history bud.

Also AMD was still on top of CPU Performance when they released their first Dual cores, almost a year b4 the first Core 2 Architecture was produced in 2006. So Intel has been on top for 5 years @ most.

Your a new Intel fanboy, you weren't ever buying CPU's in 2005 or before that, and you know jack squat. But you got schooled today. Good thing I'm here to set you Intel Fanboys in place....10 years my ace. :)
 
teletran8 said:
I can see you have been a PC/CPU fan for about 5 years if that with this post. :D Probably 2 years tops. :p

Alright n00b Let's take a trip back to 3/23/2005 and see what gaming Performance we could buy for our money ;) http://www.anandtech.com/show/1649/5

See that chart there buddy, see your fanboy processor the Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.73 Ghz that processor on that day the article came out was above 1000.00+ USD.

Now see the processor above it (the faster one)? :p The AMD Athlon 64 +3500 @ a whopping 2.2Ghz :D?

Guess how much it was on Newegg that Day of the article?

Well you won't believe it because you were never around obviously, but it was 269.99 that day on Newegg. Yes the FX 55 at the very Top Destroying all Pentium 4's of the day was 800.00+ (NOT 1000+ like you Intel Fanboys go on and on about) also on that day (you do know that 800 is less than 1000??), but the fact is all the Intel Fanboys now days weren't around.

You mean nothing to me because you don't know CPU history bud.

Also AMD was still on top of CPU Performance when they released their first Dual cores, almost a year b4 the first Core 2 Architecture was produced in 2006. So Intel has been on top for 5 years @ most.

Your a new Intel fanboy, you weren't ever buying CPU's in 2005 or before that, and you know jack squat. But you got schooled today. Good thing I'm here to set you Intel Fanboys in place....10 years my ace. :)
Click to expand...


I was here long before you... sorry man. Schooled? lmao, that post was good for a laugh thats for sure.

- FX-60 cost my buddy $1000+. ("the FX-60 debuts at $1031 in quantities of 1000", source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/1920) I was there when he pre-ordered it. I helped him assemble it when it arrived. *GASP* your facts are wrong - it wasnt $800. Do you know that $1000 is more than $800?
- I went through about 5 AMD 3500s to get the best overclocker. Well versed
- I owned about 15 AMD 64 CPUs through their "reign". Again, well versed.
- Intel conroe trounced FX-60 when it arrived (http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=4843&page=1)
- I've owned more AMD chips than Intel chips over my years of building / overclocking PCs

Oh, wait, you're just pissed about me saying 10 years. :D Sarcasm is lost on kids these days. LMAO - AMD fanboy go home. Nothing more needs to be said. The 10 year thing tossed an AMD fanboy into a frenzy... I'd hate to see your face when Bulldozer turns out to be the biggest flop of the year.
 
That's disappointing. I'm building either this month or next and am not going to wait.
 
dnottis said:
Well since we've taken Fudzilla as source here...

http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/21993-bulldozer-has-chipset-issues

Also, it wasnt shown at GDC which just confirms something is going on.
Click to expand...

Doesn't intel have an 8-core client SB coming? I don't recall seeing them demo it. Something must be wrong.

What everyone fails to remember is that we showed live bulldozer demos last november. Why would we suddenly be unable to do it? In the building next door to me there are plenty of BDs running in test labs, and I am willing to bet that there are several people on my floor (marketing) that have BD in their hands. If someone wanted to show it, I am sure that they could have shown it.

If you go back and look at all of the threads on all of the forums that talk about AMD at CeBIT in all of them I replied not to get too excited because whatever is happening, it is not coming from HQ that I knew of.

I don't think you can say just because you don't see a demo somewhere that something is going on.
 
gigatexal said:
JF-AMD I think I said this before but how can you honestly say anything objective in the position you are in? You work for AMD. You are the marketing guy. That screams conflict of interest. I think you'll gain a lot more credibility if you were more objective and showed things when AMD makes mistakes but that would put your job as the marketing guy at risk...it's a catch-22.
Click to expand...

I am one of the few people that actually is very upfront about who I am. And if you follow my comments you'll see that I am 99% answering questions and sharing information. I don't talk about performance and I don't try to hype my products. If anything I am probably too conservative on what I say.

I think I have plenty of credibility from the comments of others about my responses.
 
JF-AMD said:
Doesn't intel have an 8-core client SB coming? I don't recall seeing them demo it. Something must be wrong.

What everyone fails to remember is that we showed live bulldozer demos last november. Why would we suddenly be unable to do it? In the building next door to me there are plenty of BDs running in test labs, and I am willing to bet that there are several people on my floor (marketing) that have BD in their hands. If someone wanted to show it, I am sure that they could have shown it.

If you go back and look at all of the threads on all of the forums that talk about AMD at CeBIT in all of them I replied not to get too excited because whatever is happening, it is not coming from HQ that I knew of.

I don't think you can say just because you don't see a demo somewhere that something is going on.
Click to expand...


I don't doubt that somewhere there are bulldozers running. I just believe the performance hype is just that, hype. How long has this chip been in development? We only heard about 8 core SB a few weeks ago... not a year ago... or 18 months ago.

Only recently we found out the FX series will be released in June. From previous history FX branding comes at a cost. I'd speculate around $1000. Maybe $800. Either way that better buy a huge performance increase over SB to justify it.

I wish you guys the best and hope you do have success with the BD line.
 
In my mind there is no way this chip could cost any where near that. It may net SB 2600K prices but I do not see much more. Even though it will have more physical cores it will not have a better IPC than SB so it will not perform better than SB in most desktop applications. Multi threaded is a different story buldozer will clearly win there but this will not command a large premium when it looses in most desktop applications that do not use 6+ threads.

On the server line they can charge $1000+ but not on the desktop.
 
Last edited:
drescherjm said:
In my mind there is no way this chip could cost any where near that. It may net SB 2600K prices but I do not see much more. Even though it will have more physical cores it will not have a better IPC than SB so it will not perform better than SB in most desktop applications. Multi threaded is a different story buldozer will clearly win there but this will not command a large premium when it looses in most desktop applications that do not use 6+ threads.

On the server line they can charge $1000+ but not on the desktop.
Click to expand...

Will not have 'a better IPC' than SB? How are you sure? Do you have a Zambezi or Interlagos core cpu? AMD will charge what the market will bear, just like Intel does. Why don't we just wait till number/benchmarks are released, instead of constantly (and annoyingly) speculating about performance. Geez.

[Grammar Nazi] And another thing the word you're looking for is loses not looses.[/Grammar Nazi]
 
Will not have 'a better IPC' than SB? How are you sure?
Click to expand...

I do not see a 30+% improvement per core versus Phenom II with adding 2 cores and staying inside of a 140W power draw.
 
drescherjm said:
I do not see a 30+% improvement per core versus Phenom II with adding 2 cores and staying inside of a 140W power draw.
Click to expand...

That is entirely possible within the realm of a die shrink. Remember, these are different from the 'Stars' cores. From Agena/Barcelona, AMD was able to make some serious improvements from 65nm to 45nm, and kept TDP at similar levels. Isn't the 30+% improvement within the same TDP similar to the difference from Lynnfield to Sandy Bridge?
 
I think any time puts all of their performance cards in a single basket and say that something has to have xyz or its game over they show that they don't understand the broader market. There is more to this than one metric.
 
but JF look where you are at: we play games here a lot of us do. A high IPC bodes well for current games. That might change if things become more and more paralell but for the time being IPC wins and that's why the high IPC intel chips are rocking at least when it comes to games.
 
To be honest, how about you guys just wait and see? I see a lot of conclusions being drawn but we honestly just don't know enough. Just wait for it to come out and then start picking it apart. I am hoping for the best as I would absolutely love to have AMD as an option for folding. We know that the Thubans(when overclocked) are more than capable of doing the big units, but Stanford won't allow it because it doesn't do 8 threads :(
 
amdgamer said:
To be honest, how about you guys just wait and see? I see a lot of conclusions being drawn but we honestly just don't know enough. Just wait for it to come out and then start picking it apart. I am hoping for the best as I would absolutely love to have AMD as an option for folding. We know that the Thubans(when overclocked) are more than capable of doing the big units, but Stanford won't allow it because it doesn't do 8 threads :(
Click to expand...

I patiently await real hard numbers as well.

but god damn is it not entertaining to read some of these responses? RAVENOUS!

Its like watching a train wreck.

This is the first time ive havnt been with amd in awhile until unfortunately my last build bit the dust, but damn i love my SB setup over my old 965. soooo much better.

recall hasnt affected me at all (6 sata3 ports) and havnt run into any of the other issues. easy oc to 4.8, with room for more.

Some people just let companies control their wallets. Amusing isnt it?

I have been waiting a long time for bulldozer, and i really hope it delivers, I remember when the original FX chips came out and it was my dream chip for a couple years. I want competition in the market, and right now there just isnt any. If it turns out it delivers, ill ebay my current setup and buy myself an amd system once again. But its got a lot its up against.
 
evanisthecoastie said:
I patiently await real hard numbers as well.

but god damn is it not entertaining to read some of these responses? RAVENOUS!

Its like watching a train wreck.

This is the first time ive havnt been with amd in awhile until unfortunately my last build bit the dust, but damn i love my SB setup over my old 965. soooo much better.

recall hasnt affected me at all (6 sata3 ports) and havnt run into any of the other issues. easy oc to 4.8, with room for more.

Some people just let companies control their wallets. Amusing isnt it?

I have been waiting a long time for bulldozer, and i really hope it delivers, I remember when the original FX chips came out and it was my dream chip for a couple years. I want competition in the market, and right now there just isnt any. If it turns out it delivers, ill ebay my current setup and buy myself an amd system once again. But its got a lot its up against.
Click to expand...

My biggest curiosity is how that 8 core chip will do. Since it can do 8 threads, it will be the first AMD chip that will be able to fold the super big bigadv work units. This means that bigadv folders will hopefully finally have an AMD option. As much as I hated it, I ended up being forced into going with a Bloomfield and more recently a Gulftown for my two folding rigs.
 
JF-AMD said:
I think any time puts all of their performance cards in a single basket and say that something has to have xyz or its game over they show that they don't understand the broader market. There is more to this than one metric.
Click to expand...

completely agree. though being that this is an enthusiast gaming forum most people tend to miss the bigger picture and never realize that we are the minority.

drescherjm said:
I do not see a 30+% improvement per core versus Phenom II with adding 2 cores and staying inside of a 140W power draw.
Click to expand...

30% gains pretty easy to do vs the phenom II's. as good as the architecture was, it is still very inefficient for the clocks and voltage they run. given the fact that they are a 45nm process vs the 32nm process of the bulldozer that alone will drop the TDP. given the fact that even most of the phenom II's don't come near their rated TDP its even easier to do. the phenom II 945 C2 vs C3 and 965 C2 vs C3 are both very good examples of how to drop power usage while still using the same voltages and clock speeds. so its completely do-able.


dnottis said:
I don't doubt that somewhere there are bulldozers running. I just believe the performance hype is just that, hype. How long has this chip been in development? We only heard about 8 core SB a few weeks ago... not a year ago... or 18 months ago.

Only recently we found out the FX series will be released in June. From previous history FX branding comes at a cost. I'd speculate around $1000. Maybe $800. Either way that better buy a huge performance increase over SB to justify it.

I wish you guys the best and hope you do have success with the BD line.
Click to expand...

the FX name is marketing and thats it. it has nothing to do with prices like the old days where you had athlon 64 and "The FX Processor". even now we still have that.. in comparison you have the athlon II which would of been the athlon 64 and then you have the phenom II which would of been the FX processor. i could completely understand your argument but that fact is ALL of the bulldozer processors will carry the FX name instead of just 1 or 2 of the absolute high end processors. i think it has more to do with AMD trying to signify that the bulldozer is not just another phenom processor by calling it the phenom III but trying to show that its a completely different processor by using the FX name. also gets rid of a lot of the confusion when people are searching for stuff.
 
Last edited:
gigatexal said:
but JF look where you are at: we play games here a lot of us do. A high IPC bodes well for current games. That might change if things become more and more paralell but for the time being IPC wins and that's why the high IPC intel chips are rocking at least when it comes to games.
Click to expand...

Not arguing that point. Just saying that you need to add "in xyz game" at the end of those statements.

Saying "AMD will lose the market" is not right, but if you say "AMD will lose the market in xyz game" puts it in the right perspective. Not saying it is necessarily true, but to make a broad statement about the entire market based on one game is not realistic. And quite frankly, not every game is single threaded so you can't say "in games", you have to be specific about the actual game.
 
Just wanted to give a shout out to JF-AMD. I always appreciate your post, very good information.

While I'm a software developer/IT Consultant right now. Back in my CompEng days I always wanted to work at AMD which makes your post truly enjoyable.

Too bad who ever handled applications/internships/co-ops thought my major was trash and wanted pure ElectEng. But then again probably the same at NVidia and ATI back in 2006.
 
martinmsj said:
Just wanted to give a shout out to JF-AMD. I always appreciate your post, very good information.

While I'm a software developer/IT Consultant right now. Back in my CompEng days I always wanted to work at AMD which makes your post truly enjoyable.

Too bad who ever handled applications/internships/co-ops thought my major was trash and wanted pure ElectEng. But then again probably the same at NVidia and ATI back in 2006.
Click to expand...

I heard about their interviews when I was a CE undergrad. Hours long technical interviews. You just won't have enough EE theory to compete without a master's at least.
 
gigatexal said:
but JF look where you are at: we play games here a lot of us do. A high IPC bodes well for current games. That might change if things become more and more paralell but for the time being IPC wins and that's why the high IPC intel chips are rocking at least when it comes to games.
Click to expand...

My 1090t and 2500K get very similar frames in pretty much every game I play @ 4.2 and a lot of the time the 1090t gives a smoother and more consistent experience.
 
I find that hard to believe but I haven't played with the system you have: just what I saw here makes me question that

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/01/03/intel-sandy-bridge-review/10

It's one review and two games but you'd be hard pressed to find GAMES that the SB chip loses to the AMD system. But heavily threaded apps might favor the extra cores of the 6 core AMD setup.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/01/03/intel_sandy_bridge_2600k_2500k_processors_review/1 <-- this is pretty defacto; you'll see that the SB chips are significantly faster than the AMD solution.

Efficiency and IPC has never walked hand in hand like it does inside Sandy Bridge. It is almost romantic, then again brutal as the 2500K and 2600K simply slaughter AMD's Phenom II in both terms of power, efficiency, and IPC. Sandy Bridge makes last-gen Core parts look fat, but even the ~$215 i5-2500K makes AMD's top end 1100T processor look ready for a pig roast.
Click to expand...
- Kyle
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gigatexal said:
I find that hard to believe but I haven't played with the system you have: just what I saw here makes me question that

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/01/03/intel-sandy-bridge-review/10

It's one review and two games but you'd be hard pressed to find GAMES that the SB chip loses to the AMD system. But heavily threaded apps might favor the extra cores of the 6 core AMD setup.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/01/03/intel_sandy_bridge_2600k_2500k_processors_review/1 <-- this is pretty defacto; you'll see that the SB chips are significantly faster than the AMD solution.

- Kyle
Click to expand...

It probably varies from game to game and the important part was "the game's I play" being anything Source Based, CoD, BC2 etc.

The important thing missing from most of [H]'s Phenom 2 testing is the cpu-nb clock and that's key to improving performance. It actually INCREASES the IPC of Phenom 2. You see a lot of reviews with cpu's @ 4ghz but they fail to clock the cpu-nb and it's essentially just robbing the cpu of performance capability.

They're both great systems both have upsides and downsides but Ph2 isn't as bad off as everyone makes them out to be, when oc'd properly, and lets face it every BE chip is made with oc'ing in mind.
 
TheBlueChanell said:
It probably varies from game to game and the important part was "the game's I play" being anything Source Based, CoD, BC2 etc.

The important thing missing from most of [H]'s Phenom 2 testing is the cpu-nb clock and that's key to improving performance. It actually INCREASES the IPC of Phenom 2. You see a lot of reviews with cpu's @ 4ghz but they fail to clock the cpu-nb and it's essentially just robbing the cpu of performance capability.

They're both great systems both have upsides and downsides but Ph2 isn't as bad off as everyone makes them out to be, when oc'd properly, and lets face it every BE chip is made with oc'ing in mind.
Click to expand...

This. At 4Ghz and with decent RAM you really need 2800-3000 on the NB to alleviate any bottlenecks.
 
hmm I did not know this. I'd be interesting to see an objective review where this is done and pit a properly OC'd ph2 vs sb.
 
TheBlueChanell said:
My 1090t and 2500K get very similar frames in pretty much every game I play @ 4.2 and a lot of the time the 1090t gives a smoother and more consistent experience.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many Sandy-Bridge-Die-Hard-Intel fanboys will continue to ignore your post?

"A more consistent experience."

I like the sound of this POST!

If a game can make use of 4 CORES how many CORES does that leave for the WINDOWS OS? Hmmm 4 minus 4 = ZERO! :eek: So when your OS needs to use the CPU it steals from your CURRENT game performance! (hiccups anyone?) Duh! So if you desire "A more consistent experience." as you stated as a non biased CPU user. Then I think we all should have a 6 CORE+ CPU's, and not a measly 4 core setup like the SB lineup.

But dang there is some people who only have 4 Core and just broke their piggy banks for one, and didn't read up on anything just looked at benchmark chart (lmao 640p anyone?), and swear by it because they never tried gaming on 6 Core, and comparing it to 4 :D God help them! Chart performance without personally testing makes for alotta hyperbole.

I would buy the i7-970, but I know all to well that when Bulldozer comes out with their 6 and 8 cores. The Intel i7-970 will either drop in price from 599.99 or be outperformed one way or the other (price or performance or both of course)! from the new 6 & 8 Core AMD Bulldozer CPU's. One way or the other we will all get a better deal! Unless you fail to wait. (Sorry guys I don't want to ride the Intel failboat with you.) Plus I have a Corvette to mod this year, rather save 300.00 CPU cash for a triple cold air intake. ;)

Then you also have to factor in the longevity of an AMD Mobo (which lasts years) VS. an Intel mobo (which usually gets scrapped after one year/CPU cycle).

Yes the 2600k and all SB procs will be remembered as very good 4 Core CPU's (that arrived too late in the game) imo. (with very lacking mobo's 1155) But haven't 4 Core CPU's been out since Q6600/5+ years, 4 sheezy! Yep)? I don't care about reliving 5 year old 4 Core slightly improved design for 325.00+ USD. When 6 COres are currently out and 8 Core is right around the corner from AMD! The master of the CPU haha-har!

That's CRAZY! There's already 6 Cores out there with a more stable platform to build a system upon? (i7-970-1366). Or more affordable (1090T+AM3). But all these SB posters know everything about everything. :eek: :rolleyes:

I think the only reason to buy a 4 Core 2600k is to say one thing. "Well it outperforms a LESS EXPENSIVE Phenom 2 Quad core" (which is 2 year old tech from AMD) Duh... it's gonna win benchmarks lol!

Anyone who's been around the PC industry understands tech from today VS. tech from 2 years back will not perform the same. Just like Comparing ATI 4XXX benchmark scores to a AMD 6XXX GPU's benchmark scores. That's hilarious! Get a life! Or just maybe half the people on this forum lack any common pc sense. :) I'll choose that! Their salty cuz they wasted about 600-700+ on a platform that just died a hilarious 4 Core death lmao. Their 4 months of fame is OVER! Give it to your Grandf'ma! Get with the times people.

...SO let's all get back to the issue @ hand! :)

6-8 core Bulldozer CPU's are creeping upon your measly existences!

Enjoy the ride SUCKA'Z!

Oh yeah... I'm an AMD fan, and I'm in the right forums :D Whatcha gonna dooooo now?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wonder how much the prices will drop on their current generation chips when the new one is released.
 
swear to god i'm going to find a brick wall to bash my head into if that guy doesn't shut up.. 12 years of using AMD processors and my hatred for Intel is making me want to switch to Intel because of that idiot.


teletran8 said:
I saw these pictures :eek: 8 Core ready ASRock and MSI mobo's 890FX and it says Shipping on April

http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage...rds-Powered-by-AMD-800-series-Chipsets-3.jpg/

http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage...rds-Powered-by-AMD-800-series-Chipsets-5.jpg/

Article http://news.softpedia.com/news/MSI-...wered-by-AMD-800-series-Chipsets-187065.shtml
Click to expand...


the 800 series am3+ boards have no UEFI bios and limited power saving features that only the UEFI bios can support. so in the enthusiest world they are pointless. the 900 series boards are the only ones that matter.
 
teletran8 said:
I wonder how many Sandy-Bridge-Die-Hard-Intel fanboys will continue to ignore your post?

"A more consistent experience."

I like the sound of this POST!

If a game can make use of 4 CORES how many CORES does that leave for the WINDOWS OS? Hmmm 4 minus 4 = ZERO! :eek: So when your OS needs to use the CPU it steals from your CURRENT game performance! (hiccups anyone?) Duh! So if you desire "A more consistent experience." as you stated as a non biased CPU user. Then I think we all should have a 6 CORE+ CPU's, and not a measly 4 core setup like the SB lineup.

But dang there is some people who only have 4 Core and just broke their piggy banks for one, and didn't read up on anything just looked at benchmark chart (lmao 640p anyone?), and swear by it because they never tried gaming on 6 Core, and comparing it to 4 :D God help them! Chart performance without personally testing makes for alotta hyperbole.

I would buy the i7-970, but I know all to well that when Bulldozer comes out with their 6 and 8 cores. The Intel i7-970 will either drop in price from 599.99 or be outperformed one way or the other (price or performance or both of course)! from the new 6 & 8 Core AMD Bulldozer CPU's. One way or the other we will all get a better deal! Unless you fail to wait. (Sorry guys I don't want to ride the Intel failboat with you.) Plus I have a Corvette to mod this year, rather save 300.00 CPU cash for a triple cold air intake. ;)

Then you also have to factor in the longevity of an AMD Mobo (which lasts years) VS. an Intel mobo (which usually gets scrapped after one year/CPU cycle).

Yes the 2600k and all SB procs will be remembered as very good 4 Core CPU's (that arrived too late in the game) imo. (with very lacking mobo's 1155) But haven't 4 Core CPU's been out since Q6600/5+ years, 4 sheezy! Yep)? I don't care about reliving 5 year old 4 Core slightly improved design for 325.00+ USD. When 6 COres are currently out and 8 Core is right around the corner from AMD! The master of the CPU haha-har!

That's CRAZY! There's already 6 Cores out there with a more stable platform to build a system upon? (i7-970-1366). Or more affordable (1090T+AM3). But all these SB posters know everything about everything. :eek: :rolleyes:

I think the only reason to buy a 4 Core 2600k is to say one thing. "Well it outperforms a LESS EXPENSIVE Phenom 2 Quad core" (which is 2 year old tech from AMD) Duh... it's gonna win benchmarks lol!

Anyone who's been around the PC industry understands tech from today VS. tech from 2 years back will not perform the same. Just like Comparing ATI 4XXX benchmark scores to a AMD 6XXX GPU's benchmark scores. That's hilarious! Get a life! Or just maybe half the people on this forum lack any common pc sense. :) I'll choose that! Their salty cuz they wasted about 600-700+ on a platform that just died a hilarious 4 Core death lmao. Their 4 months of fame is OVER! Give it to your Grandf'ma! Get with the times people.

...SO let's all get back to the issue @ hand! :)

6-8 core Bulldozer CPU's are creeping upon your measly existences!

Enjoy the ride SUCKA'Z!

Oh yeah... I'm an AMD fan, and I'm in the right forums :D Whatcha gonna dooooo now?
Click to expand...

I hope this post was a joke post.

Games are currently IPC sensative and rarely take advantage of more than 4 cores. Even if the OS needed extra cores in your 6 core amd setup then how come games haven't showed it? The SB chips consistently beat teh 6 core thubans. I don't understand where you're coming from: you seem to say because I have more cores I'm better. Lol, my 4 cores do more per cycle than all 6 of yours.
 
gigatexal said:
I hope this post was a joke post.

Games are currently IPC sensative and rarely take advantage of more than 4 cores. Even if the OS needed extra cores in your 6 core amd setup then how come games haven't showed it? The SB chips consistently beat teh 6 core thubans. I don't understand where you're coming from: you seem to say because I have more cores I'm better. Lol, my 4 cores do more per cycle than all 6 of yours.
Click to expand...


no one knows where hes coming from other then being a professional troll. i mean shit i've been an AMD person for 12 god damn years and even i can admit when the phenom II's completely failed. luckly the fact that it only cost me 230 bucks for my processor and i could still use it in my 3 year old motherboard is the only reason i didn't even attempt to think about building an Intel system.

hopefully more and more game developers see whats possible with the Havok physic's engine and decide to take advantage of all the excess cpu power available now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top