Bulldozer: Priced to sell rather than compete

Not a good sign. When AMD had competitive chips, they charged accordingly and still sold nearly every chip they made despite Intel's lame anticompetitive tactics. Granted, they could have invested in more fabs to get higher production capacity, but that is beside the point. Fact is, their product sold at higher prices when competitive, they would have zero reason to lower the price so drastically unless the part wasn't as competitive as previously thought.
 
i hate to break it to you but with the i7 2700k intel will drop the prices of both the i5 2500 and i5 2600. So if the 8150 was inbetween the two it would have to drop down lower in price
 
Yeah this doesn't look too good. I gotta think that this does mean that the 8150 is gonna be a little faster than the 2500K but not have anything for the 2600k. I can live with that I guess. 8 cores, slightly faster than the 2500k for the same price doesn't seem like a bad deal. Yeah BD isn't the performance king but we all kinda knew that was gonna be the case anyway.

I can only get upset if I remember that I've been waiting 3 years for a slightly faster Thuban but oh well.
 
sound to me like they need to remove FX from the name then. Unless they plan to runthe name into the ground
 
That actually makes FX-8120 quite atractive - at 185$ it's equvalent of i5 2400 - now if we can push it to 5 Ghz vs multi locked 3600Ghz on Sandy it could be quite close in single threaded benches and faster in >4 threads soft.
 
The 2600k is still a quad so why Doesn't AMD just focus on higher clocked quads using the 32nm processs instead of an extra 4 cores that are of no real use yet and try to keep power draw down on a 4 to 4.6ghz stock clocked quad that might be able to compete? Even if they have to find a way to get a couple hundred mhz ahead of intel to be competetive then why don't they put more focus on that?

I want to know how bad the performance is on a core for core, mhz for mhz basis more than how badly it fails because AMD is putting all it's eggs in the octo-core basket.

Twice the cores and 2/3 the speed does not look good in the end AMD.
 
compudocs said:
The 2600k is still a quad so why Doesn't AMD just focus on higher clocked quads using the 32nm processs instead of an extra 4 cores that are of no real use yet and try to keep power draw down on a 4 to 4.6ghz stock clocked quad that might be able to compete? Even if they have to find a way to get a couple hundred mhz ahead of intel to be competetive then why don't they put more focus on that?

I want to know how bad the performance is on a core for core, mhz for mhz basis more than how badly it fails because AMD is putting all it's eggs in the octo-core basket.

Twice the cores and 2/3 the speed does not look good in the end AMD.
Click to expand...

In a sense, the 8-core parts are actually a quad-core part, as each "core" is slightly gimped, and actually shares resources with another core that they usually would not share. This is AMD's response to Intel's hyperthreading as has been pointed out multiple times, but instead of being 4-core 8 threads, it is 4 modules 8 cores. Of course, how it performs in comparison to Intel is still yet to be determined.
 
As a user who is waiting to upgrade, this worries me. If the highest end performer is just barely faster than the 2600k, then I might as well buy the i5-2500k now. I can overclock that processor and then upgrade to the next set of processors in Ivy-bridge. It'll be a much more sensible move financially..

Of course this is just my initial thoughts, if anyone else wishes to share.

Edit heflys, interesting. We'll see then I guess.
 
Tsumi said:
Of course, how it performs in comparison to Intel is still yet to be determined.
Click to expand...

As are the prices, apparently. AMD clearly told BLT to take them down. BLT even had the release date as Sept 22......right.
 
Everything up to this point leads me to believe that AMD's Bulldozer will be a fine mainstream CPU that will not be considered by hardcore gamers or power users. It will find its place among the homes of the less tech-savvy consumers who buy their computers at Best Buy and think they're getting a great deal because the internet will go faster.

AMD totally choked on BD.
 
MacLeod said:
Yeah this doesn't look too good. I gotta think that this does mean that the 8150 is gonna be a little faster than the 2500K but not have anything for the 2600k. I can live with that I guess. 8 cores, slightly faster than the 2500k for the same price doesn't seem like a bad deal. Yeah BD isn't the performance king but we all kinda knew that was gonna be the case anyway.

I can only get upset if I remember that I've been waiting 3 years for a slightly faster Thuban but oh well.
Click to expand...

It depends.

Lets say in Single threaded Apps its a little slower than the i5 2500k , in 4 and fewer threads its a little slower than the i7 2600k . But in 5 or more threaded apps its faster than the i7 2600k. Amd would still need to price the cpu lower than the i7 2600.

With the i7 2700k coming out along with SB-E chips the i7 2600 and i5 2500 will drop in price. So amd will have to slot between the i5 2500 and i7 2600 and i'm betting the i5 2500k will most likely rest at the micro center price of $180 across the web and the i7 2600k will hit the $250ish price range and the i7 2700k will move into the $320 price range the i7 2600k currently has
 
timtheenchantor said:
As a user who is waiting to upgrade, this worries me. If the highest end performer is just barely faster than the 2600k, then I might as well buy the i5-2500k now. I can overclock that processor and then upgrade to the next set of processors in Ivy-bridge. It'll be a much more sensible move financially..

Of course this is just my initial thoughts, if anyone else wishes to share.

Edit heflys, interesting. We'll see then I guess.
Click to expand...

Why worry when all the info posted to date across the whole internet is pure bullshit. If you need the performance now get a 2600k, if you want to take a chance on BD get a 990 board and a phenom2 and upgrade later. Apart from board and CPU everything else is transferrable.

It never fails to amaze me that people are getting so uptight over a load of BS. It will be released when AMD want to release it, at a speed they hope will match and at a price thats competitive.
 
Maybe IF it's released in time you can get a free BD with every purchase of an Ivy Bridge processor. Newegg Shell Shocker...
 
Jellyfishpudding said:
Everything up to this point leads me to believe that AMD's Bulldozer will be a fine mainstream CPU that will not be considered by hardcore gamers or power users. It will find its place among the homes of the less tech-savvy consumers who buy their computers at Best Buy and think they're getting a great deal because the internet will go faster.

AMD totally choked on BD.
Click to expand...

Phenom III
 
Yep.. I'm thinking this may be the straw that pushes me into my first Intel CPU in almost 10 years.. :(

I'm still holding out for real-world benchmarks..
 
Lower pricing doesnt mean lower performance.

It just means AMD has a more efficient cost model in their company. You guys pout when the price gets dropped as if the performance is going to drop too. We havent even seen a single bench yet that is genuine. And all these websites making comments are just opinion. In fact the article posted here is just some article authors thoughts and nothing more.
 
tangoseal said:
Lower pricing doesnt mean lower performance.

It just means AMD has a more efficient cost model in their company. ....
Click to expand...

Bwhahahaahah... OK, call it whatever you want... I'll call it a flop! I'ma still gonna buy it though, especially now with lower prices... Maybe it will match the performance of my i5 at 4.5GHz... Maybe....;)
 
TheToE! said:
And for all this we still dont have legit benchmarks.
Click to expand...

Except that after this price drop, I'm really willing to believe these:

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1637368

The one nagging thing I took home from these tests was: if BD performs as-such, it's overpriced. This changes everything.

Originally Posted by tangoseal
Lower pricing doesnt mean lower performance.
Click to expand...

No, AMD is under severe pressure from their major stockholders to raise the Average Selling Price of their processors. The entire Bulldozer project was about improving their ASPs (invest less to get more performance by going massively-multithreaded).

What AMD needs is a PROFITABLE processor run, and that requires (1) sales and (2) a high ASP. If they have to lower the prices to get sales, then the processors are overpriced.
 
Last edited:
tangoseal said:
Lower pricing doesnt mean lower performance.

It just means AMD has a more efficient cost model in their company.
Click to expand...

You go on and tell yourself that.

Over and over we've been fed these catch phrase claims about what Bulldozer will do and will be capable of doing. You can Google them.

50% Faster Than Core i7 CPU's
Bulldozer Will Take Back the Desktop Computer
Bulldozer Will Crush the Competition
FX Targeting Intel's Flagship 2600K
AMD Expects to Bulldozer Sandy Bridge

It's this stuff that got people taking notice and jumping on the AMD bandwagon. I certainly did. Now, not only have these claims stopped, AMD has realized that the FX series isn't all that. Each lowered price is the result of AMD evaluating the FX series performance and deciding it's not worth what they thought it was. You can say they're just cheap to make, but that's not when you lower the price of what is expected to topple the heavy hitters. You stick because the value is there. AMD is lowering the prices because the value is not there and they wouldn't be able to sell them for any more.

Bulldozer has gone from being what hardcore gamers will consider to what hardcore gamers know better than to consider, all at the hands of AMD.
 
Christ, I can group 90%of you guys into 2 catagories.
1. Those who really WANT it to fail.
2 Those who want it to beat Intel but sound like my kids the day before christmas.

It will be here when it's here.
I doubt AMD will have wasted this much time, work and money into a CPU that is shittier than the previous CPU. Then expect investors to forgive them. Fuck no I don't believe that for a second.
What I do believe is that "reviwers" like OBR are faking everything like a paid shill or just plain fags for Intel.
If you believe that Bulldozer wont beat Inetl, please don't buy it.
If AMD's CPU slaughters Intel, don't say AMD didn't tell youi it would.
 
griff30 said:
Christ, I can group 90%of you guys into 2 catagories.
1. Those who really WANT it to fail.
2 Those who want it to beat Intel but sound like my kids the day before christmas.

It will be here when it's here.
I doubt AMD will have wasted this much time, work and money into a CPU that is shittier than the previous CPU. Then expect investors to forgive them. Fuck no I don't believe that for a second.
What I do believe is that "reviwers" like OBR are faking everything like a paid shill or just plain fags for Intel.
If you believe that Bulldozer wont beat Inetl, please don't buy it.
If AMD's CPU slaughters Intel, don't say AMD didn't tell youi it would.
Click to expand...

This 100%
 
I would put myself in category 3. I do not think or want it will fail, however I do not see any plowing at all. The top end BD with its aggressive Turbo will be competitive with the i7 2600 at stock in tasks that use less than 6 threads. In tasks that use 6 or more threads the advantage of real AMD cores over Intel HT cores will give AMD an advantage however AMD will not have as much of a turbo to make up for the IPC disadvantage of AMD real cores versus Intel real cores so that should eat into the BD multithreading advantage a little.
 
Jellyfishpudding said:
Everything up to this point leads me to believe that AMD's Bulldozer will be a fine mainstream CPU that will not be considered by hardcore gamers or power users. It will find its place among the homes of the less tech-savvy consumers who buy their computers at Best Buy and think they're getting a great deal because the internet will go faster.

AMD totally choked on BD.
Click to expand...

I'm a gamer and I am this time going to go AMD as a new build. I would think I could play any game Intel cpu's could with it and not notice any difference in game play unless I actually look at the fps. At least I hope. I was an AMD fan. Still am but Ive bought an Intel chip the last 6 years or so. Time for a change.
 
I wouldn't write off AMD yet as one only has to look at what they have done to Nvidia the (Intel) of gpu's with Nothern Islands that cost alot less then Fermi base gpu's but yet the HD6970 can trade blows with the 580GTX in over half of the games out there for alot less..

I also agreed that i am a gamer and could care less about desktop apps as what can it do with Battleflied 3 is the question no one can awsner vs my i7-930.
 
BF3 is going to be an interesting case as it will actually use four integer cores... so it could get interesting. However with the seemingly never ending delays and no BF3 out yet we just won't know until the dang thing ships....

However I have never been so close to picking up an Intel chip... Haven't paid for one in 6+ years :(
 
Next cpu of mine will be a sandy or ivy bridge when Grad school gives me a break(lol). I still love AMD video cards.
 
griff30 said:
Christ, I can group 90%of you guys into 2 catagories.
1. Those who really WANT it to fail.
2 Those who want it to beat Intel but sound like my kids the day before christmas.
Click to expand...

You forgot a third group. Those who can read between the lines.

I pay no attention to the leaks and supposed benches. I'm watching AMD. Initially the FX-8150 was to be their equivalent of the 2600K and priced at $320. Performance issues resulted in delays and a near $100 drop in price. The extra clock speed that AMD hoped would make it competitive with the 2600K was not effective even with the Turbo, so they targeted the 2500K instead. Now we have AMD's flagship FX processor with a 4.2GHz Turbo mode placed in the same performance category as the competitor's second rung CPU at 3.3GHz nearing the end of its generation.

My expectations tanked along with AMD's. They promised a cpu with performance to rival the competition's top-tier product and couldn't deliver. Any idiot can see that at this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top