hellrazorSo about 3 weeks beforehand we get a date? That's not even enough time for me to get a job and get paid!

*sigh* Although the prices are pretty damn good.

yeah but you still have tine to rob a bank:roll:

FourstaffGaming uses at most 4 cores, so you would want 4 super strong cores rather than 6 strong cores/3modules. Because of that, while the 6c/3m of the bulldozer might crush the 2500K in terms of raw performance, it often does not translate to gaming advantages because the 6c/3m suffers 1/3 handicap right off the bat. This is all speculation, so don't quote me on this.

Why speculate then ? Some cars have V8 Engines and others R4 but it doesn't by definition mean one engine is better/faster than the other.
Lets wait until there are some results so we don't have to speculate.
PS. I always though a computing operation can scale up to any number of cores/threads if it supports multi-threading. Why would they cap it to 4?

eh, I guess we'll have to wait and see. all I know is, I have never had a problem gaming with a single gpu and decent cpu configuration. I have done this as long as I can remember- only upgrading them about once every generation or two at most. in this case I skipped the 6000 series

I agree with you that having a four-core cpu with some higher clocks is essential and that is what I have with a X4 955. I plan on upgrading next year after BD has matured a bit next year. I am waiting for the 7000 series gpus more than anything though

all we can do is hope FX will at least be competetive :toast:

calebWhy speculate then ? Some cars have V8 Engines and others R4 but it doesn't by definition mean one engine is better/faster than the other.
Lets wait until there are some results so we don't have to speculate.
PS. I always though a computing operation can scale up to any number of cores/threads if it supports multi-threading. Why would they cap it to 4?

You can use all the V8 power, but for gaming they only allow you to use half of your rated power, automatically halving your power. Which means for gaming (almost everyone here), the R4 gets a win, because it can utilise all its power.

Some educated guess is good, but mindless "omg look at this" kind of speculation is not.

Fxall we can do is hope FX will at least be competetive :toast:

It will be competitive no doubt, but to which segment of the market?

me likely low prices.

Total wait and see on this one even the more.......if numbers are too weak intel might just do an intel and do nothing but release 2700k(salt on a wound). Prices sug non k performance... would've love 2 see a price war price drop but intel won't if they don't have a reason.

Maybe the price will go down even more. According to some of you, that must mean that the CPU's are getting worse....:laugh:

This is a win/win for everybody. :toast:

Good timing for a release, same month as BF3, my friend and older brother are building new systems and I am definitely going to recommend these babies if they do well in TPU's reviews. Let's not forget OCing a SB CPU over 4ghz is not needed for personal desktop use eg. gaming/web/playback etc. so the sweet-spot for average users will be lying on their price/perf ratio instead of maximum performance as it yields very minimal differences in those scenarios and so far an 8core CPU that is only a little more expensive ($30AUD more) than the 2500k which is 4core looks much much more attractive. IMO there will definitely be price wars at hand.

robalBy now it's pretty obvious that BD is not a top performer.

Based on which benchmarks. Have you got hold of benchmarks, if so post them we want to see :)

FourstaffGaming uses at most 4 cores, so you would want 4 super strong cores rather than 6 strong cores/3modules. Because of that, while the 6c/3m of the bulldozer might crush the 2500K in terms of raw performance, it often does not translate to gaming advantages because the 6c/3m suffers 1/3 handicap right off the bat. This is all speculation, so don't quote me on this.

thats flawed thinking, the age old argument. the same was said about single cores, then dual...


even if TPU users arent likely to stay with one proc for several years, why is gaming the only use for these? i do lots of video encoding, and having 6 cores kicks ass right now. 8 would save me hours and hours off my encodes.

Musselsthats flawed thinking, the age old argument. the same was said about single cores, then dual...

even if TPU users arent likely to stay with one proc for several years, why is gaming the only use for these? i do lots of video encoding, and having 6 cores kicks ass right now. 8 would save me hours and hours off my encodes.

Indeed, but there are also a significant number of us who does not do encoding etc. The market is getting a bit specialised, with different types of processors performing differently for each tasks. My argument takes the perspective of a pure gamer, which is a dying breed.

FourstaffIndeed, but there are also a significant number of us who does not do encoding etc. The market is getting a bit specialised, with different types of processors performing differently for each tasks. My argument takes the perspective of a pure gamer, which is a dying breed.

i just dont like the 'only four cores!' argument. bad company 2 for example, uses all 6 of mine in DX11. as time goes by, more cores get used... and the day that a game needs four cores to run, i'll want 6 or 8 already so that i dont have to quit all my background apps to get smooth gaming...

I'm seeing a lot of people saying this reflects performance... Why would the under dog come out high priced? Doesn't anyone remember the all mighty E6300? That chip was the driving force for intel to regain leader ship. It would clock as high as there high end chip and then some. That chip was priced at $183 the first time on newegg. I was saving up enough money to buy a A64 x2 chip which the lowest one on newegg was over $400. 805D's where around $140.

EDIT: I ended up buying a E6400 for $224 and was not disappointed.

Musselsi just dont like the 'only four cores!' argument. bad company 2 for example, uses all 6 of mine in DX11. as time goes by, more cores get used... and the day that a game needs four cores to run, i'll want 6 or 8 already so that i dont have to quit all my background apps to get smooth gaming...

I don't either, but that is the sad reality. Starcraft 2 takes no more than 2, other popular games (in terms of hours played) like LoL, HoN, WoW, CoD, TF2 etc doesn't use more than that efficiently either. So far there are only few game engines which makes full use of 4 cores, among which I think only BFBC2 is played en masse. The situation might change in the future, but as of now I cannot see masses of games demanding 4cores for optimum performance, hence the argument.

This comes from Donanimhaber????



I'll believe it when I see it.

Hopefully the prices are only to sell them on the market like hotcakes (after delaying it for a few years...) and not indicating low performance.

Looks like FUD was reporting Oct 12 as the launch date

www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/24152-amd-fx-parts-coming-october-12

Just in time for a promotion like- buy a FX get BF3 - free- now that would be sweet but unlikely!

I'm with DamnSmooth I am not going to believe crap unless its from AMD.

FourstaffI don't either, but that is the sad reality. Starcraft 2 takes no more than 2, other popular games (in terms of hours played) like LoL, HoN, WoW, CoD, TF2 etc doesn't use more than that efficiently either. So far there are only few game engines which makes full use of 4 cores, among which I think only BFBC2 is played en masse. The situation might change in the future, but as of now I cannot see masses of games demanding 4cores for optimum performance, hence the argument.

See I don't get that either? I can see the difference from single threaded apps to Multi threaded apps? If i took the time to recode my program i would not limit it to only 4 threads. To me it would be easier to look for the total number of threads then use that number to / or * the end code. It's more believable to me that they use all threads, but just not as efficient. I think the whole it only uses 4 threads is something that started when they were only four threads available. If i recoded my app to take advantage of mutli threads then it would seem harder to only focus on 4 threads and not leave it open to just look for more threads.

EDIT: Now they can improve on that code.

MindweaverSee I don't get that either? I can see the difference from single threaded apps to Multi threaded apps? If i took the time to recode my program i would not limit it to only 4 threads. To me it would be easier to look for the total number of threads then use that number to / or * the end code. It's more believable to me that they use all threads, but just not as efficient. I think the whole it only uses 4 threads is something that started when they were only four threads available. If i recoded my app to take advantage of mutli threads then it would seem harder to only focus on 4 threads and not leave it open to just look for more threads.

You are welcome to recode your program, but I don't see many people doing that yet. Game performance (this is my only argument, for all other applications we need to do some maths) doesn't gain significantly from adding more threads after the 4th for almost all the time. My belief is that coding for multiple threads are a bit of a hassle and sometimes not worth the effort, but that is from my friends who have tried/done some multicore programming. Something along the lines of core load balancing and optimisation, and you have to do that for each additional core.

FourstaffYou are welcome to recode your program, but I don't see many people doing that yet. Game performance (this is my only argument, for all other applications we need to do some maths) doesn't gain significantly from adding more threads after the 4th for almost all the time. My belief is that coding for multiple threads are a bit of a hassle and sometimes not worth the effort, but that is from my friends who have tried/done some multicore programming. Something along the lines of core load balancing and optimisation, and you have to do that for each additional core.

If it were my program i would.. ;) Smart coders are smart... Lazy coders are lazy..

MindweaverIf it were my program i would.. ;) Smart coders are smart... Lazy coders are lazy..

You are living in an idealised world, I live in the harsh reality.

There are much more lazy coders than smart coders, and so far the market is saturated with codes done by lazy people, hence I said that core count more than 4 doesn't matter as much for now or the next year or so. Other than users who does a lot of encoding and other multicore stuff, people will be better off getting the best 4thread processor and ignore anything more for now.

The source isn't completely reliable, but if those prices are true that'd be amazing. Even though my main priority is gaming i'm still going for an 8-core.:)

These chips should shine real well once multi-threaded games become the norm. But really it still holds true that you can easily grab a 4 core from Intel or even a X4 965 and not see much benefit in gaming. We're still waiting for software to come up to hardware(mainly games), if your concern in video editing and CAD work then only then is really where the difference in cores starts coming in.

While you may not need an 8-core for most games today, im still going to grab one, cause i enjoy having more cores in die.:D

looks like i'll have to buy a interim cpu for the moment :(

already got someone interested in buying my current setup :(

phenom 2 975 worth anything? or should i just go pc less til launch?

FourstaffYou are living in an idealised world, I live in the harsh reality.

There are much more lazy coders than smart coders, and so far the market is saturated with codes done by lazy people, hence I said that core count more than 4 doesn't matter as much for now or the next year or so. Other than users who does a lot of encoding and other multicore stuff, people will be better off getting the best 4thread processor and ignore anything more for now.

I don't know if i agree with where you live and where I live. :p I do believe 4's is just as good now. I never said it wasn't as good. But i would never tell someone to only buy a 4 threaded processor. Close minded people are close minded. I can see it now... hhehehe "Why use these things called wheels when we can walk there just as fast?" It wasn't until someone used a animal or something to power the wheels did the close minded people say hey it is better!..hehehe What Thread am i in? hehehe Good stuff Fourstaff! :toast: This was fun and i hope that the price drop is good for us all. And i'm siding with you on 4 threads is as good now.. but not later... :p :toast: