Quote:
Originally Posted by CDdude55
Something being overpriced varies from person to person, the 8 core bulldozer chips are a bit to expensive for my liking and the only way they can justify the price is with performance.
|
I am sure AMD does too, meaning that they wouldn't have priced their upcoming flagship on par with i7 2600K if they didn't feel their performance was comparable (nevermind the missing QuickSync and Intel's braindead GPU). If top Bulldozer soundly beat Intel's current top offering, they would price it accordingly and if it was badly lagging behind it would reflect on pricing as well (as it does with Deneb/Thuban CPUs today).
Of course you will get forum trolls such as araditus
telling you that these prices must be fake just because TR hasn't picked them up yet
The good thing for AMD is that SB-E is nowhere to be seen yet so they can reap the benefits of their new architecture in top mainstream segment at least for a while. They had plenty of time to do the benchmarking and settle on pricing since SB came out so I'm confident that they have priced Bulldozer in accordance with its comparative performance to the competition. I only wish AMD didn't go for "-core" nomenclature (making 4-module CPU "octo-core") as this may come back to haunt them really soon: "yeah, it's octo-core but not entirely so due to sharing of many per-module resources, hence the not-really-eight-times-the-performance" and "yeah, it's octo-core that performs on par with competitor's quad-core"
If they played it safe and called it "a four-module eight-thread CPU" from the get-go consumers would compare it to Intel's HT 4c/8t directly and find out that AMD's design of "HT" is obviously superior (displaying better performance per additional "thread" than Intel).