AMD FX Processor Prices Lower Than Expected

[caleb]

Originally Posted by btarunr

News isn't about reporting truths. It's about reporting facts as they emerge.

And preempting your question "what makes you think this is fact?"

http://www.donanimhaber.com/islemci/...e-fiyatlar.htm

The source I cited.

And preempting your question "what makes you think DonanimHaber's is fact?"

It is a fact that DonanimHaber mentioned these prices. That's the factual part. There ends TPU's role. If you want "to go deeper", take it up with DH. That's not TPU's headache.

News is news, there is always fuzzy logic to whats fact or not, but why do we need to have a poll which says "These latest prices" on non-official information ?

[xenocide]

Originally Posted by Dent1

Perhaps, but how much was Intels alternative? a fair bit more (for less performance too)

I don't know that it was a fair bit more expensive, but the Price\Performance back in the Athlon XP and Athlon 64 era was definitely in AMD's favor. AMD also offered FX Chips for upwards of $1200 at the time because they had the top performing Single-Core CPU on the market for about 2 years. Whomever has the highest performing product gets the rights to set the cost as high as they want, AMD and Intel both have done this. People just consider Intel to be overpriced because they consistently have the highest performing product.

[qubit]

Originally Posted by xenocide

I don't know that it was a fair bit more expensive, but the Price\Performance back in the Athlon XP and Athlon 64 era was definitely in AMD's favor. AMD also offered FX Chips for upwards of $1200 at the time because they had the top performing Single-Core CPU on the market for about 2 years. Whomever has the highest performing product gets the rights to set the cost as high as they want, AMD and Intel both have done this. People just consider Intel to be overpriced because they consistently have the highest performing product.

Absolutely true, which is why it's worrying that AMD are pricing these new CPUs "competitively". They shouldn't need to.

[Dent1]

Originally Posted by xenocide

I don't know that it was a fair bit more expensive, but the Price\Performance back in the Athlon XP and Athlon 64 era was definitely in AMD's favor. AMD also offered FX Chips for upwards of $1200 at the time because they had the top performing Single-Core CPU on the market for about 2 years. Whomever has the highest performing product gets the rights to set the cost as high as they want, AMD and Intel both have done this. People just consider Intel to be overpriced because they consistently have the highest performing product.

But you are missing the point. Intel's chips were upwards of a grand even back when their chips were consistantly slower.

Yes, if the performance is good you can dictate the price (to an degree) but what was intel's justification for $1,000+ CPUs back when they didnt have the speed to complement.

Heck some of Intel's Extreme Edition $1,000+ CPUs were slower than AMDs sub $300 range - so all this speed dictates price stuff doesnt add up.

[Damn_Smooth]

Originally Posted by btarunr

News isn't about reporting truths. It's about reporting facts as they emerge.

And preempting your question "what makes you think this is fact?"

http://www.donanimhaber.com/islemci/...e-fiyatlar.htm

The source I cited.

And preempting your question "what makes you think DonanimHaber's is fact?"

It is a fact that DonanimHaber mentioned these prices. That's the factual part. There ends TPU's role. If you want "to go deeper", take it up with DH. That's not TPU's headache.

I was hoping you might have had another source or something because I would love for these prices to be true.

I guess I'll just continue to be skeptical then.

[alexsubri]

I can't wait for the FX-6's reviews to come out. If there is a significant jump from i7-2600k in terms of performance, ill buy one. ...but I am thinking about the 10-core "Komodo" which will replace Bulldozer come early 2012 *pending* AMDs infamous delays

[xenocide]

Originally Posted by Dent1

But you are missing the point. Intel's chips were upwards of a grand even back when their chips were consistantly slower.

Yes, if the performance is good you can dictate the price (to an degree) but what was intel's justification for $1,000+ CPUs back when they didnt have the speed to complement.

Heck some of Intel's Extreme Edition $1,000+ CPUs were slower than AMDs sub $300 range - so all this speed dictates price stuff doesnt add up.

I think I hit the point exactly. Intel was trying to sell CPU's for that price, but AMD was doing a lot better at actually selling them. Sure, Intel does overprice some of their stuff, generally a lot more often than AMD, but when they have no solid competition, why not? They might as well profiteer, that's just good business. Do I support this? No. But it's how business is done.

As for the speed dictating price, it's never direct. It's usually a result of how the customers react. When SB came out, people were excited because it was a $250-350 CPU that performed like Intel's $1000 CPU's. So a lot of people bought them. If they had cost $1000 out of the gates, do you think anyone would have bought them? Exactly.

Customers will always buy a product as long as it offers what they want as long as the price is right, even if there is another company offering the same thing. Hell, that's the whole reason AMD is still going strong. If they had priced similar to Intel with the Phenom II line, they would have sold maybe 1/3 the amount they did. People bought AMD CPU's because they were a great Value, and that's what it's all about.

Originally Posted by alexsubri

I can't wait for the FX-6's reviews come out. If they is a significant jump from i7-2600k in terms of performance, ill buy one. ...but I am thinking about the 10-core "Komodo" which will replace Bulldozer come early 2012 *pending* AMDs infamous delays

I wouldn't expect the FX-6's to outperform the i7-2600k if I were you.

[alexsubri]

Originally Posted by Volkszorn88

8 cores for 245 USD? I'll take that any day.

Now the question is, do I buy the ASRock 990X Fatal1ty or Asus Crosshair V? ^^

I was thinking about buying those two. Check out ASUS Sabertooth 990FX. You can finally run SLI/Xfire on an AMD board. I bought this motherboard for the new chips that are coming out. Also, it has 5 year warranty

[TRWOV]

Originally Posted by alexsubri

I can't wait for the FX-6's reviews to come out. If there is a significant jump from i7-2600k in terms of performance, ill buy one. ...but I am thinking about the 10-core "Komodo" which will replace Bulldozer come early 2012 *pending* AMDs infamous delays

Komodo was cancelled, wasn't it?

[btarunr]

Originally Posted by caleb

News is news, there is always fuzzy logic to whats fact or not,

Our business is with the fact that DH mentioned those prices. If you doubt DonanimHaber, take it up with them, or don't comment on TPU that cites them. Your call.

We deem DH as a credible source. You have the weapon of choice.

Originally Posted by caleb

but why do we need to have a poll which says "These latest prices" on non-official information ?

We do what we must, because we can™.

[xBruce88x]

Originally Posted by ivicagmc

Just hope that it matches performance of intel 2600K (8core) and 2500K (6core)...

Both of those cpus are 4 core. although the 2600k has 8mb cache and the 2500k has 6mb cache. (probably where you got the core # from)

but yea... its good they're coming in at a low price, hopefully that'll drive down the cost of intel's stuff

[Dent1]

xenocid,

Perhaps. Your points are definitely valid. I also think the time period is a factor. In the early 2000s the cost to manfacturer microprocessors were probably higher hence the $1,000+ price tags, but now demand for devices with microprocessors e.g. desktops, laptops, tablets have increased and hence reducing the manfacturing cost and this is reflected in today's humble prices.

Also I believe as budget processors have become fast enough to handle most users needs. I think Intel and AMD find it difficult to justify a $1,000 CPU when consumers know a <$60 i3 or Athlon II X3 will achieve the same results.

[Horrux]

If it competes performance-wise with intel's similarly priced offerings, I will be a happy camper, upgrading and staying AMD for sure.

[Horrux]

Originally Posted by Dent1

xenocid,

Perhaps. Your points are definitely valid. I also think the time period is a factor. In the early 2000s the cost to manfacturer microprocessors were probably higher hence the $1,000+ price tags, but now demand for devices with microprocessors e.g. desktops, laptops, tablets have increased and hence reducing the manfacturing cost and this is reflected in today's humble prices.

Also I believe as budget processors have become fast enough to handle most users needs. I think Intel and AMD find it difficult to justify a $1,000 CPU when consumers know a <$60 i3 or Athlon II X3 will achieve the same results.

There is also the factor of diminishing returns on higher end CPUs to factor into all this. An example:

Back in the Pentium II days, you had the following variants: 300mhz, 350mhz, and 400mhz, or a 33% difference in performance along the line of P2's.

Nowadays there is no such thing as a CPU model that stretches its clock speed variants by 33%. It's more like 15%. And yet, the price difference from the lowest model to the highest has remained more or less the same.

Heck I remember the old Pentium 1 days when the steps were like 100mhz, 133mhz, 166mhz, etc. One higher model meant 33% difference in performance!

Today you go from 3.2 ghz to 3.4ghz... Ooooooh, 6% better performance! Yet the price difference is (obviously) much greater than 6%.

[PCpraiser100]

Te prices keep lowering down, making our lives cheaper! Say something before your opinion is worthless!!!!!!

[Jegergrim]

Is the 12th of October release Official from AMD or just another speculation?

[Frick]

Originally Posted by Jegergrim

Is the 12th of October release Official from AMD or just another speculation?

Maybe not speculation as it's coming from retailers, but not official.

[ensabrenoir]

Three words that can't be in the same sentence official, facts and........ U know

[Jegergrim]

Originally Posted by Frick

Maybe not speculation as it's coming from retailers, but not official.

Essentially at this point BD could still be launched in november if need be... My hopes for BD is dying out slowly

[erocker]

Poll reflects that no one has a clue. The governments of the world should look to AMD to keep their secrets, secret from now on. Keeping BD so secretive in the internet age is nothing short of amazing.

[Ahhzz]

Originally Posted by claylomax

As well as the performance it seems ...

I'm sorry, where did you see benchmarks?? I need those!

[ensabrenoir]

Originally Posted by erocker

Poll reflects that no one has a clue. The governments of the world should look to AMD to keep their secrets, secret from now on. Keeping BD so secretive in the internet age is nothing short of amazing.

Those who have a e.s(board makers etc). stand to loose a ton of money if weak numbers get out. Right now. A lot of people are buying boards, ram etc waiting on bd. So. To recoup their investment quite must be kept.

[erocker]

Originally Posted by ensabrenoir

Those who have a e.s(board makers etc). stand to loose a ton of money if weak numbers get out. Right now. A lot of people are buying boards, ram etc waiting on bd. So. To recoup their investment quite must be kept.

Those weak E.S. numbers have been out for some time. That isn't what I'm talking about.

[Inceptor]

OK, I read the first couple of pages of responses to the original post, then I got tired of the moronic logic...
So, this might have already been covered, but it's always good to reiterate a nice point (if it has):

We have a piece of information, regarding possible BD FX cpu pricing.
We have no definitive information regarding this pricing; as to whether it is accurate (or will become inaccurate).
We do not have information that tells us that this pricing is tied to performance parallels with Intel cpus.

What we can't say:
"Oh no, BD is slower than Intel's mid-range",
"Oh wow, BD is faster than Intel's mid-range"
"The pricing is telling us that these cpus will be slow"

What we can say:
"Perhaps AMD is anticipating Intel's price dropping, and wants to establish competitive pricing."
"Perhaps the surprisingly low prices reflect AMD's wish to steal market share from Intel (i.e. sway people away from i5 and i7 cpus for their new builds)"
"Perhaps AMD is anticipating the release of Ivy Bridge and the inevitable price drops on the 2nd gen i5 and i7 cpus."
"We don't know if those prices are set in stone, especially since they will cause some major ripples across the net, possibly causing AMD to make changes (if they are official prices, that is)."
"We can definitively say, at this point, that we have absolutely no idea how these BD processors (in their 'ready for prime time' iteration) compare to their Intel counterparts on the various and innumerable benchmarks available."

...

[heky]

The NDA will get lifted on a saturday, so it wont be on the 12.Oct. I have no sources, just hersay, but since it is all speculation, i say my chances are pretty high.