• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

AMD FX Processor Prices Lower Than Expected

These latest prices...

  • ...are worrying, perhaps AMD is falling behind in performance

    Votes: 48 42.9%

  • ...are encouraging, perhaps Sandy Bridge is in for a cost-performance shock a là Radeon HD 4000 to G

    Votes: 64 57.1%
  • Total voters
    112
Bjorn_Of_Iceland said:
Well at least its not that overpriced like Phenom 1 in its first release
Click to expand...

yes this is correct. amd I believe learned that lesson the hard way. They seem to be sensible as to price. Lets hope that performance is respectable to intel.
 
KooKKiK said:
remember Athlon 64 outclass Pentium 4 ??? :)
Click to expand...

And AthlonXP (Palomino/Thoroughbred/Barton) and before that Athlon K7 (Thunderbird) wrecking Pentium 3 and 4...
 
RejZoR said:
And AthlonXP (Palomino/Thoroughbred/Barton) and before that Athlon K7 (Thunderbird) wrecking Pentium 3 and 4...
Click to expand...

proud owner of amd for my gaming rigs until conroe. I could no longer use amd as my gaming rig after conroe. Daily driver or budget builds I use amd. Gaming rig I need my fps.
 
Too little too late. Too cheap to compete with the 2600. We'll have to see how these work against 2400, 2500 in games as in multithreading they might do better. The only strong point I see is that the FX will be unlocked and it seems that they oveclock well. I really feel sorry for all those who waited for the next big thing. Maybe next year.
 
It doesn't matter how you look at it, this is bad for AMD. This new generation of processors is likely to only be marginally faster than the outgoing generation--despite the higher clockspeeds. AMD wouldn't be practically giving them away if they were competitive with Intel products.
 
Crap Daddy said:
Too little too late. Too cheap to compete with the 2600. We'll have to see how these work against 2400, 2500 in games as in multithreading they might do better. The only strong point I see is that the FX will be unlocked and it seems that they oveclock well. I really feel sorry for all those who waited for the next big thing. Maybe next year.
Click to expand...

we wont know that until benchmarks. I believe it wont do well in games until the processor matures. We might be surprised. Leaked benches real or fake are disheartening! I am a gamer and I need moar power in fps games.
 
FordGT90Concept said:
It doesn't matter how you look at it, this is bad for AMD. This new generation of processors is likely to only be marginally faster than the outgoing generation--despite the higher clockspeeds. AMD wouldn't be practically giving them away if they were competitive with Intel products.
Click to expand...

we would like them to do well. This statement seems on the surface to be correct.
 
Looks like performance is not going to be all that great....and I am an AMD fanboy..but if they are priced this low, there is something wrong.
 
Also Intel is supposed to release SB 2700k In Oct-Nov right.

Intel Users :toast:

Amd Users :banghead:
 
H82LUZ73 said:
Also Intel is supposed to release SB 2700k In Oct-Nov right.

Intel Users

Amd Users
Click to expand...

If AMD does bad, we all lose... Intel users should :toast: to AMD if it does well, because that means competition and lower prices for all...
 
mav2000 said:
Looks like performance is not going to be all that great....and I am an AMD fanboy..but if they are priced this low, there is something wrong.
Click to expand...
My guess is that they're having a major leakage problem again (just like they did with Phenom). In other words, Bulldozer isn't going to shine until it gets a die shrink (just like Phenom II). It is sad but knowing the history, it seems likely. AMD has had bad luck with fabs. 90 was good, 65 was bad, 45 was good, 32...
 
Radeon 4x00 Series was cheaper than GTX 2x0 and not so far in performance. Lets hope for the best.
 
gonna buy them as they come in the market..........!!!!!!!!
 
FordGT90Concept said:
My guess is that they're having a major leakage problem again (just like they did with Phenom). In other words, Bulldozer isn't going to shine until it gets a die shrink (just like Phenom II). It is sad but knowing the history, it seems likely. AMD has had bad luck with fabs. 90 was good, 65 was bad, 45 was good, 32...
Click to expand...

I am in agreement. This seems to becoming a pattern. One can speculate as to not having a strong ceo and as of until lately any ceo as lack of dare I say mismanagement. I believe amd has some great engineers.
 
By now it's pretty obvious that BD is not a top performer.
I'm still going to get it from my 990FX mobo though.

Because that's what AMD is for: good performance for price.
 
robal said:
By now it's pretty obvious that BD is not a top performer.
I'm still going to get it from my 990FX mobo though.

Because that's what AMD is for: good performance for price.
Click to expand...

amd despite not being a top performer in all segments. Has some good performance for the money. Im curious to see how interlagos performs. I would like to see some numbers. Cray likes them. I feel the need to remind people that this architecture is not desktop based. :) I believe with node shrinks and some tweaks it will be competitive in desktop.
 
purefun65 said:
we wont know that until benchmarks. I believe it wont do well in games until the processor matures. We might be surprised. Leaked benches real or fake are disheartening! I am a gamer and I need moar power in fps games.
Click to expand...

I dont know what kind of FPS you are trying to achieve but I game with high settings in all of my games with my XFX 5870 1GB and X4 955 setup. FX is only going to be an improvement and besides, FPS is vastly GPU-dependent
 
Fx said:
I dont know what kind of FPS you are trying to achieve but I game with high settings in all of my games with my XFX 5870 1GB and X4 955 setup. FX is only going to be an improvement and besides, FPS is vastly GPU-dependent
Click to expand...

Except all those pesky CPU-heavy games like L4D, SC2, The BF-Series, GTAIV, etc. Those see rather large improvements in performance when gaming. You're also not considering that the entire PC Experience is affected by a better/more efficient CPU.
 
I am worried that the 2500K will remain as gamers favourite,even with AMD discount it looks like the 6core/3module of Bulldozer can only equal the 4 cores of 2500K. Which means each Bulldozer "core" is still weaker than each Sandy Bridge's.
 
Fx said:
I dont know what kind of FPS you are trying to achieve but I game with high settings in all of my games with my XFX 5870 1GB and X4 955 setup. FX is only going to be an improvement and besides, FPS is vastly GPU-dependent
Click to expand...
not in all games. a strong 4 core is becoming the norm. going to an i7 920 was a big improvement especially in minimum fps games. 1920x1200
xenocide said:
Except all those pesky CPU-heavy games like L4D, SC2, The BF-Series, GTAIV, etc. Those see rather large improvements in performance when gaming. You're also not considering that the entire PC Experience is affected by a better/more efficient CPU.
Click to expand...
first game game i realized i needed a a 4 core with a high ipc was supreme commander. That was how many years back? I think 2007. amd 4 core with 500 units was very unplayable.
 
Fourstaff said:
I am worried that the 2500K will remain as gamers favourite,even with AMD discount it looks like the 6core/3module of Bulldozer can only equal the 4 cores of 2500K. Which means each Bulldozer "core" is still weaker than each Sandy Bridge's.
Click to expand...

:confused:

I kind of expected that from the get-go. I never understood exactly why people compared the Core Count on SB\Intel CPU's to the "Core" Count on Bulldozer CPU's. They are seperate Modules, but they still share a lot of resources so they don't have all of their own implying they are lacking in certain areas.

The main selling point for me, is that even with matching performance, I'd rather have paid what I did in Feb\March and gotten my PC then, than wait with uncertainty for 6+ months to maybe get a better deal. I remember when Nvidia was marketing the 5xx series (I think), they were trying to compare it to the 5990, and AMD\ATi's only response was that their 5xxx series GPU was already in gamers PC's, so who cared if they offered similar performance over a year later... :laugh:
 
Crap Daddy said:
Too little too late. Too cheap to compete with the 2600. We'll have to see how these work against 2400, 2500 in games as in multithreading they might do better. The only strong point I see is that the FX will be unlocked and it seems that they oveclock well. I really feel sorry for all those who waited for the next big thing. Maybe next year.
Click to expand...

Its way too immature to say that you are ionly speculating, the FAB process maybe sufficiently cheap enough
 
xenocide said:
Except all those pesky CPU-heavy games like L4D, SC2, The BF-Series, GTAIV, etc. Those see rather large improvements in performance when gaming. You're also not considering that the entire PC Experience is affected by a better/more efficient CPU.
Click to expand...

The BF games are definately NOT COPU intensive Im running BFBC on a really low end Phenom X2
 
xenocide said:
I never understood exactly why people compared the Core Count on SB\Intel CPU's to the "Core" Count on Bulldozer CPU's. They are seperate Modules, but they still share a lot of resources so they don't have all of their own implying they are lacking in certain areas.
Click to expand...

That's AMD's fault for not calling them by their true name, "a processor with 4 modules and 8 threads" and not "a processor with 8 cores". They will fool a lot of people (average Joe types), so no worries for sales... the downside is "an 8 core AMD CPU struggling against a 4 core Intel CPU" backlash from the community starting next month.
 
lashton said:
The BF games are definately NOT COPU intensive Im running BFBC on a really low end Phenom X2
Click to expand...

you wont want to play bf3 on that cpu. you will be dissapointed. look the specs up and you need vista or better no xp. dx10 is the lowest it runs so if you have that cpu I will assume you wont meet minimum requirements for an enjoyable gaming experience. its frostbite 2.0. new engine revision for bf3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top