AMD Announcing A-Series, FX-Series in June

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
now if i recall correctly, Lynx allows the consumer to utilize a discreet GFX solution as part of the APU, now dont that sound interesting, instead of shoving a IGP down your throat you get options
 
[citation][nom]andy5174[/nom]It doesn't matter how many cores a CPU has. What it does matter is the PERFORMANCE! It would be still a failure for AMD even if they offered 100-core CPU that has worse performance than quad core Intel. As regard of the CP (cost-performance) ratio, no one forced you to buy the insanely expensive "EXTREME" edition Intel! You can choose an i5-750 instead; an OCed i5-750 (which is a quad core CPU) can easily wipe out any OCed hexcore AMD that is more expensive. Should I remind you how AMD ripped you off when they were superior than Intel (Pentium D) back in 2005? AMD IS MUCH CHEAPER AT THE MOMENT SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS MUCH WORSE THAN INTEL AT THE MOMENT.[/citation]
I have my concerns about this as well. When AMD was the better processor, AMD had a premium price. If AMD has an i7 killer, it is likely to come at a comparable or greater than i7 price.

Nevertheless, I am looking forward to these dates and the availability of parts.
 
Where the people see competition? We had not seen ANY benchmark of new AMD CPUs, so, there isn't way to know if this will be a competition for Intel or just another step up for AMD but not enough for compete against Intel.
 
[citation][nom]GeekApproved[/nom]No it's not, they are not interested in that. High end desktop is a very small market. Integrated graphics and apu's are a huge and fast growing market. This is where AMD has been putting ALL it's R&D. AMD has not competed in the high end desktop market for over 10 YEARS, they have always been #2 (except a short stint in 2006) and very happy to be #2.It's not suicidial, it's smart. Don't put all your R&D into trying to beat Intel in the small market that high end desktop cpu's are.[/citation]

Hold the phone, Geek. All that technology and expertise from their high end desktop cpu development will go into their other products.
 
[citation][nom]GeekApproved[/nom]No it's not, they are not interested in that. High end desktop is a very small market. Integrated graphics and apu's are a huge and fast growing market. This is where AMD has been putting ALL it's R&D. AMD has not competed in the high end desktop market for over 10 YEARS, they have always been #2 (except a short stint in 2006) and very happy to be #2.It's not suicidial, it's smart. Don't put all your R&D into trying to beat Intel in the small market that high end desktop cpu's are.[/citation]

I guess you're talking about sales or profit or something along those lines. From shortly after the Athlon came out, AMD was the performance leader. This lasted through the Pentium D until intel turned out the vastly superior Core 2 Duo line. We all seem to conveniently forget that stretch of several years where intel was playing catchup. It's fine that AMD's been behind for a few years now, but it would really be in all our best interests if BD gave them that performance crown again...if only for a little while.
 
June will be an interesting month to follow as AMD starts launching its products, I can’t wait to see what will AMD pullout of its sleeve.
These new products should be comparative against Intel’s current product lineup, and hopefully during the next 2-3 quarters we should either see a price drop in prices (which is unlikely), or we would see better performing products under the same prices.
 
From what i heard,Buldozer is going to have the fx brand name,so you know what that wil mean. fx=excelent performance,fx were the same brand name amd used for there high performance cpu's when they were in the lead with k8 against intel.I have faith in amd,they wil take the performance crown again,Because they have done so many times before,they reached 1ghz bearier first,and first 64bit cpu,and first cpu with a memory controller.Intel is in the lead now,but they are rediciously expensive,amd has always been a bit cheaper then intel,even when amd had the performance crown,some amd cpu's were expensive and many other not,intel has always been expensive,but they are a much bigger companny,they are more then twice as big as amd,but what impresses me is that a small company makes intel's legs shake.it is suppose to be easy for intel to always stay infront(because they are bigger)But amd still scares them.I dont know about you guys,but intel has always been boring.If amd didnt exzist today,then intel whould have propably sold us intel pentium4 singel cores with HT.Amd forces intel to create something better.So that is why i am an amd fan.because they always fight back,no matter how smal they are,and they win sometimes.it lets me think og Goliath vs David,Amd=David and intel=Goliath.its always an endles cpu battle between amd and intel.and thats a good thing,
 
If bulldozer was better then Sandy Bridge they would had made benchmark comparaison like what they did with fusion gpu over sandy gpu. I don't see they claim a faster cpu over sandy bridge yet so they are quiet in that way because they know its not faster. With sandy bridge Extreme 6 core coming i dont see how amd could be close to beat that.
 
remember the slogan always confuse your enemies. Ati started it with the we're no longer interested in the performance crown BS then proceeded to put out the 4800 series which was 90% of what nvidia had out at the time. Here is to hoping the same for BD
 
AMD designed bulldozer initially as a server CPU and not a high end desktop, but nevertheless it should fare quite well there as well. According to AMD it's 20-30% faster than the old i7-950, which puts it in sandy bridge territory. AMD doesn't release benchmarks for their products until they're released, so don't hold your breath.

The llano APU is way more exciting than bulldozer. GPU that can assist the CPU in x86 tasks? can crossfire with certain discrete video cards? AND it'll be marketed for the mobile/desktop market? Where the hell do i sign up?

Nvidia's APU's (they aren't actually APUs but rather SoC's) are based on ARM architecture and obviously for the mobile market. The new e-350 outperforms a more expensive atom/ion combo, so whoever said that was wrong.

Furthermore, AMD's absolutely kicking ass in the GPU segment. Currently there really isn't a single nvidia video card that beats AMD in price : performance, power draw, and when you factor in crossfire performance it's not even close.

The bulldozer-based fusion chips -- called trinity -- will be coming early next year. They're also nearly finished with their 28nm which will hit the smaller fusion chips first; bulldozer and the CPU/notebook fusion chips should still be 32nm i believe.

I prefer AMD chips just like others and want them to do well to compete with intel, who historically has a tendency of not playing fair. But I've also been an nvidia guy as well up until the 6000 series. In the GPU segment nvidia has a lot of catching up to do, just as AMD does in the CPU segment.
 
Well, I was hoping to be able to pick up a 900-chipset board before June, but it looks like that won't happen. Oh well. Performance is so good across the board right now, that no matter who wears the crown, I can't imagine anyone's current quad-core CPU not meeting my needs for the foreseeable future. I expect AMD will be cheaper, so that's probably what I'll buy.
 
[citation][nom]XD_dued[/nom]Well...there are no benches for bulldozer yet and this is the first complete design overhaul of amd's processors since athlon.However, I will not have my expectations too high to avoid being disappointed[/citation]
I also will not have my expectations set high; although, I will somewhat hope because if they do exceed Intel, then you can bet that AMD will be the pricier brand.

Personally, I think AMD is smart to not release too many details at this point. Once the parts become available, all speculation will cease. :)
 
One little detail.

As you remember, Intel released SB in January, and the preview on Anandtech was available in September. Intel already knew that SB was superior to any other x86 CPU so they sent engineering samples to reviewers to let everyone know about its superiority.

On the other hand, I haven't seen any reviews of BD. It seems that AMD has some secrets to keep. And I fear that this secret is: BD sucks.
 
@Another User

or Intel is really bad at keeping secrets, Sandy Bridge MacBook Pro anyone....
 
Llano should really kick some serious butt in the HTPC arena. The dual core hdmi 1.4a will be much better than SB core i3 for multimedia do to its superior graphics and all you need is adequate cpu power. As far as gaming goes the SB core i5 with discrete graphics will be the way to go.
 
A point I do not seeing anyone making is this. The last time AMD had a chip that was marketed toward the high end market was actually with the system I am using at this moment, which is the L1N64-WS dual socket mobo and FX-74 chip. which was supposed to be upgradable to the phenomFX series and the worlds first 8core system would be possible. this was right before the phenom hit the market in fall 2007. This never came and AMD later announced they were closing the FX line down. Reason was because before AMD's FX chip could always compete or even sometimes beat the intel EE chip. Both were priced about the same for years. Intel finally got the advantage over on AMD once the multi core market really took off. AMD has been lagging since. So my point is this. If AMD is now announcing that they are bringing the FX series back. That is AMD saying "hey intel, and world, we now have a chip that can beat intel again." I could never see AMD bringing back the FX line if the chip didnt at least beat intel's 980EE by 5-10 percent. And it would have to beat the i7 2600k in gaming by a decent amount as well. Since the i7 2600k is by far the worlds best gaming cpu. Even the 2500k beats the 980 EE in gaming. So the new FX 8000series will be 5-10 percent faster than the 980 EE in none gaming test. and faster than the 2600k in gaming by 10-15 percent. I actually think that even the FX 4000 and 6000 series will be faster than the 980X.

I'm not a fanboy of either, i'm just looking at history and trying to see things from a market perspective. if AMD didnt have a chip that will beat intels current best desktop chip by a decent amount then you will never see it's release. Or it's release will not be under the FX name. period

 
I love all the bull that's thrown around about CPU's for gaming. As far as I'm concerned, if you are CPU bound in gaming on a Phenom II X4 or higher, you need a new monitor, not a new CPU. If you are hitting a CPU wall in games, then you probably have sub par resolution output. Furthermore, I'd like to know what FPS people are pulling down when they are hitting this wall. Because, if people are hitting some kind of FPS wall due to CPU, but this wall is at 100+ fps, who really cares?

Sure the Core i7 can kick the crap out of my Phenom II 955. But when I'm gaming at 5760x1080, you can be sure its my video card thats hitting its limits, my cpu usage isn't peaking. Yes that is an extreme resolution case, but my video card is an extreme performance case (or used to be) and is still my bottleneck, so its a valid usage scenario. [Radeon 5970]

A more plausible situation: Running 1920x1080 with a DX11 title with AA and Tesselation running. How much video muscle will it take for a Phenom II to be the bottleneck, and when it IS the bottleneck, what FPS wall gets hit?

Gamers are better served putting extra money towards Video Cards, monitors, SSD, Raptor, or maybe even memory if you don't have enough. CPU is about the last thing that needs to be upgraded these days to improve your gaming experience... unless you're still running an old single core or even dual core.

[/rant]
 
I agree, GaMEChld, although the differences may be a lot more visible in multi-GPU setups. There may be the occasional outlier like Civilization V with everything maxed (SB kicks everything's butt on that one), but a lowly Athlon II X3 can play any game.
 


Absolutely, multi-GPU is the most likely way to hit a cpu bottleneck. However, the chances are, someone running multi-GPU is probably gaming at 1920x1080 at minimum. Probably 2500x1600 is more likely.

I actually haven't considered gaming prospects on the Athlon II line, that's impressive if it stays afloat.

Yes, I've heard tales of Civ 5's crazy performance issues, it seems like that game kills everything just by the way its designed. I heard if you attempt to multi-monitor that game you're just plain screwed.

In any event, we are in an age where increasing graphics power and cpu power can ONLY be tested at extreme resolution situations. If you blow your money on a GTX 590 or Radeon 6990 + Core i7 with 12GB memory, and your maximum resolution is a mere 1920x1080, and the computer is meant to be a gaming machine, then you screwed up bad.

On that note, does anyone here know how taxing 3D gaming is? I imagine its still a GPU limited venture, but maybe I'm wrong and it taxes the CPU as well.
 
you know what amazes me about the k8 that time.i had an 3200+ amd64 and an dual core pentium 3ghz,the intel had ddr 2 ram installed and the amd had only ddr1,but the gaming performance was stil better on the amd.in gaming amd has always impressed me,and in some performance cases,like for instance an amd 3200+(2ghz cpu) vs intel pentium 3ghz with HT)and the amd was stil quicker,even if it had slower ram,i had both machines,with same vga cards and same amount of ram,and both gigabyte boards.but the amd stil feeled faster than the intel,even the games was faster.i know now that the i7 also has a memory controller on cpu and that it performs exceptionaly wel,but one thing that i know for sure is that the FX is comming back to take the performance crown again,so its better if there is always a competition between intel and amd,because if there were no competition then the cpu technology wont upgrade so phenomally.amd also created the first proper dual core called fx50 up to fx62 range,and they were phenominal.and what excites me the most is to see the technollogy swifts this year and next year,amd is going to make intel sweat,and intel is going to make amd sweat,so the outcome wil be exstream performance cpu's from amd and intel.i cant wait,this wil drop many cpu's prices when intel and amd are head to head.but amd id quiet for a good reason,they are going to surprise the world,they are going to buldoze the competition with the amd buldozer fx cpu.if they lose then i dont understand why they would give the name buldozer and fx moniker.fx means=exstream performance and buldozer means=wil buldoze annything.so my verdict equals to amd gaining the performance crown again.what do you guys think.i am upgrading to eather amd or intel,depending on who wins.
 
A lot of people are passionate on this subject, apparently. The reality of the situation, though, is likely AMD will roll out Bulldozer just in time for it to thwacked on the head by Ivy Bridge and its new transistor design.

Another thing I have never understood is why people say they will buy a product for "support of a company" rather than the merits of the product itself. Remember how many people bought the first generation knowingly defective Phenom in a semi-delusional idea that their money would keep AMD afloat despite AMD posting record losses again and again?

If someone sells gold (Athlon 64 compared to P4) for a few years and then starts selling horse manure (original Phenom compared to Core), why would you buy a brick of s**t for the same price they used to sell gold? Bottom line is you end up smelling about as bad as your logic reeks. A fool and his money are easily parted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom