AMD Drops, But Also Increases Prices of Some Processors

[captaincharisma]

[citation][nom]fulle[/nom]The friendly multi-national money machine I buy my products from is innovative. Yours is evil.[/citation]

how is it innovative? that evil company you sppeak of invented the x86 CPU to begin with and the company that you so kiss ass with copied that tech. so you have that evil company to thank for your so called innovative company to ever exist

FAIL

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]fulle[/nom]That sounds about right, actually. The 8150 is inferior to the i5-2500k in almost every situation, while having much much worse efficiency.... and the 2400, frankly, also outclasses the 8150 in enough situations that I think the 8150 should come in UNDER the 2400's price.[/citation]

You know some people still don't know the brand AMD, Intel everyone knows. So even if the performance was equal to what Intel offered it has to be fairly lower priced (80€/$/£-90€/$/£). This said the Intel overclock better a 2500K overclocks to 5.2GHZ on air so I have heard. This means the AMD needs to run at ± 6Ghz to compete, and this is not even possible with water cooling(4.8 4.9 max). And power consumption ....

 

[slabbo]

[citation][nom]de5_roy[/nom]read that a long time ago. fx does get closer to i5 2500k(overall) but not that much. read the follow up articles - especially the one where they test with a neutral compiler iirc, you'll understand.fx(zambezi) is not a server processor. opteron (interlagos and valencia) is a server processor. even if one argues that fx is die-harvested from opterons or fx is meant for server operation those arguments are..well..not really strong arguments - since amd sells seperate server processors meant for servers and server-type workloads.[/citation]

you're right about the server chips, i don't like the FX naming convention. haha

i5 2500k is excellent at single threaded applications and excels in that. It even beats out the i7 970 in many of the results. Bulldozer is consistently beating the i7 920 though, so it still has value if they price it correctly. I do understand these are really old benchmarks, so it will get better over time when they get a grasp on the workings of Bulldozer. Even so, it's not as bad as you make it out to be. I'm just keeping an open mind about it.

Windows 8 is going to be pretty interesting. It's either going to kill the bulldozer, make it a viable choice, or make it the must have chip. It really all depends on the optimization.

 

[fulle]

[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]how is it innovative? that evil company you sppeak of invented the x86 CPU to begin with and the company that you so kiss ass with copied that tech. so you have that evil company to thank for your so called innovative company to ever existFAIL[/citation]

Intentionally trolling my troll? Or is your sarcasm detector broken?

 

[captaincharisma]

Windows 8 is going to be pretty interesting. It's either going to kill the bulldozer, make it a viable choice, or make it the must have chip. It really all depends on the optimization.

LOL you can basically say that about any CPU. but usually if it turns out that way you normally don't have to get a new OS for it to work right LOL. that would totally make AMD's pricing advantage invalid. sure the CPU would be cheap but add and extra 100-150 for a copy of a new OS and then you might as well get an i5 or i7 CPU which has optimal performance with your current OS

but yet AMD fanbois fail to think of this because nothing penetrates that fanboi bubble they live in

 

[whysobluepandabear]

$2-3? This didn't deserve to make head lines. It's chump change - to the point where I consider it normal fluctuation of market goods.

 

[jellico]

Yeah, lower the selection and increase the price of your processors, AMD. That'll help you compete with Intel!

 

[whysobluepandabear]

[citation][nom]jellico[/nom]Yeah, lower the selection and increase the price of your processors, AMD. That'll help you compete with Intel![/citation]
They're getting tips from the Netflix CEO....haha.

 

[verbalizer]

AMD still has to do more and 'more better' too..

 

[molo9000]

[citation][nom]fulle[/nom]That sounds about right, actually. The 8150 is inferior to the i5-2500k in almost every situation, while having much much worse efficiency.... and the 2400, frankly, also outclasses the 8150 in enough situations that I think the 8150 should come in UNDER the 2400's price.[/citation]

It is inferior to the i5-2500k in single-thread performance, but depending on the benchmark it can even outperform the i7-2600k in some situations.
In most benchmarks it's somewhere in between.

 

[eddieroolz]

I comprehended the article until I saw "up" "price" and "AMD" together.

Not a good move...

 

[matt_b]

[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]LOL you can basically say that about any CPU. but usually if it turns out that way you normally don't have to get a new OS for it to work right LOL. that would totally make AMD's pricing advantage invalid. sure the CPU would be cheap but add and extra 100-150 for a copy of a new OS and then you might as well get an i5 or i7 CPU which has optimal performance with your current OSbut yet AMD fanbois fail to think of this because nothing penetrates that fanboi bubble they live in[/citation]
You're either not understanding what SLABBO is saying or you don't know about one of the major overhauls coming in Windows 8. It is gearing to be the first true intelligent multi-core task-managing operating system for for low count or even single threaded applications. Windows 7 does better than previous OS's, but no version of Windows has been able to fully utilize all available cores/threads that modern CPU's have. Where programs fail to utilize mutli-cores to the fullest, Windows 8 is supposed to tighten up the slack and distribute tasks and workloads better.

Yes, what he has to say is rather valid. If BD is a true workhorse with the "8" cores it has, then it should surpass the Intel 4 core/8 thread CPU's in Windows 8 (if it lives up to the claims). If not, then the Bulldozer design is an initial failure and hope will have to wait for another design comes to the table.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]molo9000[/nom]LOL. That would make the FX-8150 cheaper than the cheapest SB i5. That's insane.The FX-8150 should priced somewhere between the i5-2500k and the i7-2600k. Probably closer to the i5-2500k though.[/citation]

nah, it should be between them, it beats out the i7 in a handful of benchmarks, but single threaded suffers, on the other hand some of the problems will be solved with the os coded to work with their threading solution, the i7 really only outclasses the bulldozer in single threaded applications, and in all honesty, ever sencse the phenom/core2 line, single threaded application speeds have been dieing and done fast enough, that even if you took a 50% hit in speed it would still be fast enough.

[citation][nom]SLABBO[/nom]you're right about the server chips, i don't like the FX naming convention. hahai5 2500k is excellent at single threaded applications and excels in that. It even beats out the i7 970 in many of the results. Bulldozer is consistently beating the i7 920 though, so it still has value if they price it correctly. I do understand these are really old benchmarks, so it will get better over time when they get a grasp on the workings of Bulldozer. Even so, it's not as bad as you make it out to be. I'm just keeping an open mind about it.Windows 8 is going to be pretty interesting. It's either going to kill the bulldozer, make it a viable choice, or make it the must have chip. It really all depends on the optimization.[/citation]

it wont make it a must have... at least not at the price its currently at, and that even with optimization, single thread will still suffer, but it will make it to be a good alternative.

 

[kikireeki]

AMD also dropped the price of its 6-core FX-6100 processor from $165 to $155.

What really AMD needs is to drop Zambezi all together.

 

[captaincharisma]

You're either not understanding what SLABBO is saying or you don't know about one of the major overhauls coming in Windows 8. It is gearing to be the first true intelligent multi-core task-managing operating system for for low count or even single threaded applications. Windows 7 does better than previous OS's, but no version of Windows has been able to fully utilize all available cores/threads that modern CPU's have. Where programs fail to utilize mutli-cores to the fullest, Windows 8 is supposed to tighten up the slack and distribute tasks and workloads better.

Yes, what he has to say is rather valid. If BD is a true workhorse with the "8" cores it has, then it should surpass the Intel 4 core/8 thread CPU's in Windows 8 (if it lives up to the claims). If not, then the Bulldozer design is an initial failure and hope will have to wait for another design comes to the table.

whatever dude all i got from that is AMD's BD CPU sucks but we are desperately waiting to see if a new OS will make it better.

 

[matt_b]

[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]whatever dude all i got from that is AMD's BD CPU sucks but we are desperately waiting to see if a new OS will make it better.[/citation]
Let me over-simplify it then: programs and OS's don't utilize multi-cores very well. Windows 8 may be able to make more out of the BD 8 cores versus the current Intel/AMD four cores.

I'm not advocating for either brand CPU, but I'm excited to see what Windows 8 does to alleviate this problem with multi-core CPUs not being put to work efficiently. It's obvious innovation isn't as much a driving factor with Intel and AMD seeing how both are now in a core count race instead of CPU speed contest. May as well make things work properly since that's the road we're going down now.

 

[de5_Roy]

i know i am gonna incur some amd fanboy anger ( i am not calling anyone a fanboy fyi) but intel and amd do not seem to be any core count or clock speed race. both are trying to get into newer trends - amd trying to build a solid platform using their apus under fusion, intel trying to get into the ultra portable market. both are using their r&d for that.
evidently amd aggressively prices their products(not counting zambezi) and usually offers advantages like backwards compatibility, more hardware (cores) against intel's higher power-performance efficiency, higher clock speed, timely platform refresh with their tick-tock system.
amd has been successful with fusion, intel has been able to keep up with tick-tock. i'd say both are successful. but amd has hit more snags than intel over the years, and right now has a credibility issue with regular customers about their fx launch and preceding hype, not to mention glofo's 32 nm production problems. they're also very small in the server area - one area where cpu makers make huge amounts of money.
the windows 8.0 thing has become quite tiresome. after almost every fx review put those small paragraphs showing fx performing 2-5% better on average in win 8 preview version people keep bringing this up. i haven't seen one single non-reviewer, a regular fx user testing any fx cpu on win 8.0 preview version and reporting that he or she actually noticed substantial performance increase (and lower power consumption). this is slowly turning into a cliche. a lot of people also say that fx is selling out - so not even one of those fx buyers chose to test out if the amd's claims about win 8.0 was true?

 

[Shin-san]

[citation][nom]SLABBO[/nom]you have to remember it's a server chip. take a look at the linux benchmarks, it's much better at using more threads than the current windows platform. You'll see some interesting results.Bulldozer benchmarks on LinuxIf this is any indication on what windows 8 benches might look like, bulldozer wouldn't be a bad choice.[/citation]
I noticed that they used a special compiler, which might have really helped.

 

[Lozil]

The Fusion cores are Value for money who are in a Tight budget, Good thing is, You can play a few games and Watch HD content effortlessly using These.

 

[SuperPewper]

aw man, don't bring i5 2400 into this .
when at benchmarked fx 8150, the 2400 kept up very closely in most cases, was ahead in some cases and was slightly behind in the heavily multithreaded tests. and it crushed fx in power consumption and was better in gaming. that's a locked general purpose 4 core desktop cpu(2400) almost totally nearly outclassing a flagship top-of-teh-line enthusiast 8 core cpu(fx 8150).
if tom's included an i5 2400 in their efficiency analysis articles, fx 8150 would further embarrass itself.

I wish everyone would refer to the fx as 2, 3, and 4 cores like they really are. It does such a disservice to perpetuate the dishonesty. Either that or start calling the i7 an 8 or 12 core.

 

[bassbeast]

They are still too high when compared to their performance and they need to keep selling AM3 until they get a real desktop chip as BD/PD is obviously designed for server and not desktop. best bang for the buck in AMD right now is the Zosma X4 which is easily unlocked and the 95w Phenom II X6 which Tiger has been selling for $105 after rebate.

If they keep their current prices when i can no longer get Phenom IIs and Athlons in AM3 I'll be seriously looking at intel simply because their prices including boards is getting too close to intel territory and apples to apples the new Cor i chips sadly stomp anything AMD has. I just hope they have a change of heart and bring back a couple of AM3 chips, I'd suggest just taking one of the 95w X6s like the 1035T and then disabling bad cores to have an X4 or X3. Because as it is their low end simply doesn't have the bang for the buck and BD gets stomped by the Phenom II in most benches so really isn't a good deal unless you are running server style loads which most folks are not. AM3 is a much better deal and if they can't fix the performance on Piledriver they could lose the entire low end gamer market which has been buying AMD pretty solidly.