AMD Drops, But Also Increases Prices of Some Processors

[Guest]

AMD has adjusted the prices of five of its processors and introduced one new Athlon II SKU.

AMD Drops, But Also Increases Prices of Some Processors : Read more

 

[three0duster]

Lets make them all the same price, because they are all equally worthless on single threaded applications!

 

[de5_Roy]

zambezi prices are still too high.
an athlon ii for fm1 seems strange. socket fm1 deserves a 3+ ghz, 3-4 core llano(the ones with igp), not an athlon ii. or may be a 32 nm phenom ii x2-x4(without igp) for fm1 - that'd be awesome.

 

[N.Broekhuijsen]

[citation][nom]three0duster[/nom]Lets make them all the same price, because they are all equally worthless on single threaded applications![/citation]
Go troll somewhere else!

On topic: Not much to say about this, they are just trying to find the sweet spot with their prices, so yeah. Take advantage of the current drop in the 6 core chip if you were shopping for one.

 

[fazers_on_stun]

+1 about Bulldozer pricing - $50 too high for the 8150 as it barely beats the 1100T.

Seems like with the layoffs and now this, AMD is positioning itself to be profitable at the low end. So I think AMD will have some pretty startling news at their financial conference in January..

 

[ojas]

[citation][nom]three0duster[/nom]Lets make them all the same price, because they are all equally worthless on single threaded applications![/citation]
not saying it's true, though it was funny

 

[theJ]

I've built two budget computers with these chips. Guess more people are doing the same. They've been good value for a while now, so i wonder what changed...

 

[notsleep]

sometimes i wonder about this site when they consider this news.

 

[nikorr]

I think if u look to Intel prices, AMD is pretty cheap.

This move is to motivate people to buy more expensive, instead of the cheaper ones.

 

[madm8bh]

Not bad for cost effective solutions. Just need a significant price drop on the buldozers.

 

[Guest]

Zambezi needs a 100$ price cut to be competitive with SB.

 

[aldaia]

[citation][nom]fazers_on_stun[/nom] AMD is positioning itself to be profitable at the low end.[/citation]
This is actually the segment to make money. Even the low end has more compute power than 90% of the users need. Though, 90% of Tom's reader's may not agree.

 

[Marco925]

[citation][nom]three0duster[/nom]Lets make them all the same price, because they are all equally worthless on single threaded applications![/citation] who the hell still uses single threaded applications for the majority of their workload? Get out of the stone age man....

 

[molo9000]

[citation][nom]luc vr[/nom]Zambezi needs a 100$ price cut to be competitive with SB.[/citation]

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.

 

[aevm]

I think it's just inflation caused by the currency exchange rates. In the past year the euro/US$ rate went from 1.30 to 1.35. It was as high as 1.48 at some point. Companies like AMD, who pay part of their employees in euros (e.g. in Germany) and get a lot of their revenue from the US, have to raise US prices to compensate.

 

[jgutz2006]

im with nikorr, bump up the cheapest and drop down the best processors. then users get to a decision when picking their CPU of choice, and for a llittle bit more, they can upgrade to a better cpu. sell more PC's with the better processor will make more casual computer users happy with the performance from AMD i think, and then maybe sell more CPUs in the long run

 

[fulle]

[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]

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.

 

[billybobser]

athlon II in FM1 sockets is counter intuitive.

The money saved from buying a mobo to fit a llano chip, only to waste it on having to buy a gfx card, added the fact that you've bought a mobo incompatible with any upgrade.

Not sure why anyone would buy it.

 

[memadmax]

Expensive paperweights are Expensive paperweights.......

 

[fulle]

[citation][nom]billybobser[/nom]athlon II in FM1 sockets is counter intuitive.The money saved from buying a mobo to fit a llano chip, only to waste it on having to buy a gfx card, added the fact that you've bought a mobo incompatible with any upgrade.Not sure why anyone would buy it.[/citation]

I can run through similar logic failure on just about every AMD chip except the A8-3850.

 

[de5_Roy]

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.

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.

 

[mikenygmail]

APU's are the future. The A8 APU allows you to play most games on medium settings without a dedicated graphics card! Intel and Nvidia have no competing product. Furthermore, Intel's onboard graphics are still a joke, and Nvidia is struggling to compete with AMD in the low to mid range GPU war.

Ignore the INTards and NVidiots. AMD is a true innovator, and AMD is the reason why we aren't all paying at least $1,000 for a decent CPU, or $500 for a decent GPU.

 

[slabbo]

[citation][nom]de5_roy[/nom]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.[/citation]

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 Linux

If this is any indication on what windows 8 benches might look like, bulldozer wouldn't be a bad choice.

 

[de5_Roy]

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 Linux

If this is any indication on what windows 8 benches might look like, bulldozer wouldn't be a bad choice.

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.

 

[fulle]

The friendly multi-national money machine I buy my products from is innovative. Yours is evil.