AMD Plans New FX Processors to Go Up Against Ivy Bridge

Page 3 - 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.
[citation][nom]A Bad Day[/nom]It's like Intel releasing additional Pentium 4s and Ds to compete against AMD's Athlon64 X2...How do you know? The 3770K (IB) and the 2700K (SB) have the same clock rate, cores and HT, the only difference is that the IB has a TDP of 77W, the SB has a TPD of 95W.[/citation]

Even with die shrinks (ticks), more than just clocks and TDP are changed. They make architectural changes/tweaks as well. ie: QuickSync 2.0, and Intel Graphics 4000, which has been said to be on par with current Llano APU's in terms of graphics.
 
[citation][nom]Earnie[/nom]I get a kick out of comments like this,they only come out after there(Nvidia) new card was released,where was this comment last week?Not to mention,without AMD in the processor market,we'd all be enjoying our $500 i3's..[/citation]


I get a kick out of phony predictions. If prices went that far up, the majority of consumers would not upgrade their computers for MUCH longer, forcing new OS's to come once every 5 years instead of every 2, thereby leaving Intel and Microsoft hanging by a thread-and those are just two out of MANY players that would be affected. Look at the price of gas. Do you think people are using it like it's still $2/gallon, or do you think they are being more conservative? And gas is more essential than cutting edge desktop PC's.
 
[citation][nom]geekapproved[/nom]Sigh, you fanboys will never get it. AMD doesn't need to beat Intel to be successful, this game has been going on since the early 90's, nothing has changed except you guys turned from infants to teenage noobers.AMD actually gained market share on Intel this quarter, so.....yeah[/citation]

Yeah maybe you missed the article TomsHardware had just days ago, or perhaps you're reading it in a manner that looks like the gain was "GRAND".

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-intel-cpu-processor,15041.html

According to IDC, Intel suffered a 2.6 point loss in the mobile segment (down to 83.8 percent), as AMD added 2.7 points bringing it to 16.0 percent. AMD lost in the server and workstation segment where it is now at 5.5 percent, which was down 1.5 points. Intel is overwhelmingly dominant with 94.5 percent (up 1.5 points). In desktop processors, Intel came in at 73.8 percent (+1.7 points), while AMD was down 1.6 points to 26.0 percent.
Click to expand...

So AMD gained in the ever rapidly expanding and ever turbulent Mobile market. Big whoopie, and yes AMD doesn't need to beat Intel to be successful, but what the market says is profitable success doesn't make you're stance in the industry successful by a long shot.

Selling products at a lower cost and now lower performance is no longer a strong suit for AMD. It used to be they sold great products for low costs (gained them considerable reputation and market share) and now they've lost that edge with Bulldozers failed performance and insanely long delay. Bottom line there strategy needs to change and the folks at AMD know it, saying otherwise is counter-productive to them getting back in the market segment across the board.
 
Thanks for the incredibly misleading title, Mr. Perry. These chips are not meant to against Ivy Bridge, and nowhere has AMD said anything like that. If they have, please provide links.
 
[citation][nom]Earnie[/nom]I get a kick out of comments like this,they only come out after there(Nvidia) new card was released,where was this comment last week?Not to mention,without AMD in the processor market,we'd all be enjoying our $500 i3's..[/citation]

Don't mind the fanboys, only fanboys can call a +5fps difference on certain situations a butt kicking.
 
[citation][nom]jurassic512[/nom]Even with die shrinks (ticks), more than just clocks and TDP are changed. They make architectural changes/tweaks as well. ie: QuickSync 2.0, and Intel Graphics 4000, which has been said to be on par with current Llano APU's in terms of graphics.[/citation]
The proof will be in the pudding. Even if the 4000 is equal to Llano in speed, Trinity is coming.
 
[citation][nom]silverblue[/nom]LOL... just because somebody slates IB as not really much of a step up over SB, that automatically makes them an AMD fanboy? I admit it's very possible, but not everything is black and white.He might even be a recent SB adopter trying to justify his purchase.[/citation]
No... his previous comments in other articles, followed by this comment makes him a troll and an AMD fanboy. Sorry I didn't explicitly state that.
 
[citation][nom]amuffin[/nom]Many people would buy the i3-2100 and make the jump over to an i5-3570k or i7-3770k, it's all about upgrading and life long efficiency of a system. This is something that amd does not have and has proven to fail with the fx bulldozer cpus.[/citation]
AMD has a long history of platform upgradeablility, something Intel has started doing only recently. I agree that the number of viable upgrade paths to Bulldozer are fairly limited, but it's still an option available to those who want it.
 
[citation][nom]dragonsqrrl[/nom]No... his previous comments in other articles, followed by this comment makes him a troll and an AMD fanboy. Sorry I didn't explicitly state that.[/citation]

Hey, that's fine - I'll let you have this one. 😉
 
[citation][nom]Kyuuketsuki[/nom]Thanks for the incredibly misleading title, Mr. Perry. These chips are not meant to against Ivy Bridge, and nowhere has AMD said anything like that. If they have, please provide links.[/citation]
It is unfortunate that it seems Tom's needs to sensationalize titles so that its regular readers will actually read articles like this.

IMHO, even more unfortunate that this plays on Tom's readers hopes of a truly competitive AMD desktop CPU being on the near-term horizon. I'm growing rather tired of being disappointed by "fluff" "press releases" like these.

I've built with AMD since a dual CPU Intel P 333. My next build will be Intel, though.
 
[citation][nom]silverblue[/nom]The proof will be in the pudding. Even if the 4000 is equal to Llano in speed, Trinity is coming.[/citation]
Ivy Bridge will not be on par with Llano in terms of graphics performance, but it's a big step in the right direction. It's impressive to see this kind of a performance jump out of a "tick", and the HD4000 will be sufficient for entry level gaming, but it doesn't look like it'll be quite on par with Llano. The big jump will come with Haswell.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5626/ivy-bridge-preview-core-i7-3770k/11
 
Im and amd fanboy but they cant compete with intel anymore??? why? could someone explain it to me? i even remember the very few months when amd was over intel with x64 processors and dual core while intel was like 10ghz processors at 300 degrees ... i know that amd its doing great with the gpu thing, and apu for entry level, but i just dont understand how amd got so way behind intel??? i dont like it but if i have to buy a new pc, it will be an ivy bridge (im waiting :) ) and i'll do it with a tear on my face.. AMD you were the chosen one!
 
I gave up on comparing the 2 chips, honestly. I have come to the conclusion. For the price AMD is your best friend, if you have deep pockets and want great performance go Intel.
 
i ll stick with my 1090t, noone force AMD fanboys to upgrade to the last crap just because it s called bulldozer or because it s brand new, if they do a bad cpu no probs to me, they just can keep it
first phenom serie was also crap...just need to read some reviews & bench...though it s a bit rude to put all AMD stuff in the same bag just because they did one mistake...more 😉
 
I have the FX8150 it replaced the 1100t both excellent cpus. Sure they don't bench like intel, but they don't need to. I play bf3 at ultra with my 570, can have as many apps running as I like with out a problem. Don't realy get all the hate, they are good affordable cpus end of.
 
i just bought the 960T, unlocked to cores, overclocked to 3800 and know I'm on par with the 2500K unclocked saved 200 dollars on the platform, and ill get an 8 core FX maybe next year, sure Intel is better but it also costs more and its not upgradeable
 
I am giving up on AMD until they can actually make something decent in the mid range and high end. The only good products outside their chipsets and graphics cards is their APUs. BD is slower than what it replaced and doesn't compete well at all. Some here have talked about how AMD was back in the late 80s and early 90s well those are very different times when there was many other players in the market unlike now. Back then everything was all performance but cost, even Cyrix done well in those years alongside with IBM. Before BD sure Phenom wasn't the fastest thing around but it was priced well and the boards made sure that it was a great value compared to many Intel boards even now days. Better storage and device controllers yielded some advantages that most didn't bother to notice but are present.
 
"AMD Plans New FX Processors to Go Up Against Ivy Bridge" ....

Please don't cut words out from a heading as the left out words might hold some real meaning, just saying ok..

Edit:...
"AMD Plans New FX Processors to Go Up Against Ivy Bridge Celeron"
This would be a more complete sentence don't you think?
 
Im sick of you dipmorons who keep acting like Bulldozer was a major failure when it wasnt! Just because Sandy Bridge is 5 percent faster doesnt mean AMD is half as fast bc that would be 50 percent plus in performance by Sb but thats not the case! GET OVER IT. INTEL will always suck. AMD is #1.
 

your name says different but your comments suggest your not smoking the good green.
your on more of the wacky weed.
 
[citation][nom]DroKing[/nom]Im sick of you dipmorons who keep acting like Bulldozer was a major failure when it wasnt![/citation]

Bulldozer was a flop. Years late, underperforming and power-hungry, it is a major failure (assuming the objective was to keep up with Intel). Sure, Bulldozers are okay for most computing tasks but that's because most users don't need fast CPUs, otherwise AMD would be even worse off.



 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom