• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Fudzilla: Bulldozer performance figures are in

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Edrick said:
People are all guessing on price for BD now. There is no way AMD will sell a CPU, that out performs an Intel $300 CPU by 10-30%, at the same price. If they do, AMD is not that smart of a company.
Click to expand...

If they are trying to capture a larger market share, they HAVE to sell their chips at a lower price/performance ratio than intel in order to be competitive. When you are competing with a super giant, the only way you will be able to make it is by having a superior product for a relatively lower price.

That has been AMD's mantra for about as long as I can remember.
 
Cogman said:
If they are trying to capture a larger market share, they HAVE to sell their chips at a lower price/performance ratio than intel in order to be competitive. When you are competing with a super giant, the only way you will be able to make it is by having a superior product for a relatively lower price.

That has been AMD's mantra for about as long as I can remember.
Click to expand...

When AMD had the performance crown, they sold their top of the line CPUs in the $1000 range. This was not too long ago either (2004?). AMD was kicking Intel's arse thanks to the Netburst crap. Since then, however, Intel has regained the crown and the prices reflect that.

The point is if BD wipes the floor with Sandy, then expect the prices to reflect that. AMD is not stupid, and they want to make money just as much as Intel.
 
Edrick said:
People are all guessing on price for BD now. There is no way AMD will sell a CPU, that out performs an Intel $300 CPU by 10-30%, at the same price. If they do, AMD is not that smart of a company.
Click to expand...



I honestly think they will sell it at the same price due to the fact they need to win some of their customer base back because they lost so many to Intel with Sandybridge.
 
SLK said:
I honestly think they will sell it at the same price due to the fact they need to win some of their customer base back because they lost so many to Intel with Sandybridge.
Click to expand...

If their top model processor dropped well under $200 they would sell like hot cakes.

Hard to sell any of their processors for over $200 when they get outperformed
 
skipsneeky2 said:
If their top model processor dropped well under $200 they would sell like hot cakes.

Hard to sell any of their processors for over $200 when they get outperformed
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? The Phenom 1100T? Newegg sells it for $189
 
Nemesis 1 said:
No you talk to intel and they will tell you straight out . They as a producer of CPUs as has yet to release its highend SB platiform Enthusiast if you insist . Until we see AMDS best against intels best your making a sensely debate . Apples to apples based on performance not cost . Since it is in FACT the performance that sets the PRICE. I asssure you Z68 SB 1155 is not Intels best. The 2011 socket and chipset are intels best . So many say lets wait for real results and thats what I will do wait for real results against AMDs best VS Intels best 2011 socket. Or aren't the reviewers going to bench the 2011 platiform. I may be annoying but I sure as hell won't overlook the fact that the bar for AMD was lower to mid high for AMD . Annoying yes, To some but true,
Click to expand...

If these benchmarks are real, do you REALLY expect Intel's pathetic excuse for an "enthusiast" platform to allow for gains significant enough to compete with Bulldozer? Bulldozer scored ~33% better in x264 encoding. Quad-channel RAM isn't going to change that.

Perhaps a six-core SB will make up for the performance gulf. More unused memory bandwidth certainly won't, though.
 
Nemesis 1 said:
Lets not go down this road, performance sets cost period . When AMD was top they had a $1000 dollar cpu. As did intel . Ya see intel even tho didn't have the performance lead Intel had capacity. The true thorn in AMDs foot at the time. But performance set pricies . We all know If AMD could price at $1000 they would . But they can't So now people pollute the performance debates with Price and misdirection hype. Besides your doing the same thing again . ALL of us here KNOW not all 2011socket cpus will be $1000 . Infact most here fully exspect the 2011 4 core SB to knock i7 2600K out at around the same price per cpu but a more expensive feature rich platiform. M/B cost will be the next cry from the losers.
Click to expand...

Have you ever considered that maybe AMD is going for deeper market share penetration over pure money? I mean think, if AMD charged $1000 for this, which the performance at 3.2 GHz translated to 3.8GHz indicates they likely could, they would sell a 1/100th of the amount they would sell with this priced at $320. Thats far better market share penetration, as well as probably more profitable. Oh, and if performance sets price, why is the 2600K a third of the price of the 990x, yet it is as fast or faster in the majority of apps? Hmmmmm, nice try, troll elsewhere. By the way, Im going to assume based off your english you dont live in the US, so do they only sell Intel CPU's in your country?
 
Edrick said:
When AMD had the performance crown, they sold their top of the line CPUs in the $1000 range. This was not too long ago either (2004?). AMD was kicking Intel's arse thanks to the Netburst crap. Since then, however, Intel has regained the crown and the prices reflect that.

The point is if BD wipes the floor with Sandy, then expect the prices to reflect that. AMD is not stupid, and they want to make money just as much as Intel.
Click to expand...
It was quite a long time before amd raised there prices that high. It wasn't until they got something like 30% of the market that they started doing stuff like that.

The original Athlon XP series was in many ways superior to the P4. Yet their prices remained pretty low. It wasn't until the 64 series that they increased prices to the 1000 range (which was still in the same ballpark of other intel chips)
 
ydnas7 said:
with a SuperPi 1M pf 19.5 seconds, BD won't be an enthusiast's gaming chip.

http://translate.googleusercontent...._6.htm&usg=ALkJrhgQNE_zbJMOUFJv3NjBZ6OmUc-zQQ
Click to expand...

Eh, thats debatable, but even so, gaming is irrelevant to CPU's in this day and age for several reasons.

1. Games in their nature arent very CPU intensive, and are usually bottlenecked by the GPU or other parts.
2. The games coming out now either are console ports and therefore any modern CPU with a gaming grade GPU can get 100FPS+, or a few select games that arent console ports like BF3 will be able to use some insane amount of cores (16 or 64 cores, I forget to be honest).
3. Heres a perfect example:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-ii-x6-1100t-thuban-amd,2810-6.html

Even though the 1100T scores 19.1s in SuperPI, it doesnt show at all in gaming. Furthermore, the BD with a score of 19.5s will surely be closer to around 16.5s when the ES is brought up to faster clock speed. Only real world gaming benchmarks would show, however gaming for CPU's is almost irrelevant, so no matter.
 
pantsaregood said:
If these benchmarks are real, do you REALLY expect Intel's pathetic excuse for an "enthusiast" platform to allow for gains significant enough to compete with Bulldozer? Bulldozer scored ~33% better in x264 encoding. Quad-channel RAM isn't going to change that.
Click to expand...

So a new 6 core CPU (12 threads) with 20MB cache, PCIe 3.0, and quad channel IMC is "pathetic" to you?
 
Cogman said:
If they are trying to capture a larger market share, they HAVE to sell their chips at a lower price/performance ratio than intel in order to be competitive. When you are competing with a super giant, the only way you will be able to make it is by having a superior product for a relatively lower price.

That has been AMD's mantra for about as long as I can remember.
Click to expand...

Really I see you been here since 2000. So were you sleeping durring the hammer years or what kind of poo you spreading here. AMd products right now don't compete with intel period . Until you do a price compare. Than inorder to compete they have to go down from the High end intel . Than when a place is found were AMD can compete its suddenenly the holy grail of cpus.
 
skipsneeky2 said:
Still a hard sell when the 2500k still kills it in gaming.:thumbsup:

Drop it another $30 and then we can talk about a deal
Click to expand...


They won't because it is a 6 core processor and can beat the 2500K in some heavily threaded apps that require more cores.

Newegg sells the X4 965 for $119. I'd say the pricing is right.
 
Ares1214 said:
Eh, thats debatable, but even so, gaming is irrelevant to CPU's in this day and age for several reasons.

1. Games in their nature arent very CPU intensive, and are usually bottlenecked by the GPU or other parts.
2. The games coming out now either are console ports and therefore any modern CPU with a gaming grade GPU can get 100FPS+, or a few select games that arent console ports like BF3 will be able to use some insane amount of cores (16 or 64 cores, I forget to be honest).
3. Heres a perfect example:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-ii-x6-1100t-thuban-amd,2810-6.html

Even though the 1100T scores 19.1s in SuperPI, it doesnt show at all in gaming. Furthermore, the BD with a score of 19.5s will surely be closer to around 16.5s when the ES is brought up to faster clock speed. Only real world gaming benchmarks would show, however gaming for CPU's is almost irrelevant, so no matter.
Click to expand...

Your 1 . Why do all the sites use intel cpus to do GPU benchmarks . If your 1 was true it wouldn't matter what they used. The differance in gaming does infact show up . If you choose to hide it by maxing out the gpu thats your choice but only a fool would take it as fact.
 
TakeNoPrisoners said:
Yes. Until more places confirm it no decisions will be made.
Click to expand...

Good. I'm definitely adopting that attitude as well. I want to make sure that I'm not basing my next system around a pig in a poke. Again, I'm ultra-confused as to how any of the "real or illusory" benchmarks would translate to real world image manipulation app performance, as personally, that's the one and only thing I care about!
 
Cogman said:
It was quite a long time before amd raised there prices that high. It wasn't until they got something like 30% of the market that they started doing stuff like that.

The original Athlon XP series was in many ways superior to the P4. Yet their prices remained pretty low. It wasn't until the 64 series that they increased prices to the 1000 range (which was still in the same ballpark of other intel chips)
Click to expand...

Not true AMD started the high bucks game with the FX intel replied with the Extreme P4 .
 
Still not looking good for single threaded performance....SB-E will just come along and take care of the small % of people who actually use that many cores/threads.
 
Kind of a misleading OP. Any of us could easily cook up some fake benches and have them posted somewhere online.

I'd be happy if it were true, as it would mean epic performance for a cheap price, at launch to boot.

I remind you all though :

This has NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER happened. The top CPU performance crown always holds a sizable price. As new top end CPUs came out, they were spectacularly pricey. All the way back to the 386 days and earlier. Something called ASP is incredibly critical to profitability, and the total lineup's ASP is dependent largely on performance at the top end. Remember the days of $1000+ Pentium 3 1ghz, $1000+ X2-4800+, $1000+ QX9650, etc. Even lesser but very high end chips for the time like Slot-A Athlon 700, K6-233, E6700, etc were quite a lot of money.

If this thing were easily pulling ahead of 6-core 990X, then they would be charging $800-$1000+ easily for the top model, and perhaps slower/more crippled models stretching down from there between the $300-$800 levels.

It could be that the leaked pricing structure is bunk, and these benches are correct, which would mean huge prices, but both cannot be true unless this is going to be the first time ever this happens (fastest chip available is ~$300). It could be that both are false, but both cannot be true. I'd be super happy if it were, but it's unreasonable to give it credulity.
 
Nemesis 1 said:
Your 1 . Why do all the sites use intel cpus to do GPU benchmarks . If your 1 was true it wouldn't matter what they used. The differance in gaming does infact show up . If you choose to hide it by maxing out the gpu thats your choice but only a fool would take it as fact.
Click to expand...

Please, show me a game where an Intel CPU gets playable frame rates yet the AMD CPU doesnt. They use Intel because its the fastest, and want to completely eliminate any possible CPU bottleneck.
 
Cogman said:
It was quite a long time before amd raised there prices that high. It wasn't until they got something like 30% of the market that they started doing stuff like that.

The original Athlon XP series was in many ways superior to the P4. Yet their prices remained pretty low. It wasn't until the 64 series that they increased prices to the 1000 range (which was still in the same ballpark of other intel chips)
Click to expand...

The reason the prices of AXP were fairly low is because they were performance competitive at stock with Intel, both sides gaining temporary advantage here and there. The high end XPs and P4s were quite pricey, ranging from $400-$800 depending on timeframe, and even at the beginning of the A64 they couldn't raise them too fast, because the 3200+ and such weren't dominant over P4 3.2. Once they ramped up to X2, and went to 3500+, 3800+, etc as well, it gave them a commanding performance lead and they raised their ASPs and their top chip prices to $1k+. I remember with a little irritation the 3800+ X2 being the cheapest AMD dual-core at $300.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top