What if BD turns out to be FASTER than 2600K?

[exar333]

How can they be? The 2600k is $314 at newegg. The 8150FX will be somewhere in the $300-$350 range if you can get one. Follow me here. The 8150FX is 3.6Ghz Turbo 4.2Ghz and the 2600k is 3.4Ghz and Turbo 3.8Ghz. I'll bet all the tea in China that at stock the 2600k will win most standard bench marks. Both CPU multipliers are unlocked but how high will the 8150FX really go? We know that almost all 2600ks go to 4.4 (I'm being conservative). I bet the 8150FX doesn't have as much head room. Let's talk about the next step down. The 2500k is only $219 at newegg. I have mine at 4.4 all the time and have booted into Windows at 4.8 for a chip stock at 3.3, turbo 3.7 . What price point will the 4 and 6 core FX chips be? Will they be competitive with the 2500k?

I have watched this show way too long. I have been an AMD fan a LONG time but I bought a 2500k because it is a FAR superior chip to what AMD has out now, and unfortunately for AMD, will probably be a superior chip to the Bulldozer. Of course we don't know because the Sandy Bridge is out but where is the Bulldozer?

It's been since 2004 since I built an AMD machine for my uses. Built a number of budget machines over the years for cheap computers that family/friends needed though.

7 years! The X2s were too expensive IMO back when they came out, and i didn't do stuff that would have benefited much from them. I definitely miss the old NV motherboards like nForce and nForce4, before they went to crap.

 

[aigomorla]

It's been since 2004 since I built an AMD machine for my uses. Built a number of budget machines over the years for cheap computers that family/friends needed though.

7 years! The X2s were too expensive IMO back when they came out, and i didn't do stuff that would have benefited much from them. I definitely miss the old NV motherboards like nForce and nForce4, before they went to crap.

my last AMD was an opty 185... it was awesome.. loved it to death.

Then a E6600 fell into my lap and it was game overs for me and AMD.

I wouldnt mind playing with an AMD rig, if the performance was near par or up there.

 

[guskline]

my last AMD was an opty 185... it was awesome.. loved it to death.

Then a E6600 fell into my lap and it was game overs for me and AMD.

I wouldnt mind playing with an AMD rig, if the performance was near par or up there.

Agreed. I have a Phenom II 965 in two other machines and it is a very good CPU but compared to a SB 2500k , a 965BE is left in the dust.

As Joe Friday would say " just the facts maam, just the facts"

 

[nOOky]

If I do switch I'll wait a bit and make dang sure there are no glitches with the sata controllers on the motherboards. I'm still irritated when I think back to that... : )

 

[Munky]

I'm not switching until my OC'd Core i7 860 starts to feel sluggish... which I don't expect any time soon.

 

[carnage10]

If BD is <10&#37; faster clock for clock in single thread and multi thread AND OC's to 5ghZ like my 2500k, i'll be glad i didn't wait for it because i've enjoyed this level of performance for 9 months now.

If it is >10% faster across the board and OC's to 5ghz then i'll consider buying one.

I don't think either scenario is very likely TBH.

 

[gmaster456]

The same AMD fanboys are wasting their money on AM3+ boards and slow Phenom IIs just to wait for BD.

A Phenom II is anything but slow. You won't even notice the difference in normal tasks. The difference is also hardly "noticeable" in gaming. The only thing where SB will spank AMD is with stuff like rendering and encoding and other tasks of that nature. Which is a fairly niche market compared to the rest of the market.

 

[Cogman]

A Phenom II is anything but slow. You won't even notice the difference in normal tasks. The difference is also hardly "noticeable" in gaming. The only thing where SB will spank AMD is with stuff like rendering and encoding and other tasks of that nature. Which is a fairly niche market compared to the rest of the market.

"gaming" is a fairly niche market. Lots of people use their computers for more than just Starcraft II. Any sort of video/photo manipulation is going to benefit from a fast CPU. This covers quite a few people.

Raw data crunching (excel stuff?) will also see a decent boost from the faster processor.

However, where it REALLY matters, and the market that is really the bread and butter of both Intel and AMD is the server market. In that situation, multithreaded performance and power consumption are the keys to success.

When performance matters most, AMD comes in second. When the cost/performance is the key metric, AMD usually comes in first or is at least well placed. When it comes to performance/watt, sadly, AMD usually comes in second.

The rest of the market (the server market) cares most about the performance/watt metric. This is part of the reason why Intel and IBM dominate the server markets.

 

[masterbm]

Well I call myself amd fan boy. Right now my gaming rig houses i5 2500k. For my use it would rare that I need that many cores. I do video encoding about twice year but have more then 8 computers on hand to help with encoding. So if need more processing power I would turn on extra machine. My guess is that bulldozer while have more core well only get very close to sandy bridge performance per core. This is taking much to long for amd to release.