YABulldozerT: AMD FX Processor Prices Lower Than Expected

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Ika

Ika

Lifer
Mar 22, 2006
14,267
3
81
Source: Techpowerup/DonanimHaber

http://www.techpowerup.com/152390/AMD-FX-Processor-Prices-Lower-Than-Expected.html

Sources among retailers told DonanimHaber that retail prices of AMD's next generation performance desktop processor series, the AMD FX, are a lot lower than expected. On October 12, AMD will launch three new parts worldwide, the eight-core FX-8150, FX-8120, and six-core FX-6120, priced at US $245, $205, and $175, respectively.
Click to expand...

This is not a good sign for Bulldozer performance well-wishers.
 
chihlidog

chihlidog

Senior member
Apr 12, 2011
884
1
81
Just confirms what seems to be becoming more and more clear lately; BD isnt going to a very attractive CPU for enthusiasts.
 
A

Ancalagon44

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2010
3,274
202
106
I'm also worried about the performance of BD but I'm going to play devil's advocate here.

AMD's pricing suggests one of three things to me:

1. What everyone assumes - they are not competitive on performance or power consumption so AMD makes them compete on price.
2. That their cost to manufacture is cheaper than most of us think, meaning AMD is actually still making decent money on these while significantly undercutting Intel. If each core is simpler to manufacture but nearly as fast as its Intel counterpart, this could be true.
3. That their performance is in fact not as bad as the price would make us think, but that AMD is pricing them low to win back mindshare among gamers. If AMD makes a relatively fast CPU that sells cheaply and overclock well, it will sell like hotcakes to gamers. That's important for brand perception of AMD, and depending on how you see it, may be worth sacrificing a bit of profit for.
 
psolord

psolord

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2009
1,913
1,193
136
Ancalagon44 said:
I'm also worried about the performance of BD but I'm going to play devil's advocate here.

AMD's pricing suggests one of three things to me:

1. What everyone assumes - they are not competitive on performance or power consumption so AMD makes them compete on price.
2. That their cost to manufacture is cheaper than most of us think, meaning AMD is actually still making decent money on these while significantly undercutting Intel. If each core is simpler to manufacture but nearly as fast as its Intel counterpart, this could be true.
3. That their performance is in fact not as bad as the price would make us think, but that AMD is pricing them low to win back mindshare among gamers. If AMD makes a relatively fast CPU that sells cheaply and overclock well, it will sell like hotcakes to gamers. That's important for brand perception of AMD, and depending on how you see it, may be worth sacrificing a bit of profit for.
Click to expand...

I'll take curtain No 3! :D
 
C

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
I don't know how much you really can read into the prices. The top model was always rumored to be around $300, so while its a bit cheaper, it always was going to be somewhat cheap anyway.
 
Ika

Ika

Lifer
Mar 22, 2006
14,267
3
81
BlueBlazer said:
There seems to be variatons in pricing. I'm hearing $256 for top CPU from a local source, which is similar to the TankGuys pre-order. :hmm:
Click to expand...

That was the original price information, but this one is 1) more recent, and 2) has a firm date attached to it, which has been seen before in rumors.
 
R

RandomSanity

Member
Jan 23, 2006
138
0
0
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that there is next to no chance that 2600k is going to be beat. I haven't owned an Intel CPU since Pentium 2 as I've always been a bit of an AMD fanboy but I think AMD has finally lost my trust.

Of course my final decision will be made post-release however I am already preparing myself mentally to pick up a 2600k :( It is a sad day for AMD fans.
 
BlueBlazer

BlueBlazer

Senior member
Nov 25, 2008
555
0
76
sm625

sm625

Diamond Member
May 6, 2011
8,172
137
106
RandomSanity said:
Of course my final decision will be made post-release however I am already preparing myself mentally to pick up a 2600k :( It is a sad day for AMD fans.
Click to expand...

I dont know about 2600k, since thats really too rich for my blood. But beating the locked non-ripoff intel chips should be easy. Worst case, we go buy the cheapest 8 core BD for $160 and it overclocks to bring single threaded benchmarks to parity with i5-2400. Of course anything multithreaded is going to be better. What concerns me is the possibility of a $130 4.6GHz stock cooled i3-2120k, and how it would do vs AMD's most expensive chip.
 
LOL_Wut_Axel

LOL_Wut_Axel

Diamond Member
Mar 26, 2011
4,310
8
81
Ancalagon44 said:
I'm also worried about the performance of BD but I'm going to play devil's advocate here.

AMD's pricing suggests one of three things to me:

1. What everyone assumes - they are not competitive on performance or power consumption so AMD makes them compete on price.
2. That their cost to manufacture is cheaper than most of us think, meaning AMD is actually still making decent money on these while significantly undercutting Intel. If each core is simpler to manufacture but nearly as fast as its Intel counterpart, this could be true.
3. That their performance is in fact not as bad as the price would make us think, but that AMD is pricing them low to win back mindshare among gamers. If AMD makes a relatively fast CPU that sells cheaply and overclock well, it will sell like hotcakes to gamers. That's important for brand perception of AMD, and depending on how you see it, may be worth sacrificing a bit of profit for.
Click to expand...

1. They're getting more revisions out to at least make it decent in multi-threaded and not absolutely horrible in single-threaded. They're increasing clock speeds as much as they can, as you've seen. The deeper pipeline helps with reaching high frequencies as well, and from the overclocking event AMD held it looks like they'll reach at least 4.8-5GHz on a high quality air cooler.

2. No. IIRC, the Bulldozer die is only about 10% smaller than that of Thuban: 315mm2 vs 346mm2. That is, if the information posted regarding the die size is correct. Also, simpler cores: lower performance (most of the time).

3. No. Gamers should've already forgotten about it. Most games use two-four cores, and would rather have less strong cores than many weak ones, which is the main differentiation from BD and SB. Bulldozer was made primarily as a server CPU. If you're looking for a CPU to run multi-threaded programs, then I'd take a look. If you need a CPU that's good at both single and multi-threaded, then it's more worthwhile to look at Sandy Bridge.
 
Last edited:
LOL_Wut_Axel

LOL_Wut_Axel

Diamond Member
Mar 26, 2011
4,310
8
81
sm625 said:
I dont know about 2600k, since thats really too rich for my blood. But beating the locked non-ripoff intel chips should be easy. Worst case, we go buy the cheapest 8 core BD for $160 and it overclocks to bring single threaded benchmarks to parity with i5-2400. Of course anything multithreaded is going to be better. What concerns me is the possibility of a $130 4.6GHz stock cooled i3-2120k, and how it would do vs AMD's most expensive chip.
Click to expand...

Won't exist. Already answered why several times.

Though the cheapest 8-core with overclocking could become a great bang-for-buck for multi-threaded, like the X6 1055T. Don't expect single-threaded performance from a BD at 4.8GHz to be better than that of an i5 2400 at 3.8GHz; that's all I'll say. BD was made for multi-threaded.
 
ElFenix

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
DH isn't a source, they just make crap up. techpowerup quoting them doesn't make DH legit.
 
BlueBlazer

BlueBlazer

Senior member
Nov 25, 2008
555
0
76
Idontcare said:
My spidey-sense is tingling that this is going to be a Phenom type reality for AMD all over again (not talking about the TLB bug).
Click to expand...
Its also has the chillingly atmosphere as the Quad FX scenario with sparse demos (so few shown), running game only (was shown running Crysis thru a video!), lack of information (on launch date), lack of benchmarks, etc. :hmm:
 
Last edited:
Despoiler

Despoiler

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2007
1,966
770
136
DH is so late on this rumor. $245 was the expected retail price of the 8150 back when BLT had the $266 pre-order price posted. Their listing for the FX cpus have since been pulled.
 
TakeNoPrisoners

TakeNoPrisoners

Platinum Member
Jun 3, 2011
2,600
1
81
Despite this I may buy a bulldozer chip just because it will work with my AM3 motherboard with a bios update. It all depends on how they perform...
 
I

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,118
58
91
formulav8 said:
I thought I read somewhere that AMD - China said those prices were Wrong.
Click to expand...

Sure, but what does that mean?

If I say the price is rumored to be $249.98 and AMD says "nope, wrong" because they are really going to be $248.99 then AMD is correct but irrelevant at the same time.

Likewise the rumors could be wrong because they are over-stating the intended MSRP. Maybe it isn't $249.98 because AMD is planning to MSRP them at $229.98.

Refuting a rumor does little to clear the confusion on the subject matter of the rumor itself. And that is relevant.
 
sm625

sm625

Diamond Member
May 6, 2011
8,172
137
106
LOL_Wut_Axel said:
Though the cheapest 8-core with overclocking could become a great bang-for-buck for multi-threaded, like the X6 1055T. Don't expect single-threaded performance from a BD at 4.8GHz to be better than that of an i5 2400 at 3.8GHz; that's all I'll say. BD was made for multi-threaded.
Click to expand...

The i5-2400 is $189. Probably more than the cheapest 8 core BD will end up being if its that bad. The bar could be set at i5-2300 at $179.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom