I think many would buy it just for the metal packaging.
"AMD's software team is "working heavily to help utilize eight cores in all applications, as well as games. We're working with partners to help leverage those capabilities."
This says a lot about what is going on right now at AMD. There is still untapped potential with this CPU, so any benchmarks we have seen so far are on immature drivers/bios/firmware and are likely not representative. AMD is having to work really hard to have software take advantage of the 8 cores. Doesn't mean they will necessarily make it work, we shall see in a few weeks time.
This reminds me that when a CPU architecture improves on IPC and single threaded performance, no such extra work is needed for the benefits to be apparent immediately on all software. When a CPU has more cores, there are no benefits unless that software is properly coded to make use of all the cores, much like how most games did not benefit from dual/quad cores 5 years ago.
If they want good reviews at launch, AMD will have to be working with all the most popular games and production suite software benchmarks used most commonly by reviewers.
But what is left there to gain in Single threaded performance. You have tasks that used to take days or hours. CPU A now might be twice as fast as CPU B. But that means a test that used to take 4 minutes 4 years ago takes 25 seconds on one machines and 50 seconds on another.This reminds me that when a CPU architecture improves on IPC and single threaded performance, no such extra work is needed for the benefits to be apparent immediately on all software. When a CPU has more cores, there are no benefits unless that software is properly coded to make use of all the cores, much like how most games did not benefit from dual/quad cores 5 years ago.
Optimizing games for 8 cores will be a challenge when most games still are not even optimized for 2 cores. More than 4 cores will be such a tiny part of the market that it will be a while until this is widely adopted.
Id disagree, I cant really think of a game released in the past year or 2 not optimized for atleast 2 cores. Some are even making their way to 4+. Most games released from now on will likely be four core optimized, while some may be 8-16 like BFBC2, so id assume BFBC3 would follow suit. Another thing to consider, most games that only need 1 or 2 cores arent horribly demanding 9 times out of 10, so even if a lot of games are only optimized for 2 cores, it doesnt really matter if SB is 110 FPS and BD is 100 FPS. What will matter is if BFBC3, supposed to be the most demanding game of the year, is 40 FPS on a BD, but only 25 on SB. Hypothetical of course.
Id disagree, I cant really think of a game released in the past year or 2 not optimized for atleast 2 cores. Some are even making their way to 4+. Most games released from now on will likely be four core optimized, while some may be 8-16 like BFBC2, so id assume BFBC3 would follow suit. Another thing to consider, most games that only need 1 or 2 cores arent horribly demanding 9 times out of 10, so even if a lot of games are only optimized for 2 cores, it doesnt really matter if SB is 110 FPS and BD is 100 FPS. What will matter is if BFBC3, supposed to be the most demanding game of the year, is 40 FPS on a BD, but only 25 on SB. Hypothetical of course.
So, if it is priced at that point, it most likely will perform at that point as well. Which is what has been expected by most.
I agree. That is a reasonable view. If they are charging $320 for it customers will expect $320 worth of performance. You gauge that by comparing it to what the competitor offers closest to that price, the 2600K.
I actually expect that it will be about the same performance as the 2600K with better performance when all eight cores can be used. Maybe even slightly better all around. However I also expect the overclocking headroom on the new AMD parts to be a lot lower than current Intels.
I agree. That is a reasonable view. If they are charging $320 for it customers will expect $320 worth of performance. You gauge that by comparing it to what the competitor offers closest to that price, the 2600K.
I actually expect that it will be about the same performance as the 2600K with better performance when all eight cores can be used. Maybe even slightly better all around. However I also expect the overclocking headroom on the new AMD parts to be a lot lower than current Intels.
not going to happen. The 2600 SKU is priced lower not the same!! the 2600K performs the same as the 2600. So 8130P @ 320 is not a competitor for 2600K. the FX8 nonP would be that part.
I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense. Based on the price range, the FX-8130P competes with the Core i7 2600K and the FX-8110 competes with the i7 2600. Why are you comparing a $290 CPU to a $320 one when there's two that cost $320 each?
because the two i7 2600 perform the same? So either you do the following
FX 8130P is priced like the 2600K so they should have similar performance.
-->
FX 8110 < 2600 everything below goes completely wrong.
.
.
.
Or
FX 8110 = 2600 (price is similar)
Fx8130P > 2600K (performance 2600 and 2600K is equal).
You use the 2600K as a price/performance point, but the real price performance point is 2600.
Except for the fact that you're forgetting that the reason why the K version is more expensive in the first place is because it features an unlocked multiplier. All FX processors, including the FX-8110 and 8130P, have unlocked multipliers. No one is gonna even mention the 2600 in the reviews because of your argument: that it has the same performance stock as a 2600K (though it has no unlocked multiplier, meaning almost no one will be interested in it).
The 8110 has an unlocked multi and, if it OCs the same as the 8130P and has at least the same IPC as Nehalem/Lynnfield, I'll definitely buy it since I'll be saving $30.
indeed it is a SKU that allows overclocking but does nothing to performance. So if 8130P positions against the 2600K on performance. then the 8110 which is positionned against the 2600 need the overclock possibility AND an overclock to compete with the 2600 does that sound right?
Just look at it this way:
Hypothetical FX 8c- 2.8GHz same price as an i7 2600 running 3.4GHz
Hypotetical FX 8c 3.2GHz same price as an i7 2600K running 3.4GHz
So which on competes what?
Is it the second one competing an overclockable i7? but that would mean they do not compete against the normal SKU... or is the first one competing to the normal SKU and make their part more actractive because it is oc-able?
I don't believe a company tries to compete on overclockability but on stock performance. and overclockability being a advantage towards an extremen minority of the public.
So for me the cpu classes are FX vs i5-i7 non-K parts.