It's an official AMD page stating the price will be approximately $300. If it said approximately $200 or approximately $400 we would have different information. What about this is so hard to grasp?
AMD officially reveals "approximate retail value" of its "AMD FX-series eight-core processors": $300
No, what is actually revealed is the "approximate retail value":
The link you provided says nothing about confirming the price we are going to see at Newegg or any other supplier of material relevance.
And if you don't believe there is a difference, that the words of choice were judiciously selected to mean one thing while actually stating something else, then I've got a processor here to sell you that gets 50% moreperformancethroughput than yours
Just when I thought the BD hype couldn't get any sillier...
Why do you continue to open, read, and even post in all of the bd threads then?
He never said he didn't like it, he said he didn't think it could get sillier.
The real question is how much s it gonna cost at microcenter
Might be worth tinkering around with if they do the usual AMD deals.
If it is competitive in all aspects to the 2600K i'll give it respect
AMD has an EIGHT core chip that will be priced UNDER Intel's current FOUR core chip. What does that tell you?
If you use the 8150 with rumoured clocks it believe it to be faster in both. I believe the FX6 with the rumoured clocks would be closer to the 2600 (slightly slower in single threaded ~3-6% on average and 0-5% faster in multithreaded on average)My guess is better multithreaded performance but worse singlethreaded performance.
Well, some of the unwashed masses will certainly be swayed by a badge proclaiming an OCTOCORE chip in their next PC purchase, and they certainly won't be perusing benchmarks on Anandtech... Marketing can sometimes work wonders.
Did I say they had a dominating part? NO! Did anyone here suggest they have a dominating chip? NO! Do you continue to promote speculation and one red herring after another? YES!
:thumbsup:
The start price is excellent, AMD is a king of price wars, I can easily see this CPU drop to ~$200 within 1 or 2 quarters after release.
Yup that's about what I'm expecting.My guess is better multithreaded performance but worse singlethreaded performance.
Learn how to read. The thuban was a six core part and it wasn't beating anything upon release at $300. Your lame ass " price means something " statement is bs. So sorry I see it that way.
I'm not saying bulldozer is going to meet sandy bridge performance or even that it will be worth the full $300.oo, but that obviously AMD has some confidence the part is at least competitive with sandy bridge. Like I said, exactly how competitive is anyone's guess since we don't have benchmarks.
lets assume it is fixed at 300$ (which it isn't) it is priced HIGHER than 2600 (7$ to be exactly).
Also it is an 8 Threaded AMD chip vs an 8Threaded intel chip. What does that tell you?
If you don't understand the core differences then just use the thread numbers. They are more important then cores. Since the OS will load threads and not cores.
If you use the 8150 with rumoured clocks it believe it to be faster in both. I believe the FX6 with the rumoured clocks would be closer to the 2600 (slightly slower in single threaded ~3-6% on average and 0-5% faster in multithreaded on average)
You certainly don't sound sorry. Thuban is still the top of the line AMD has to offer even if it obviously wasn't worth $300.oo upon release. I'm not saying bulldozer is going to meet sandy bridge performance or even that it will be worth the full $300.oo, but that obviously AMD has some confidence the part is at least competitive with sandy bridge. Like I said, exactly how competitive is anyone's guess since we don't have benchmarks. I neither favor cynics like yourself nor optimists claiming it will blow sandy bridge out of the water. In fact, for most purposes I expect the differences to marginal.
Also it is an 8 Threaded AMD chip vs an 8Threaded intel chip. What does that tell you?
If you don't understand the core differences then just use the thread numbers. They are more important then cores. Since the OS will load threads and not cores.
But, the bigest change in the game could be that AMD implemented Intel's branch prediction, the most important thing responsible for Intel beating AMD in past few years.
AMD is clearly shooting for niches that will pay the margin they need to survive. Safe bet BD will be better than SB in some niche that some businesses will want. I think AMD knows it can't go head to head with Intel in the traditional way anymore.
They are going for the side-segments, some large, some small, where there are customers who will pay for something that performs better at a very specific thing, even if it's clearly inferior at other things. Both Zacate and Llano were this way. Zacate has been a big success for AMD. Llano is too early to tell, but they had so little market share and were so all around inferior in notebooks it HAS to be successful at picking up marketshare, whether it helps the bottom line considerably is what remains to be seen. I have no doubt that BD will be the same, clearly superior in some ways and clearly inferior in others. Not a little bit better here and a little bit worse there, no. I expect the differences to be pretty large in both strengths and weaknesses. AMD needs to sacrifice somewhere to make a profitable niche win over their competition since they can't beat them straight up.
The old "if you can't win the game, make your own rules" strategy.
Just because there's a market willing to pay $300 for a new flagship CPU has nothing to do with relative performance. If AMD believes their flagship CPU's are worth $300 as they've shown in the past they'll clearly get what they can until people know better.