Or AMD is expecting to sell every processor the foundry gives them despite having a slight performance deficiency. Lets check our bases:
1: AMD could perform better than SB
2: AMD could perform the same as SB
3: AMD could perform worse than SB
This is the most accurate post in all of the bulldozer threads across every website ever.
Just take a look at
these benchmarks. If you went through these benches you will have noticed that the "lowly" $225 2500k @ 4.7ghz basically smoked the 990X (6 core 12 threaded) 1st generation Core i system, which was also overclocked to 4.66ghz. While at it, the 2500k @ 4.7ghz consumed
142 W less at load than did an X6 1100T @ 4.0ghz.
Unless Bulldozer is 40-50% faster than Phenom II per clock, it has little chance of beating SB in benchmarks the average user cares about (unless its Turbo mode is out of this world). So we can most likely rule out your point #1, unless the benchmarks are wPrime, Cinebench and video transcoding where the more cores you have, the better. In that case, I can definitely see BD being very successful.
AMD is 2 full generations behind in performance since Phenom II is only as fast as Core 2 Quad generation[/URL]. So how is AMD going to go from Phenom II all the way to Sandy Bridge in performance / clock and energy efficiency all in 1 generation when it took Intel, the firm with the most advanced manufacturing facilities in the world, 2 full generations?
I am betting this time the consumer will have to choose between a system well suited for multi-threaded tasks (AMD's 8 core system) and a system well suited for everything else (SB system). Not to mention Intel hasn't even launched SB-E series socket LGA2011.
Perhaps another refresher of just how slow Phenom II is in the cards:
Core i7 920 @ 3.5ghz is 45% faster than Phenom II X4 @ 3.5ghz in Arma2.
SB adds another 15% on top of that.
This means we can most likely rule out your point #2 as well.
I was on our forums before Phenom I/II launched and I still remember how much hype that processor carried. So for this launch, I am preparing myself to be disappointed so I don't become disappointed....again!!
Then Amd is positioning the FX8k's to take on SB-E. Where as the FX6k's will take on the LGA1155 i7's.
^^^ AMD can "position" their processors all they want. But performance and their positioning may not have anything to do with reality. Sure AMD currently sells their Phenom II X4 955 for $119, directly against the Core i3-2100 at $115. However, the i3-2100 handily beats it in just
about everything the average user cares about. And you probably already know that the $184 Core i5-2400 offers
substantially higher overall performance than the X6 1100T—for the same money, and with a lower 95W power envelope.
So we can't just assume that because AMD is pricing their processors similar to Sandy Bridge's prices that their architecture is suddenly "competitive".