People are all guessing on price for BD now. There is no way AMD will sell a CPU, that out performs an Intel $300 CPU by 10-30%, at the same price. If they do, AMD is not that smart of a company.
If they are trying to capture a larger market share, they HAVE to sell their chips at a lower price/performance ratio than intel in order to be competitive. When you are competing with a super giant, the only way you will be able to make it is by having a superior product for a relatively lower price.
That has been AMD's mantra for about as long as I can remember.
My crystal ball says AMD has at least one more launch delay in store for us all. October/November minimum.
People are all guessing on price for BD now. There is no way AMD will sell a CPU, that out performs an Intel $300 CPU by 10-30%, at the same price. If they do, AMD is not that smart of a company.
I honestly think they will sell it at the same price due to the fact they need to win some of their customer base back because they lost so many to Intel with Sandybridge.
If their top model processor dropped well under $200 they would sell like hot cakes.
Hard to sell any of their processors for over $200 when they get outperformed
Unfortunately I think this also.My crystal ball says AMD has at least one more launch delay in store for us all. October/November minimum.
I heard Intel wants to hire you. :hmm:BD could be 30% faster in every benchmark and intel would still not drop their prices. Their sales would probably go up as the backroom arm twisting increased.
What are you talking about? The Phenom 1100T? Newegg sells it for $189
No you talk to intel and they will tell you straight out . They as a producer of CPUs as has yet to release its highend SB platiform Enthusiast if you insist . Until we see AMDS best against intels best your making a sensely debate . Apples to apples based on performance not cost . Since it is in FACT the performance that sets the PRICE. I asssure you Z68 SB 1155 is not Intels best. The 2011 socket and chipset are intels best . So many say lets wait for real results and thats what I will do wait for real results against AMDs best VS Intels best 2011 socket. Or aren't the reviewers going to bench the 2011 platiform. I may be annoying but I sure as hell won't overlook the fact that the bar for AMD was lower to mid high for AMD . Annoying yes, To some but true,
Lets not go down this road, performance sets cost period . When AMD was top they had a $1000 dollar cpu. As did intel . Ya see intel even tho didn't have the performance lead Intel had capacity. The true thorn in AMDs foot at the time. But performance set pricies . We all know If AMD could price at $1000 they would . But they can't So now people pollute the performance debates with Price and misdirection hype. Besides your doing the same thing again . ALL of us here KNOW not all 2011socket cpus will be $1000 . Infact most here fully exspect the 2011 4 core SB to knock i7 2600K out at around the same price per cpu but a more expensive feature rich platiform. M/B cost will be the next cry from the losers.
It was quite a long time before amd raised there prices that high. It wasn't until they got something like 30% of the market that they started doing stuff like that.When AMD had the performance crown, they sold their top of the line CPUs in the $1000 range. This was not too long ago either (2004?). AMD was kicking Intel's arse thanks to the Netburst crap. Since then, however, Intel has regained the crown and the prices reflect that.
The point is if BD wipes the floor with Sandy, then expect the prices to reflect that. AMD is not stupid, and they want to make money just as much as Intel.
with a SuperPi 1M pf 19.5 seconds, BD won't be an enthusiast's gaming chip.
http://translate.googleusercontent...._6.htm&usg=ALkJrhgQNE_zbJMOUFJv3NjBZ6OmUc-zQQ
If these benchmarks are real, do you REALLY expect Intel's pathetic excuse for an "enthusiast" platform to allow for gains significant enough to compete with Bulldozer? Bulldozer scored ~33% better in x264 encoding. Quad-channel RAM isn't going to change that.
Have you ever considered that maybe AMD is going for deeper market share penetration over pure money?
If they are trying to capture a larger market share, they HAVE to sell their chips at a lower price/performance ratio than intel in order to be competitive. When you are competing with a super giant, the only way you will be able to make it is by having a superior product for a relatively lower price.
That has been AMD's mantra for about as long as I can remember.
Still a hard sell when the 2500k still kills it in gaming.:thumbsup:
Drop it another $30 and then we can talk about a deal
Eh, thats debatable, but even so, gaming is irrelevant to CPU's in this day and age for several reasons.
1. Games in their nature arent very CPU intensive, and are usually bottlenecked by the GPU or other parts.
2. The games coming out now either are console ports and therefore any modern CPU with a gaming grade GPU can get 100FPS+, or a few select games that arent console ports like BF3 will be able to use some insane amount of cores (16 or 64 cores, I forget to be honest).
3. Heres a perfect example:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-ii-x6-1100t-thuban-amd,2810-6.html
Even though the 1100T scores 19.1s in SuperPI, it doesnt show at all in gaming. Furthermore, the BD with a score of 19.5s will surely be closer to around 16.5s when the ES is brought up to faster clock speed. Only real world gaming benchmarks would show, however gaming for CPU's is almost irrelevant, so no matter.
Yes. Until more places confirm it no decisions will be made.
It was quite a long time before amd raised there prices that high. It wasn't until they got something like 30% of the market that they started doing stuff like that.
The original Athlon XP series was in many ways superior to the P4. Yet their prices remained pretty low. It wasn't until the 64 series that they increased prices to the 1000 range (which was still in the same ballpark of other intel chips)
Your 1 . Why do all the sites use intel cpus to do GPU benchmarks . If your 1 was true it wouldn't matter what they used. The differance in gaming does infact show up . If you choose to hide it by maxing out the gpu thats your choice but only a fool would take it as fact.
It was quite a long time before amd raised there prices that high. It wasn't until they got something like 30% of the market that they started doing stuff like that.
The original Athlon XP series was in many ways superior to the P4. Yet their prices remained pretty low. It wasn't until the 64 series that they increased prices to the 1000 range (which was still in the same ballpark of other intel chips)