Associate
I didn't really like the $350 price tag....
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD Bulldozer Finally!
- Thread starter AceTK
- Start date
It's not so bad, that model is their 2600K beater. Their 2500K equivalent that will likely be the enthusiasts choice is the 3 module/hex core.
The pricing reveals that they are confident about the performance.
Soldato
Could be BS but4.7 Turbo
http://wccftech.com/2011/06/05/amd-...tails-leaked-features-turbo-boost-upto-47ghz/
That site has a reputation for posting nothing but lies.
Soldato
The fact they have posponed it, should mean what ever they bring in to the market should be competitve with intels current Sandy Bridge.
Caporegime
Phenom 2 was only competitive with Core 2 lol.
Don
Yeah, I'm inclined to think that a failure even to paper launch a product that according to AMD is ready is a very bad sign.
Caporegime
Different scenario really.
AMD's strategy is "THROW CORES AT IT"
Fine for GPU's, not for CPU's (At present)
Don
Not selling a product isn't sneaky. By coming out and saying that yep, BD is ready but we're going to focus on making Llano because it'll make us more money is fair enough. But then failing actually to show how BD performs is a marketing catastrophe and just adds credence to the multiple reports floating about that it just isn't quick enough in it's current guise to complete with SB so they're doing a respin.
It doesn't take that long just to make a few tens of thousands of chips if BD is actually any good to stoke up interest for 2-3months down the line when they ramp up production proper.
Perhaps bd will scale better than intels offerings.
Not thinking of now, more into the future when multi core will play more of a part.
True not showing bd is bit of a fail, and does hint that it's not up to speed, we'll see what happens when e3 gets going.
Not thinking of now, more into the future when multi core will play more of a part.
True not showing bd is bit of a fail, and does hint that it's not up to speed, we'll see what happens when e3 gets going.
as much as i have a skinking feeling about BD, i really hope you wrong - i want amd to bring something good to the table...
Soldato
From a marketing perspective, sure. But all the evidence points to the contrary.
AMD have not put out a chip more expensive than Intel's for quite some time now, they're well-acquainted with the budget sector of the market as their chips have been designed and aggressively priced for it both for the actual chip and the chipset.
Thus, they know that they cannot put out their flagship Bulldozer chip and ask for more money than Intel unless the performance really is noticeably better. The fact that their pricing shows that they are charging more is a very explicit suggestion that their chips bench better.
Failure to launch is terrible, no argument from me there. And I've no doubt there are a few hot-under-the-collar execs stampeding around conference rooms looking for asses to kick as a result, but if AMD had pushed BD despite the current performance issues they've cited, they'd be on a truly catastrophic footing. A couple of months delay is to ensure that their pricing is truly reflective of their chip's performance-to-price ratio.
A marketing snafu does not warrant writing off of the chip, especially when 99% of information out there on it is pure speculation.
Associate
I wonder if we can get this thread going for a full year. 
- Ordokai
- Ordokai
Don
I could point you to what happened with the 6970...