AMD FX processors released

killadoob said:
sorry but 300 dollars is about 3k perhaps 3.5k, not far off and we don't know the eventual pricing, amd has not helped by producing crap.

As i said we don't know everything but 300 dollars for a top end chip is fairly cheap compared to the 8-10k we have seen in the past. you will be amazed at how many gamers can afford top end shyte. Although with amd being so pathetic a 8-10k chip is possible i guess.

At the end of the day some people are paying 3.3k for a 2600k, am i wrong?
Click to expand...

Yes, your typical gamer is paying R3k+ for his CPU alone :rolleyes: I never said nobody goes all out, but 9 out of 10 people will opt for the cheaper CPU, and then a better GPU. Heck, its what we recomend each and every single time for a gamer: i5-2500k
 
This sums it up pretty well.

Review Consensus: AMD FX Processor 8150 Underwhelming

It's been in the works for over three years now. That's right, the first we heard of "Bulldozer" as a processor architecture under development was shortly after the launch of "Barcelona" K10 architecture. Granted, it wasn't possible to load close to 2 billion transistors on the silicon fab technology AMD had at the time, but AMD had a clear window over the last year to at least paper-launch the AMD FX. Delays and bad marketing may have cost AMD dearly in shaping up the product for the market.

After drawing a consensus from about 25 reviews (links in Today's Reviews on the front page), it emerges that:
AMD FX-8150 is missing its performance expectations by a fair margin. Not to mention performance gains in its own presentation, these expectations were built up by how AMD was shaping the product to be a full-fledged enthusiast product with significant performance gains over the previous generation
AMD ill-marketed the FX-8150. Hype is a double-edged sword, and should not be used if you're not confident your offering will live up to at least most of the hype. AMD marketed at least the top-tier FX-8000 series eight-core processors as the second coming of Athlon64 FX.

FX-8150 launch isn't backed up by launch of other AMD FX processors. This could go on to become a blunder. The presence of other FX series processors such as the FX-8120, six-core and four-core FX processors could have at least made the price performance charts look better, given that all FX processors are unlocked, buyers could see the value in buying them to overclock. TweakTown took a closer look into this.
There are no significant clock-for-clock improvements over even AMD's own previous generation. The FX-8150 drags its feet behind the Phenom II X6 1100T in single-threaded math benchmarks such as Super/HyperPi, the picture isn't any better with Cinebench single-threaded, either.

Multi-threaded data streaming applications such as data compression (WINRAR, 7-ZIP) reveal the FX-8150 to catch up with competition from even the Core i7-2600K. This trend keeps up with popular video encoding benchmarks such as Handbrake and x264 HD.

Load power draw is bad, by today's standards. It's not like AMD is lagging behind in silicon fabrication technologies, or the engineering potential that turned around AMD Radeon power consumption figures over generations.
Price could be a major saving grace. In the end, AMD FX 8150 has an acceptable price-performance figure. At just $25 over the Core i5-2500K, the FX-8150 offers a good performance lead.
Impressive overclocking potential. We weren't exactly in awe when AMD announced its Guinness Record-breaking overclocking feat, but reviewers across the board have noticed fairly good overclocking potential and performance scaling.

In all, AMD FX-8150 has almost become another example to cite at a marketing class, of how to effectively handle hype. It is sure to underwhelm some. If it's any compensation, Duke Nukem Forever is still the most underwhelming development this year for the gamer-overclocker community.
Click to expand...
 
nelis said:
I'm laughing my ass off. I knew AMD will not be as good as Intel. They never where anything near intel. They just fails and thats a fact. I'm no fanboy cause the stats don't lie. Only AMD can lie like this as they told us that it's going to beat intel. What a bunch of idiots. Now with the new ivy bridge coming out Intel will win even further.
Click to expand...

You really shouldnt be laughing... without competition intel will bum rape you with high prices
 
nelis said:
I'm laughing my ass off. I knew AMD will not be as good as Intel. They never where anything near intel. They just fails and thats a fact. I'm no fanboy cause the stats don't lie. Only AMD can lie like this as they told us that it's going to beat intel. What a bunch of idiots. Now with the new ivy bridge coming out Intel will win even further.
Click to expand...

And all us consumers will lose unfortunately
 
Archer said:
Yes, your typical gamer is paying R3k+ for his CPU alone :rolleyes: I never said nobody goes all out, but 9 out of 10 people will opt for the cheaper CPU, and then a better GPU. Heck, its what we recomend each and every single time for a gamer: i5-2500k
Click to expand...

So everyone should just ignore the upcoming stuff because you think nobody will want it?

hmmm
 
killadoob said:
So everyone should just ignore the upcoming stuff because you think nobody will want it?

hmmm
Click to expand...

No... Is that what I said? Sheez, you have a way of putting words in my mouth that is beyond compare
Let me say it again...

Your typical gamer should stick with LGA1155. The end.

Yes, there are rich people in the world. Yes, there are people who actually need the horsepower, like people dealing with large renders, are photoshop etc. They will see a great benefit from LGA2011 that is in line with the extra costs. But a gamer, will see 5% improvement maybe, while paying anywhere from 20-50% more. How does that make sense?
 
@dualmeister

I agree with Tweaktown's assessment. I'm kinda angry for AMD for hyping BD up when it should have been plain it is not a CPU made for your average user or average gamer. Had they said from the beginning that this is a server CPU meant to give AMD dominance in performance per watt in highly threaded scenarios in data centres, I would be fine. Thats probably where it will shine. However, as a replacement for a Phenom II, it is a fail. A complete and utter fail. They should never have tried to market it to the enthusiast crowd. That was their biggest mistake.
 
Archer said:
No... Is that what I said? Sheez, you have a way of putting words in my mouth that is beyond compare
Let me say it again...

Your typical gamer should stick with LGA1155. The end.

Yes, there are rich people in the world. Yes, there are people who actually need the horsepower, like people dealing with large renders, are photoshop etc. They will see a great benefit from LGA2011 that is in line with the extra costs. But a gamer, will see 5% improvement maybe, while paying anywhere from 20-50% more. How does that make sense?
Click to expand...

I don't know what makes sense and what doesn't, i do know people will buy it even if doesn't make any sense. Some people like to buy at the top and i cannot say who will and who won't.

I wonder if the 2600k would drop in price when the new stuff comes out? Should be some very nice mobo's coming as well. It's going to be a great start to the year if intel and ati release on time.

Not sure why you are agitated about this though. It seems like you are angry with me for speaking about it LOL which is a bit strange.
 
It really is a pity that the latest AMD does not challenge the Intel products. Having Intel dominate the CPU scene like this will not end up good for consumers.

I really hate the fact that Intel keep inventing new sockets every 3 hours, it just feels a bit unnecessary.
 
I might still consider AMD, not bulldozer put some future fusion product. As long as AMD GPU's are better that is.
 
Archer said:
I'm agitated because you are putting words in my mouth
Click to expand...

Naaa you have been upset talking about this since i brought it up, anyways whatever the new stuff is coming out soon and hopefully intel will drop the price of the 2600k. I never put words in your mouth i asked a question based on how you are reacting to this topic but let's drop it rather.
 
Last edited:
killadoob said:
Naaa you have been upset talking about this since i brought it up, anyways whatever the new stuff is coming out soon and hopefully intel will drop the price of 2600k.
Click to expand...

As much as we wont like it, I dont see a price drop incoming. The two chips are aimed at different markets. Unless, the 2700k gets introduced. But I dont see that happening soon either, since Intel has no need to retaliate against AMD right now. I'm hoping to be wrong, but thats the way I see it
 
Archer said:
As much as we wont like it, I dont see a price drop incoming. The two chips are aimed at different markets. Unless, the 2700k gets introduced. But I dont see that happening soon either, since Intel has no need to retaliate against AMD right now. I'm hoping to be wrong, but thats the way I see it
Click to expand...

Yea amd kinda killed price drops i guess.

Does anyone know when the new amd stuff will be available in SA?
 
Hi there folks,

On the lists that I've got in front of me, pricing for the CPU (Sales Price, Public Price, Normal People Price) is going to look as follows:

Amd Zambezi FX-4100 - 4x cores ( 3.6Ghz , 3.8Ghz turbo core ) Black edition @ R1 120
Amd Zambezi FX-6100 - 6x cores ( 3.3Ghz , 3.9Ghz turbo core ) Black edition @ R1 720
Amd Zambezi FX-8120 - 8x cores ( 3.1Ghz , 4.0Ghz turbo core ) Black edition @ R2 025
Amd Zambezi FX-8150 - 8x cores ( 3.6Ghz , 4.2Ghz turbo core ) Black edition @ R2 420

This is from one supplier, waiting for the others, but I will wait at least for the exchange rate to get its act together before I buy one of these...

Still trying to get an ETA..

Fred
 
Last edited:
Libertas Computers said:
Amd Zambezi FX-4100 - 4x cores ( 3.6Ghz , 3.8Ghz turbo core ) Black edition @ R1 120
Amd Zambezi FX-6100 - 6x cores ( 3.3Ghz , 3.9Ghz turbo core ) Black edition @ R1 720
Amd Zambezi FX-8120 - 8x cores ( 3.1Ghz , 4.0Ghz turbo core ) Black edition @ R2 025
Amd Zambezi FX-8150 - 8x cores ( 3.6Ghz , 4.2Ghz turbo core ) Black edition @ R2 420
Click to expand...

Quad core 3.6Ghz CPU for just over 1k... seems like good value to me.
 
AMD still wins at best value for money, gamer or not.

Fully agree with Archer. In fact it's humorous how "gamers" tend to froth at benchmarks and clock speed. Do they consider how much of that power gets put into gaming, compared to the graphics card? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X