Rumor: AMD "Piledriver" FX CPU production to begin Q3 2012

By on May 24, 2012, 4:00 PM

Citing information from "industry sources", TechPowerup reports that the next generation of AMD FX processors will be in production during Q3 of 2012. While the wheels of production are expected to spin up for high-end FX desktop CPUs later this year, it was hardly a week ago that AMD announced the launch of its Trinity APU. Trinity, a Piledriver-based  APU, represents the latest step in the gradual evolution of AMD's Fusion family, an integrated APU solution aimed primarily at ultra-portables. Although AMD Fusion continues to be most well-suited for mobile devices, it can be found in just about everything though, from netbooks to desktops.

Enthusiasts may be pleased to hear that upcoming Piledriver CPUs will maintain compatibility with AMD's existing AM3+ platform, a 942-pin socket design which coincided with last year's launch of first-generation Bulldozer chips.

As such, FX chips which bear the Piledriver architecture will feature a familiar 32nm design with integrated dual-channel 1866MHz DDR3 memory controllers -- the same found in current generation FX CPUs. Turbo Core will also carry over to Piledriver FX processors, a technology similar to Intel's TurboBoost feature. 

Although the new architecture seems more evolutionary than revolutionary per se, Piledriver will feature some unique bulletpoints -- features which will set it apart from current FX offerings. Most notably, the new CPUs are expected to deliver about a 10 percent performance bump while simultaneously offering a 10 to 24 percent energy savings. This lower power consumption is the direct result of AMD's new energy-recycling technology, resonant clock mesh, a clever feature which will also be responsible for improved thermals and higher attainable clock speeds.




User Comments: 51

Got something to say? Post a comment
Zeromus said:

Price, price, price. That's all that really matters with AMD :/

yRaz yRaz said:

<p>Price, price, price. That's all that really matters with AMD :/</p>

I use AMD because I love to overclock and it's extremely expensive to get an unlocked multiplier on an intel chip.

Guest said:

why 32 nm?:(

Wendig0 Wendig0, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I use AMD because I love to overclock and it's extremely expensive to get an unlocked multiplier on an intel chip.

The i5 2500k isn't too expensive (less than some high end AMD processors), and it will make just about any AMD processor on the market beg for mercy before you even overclock it.

Guest said:

Well it will not be like that when HASWELL comes out. I predict that prices will increase somewhere to 15% TO 25% with next release.

Wendig0 Wendig0, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Well it will not be like that when HASWELL comes out. I predict that prices will increase somewhere to 15% TO 25% with next release.

We'll see what happens.

yRaz yRaz said:

The i5 2500k isn't too expensive (less than some high end AMD processors), and it will make just about any AMD processor on the market beg for mercy before you even overclock it.

I'm not that worried about performance, my 720BE still does all I ask of it. I like to overclock, I'm not overclocking for the performance.

LinkedKube LinkedKube, TechSpot Project Baby, said:

<p>I'm not that worried about performance, my 720BE still does all I ask of it. I like to overclock, I'm not overclocking for the performance.</p>

That's like being on a swim team because you like to get wet, you don't even care if you lose.

Zeromus said:

<p>
<p>Price, price, price. That's all that really matters with AMD :/</p>
</p>

<p> I use AMD because I love to overclock and it's extremely expensive to get an unlocked multiplier on an intel chip.</p>

That's right, a 3770 and a 3770K are only 20-30 dollars apart, seems fair enough.

Wendig0 Wendig0, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I'm not that worried about performance, my 720BE still does all I ask of it. I like to overclock, I'm not overclocking for the performance.

That wasn't the point of your original post though yRaz. Your original point was that it was extremely expensive to find an Intel chip with an unlocked multiplier, and that's just simply not true.

Guest said:

"Price, price, price. That's all that really matters with AMD :/"

For some of us, price and bang for per buck is what matters to us.

I was able to get a quad core AMD FX4100, 8gig ddr3 memory, and free motherboad (via Microcenter's combo sale) and 2yr warranty for just a shade under $160 total

It's plenty fast enough for me.

Noone's doubting Intel has a faster CPU. It's just for some of us "good enough" is just fine.

Marnomancer Marnomancer said:

Face it guys, AMD isn't the superpower it once was.

The i5 2500K is about £150. The FX-8150 is £160 minimum.

The 2500K uses less power, clocks higher, runs cooler and performs better in most situations. And It's cheaper.

www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=288

Even the old Phenoms are better than faildozer.

www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=362

I somewhat share that opinion. If Intel offers a better warranty policy and bang-for-buck ratio, I'll fully ditch AMD.

:eek::eek::eek:

Odd coming from a fanboy? True. But before a fanboy, I'm a performance enthusiast. AMD is reputed for its reasonable prices, and the Bulldozer broke that track record. The Athlons are holding the old fans (like me) tied to the banner, and the Phenoms' phenomenon is the draw for new fans, but when performance computing is concerned, AMD will lose ground fast if it doesn't come up with something more efficient (cheaper-faster or same cost-faster or cheaper-same speed).

Guest said:

This is what I based my buying purchasing on " CPU Value (CPU Mark / $Price )"

25/May/2012 - Higher results represent better value

source link = cpubenchmark

AMD FX-4100 Quad-Core [image link]

Holyscrap said:

lol on the front page this article has an Intel Cpu Image......

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

This is what I based my buying purchasing on...etc...etc..Obviously the i5-2500 is a much better CPU, but I'd have paid more for the Intel CPU and not get a free Motherboard (via Microcenter/AMD tie-in combo).

Why bother using CPUbenchmark's bench score/$ when it's obvious that the "score" is based upon Amazon and Newegg pricing?...

You've just told world+dog that you shopped at Microcenter...and MC have the 2500K for $169.99 ? - which makes then pretty much equal in the "abstract benchmark" race. As for value for money and comparable productivity;

i3 2100: 3858 points / $89.99 = 42.87

FX-4100: 3982 points / $99.99 = 39.82

For my case I'm not doing anything hardcore, just casual Source FPS gaming, light DVD/MP3/photo editing, surfing. And I set a budget of less than $175 total (for CPU/MB and 8GB DDR3 Memory)

For the same parameters you've set, and using the i3 2100...+ board + 8gb RAM ( or this if you don't believe in MIR's)= $173

yRaz yRaz said:

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2075360

@ PC nerd:

Overclocking record was made on an FX8150. I intend to buy one and overclock it.

http://valid.canardpc.com/records.php

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2075360

@Wendig0

I was going on information from a build I did in July of last year. I see that prices have changed a lot since then. It's been my experience that Intel motherboards are more expensive than AMD motherboards. I'll admit that I'm an AMD fanboy. My first CPU was a K6-2 and I've been with them ever since. I'll do the "American" thing and support small business by continuing to buy AMD. I have no problem building someone and intel machine, but I will personally go AMD.

Guest said:

@i3-2100

The i3 was a dual core with 4 threads. The fx4100 had 4 cores in 2 dual module format.

I wanted something with 4 cores as I do a lot of multitasking under win8, which has better support/ thread alignment support for bulldozer processors.

Again I did consider Intel but was under a budget. For me this is a big jump coming from pentium d, which I spent more money initially years ago.

Will certainly look at intel if they can come up with a quad core I series under $100.

PC nerd PC nerd said:

AMD can't pull the bang for buck crap anymore.

The i5 2500K is pretty cheap and performs better than anything AMD has to offer.

There is literally no reason to buy AMD anymore.

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

@Guest

Move those goalposts any further and they'll be out with the tailgate party

I wanted something with 4 cores as I do a lot of multitasking under win8, which has better support/ thread alignment support for bulldozer processors. Meanwhile in the earlier post....For my case I'm not doing anything hardcore, just casual Source FPS gaming, light DVD/MP3/photo editing, surfing.

Let me paraphrase;

" My demographic is the exact price range and narrow mix of apps that makes AMD look competitive"

Personally, I'd spring for an extra few dollars; get the 2500K and get better all round performance using less power, and have overclocking headroom if required that is commensurate with the performance gain. Judging by the relative marketshare and sales figures I'd say I'm not alone.

The fact remains that the value proposition that AMD has been associated with has largely eroded into myth , a trend that is likely to continue. Keen followers of tech might notice that AMD has both a new CEO, and a new pricing structure to go along with him

Overclocking record was made on an FX8150. I intend to buy one and overclock it.

If that's your criteria for buying a system you should save some cash and buy a Celeron- it's helluva lot cheaper than an FX

yRaz yRaz said:

If that's your criteria for buying a system you should save some cash and buy a Celeron- it's helluva lot cheaper than an FX

@ PC nerd:

Overclocking record was made on an FX8150. I intend to buy one and overclock it.

It seems as though the post I was referring to was deleted. He was talking about how Intel overclocks higher than AMD. I already said I was a fanboy, what more do you want? But, you know, funny joke

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

He was talking about how Intel overclocks higher than AMD. I already said I was a fanboy, what more do you want?

You maybe should have just left the argument at "I'm a fanboy". A subjective statement needs no supplied facts. Justifying fanboyism with a cherry-picked fact tends to open the lid on a can of worms...defending a stance with "fact" also tends to invite discussion- in this case you're saying the 8150 by dint of the absolute record justifies that AMD OC's better than Intel. FX might to AMD, but there's more to AMD than FX.

Some might also argue that frequency is only one indicator of a CPU's effectiveness...that's why there are records for PCMark7, wPrime etc., although the biggest indicator of performance (as opposed to a number) are probably comments like this:

[link]

So its all relative. I'd have to admit to being somewhat at the other end of the AMD enthusiasm scale to yourself. Hardware (individual models and platforms) get judged on their merits. AMD management, however- including the shameful guerilla marketing and outright bs from sales/marketing prior to Bulldozers launch pretty much put them over the top for me... [link] .

Guest said:

"Personally, I'd spring for an extra few dollars; get the 2500K "

Um, the Intel i5-2500 is $209 on newegg, the AMD FX4100 is $109, that's more than "a few extra dollars" and not a "myth".

Yes there is a performance difference, but again personally I'm not benchmarking or timing how long it takes to do "x" process. As long as my OS runs smooth enough, and my games run about 30fps, that's good enough for me. At the end of December 2011, the FX4100 was a better fit for my budget. Not everyone can afford or need a Corvette or Porsche, sometimes a Camaro or Mustang is good enough. You should be happy that AMD is still even alive, if it weren't for AMD, Intel would surely price gouge everyone.

Guest said:

I've built 10+ amd Phenom II systems over the last 2 years.

Now I am glad there is a slight upgrade path for the AM3+ platform... but, anyone new looking to build will go Z77 chipset, or FM2.

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

"Personally, I'd spring for an extra few dollars; get the 2500K "

Um, the Intel i5-2500 is $209 on newegg, the AMD FX4100 is $109

Well, three points:

1. I've already linked to the Microcenter price of $170, since the guest in question was actually shopping at MC , and...

2. From the links already provided, it's readily apparent that the i3 2100 offers comparable performance to the 4100...and is $90

3. Note the word "personally". Personally, a hundred bucks is neither here nor there. Personally, it's so not here not there that I use a 2600K.

and not a "myth"

Really? The link you put up doesn't exactly show BD setting the world alight (maybe with an OC and stock cooler it could be classed as an incendiary device). So, it comes down to virtually every tech and benchmark site (feel free to post a review link with glowing recommendations for FX)...versus..random internet guy who lurrrrrves AMD...mmmmm who to believe? Look on the bright side, Tom's gave it an honorable mention...that's almost a win, right? VINDICATION...Hell Yeah!

Long story short; If the 4100 rings your bell, I hope you'll be very happy together. Reviews, benchmarks, sales figures, earnings figures, common sense, and AMD ceding the performance/enterprise market to Intel say you are in the minority.

Yes there is a performance difference, but again personally I'm not benchmarking or timing how long it takes to do "x" process. As long as my OS runs smooth enough, and my games run about 30fps, that's good enough for me

I also sincerely doubt you could tell the difference between a 4100 and i3 2100 either...unless you didn't have a discrete graphics card installed.

You should be happy that AMD is still even alive

Haven't said anything to the contrary...or is it a case of you getting emotionally invested in what should be a straight head-to-head evaluation of two hardware platforms. Just to reiterate; Not singing AMD's praises at every opportunity =/= Wanting to see AMD eradicated

if it weren't for AMD, Intel would surely price gouge everyone.

Living in a waking dream? Firstly, AMD and Intel have cross licence agreements which basically keep AMD viable for as long as x86-64 is the dominant consumer ISA even if their processor line turned to feces on silicon, and secondly, AMD's largest individual shareholder is the Abu Dhabi royal family (also known as Mubadala). Connect the dots.

And as for price gouging...whenever there's a lack of competition in the marketplace that tends to happen....a variation on this theme happens when two or more companies "independently decide not to have a price war". The latter; Remember when AMD were top dog in CPU's (yup, that's $1k in 2005)? The former; How about the $549 launch price tag on the HD 7970 ?

Guest said:

AMD was an intellectually bankrupt company back in the Pentium days. If it hadn't been for a crucial infusion of engineering creativity and competence from NexGen, we wouldn't even be talking about AMD in 2012. Even now, it is the creativity and competence of an acquired asset, in ATI, which is keeping AMD's chronic and critical mismanagement from forcing the company into a terminal spiral. Piledriver appears to be an insufficient tweaking of the failed Bulldozer architecture which is being outperformed by the complete spectrum of Intel's Sandy Bridge line. The new Intel Ivy Bridge line is a noticeable improvement upon Sandy Bridge ; likely continuing to outclass AMD offerings based upon the unfortunate Bulldozer architecture.

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

<p>AMD was an intellectually bankrupt company back in the Pentium days. If it hadn't been for a crucial infusion of engineering creativity and competence from NexGen, we wouldn't even be talking about AMD in 2012. Even now, it is the creativity and competence of an acquired asset, in ATI, which is keeping AMD's chronic and critical mismanagement from forcing the company into a terminal spiral. Piledriver appears to be an insufficient tweaking of the failed Bulldozer architecture which is being outperformed by the complete spectrum of Intel's Sandy Bridge line. The new Intel Ivy Bridge line is a noticeable improvement upon Sandy Bridge ; likely continuing to outclass AMD offerings based upon the unfortunate Bulldozer architecture.</p>

Hey look, Kevin Trudeau stopped in.

Guest said:

uggh, I hate how these Intel fanboys are so obsessed with the shit. Like they just sit in every comment section and write essays about how superior Intel is, and they must respond to every one dissenter comment with at least 10 comments until he's beaten into the ground. They're almost as bad as PS3 fanboys in videogaming, or Apple fanboys anywhere.

That said, they're pretty right right now, Bulldozer was a colossal fail. It makes me angry at AMD they would even develop it, or that they didn't fire every single engineer who worked on it six months ago, and then sue them all for willful destruction of assets or something.

But it still doesn't make me like Intel fanboys. Stop being so aggressive.

It's pretty hard to recommend AMD anywhere, but it is true that decent AMD mother boards are cheaper, something the fanboy ignores, and should be looked at in the overall price equation. If I was doing a "cheap" (and it'd be the only way AMD would be acceptable) I could use a $60 motherboard, where the cheapest non garbage Intel Mobo I see is $90. Not saying even that makes AMD a buy anywhere, it doesn't.

Also Intel fanboys, stop using Microcenter pricing to make Intel prices look better. For me I'd have to burn $40 in round trip gas, plus hours of travel time, just to get to a Microcenter, then I'd pay almost 10 percent sales tax too, that newegg doesn't charge. In othe words for anybody who doesnt live nearby, Microcenter is useless, so stop pretending $169 2500k's exist, they dont.The 2500k is way too expensive, period. $220 at newegg, And it's really the only acceptable CPU for a new build (IE, the sweet spot). I've been at this game for a long time and $220 is the highest I can remember a sweet spot CPU costing. That a hell of a lot of money for just a CPU, with no motherboard or RAM or anything else, a bare CPU. I can get a whole damn Xbox for 199. I blame AMD for not providing any competition too, but Intel isn't blameless for holding their prices so damn high because they can. Oh and love Ivy Bridge which from what I can tell is actually worse than Sandy Bridge, and priced higher too. Way to go Intel!

Thats one more silver lining if any for AMD, Ivy Bridge sucked (though I did kind of enjoy the annoying Intel fanboys who have been posting on forums about waiting for Ivy Bridge for the last 50,000 years getting owned). So that should give AMD some more time. Whether they utilize that time, doubtful, but we'll see. I can actually see something like a Piledriver with 10% more IPC and 10% more clockspeed (so basically, 20% faster across the board) or something, not being horrible compared to Intel if the price is right. Still nowhere near where AMD will need to be.

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

The new Intel Ivy Bridge line is a incremental improvement upon Sandy Bridge.

/fixed

...Bulldozer was a colossal fail. It makes me angry at AMD they would even develop it, or that they didn't fire every single engineer who worked on it six months ago, and then sue them all for willful destruction of assets or something

Overreact much? Bulldozer is a direct product of AMD's falling server marketshare allied with a CEO who was tied deeply with server products. By the time AMD realized that the product wasn't going to be what they thought, they were already committed to the architecture- AMD mortgaged their future enterprise/desktop on Bulldozer architecture. Piledriver, Steamroller and Excavator will be a product of a decision made six-seven years ago...a bit late to start handing out the last cigarettes. You might also note that not all the ills are of AMD's making. Globalfoundries less than stellar intro to 32nm plays a small role, while Intel's near flawless execution since Conroe, and the speed of their tick-tock microarch-die shrink timetable (not to mention R&D budget) was always going to ensure that AMD were going to be behind the eight ball

But it still doesn't make me like Intel fanboys. Stop being so aggressive.

Hey aggressive Intel fanboys and fud spreading AMD fanboys...you think if they were put in the same forum thread they'd cancel each other out like some B-grade SF matter/anti-matter scenario?

It's pretty hard to recommend AMD anywhere

Not really. The Radeon part of AMD is pretty good. I recommend them more often than not

..but it is true that decent AMD mother boards are cheaper, something the fanboy ignores, and should be looked at in the overall price equation. If I was doing a "cheap" (and it'd be the only way AMD would be acceptable) I could use a $60 motherboard, where the cheapest non garbage Intel Mobo I see is $90. Not saying even that makes AMD a buy anywhere, it doesn't.

Wow, thats like spending an entire paragraph saying nothing. Can I have my twenty seconds back?

Also Intel fanboys, stop using Microcenter pricing to make Intel prices look better. For me I'd have to burn $40 in round trip gas, plus hours of travel time, just to get to a Microcenter

Hold up there Einstein, If you actually read the thread you'll note that the AMD fanboy Guest started railing against the price/performance of Intel using Amazon and Newegg prices...while simultaneously using an AMD example bought for cheap (combo deal) from Microcenter- which they actually bought. That is a pretty decent example of hypocrisy in action...and since my reply was in relation to that posting, maybe you shouldn't attribute some global implication. Anyhow, nice try with the aggrieved attitude.

The 2500k is way too expensive, period....That a hell of a lot of money for just a CPU....a bare CPU. I can get a whole damn Xbox for 199

Cool. Buy the Xbox. You'll be happy you've found your level

I blame AMD for not providing any competition too

AMD to blame? Intel to blame ? Just as well you're buying MS Xbox ! Might I suggest VIA ?

Oh and love Ivy Bridge which from what I can tell is actually worse than Sandy Bridge

Yup, wrong again. Great strike rate there Jose Canseco.

[link] (3.5G 3770K vs 2700K) for 9% higher price, and 9.6% improvement for the non-HT 6MB L3 cache part (3.4G 3570K vs 2550K) for 4.3% higher price....all using less power- go figure! Since you're Xbox shopping I guess you're not too wrapped up in actual CPU results.

Thats one more silver lining if any for AMD, Ivy Bridge sucked (though I did kind of enjoy the annoying Intel fanboys who have been posting on forums about waiting for Ivy Bridge for the last 50,000 years getting owned).

Cool. I was wondering when the hyperbole infused straw man argument was going to make an entrance.

I can actually see something like a Piledriver with 10% more IPC and 10% more clockspeed (so basically, 20% faster across the board) or something.

Combined efficiency estimate is 24% - Higher clocks (4 - 4.2) added to slightly increased IPC and a slight reduction in power consumption (clock-for-clock).

Here's the long version (pdf)

Happy Xbox shopping.

RH00D RH00D said:

(Insert long ramblings of dividebyzero)

You must be a fun person to be around.

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

insert long ramblings by dividebyzero)

Yup, those ramblings include the latest estimates of the FX-8350's abilities, an AMD white paper on Bulldozer efficiency, and some general comparitive analysis on Intel CPU's...easy to see how you might interpret this as "ramblings" - I see the "Techspot Enthusiast" title is well earned.

You must be a fun person to be around.

Since you ask, yeah. But then, I have a very low threshhold for trolls, agenda driven wannabe's and the mentally stunted, so interaction amongst my peers is both entertaining and informative , of course ymmv. Feel free to PM me if you ever post anything that qualifies as entertaining and/or informative...if it is, I'm sure we'll get along famously.

Guest said:

I've always said AMD fanboys were cheapskates...

"Hey my AMD CPU is better than its Intel equivalent based on price alone, because I've never actually compared the two, and I'm too cheap to care, so yea, I'll stick with the price/performance argument like I hear from the other fanboys, and in fact, I know nothing about computer hardware anyway... but I do know AMD has the bigger GB's."

Guest said:

"I've been at this game for a long time and $220 is the highest I can remember a sweet spot CPU costing."

One of the most uninformed posts I've read in a loooooooooooong time.

Should I even Google launch pricing for Barton XP2500+, C2D E6400/E6600, Q6600, A64 3000+, A64 X2 3800+ pricing?

Nah. This Guest has totally lost it, not to mention that a $220 Intel CPU will have a higher resale value, so the overall cost of ownership is not that much. Most importantly, AMD users have had to upgrade from Phenom I, to II to Bulldozer while a 2008 i7 920 @ 4.0ghz is still faster than any CPU made by AMD at any overclock on air.

Thus, in the long-term it was actually cheaper to own an Intel i7 920/ i7 860 / i5 750/750, i5-2500k and the same will hold true for i5-3570K. In 2-3 years that Bulldozer FX system will be total junk while the i5-3570K @ 4.5ghz will still deliver good performance and most importantly 250-300W less power consumption!

[link]

Staff
Rick Rick, TechSpot Staff, said:

<p>lol on the front page this article has an Intel Cpu Image......</p>

Good stock photos are hard to come by. :-)

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

Good stock photos are hard to come by.

Try this one:

[source]

I bet that caused some unfortunate loss of control amongst the AMD cyberwarriors...

Stupido Stupido said:

AMD's largest individual shareholder is the Abu Dhabi royal family (also known as Mubadala). Connect the dots

actually that info was unfamiliar to me... interesting... thanks for it!

MilwaukeeMike said:

Some financials to put AMD vs. Intel into perspective.

AMD 2011 Revenue = 6.5 billion with 492 million profit

Intel 2011 Revenue = 54 billion with 12.9 billion profit.

AMD spent 1.4 billion on R&D compared to Intel's 8.3 billion. it's honestly surprising AMD is even a competitor.

Guest said:

Wow you are a very angry and obsessive person you need some medication and therapy. AS for me my experience in owning Intel processors and amd processors is that Intel makes faster processors than AMD,they have for the past 5 years,but Intels run much hotter than my AMDs ever have and tend to slow down after a few years and in some cases die, but I've never had any problems with my AMD processors,I still have my 11 year old Athlon XP 2800+ overclocked from 2.0 -2.5 GHZ and that stays on 24/7 my Pentium 4 stock clock @ 2.6 GHZ which I bought in 2006 died last year and I didn't even keep that one on 24/7 and it was also much slower than my AMD chip. I replaced my Intel with an AMD Phenom IIx4 980 setup and it is plenty fast for me overclocked from 3.7- 4.2 GHZ NB from 2.0-2.8 GHZ idle temp 28 celcius cooled by Noctua NH-D14 air cooler.

Guest said:

I personally own a 1100t overclocked to 4 ghz, with crossfire 6970. My system benches quite well and plays anything I throw at it. I know everyone wants to believe that intel plays games better but the fact remains they dont, they bench better and get very little frames per second over amd in actual game. Intel is the shadies company out there and just paid amd 2 billion for not playing nice not to mention most bench marks use intel compillers. Intel fan boys read bench marks and want the best possible chip for their money and hey guys who doesnt but get out there and try both camps before posting none sence that you dont even understand. And intel fan boys bare in mind amd fan boys back their campe cause amd works in the real world. Benches are not everything, life is not testing in perfect conditions some times theres crap running in the background and I dont want to turn it off.

Guest said:

I really wish they would just throw more 1100ts into production. I'd buy those over this bulldozer crap :(.

Guest said:

FX-8150---$199.99, Intek 2500K $219.95

To me $20 is $20. And it does out perform 2500K in some marks.

Guest said:

Why trust intel when they use cheap shots to win, its funny how blind test seem to turn amd the victor. Isn't what you feel and see more believable then some shotty benchmark! Bulldozer wasnt what was promissed and AMD change there internal team and is working to fix the issue. Inst that the company you want (and the dropped the price huge). Longer life on chip sets, a company that does pay to play (buying scores), having an amd and knowing what it can do really adds frustration when intel bias people talk trash. But at the end of the day with the money I saved I bought a second vid card and I am killing it. So I guess its not that frustrating. Cheaper boards cheapr chips great performance, my first amd and I am a fan! Ohh by the way I have had 3 intels in the past and was never happy with there performance!

Guest said:

Intel produces a better processor no doubt. But I still buy AMD for two reasons, my Phenom 2 still provides me with more power than I can use, secondly, we need competition right now AMD is about the only company that can provide even the slightest bit of competition.

Guest said:

Looking forward to 'Piledriver' My FX 6100 handles Max Payne 3 maxed out easy with my HD6950. There is no difference between my mates i7 and my Fx when we tested the game on both machines on my tv which has a max res of 1920x1080 which is what we played the game at. Both were extremely smooth. Ultimately, cheaper does not always mean crap, plus I never really look at benchmarks so much, mainly the on chip cache. My mate used to be AMD and went intel because of this game, now he knows he didn't have to. I been using AMD cpu's since their 133mhz in 90's, actually been backward and forward between the two. Anyway, never seen the point of intel cpu lovers actually making an effort to find AMD topics just to say 'get I this or that' just get over the fact that FX cpu's are selling, useful and more than capable for gaming and overclocking and not everyone follows the herd. As long as latest games are smooth as silk it don't matter what anyone says really..........................

Guest said:

Thank you. You had the most useful post here. So much damn childish bickering going on between fanboys that people actually forget that most of the stuff you see according to these benchmark sites are nearly indistinguishable to the average person.

Guest said:

intel cheaps are to easy to overclock especially multithreaded cpu's that eleven teen year olds could do.. I found the bulldozer quite fun and challenging to keep a overclock and have it keep stable, it brought back the good ol' days.. intel may outperform now, just as amd did before, but you never know if ivy could be intel's final step until amd jumps back ahead.. So unpredictable. d:^)

Guest said:

Wrong, i5 is still more expensive than fx 8 core..............Well here anyway.

Guest said:

People come on. while all the bickering goes on around the internet there are people like myself who own the FX-6100 and playing games like Max Payne 3 in very high settings HD6950 1920x1080 and getting 60 fps....I really do not see what all the fuss is about. AMD is cheaper, not as 'great' as Intel but so what. As long as I'm getting good fps in the latest games and it never cost the world for me to build my pc I am not complaining. The weirdest thing is Intel users are finding AMD topics and posting in them just to knock Bulldozer down, that is pretty sad. So, while I can max out MAx Payne 3 on my tri core cpu (yes that what it is really with 2 threads per module) that is saying something. Intel, AMD, all people should be bothered about is if their machines do what they need it to instead of constantly bickering and comparing, scouring the internet for AMD topics to say how great or cheap Intel products are...............sad.

soulcatcher357 said:

(I appreciate all AMD and Intel fans posting, so please take this tongue in cheek, but I do have a good point I think to make on system cbuilds and pile driver)

I win, because ignorance is bliss and I get 30+ FPS on Shogun 2 (which loads in about 20-30 seconds) with my A8N-SLI Deluxe w FX55 (gasp single core!) and WD Raptor drive Win XP Pro that I purchased in 2004 for $3770 recently updated to 4 GB better ram for a Radeon HD 4650 1GB.

My system is now unbelievably stable, running a custom 1015 bios (non SLI). Hell, it even ran 'buggy' Total War Empire well.

My point is a fast CPU doesn't always make a fast system.

Chipset/ Motherboard and architecture are important too.

Hard drive, motherboard architecture and memory - quantity and quality are important here.

Watch your component v cable placement- Insulating your stock sata cables from heat sources (next to your hard drive an video cards) should not be under-emphasized. I replaced 3 SATA cables with hard drived reported as failing before I cut open a cable and confirmed a meltdown... Video card sat against cables (new card doesn't).

What you use your machine for matters (Mine is gaming, secondary Excel and compiling code).

Your Operating System and Version(Windows XP SP3 still best for gaming, considering 64 bit windows XP-Win 7/8 Pro and Linux)

Ivy bridge is a disappointment to me because of the cheap thermal solution.

The exodus from Sandy Bridge of enthusiasts has already begun- I've seen enough folks selling their old chip on ebay.

2600K -2700K Still not viably priced. 2500K is good

I'm looking closely at Intel's I3 and 2100.

I'm hoping for good results from piledriver, with an expectation that pricing won't be much different from bulldozer.

What if AMD got integrated processors up to the Radeon HD 7770? --- that's a performance sweet spot for games in the near future.

Price/performance is a premium now because I am building 3 systems (2 for my kids) in the next year.

Guest said:

olde 9550 to new 960t @ 4.0 GHz $119 + 5770/6770 xfire to 7870. I figure that is quite enough & good enough for most anything. 7870 x2? An 8150 would work good for x2. My 2 year old amd board has a black socket. Not having to go from 1156 to 1155 well you figure it out. I let everbody else that wants to brag about their 3dmark. I play the same games they do, the same way. I built a bragger in 2002 a dual pentium III 1.3GHz @ $399 each on a $400 motherboard with 2 Gb ram $900 of ram, it was outdated in 4 years and pretty much not not upgradeable. I made that mistake once. My backup pc, a thuban powed 790gx does good enough to work the 7870 also.

Guest said:

What frustrates me is AMD makes some very good PCI 3 video cards - BUT you won't find the pci3 interface with a AMD Processor.

I'm building right now. My laptop is AMD, my old Desktop that I am replacing is AMD, I am going to have to go to the darkside because I don't trust AMD to keep up.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.