Originally Posted by Behemoth777;13578041
Well, that pretty much means that they won't top intel, again. Looks like I made the right choice when I bought my 2500k.
How so? The prices don't mean anything, yeah, the AMD FX chips used to cost$1k, but the people who yell that and say "AMD WASN'T ALWAYS GIVING GOOD PRICES" forget that the rest of the lineup was cheaper than Intels by quite a bit iirc, AMD could want to utterly destroy Intel by having faster chips for cheaper.
Originally Posted by Aeru;13578108
So Xbit got that info from Donanimhaber, which got it from a Chinese forum. All Donanim did, was to put the pricing into a table.
Of course you guys believe that pricing but ignore the earlier benchmarks? This pricing is just as legitimate as the earlier benchmarks.
Originally Posted by Yvese;13578535
I honestly don't expect BD to perform significantly faster than SB. I expect the top-end BD to perform the same or slightly better than the 2600k.
If it does we an expect lower prices from both intel and amd once BD releases.
I expect SB to be a bit faster in single threaded scenarios and to OC higher, but for BD to be significantly faster the more threads you use.
Originally Posted by NrGx;13578564
It is an indication of performance. Companies will only price their products based on how they perform compared to their competitors. If AMD had a truly revolutionary product, they would have priced it accordingly.
A lot of speculation on this site was indicating an FX range of old (that is, back in the days of the FX-58 and FX-60) but at this pricing, it is obvious they will compete with the Sandy Bridge range and do no more. If they were truly better than the 2600K, then they would have been priced that way.
It's a concern because Ivy Bridge is almost certain to be absolutely stellar (I'm betting 20-30% performance per clock increase) and you have to wonder whether AMD can even keep up any longer.
Remember that AMD has to get people back first, nor do they know much about Ivy Bridge, I'd hedge my bets on AMD doing exactly what they did with the Athlon64...Pricing the same, but beating the chips by quite a bit. (Assuming that BD is as good as rumoured)
And you're forgetting that the Ivy Bridge IPC increase reported was 1) at stock clocks and 2) Didn't specify the benchmark (iirc) or the amount of cores used, it could easily be 5%-10% in reality once you do it core for core, clock for clock.
That said, I hope it is 20%-30% uniform for IB, that'd be quite a good platform to upgrade to.
And if you want proof of companies pricing low to get more sales? HD4xx0.
Originally Posted by Behemoth777;13579242
Chips are priced based on relative performance, period. If amd truly had a glorious product that straight up and down beat sandy bridge, along with gulftown, then it would be price accordingly. Their 8 core is priced to compete with a sandy bridge quad core with ht, which means they will likely perform the same in highly threaded apps, with the sandy bridge quad pulling ahead in gaming, just like it has been for the past few years. Amd has jumped ahead another generation, but has not caught up to intel, based on this pricing.
Or...You know...They don't know how good SB-EN and IB will be and don't want to be caught with their pants down considering those chips launch around the same time as BD does iirc?
The way I see it, it's not fanboyism, it's "This company has been faster for x years, so they'll stay faster", a lot of people said the exact same thing just before the HD4xx0 was launched and then bam, it caused nVidia to lower prices a massive amount on the GTX 200 series cards.
Pricing doesn't have anything to do with how fast the chip is, AMD had an Athlon64 at $300 that beat the Pentium 4 EE at $1000 before and after overclocking, they may launch an $1000 8 core chip in addition to those already going to be launched, they may not, we have no idea if the same thing could happen here.