Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

How much do you think AMD's Bulldozer Chips would cost?

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
January 27, 2011 3:09:27 AM

Since I am building a new rig, I have 2 choices:
1.Buy an Athlon X4 640 now. (For gaming)
You will never know when games start using 4 cores in the not-so-distant future.

2.Wait for AMD's new Bulldozer Chips.
But if their new Chips would cost as much or even more than Intel's Sandy Bridge Chips then HELL NO.

So what do you think good folks? Buy now or wait?

Cheers,
Tristan

Best solution

January 27, 2011 3:52:14 AM

If you are wanting the very best of the best performance wise it would be worth atleast waiting to see what Bulldozer offers. If you care to note that the i7 2600's price is roughly a third of what the 980X's has been for some time now its clear that AMD is offering something at least competent enough to scare Intel.

Spoiler
Price competition has been strictly AMD's game, so for Intel to sacrifice 70% of their per unit profit it could only mean one of two things: either Intel's production costs have gone way down and they are nice guys who want to pass it on to us (while profitting from higher sales volume), or AMD's Bulldozer line is going to be significantly more expensive as well as offering much higher benchmarks.


This is only speculation, but as I see it the roles of AMD and Intel in the CPU market this year are being reversed. I expect the i7 2600 to take the place of last year's Phenom II x6 1090T as well as the performance version of Bulldozer to swap with last years i7 980X.

If money is a factor, go with your first option now. It won't stun anyone, but if you aren't using it to replace a high dollar system you will never know the difference. Just remember back to how much fun you had playing your Nintendo 64 before you saw an XBOX 360 or a PS3. Your game's will play and look fine, but don't expect to encode video while you play them.

- Adam
Share
January 27, 2011 4:56:25 AM

Best answer selected by G33K707.
Score
0
Related resources
a b K Overclocking
January 27, 2011 12:58:13 PM

Quote:
From what i read an 8 Core BD will be faster then a Core i7 950. Expect prices to be above 300 dollars for the 8 core processor.


Except they are really not cores, but nodes. AMD already has been shipping 12 core cpu's for a long time. 16 and 24 core server cpu's expected this year.

Cores as we know it will fade away with the new chips arriving this year, server and desktop.

Asking what the price is going to be is like asking what the price of gasoline will be in 2015. Unless you have a functioning crystal ball, it's just a dumb question. My crystall ball is not functioning at the moment. :sleep: 
Score
0
a b K Overclocking
January 27, 2011 5:21:40 PM

G33K707 said:
Since I am building a new rig, I have 2 choices:
1.Buy an Athlon X4 640 now. (For gaming)
You will never know when games start using 4 cores in the not-so-distant future.

2.Wait for AMD's new Bulldozer Chips.
But if their new Chips would cost as much or even more than Intel's Sandy Bridge Chips then HELL NO.

So what do you think good folks? Buy now or wait?

Cheers,
Tristan


I got news for you. Games started using 4 cores A LONG time ago, LOL.

I would go i5-2X00(K) or i7-2X00(K) now, or wait for bulldozer. I wouldn't go with a AthlonII for gaming unless your really on a tight budget.
Score
0
January 28, 2011 12:20:47 AM

viscerality said:
If you are wanting the very best of the best performance wise it would be worth atleast waiting to see what Bulldozer offers. If you care to note that the i7 2600's price is roughly a third of what the 980X's has been for some time now its clear that AMD is offering something at least competent enough to scare Intel.

Spoiler
Price competition has been strictly AMD's game, so for Intel to sacrifice 70% of their per unit profit it could only mean one of two things: either Intel's production costs have gone way down and they are nice guys who want to pass it on to us (while profitting from higher sales volume), or AMD's Bulldozer line is going to be significantly more expensive as well as offering much higher benchmarks.


This is only speculation, but as I see it the roles of AMD and Intel in the CPU market this year are being reversed. I expect the i7 2600 to take the place of last year's Phenom II x6 1090T as well as the performance version of Bulldozer to swap with last years i7 980X.

If money is a factor, go with your first option now. It won't stun anyone, but if you aren't using it to replace a high dollar system you will never know the difference. Just remember back to how much fun you had playing your Nintendo 64 before you saw an XBOX 360 or a PS3. Your game's will play and look fine, but don't expect to encode video while you play them.

- Adam

Please realize the i7 2600K is on Intel's roadmap as replacing the i7 950/870/875K, not the 980X, so it is priced right where you would expect it.

From your reasoning, we should be paying millions for the cheapest CPU available, as the price/performance ratio would be the same as that of the 8088.
Score
0
January 28, 2011 12:23:04 AM

geekapproved said:
I got news for you. Games started using 4 cores A LONG time ago, LOL.

I would go i5-2X00(K) or i7-2X00(K) now, or wait for bulldozer. I wouldn't go with a AthlonII for gaming unless your really on a tight budget.

Some games, and only some. But I agree with your conclusion.
Score
0
a b K Overclocking
January 28, 2011 12:07:24 PM

PreferLinux said:
Some games, and only some. But I agree with your conclusion.


What I should have said is there are A LOT of games that support more than 2 cores. Many use 3 cores. But still quite a few use 4 cores. Yet some use 6 cores like BFBC2.
Score
0
January 31, 2011 3:38:33 AM

The simple answer is that BD will be priced according to its performance. Right now, BD's theoretical performance on paper should be solid, and I can't wait to see benchmarks.

You think AMD chooses to sell their chips and graphics cards cheaper than they are now?

Nope, their products are priced based on their performance, always have, and always will.

When the 6970 launched, remember how they were priced near $500 on amazon and other places?

That's because AMD was originally expecting to compete with the 480 ( all their pre-release literature pointed to this fact ), but when the 6970 ended up trading blows with the newly released 570, they had to price it accordingly, AMD ended up offering $100 rebates to their partners.

Nvidia spoiled their plans by releasing the 570 a week before.

When the 580 launched, the 5970 dropped in price to $500, after being $700 for the past year. Without the 580 release, there wouldn't have been a price drop.

Plus....

Surely you remember when AMD sold Dual Cores for $1000 right? At the time they were the fastest, and AMD milked it and priced it accordingly.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-athlon-fx-60-du...

If current Phenom X4 / X6 chips outperformed their I7 counterparts I guarantee you they would be priced a lot higher, but since they don't, well, their priced accordingly aren't they?

AMD is a company who's aim is to make money, period.

They will price their products based on their performance.

IF BD ends up being better than a 2600k for example, I'm willing to bet it will be priced @ $300+.

But if it doesn't, it'll be below $300, simple as that.
Score
0
April 23, 2011 11:07:04 AM

Not everything is priced perfectly according to supply and demand. Sometimes an inferior product can cost more than a more expensive one.

Intel has the fastest car on the lot right now, but unless you can afford it, that does not necessarily mean that anything intel (even i7) will be faster than anything AMD.

AMD is a slightly better value for EQUAL performance.

AMD Phenom ii, for the same price as a higher end i5 or lower end i7, will give you equal performance for day to day tasks and slightly to significantly better performance in gaming.

AMD is a good value in its range. A better value currently than i7 because the i7 has more hype.


i7 is in fact superior for the money is no object crowd, but you are going to pay not only for chip and the board but for the tri channel DDR3....and the best ram is over priced and the affordable ram wont allow you to use the potential of your chip.


Phenom ii will give you more bang for your buck if you use the now affordable DDR2 ram, including the fastest ram in ddr2 which outperforms what MOST motherboards are capable of utilizing in ddr3....for cheaper. The fact that these CPUs can perform so well using last generations mother boards and ram makes them an EXCELLENT value.

Compared to the Phenom, i7 might offer 5% to 15% better results in purely synthetic benchmarks, and no more than 3-8% difference in real world use, but its going to be a price DIFFERENCE of over $1000 if you already have an AM2+ board and ddr2 ram, and will still cost $500 to $800 more even if you dont have the board.

AMD is also at a sweet spot for compatibility.....You can upgrade SLOWLY saving you cash. When you move up to AM3 and ddr3 when prices come down you dont have to change the CPU yet.....When bulldozer becomes affordable, you can keep the same ddr3 and motherboard.


For all the money you SAVE for comparable performance in the CPU, you can get a $1000 video card and a Phenom quad instead of a $300 video card and an i7, and for the same money you will see a 300% advantage over your impressive cpu because gaming was always all about the video card anyway.

An Athlon dual core at 2.6ghrz and a $1200 video card and 4gb of ddr2 at 667 will DRASTICALLY outperform an i7 overclocked to 5ghrz with 37gb of DDR3 at 1800 combined with a sub-$300 card.

Take a small hit in your CPU and RAM and go to town on your video card. Athlon dual cores are still just fine for gaming.
Score
0
April 28, 2011 1:24:56 AM

G33K707 said:
You will never know when games start using 4 cores in the not-so-distant future.

Battlfield Bad Company 2 can already make use of up to 6 cores. Then if you like to Fraps you need some extra CPU power as well.
Score
0
July 9, 2011 6:50:54 AM

Even if BD does perform really well. I wouldn't be too quick to assume that AMD will set a really high price point. That doesn't go in line with AMD's recent history. Remember to just before the ATI HD4000 series graphics cards got released? For the several years prior to the 4000 series, ATI was going through a hard time with their graphics lines. Nvidia was killing them and as a result ATI/AMD lost a lot of it's consumer base. When ATI/AMD made it's come back releasing the 4000 series, they released them at a really competitive price point. Even though the 4000's outperformed Nvidia's equivalents considerably. There was so much of price to performance difference between ATI's 4000's and Nvidia's equivalents, that Nvidia had to drastically drop the prices of it's cards across the board. So much so, that Nvidia had to cut the cost of it's top card by about $200 a week before the 4000's release (if I remember correctly). Now look at the price of ATI/AMD graphics cards now. The prices are still competitive, but higher than they were when they released the 4000 series. So what does this tell us about how they possibly played the market.

1.) Nvidia lacked competition from ATI for so long it gave them the opportunity to gouge the market. Much in the same way Intel has over the last several years.

2.) ATI/AMD lacking the consumer base it used to, needed to do 2 things. They needed to prove they could still compete in graphics market performance wise and at the same time, needed to entice the consumer base they lost to Nvidia over the years to come back and hopefully win over some new customers in the process.

3.) ATI/AMD releases the 4000's at a competitively low price point accomplishing the 2 goals listed above. Proving they are a manufacturer to be reckoned with and winning over a lot of new customers. (You'd be surprised how many Nvidia users I knew at the time that jumped ship to the ATI wagon).

4.) Over the next couple years continued to perform with good hardware with a competitive price, but at the same time slowly increase the price with each successive card generations. 5000's were more expensive than 4000's and the same can be said about the 6000's compared to the 5000's.

Now look at the current CPU market. AMD is in the exact same situation with Intel now as they were a couple years ago with Nvidia. As with the HD4000 series which was a completely new architecture at the time, they are now releasing a new CPU that is using a completely new architecture (their first ground up new architecture since 2003 in the CPU market). They are currently seriously lagging behind Intel in the CPU market. They've lost a huge portion of their consumer base to Intel ever since the Core 2's hit the market. So what do they need to do. Again, if they want to get back in the game they will need to play it the same way again. Prove that they can perform and try to win back their consumer base. Proving you can perform is only half of the battle. But in order to get consumers to cross that imaginary Intel / AMD line. You have to make an undeniable, unignorable statement to get consumers attention to entice them to cross that imaginary line. And in a market there is only one way to do that in a way that makes as big an impact as possible and that's price. Bang for buck! Short term, you don't make as much money on a per unit bases, but you also end up dealing a blow to Intel's morale because you have essentially forced them to drop their prices to compete with you and in "some" consumers eyes, expose Intel's market gouging in the process. Which can also earn you more new customers. In the long term you increase your chances of earning exponentially increasing profits as long you can prove that you can continue to compete in both performance and price. But you can still slowly increase prices over the following years.

Now, will Bulldozer be AMD's savior as the HD4000's were for AMD's ATI division. I have no idea and it's way to early to call. But it would be nice to see AMD give Intel proper competition again, because better competition is always good for consumers prices. Am I saying that what I've described above is definitely how AMD is going to play it, if Bulldozer does perform above expectations. No. But it is how they played it with their ATI division. I'm not saying that Bulldozer will be cheap by any means. All I'm saying is that given AMD's recent history over the last several years, don't be too quick to assume that "if" bulldozer performs well, that AMD will price it similar to Intels 980x That's not how the game is played. You don't go to your competition. You bring your competition to you.

Sorry for my long-winded reply. I just wanted to offer a differing perspective worth thinking about.
Score
0
a c 231 K Overclocking
July 9, 2011 3:10:10 PM

Quote:
How much do you think AMD's Bulldozer Chips would cost?


AMD is going to be giving them away like the present AM platforms they're selling for peanuts, if they don't soon release it, it's kinda like reading a PC magazine claiming Xtra Xtra read all about this new cutting edge release, with 2 months old news.

This topic has been closed by 4ryan6
Score
0
!