Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Since the bulldozers are doomed......

Last response: in Systems
Share
February 18, 2012 9:32:27 AM

I mean they do not even hold a candle to the intel cpus which are even cheaper then the fx, so i was wondering, instead of letting them to rust, why not create an artificial fusion by giving out 7750 GPUs with those? I mean just bundle them out for 200$ combined, and I think that is much better deal then lets say a user buys an intel G860 for 100$+7750 for 120$. Ofcourse, AMD would lose the profit on 7750(maybe they will just cover its making cost), but they will be able to sell off these systems faster. I realise this is what they must be doing at the OEMs, but I think the times are desperate enough that they started doing this at retail level. By that I mean, 7750 is fastest gpu w\o external connector, why not make exclusive but free with an fx? Seems a viable option and also ppl may realise, these cpus arent as bad as the p4s for gaming atleast. Let me know, if you think this makes a good business logic, from both customers' & sellers point of view.

More about : bulldozers doomed

February 18, 2012 10:02:13 AM

Boy,They Will go bankrupt if they do so.
m
0
l
February 18, 2012 11:47:03 AM

AMD is NOT going to give away anything!
m
0
l
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
February 18, 2012 12:07:36 PM

AMD Reportedly Prepping 3 New Bulldozer CPUs
Posted 02/17/2012 at 10:30am | by Brad Chacos
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/amd_reportedly_pr...

I guess AMD figured they weren't done with the BD's just yet. So much for giving away video cards.
Maybe they need to hire a marketing genius like wrazor to help them boost the rollout of the new CPU's...
m
0
l
February 18, 2012 4:33:17 PM

Quote:
if it's good business logic.?
have you taken business courses or at least know about the ethics, principals, tactics and goals of a business.
rule #1 - profit...


Fair point. But i will put it this way, you got 2 products A & B, A sux balls and you are forced to sell it at almost zero profit, but the thing is, you are also losing money because even on zero profit prices, nobody is buying them. Product B is kickass and you know very well theres no competition in the market. So, what you do is, bundle A & B at the total cost of only profit on product B, but you make product A&B combo compulsory. Does it makes sense money wise? I bet yes. Will the customer go for it? That is the question. Ok, I will rephrase the question. We go back one week in time, AMD announces, AMD FX gpu, the worlds fastest GPU w\o external power connector. And it is only available with the FX cpu combos. Would you, a customer mulling on a build where you can think of only CPUs in 125$ range(then put 90 odd $ for maybe 6670? ), so then intel cpus are no brainers here, but then you are getting the fx gpu(7750 *cough*) with the admittedly inferior FX 4100. Would you go for AMD atleast then? I have done my studies in finance, but thats not related here. I just want to know, how a customer will look at this. You guys have years of experiance in component selection and product lines. So, i thought, your inputs are invaluable.
m
0
l
February 18, 2012 5:10:43 PM

For gamers, I think BD sucks. Only good thing about it is it's feature rich platform, over Sandy Bridge, where u have to spend generally more to get par with AMD features.
m
0
l
February 18, 2012 5:34:14 PM

I believe in cases where you can't afford to spend more and know you won't find it in your budget to get something better before it's time to upgrade the whole thing again, i'd say an FX-4100 plus a 7750 is pretty reasonable, seeing how with an overclock you can get ok performance (barely matching the i3) and for around 100-120. (comparable cpu+gpu would cost 200+ without a bundle like this) but that would also make Llano pretty much useless as a desktop/budget gaming htpc.
m
0
l
February 18, 2012 6:06:59 PM

I hope this isn't plagiarism or in violation of TOA but I found this review of an FX8150 Zambezi on a popular E-tailer site.
"Great Processor
Pros: Don't listen to the negative comments left by people who don't know how the utilize multi-core processors. The purpose isn't to play a game that utilizes all 8 cores, thats stupid since you can already max out game graphics with a simple quad core. The purpose is so when your gaming at full graphics, you can have a full set of cores waiting to be utilized by other needs. itunes, video chatting, multi tab web browsing, downloading and streaming, or just basic multitasking. Never worry about your antivirus scans and automatic backups interrupting your gaming or work. These things are FAST, and cheaper than an i7, which only gives 4 cores. Intel processors are very fast, but still don't offer the bulk multitasking at this value."
I suppose that could be true for that individual but really, how many people game with all that other crap going on in the background?
m
0
l
February 18, 2012 6:42:28 PM

Quote:
how's it going - omega21xx.?


Not too bad, little behind at work. You?

@DelroyMonjo
It would help i guess if you wanted to encode video while gaming, but simple stuff like itunes while gaming can be done on most any cpu with a little to no impact.
Also the extra cores share resources with the other core in the module, so you'll still hamper performance, not that the extra cores are much better than a logical core. (HT)
m
0
l
February 18, 2012 6:57:59 PM

How about you buy a Intel and be done with it? Bulldozers are just fine, no they arent as fast as a Intel but you can get lots of cores for a decent price if you are a heavy multitasker.
m
0
l
February 18, 2012 7:19:05 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kd4dvLJQP4

8150 @ stock
Metro- min-27 max-60 avg-43
BFBC2- min-45 max-94 avg-65
Crysis2- min-42 max-91 avg-58
Lost Planet2- avg-33
Dirt3- min-75 avg-99
Cinebench- 5.84

i5 2500K @ stock
Metro- min-27 max-59 avg-43
BFBC2- min-44 max-97 avg-65
Crysis2-min-36 max-88 avg-62
LostPlanet2- avg-34
Dirt3- min-79 avg-105
Cinebench- 5.12

Looks like BD fx - 8150 and i5 2500k are pretty similar in terms of gaming performance add in the additional average cost of an Intel platform and slightly higher cost of the 8150 chip and looks like AMD and Intel offer up pretty even results on average as far as gaming as I have outlined and double certified above with link provided. Guess BD FX 8150/8120 couldn't be all that bad at all because they are flying of store shelves hardly in stock cause people are buying them up cause they are a good alternative to the only other choice.
m
0
l
February 18, 2012 7:20:49 PM

Quote:
not too much, waiting for HDD prices to drop and then nVidia GTX series.
work is work, sometime fun sometimes (idle mind is the devil's playground) and sometimes torture.
gotta get paid tho..


I got lucky the other day with newegg sales, Western Digital 2TB USB 3.0 external for 99.99 after the sale that had and the extra 20% promo i got for building a PC. ;) 
I try to avoid not being busy at work, my mind would rot. I spend my time on here to help, but I think I help myself just as much by getting through the day without being bored at work.
Gotta pay for my new car somehow without selling my PC. :lol: 
m
0
l
February 18, 2012 7:22:34 PM

The major problem with AMD's products today(besides being slow) is that they are priced too high for what they offer. If an i3 is priced at 120++ bucks, an FX-4100 should be way below 100 to make a compelling purchase.
And the worst part is that this module architecture is a dead end. They need to start over again, and I guess they can't afford that. One more problem on top of being behind in fabrication.
m
0
l
February 18, 2012 7:43:10 PM


Boopoo said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kd4dvLJQP4

8150 @ stock
Metro- min-27 max-60 avg-43
BFBC2- min-45 max-94 avg-65
Crysis2- min-42 max-91 avg-58
Lost Planet2- avg-33
Dirt3- min-75 avg-99
Cinebench- 5.84

i5 2500K @ stock
Metro- min-27 max-59 avg-43
BFBC2- min-44 max-97 avg-65
Crysis2-min-36 max-88 avg-62
LostPlanet2- avg-34
Dirt3- min-79 avg-105
Cinebench- 5.12

Looks like BD fx - 8150 and i5 2500k are pretty similar in terms of gaming performance add in the additional average cost of an Intel platform and slightly higher cost of the 8150 chip and looks like AMD and Intel offer up pretty even results on average as far as gaming as I have outlined and double certified above with link provided. Guess BD FX 8150/8120 couldn't be all that bad at all because they are flying of store shelves hardly in stock cause people are buying them up cause they are a good alternative to the only other choice.


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-overclock-crossf...

I was going to find a better review showing the difference, but if you plan to crossfire and where price is concerned, you can build a better intel PC.

Quote:
internal HDD's for me, I'm still on SATA2 and I now have SATA3 boards so I'm behind the curve.. :( 
same boats about the cars needing and not giving up much to get one.
good-luck, and till next thread.....
see ya.


I usually find the cheapest HDD in general regardless of internal or external since i'll just rip the enclosure off if I need a new internal :p 
SATA3 only gives a little more for SSD's, HDDs don't get any improvement, so i wouldn't worry about being behind in that respect. :) 
I walked to work for a few months just to make sure i didn't have to sell my PC... ridiculous for some, but I just didn't see the point when my work isn't too far away. Luckily I moved close to work right when my last car gave out.
Alright, nice talking to ya! :hello: 
m
0
l
February 19, 2012 6:04:37 AM

omega21xx said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-overclock-crossf...

I was going to find a better review showing the difference, but if you plan to crossfire and where price is concerned, you can build a better intel PC.




I 100% agree on CFX comments, but since we are talking about sub-150$ CPUs, coz nobody who buys a 250$ cpu would buy a GPU worth less than 300$ hence putting 7750 out of the question. Now, take a look at this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...

So, the 4100 does come real close to the i3 when OC, admittedly at ridiculous CPU voltage bump, but then similar priced/performance nivida cards also sip as much more power as the CPU difference if not alot more than the 7750. So, i still believe the package makes sense. The fx 4100 would have actually kicked ass IMO if it was much better in voltage consumption. Ofcourse, we wouldnt have any such talks and AMD would have closed shop if Intel had released a 150$ unlocked i3. :p 
m
0
l
February 19, 2012 6:13:10 AM

wrazor said:
I 100% agree on CFX comments, but since we are talking about sub-150$ CPUs, coz nobody who buys a 250$ cpu would buy a GPU worth less than 300$ hence putting 7750 out of the question. Now, take a look at this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...

So, the 4100 does come real close to the i3 when OC, admittedly at ridiculous CPU voltage bump, but then similar priced/performance nivida cards also sip as much more power as the CPU difference if not alot more than the 7750. So, i still believe the package makes sense. The fx 4100 would have actually kicked ass IMO if it was much better in voltage consumption. Ofcourse, we wouldnt have any such talks and AMD would have closed shop if Intel had released a 150$ unlocked i3. :p 

StarCraft 2 is a terribly optimized game that was developed in collaboration with Nvidia and Intel Developers that's why AMD is kinda looking crippled in comparison on that one plus the game is not really all that demanding at all to run it was just poor coding.
m
0
l
February 19, 2012 6:26:13 AM

Yeah, i edited to put link to the full page with other titles included. The fx and phenoms are sitting above i3 in most cases or within kissing distance when behind. The only downside being cpu electricity consumption. I think the FX had pinned alot of expectations and hence are suffering in reputation despite not being completely useless. :o 
m
0
l
February 19, 2012 6:34:07 AM

wrazor said:
Yeah, i edited to put link to the full page with other titles included. The fx and phenoms are sitting above i3 in most cases or within kissing distance when behind. The only downside being cpu electricity consumption. I think the FX had pinned alot of expectations and hence are suffering in reputation despite not being completely useless. :o 

FX are actually a step forward for AMD and with the highly power efficient new 7xxx Series GPUs an AMD platform is just as power efficient as Intel.
m
0
l
February 19, 2012 5:21:53 PM

Well you shouldn't cheap out on your CPU and get a major bottleneck like you see in the system builder series, you'll be fine with one card but at such a low end 7750 you'd be fine just getting a cheaper CPU like say Celeron 530 or some athlon II x3. It just really presses the question of why bother with bulldozer. I mean sure your idea to market them is fine but realistically would never happen. I could see pairings with say the 7450 or 7550 maybe.
m
0
l
February 19, 2012 5:30:20 PM

wrazor said:
Yeah, i edited to put link to the full page with other titles included. The fx and phenoms are sitting above i3 in most cases or within kissing distance when behind. The only downside being cpu electricity consumption. I think the FX had pinned alot of expectations and hence are suffering in reputation despite not being completely useless. :o 


There were some hoping that it'd really kick things up a notch, they even gave it the FX name... Truly the problem with the fx series is that unless you spend 200+ on one of the 4 module 8core processors you're aren't really getting much out of it, seeing as having say a phenom ii 965, would you switch to a 4100? Hell no, maybe a 8120 but that doesn't help any more in games unless you have some other stuff planned. It's the problem that core for core, the phenom ii was better and didn't need to eat your energy bill when overclocked. In most cases a phenom ii overclocked to 4.2ghz and an fx overclocked to 5ghz, the phenom ii is either in the lead or not far from the fx.
m
0
l
!