Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Hence NOT 2p, like I said
It wouldn't take a whole lot of effort to instead of having £X priced 2p/4p versions, sell a cheaper 1p version, and have a couple of the silly guys, Asus/Gigabyte make a daft server/enthusiast quad channel board.
Thats assuming a 8 core Bulldozer is behind a LGA2011 Intel chip by a lot(its unclear, I was sure those were also going to be 8 core, but a lot of people are saying 6/4core now). If they really wanted to, more for marketing reasons, have a platform for desktop that really gave Intel a run for its money.
I honestly doubt that many people are running around buying £400 mobo's and 990x's, there certainly are some though.
A 2p 32 core total Bulldozer would rip a LGA2011 desktop Intel setup to pieces, easily, but cost more. A 16 core one chip, single slot mobo with quad channel memory just to keep LGA2011 in check. It doesn't have to sell in the millions, just be there so every single review doesn't always end up with
"while Intel is the undisputed king of the high end where AMD can't compete, Bulldozer is a great midrange chip".
Almost no one buys the high end, its such small volume it won't make a big difference profits wise to Intel or AMD, but having that kind of sentence in every review, when AMD really can quite easily release a couple mobo's and whack a chip in it with, essentially almost no cost to them.
Doesn't
"AMD have the quad channel 16 core that competes well with Intel's more expensive LGA2011 platform, Bulldozer is also fantastic against Intel's midrange, AMD have a chip for you in every range that more than holds its own against anything Intel can make".
Which makes AMD look better?
I mean, 6990's aren't selling by the millions, but AMD worked out how important it was to have a card that, in every review, has someone sum up the conclusion with "while this is a great card by Nvidia, it doesn't come close to AMD's single best card".
Intel have done this for years, sell their highest end server chips as desktop parts to appear miles ahead.
Simple thing is, AMD has 16 core chips, they'll have chipsets, not much else to do there. Intel and Nvidia make a killing selling the same things in two different segments with no or marginal changes to appeal to the different segments.
That could be what Bulldozer "enhanced" is, or it could be 16 core chips on mainstream boards, though you'd think keeping 16 cores topped up with data might take a bit more than dual channel memory.
It's the mid range that sells and make 90 odd percent of the profits. Over clockers like us make up a tiny part of the market, just like the tiny part that buys the top end.Nvidia ......
Amds cards are better value and have been for 18 months, amds cards are walking out the door while Nvidia is increasing prices to places that aren't "preferred" partners
Well..isnt its the same business with benchmarks for every company?
And to be fair,it started some years ago,when ati was doing very well in 3Dmark,but in games they were not that good.
Every company doing this,and to say that this is only Nv its simply stupid.
Seems now many "inteligent" persons love to jump on that "bad Nvidia" bandwagon and how "good' amd is.
Another funny thing - if amd so much "better" than NV,how NV making more $ from cards than amd?And exactly from midrange cards NV made (making) good $,check quarter results from both amd and ati.
As for value - everybody understands it differently
It really makes me smile this threat with all fanboyism and trashing other companies receiving for no reason.
Its clear that amd need miracle to chalenge SB,not even mention Ivy,current 6core amd cpu barely chalenges midrange Intel 4core cpu,and Intel cpu cost less.
No fanboysim involved,just funny to read some posts here
If ( IF ) amd's bulldozzer gonna be better than SB (4 core vs.4core,6core vs.6core - not another value/performance nonsense),i will be one of the first to build system with it,but somehow i doubt it.Not saying bulldozzer will be bad product or something,but this silence from amd tells something about it.No company with brains would keep they life saving product in such silence.
It's the CPU score I found interesting:
Bulldozer FX8110 - 81,917
i7 [email protected] - 73,592
Seems pretty impressive if true
