AMD rumored to have new high end chip soon

[deadrats]

don't know if you guys have heard about this but AMD is rumored to be releasing a 5ghz piledriver soon, and the price? almost $800!!!

if this is true, one has to wonder just how long before some exec gets fired at AMD over this:

http://techreport.com/news/24653/rumor-limited-edition-amd-fx-processor-to-reach-5ghz

[aedipuss]

hehe. let me guess, it needs over 200 watts and liquid nitrogen cooling. and it comes with a 3 day warranty....

[Kakujitsu]

This is not far fetched, the "AMD FX-8350 Vishera" runs @ 4.0GHz (4.2GHz Turbo) on stock air cooling without any overclocking at 125 Watts.
Intel's fastest i7 the "Intel Core i7-3960X Extreme Edition" runs @ 3.3GHz (3.9GHz Turbo) at 130 watts. Maybe you are/were uneducated when you made your post? In the past Intel has had higher bench marks but highly priced, AMD for the most part have had a much better price to performance ratio. $1,069.99 retail for cutting edge or $199.99 retail for something that performs almost the same in real world applications.
If you have a budget then $199.99 would be the wiser choice as you can spend the money on other things and have a better machine overall.

[jagabo]

Core i7-3960X... AMD for the most part have had a much better price to performance ratio.

At the top end price is disproportionate to performance. Extra high prices are charged for those who have cash and must have the "best" so they can brag.

In any case, AMD doesn't have a great price to performance ratio. In the lower segments they compete in they charge only a bit less than similar performing (over a wide range of benchmarks) Intel parts. They can't charge more or nobody would buy them. If they charged less they would be leaving money on the table. Ie, Intel sets AMD's prices.

[aedipuss]

This is not far fetched, the "AMD FX-8350 Vishera" runs @ 4.0GHz (4.2GHz Turbo) on stock air cooling without any overclocking at 125 Watts.
Intel's fastest i7 the "Intel Core i7-3960X Extreme Edition" runs @ 3.3GHz (3.9GHz Turbo) at 130 watts. Maybe you are/were uneducated when you made your post? In the past Intel has had higher bench marks but highly priced, AMD for the most part have had a much better price to performance ratio. $1,069.99 retail for cutting edge or $199.99 retail for something that performs almost the same in real world applications.
If you have a budget then $199.99 would be the wiser choice as you can spend the money on other things and have a better machine overall.

it's a joke, just like AMD is at this present time.

[jagabo]

it's a joke, just like AMD is at this present time.

It's unfortunate that AMD is no longer competitive. Intel's prices have hardly changed over the last year. It's no longer like the days when prices would drop a bin every quarter.

[Kakujitsu]

Core i7-3960X... AMD for the most part have had a much better price to performance ratio.

At the top end price is disproportionate to performance. Extra high prices are charged for those who have cash and must have the "best" so they can brag.

In any case, AMD doesn't have a great price to performance ratio. In the lower segments they compete in they charge only a bit less than similar performing (over a wide range of benchmarks) Intel parts. They can't charge more or nobody would buy them. If they charged less they would be leaving money on the table. Ie, Intel sets AMD's prices.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_alltime.html

I'm getting a mixed vibe from your post, I'm not a fanboy of either company but I do like to be cost effective. I've owned several AMD and Intel machines over the years and both have done their jobs well, but AMD in parts alone has always been cheaper.
That being said time equals money, If I had the money to spend on say a workstation I would probably go with a Intel Xeon setup for critical work and an AMD setup for anything casual.

You are right about Intel setting AMD's prices, they have no other competition. If AMD were to disappear Intel's prices would skyrocket even more than they are right now. As far as AMD not being competitive maybe its bad management. I just hope you are not biased as it hurts the market for everyone. I'm currently working on an i7 build atm. It dose not matter to me so much which one is better but is it worth the price you pay for it? Is it a liability or an asset?

[deadrats]

it's kind of absurd to say that an 8350 performs almost the same as the 3960x in real world benchmarks, the 8350 can keep up with a 3770k in a few benchmarks but for the most part gets taken to school.

but that's neither here nor there, if you go to a microcenter you can pick up an 8320 for $140 which you can overclock to almost 5ghz with a good motherboard and some nice cooling.

$360 picks you up a 6 module 12 core opteron and another 2 bills or so pick you up a nice workstation motherboard.

the almost $800 asking price is insane for what essentially amounts to an 8350 with a 20% higher clock speed.

now if the price was say $300 and AMD gave either 5ghz piledriver that only used 65w or a 5 module 10 core beast clocked at 4ghz and under 125w then i could say AMD may be onto something.

[addu]

It is always AMD that is better in performance, only video editor could tell you all. In encoding hd videos it is too ahead than the rest. If AMD wills Intel would have been dead by now.

[poisondeathray]

It is always AMD that is better in performance, only video editor could tell you all. In encoding hd videos it is too ahead than the rest. If AMD wills Intel would have been dead by now.

Whaat ???? April 1st is over....

[deadrats]

It is always AMD that is better in performance, only video editor could tell you all. In encoding hd videos it is too ahead than the rest. If AMD wills Intel would have been dead by now.

i think someone's been smoking a bit too much of the fine indian hashish

[Kakujitsu]

Maybe he is talking about ATI/AMD's HD video optimization? It dose help some with conversion and encoding processes but not enough to warrant them better. The term "better" would rely heavily on what you are using it for.

[Hoser Rob]

AMD is also the company who put out a 4 core cpu that performs worse than an i3 on almost all benchmarks.

Just because they came out with a 64 bit machine before intel eons ago has no bearing now. I'll never ever buy an amd equipped machine again. Their tech support is too pitiful.

[jagabo]

Amd is a full process behind Intel. Intel is shipping 22 nm chips in quantity now. AMD just taped out a 20 nm chip and they are shipping mostly 32 nm parts. By the time AMD ships 20 nm chips Intel will be shipping 14 nm chips. Being that far behind there's no way AMD can compete at the high end. They're doing the only thing they can, accentuating the importance of GPU functions, the only area where they still have superior performance. Graphics has traditionally been only an afterthought for Intel but they are quickly catching up.

I don't think I'm biased against AMD. If anything I'm biased against Intel and their anti-competitive practices. I have purchased both Intel and AMD based systems over the years, buying what suited my needs at the time. But there's no denying that Intel has a sizable lead over AMD in desktop processors.

[addu]

I think Intel has got egde over AMD in pricing.

[deadrats]

Intel can easily afford to beat AMD in pricing, Intel's margins are vastly superior and unlike AMD, Intel turns a nice profit; in fact Intel is considered one of the few must have stocks in a properly diversified portfolio, primarily because of the healthy dividend returns to investors.

AMD's big problem was the purchase of ATI, they were not really in a position to make such a large purchase and have never really recovered from the expenditure.

having said that, i'm seriously considering dumping a few bucks into AMD stock as an investment, if the rumors of them powering the next gen consoles is true or even if they only end up supplying the chips for MS' next xbox, AMD should be flush with cash in a few years time and their stock could prove to be a very nice pick up.

[jagabo]

having said that, i'm seriously considering dumping a few bucks into AMD stock as an investment, if the rumors of them powering the next gen consoles is true

There's little money to be made providing a CPU/GPU/APU for game consoles. Margins are tiny there. There might be a slight bump in the stock price when/if the deals are officially announced. But I don't think it means anything for the long term competitiveness of AMD.

[deadrats]

There's little money to be made providing a CPU/GPU/APU for game consoles. Margins are tiny there. There might be a slight bump in the stock price when/if the deals are officially announced. But I don't think it means anything for the long term competitiveness of AMD.

i just checked, AMD's stock is just $2.40 a share, that's peanuts, 1000 shares would cost just $2400 and over the past year it reached $8.21 a share; AMD bonds are an even more attractive buy, i don't think AMD will default and their yield-to-maturity is just over 9.6%; treasuries are at 2% and Intel's bonds are less than that, I think AMD is a definite buy right now.

in fact i think i just talked myself into it, time to call the broker.

[aedipuss]

amd has over 2 billion in debt, negative cash flow, small margins, no way to make their own chips, and increasing interest payments. they may survive 3-4 years.

[deadrats]

amd has over 2 billion in debt, negative cash flow, small margins, no way to make their own chips, and increasing interest payments. they may survive 3-4 years.

you do have a point, i just checked and Fitch rates their debt at triple C, just over junk status. still, the question is whether it's likely that AMD's stock will actually go lower than $2.40 a share. have to think about it a bit.

[jagabo]

Intel will relieve pricing pressure to keep AMD alive.

[Noahtuck]

(amd) they may survive 3-4 years.

I remember people saying that 10 years ago!!

And here we are.......

LOL!!!

[aedipuss]

(amd) they may survive 3-4 years.

I remember people saying that 10 years ago!!

And here we are.......

LOL!!!

they also used to own the foundries that manufacture their chips. no longer, now they have to pay someone else to make every chip(cpu, gpu, motherboard chipsets, etc....) for them. they are nothing but a group of poor(in more ways than one) designers now.

[addu]

Soon AMD is going to surprise Intel.

[jagabo]

Soon AMD is going to surprise Intel.

By filing for bankruptcy?

[deadrats]

soon amd is going to surprise intel.

by filing for bankruptcy?

rotflmao!

[Noahtuck]

People who know the future for a fact would all be millionaires

[addu]

Soon AMD is going to surprise Intel.

By filing for bankruptcy?

I hope it is not an american firm.

[Kakujitsu]

Thought it would be fun to come back to this thread 8 years later seeing as how AMD is curb stomping Intel in alot of benchmarks atm... Competition is great for the customer. Innovation and lower prices across the board no matter what side you support.

[KarMa]

Thought it would be fun to come back to this thread 8 years later seeing as how AMD is curb stomping Intel in alot of benchmarks atm... Competition is great for the customer. Innovation and lower prices across the board no matter what side you support.

I did not even notice the date of the comments. I just saw the date of OP's article from 2013 and assumed this was a weird April 1st thread. I was reading all the comments thinking everyone was crazy. No, it's a thread from 2013 too.

Funny thing about all this PileDriver hate, my FX-6300 is still running today (bought in like 2013), I just keep it from ever boosting to the max and it runs great as a secondary machine. As far as temperatures go. Default FX-6300 uses too much power for minor performance improvements.

My R5-3600 is my current main computer. Very happy, and got it before Covid and the recent chip shortages.