AMD's Bulldozer, Bad Signs for CPU Prices.

So the ads during IGN Pro League SC2 finals yesterday got me thinking, along with various discussions I've been a part of, and different promotional stuff. AMD is, possibly, about to finally release the Bulldozer FX CPUs, starting with their high-end offerings, including some Octo-Core stuff. Now there's some stuff that sounds promising for overclockers and benchmark fans alike, but there's a lot more that scares the piss out of me.

For starters, we're almost six months late getting these CPUs now. Now obviously, in the chip world, this sort of thing isn't a shock on its own, but combined with some other factors, it makes me think the delays are due to being completely incapable of competing with current (or even recent) Intel offerings, sticking with the trend of the last few years.

Then, of course, there's the video AMD released, talking about setting a world record for overclocking. Now this should be awesome for enthusiasts, right? Well, except for a quote around the 45 second mark. "We're not running any benchmarks, we're just shooting for the highest CPU-Z." Sorry, but in my humble opinion, a clock you don't run shit at is kind of pointless. I can get all kinds of random ass numbers in CPU-Z and have my PC bluescreen 2 seconds into any stress test or benchmark under the sun.

That brings me to another point. Who in hell brags about clock speed if their CPU is actually better than the competitions? No, they'd run benchmarks, even if they were benchmarks specifically favoring their hardware due to number of physical cores or whatever else, and announce the "Fastest Desktop CPU Ever*" "*large quantity of small print defining fastest to the point that it's useless." But then, looking at stuff people

Using Google Translate (sorry) on (purported) leaked benchmarks, ". In this case the Intel Core i7 2600K to run at 3.4GHz base and could climb up to 3.8GHz was used when one thread, while the AMD FX-8150 worked at 3.6GHz can climb same conditions up to 4.2GHz." In other words, running stock v stock, even in tasks like Handbrake encodes, the 8150 and it's 8 physical cores were barely keeping up with a 2600k and HT technology. Owch. The rest of them aren't any better, with 3dMark physics score being < 80% of the 2600k.


All this is only confirming what I've been saying for a while. When you've been getting smashed in almost every performance category for as long as AMD has (not price/performance, which I'll admit they took at certain points), you don't withhold a product for 6 months if it's looking like it might compete. You certainly don't withhold a product that can set overclocking speed records, unless it can't compete. 


Sorry, AMD, looks like Intel has nothing to worry about any time soon, and you've sealed Intel's ability to price wherever the hell they want for the foreseeable future, again. And I'm sure some people think I'm an Intel fanboy at this point. Sorry, I'm not. I'm a performance fanboy, and I'd LOVE for Intel to have some competition and have to consider price points for once. So please, feel free to prove me wrong.