If the team that designed the K7 and K8 processors is really back, AMD might actually stand a chance of competing with Intel again.

The 8350 is basically a monster version of the 8 core jaguar processors in consoles. It will be fantastic for the foreseeable future because game studios will be programming specifically for that 8 thread style processor. If there ever was a future proof processor, it's the already like 3 year old 8350.

Bulldozer and Jaguar are completely different architectures. Optimizing for Jaguar, doesn't help you with Bulldozer.

Unless they are better than intel I will have to pass.

Unless they are better than intel I will have to pass.

What if they wind up being equal to or nearly equal with a lower price point? I'm satisfied with my FX 6300 and I'm sure it will still do the job 2 years from now but I am interested to see what they come up with.

FX8350 should last me 2 years just in time to upgrade to new FX or intel if it's a dud

Could this be that monster 16 core thing?

Yep! Running at 1 GHz for each Core... MONSTERLY!

Bulldozer - hyped up yet ****. Piledriver - hyped up yet **** These new FX processors will be hyped up...well you can guess the rest.

What if they wind up being equal to or nearly equal with a lower price point? I'm satisfied with my FX 6300 and I'm sure it will still do the job 2 years from now but I am interested to see what they come up with.

has to be faster, price is irrelevant

Bulldozer - hyped up yet ****. Piledriver - hyped up yet **** These new FX processors will be hyped up...well you can guess the rest.

You remember first FX CPU's back in early 2000'? They wiped the floor with Intel offerings, but it was a 1k bucks though. 😀

has to be faster, price is irrelevant

I'm sure many would be happy to say the same, but saving some cash is what matters for most of the people. Still, if they can release competitive CPU, it's good for normal consumers as it will lower the prices a bit.

We all have to see the Watch Dogs and performance on PC (CPU intensive title) I will have no problem with it that im sure He He easily on 4.2-4.6GHz i will Have Ultra Q 1920:1440 Now i have to brake 5GHz barier :banana: -> http://hwbot.org/submission/1037218_...be_5451.04_mhz -> http://hwbot.org/submission/1087285_..._be_4999.7_mhz -> http://hwbot.org/submission/1027368_..._be_4730.9_mhz -> http://hwbot.org/submission/2210026_..._be_4840.2_mhz -> http://hwbot.org/submission/2198943_...be_4715.97_mhz And AMD has reversed to Phenom II architecture in Hi Perf PC x86-64 so i think we will have Fast Phenom III 12-16 cores 4GHz 20nm arch. DDR4 etc. But we are all speculating now 🤓

Meanwhile in those 2 years Intel will do nothing but focus on power savings/the mobile market and continue to increase performance per generation by 0% like last time. So when AMD's new FX chips roll around everyone will expect something competitive... and it will fail miserably as the Phenom series did against Core 2.

It really doesn't matter much what AMD does. They're only going to compete as well as Intel allows them to. The days of AMD being able to surprise Intel are done and over with. Anything AMD can put out, Intel can top in 6 months. Intel's CPU R&D is so far ahead of AMD's that real competition isn't possible anymore. If AMD suddenly becomes competitive again, it's purely because Intel allowed them to.

Pentium 4's were hyped up **** as well, yet they sold bucketloads. The original Pentium 4's were so shockingly bad they were actually slower than the Pentium 3's they replaced. If you don't believe me, to some historical research . What about the original Celerons? They were so very much shockingly pathetically bad I'm surprised Intel kept the name for a long time, even after they partially fixed the performance. Having no cache really crippled those CPU's.

The original Pentium4's were even slower than the Celeron's of the same clock speed. The original Celeron's being crap didn't seem to matter to a lot of people. A lot of shops here were trying to convince people that Celerons were faster than anything AMD had. The original Celeron was nothing but a chip that couldn't pass QC to get the Pentium moniker. No reason for Intel to discontinue them as there was little to no additional cost associated with their production.

I don't see AMD doing anything with the FX Processors if they are anything like the ones currently as far as competing with Intel goes. Unless they redesign them in a similar fashion to what the 2000 version of the FX CPUs but modernized them to today's standards.

Having several of the K7 designers back, it's quite possibly that they can pull off a miracle.... I just don't expect them to surprise Intel like they did with the K7.

Interesting. Will wait and see what AMD will bring to the table. If they can made and redesign the upcoming FX processor as good as they were in 2000, it should kick ass.

It really doesn't matter much what AMD does. They're only going to compete as well as Intel allows them to. The days of AMD being able to surprise Intel are done and over with. Anything AMD can put out, Intel can top in 6 months. Intel's CPU R&D is so far ahead of AMD's that real competition isn't possible anymore. If AMD suddenly becomes competitive again, it's purely because Intel allowed them to.

you're probably right. and I wouldn't be surprised if intel is holding some of its tech back. nvidia with the optimized drivers comes to mind. optimized their drivers so fast after mantle's release? plausible, but seems unlikely.

Interesting. Will wait and see what AMD will bring to the table. If they can made and redesign the upcoming FX processor as good as they were in 2000, it should kick ass.

I sure hope so lol. it would be nice to get the next-gen i7s at a more reasonable price.

has to be faster, price is irrelevant

They will need to be really much faster, but too to got the possibility to gain specially market point with laptop, desktop brands.. because otherwise, even if they are faster, they will not sale much... you get a tons of laptop with i3 dualcores who are not even the equivalent of the APU of AMD, but most laptops have Intel CPU's. If you count only on peoples who buy cpu and build their systems... good luck. Now, im more interested to see what could be the result on Professional server, workstations, HPC markets.. Released simultaneously with an AMD-ARM 64bits high performance core ( not one for tablet or mobile, but for high computing tasks ), they could cover a large spectre of use and can start to deploy really HSA features...

Having several of the K7 designers back, it's quite possibly that they can pull off a miracle.... I just don't expect them to surprise Intel like they did with the K7.

Intel was full of crappy idea at this time too: for them, multi cores processors was a bad idea, no 64bits... etc etc.

From a gaming point of view I believe AMD's current FX offerings are shown in a too negative daylight. As an overclocked FX-8350 owner I have to admit that -sure- they run hot and -agreed- they are insanely power hungry. So as efficiency goes it's really literally nowhere as per today's standards. BUT the performance on it's own, especially the price/performance ratio is, in my opinion highly debatable. I question most of the reviews out there and I have never seen a more divided landscape in reviews. Most of them show the FX as an i5 contender, mostly even "only" i3. i7 is supposedly "way out of it's league". As a total package, all things considered; yes. It is. As a gamers product, aka floating point, physics, whatever they do in games: no f*cking way. As an owner and enthousiast I ran a lot of benchmarks, primarily focused on 3D performance, but just as well on other tasks and almost every single time it rivals the (a lot) more expensive i7's. Also, yet this is probably just having luck, my sample overclocks perfectly. Although I can only do 4.7Ghz without heat issues and Prime stable, I am able to run FSB speeds of 325 and beyond (200 being the default). That gives it soo much more overall boost that it really is a solid power puncher ! So again: sometimes I can relate in the reviews being hard on the FX's (the price is what persuaded me) but have never ever regreted my purchase. I feel that they come out in a more negative light than they deserve.

Last time I've read they're gonna ditch Excavader? and build something new with x86+ARM. imo should be a monster cpu deserving FX name, like back in the old days..

It really doesn't matter much what AMD does. They're only going to compete as well as Intel allows them to. The days of AMD being able to surprise Intel are done and over with. Anything AMD can put out, Intel can top in 6 months. Intel's CPU R&D is so far ahead of AMD's that real competition isn't possible anymore. If AMD suddenly becomes competitive again, it's purely because Intel allowed them to.

To be honest, anything AMD put out will have beaten by Intel up to 1 year before already. Look at the way Piledriver was hammered and Bulldozer