Which slides are #23 & #26?
Probably this
Attachment 120497
and...?
(Let us really hope that the presentation is false now, because this marketing stuff is starting to get VERY embarrassing... I don't think any of you could disagree that)
Printable View
Which slides are #23 & #26?
Probably this
Attachment 120497
and...?
(Let us really hope that the presentation is false now, because this marketing stuff is starting to get VERY embarrassing... I don't think any of you could disagree that)
AMD wouldn't quote Intel prices in that context would they? I have never seen a company run any sort of screen like that which talks about other companies prices in this way. I mean, it just doesn't look right, almost like a communist propaganda flyer.Quote:
Originally Posted by hirsch
These slides are probably intended for "internal" briefing purposes (partner / sales).
I don't see how it's embarrassing.
A) from what I can tell, this slide deck wasn't even intended for the public.
B) they're obviously going to want to show Bulldzoer in the best light, as would Nvidia, Intel etc.
Reeeeally don't see the problem here...
Jup, 23 is the one with the 980X. 26 has not popped up in large yet:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TlcmyqpJlg...00/komplet.png
These are ALL slides but only tiny pics. Still you can assign the correct numbers to the slides from donanimhaber.
The problem with those slides is, that it is a whole new level of cherry picking silliness. To cherrypick benchmarks, I understand. But to change graphics card(s), competitor CPUs AND benchmarks, is just crazy. Twists and contorts everything.
Ok, let's say they are for internal use. So i suppose they made those to show how NOT to make slides, and how to look stupid :/Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stilt
Aaronage, I am sorry, but these are new low. At least that's how I would feel if they showed me those.
Find it in your heart to ask yourselves this lol
If it were an internal slide would it really say "And that $800 doesn't buy much of an improvement."
And even more so, would an internal slide say "Save your money" ?
This is not professional marketing, if it is then AMD need to be ashamed, all I can see is some mid to low IQ guy sat in front of his computer thinking he is achieving something by doing this.:p:
And haven AMD always compared themselves to "the competition" never actually saying Intel or i7 etc
I really do not understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by james333
Over the years 2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005 Intel always pursued the supremacy, leadership in computer chips. Always behind AMD, and did not care to keep selling processors at a price of U.S. $ 1000 when his performance was ridiculous compared to its counterpart AMD FX.
Today are some extra data that show that AMD FX returns are not complete. And it becomes a big scandal, trying to guess whether they are true or not. And if Intel is defeated or not.
Wow guys! it seems that you have shares in Intel, defend it as I would defend my business.
Let the reviews show us the reality, but we must admit not all sites are neutral. So the best judge the performance of the FX brand will be us.
Not a fanboy of Intel trying to hide under the argument of "Hey I'm a fan of AMD."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karossua
I think you misunderstood......
Also, as my message was quoted, are you saying it was fanboy-esque? If it is then you are again mistaken, sorry for you.
As for your second to last line - Excellent statement :up:
thanks for this, slide 25 says "AMD FX PIBs on sales starting in mid-October 2011"Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb
and slide 26 looks boring since it says just 2 words
The slides are fake, and it really is sadly and insane that someone has so much sparetime to make these presentationslides. Note: those who has basic imaging skills should see what's wrong quite fast...
Also donanimhaber is like the other sides, that maybe has an early ES sample and make up some great stories.
Solus Corvus sent me an interesting PM today, I hope he doesn't mind I post it :p:
Here was my response:Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
Quote:
Think about it.
A SB CPU that does 4.8 on air will do 5.0 on water. An X6 will do 4.3 on water if it does 4.2 on air.
I run pretty high end water, HK 3.0 LT with MCR320 + 3x GT 1850s and my CPU still only does 4.2. I bet I could get well over 4 Ghz on air. Note the phrase "well over". It is a term used to signify "not barely".
5.5 Ghz CPU-Z will mean about 5-5.1 Ghz stable. I bet we wont see any more than ~5.6-5.7 Ghz CPU-Z on water. Think about it, idle temps on a Corsair H80 will not be much different than your $350-400 WC setup (not more than 3-5c anyway) and on top of that, 3-5c will not get you 500 Mhz. Those chips he was talking about, those are pre-retail chips, final stepping. The same stepping will be going into the retail channel.
Expect no more than 5.2 Ghz stable on air with a gem chip, and maybe 5.4 with that same gem on water. I expect most people to be doing about 5.2 on water.
I'd be glad if they were fake, but they most likely aren't. They look very much like what you'd expect from an AMD brief.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2good4you
hey guys,
long time lurker finally signed up :)
one of my questions is how come amd is still stating that there 8 core will be $300 via there amd fx cpu contest rules?
so, please, tell us why are you so sure that it's fake.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2good4you
Oh, come on, it's so easy to think it might be fake when you see such a terrible job done :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokinhow
They've used the "OMG our platform costs $10000000000 less than the competition!!" line in the past, it didn't bother me then and it doesn't in this case. Sure, it's bonkers, but at the end of the day these slides are only going to viewed by us obsessive enthusiasts who know better :)Quote:
Originally Posted by james333
Could be wrong, but I'm sure we've seen slides like this leak out just before the launch of a new CPU/GPU in the past. Slides leak out, we question if they're authentic and then a few weeks later we see them posted along side reviews. If that's the case, they'll be a ripped a new one for making the mental 8150 vs. 990X platform cost comparison by reviewers :)
So still not that bothered by this lol.
I sure hope these benchmark slides are fake cuz only matching the 2600K in multithreaded performance would be an absolute failure. I remember someone saying 50% higher performance than an i7 950; Gulftown territory, which is considerably faster than Sandy Bridge quads.
Absolute failure?? Every other post seems to be saying this... And thats far from the truth.
If these figures and prices are true along with the overclocking advantage, there will be many people thinking twice before buying a "brand name" chip for more.
Thuban performance would be an absolute failure. I would honestly like to hear the reasoning behind the failure comments. (No flamming intended)
most of them are closeted intel fanboys that don;t want to admit it to themselves that they are in love with intel
it is approximate price mentioned there... "worth 300$"Quote:
Originally Posted by MaCkAtTaCk
LOL. I'm just surprised that these potentially fake slides have sparked so much heated debate. But, meh.....Quote:
Originally Posted by stangracin3
what did you expect :)
i think they're fake but cant be sure..
Not for it to go on this long. But I guess the scant news on BD creates this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oese