HUGE price cut on FX-9590 ? drop is close to $500!!

[PedantOne]

The idea of a processor that can Turbo to 5GHz straight from the box is very appealing.

The idea of a price tag around ?700 would be enough to turn off Jerry Sanders himself.

A posting has just gone up on Aria?s web site to say that a MASSIVE price cut has been declared by AMD.

Calculating backwards, it looks like the drop from AMD on the FX-9590 is close to $500.

That?s the channel price.

at Kitguru

It seem, nobody wants it for that price Now Flank3r maybe get one

[informal]

It's only aria who dropped the price

[Olivon]

Lots of price cuts in France too.
Amd finally find that their strategy price was totally lame.

They really are "shoot in the foot especialisto" ...

http://www.rueducommerce.fr/Composan...90FXA-GD80.htm

Name of the bundle is "That's not me who pay the electricity bill"

[tajoh111]

I think AMD needs to be more aware of their position in the marketplace. All these relative fast price drops on things like this fx series and most of the 7990-fx7870 line shortly after release, show that people are not willing to pay a premium on AMD hardware, particularly because they are the underdog in branding and offer inferior products at their initially high price points. Anyone that buys early is going to lose a lot of goodwill on AMD and they will also hurt initial sales.

If AMD wants people to take a gamble on AMD to gain marketshare, they need to price their products a lot lower. The 850 dollar fx 9590 was bound to fail as was the 999 price of the hd7990. They were worse products than their competitors and costed the same.

[DefStar]

I think AMD needs to be more aware of their position in the marketplace. All these relative fast price drops on things like this fx series and most of the 7990-fx7870 line shortly after release, show that people are not willing to pay a premium on AMD hardware, particularly because they are the underdog in branding and offer inferior products at their initially high price points. Anyone that buys early is going to lose a lot of goodwill on AMD and they will also hurt initial sales.

If AMD wants people to take a gamble on AMD to gain marketshare, they need to price their products a lot lower. The 850 dollar fx 9590 was bound to fail as was the 999 price of the hd7990. They were worse products than their competitors and costed the same.

Are you talking about both AMD CPUs and GPUs? Because there is no problem with AMD GPUs being under-performing or being priced high. This magic 5-GHZ clock was a ridiculous reason to price the under-performing FX-Series processor so high...yes.

[informal]

4.7-5Ghz FX is not a bad performing chip. Anyone who says so is dishonest. Power draw is different issue but here we are talking about performance.

[Aberration]

Performance is relative. For the given price you could buy something that performs better. It just is what it is.

[informal]

You can get 4.7-5Ghz from 160$ 8320... What do you say about that level of performance per buck?

[AMDforME]

I'd never pay $700-$1000 for any CPU but for those who want to do so, go right ahead. The new lower price is bound to spark increased sales for those with quality AM3+ mobos or folks looking to upgrade. A default 5.0 GHz. CPU is pretty neat.

AMD's yields must be pretty good as they are supplying the FX-9590 to system builders and retailers. Even though sales volumes are certain to be only modest. Modest in this case could still mean hundreds of thousands of FX-9590s being produced, which is a good sign if AMD decides to offer a Steamroller model desktop CPU.

[tajoh111]

Are you talking about both AMD CPUs and GPUs? Because there is no problem with AMD GPUs being under-performing or being priced high. This magic 5-GHZ clock was a ridiculous reason to price the under-performing FX-Series processor so high...yes.

I forgot to bold it, but I stress initial pricing on their GPU's this generation. AMD lost a lot of potential sales by trying to increase from the initial release of their products. The $550 7970 and a $450 and the $350 7870 and the $999 7990. All of these products got a heavy official price drop soon after Nvidia killed their sales with their release. The high pricing left alot of people on the fence and a few weeks after release, it was easy to find these cards. Compare this to the keplar series and AMD got a short term gain but a long term loss.

Even after the drastic price drops, sales didn't really take off until free games were added on top of the price drops. To much damage was done when most reviews lamented on the high pricing of AMD's cards while Nvidia cards were glowing because of the high pricing of AMD cards. I personally didn't think keplar was that good of a value, its was simply AMD made them look like a good value.

The big wrecking ball against AMD was the gtx 670. It was much faster than the card it was priced against(the 7950) and was priced too similarly to the 7870 that it killed in performance and had the same performance as a 7970 but was significantly cheaper. When you combine all that in a review, you have an AMD sales killer. AMD's pricing made these glowing reviews possible and their own reviews just so so.

I know from your posts Defstar you enjoy AMD's value pricing on their videocards, but it was really Nvidia that forced them to do it. E.g prior to Nvidia release the 7970 was 550, shortly after keplar release, it goes down to 399 and shortly after free games are added.

Nvidia was put in the same situation after the 4870 release a long time ago vs the gtx 280, but Nvidia could easily afford it because they were the heavy market leader at the time(this was post gtx 8800 era).

The same happened to this fx 9590. The 5 ghz excitement was completely killed by the high pricing(and by the fact it didn't go to 5 ghz under stress). A lot of reviews said AMD was out of their mind about the pricing and it basically turned into a mud slinging event against AMD for the community and rightfully so.

The point I am trying to make is in both cases, high pricing hurt the marketing effect that reviews should produce. Particularly because AMD is the underdog, they need good review buzz. Underdogs and unknowns need good reviews/word of mouth to get sales more than the market leaders.

[vario]

You can get 4.7-5Ghz from 160$ 8320... What do you say about that level of performance per buck?

I would just like to say that this statement is half true, some do, some dont.Many dont.Well, maybe if you like to count unstable overcklocks,but FX9xxx guarantees you stable performance so its not the same.

[Olivon]

A default 5.0 GHz. CPU is pretty neat.

A performing/efficiency CPU is way better than 2 cents marketing BS.

AMD's yields must be pretty good as they are supplying the FX-9590 to system builders and retailers. Even though sales volumes are certain to be only modest. Modest in this case could still mean hundreds of thousands of FX-9590s being produced, which is a good sign if AMD decides to offer a Steamroller model desktop CPU.

Why not millions of unit ?

[PedantOne]

AMDforMe - in your dreams maybe, there is NO next FX in next three years roadmap, Steamroller only in APU!

[informal]

Well it's logical to expect AMD won't stop at 4C/4T APUs . 6C/6T is very possible in near term future and EX based parts could support even more threads. This should be enough for mainstream performance segment (~i5 level of performance in next couple of years).

[PatRaceTin]

i will buy some 8350 and OC it

[Aberration]

Well it's logical to expect AMD won't stop at 4C/4T APUs . 6C/6T is very possible in near term future and EX based parts could support even more threads. This should be enough for mainstream performance segment (~i5 level of performance in next couple of years).

And in the next couple of years i5 performance with have improved...

[informal]

And in the next couple of years i5 performance with have improved...

Notice I said i5 performance level. I didn't say 2500K, 3570K,4670K etc. .

[Aberration]

How convenient I doubt anyone would agree with that, as it would take a miracle to happen at this point. They don't have the R&D budget to make it happen. Its the same story we have been hearing from the fanboys since the Athlon. Oh just a few years the next core will compete, crap its sucks, but the NEXT core yeah thats the one... oh wait Bulldozer. We heard the same about PD, and hmm. Same thing.

[informal]

8350 competes well with 3570K and 4670K(to somewhat lesser extent), or you are delusional to say no? Similar went for 8150 and 2500K. AMD won't be standing still and both SR and EX core promise some hefty performance jumps so 6T SR or 6T EX will have no trouble competing with 4C/4T Broadwell (which promises no significant IPC increases, on the level of 2600K->3770K).

[vario]

How convenient I doubt anyone would agree with that, as it would take a miracle to happen at this point. They don't have the R&D budget to make it happen. Its the same story we have been hearing from the fanboys since the Athlon. Oh just a few years the next core will compete, crap its sucks, but the NEXT core yeah thats the one... oh wait Bulldozer. We heard the same about PD, and hmm. Same thing.

Ehm, After K6-2 everybody said the same thing, than Athlon Slot A happened, then Athlon Xp happened, after that Athlon 64 happened , Phenom wasnt that bad either but 65Nm was.
Problem AMD faced was twofold, first they jumped in into bad architecture expecting huge clocks (exactly like intel did with P4! even with they allmight R&D) and AT THE SAME TIME they HAD/HAVE foundry problems with 32nm .AMD could be one process behind intel and still be competetive.Other thing is, they seem to surrender at the worst possible moment , but thats beurocrats not engineering problem.

@Informal

Problem is AMD doesnt seem to want to make any 3/4module SR/EX.

[informal]

Not yet . Nothing stopping them to add ~30-35mm^2 of die area to Kaveri and get 50% more thread count. A beauty of module concept.

[ilkkahy]

Problem is AMD doesnt seem to want to make any 3/4module SR/EX.

I think Rory Read has just read some Art of war from Sun Zu. Here are few quotes that pop to my mind

-Do not repeat the tactics which have gained you one victory, but let your methods be regulated by the infinite variety of circumstances.
-Military tactics are like unto water; for water in its natural course runs away from high places and hastens downwards.
-So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak.
-Water shapes its course according to the nature of the ground over which it flows; the soldier works out his victory in relation to the foe whom he is facing.
-Therefore, just as water retains no constant shape, so in warfare there are no constant conditions.

I know someone propably gets annoyed from this post but if so, just skip this.

[Aberration]

8350 competes well with 3570K and 4670K(to somewhat lesser extent), or you are delusional to say no? Similar went for 8150 and 2500K. AMD won't be standing still and both SR and EX core promise some hefty performance jumps so 6T SR or 6T EX will have no trouble competing with 4C/4T Broadwell (which promises no significant IPC increases, on the level of 2600K->3770K).

I guess in the same way that an RX-8 competes with a Corvette...

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/A..._Review/5.html

And do try to leave your fanboy at home. Just because someone disagrees, and there is plenty of data to support their disagreement, does not make them delusional. It makes your irrational, and emotional.

[Aberration]

Ehm, After K6-2 everybody said the same thing, than Athlon Slot A happened, then Athlon Xp happened, after that Athlon 64 happened , Phenom wasnt that bad either but 65Nm was.
Problem AMD faced was twofold, first they jumped in into bad architecture expecting huge clocks (exactly like intel did with P4! even with they allmight R&D) and AT THE SAME TIME they HAD/HAVE foundry problems with 32nm .AMD could be one process behind intel and still be competetive.Other thing is, they seem to surrender at the worst possible moment , but thats beurocrats not engineering problem.

@Informal

Problem is AMD doesnt seem to want to make any 3/4module SR/EX.

IMO they got behind because Intel used monopolistic business practices, and they just have not been able to recover. It costs too much. They have shown that being a process behind, they can not really be competitive in the performance markets. Which is why they no longer try. Instead they will focus where they can compete, in a market segment that is growing faster than the market they can't compete in. Laptop/mobile.

I think they WANT to make them, but continuing to show products that don't compete is bad PR.

[Aberration]

Not yet . Nothing stopping them to add ~30-35mm^2 of die area to Kaveri and get 50% more thread count. A beauty of module concept.

If that was such a fantastic idea, they would have. So obviously something is stopping them.