I believe the prices when I see them in the places where I buy hardware, it's still expensive but it's indeed slightly "cheaper" than last time.

Well, the turbo of the 8-core stops where the base clock of the 6-core sits. Will be very interesting how far those two can overclock. Personally I wouldn't want anything that doesn't at least reach 4 Ghz with ease, 4.5 Ghz even better yet. I doubt the 8-core can do that. The 6-core just might.

Well, the turbo of the 8-core stops where the base clock of the 6-core sits. Will be very interesting how far those two can overclock. Personally I wouldn't want anything that doesn't at least reach 4 Ghz with ease, 4.5 Ghz even better yet. I doubt the 8-core can do that. The 6-core just might.

The 8-core hits 4 GHz on all cores fairly easily. But I must be speculating, of course 😉

LOL Those stock clocks are set to a certain TDP, so aren't really indicative of what the silicon's capabilities are. The chip's so big the heatspreader hardly earns its name.

The 8-core hits 4 GHz on all cores fairly easily. But I must be speculating, of course 😉

This I am looking forward to. Leaks have suggested 4.5 GHz with decent cooling, though that may be lottery dependent.

The 8-core hits 4 GHz on all cores fairly easily. But I must be speculating, of course 😉

Sexy post.

Way too expensive...;) Likely a yield issue for Intel--doesn't expect to sell many because it can't make many, etc. Old story. Of course...but that's only because AMD has nothing immediately available to compete with it. Still, Intel raping the market over high-end pricing is truly excellent incentive for AMD to come in with both guns blazing and knock Intel right off its perch. This is what we saw routinely before A64, and this is what we'll see more of until AMD does it again....;/ With no competition, why shouldn't Intel charge what the suckers will pay? I would. However, as one poster pointed out early on, back in those days when all the gaming reviews featured AMD cpus because Intel's weren't in the running, hardware in general cost a lot more. Paying a $1k at today's prices for a cpu? Almost like paying $2k back then. Absolutely nutsola. But it is what happens in the absence of competition. An old joke I like is: Q: If AMD had never come up with the Athlon in 1999, then who would make the fastest cpu today in 2014, at what clock would it run, and how much would it cast? A: Intel of course...today's bam-fantastic-incredible Intel cpu would have four cores (actual two cores with two more hyper-whatevers tacked on that Intel would *call* cores, anyway), it would be running at 2GHz, and it would cost in lots of 1K or more only $1500...! What a *steal* right? Everyone would think it was such a great deal because they'd never known anything else. (scary, isn't it?) Advice: By a far less expensive cpu (I don't care who makes it but AMD will give you more bang for buck) and plow the rest of your considerable savings into building yourself a nice desktop rig..;) (Which would be pretty easy to do, imo!)

In NZ they'll be listed at ~$1500, to me this seems more than fair. /sarcasm off.

Intel's flagship CPU looks a lot better now against NZ's 0.83(USD) dollar than Intel's flagship CPU did in Jan/Feb 2009 against NZ's 0.52(USD) dollar when I paid $2240 for an i7-965.

Way too expensive...;) Likely a yield issue for Intel--doesn't expect to sell many because it can't make many, etc. Old story.

What WE see is A) Intel and B) HEXACORE and C) UNDER €400 = WIN!!!

Way too expensive...;) Likely a yield issue for Intel--doesn't expect to sell many because it can't make many, etc. Old story. Of course...but that's only because AMD has nothing immediately available to compete with it. Still, Intel raping the market over high-end pricing is truly excellent incentive for AMD to come in with both guns blazing and knock Intel right off its perch. This is what we saw routinely before A64, and this is what we'll see more of until AMD does it again....;/ With no competition, why shouldn't Intel charge what the suckers will pay? I would. However, as one poster pointed out early on, back in those days when all the gaming reviews featured AMD cpus because Intel's weren't in the running, hardware in general cost a lot more. Paying a $1k at today's prices for a cpu? Almost like paying $2k back then. Absolutely nutsola. But it is what happens in the absence of competition. An old joke I like is: Q: If AMD had never come up with the Athlon in 1999, then who would make the fastest cpu today in 2014, at what clock would it run, and how much would it cast? A: Intel of course...today's bam-fantastic-incredible Intel cpu would have four cores (actual two cores with two more hyper-whatevers tacked on that Intel would *call* cores, anyway), it would be running at 2GHz, and it would cost in lots of 1K or more only $1500...! What a *steal* right? Everyone would think it was such a great deal because they'd never known anything else. (scary, isn't it?) Advice: By a far less expensive cpu (I don't care who makes it but AMD will give you more bang for buck) and plow the rest of your considerable savings into building yourself a nice desktop rig..;) (Which would be pretty easy to do, imo!)

Probably. But still, nobody sees AMD do what they did back then. Sorry, they have orientated towards other markets than high performance desktop CPUs. And that won't change as long as they don't earn big time from whatever else they do (GPUs, ARMs, consoles, ...).

It was the rumor, but actually they have a full completely new architecture in the channel for high performance desktop / server part.. Well too early for know how it will perform and i will not even speculate about it. All we know it is a completely rethinked arch not based on SMT design ( Bulldozer ). Along that they have too a future arch based on ARM, but dont imagine it will be similar to standard ARM design.. Mostly a really big big processor, if based on ARM, HSA, more looking like a x86 server, HPC processor. Anyway, back to topic, 8 cores is good, but it will certainly not beat the IBM 4096 cores processors at simulating human brain.. ( lol )

Any speculation of intel on when that new desktop architecture might be hitting shelves? Because, if it's not for another two to three years, it won't make a difference for at least Haswell and Skylake, so...