AMD baits gamers with GameFly offer

People buying AMD gear are getting all sorts of freebies lately. First, there was the Three for Free deal, which throws in free copies of Dirt: Showdown, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, and Nexuiz with certain Radeon HD 7900-series cards. Now, AMD says buying some of its processors will get you discounted gaming goodness, courtesy of GameFly.

Here’s the skinny, straight from the AMD press release:

Gamers purchasing select AMD A-Series APUs, AMD Athlon™ II CPUs, AMD Phenom™ II CPUs or AMD FX Series CPUs in regions where GameFly is accessible receive a free, 30-day GameFly membership as well as a 20 percent discount on a new PC game purchase via the new GameFly PC store

This is a nice gesture for sure, but it’s definitely not as substantial as the Three for Free promotion. Without the AMD tie-in, it looks like GameFly charges $5.95 for the first month of membership. 20% off a $59.99 game, meanwhile, adds up to about a $12 discount.

In other words, you stand to save about $18 from the deal, tops. Whether that’s enough to tip the odds in AMD’s favor when you’re pricing out your next upgrade… well, that part is up to you.

Comments closed
    • south side sammy
    • 8 years ago

    So, is AMD now going to be known as master baiters ?

      • Chun¢
      • 8 years ago

      Know your market, eh?

    • maxxcool
    • 8 years ago

    Completely agree these are “Guilt” freebies. But if there serious about recovering their performance per dollar edge they need to be giving away memory or motherboards because my “aged discontinued” 1100t 6 core cpu performs better, and if not within a few scant percent of their precious fake 8-core cpu.

      • xeridea
      • 8 years ago

      Why do you say “fake”? There are 8 real cores, and the performance hit per core is minor, ~8%. People always tout 8 threads on Intel CPUs like they actually matter, though there is a huge performance hit, making them only perform slightly better than without HT.

        • AlvinTheNerd
        • 8 years ago

        8 integer cores. If you know how to code for that, its 8 cores. A lot of server hardware works on this and its 8 cores for them.

        On the desktop front, its 4 cores since floating point performance is almost always the limiting factor. AMD is advertising them as 8 cores when in most apps, they are 4 cores. Until compilers catch up, OS catches up, and possibly coders rethinking their logic, it isn’t going to be 8 cores on the desktop.

        It is true that Intel HT was much the same way. Done well, it adds significant performance, but when applied it didn’t matter much and required rethinking code to make it work well. But it is wrong to call a dual core with HT as ‘four way processing’ as Intel-Best Buy does and it is wrong to say ‘8 core’ for a desktop chip that has only 4 copies of the limiting logic.

          • BobbinThreadbare
          • 8 years ago

          Each module is capable of 2 FP instructions per clock. So it’s 8 FP cores too.

          The only time it’s 4 cores is when you are using the brand new 128 bit functions.

            • Jason181
            • 8 years ago

            There are 4 superscalar fpu cores. By your reasoning, sandy bridge has [b<]16 cores[/b<] since sb has 2 256-bit wide fpus. Check out the last graph on this page (x87 fpu, which is what we're talking about here) where Bulldozer takes an absolute beating: [url<]http://www.ilsistemista.net/index.php/hardware-analysis/24-bulldozer-vs-sandy-bridge-vs-k10-comparison-whats-wrong-with-amd-bulldozer.html?start=6[/url<] Of course you've probably already read this article where except in the case of the FX using its XOP instruction, it gets absolutely crushed, even when using FMAC: [url<]https://techreport.com/articles.x/21813/17[/url<] Real World Technologies pointed out the the single fpu store port combined with anemic L1 bandwidth creates some situations that make BD's FPU performance go from bad to absolutely abysmal.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 8 years ago

            Oh, got the bits wrong.

            Can the SB cores do two 128 bit instructions in one clock? It doesn’t matter how wide they are if they can only do one at a time.

            Anyways, I didn’t say Bulldozer was fast or even good, but except in a really rare scenario it functions as an 9 core CPU.

            • Jason181
            • 8 years ago

            Yes, it can do two 128 bit, or four 64 bit instructions in each fpu.

            What you’re referring to is called superscalar (essentially when a processor has more than one pipeline), and is pretty much the norm these days. So although I understand your reasoning, it’s misleading to say that it acts as an 8-core fpu.

            It acts as (and is) a four-core superscalar fpu design fed by two threads. BD is basically an 8-core cpu for integer purposes and a four-core cpu with hyperthreading for fpu purposes. Unfortunately, the fpu cores are constrained by a low bandwidth L1 and relatively weak x87 fpu performance.

            BD’s only saving grace is AVX, where generally speaking it’s on par with SB.

    • henfactor
    • 8 years ago

    AMD appears to be the master baiter in this round of hardware.

      • ronch
      • 8 years ago

      Hmm.. I see what you did there..

        • NarwhaleAu
        • 8 years ago

        …and I like it!

    • flip-mode
    • 8 years ago

    Translation: “To compensate for the fact that our CPU’s are (substantially) lower performing in games than Intel’s (heck, Intel’s i3 2100 games as well as our FX 8150) while guzzling (substantially) more electricity, we’re giving you some genuinely respectable discounts”

    Response: Hellz no. 3 years down the road those games will be collecting digital dust while I would be pissed at myself over the fact that I hadn’t just gone for the i5 2500K. Additionally, an i5 2500K (or 3570 K or is it 3550 K – why did Intel have to change the naming scheme when it was so perfect before) will gently sip electricity and run from it’s IGP once it comes time to demote it to secondary duties. A Bulldozer won’t go so gently into lesser roles.

      • ermo
      • 8 years ago

      I’m still annoyed that the K-series CPUs don’t support unregistered ECC memory and the other nifty features that intel turns on for their non-K variants. If they did, I’d have gotten one a long time ago, since it could then be relegated to home server or HTPC duty in due course.

      Does anyone know if it is possible to unlock Xeon E3 CPUs with sneaky firmware tricks? If that was possible, I’d get a Xeon and a Xeon motherboard in an instant (and so would, I’m sure, a bunch of enthusiasts).

      • maxxcool
      • 8 years ago

      wake me up when they start bundling 8 gigs of free 1600 speed ram, or a cheap mobo. because until their fake 8-core cpu can run 40% better than my ancient 1100t hex core they can as the new catch phrases goes : suckit.

      • kc77
      • 8 years ago

      In what game does a i3 2100 beat a 8150?

        • swaaye
        • 8 years ago

        Quite a few actually. Whenever two Sandy Bridge cores w/ HT are enough to satisfy a game’s threaded-ness and SB’s vastly superior performance per clock makes the difference.

        • Chrispy_
        • 8 years ago

        Of the four games in the TR 8150 review, the i3-2100 wins two tests (Battlefield BC2 and Civ5) and the 8150 wins the other two (Metro 2033 and F1 2010)

        I’d say that’s a wash, given the small range of games tests, but flip-mode never actually says that the i3 [i<]beats[/i<] the 8150, just that it "games as well as", which I think is a fair comment.

          • kc77
          • 8 years ago

          Ah no., the i3 scores the same in Battlefield. Actually there’s only 1 and that’s Civ late view. However in the no render in Civ test it beats it.

          The fact that people quite literally see 75 vs 75 (Battlefield Score) and come away with saying one is better (or quite a few actually) than another is astounding. Rate me down, but I can look at graph.

          In reality the chances of you noticing the difference between a 8150 and a 2700K at normal resolutions is at best a couple of frames. If the game is GPU bound you won’t notice it at all unless you get into some crazy resolutions where you become CPU bound.

          Anand actually tested at 1080 [url=http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/8<]and low resolutions.[/url<] The fact of the matter is that most CPU's game about the same unless you run xFire or SLI. The reason why I said anything in the first place is that the implication is that if you bought a Core i3 2100 that you would be sticking right there with the 8150 in performance is wrong. It's not even a little bit correct. Yes BD has major problems, but we should speak about them with some sense of accuracy.

            • Jason181
            • 8 years ago

            Are you sure that most cpus perform similarly in games? [url<]http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=288[/url<]

            • kc77
            • 8 years ago

            Notice that I mention the 1080 resolution.

            • Jason181
            • 8 years ago

            Notice you also mention low resolution. The link you give has 12 graphs and only two of them are 1080p. If you meant 1080, it looks like you chose a poor page to prove your point.

            There are a few cases where the difference in performance is 35% or more.

          • clone
          • 8 years ago

          the results don’t say i3 2100 is superior to Bulldozer, what the results do is showcase how little the need is for processing power in games today and how hard it must be to optimise multi threading into game code.

          the StarCraft 2 results are likely the most famous examples of this unfortunate state in PC gaming.

      • Bensam123
      • 8 years ago

      This is a small cherry picked example that has had its context stripped away to make it seem like a gleaming piece of truth, but it’s merely sensationalism.

      He specifically states just games and only some games at that. If the BD TR benchmark is what he’s referencing a lot of the CPU are very closely packed because games utterly blow at managing threads and are generally very GPU bound. Even Intels flagship is pretty close to all the other processors in most of the benchmarks that the 2100 does better then the 8150 in.

      [url<]https://techreport.com/articles.x/21813/1[/url<] The less GPU bound the game is, the worse the 2100 does.

        • flip-mode
        • 8 years ago

        That’s not a very strong defense of the FX series. Let’s lay this out again: pit the FX 8150 against the i3 2100 and the FX sometimes loses and sometimes wins. That’s completely lousy for a processor with 4 times the cores and that costs 2 times more (and that’s after the recent price cuts!) and that sucks 10 more watts at idle (that’s a lot better than I thought) and 100 more watts at load. FX 8150 is supposed to be completely and totally above the i3 2100’s league, and even above the league above that. There should never be any instances where the i3 2100 beats the FX 8150. Instead, wherever any software needs just one or two threads the i3 2100 is going to beat the FX 8150. AMD flushed single threaded performance down the toilet with Bulldozer, and I’m not going to make any excuses for them regarding that ridiculously stupid move.

        The bulldozer series of processors is a tragic failure. There’s really no kinder way I can state my feelings on the matter. It’s an abysmal successor to the Thuban series of processors that almost always end up beating BD despite having 300,000,000 fewer transistors and 2 fewer CPU cores.

        Maybe future versions of BD will unlock some bottled up performance. That would be fantastic. But Zambezi is just awful.

          • Bensam123
          • 8 years ago

          It wasn’t intended to defend the processor, it was intended to debunk your comparison of it to a 2100 in a very niche instance.

          • kc77
          • 8 years ago

          I don’t think there’s any one saying (including me) that BD was a success. LOL I’m not that drunk….yet.

          However, please go through that TR review again. Generally speaking we agree on a lot. But I’m sorry if someone was giving away two processors. One a i3 2100 and the other a 8150. I would pick the 8150 any day of the week including Sundays. I’m not defending the processor. I’m saying that one is the better performer and the i3 2100 ain’t it more often than not.

      • clone
      • 8 years ago

      “guzzling (substancially) more electricity.

      I’m not sure the annual total would exceed $3.00 by going AMD over Intel…… it’s one of those issues that should really be kept in context.

      Intel wins to be sure but why Intel wins is because of performance, power consumption isn’t egregious like it was with Intel’s Prescott back in the day leaving the 3400 and 3600 cpu’s clock throttling constantly while running their fans like turbines when under load.

      would this deal have mattered to me at time of purchase… no.

      that said I just bought a new AMD cpu because Intel priced itself out of my interest ($340 vs $150), I knew i2500k was a better cpu but more of what I didn’t need vs getting an SSD and better video…… no brainer.

    • Sargent Duck
    • 8 years ago

    Double Post. Ignore this one.

      • Duck
      • 8 years ago

      Too late…

    • Sargent Duck
    • 8 years ago

    What’s GameFly? From what it sounds like it’s a steam type distribution service.

      • lilbuddhaman
      • 8 years ago

      Gamefly is Netflix with games. It’s a pretty good service, though I found that I simply didn’t enjoy “the console experience” (whether it be my wii or 360 ) compared to PC, so I dumped it after a year.

      Brand new titles are nigh impossible to get quickly, but if you have a list of older titles you want to blaze through, you can most def. get your money’s worth using the service.

      • BiffStroganoffsky
      • 8 years ago

      Sounds to me like smelly, addicted gamers…or, a location for games that wallow in poo.

      • Jahooba
      • 8 years ago

      If you’re a PC gamer it’s also known as “useless”.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This