They should name it "Steamstroller" after the pathetic embarrassment of what Faildozer was.

It sounds good enough...  Now if only they can release it before 4 years pass again, they might have something that resembles competition.

Whenever they begin to compete with Intel in the high end market then I'll start looking into what they can offer. They can't compete with intel's sandy bridge CPU's still, much less Ivy Bridge high end and anything that goes into an LGA 2011 socket. They make great APU's but their high end CPU's have been lacking for quite some time, in comparison with Intel's high end processors. They badly need to get this one right, if anything just to keep Intel on their toes

Strange, do so well with GPU but suck at CPU.

I'm going to throw two wrenches in this wheel, if you don't mind:
What AMD stated in May 2012
What AMD stated in Oct 2011
 

Madrias
 It sounds good enough...  Now if only they can release it before 4 years pass again, they might have something that resembles competition.

Honestly, you got to give them some credit, they are 5% of Intel's workforce size yet maintain 15% of the x86 market.  Of course, that's an example of a glass-half-full argument.
 
To be quite frank, just because AMD hasn't been competing with Intel's high-end doesn't mean they aren't competing at all; why else did Intel break tradition in debuting high-end first and instead introduced Sandy Bridge with the mainstream P67/H67 chipsets?  Simple: At the time Fusion was the unknown threat to Intel's previous generation P55/H55 Lynnfield and Clarkdales since AMD was pushing it ahead of the Zambezi FX parts, and the Llano constant delays was their advantage.  Intel simply responded in kind with their one-step-ahead strategy.
 
Had instead Intel replaced X58 with X79 first and left P67/H67 to another quarter or year, Intel would have only been replacing their own chipset sales that could have been milked further with no high-end competition while AMD would have had a real chance at gaining shares in mainstream segment.
 
It is entirely possible Intel expected more from Bulldozer too, i.e. one reason why Intel debuted 2700K at all months afterwards as if it was scheduled before Bulldozer's debut.  In the past new AMD debuts led to Intel price drops to compete, not faster and more expensive SKUs.  Although the postponement of 3820 looked like 2700K became something to milk.
 
AMD is the same reason Sandy/Ivy came before their -E variants; one dead give away is their price, we can't just pair up flagship with flagship since the price gap is bigger than the performance gap.
 

seronx 
 AMD LGA 1974 with Interlagos is beating Intel LGA 2011 in Performance/Price by 2x.  1.33x on AM3+ and 1.25x on C32. 

AMD needs more marketing, I think that is the sole trouble.  Most folks I [used to] know have never heard of AMD, they think Intel is inside everything and take it for granted.

I'm not talking about server processors here, we can get into a whole different discussion if we want to start getting into Xeon against Opteron. I used to have a server with two Opteron's and I really liked it as a server set up, let's keep with the gaming/high performance segment. The FX-8150 is what around $180, and you can get a 2500K for about $210 these days? For $30, I'd say you are getting a pretty nice bump in performance overall, not in the two or three things that FX comes out on top in, overall performance. Let's face it, Steamroller was a total failure at launch and is still unoptimized to this day. And that 8150 is supposed to be their top end gaming CPU, and it can barely compete with a mid range Intel processor. Im not saying they aren't competing, they are dominating the APU market, and have a ton of OEM contracts. But they are not competing very well in the high end (gaming) segment at all, of course they are going to sell FX CPU's, there are the people who stand by AMD and wouldn't purchase an Intel CPU if their lives depended on it. But for anyone that is looking for a good performer, the nod goes to Intel, and it has for the past few generation in this market segment. We can throw die sizes and transistor counts around all we want, but at the end of the day and the bottom line, Intel is giving it to AMD. I want nothing more than for AMD to start releasing good CPU's that will compete with Intel for the enthusiast dollar, Intel needs that kind of competition so they can keep releasing better CPU's and their prices don't get more inflated.

Oh yeah I remember those days, thats when I used to own AMD products, haven't since the Core 2 era though.

lehpron
 I'm going to throw two wrenches in this wheel, if you don't mind:
What AMD stated in May 2012
What AMD stated in Oct 2011
 

Thank you sir as i read that news, but could not find it.
 
Now ignoring the AMD fanboy, Intel actually has the best for the price. The 2500k is $159.99
(http://www.microcenter.com/search/search_results.aspx?N=4294966995&NTX=&NTT=&NTK=all&sortby=pricehigh)
Now AMD's top and only CPU that can compete is the FX 8150 which is $179.99.
The only thing that the FX 8150 can beat the 2500k in is video editing.
 
Any application that uses 4 cores or less (Which is about everyone out there) will run better on a 2500k as it has strong cores.
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/AMD-FX-8150-vs-Core-i5-2500K-and-Core-i7-2600K-CPU-Review/1402/1
 
Now for budget builds, depending on what the person wants. I would consider a AMD cpu (Usually in a bundle, like here:
http://www.microcenter.com/site/products/amd_bundles.aspx)
But thats usually for people looking for Video editing. Even then, i would consider a Intel first. 
 
Now after the above rant, The new processors by AMD are coming way to slowly. 3-4 years is to long. 

Alcatraz968

lehpron
I'm going to throw two wrenches in this wheel, if you don't mind:
What AMD stated in May 2012
What AMD stated in Oct 2011

Thank you sir as i read that news, but could not find it.

Now ignoring the AMD fanboy, Intel actually has the best for the price. The 2500k is $159.99
(http://www.microcenter.com/search/search_results.aspx?N=4294966995&NTX=&NTT=&NTK=all&sortby=pricehigh)
Now AMD's top and only CPU that can compete is the FX 8150 which is $179.99.
The only thing that the FX 8150 can beat the 2500k in is video editing.

Any application that uses 4 cores or less (Which is about everyone out there) will run better on a 2500k as it has strong cores.
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/AMD-FX-8150-vs-Core-i5-2500K-and-Core-i7-2600K-CPU-Review/1402/1

Now for budget builds, depending on what the person wants. I would consider a AMD cpu (Usually in a bundle, like here:
http://www.microcenter.com/site/products/amd_bundles.aspx)
But thats usually for people looking for Video editing. Even then, i would consider a Intel first. 

Now after the above rant, The new processors by AMD are coming way to slowly. 3-4 years is to long. 

 
According to that CPU review, the FX-8150 is better in a few of those games as well. When looking at those 1920x1200 runs.

We really need AMD to get back in shape to fight Intel, otherwise Intel will just ask a fortune for their CPUs

I broke my cpu up and sold it not too long ago.  In the next 6 to 12 months I will be building me a budget gaming cpu and I would love to try a new "cheap" AMD cpu.  If it's anything like today where the dual core I3 at 100 bucks beats most lower end AMD Processors specifically the 4100 series i will be using intel again. The only problem is I fear that if new consoles come out next year that a dual core budget gaming machine won't suffice as I am expecting the next generation of games to utilize 4 cores or more so buying a dual core will be a waste.  So I hope AMD cam make a decent 4 core cpu that handles games just fine for around $125 and if they do I am on board.  Will still only use Nvidia graphics cause EVGA only makes Nvidia and I have always used EVGA for graphics cards and always will until they give me a reason not too which if it hasn't happened since the 9800 series it won't.

All my speculation...
 
Steamroller + Viperfish
10 cores/5 modules
288 bit DDR4 w/ ECC(4 x 72 bit ECC) (Quad-lane ECC DDR4)
Northbridge has the same clockrate as the cores
4 * Hypertransport 4.0 16 GT/s links
52/42 * PCI-e 3.0 Links
 
Totals
L1i Cache => 128 KBytes
Instruction Fetch = 64 Bytes
Instruction Pick Buffer(per core) = 256 Bytes
Instruction Decode = 64 Bytes per core
Instruction Dispatch = 64 Bytes per core
Instruction uCache = 8 x 16 Bytes per core?
Execution Core = 4 Micro-ops per clock per core(4 Macro-ops)
Floating Point Unit = 4 Micro-ops per core per clock(4 Macro-ops)
Retire Rate = 8 Macro-ops
L2 partions => 5 MB(LP)/1 MB partition per module, 10 MB(HPL)/2*1 MB partitions per module, 20 MB(HP)/4*1  MB partitions per module.
 
Each core has 4 AGLUs, 2 that deal with stores and 2 that deal with loads.
The Floating Point unit is the same as Bulldozer with modifications:
2 * 128-bit FMAC / FP FMA/MUL/ADDs + INT FMA/MUL + Conversions
1 * 256-bit ALU / INT ADD + XBR + FSTORE
FSTORE => 4 x 128 bit loads / 2 x 128 bit stores
 
Vertically Symmetrical Multithreading = XMT
Vertical Multithreading = VMT
Simultaneous Multithreading = SMT
 
XMT Units:
Pick
Decode
Dispatch
Cores
Retire
L1d

VMT Units:
Fetch
Prefetch
Misc
 
SMT Units:
FPU
 
Back to the Floating Point unit:
You either do 256 bit FMA or 256 bit MUL + 256 bit ADD for integer.
You either do 256 bit FMA or 256 bit MUL or 256 bit ADD for floating point.
 
SKUs:
10 cores, 5 - 20 MB, 3.0 GHz -> 3.4 GHz stock + 0.4 GHz turbo all core
8 cores, 4 - 16 MB, 3.2 GHz -> 3.6 GHz stock + 0.4 GHz turbo all core
6 cores, 3 - 12 MB, 3.4 GHz -> 3.8 GHz stock + 0.4 GHz turbo all core
 
L2 latency
one partition = 15 cycles? 1 MB
two partitions = 30 cycles? 2 MB
four partitions = 60 cycles? 4 MB
 
The L2 cache is shared with all cores and contains both data and instructions.  Steamroller = Big Jaguar/Jaguar = Little Jaguar