Pricing Revealed for First AMD Bulldozer FX Chips
by Andrew Cunningham on September 12, 2011 2:00 PM ESTThough AMD began shipping Bulldozer-based sever CPUs last week, we're still waiting until Q4 for the new architecture to hit the desktop. In the meantime, however, pre-order pricing for the high-end FX-series CPUs (codenamed Zambezi) has been leaked, giving the AMD faithful an idea of how much the new processors will set them back.
| AMD Bulldozer FX-series Processors | |||||||
| Name | Cores | CPU Clock | L2 Cache | L3 Cache | TDP | Price | |
| FX-8150 | 8 | 3.6GHz (4.2GHz Turbo) | 8MB | 8MB | 125W | $266.28 | |
| FX-8120 | 8 | 3.1GHz (4GHz Turbo) | 8MB | 8MB | 125W | $221.73 | |
| FX-6100 | 6 | 3.3GHz (3.9GHz Turbo) | 6MB | 8MB | 95W | $188.32 | |
If you think that these prices seem too low for eight and six-core chips, remember that Bulldozer's architecture is such that a "dual-core" CPU is actually one core with two copies of several hardware features - the CPU is visible to the OS as two cores, but physically each of AMD's cores is somewhere in between Intel's HyperThreading implementation and a "true" dual-core design - you can read Anand's original Bulldozer post for more information on this.
The Bulldozer-based FX-series processors are targeted at the high-end of the market, and therefore do not include an on-board GPU. The 32nm processors will be available in Q4 of this year for socket AM3+ motherboards (and some socket AM3 motherboards with an updated BIOS, though these motherboards may not be able to take advantage of all of Bulldozer's new features).
Source: CPU World
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
55 Comments
View All Comments
icrf - Monday, September 12, 2011 - link
Let me simplify it for you:If you're running scalar integer code, a module is equal to two cores.
If you're running floating point or vector(SIMD) code, a module is equal to one core.
You can't just say "cores" without specifying what workload, as that is a major determining factor with Bulldozer.
And even then, the power of a "core" is variable. A single integer core in Bulldozer is likely not as powerful as a single core in Sandy Bridge, but they're likely selling you more the money. A single float/vector core in Bulldozer has a better chance at being comparable with Sandy Bridge.
Alexvrb - Monday, September 12, 2011 - link
Actually the bit about only equalling one core for floating point/SIMD is not entirely true. Look at the diagram again. Do some reading. AMD calls it "Flex FP", there's two 128-bit FMACs for a reason. The only time they work as a single 256-bit unit is for AVX, IIRC. For the vast majority of FP instructions, there's two 128-bit units per module.This isn't really a bad approach. In fact it's nearly as good as completely duplicating all the hardware, but it saves them a good bit of die space which they can use towards more cores. So yes, I wouldn't try to compare AMD and Intel on a core-by-core basis, any more than you would compare them on a clock-per-clock basis. You're better off comparing them on price/performance. If this pricing is true, these chips are very reasonable and will probably carry a decent punch. I will certainly consider them for a gaming rig.
Also, a modern OS thread scheduler is HT aware, so I have no reason to believe a future update (Windows 8 for example) couldn't schedule to Bulldozer in a similar fashion to help maximize usage of the cores.
Angels77 - Tuesday, September 13, 2011 - link
can you simplify it for a pc dummiehow well (or not )will these modules / cores handle chess ?
silverblue - Tuesday, September 13, 2011 - link
Haha... the Fritz benches will be coming thick and fast.Wolfpup - Tuesday, September 13, 2011 - link
Performance isn't the issue...I mean dual core ARM 11 is whimpy-like two 486s kind of, but it's clear cut dual core.This though has 2 cores worth of integer hardware for every one core of floating point hardware, basically. It's very different from anything before it in that regard.
I mean yeah, Intel's current stuff shares cache, but that's not at all the same thing-it wouldn't even have to, it's just more efficient because the same data may get used by more than one core.
That's not to say this isn't going to be a good design...we just don't know. Really we need to know how they perform on a clock for clock basis versus Sandy and Ivy bridge. If it's all as fast, then a "8 core" Bulldozer will be twice as fast as a quad core i7 at integer, and the same speed at floating point...basically. But we just don't know how it compares.
yankeeDDL - Wednesday, September 14, 2011 - link
You're perfectly right, but still, 8 cores for $266 seems a sweet deal.Looking at the benchmarks leaked on March (which, of course, could be totally fake), it seems that 3.5GHz of Bulldozer are au-pair with 4GHz SB.
This means that the FX-8150 should trash the i7-2600 which currently costs $299. Let's hope the leaked benchmarks are true ...
789e2d - Monday, September 12, 2011 - link
They should tell us how many bulldozer units are in there.1 bulldozer unit = 2 cores.
Also it's nice to see, that AMD is back on the road in the high-end sector.
Was about time.
BSMonitor - Tuesday, September 13, 2011 - link
at $250, they must not have too much faithPlugPulled - Monday, September 12, 2011 - link
lolsangyup81 - Monday, September 12, 2011 - link
there will be 8 integer cores but only 4 FPUs though these will be actually be 256-bit FPUs.... AMD is gambling that most people will not need so much FPU