Though 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

Comments Locked


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 dummie

    how 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 faith
  • PlugPulled - Monday, September 12, 2011 - link

  • sangyup81 - 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

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now