ExtremeTech: AMD Bulldozer FX pricing revealed: a lot cheaper than Sandy Bridge

StrangerGuy

Diamond Member
May 9, 2004
8,443
124
106
the six-core FX-6100 (i.e. three Bulldozer modules) clocked at 3.3GHz, with a Turbo Core boost to 3.9GHz, will retail for just $155. The eight-core (four-module) FX-8120, clocked at 3.1GHz and boosted to 4GHz, will retail for $185

Uh oh, thats not a good sign.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,377
126
Well, not the end of the world. If they are well worth it for the price points, then they'll make nice options. With the unlocked SBs being so massively better, it leaves a big section of chips that I have a hard time recommending (i3-2100, i5-2400, etc).

I don't think the smart money was ever on BD unseating or even matching the higher-spec SB chips.
 

Edrick

Golden Member
Feb 18, 2010
1,939
230
106
Lower than expected. But for $185, it may be worth picking one up to play with.
 

blckgrffn

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
9,111
3,029
136
www.teamjuchems.com
To be fair, they used the lowest of the estimated street prices from CPU World - this is a rehash of a rehash of a rumor.

Obviously, here I am reading it, so keep the rumors going :D
 

Rhezuss

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2006
4,120
34
91
What doesn't look good?

It's a nice chip for 155/185 bucks that will perform adequately in that price range.

Having 229 FPS in games with a i7 2600k for $300 or 156FPS with a FX-6100 for $155, I know where my money will go...
 

formulav8

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2000
7,004
522
126
You people need to realize this is a server cpu first. Just like every AMD cpu since the original sledgehammer cpu's. They make some minor memory controller changes among some other things like removing htt links and thats their desktop cpu.

In other words, it will excel the most at what it was designed for, servers. Desktops is of secondary importance.
 
Last edited:

Vesku

Diamond Member
Aug 25, 2005
3,743
28
86
Wonder how well they've binned between 8120 and 8150, since they are all fully unlocked it is tempting to get the lowest priced 4 module and see how high it goes.

Will be eager to see in early reviews exactly how they behave overclocked, will the TDP throttling they introduced get in the way?
 

lol123

Member
May 18, 2011
162
0
0
You people need to realize this is a server cpu first. Just like every AMD cpu since the original sledgehammer cpu's. They make some minor memory controller changes among some other things like removing htt links and thats their desktop cpu.

In other words, it will excel the most at what it was designed for, servers. Desktops is of secondary importance.
Is that what the story is now? Bulldozer was never designed to have great desktop performance?

This might be great news for the consumer, but I feel sorry for AMD. They really could have used a cycle where they can sell their top CPUs for $800-1000 like back in 2005.
 
Last edited:

Eeqmcsq

Senior member
Jan 6, 2009
407
1
0
To be fair, they used the lowest of the estimated street prices from CPU World - this is a rehash of a rehash of a rumor.

Obviously, here I am reading it, so keep the rumors going :D

Yeah, and cpu-world.com grabbed their info from listings at shopblt.com, then factored in a price drop.

I'm waiting for real benchmarks to see how the FX-6100 3M/6C/6T compares with the similarly priced Thuban X6s. I'm really curious to know how closely the duplicated integer cluster ends up performing as a second "core". Well, at least the FX-6100 will be 95w TDP.
 

LOL_Wut_Axel

Diamond Member
Mar 26, 2011
4,310
8
81
No way, man. This would mean that Bulldozer actually has inferior IPC to Llano.

Otherwise, WHY SO CHEAP?
 

formulav8

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2000
7,004
522
126
Is that what the story is now? Bulldozer was never designed to have great desktop performance?

What are you talking about by thats the story now? That is my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less? :confused:

I said is its primary mission is for servers. I didn't say anything about it was going to have bad desktop performance? I'm saying that it will pretty much end up being a better server cpu than a desktop cpu. Understand now? :\
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
What doesn't look good?

It's a nice chip for 155/185 bucks that will perform adequately in that price range.

Having 229 FPS in games with a i7 2600k for $300 or 156FPS with a FX-6100 for $155, I know where my money will go...

Why would you compare a $300 i7 2600k to an FX-6100? How about an i5-2400 $189 vs. FX-6100? or even $219 2500k? 2600k is not better in games than the cheaper i5 quads.

Now in the context of a $155 CPU vs. a $220 CPU. The total system cost is at least $500-600, correct? $65 more is 10% more expensive....for a platform that overclocks to 4.5ghz+. Even if you consider on a per part upgrade, AM3+ users purchased X4 /X6 CPUs and now are going to outlay even more cash for BD? They would have been better off getting any of the previous generation i5/i7 or even SB now. I don't understand the logic of buying slower X4/X6 AMD cpus, only to throw more $ to upgrade to a still slower BD core.

Otherwise, WHY SO CHEAP?

Focusing on more cores for less $. That has been AMD's strategy for 5 years now. I still don't understand how some expected Nehalem like IPC for the 8 core CPU. That would have meant an 8 core i5 760 CPU @ 4.2ghz clocks.......for $300. If such a monster CPU was in the pipeline, why so many delays? Also, how would an 8 core i5 760 style 4.0ghz+ CPU fare against a 2500k/2600k? Ya, it would crush them, literally by a magnitude of 50-100%! (Since SB is only 15% faster in IPC over Nehalem).

If FX-8150 = 8 core i5 760 4.2ghz CPU, that would probably even beat the $999 SB-E chip without much trouble. Also, going with Module design hinted at minimum 10-20% loss in performance vs. a dedicated dual core design. This was also documented 13 months ago. In other words, BD would have needed at minimum an IPC increase of 15-20% over Phenom II dual core just to match Phenom II's IPC (80-90% module penalty * 1.20 IPC increase = 96%-108% of Phenom II per clock). I think I repeated this many times and most people dismissed my comments.
 
Last edited:

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,000
3,357
136
Heh, Newegg has the Llano A8-3850 a quad core 2.9GHz CPU at 139.00 and you actually believe that a 6-Core BD will be at 150 ?? o_O

What about 4-Core BD ?? they will give them for free ?? :p
 

Vesku

Diamond Member
Aug 25, 2005
3,743
28
86
Focusing on more cores for less $. That has been AMD's strategy for 5 years now. I still don't understand how some expected Nehalem like IPC for the 8 core CPU. That would have meant an 8 core i5 760 CPU @ 4.2ghz clocks.......for $300.

But is it unreasonable to expect something close to 90% of Nehalem IPC? 8 core i5 7xx @ 3.3GHz non-turbo? Ideally I should probably start collecting Nehalem review data to compare against BD launch reviews. Here's to hoping the BD reviews include some overlapping applications.
 

LOL_Wut_Axel

Diamond Member
Mar 26, 2011
4,310
8
81
Because BD most likely isn't going to be nearly as good as you thought it was going to be.

I didn't think it was gonna be amazing, but I thought IPC near Nehalem was realistic. After all, all they'd only be bridging one generational gap. If they did that, the FX-8150 would be a bit faster than the Core i7-990X overall. But alas, now I see that's asking too much.
 

Chiropteran

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2003
9,811
110
106
Heh, Newegg has the Llano A8-3850 a quad core 2.9GHz CPU at 139.00 and you actually believe that a 6-Core BD will be at 150 ?? o_O

What about 4-Core BD ?? they will give them for free ?? :p

BD doesn't come with a "free" ~$50 graphics card. Add in the price of a discrete card and the price seems right in line compared to llano.
 

LOL_Wut_Axel

Diamond Member
Mar 26, 2011
4,310
8
81
BD doesn't come with a "free" ~$50 graphics card. Add in the price of a discrete card and the price seems right in line compared to llano.

Heh. I've mentioned it many times, but what about the A8-3870? Unlocked and comes with that $50 IGP. For around $150-160.
 

Vesku

Diamond Member
Aug 25, 2005
3,743
28
86
Not sure what the unlocked Llanos mean for BD but it must mean GloFo's 32nm is improving. I'd imagine they'd need at least 10-15% headroom at stock voltage to not be embarrassed they slapped a K on the box. Should finally be some interesting AMD things to read about in Q4.
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
But is it unreasonable to expect something close to 90% of Nehalem IPC? 8 core i5 7xx @ 3.3GHz non-turbo? Ideally I should probably start collecting Nehalem review data to compare against BD launch reviews. Here's to hoping the BD reviews include some overlapping applications.

Ya, but rumors continued to hint that top parts would turbo to 4.0-4.2ghz. Then and there I became extremely suspicious regarding IPC.

If you have 90% of IPC of Nehalem, then a 4.2ghz 8 core FX = 3.78ghz Core i5 760. You know how fast that is?

If a 4.2ghz 8 core FX = 3.78ghz Lynnfield/Nehalem, then it's also roughly equal to an 8 core 2500k @ 3.3ghz because SB has a 15% increase in IPC over Nehalem.

So you'd end up with a 4.2ghz FX 8150 = 8 core 2500k @ 3.3ghz roughly. :rolleyes: That's insanely fast.

I didn't think it was gonna be amazing, but I thought IPC near Nehalem was realistic. After all, all they'd only be bridging one generational gap. If they did that, the FX-8150 would be a bit faster than the Core i7-990X overall. But alas, now I see that's asking too much.

Look at the math above. You'd have a CPU 2x faster than a 2500k in mutli-threaded apps. Even going by your logic, beating a $999 Core i7 990X with a $300 AMD CPU after being 40% behind in IPC for 3 years? HOW? Your expectations are way too high imo.

It seems AMD decided to focus on cores this generation. It's a decent strategy for servers and from a marketing perspective.
 
Last edited: