Pricing revealed for some AMD Bulldozer desktop processors: eight cores for under $300

Pricing revealed for some AMD Bulldozer desktop processors: eight cores for under $300

Summary: As AMD works to ready its new Bulldozer desktop processors for release next month, it may be planning to price them even lower than initially thought. While the top FX series chip was once expected at around $320, CPU World reports that the eight-core FX-8150 was priced for pre-order at one online retailer for just $266.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Processors, Hardware
13

As AMD works to ready its new Bulldozer desktop processors for release next month, it may be planning to price them even lower than initially thought. While the top FX series chip was once expected at around $320, CPU World reports that the eight-core FX-8150 was priced for pre-order at one online retailer for just $266.28.

The same retailer, shopblt.com, had another eight-core "Zambezi" CPU, the FX-8120, priced for $221.73, while the six-core FX-6100 is available for $188.32. The FX-6100 would be priced right around the current pricing for the top six-core Phenom II X6 processor, the 1100T Black Edition.

If the FX-8150 is indeed priced accurately, it would undercut the Intel Core i7-2600 processor, which is presumably its top competition. But can it outperform the quad-core Sandy Bridge chip, or is it priced lower because it can't compete with the i7-2600's performance? Hopefully, we'll finally get to find out next month.

[Via VR-Zone]

Topics: Processors, Hardware

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

13 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • RE: Pricing revealed for some AMD Bulldozer desktop processors: eight cores for under $300

    From all the leaked benchmarks and AMD's constant delays, I'm inclined to believe that Bulldozer won't be able to conquer the core i7-2600k. Also, we can see that AMDs is using 8 physical cores to compete with 4 Sandy Bridge cores. That is another indicator of Bulldozer's potential weakness.
    If the price is right, however I wouldn't mind going for the highest model. The given pricing sure seems to be very attractive.
    But per core performance is very important for day to day usage and gaming too, I am waiting for proper reviews for those metrics as well. Overall, this is just an exciting next few months to be buying a new CPU.
    regsrini
    • RE: Pricing revealed for some AMD Bulldozer desktop processors: eight cores for under $300

      @regsrini Maybe you should do some research. The 8 "cores" of the Bulldozer chip is more of what we think of as a quad core. Each core only handles integers, with two sharing a module for floating point operations. Basically it's doing exactly what Intel is doing with hyperthreading, just more efficiently.
      Aerowind
      • RE: Pricing revealed for some AMD Bulldozer desktop processors: eight cores for under $300

        @Aerowind Wow you're ok until your last sentence which is just plain wrong. Maybe you should be the one reading up on the Bulldozer architecture.

        Think of it in terms of Bulldozer Modules. Each Bulldozer Module has the full capability to handle two threads for fetch/decode, etc. and has two integer units. So for integer calculation (which the majority of work usually is), one Bulldozer Module handles two threads simultaneously. It can also handle one integer calculation and one floating point calculation simultaneously. Each Bulldozer Module has only one floating point unit however. The end result is that each module basically acts like two full-on cores most of the time and acts like one core for the small part of the time that two floating point calculations are needed on that particular module. AMD chose to call that two cores. That naming is sort of becoming arbitrary at this point. AMD has basically optimized the die space for the workload this way since it can put in twice as much integer capability than floating point. It's a good idea.

        In case you're not aware, the difference of this with Intel's HyperThreading is that HyperThreading has the capability to handle two threads in one core for the fetch/decode/housekeeping stuff but there is just one integer unit and one floating point unit in each core. It generally improves performance a significant amount but there are some situations where it can slow things down since it will try to piggyback threads in the same core that would have performed quicker on different cores. Anyway, you could call AMD's method Strong Hyperthreading and Intel's method Weak Hyperthreading. Or you could call AMD's method Weak Cores and Intel's method Strong Cores. Just keep in mind that an 8 core Bulldozer CPU actually can run 8 threads at one time for integer work. So that sounds much better to me than 4 threads that a traditional quad core has. Considering that Intel's six core CPUs are $600 and $1000, Bulldozer is competing against Intel's quad cores. Even with some floating point work, the 8 core Bulldozer may act like a 6 core then, but that's still an advantage to Bulldozer. We'll just have to see how it turns out in real life. With the pricing leaks I've seen, it seems to be priced under Intel so it's likely not competing on performance with Intel's high end quad cores right now. I'll reserve judgement for the 2nd gen since a big change like this probably won't realize all its advantages until a bit later.
        Lindo_wvw
      • RE: Pricing revealed for some AMD Bulldozer desktop processors: eight cores for under $300

        @Aerowind Everyone seems to be missing the advantages of sharing an FPU. AMD has said that while there may only be one per module, they managed to make it more beefy than if there were 8 of them. Most programs haven't been compiled for AVX yet, and so use 128-bit FP instructions. The Bulldozer FPU has TWO 128-bit execution pipelines which are combined when performing AVX instructions...so even FP-intensive workloads should work quite well in BD. Even when AVX becomes more prevalent, the FPU should be adequate for most usage, desktop users don't usually spend a lot of time crunching FP numbers.<br><br>Also, a BD module's threading is much more effective than Intel's HT. With HT, Intel eeks an extra 30% performance from a core. AMD has stated that BD's second int core gives 70%+ performance boost over a single core. Intel's solution really is no match for a BD module in terms of multithreading performance. Hopefully BD's single-threaded performance will be enough to get close to SB. This architecture will only improve moving forward; when AMD can boost the IPC Intel will have some real competition.
        dew111
    • RE: Pricing revealed for some AMD Bulldozer desktop processors: eight cores for under $300

      @regsrini the benchmarks are fake.
      jewie27
  • RE: Pricing revealed for some AMD Bulldozer desktop processors: eight cores for under $300

    JF the server rep said not to believe the current benchmarks as most are either fake, or using evaluation chips, (which do not include the current builds). Believe nothing until the chips come out and are bench-marked by reputable sites. ALso, pay close attention to the architecture,,,,,AMD chose something that is new, and not fully understood as far as the benefits. Knowing that, we cannot tell if eight cores need be seen as a weakness, or just another way of getting better overall performance out of said chip. Keep watching, as I think you will be pleasantly surprised!
    Rikaroo
  • RE: Pricing revealed for some AMD Bulldozer desktop processors: eight cores for under $300

    ::Drools:: Can't wait! I will drop 270$ on the top of the line chip without a second thought. Been waiting for these chips for too damn long now!
    Bates_
  • Aside

    Sean: your habit of repeating the summary in the first para of the post word-for-word is ... a waste of space.
    jacksonjohn
  • RE: Pricing revealed for some AMD Bulldozer desktop processors: eight cores for under $300

    <br><br><b>I just got a $829.99 iPad2 for only $103.37 and my mom got a $1499.99 HDTV for only $251.92, they are both coming with USPS tomorrow. I would be an idiot to ever pay full retail prices at places like Walmart or Bestbuy. I sold a 37" HDTV to my boss for $600 that I only paid $78.24 for. I use http://bit.ly/grab2014</b>
    johnperkins030
  • isn't &quot;Bulldozer&quot; already a trademark?

    see Subject<br><br>Terry Thomas<br>Owner<br>PC Tech Support (every PC we build uses an AMD CPU)<br>Atlanta, Georgia
    AtlantaTerry
  • AMD is looking for it's next Athlon wonder, but always come short.

    AMD has not had a compeditive processor since the race to reach 1ghz processors. Intel decided they could pad their stats by releasing the P4 with it's infamous netburst architecture which we all know alowed the P4 obtain extreamly high clock speeds for the price of less instructions per clock. This looked great on paper. Average users were more likely to get a 2.8Gz Pentium 4 vs a 2ghz Athlon XP, even when the Athon architecture was just as good or even beter at 2.0ghz.

    however this was the calculation of raw processing speed. Processors use extesions as short cuts to make processing faster and easier. Well since intel was the defacto processor platform. Devs utillized the extentions on the Intel better than those on the Athlon.

    Bottom Line, no matter how much horse power AMD's Buldoser has, it's no match for the i7 and it's shortcuts.
    Bakabaka
    • RE: Pricing revealed for some AMD Bulldozer desktop processors: eight cores for under $300

      @Bakabaka

      I beg to differ. The Athlon 64 killed the Pentium 4's of the same era.

      While Intel may have the performance crown now I still think when it comes to real world performance AMD holds its own. If you stack AMD up against an intel in the same price bracket (with AMD coming in a bit cheaper most times) the real world performance is about the same. If you go by synthetic benchmarks Intel may get a few seconds here and there and a few FPS better here and there too but most people do not notice that.

      Also that being said the biggest performance bottleneck in today's computing is the hard drive. Throw a nice SSD drive in and just about any modern computer will be lightning fast.

      Of course you are right about the consumers falling for the higher clock speeds of the Pentium 4. What a joke that was.
      bobiroc
  • RE: Pricing revealed for some AMD Bulldozer desktop processors: eight cores for under $300

    A little more detail, the new AMD Opteron 16 core processors are:

    6272 @ 2.1Ghz, $596

    6274 @ 2.2Ghz, $680

    Prices pulled from a vendor on Google Shopping search engine.

    All the 6200 series processors appear to offer turbo core capabilities in excess of 3.0Ghz.

    3.0Ghz processors in the ASUS KGPE-D16 Socket G34 motherboard will be very welcome! Here is how it performs with dual AMD Opteron 6128 cpus. http://www.epinions.com/content_553298202244
    rgathright