Print
The hype and anticipation continues to build for AMD's upcoming Bulldozer launch, and all with nary a peep from AMD. It isn't that AMD isn't talking about Bulldozer -- it is, and AMD just recently announced revenue shipments of its first Bulldozer processors (for servers) -- it's just that AMD has yet to reveal any specifics, like a release date, clockspeeds, and pricing information, leaving the Internet to do its thing.
Recent rumors suggest AMD doesn't plan to Bulldoze(r) the desktop market until the fourth quarter, which will see the launch of two quad-core chips (FX-4100 and FX-4170), a six-core chip (FX-6100), and three eight-core processors (FX-8100, FX-8120, and FX-8150). More processors will follow in the first quarter of 2012, fleshing out all three core-counts with one more processor in each category. But what about price?
Take this for what it's worth, but an online store called Bottom Line Telecommunications posted pre-ording pricing for three Bulldozer chips, including:
All three of these appear to be retail box parts. But what's really great, assuming the pricing info is even remotely accurate, is that it looks as though AMD plans to aggressively price its eight-core Bulldozer chips, with the sub-$300 FX-8150 ranking as AMD's flagship Bulldozer part for 2011.
Comments are closed on this article
aferrara50
September 12, 2011 at 8:50pm
I do wish AMD would put out a high end chip to compete with the intel extreme editions. Seems like they'll be great budget cpus, just like the 1090t. It just sucks that it's chips lack anything similar to hyperthreading. If they did then they'd definitely be able to compete in the upper mid range. Interested to see how these actually perform in real world situations, not synthetics, although I do like those for e-peen enhancement. Will definitely make those xeon 2680/90s worth it.
neros1x
September 13, 2011 at 7:34am
I would love to see a return to the days of AMD superiority, but really, is it neccessary? There is literally nothing I need an Extreme Edition for that I can't get from a $200 processor these days.
bensen408
September 16, 2011 at 1:30pm
Having owned the original FX-51 CPU which spanked so much Intel a$$ for awhile, I'm looking forward to Intel getting a royal spanking, a$$ whooping, and a round house kick to the nuts that leaves them on the floor fetal position for awhile. Probably won't happen... but it would be nice.
makius
September 13, 2011 at 3:40am
I'm just plain done dealing with Intels BS socket changes. The 1155/1156 socket change was the last straw. I mean really?... 1 pin... really? At least I know I will be able to get some longevity out of a rig built around AMD/bulldozer and not get shafted with a new socket every time the weather changes.
The perfomance will still be more than adequate for my needs, who cares if I get another 1-2fps (if that) in a game. I'd rather use the money I save to buy a better video card/SSD/MOBO/RAM/Mountain Dew... w/e
warptek2010
September 13, 2011 at 11:10pm
This is one of the reasons I favor AMD. They actually have some respect for their customers. Intel has had it too easy and it banks on it's name recognition and industry leadership to get away with crap like that. Performance enthusiasts have to keep in mind that cpu's have reached a kind of nadir as far as performance goes. There is literally no cpu on the market from Intel or AMD (with the exception of their very low end parts) that won't run anything within reasonable performance leveles nowadays. Enthusiasts are beginning to look more at subsystems i.e. memory latency, speed, etc... i/o performance from ssd's etc... to improve system performance than cpu's megahertz. Overall system speed and responsiveness as a whole and not just in certain components and subsystems will reign supreme.
Cykotr0n.
September 12, 2011 at 4:04pm
AMD is known for being practical and sensible. They are not going to make a CPU thast 1k USD becuase its impractical for a home user. Those that do buy 1k chips are usualy gaming elitests that want that minescule percentage gain in performance or a Graphics/Video designer that realy do need the cores (that is a VERY small market).
As for the rest of you who are intel blue boys, please stop assuming you think Ivy Bridge or Sandy Bridge will be better for the price point. The benches for those conclusions arent out yet and you realy make your Fan group look less inteligent for saying so.
/rant off
I look forward to seeing what AMD has behind theyre curtains. Should be a good show for us practical builders looking to get the best for the buck (which AMD is famous for *cough K Series*. If things look good, ill ditch my 5.2 ghz 2600k Sandy Bridge for one of those newer AMD procs (mostly because i am using AMD cards wich usualy work well if not better on AMD Chipsets).
oldobamaliar
September 12, 2011 at 9:47am
judging by the price points it would seem the performance is lackluster
warptek2010
September 13, 2011 at 11:19pm
Yeah, I mean really. You probably have to wait like 3 or 4 seconds more for your video encoding to finish. An eternity in computer time!
DasHellMutt
September 12, 2011 at 2:58pm
I'm not sure how your come to that conclusion. I would think that the prices indicate strong performance versus the Sandy Bridge 2600K which is priced at about $300. Remember that AMD is never going to play in the ultra high end $1,000 CPU market because there really isn't a market there. Its just a place to show off, not really make money and have a real business. They are all about hitting center mass or slightly above and the 2600K is what you want to compete with on price/performance ratio.
big_montana
September 12, 2011 at 9:51am
Or it is AMD's way of building up marketshare and interest.
