AMD Inadvertently Tips Price of FX-8150P Bulldozer Processor
AMD Inadvertently Tips Price of FX-8150P Bulldozer Processor
Posted 08/01/2011 at 9:26am
| by Paul Lilly
12
Comments
Print
AMD still hasn't officially announced a release date for its 8-core FX-series Bulldozer processors, nor has the chip maker offered up any pricing information, or at least not purposely. In what might have been an oversight on AMD's part (or perhaps the Santa Clara company isn't real concerned about keeping it a secret), the chip maker all but confirmed the price of its flagship FX-8150 processor will be $300. How do we know?
Kudos to Insideris.com for reading the 'Rules and Regulations' section of AMD's FX giveaway. The contest states "5 lucky winners will get an AMD FX 8-core processor" and a "collectible Ruby Doll to 100 winners." In the Rules and Regulations section, AMD goes into a bit more detail and lists the approximate retail value or the processors at $300 USD each.
So there you have it. It's worth noting that AMD didn't specify the chip model it's giving away, but with a retail value of $300, it's a safe bet contest winners will receive the flagship FX-8150. For the sake of comparison, Intel's fastest Sandy Bridge processor -- Core i7 2600K -- streets for around $315.
The FX-8150 sports eight cores clocked at 3.6GHz (4.2GHz via Turbo Core), has 8MB of cache, and a TDP rated at 125W.
More like this
12
Comments
Comments are closed on this article
bowei006
August 02, 2011 at 9:17pm
Sadly AMD hasn't kept it's promise of AM3 upgradability. But...whatever. I wasn't gonna keep this mobo anyway. the GHz really dosen't say much. it's the efficeny of the pipeline. a higher GHz at that certain pipeline would make that cpu faster than other cpu's with the same cores and lower clock rate with the same pipeline. so it's not a direct comparison of hey look that intel is at 2Ghz while that AMD one is at 3GHz or something.
meatpatty
August 01, 2011 at 5:35pm
The FX-8150 has a lot more cache than 8MB...
- 128kB - 16 kB four-way L1 data cache (way-predicted) per core
- 256kB - 64 kB two-way L1 instruction cache per module (one way for each of the two cores)
- 8MB - 2MB L2 cache per module (shared beteween cores in module)
- 8 MB - L3 cache shared among all modules (divided into four subcaches)
The poster should at leat least count the FX-8150 as having 16MB cache.
Krtek
August 01, 2011 at 10:54pm
I don't think mentioning 16 MB cache is entirely fair as you won't be able to store anything more than 8MB of actual data in all the caches together. All the smaller caches will contain copies of lines that are already in the largest cache, with the largest cache ( the highest level; 3 ) loading new lines from RAM if it doesn't have the one the lower cache level requested.
It's not bad to mention all the cache levels though, but simply adding them up doesn't seem fair. The amount of cache in the lower levels affects performance way more than the higher levels.
meatpatty
August 04, 2011 at 2:19pm
That might have been correct if AMD used an entirely strictly inclusive caching method, but they are not.
Kinetic
August 01, 2011 at 6:54pm
Amen to that. If they have processors to give away, do they have processor samples to give to -or even loan to- sites like MPC, PCgamer, Guru3D, etc. so we can see some ACTUAL benchmarks?
bautrey
August 01, 2011 at 12:05pm
Good, just within my price range, though it would be nice if icould win that contest
TerribleToaster
August 01, 2011 at 9:48am
Clearly this article was meant as MPC's shot at Intel as part of their [insert conspiracy theory here].
(Ok, I'm done, no more. I promise).
But in all seriousness, anyone able to direct me to Santa Clara? And/or know of any dual CPU AMD boards? (I need 16 physical cores, screw you).
Marthian
August 01, 2011 at 6:23pm
you know, since those extremely fast sandy bridge cpus that have a huge performance per price (or however its worded), I've pretty much dismissed any "conspiracies" about Intel...
Although seeing as this is $300, I don't think I would be justified in paying for it if I can get a i7 2600k for a little more (I already have an i5 2500k.) until I see benchmarks.
Happy
August 01, 2011 at 8:52pm
if the 100W TDP A series processors are kicking the i3's butt at graphics then it stands to reason that the 125W TDP Bulldozer CPUs will downright thrash (or at least handily beat) the i7 2600k at graphics. Even if the CPU is only comparable to the i7 CPU, the graphics will be far better and since it costs the same as the Sandy Bridge i7 it should be a far better value (not to mention, the AM3 socket will last far longer and so we won't have to worry about buying a new mobo for every new CPU that is put out like we do with Intel).
petrol42
August 02, 2011 at 9:29pm
From what I understand is that the Bulldozer is a CPU, not an APU like the AMD Fusion is so Bulldozer is still going to need a graphics card to work.
Whaterever though, I'm still excited about Bulldozer and I hope they could give sIntel a run for its money.
gendoikari1
August 01, 2011 at 2:35pm
Dual Opteron, sure.
http://usa.asus.com/Server_Workstation/Server_Motherboards/KCMAD8/
Connect with MaximumPC
Featured Content
The gang discusses the GTX 690, Trinity, Ivy Bridge, Amazon, big-box stores, MMOs,...
This month's issue
Feature
Build a PC On Any Budget
Feature
Cloud Services Showdown
How-To
Encrypt Your External Drive
Build It
Upgrade an X58 Rig
Most Commented Articles
Latest Max PC Tweets
- maximumpc: Original RickRoll Video Returns to YouTube After 24-Hour Copyright Hiatus http://t.co/MaH9Sxyy12 hours 33 min ago
- maximumpc: Corsair has decided not to go forward with its $78 million IPO, citing weak equity market conditions http://t.co/A5a4DAzj12 hours 42 min ago
- maximumpc: Want to work at Maximum PC? Our Online Managing Editor, Alex, is moving away, so we need a new one. http://t.co/9Z7JCh0E2 days 10 hours ago
