AMD's Bulldozer Processors Reportedly Delayed, More Specs Revealed
AMD's Bulldozer Processors Reportedly Delayed, More Specs Revealed
Posted 07/18/2011 at 8:05am
| by Paul Lilly
14
Comments
Print
A Turkish website known for posting pre-release information is reporting that AMD's Bulldozer launch is being pushed back by a few weeks. The reason, according to Donanimhaber.com, is AMD is having trouble churning out chips capable of reaching the clockspeeds required by revisions B0 and B1, though whether they're referring to the base clockspeed or Turbo Core is unclear.
As the story goes, AMD is planning to launch the following Bulldozer models:
- FX-8150: 3.6GHz (4.2GHz Turbo Core), 8-core, 8MB L2 cache, 125W
- FX-8120: 3.1GHz (4GHz Turbo Core), 8-core, 8MB L2 cache, 125W/95W
- FX-8100: 2.8GHz (3.7GHz Turbo Core), 8-core, 8MB L2 cache, 95W
- FX-6120: Clockspeeds TBD, 6-core, 6MB L2 cache, 95W
- FX-6100: 3.3GHz (3.9GHz Turbo Core), 6-core, 6MB L2 cache, 95W
- FX-4120: Clockspeeds TBD, 4-core, 6MB L2 cache, 95W
- FX-4100: 3.6GHz (3.8GHz Turbo Core), 4-core, 4MB L2 cache, 95W
According to Donanimhaber, all seven processors will sport 8MB of L3 cache and support DDR3-1866 memory. All are also being built on a 32nm manufacturing process and are now expected to launch in August and September, depending on SKU.
More like this
14
Comments
Comments are closed on this article
thetechchild
July 20, 2011 at 12:41am
Hmmm. Considering AMD's reluctance in releasing these chips, it's likely that Bulldozer won't match up to Sandy Bridge after all. Not to mention that Intel is soon to be releasing Sandy Bridge-E chips that will likely surpass both the 990X and the 2600K... Hexacore, 15 MB cache? Bulldozer is going to either fail or be way too cheap to be profitable...
I_pwn_newbz86
July 19, 2011 at 8:22am
I have heard that the reason AMD is going for such high clocks is because Bulldozer can't compete with sandybridge at the same or lower clocks. They're are trying to win this with high clock speeds which they can't even reach. While hopefully this isnt true only benchmarks will tell. AMD Netburst anyone? :P
Holly Golightly
July 19, 2011 at 12:00am
Geez, with these delays from AMD, it is like they do not want to compete against Sandy Bridge at all. I really do hope that they do outperform SandyBridy. This processor has been delayed long enough.
Kinetic
July 18, 2011 at 3:18pm
The way these delays are going, these processors should launch just in time for me to ditch AMD completely in favor of Ivy Bridge. The only reason I'm still even holding out hope for bulldozer is because I like having more than one PCI-E x16 lane to work with.
andrewc513
July 18, 2011 at 2:46pm
They were so close with the naming system. Ok, lead number denotes the number of cores. Why not just make the next 2 or 3 numbers the clockspeed? Doesn't make them even/pretty numbers, but I think it makes total sense:
FX-836 = 8 core, 3.6gHz
FX-831 = 8 core, 3.1gHz
FX-828 = 8 core, 2.8gHz
FX-633 = 6 core, 3.3gHz
FX-436 = 4 core, 3.6gHz
kixofmyg0t
July 18, 2011 at 2:42pm
I'll take the FX-8100.
A 2.8Ghz 8-core is plenty fine for me, its cheaper and is a 95W CPU which is important to me.
Keith E. Whisman
July 18, 2011 at 2:17pm
I wonder if the six and four core procs are just eight core procs with disabled cores? Will we one day be able to buy a cheap quad and unlock 2 or more cores?
mattman059
July 18, 2011 at 12:52pm
FX-8150: 3.6GHz (4.2GHz Turbo Core), 8-core, 8MB L2 cache, 125W
Drool....
Supall
July 18, 2011 at 8:54am
Another delay? Suits me fine. I'm holding out on building a new machine because of a lack of funds. Gives me more time to save up.
chart2006
July 18, 2011 at 8:20am
This isn't new. Bulldozer has expected a delayed launch of late August or early September for quite some time now. I'm assuming the unlocked/BE editions will be non existant due to the inability to obtain stable high clock speeds? If they are unlocked I wouldn't expect too much of an increase.
JohnP
July 18, 2011 at 6:09pm
Yeah, that is how I read the article also. If the higher speed yields are not coming out of production for NORMAL speeds, that sounds like a big problem for o/c.
DU00
July 18, 2011 at 10:36am
Where did you hear that they cant get stable high clock speeds? Just wondering. The processors seem to be doing ok in that department, if the specs are true. It probably wont go up to 5Ghz on air like Sandy Bridge, but neither did Bloomfield, so thats not too big an issue.
wolfpack
July 18, 2011 at 2:23pm
what he's trying to say is tht Bulldozer can't reach their reference speeds on their current revisions. Those are numbers the company would like to see but they are having delays in reaching them comfortably.
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/MaH9Sxyy20 hours 31 min ago
- maximumpc: Corsair has decided not to go forward with its $78 million IPO, citing weak equity market conditions http://t.co/A5a4DAzj20 hours 40 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 18 hours ago
