AMD Bulldozer, Llano Pricing Surface

[btarunr]

Here are the first figures made public of the market prices of AMD's upcoming two lines of desktop processors. AMD will approach the desktop PC market with two platforms, the A-Series "Llano" accelerated processing units (APUs), and the FX-series "Zambezi" processors (CPUs). APUs are functionally similar to Intel's Sandy Bridge processors, in having processor cores, a graphics processor, memory controller, and PCI-Express switch packed into a single piece of silicon. AMD is apparently relying on its powerful GPU architecture to make Llano a more wholesome product. Zambezi functionally resembles Intel Westmere/Bloomfield, in having a number of processing cores, a high-bandwidth memory controller, and a large cache packed into a single die, making up for a performance part.

By mid-June, AMD will launch the FX-Series with two a 4-core, a 6-core, and two 8-core parts. The series will be led by eight-core AMD FX-8130P priced at US $320, trailed by FX-8130 at US $290. The former probably is a "unlocked" part. Next up is the six-core FX-6110, priced at $240. Lastly there's the quad-core FX-4110, going for $220. You will notice that the price per core isn't as linear as it was in the previous generation.

Around the same time as the FX-Series, AMD will launch its A-Series APUs, based on the brand new FM1 socket and single-chip chipset. The series is capped off by A8-3550P, which is an unlocked quad-core part priced at $170. Its "locked" variant, the A8-3550, will be priced $20 less, at $150. The A8 sub-series consists of quad-core parts with 400 stream processors enabled in the iGPU. Next up is the unlocked A6-3450P quad-core priced at $130, its locked counterpart, the A6-3450, is priced at $110. With A6 sub-series, the iGPU has 320 stream processors. At the bottom of the pile are dual-core parts, A4-3350P priced at $80, and E2-3350 at $70. The E2 sub-series has 240 stream processors on the iGPU. All prices in 1000-unit tray quantities.



Source: DigiTimes

[Franjul08]

Cant wait for Benchmarks....

[Damn_Smooth]

I guess the "leak" I posted was right.

[WhiteLotus]

I am really looking forward to what the APUs can do.

[Strider]

The list price on the FX-series "Zambezi" processors look great. I am currently running the Phenom II X6 1090T 4.0GHz OC and this ASUS Crosshair Formula IV is one of the boards that has support for it. So needless to say, I have been really considering upgrading to an octo-core.

At a cost of about $300, there is a good chance I may jump on the Zambezi bandwagon pretty early on and give the processors a spin. That's highly affordable considering what you are getting. Can't wait to see how one of these will run in my system.

I really don't care about synthetic online benchmarks, they never tell the whole story. I am a gamer at heart, and I configure my main rig accordingly. Simply put, I don't play synthetic benchmarks, I play games. Gameplay performance is far more important to me. So I really want to put this puppy to the test for myself.

[Jonap_1st]

can't wait to see these octo-cores running side by side with 2600k

[WarraWarra]

Originally Posted by Jonap_1st

can't wait to see these octo-cores running side by side with 2600k

Same here, so tired of Intel only cpu option.
And Intel asking Apple for tech leadership / guidance on future products in another topic is so freaking scary.

[suraswami]

Originally Posted by Strider

The list price on the FX-series "Zambezi" processors look great. I am currently running the Phenom II X6 1090T 4.0GHz OC and this ASUS Crosshair Formula IV is one of the boards that has support for it. So needless to say, I have been really considering upgrading to an octo-core.

At a cost of about $300, there is a good chance I may jump on the Zambezi bandwagon pretty early on and give the processors a spin. That's highly affordable considering what you are getting. Can't wait to see how one of these will run in my system.

I really don't care about synthetic online benchmarks, they never tell the whole story. I am a gamer at heart, and I configure my main rig accordingly. Simply put, I don't play synthetic benchmarks, I play games. Gameplay performance is far more important to me. So I really want to put this puppy to the test for myself.

hmm I thought they are not compatible with existing AM3 socket. Anyway if compatible well and good and if I am lucky with any of the AM3 board I have I might pick something just for the fun.

Good to see decent prices for a Octa-core. Hopefully the performance is really good to justify the upgrade.

[R_1]

Well, at $215 there is a Core i5 2500K CPU and at $317 - Core i7 2600K, those parts have integrated GPU too. AMD - better be brilliant, else the choice is pretty simple for me. Why should I even consider FX-8130, if it fells badly from Core i5 2500K - a $75 cheaper CPU.

[happita]

Originally Posted by R_1

Well, at $215 there is a Core i5 2500K CPU and at $317 - Core i7 2600K, those parts have integrated GPU too. AMD - better be brilliant, else the choice is pretty simple for me. Why should I even consider FX-8130, if it fells badly from Core i5 2500K - a $75 cheaper CPU.

The cream of the crop is never going to be the cheapest. With that said, octo-cores will shine especially with people who do a decent amount of CAD, video editing, and maybe even photoshop. With all these advantages because of the core count, it also couples with being the performance enthusiast for gamers who are willing to spend the amount that AMD is asking which I don't think is unreasonable. I just hope that retailers don't bump up the price too much further past $290/$320.
And to see that the octo cores are going to be competing against the 2600/2600k makes me feel a lot better in regards to Bulldozer's performance. However, like most other smart people I think I will wait for benchmarks before I make a quick spendthrifty decision.

[R_1]

BD architecture is like hardware Hyper-threading - all resources (except a single integer unit) are shared per module, so no real 8 cores on board, only 8 integer units.

[HalfAHertz]

The prices seem high IMO. Even if they perform equally, you'd still get an IGP and QuickSync video decoding with intel's CPUs so if AMD want to get noticed by the OEMs they have to put up one hell of a fight

[Strider]

Originally Posted by suraswami

hmm I thought they are not compatible with existing AM3 socket. Anyway if compatible well and good and if I am lucky with any of the AM3 board I have I might pick something just for the fun.

Good to see decent prices for a Octa-core. Hopefully the performance is really good to justify the upgrade.

Yeah, there are many current high-end AM3 based boards that are compatible with a BIOS update.

ASUS: http://event.asus.com/2011/mb/AM3_PLUS_Ready/ (I own the Crosshair Formula IV)

MSI: http://event.msi.com/mb/am3+/

I believe other manufacturers are also doing this, but I do not have other links on hand at the moment.

[devguy]

Originally Posted by R_1

BD architecture is like hardware Hyper-threading - all resources (except a single integer unit) are shared per module, so no real 8 cores on board, only 8 integer units.

Implying Intel's HyperThreading is like software multi-threading? HTT and Zambezi's module design are two completely different beasts, built for different reasons, and with a large difference in performance benefits.

The cores within a Bulldozer module do share a lot, but they also have a considerable amount of things they don't share (not just the integer unit).

[R_1]

It will be another Windows Vista Ready fiasco, lots of BD features won't be supported on pre 9xx chipsets.
PS.
Everybody implies that 4 module BD is a rightful 8 core CPU and deserves premium price for 8 core CPU?

[mdm-adph]

Come to me, octo-core 32nm chip, come... I don't care if you're not faster. I've been waiting for an 8-core 32nm chip from AMD for years.

[devguy]

Originally Posted by R_1

It will be another Windows Vista Ready fiasco, lots of BD features won't be supported on pre 9xx chipsets.

Doubt it. AMD has gone out of its way to tell everyone and their mother that it won't support AM3+ CPUs in AM3 sockets. I'll admit AMD themselves haven't said anything about whether they themselves will support AM3+ CPUs using pre 9xx chipsets, though. A lot of motherboard manufacturers imply that Zambezi will work with 8xx series chipsets, as well as (oddly) the 760g chipset. Either way, I can guarantee AMD isn't going to put into effect some marketing campaign about Zambezi working with those chipsets, like Microsoft announced that Intel motherboards with worthless graphics could handle some subset of the Aero 1.0 experience.

Originally Posted by R_1

PS.
Everybody implies that 4 module BD is a rightful 8 core CPU and deserves premium price for 8 core CPU?

Premium price? I see a $20 difference to move from a quad core to a hex core, and a $50 difference to move from a hex core to an octal core. That makes a cumulative $70 "premium" to go from a quad core to an octal core.

If anything, all that does is confirm the suspicion that AMD is going to be selling quads as gimped octal cores (same with hex cores). In fact, it looks like MSI is going to be hopping once again on the unlocking train.

[CDdude55]

Octo-Core is to expensive, so looks like no Bulldozer for me. (unless the Bulldozer 6 core performs a significant amount better then my current 6 core)

1055T is good enough for me when it comes to gaming (especially considering all these non hardware intensive games coming out)

[Melvis]

Originally Posted by HalfAHertz

The prices seem high IMO. Even if they perform equally, you'd still get an IGP and QuickSync video decoding with intel's CPUs so if AMD want to get noticed by the OEMs they have to put up one hell of a fight

High prices?? From where i stand i find these prices dirt cheap. If and i do mean if the 8 core bulldozer beats every intel cpu in performance and only just then we are lucky they dont price it at $1000 like another company i know does?

[TheLaughingMan]

Originally Posted by devguy

If anything, all that does is confirm the suspicion that AMD is going to be selling quads as gimped octal cores (same with hex cores). In fact, it looks like MSI is going to be hopping once again on the unlocking train.

Of course they are. That has proven to be a tried and true method of salvaging chips that do not pass final inspection. Why would they not sell a chip with 2 functioning modules as a quad core. The difference this time is you are not guaranteed to get the whole chip back. Say 1 core on module A and module D are defective. You have to shut down the whole module because they share hardware so it becomes a quad-core. If you try to "unlock" those cores you could end up with a 6-core processor instead of the 8 it physically has. Not to mention if that will be possible with the shared parts. If it is, those cores obviously will be lacking in situations when the AVX is needed (because that is optimized to combine the 2 128-bit floating point cal into 1 256-bit....which may not work if one core is defective).

Bulldozer on any level is a new architecture for AMD and a lot more complex than current AMD CPU's. The whole "unlockable" cores thing stands to either not work or give much lower unlocked numbers than we are seeing now.

[Steevo]

Might be a good way to get a system upgrade and give the wife my board, CPU and other stuff, less the watercooling.

[CDdude55]

Originally Posted by Melvis

High prices?? From where i stand i find these prices dirt cheap. If and i do mean if the 8 core bulldozer beats every intel cpu in performance and only just then we are lucky they dont price it at $1000 like another company i know does?

From my view both the Octo-Core chips are much to expensive, but as said, if it performs well then it can easily compensate for the price.

The 4 and 6 core Bulldozer chips are pretty well priced, but im still eager to know whether or not the performance will be worth it.

[Undead46]

I honestly don't understand why there hasn't been any true leaked benchmarks yet.

Usually you see numerous of benches over a month before a product is actually released.

Honestly, I see this hurts AMD more, because people can't decide if BD is worth waiting for, or act now and get Sandy Bridge, in which most people have done.

[Damn_Smooth]

Originally Posted by Undead46

I honestly don't understand why there hasn't been any true leaked benchmarks yet.

Usually you see numerous of benches over a month before a product is actually released.

Honestly, I see this hurts AMD more, because people can't decide if BD is worth waiting for, or act now and get Sandy Bridge, in which most people have done.

How would we know if we did see a true leak? They can all be disputed because of the NDAs. Nobody is going to risk exposing themselves by leaking through official sources until the NDAs are lifted by AMD.

[ezodagrom]

@Those complaining about prices:
What were you expecting for 8-core processors, $200?
If the Bulldozer 8-core are overpriced, I wonder what the Core i7 970, 980X and 990X are. :>