AMD Gives Bulldozer 6-core a Speed-Bump with FX-6200

[btarunr]

AMD launched its AMD FX processor family with two eight-core parts (FX-8150, FX-8120), a six-core part (FX-6100), and a quad-core one (FX-4100), apparently a newer, slightly faster six-core FX processor is just around the corner, the FX-6200. Since all AMD FX processors are unlocked out of the box, the FX-6200 is essentially a speed-bump. Out of the box, it is clocked at 3.80 GHz, with 4.10 GHz maximum TurboCore speed. It features six cores, 6 MB total L2 cache, and 8 MB total L3 cache. Its TDP is rated at 125W. In a presentation to retailers sourced by DonanimHaber, AMD pitched the FX-6200 to have about 10% higher performance at Mainconcept HD to Flash conversion, than the FX-6100 (3.30 GHz nominal, 3.90 GHz max. turbo).



Source: DonanimHaber

[AthlonX2]

Quite a bump considering model numbers

[mayankleoboy1]

yeah.
was expecting something like 100mhz and meh performance increase.
but a 3.8 ghz is great

[entropy13]

How much? $170? $175? $180?

[RejZoR]

I'm not gonna mock at AMD, i wish they'd get a breakthrough. We need a good battle between both rivals so prices go down. All for the benefit of us, the users.

[bacan]

It is strange that it's called model FX-6200 instead of FX-6120. Could this be the first stepping OR-B3 CPU?

[Dj-ElectriC]

DonanimHaber, you have proven to be trustworthy. Today (for some reason i can't explain :X) you bought my trust

[GenTarkin]

Would be nice if it was B3 but at same time, if its B3 and released as a 125watt part, that doesnt say much for their process refinement =/

[repman244]

The 6100 has a TDP of 95W, this 6200 has a TDP of 125W. So I guess the process didn't improve much...

[Zubasa]

Originally Posted by repman244

The 6100 has a TDP of 95W, this 6200 has a TDP of 125W. So I guess the process didn't improve much...

What you need to consider is that everything 96W and up must be marked with the 125W TDP envelope.
So we really don't know how much more power does it use with a ~15% clock increase.
So until a full review is up we won't know if there are any improvements.

[btarunr]

Originally Posted by entropy13

how much? $170? $175? $180?

$175.

[CDdude55]

A 500MHz increase over the FX 6100 and 4GHz+ turbo is great, but still not significant enough for me to consider going BD just yet. A lot needs to improve.

[Zubasa]

Originally Posted by CDdude55

A 500MHz increase over the FX 6100 and 4GHz+ turbo is great, but still not significant enough for me to consider going BD just yet. A lot needs to improve.

I guess at lease for people that don't OC, The FX-6200 should be a worthy replacement for the PII X6s, so they don't have to find the older products.

[AphexDreamer]

I'm loving my BD at 4.5Ghz with 6 cores.
I think I can take it to 5Ghz with 4 core but haven't messed around a lot in that department.

[Zubasa]

Originally Posted by AphexDreamer

I'm loving my BD at 4.5Ghz with 6 cores.
I think I can take it to 5Ghz with 4 core but haven't messed around a lot in that department.

Might as well grab the 4100, those overclock very well and is quite cheap.
I am half tempted to grab one to play around with it if there they release a FX-4200.

[AphexDreamer]

Originally Posted by Zubasa

Might as well grab the 4100, those overclock very well and is quite cheap.
I am half tempted to grab one to play around with it if there they release a FX-4200.

Sure, if I didn't pay $100 for mine during Black Friday.

[CDdude55]

Originally Posted by Zubasa

The FX-6200 should be a worthy replacement for the PII X6s, so they don't have to find the older products.

I agree that as the Phenom II's are phased out these chips will be seen as a good replacement, granted, they do not perform very well compared to the current Phenom II X6 chips you'd be better off sticking with an overclocked Phenom II chip then going over to BD if possible, i think these are good ''last resort'' chips.

[EpicShweetness]

Amazing a 6 core 125watt 3.8GHz CPU competing with a 4 core 95 watt 3.1GHz CPU
Seriously its not a bad product, just as a "high performance" product it's kinda a joke.

Is it me or is K10.5 "Stars" the best core/watt/performance they've made?

[pantherx12]

Originally Posted by CDdude55

I agree that as the Phenom II's are phased out these chips will be seen as a good replacement, granted, they do not perform very well compared to the current Phenom II X6 chips you'd be better off sticking with an overclocked Phenom II chip then going over to BD if possible, i think these are good ''last resort'' chips.

There's only a 10% ipc difference betwen phenom and fx.

So my fx 8120 @ 4.4 is like a phenom x 8 ( theoretically) @ 4ghz.

That might not be true across the board but certainly in all the apps I use.

Super pi is a lot slower though ( super pi is ancient code though)

If you have the cooling a BD chip will got a lot higher than a thurban core though.


I had a 1055t before this by the way.

[Hustler]

6 cores my ass...

Try 3 cores with a pimped up AMD type hyperthreading.

[Casecutter]

Well, basically matches the 1100T, shouldn't be more than $160, especially as not any better on power. Looks like they're yields still have bad core/modules, but might have more faith in raising the frequency, can’t say it from any real process improvements just have attained more confidence. I don’t see them given any BD anything like B2 stepping improvements, they leave that all for Piledrivers’ glory.

[newtekie1]

Releasing higher clocked processors is pointless on a product line that has fully unlocked multipliers, unless this is a revision, and I don't think it is.

[CDdude55]

Originally Posted by pantherx12

There's only a 10% ipc difference betwen phenom and fx.

So my fx 8120 @ 4.4 is like a phenom x 8 ( theoretically) @ 4ghz.

That might not be true across the board but certainly in all the apps I use.

Super pi is a lot slower though ( super pi is ancient code though)

If you have the cooling a BD chip will got a lot higher than a thurban core though.


I had a 1055t before this by the way.

It's definitely a case by case thing, an FX 8150/8120 does excel by a pretty good margin in software that will put the extra cores/threads to use as expected. I don't see how it's a good thing to say that it's practically like a Phenom with 8 cores though when clocked higher, as doesn't that still indicate that you'd be better off with a Phenom II chip if you don't use heavily threaded software?, so what would justify going with BD?

[blibba]

Originally Posted by pantherx12

There's only a 10% ipc difference betwen phenom and fx.

So my fx 8120 @ 4.4 is like a phenom x 8 ( theoretically) @ 4ghz.

It doesn't quite work like that.

Yes, Bulldozer has 8 "cores", but it shares a lot of resources between them. So, in workloads reliant on those shared resources, it'll perform like a quad. This is why you see Phenom x6 beating it in some threaded applications. In workloads that aren't so reliant on those shared resources, or that are a bit more balanced (e.g. real world multitasking), BD can start to behave more like an 8 core. However, the end result in benchmarks is the power consumption of an 8 core and often the performance of a hyperthreaded quad, and a lot of the bad press on launch was because of this.

Also, while you might be right about the IPC, it remains the case that for whatever reason BD's single threaded performance, clock for clock, is diabolical in certain programs.

If you forced me to buy an AMD rig tomorrow, I'd definitley go Phenom II - pretty much everything I do is limited by per-core performance. What I'd really like though (what I'd go out and buy voluntarily, in fact) is a 32nm Phenom.

[EastCoasthandle]

Benchmarks??