Monday, February 27th 2012

AMD Intros the FX-6200 and FX-4170 Processors, Cuts Some Prices

Sunnyvale-based AMD Inc. has today launched two new FX Series processors, the FX-6200 hexa-core and the FX-4170 quad-core, and announced price reductions for the October-released FX-8120 and FX-6100.

The FX-6200 and FX-4170 are made on 32 nm process technology, and feature an AM3+ package, a TDP of 125 W, and 8 MB of L3 cache. The FX-6200 has a base clock of 3.8 GHz (4.1 GHz Turbo) and is up for pre-order @ 152.70 Euro while its quad-core sibling is set to 4.2 GHz (4.3 GHz Turbo) and is selling for 120.60 Euro.

The updated FX-8120 and FX-6100 prices stand at $185 and $145, respectively.

Source: The Tech Report
Add your own comment

62 Comments on AMD Intros the FX-6200 and FX-4170 Processors, Cuts Some Prices

#2
Crap Daddy
Kevinheraiz said:
meh, does anyone even care about bulldozer anymore?
Rory Read?
Posted on Reply
#3
Farmer Boe
Wow a chip that does over 4ghz natively! the 4170 could be a nice overclocker aswell.
Posted on Reply
#4
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
Oh man this is reminiscent of the P4 days when Intel thought that speeding up the core was the way to compete, Not with true architecture change! LOL! Looks like AMD is out of ideas. Jack up the core to 8GHz that will teach them Intel folks LOL. :roll::laugh:
Posted on Reply
#5
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Farmer Boe said:
Wow a chip that does over 4ghz natively! the 4170 could be a nice overclocker aswell.
I was coming here specifically to point this out. I think the 4170 might be the first retail processor to ever be clocked at 4GHz+ out of the box.

Kevinheraiz said:
meh, does anyone even care about bulldozer anymore?
Considering almost every build I do personally will be AMD for a good long while(due to Intel locking down overclocking on any chip less than $250), yes I care.
Posted on Reply
#6
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
newtekie1 said:
I was coming here specifically to point this out. I think the 4170 might be the first retail processor to ever be clocked at 4GHz+ out of the box.



Considering almost every build I do personally will be AMD for a good long while(due to Intel locking down overclocking on any chip less than $250), yes I care.
So with you logic AMD has more speed this make it better? And with the first out of the box 4GHz CPU this also makes it better? Do not get me wrong AMD is a great Chip maker and I just want to get to know why you have such a dislike towards Intel.
Posted on Reply
#7
Dent1
newtekie1 said:
Considering almost every build I do personally will be AMD for a good long while(due to Intel locking down overclocking on any chip less than $250), yes I care.
trickson said:
wrong AMD is a great Chip maker and I just want to get to know why you have such a dislike towards Intel.
newtekie1 has such a dislike to Intel that he runs a Intel Core i7 875K @ 4.0GHz

Posted on Reply
#8
[H]@RD5TUFF
Wow a rather pointless set of chips.
Posted on Reply
#9
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
Dent1 said:
newtekie1 has such a dislike to Intel that he runs a Intel Core i7 875K @ 4.0GHz

http://antyweb.pl/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/palmface.jpg
I know what he has. But from the POST it sounded like he dislikes Intel, This is what I was getting at. Other than no oc for chips below 250. I never heard of that.
Posted on Reply
#10
Dent1
[H]@RD5TUFF said:
Wow a rather pointless set of chips.
I agree, the only benefit is the price drop and overclockability. With the FX X6 and FX X4 becoming so cheap I see little to no reason for the Phenom II line up. From the consumers point of view, they are paying less for a chip that overclocks upto near 5Ghz on air.
Posted on Reply
#11
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
Dent1 said:
I agree, the only benefit is the price drop and overclockability. With the FX X6 and FX X4 becoming so cheap I see little to no reason for the Phenom II line up. From the consumers point of view, they are paying less for a chip that overclocks upto near 5Ghz on air.
Most if not all "normal" users will never even care or know how to over clock any way. It is just pointless. The only thing the "Normal" consumer is going to see is that the Chip inside is "Faster" than the Intel chip, Getting duped into the think it is faster but in reality is is NOT! The only thing I see is this may backfire on AMD!
Posted on Reply
#12
erocker
trickson said:
Most if not all "normal" users will never even care or know how to over clock any way. It is just pointless. The only thing the "Normal" consumer is going to see is that the Chip inside is "Faster" than the Intel chip, Getting duped into the think it is faster but in reality is is NOT! The only thing I see is this may backfire on AMD!
Since most "normal" users don't care about overclocking how will this backfire on AMD? Most users don't even know what processor clock speeds are. Most users think they have 500 gigs of RAM that came with their computer from Dell or Best Buy or whatever. The only point that matters is price. My old man went to Best Buy last week and bought a computer.. His concern? Does it come with a mouse and keyboard.
Posted on Reply
#13
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
erocker said:
Since most "normal" users don't care about overclocking how will this backfire on AMD? Most users don't even know what processor clock speeds are. Most users think they have 500 gigs of RAM that came with their computer from Dell or Best Buy or whatever. The only point that matters is price. My old man went to Best Buy last week and bought a computer.. His concern? Does it come with a mouse and keyboard.
LOL agreed. It could if the "Normal" user sees his friend setup ( Intel Quad core ) running much faster at a lower speed is what I am thinking.
Posted on Reply
#14
erocker
trickson said:
LOL agreed. It could if the "Normal" user sees his friend setup ( Intel Quad core ) running much faster at a lower speed is what I am thinking.
For doing daily tasks not even I can tell the difference between his computer and mine. The things that the "enthusiast" cares about are way overblown. Even though some "enthusiasts" claim that Bulldozer is "fail", AMD is doing quite well at the moment.
Posted on Reply
#15
Dent1
trickson said:
Most if not all "normal" users will never even care or know how to over clock any way. It is just pointless. The only thing the "Normal" consumer is going to see is that the Chip inside is "Faster" than the Intel chip, Getting duped into the think it is faster but in reality is is NOT! The only thing I see is this may backfire on AMD!
No it won't backfire.

a.) Because normal users will be geared to a mainstream Llano.
b.) FX range is geared to enhusiasts whom OC.
c.) Poorer enhusiasts whom cant afford Intel will appreciate AMD's pricedrop

The main one:
d.) Consumers won't feel duped because the FX is fast enough to do whatever task they want. In a blind test the consumer won't know the difference between a FX and Core i7.

http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/25695-amd-pulls-blind-test-at-recent-show
Posted on Reply
#16
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
Okay I hear you.
Posted on Reply
#17
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
trickson said:
So with you logic AMD has more speed this make it better? And with the first out of the box 4GHz CPU this also makes it better? Do not get me wrong AMD is a great Chip maker and I just want to get to know why you have such a dislike towards Intel.
In what way shape or form did you get that my logic is that AMD has more speed so that makes it better? I was just pointing out that this is the first retail chip to be sold over 4GHz out of the box, which I find interesting, but that has nothing to do with my buying decisions.

My buying decisions are based on the fact that low end Intel chips are crippled for overclocking and I enjoy overclocking, but I don't feel that I need to spend $250+ do be able to do it. If Intel allowed decent overclocking on lower end chips I'd have no problem with putting my money towards them. I sorry that anyone that says they won't be buying Intel suddenly must hate them in your eyes. I have no problem with Intel, but their product doesn't suit my wants.
Posted on Reply
#18
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
newtekie1 said:
In what way shape or form did you get that my logic is that AMD has more speed so that makes it better? I was just pointing out that this is the first retail chip to be sold over 4GHz out of the box, which I find interesting, but that has nothing to do with my buying decisions.

My buying decisions are based on the fact that low end Intel chips are crippled for overclocking and I enjoy overclocking, but I don't feel that I need to spend $250+ do be able to do it. If Intel allowed decent overclocking on lower end chips I'd have no problem with putting my money towards them. I sorry that anyone that says they won't be buying Intel suddenly must hate them in your eyes. I have no problem with Intel, but their product doesn't suit my wants.
Thank you, You made it a bit clearer is all.
Posted on Reply
#19
Super XP
[H]@RD5TUFF said:
Wow a rather pointless set of chips.
Absolutely Not. This is a good move by AMD. There's absolutely nothing wrong with providing more choice to consumers. This added release will only further put strain on Intel's desktop equivalents.

On a side note, and not directed to you H@RDSTUFF :) people need to lay off Bulldozer & AMD. We know this new CPU does not meet the hyped expectations, this has been preached over and over again. Right now AMD is providing a product and giving everybody CHOICE. This alone is very importance for competitions sake.

Bulldozer is a good chip, and I am happy with my purchase (FX-8120). Hopefully Piledriver will add a nice boost in performance to further help AMD compete so WE can overall benefit.
Posted on Reply
#20
Mindweaver
Moderato®™
erocker said:
Since most "normal" users don't care about overclocking how will this backfire on AMD? Most users don't even know what processor clock speeds are. Most users think they have 500 gigs of RAM that came with their computer from Dell or Best Buy or whatever. The only point that matters is price. My old man went to Best Buy last week and bought a computer.. His concern? Does it come with a mouse and keyboard.
EXACTLY! Well said! Most people are going to go to bestbuy and see the 4.0ghz AMD and buy it over the 3.4GHz Intel any day of the week, because they just want something that's going to last them a few years and think the higher numbered pc is better. :toast:

Edit: I have to say I put my 1055T up there with my 2500k's and my 2600k and hell my 970 x6 for average daily use.. Now gaming is a different story.. but not that much of a differents.
Posted on Reply
#21
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Mindweaver said:
EXACTLY! Well said! Most people are going to go to bestbuy and see the 4.0ghz AMD and buy it over the 3.4GHz Intel any day of the week, because they just want something that's going to last them a few years and think the higher numbered pc is better. :toast:

Edit: I have to say I put my 1055T up there with my 2500k's and my 2600k and hell my 970 x6 for average daily use.. Now gaming is a different story.. but not that much of a differents.
And even a cheap Athlon II will last most people a few years without a problem, because most people aren't doing anything that requires a faster CPU.
Posted on Reply
#22
xenocide
Super XP said:
Absolutely Not. This is a good move by AMD. There's absolutely nothing wrong with providing more choice to consumers. This added release will only further put strain on Intel's desktop equivalents.
The Intel name sells more chips. AMD may compete by having substantially lower prices, but OEM's will still buy more from Intel because they have history and a name for themselves. Even in the segments AMD excels at, I see substantially more Intel offerings.

Super XP said:
On a side note, and not directed to you H@RDSTUFF :) people need to lay off Bulldozer & AMD. We know this new CPU does not meet the hyped expectations, this has been preached over and over again.
So we're now past the "Nuh uh, Bulldozer is AWESOME" phase into the "JUST LEAVE BULLDOZER ALONEEEEE" phase? AMD has nobody to blame but themselves for crushed expectations. They hyped it up, and marketted it as an enthusiast chip, and bragged about better efficiency, power consumption, and higher clock speeds. Intel did the same thing with Netburst, and it was a lost cause, because at the end of the day it was still an inferior product.

Super XP said:
Right now AMD is providing a product and giving everybody CHOICE. This alone is very importance for competitions sake ... Bulldozer is a good chip, and I am happy with my purchase (FX-8120). Hopefully Piledriver will add a nice boost in performance to further help AMD compete so WE can overall benefit.
Really? Giving people choice? Is that what we're going with?

Intel Releases i7-2700k: Profiteering off a pointless release.
AMD Releases FX-6200 and FX-4170: Giving the Consumer Choice!

That kind of perception confuses and annoys me. Just like I thought the 2700k was a pointless release, I think these are. They should just continue to offer Phenom II X4X6 since they are better in terms of performance. Doing that would REALLY benefit the consumer. Lowering the price on the FX-8120 was a great move, and I think they should have also lowered the price on the FX-8150, since now there is really no reason to ever buy that thing.
Posted on Reply
#23
Winston_008
Mindweaver said:
EXACTLY! Well said! Most people are going to go to bestbuy and see the 4.0ghz AMD and buy it over the 3.4GHz Intel any day of the week, because they just want something that's going to last them a few years and think the higher numbered pc is better. :toast:
Which is why is think AMD is naming their next apus 5800k and such. Hmm should i get a 3770k or a 5800k? lol
Posted on Reply
#24
ensabrenoir
Honestly.... I can't wait tell pile driver....for the pure simple hope of no more 10 pages of bulldozer uh haa and unh haa:shadedshu. Any new chip in this line is simply more wood for the fire. What ever suits your needs.... buy it use it love it. Want to see amd grow and prosper for the sake of multi-dimensional innovation...and their gpus... NEXT please
Posted on Reply
#25
ensabrenoir
newtekie1 said:
And even a cheap Athlon II will last most people a few years without a problem, because most people aren't doing anything that requires a faster CPU.
This is true... but yet i dont know the last time Ive seen an intel commercial on tv yet... I get numerous house wives wanting nothing less than an I3...I5 preferably.... Do intel advertise in woman's day or vanity fair or something? No...but everyone googles... And read our reviews and posts. Enthusiasts may not set sales records...but our views do influence the market.

end tangent...back on topic....now
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment