Bulldozer specs and pricing

[xenocide]

Look out for flyin intels, AMDs gonna be kickin their arses pretty hard!

Based on?

...

OH! Speculation, that's right. It's pre-emptive to claim that AMD will be destroying Intel. Especially considering anything critical of BD is immediately rejected as false, and everything beneficial to AMD must be true. Sure, there is a good chance BD will compete with SB, but remember, it has to. AMD cannot remain a generation behind Intel forever.

 

[Thatguy]

Based on?

...

OH! Speculation, that's right. It's pre-emptive to claim that AMD will be destroying Intel. Especially considering anything critical of BD is immediately rejected as false, and everything beneficial to AMD must be true. Sure, there is a good chance BD will compete with SB, but remember, it has to. AMD cannot remain a generation behind Intel forever.

yet,kia,hundia etc are multiple generation behind other manufacturers and they are making plenty of money. Right now its a value market, and if bulldozer is a good value, its going to sell well in its various configurations at the vraious price points, but only if its a good value.

 

[de.das.dude]

yay i pissed an intel fanboy!

Based on?

...

OH! Speculation, that's right. It's pre-emptive to claim that AMD will be destroying Intel. Especially considering anything critical of BD is immediately rejected as false, and everything beneficial to AMD must be true. Sure, there is a good chance BD will compete with SB, but remember, it has to. AMD cannot remain a generation behind Intel forever.

chill dude

 

[Damn_Smooth]

yet,kia,hundia etc are multiple generation behind other manufacturers and they are making plenty of money. Right now its a value market, and if bulldozer is a good value, its going to sell well in its various configurations at the vraious price points, but only if its a good value.

You have a point but $320 for the 8130p is $5 more than the 2600k. Luckily for me, I don't have any problems believing AMD can pull it off.

chill dude

Even though I don't believe the guy in the video has any clue of what he's talking about, congrats on pissing off an Intel fanboy.

 

[seronx]

You have a point but $320 for the 8130p is $5 more than the 2600k. Luckily for me, I don't have any problems believing AMD can pull it off.



Even though I don't believe the guy in the video has any clue of what he's talking about, congrats on pissing off an Intel fanboy.

That is MSRP, It might be cheaper than that



You know the buy early, you get $20 off

 

[yogurt_21]

hmm clock speed indicates a lower performance degree than we had thought. I miss the days of when a 2.6GHZ athlon 64 could kick the crap out of a 3.4GHZ intel.

 

[seronx]

hmm clock speed indicates a lower performance degree than we had thought. I miss the days of when a 2.6GHZ athlon 64 could kick the crap out of a 3.4GHZ intel.

Nope it is still the same

if it was clocked towards i7 950 @ same clock speed it would be 50% more speedy or was it 25%?

 

[Damn_Smooth]

That is MSRP, It might be cheaper than that



You know the buy early, you get $20 off

That would be nice.

I'm kind of hoping for a Crosshair V bundle on Newegg.

 

[yogurt_21]

Nope it is still the same

if it was clocked towards i7 950 @ same clock speed it would be 50% more speedy or was it 25%?

we originally though 50% but 25% might be more likely. Shoot even at 25% at the clockspeed they're showing that would be really impressive.

 

[seronx]

we originally though 50% but 25% might be more likely. Shoot even at 25% at the clockspeed they're showing that would be really impressive.

IPC doesn't increase at higher clocks

Instructions per Clock

---
Nehalem 1x
SB 1.10x
---
K10 .75x
K10.5 .80x
Bulldozer 1.25x

 

[zpnq]

FX-8150P(B3) - 4.0Ghz, T.C 4.5Ghz, 125W ($320)
FX-8130P(B2) - 3.8Ghz, T.C 4.2Ghz, 125W ($320)
FX-8110(B2) - 3.6Ghz, T.C 4.0Ghz, 95W ($290)
FX-8100(B3) - 3.5Ghz, T.C 4.0Ghz, 95W ($290)

Fixed

Komodo
Next year:
FX-8250P(C3) - 5.0Ghz, T.C 5.5Ghz, 125W ($320)
FX-8230P(C2) - 4.8Ghz, T.C 5.2Ghz, 125W ($320)
FX-8210(C2) - 4.6Ghz, T.C 5.0Ghz, 95W ($290)
FX-8200(C3) - 4.5Ghz, T.C 5.0Ghz, 95W ($290)

This how steppings work people



Phenom I was B2->B3
Phenom II was C2->C3

Special versions get the E0 model which signifies absolute max die space compactness

AMD always releases to B2 for each new architecture

B0 Q4, B1 Q1, B2 Q2, B3 Q3 -> C0 Q4, C1 Q1, C2 Q2, C3 Q3 -> E0 Q4

Year 0 > Year 1 > Year 2 ---> New Architecture

Zambezi is only coming in 2 waves (as i understand it) komodo will be on a new socket and probably have a memory controller upgrade. am3+ is going to have very short life.

They were set to have the first wave released in july and the second in q4, first wave is delayed and i would assume so is the second wave. Then in 2012 its a new socket with komodo and trinity, its likely they will have quad or tri channel memory controllers on both.

 

[seronx]

Zambezi is only coming in 2 waves (as i understand it) komodo will be on a new socket and probably have a memory controller upgrade. am3+ is going to have very short life.

They were set to have the first wave released in july and the second in q4, first wave is delayed and i would assume so is the second wave. Then in 2012 its a new socket with komodo and trinity, its likely they will have quad or tri channel memory controllers on both.

Ya, I noticed that

AM3+ might be B2, B3
FMx Might go to C2, C3 then the E0 for 5 Module

First wave was June, Second Wave was September
It was then delayed to
First Wave is August(Earliest), Second Wave is October/November(Earliest)

 

[xenocide]

congrats on pissing off an Intel fanboy.

Not an Intel Fanboy, unless supporting a company that makes a more powerful CPU instantly makes me a fanboy. We've been over this, I owned AMD for a long time (Socket A->939) but since the era of the Q6600 I cannot see getting an AMD CPU since they are all re-hashes of the same design, with marginal performance increases.

My argument is not against AMD, it's against AMD fans that are claiming based on price and word of mouth that these CPU's will dominate the market. What I'm saying is you cannot make such a claim without facts. It wouldn't be acceptable for me to start yelling about how the HD6xxx series will obviously destroy the GTX6xx series would it? We have no way of knowing, the same thing applies to Bulldozer CPU's.

yet,kia,hundia etc are multiple generation behind other manufacturers and they are making plenty of money. Right now its a value market, and if bulldozer is a good value, its going to sell well in its various configurations at the vraious price points, but only if its a good value.

They are generations behind in quality, sure. But they are also in a different market. A car is a mode of transportation, and most of the examples you gave give excellent fuel mileage at a good price (albeit with absolute shit quality). But are you also suggesting that if you could easily attain both for roughly the same price you would take a Kia over an Audi? If the answer to that question is yes, you are insane.

Bulldozer has to be a good value, to maintain AMD's reputation, but it also has to be competitive. If Intel all of a sudden cut the price on their CPU's $50 across the board, and were cheaper than AMD alternatives, while offering identical performance, would you still be harping on the importance of Value?

The main difference is this. AMD represents mostly people that want acceptable performance at a great cost, Intel is for people that want the most raw performance, and where price isn't necessarily the prime concern. Don't get confused though, because the value is still there for Intel CPU's. As an example, I paid $200 for an Q6600 (and $100 for a mobo if it's relevant) right after the original Phenom CPU's came out to replace my AMD X2 3800+ setup. Now, it might have been cheaper to go AMD at the time, but would it have been worth it since almost everyone that bought those CPU's replaced them (and their motherboard) within 2 years, while I kept my Q6600 for 3 years?

To Recap; I don't hate AMD, or want Bulldozer to fail. I actually want the opposite, but I don't like people claiming Bulldozer will obviously be the best option right out the gates without any information to back such a claim!

 

[PaulieG]

Not an Intel Fanboy, unless supporting a company that makes a more powerful CPU instantly makes me a fanboy. We've been over this, I owned AMD for a long time (Socket A->939) but since the era of the Q6600 I cannot see getting an AMD CPU since they are all re-hashes of the same design, with marginal performance increases.

My argument is not against AMD, it's against AMD fans that are claiming based on price and word of mouth that these CPU's will dominate the market. What I'm saying is you cannot make such a claim without facts. It wouldn't be acceptable for me to start yelling about how the HD6xxx series will obviously destroy the GTX6xx series would it? We have no way of knowing, the same thing applies to Bulldozer CPU's.



They are generations behind in quality, sure. But they are also in a different market. A car is a mode of transportation, and most of the examples you gave give excellent fuel mileage at a good price (albeit with absolute shit quality). But are you also suggesting that if you could easily attain both for roughly the same price you would take a Kia over an Audi? If the answer to that question is yes, you are insane.

Bulldozer has to be a good value, to maintain AMD's reputation, but it also has to be competitive. If Intel all of a sudden cut the price on their CPU's $50 across the board, and were cheaper than AMD alternatives, while offering identical performance, would you still be harping on the importance of Value?

The main difference is this. AMD represents mostly people that want acceptable performance at a great cost, Intel is for people that want the most raw performance, and where price isn't necessarily the prime concern. Don't get confused though, because the value is still there for Intel CPU's. As an example, I paid $200 for an Q6600 (and $100 for a mobo if it's relevant) right after the original Phenom CPU's came out to replace my AMD X2 3800+ setup. Now, it might have been cheaper to go AMD at the time, but would it have been worth it since almost everyone that bought those CPU's replaced them (and their motherboard) within 2 years, while I kept my Q6600 for 3 years?

To Recap; I don't hate AMD, or want Bulldozer to fail. I actually want the opposite, but I don't like people claiming Bulldozer will obviously be the best option right out the gates without any information to back such a claim!

Nice job with this post. It explains exactly how I feel about the whole Intel vs. AMD argument. All I want from both companies is the best performance for my dollar. That's what I do with every product I buy. Does it make sense to do otherwise?

 

[Rock N Roll Rebel]

every body is going to have these new cpu's when they come out but im going to be happy with my little phenom 2 940 for the next 5 years because im poor. lol

 

[Thatguy]

They are generations behind in quality, sure. But they are also in a different market. A car is a mode of transportation, and most of the examples you gave give excellent fuel mileage at a good price (albeit with absolute shit quality). But are you also suggesting that if you could easily attain both for roughly the same price you would take a Kia over an Audi? If the answer to that question is yes, you are insane.

Your off your rocker, its not just about quality, its about features, and cheap cars come with less performance and less features, the comparison is valid. If AMD makes a product thats a good VALUE for its price point, it will sell.

 

[seronx]

Your off your rocker, its not just about quality, its about features, and cheap cars come with less performance and less features, the comparison is valid. If AMD makes a product thats a good VALUE for its price point, it will sell.

You're off your rocker, It's not about quality, It's about how much features, "Bad Comparison." If AMD makes a product that's a good Value for its price point, it will indefinitely sell.

^Fixed
:shadedshu

i7 2600K
Intel Core i7-2600K Sandy Bridge 3.4GHz (3.8GHz Tu...
$315

i5 2500K
Intel Core i5-2500K Sandy Bridge 3.3GHz (3.7GHz Tu...
$220

AMD 8-core FX
-no link yet-
$290

AMD 6-core FX
-no link yet-
$240

 

[Thatguy]

You're off your rocker, It's not about quality, It's about how much features, "Bad Comparison." If AMD makes a product that's a good Value for its price point, it will indefinitely sell.

^Fixed
:shadedshu

i7 2600K
Intel Core i7-2600K Sandy Bridge 3.4GHz (3.8GHz Tu...
$315

i5 2500K
Intel Core i5-2500K Sandy Bridge 3.3GHz (3.7GHz Tu...
$220

AMD 8-core FX
-no link yet-
$290

AMD 6-core FX
-no link yet-
$240

My point stands, if the performance "which is a FEATURE" is a good at that price point and it represents a good VALUE it will sell.

Economics 101. Unless of course brand recognition is poor and the product is not well marketed.

 

[Damn_Smooth]

Not an Intel Fanboy, unless supporting a company that makes a more powerful CPU instantly makes me a fanboy. We've been over this, I owned AMD for a long time (Socket A->939) but since the era of the Q6600 I cannot see getting an AMD CPU since they are all re-hashes of the same design, with marginal performance increases.

My argument is not against AMD, it's against AMD fans that are claiming based on price and word of mouth that these CPU's will dominate the market. What I'm saying is you cannot make such a claim without facts. It wouldn't be acceptable for me to start yelling about how the HD6xxx series will obviously destroy the GTX6xx series would it? We have no way of knowing, the same thing applies to Bulldozer CPU's.



They are generations behind in quality, sure. But they are also in a different market. A car is a mode of transportation, and most of the examples you gave give excellent fuel mileage at a good price (albeit with absolute shit quality). But are you also suggesting that if you could easily attain both for roughly the same price you would take a Kia over an Audi? If the answer to that question is yes, you are insane.

Bulldozer has to be a good value, to maintain AMD's reputation, but it also has to be competitive. If Intel all of a sudden cut the price on their CPU's $50 across the board, and were cheaper than AMD alternatives, while offering identical performance, would you still be harping on the importance of Value?

The main difference is this. AMD represents mostly people that want acceptable performance at a great cost, Intel is for people that want the most raw performance, and where price isn't necessarily the prime concern. Don't get confused though, because the value is still there for Intel CPU's. As an example, I paid $200 for an Q6600 (and $100 for a mobo if it's relevant) right after the original Phenom CPU's came out to replace my AMD X2 3800+ setup. Now, it might have been cheaper to go AMD at the time, but would it have been worth it since almost everyone that bought those CPU's replaced them (and their motherboard) within 2 years, while I kept my Q6600 for 3 years?

To Recap; I don't hate AMD, or want Bulldozer to fail. I actually want the opposite, but I don't like people claiming Bulldozer will obviously be the best option right out the gates without any information to back such a claim!

You make some valid points, but for every AMD fan making baseless claims that Bulldozer will definitively destroy Sandy Bridge, I see more Intel fans claiming that it doesn't have a chance. And the funny thing is, the thread is always about Bulldozer. These types of arguments never occur in the Intel threads.

If you don't expect the AMD fans to rave about Bulldozer, in a Bulldozer related thread, you should reexamine the situation. They are excited and optimistic, and given that this is AMD's first new architecture in forever, they have every right to be.

I myself, have said on many occasions that I don't know what kind of performance to expect from Bulldozer, and I will be happy with something that beats Phenom II. My basis for not buying Intel has nothing to do with processor speed. Can I say it will beat Sandy? No. Can I say it won't beat Sandy? No. But I can say that I am excited to find out, and even if it doesn't, I will still be buying it.

 

[repman244]

I will be happy with something that beats Phenom II

+1

I only care about this, so I can upgrade.

 

[twicksisted]

[speculation] The Stock speeds being so high is a bit worrying... could be a sign the chips are not as powerfull as expected so they needed to compensate with crazy high clock speeds... [\speculation]

 

[seronx]

You make some valid points, but for every AMD fan making baseless claims that Bulldozer will definitively destroy Sandy Bridge, I see more Intel fans claiming that it doesn't have a chance. And the funny thing is, the thread is always about Bulldozer. These types of arguments never occur in the Intel threads.

If you don't expect the AMD fans to rave about Bulldozer, in a Bulldozer related thread, you should reexamine the situation. They are excited and optimistic, and given that this is AMD's first new architecture in forever, they have every right to be.

I myself, have said on many occasions that I don't know what kind of performance to expect from Bulldozer, and I will be happy with something that beats Phenom II. My basis for not buying Intel has nothing to do with processor speed. Can I say it will beat Sandy? No. Can I say it won't beat Sandy? No. But I can say that I am excited to find out, and even if it doesn't, I will still be buying it.

IPC should architecturally be higher than SB

Making it beat Phenom II and Nehalem by default

It's a 50% Core Amount over Phenom II
and a 50% Core Performance over Nehalem

^The FX-8000 series
http://www.techpowerup.com/138328/Bulldozer-50-Faster-than-Core-i7-and-Phenom-II.html

It's not 50% faster as the article says

It's 50% bigger/50% faster some how this equates to 125% better 1.25x(Nehalem)

[speculation] The Stock speeds being so high is a bit worrying... could be a sign the chips are not as powerfull as expected so they needed to compensate with crazy high clock speeds... [\speculation]

Nope, The high stock speeds are because it has less transistors

852M Bulldozer vs 995M i7 SB 2600K/2500K

^More room to factory overclock
---

LGA 2011 i7 Quad-core should have the same amount of transistors as Bulldozer(LGA 2011= No GPU)
i7 8-thread LGA 2011 has 3.6GHz stock and has a 3.9 GHz Turbo Boost
FX 8-core AM3+ has 3.6GHz stock and has a 4.0 GHz Turbo Core

 

[suraswami]

Hope Bulldozer does well reasonably if not better than SB.

One thing for sure AMD fans keep AMD alive which inturn keeps CPU/GPU innovation alive, remember competition and threat got wonderful SB to the table.

 

[theeldest]

[speculation] The Stock speeds being so high is a bit worrying... could be a sign the chips are not as powerfull as expected so they needed to compensate with crazy high clock speeds... [\speculation]

Personally I would see high initial clock speeds as good execution of design. Let's face it, if AMD could have launched Phenom I or II with clockspeeds in the mid to uppper 3GHz, they would have.

 

[Thatguy]

Personally I would see high initial clock speeds as good execution of design. Let's face it, if AMD could have launched Phenom I or II with clockspeeds in the mid to uppper 3GHz, they would have.

That launch would have looked alot different from a performance perspective against products at that time.