An online store has begun to accept pre-orders onto AMD's next-generation high-end desktop FX-series microprocessors code-named Zambezi. In case the pricing of the chips is correct, then AMD's six-core and eight-core central processing units (CPUs) will be more affordable than previously believed.
Bottom Line Telecommunications Corp. is currently offering to pre-order AMD FX-8150 processor for $266, AMD FX-8120 for $221 and AMD FX-6100 for $188. According to CPU World web-site, the prices of the news microprocessors should drop by $10 to $20 once the chips are released and AMD's official prices in 1000-unit quantities are usually $10 - $15 lower than the prices of production chips in this store. As a result, official pricing of the FX-8150 may be $245, FX-8120 should cost around $200 and the FX-6100 may carry a $160 price-tag.
Earlier it was believed that the top-of-the-range AMD FX-8150 should cost around $300 or higher and compete against Intel Corp.'s Core i7-2600K, which is priced at $317, in terms of performance. It now looks like the company has lowered certain expectations towards real-world performance of its FX-series processors.
At present AMD sells its flagship six-core Phenom II X6 central processing units for $165 - $205 in 1000-unit quantities. Given the fact that the six-core FX-6100 is projected to cost less than $188 in mass quantities, it is likely that the new Bulldozer micro-architecture will not offer performance breakthroughs compared to existing offerings. As a consequence, with such price-tags on the FX-series, Advanced Micro Devices will not be able to substantially increase average selling prices of its chips, a crucial task for the company that is merely profitable.
AMD Orochi design is the company's next-generation processor for high-end desktop (Zambezi) and server (Valencia) markets. The chip will feature up to eight processing engines, but since it is based on Bulldozer micro-architecture, those cores will be packed into four modules. Every module which will have two independent integer cores (that will share fetch, decode and L2 functionality) with dedicated schedulers, one "Flex FP" floating point unit with two 128-bit FMAC pipes with one FP scheduler. The chip will have up to 8MB L2 cache, shared 8MB L3 cache, new dual-channel DDR3 memory controller and will use HyperTransport 3.1 bus. The Zambezi chips will use new AM3+ form-factor and will require brand new platforms.
AMD did not comment on the news-story.
Tags: AMD, Bulldozer, Zambezi, Orochi, 32nm
Comments currently:
25
Discussion started: 09/12/11 02:40:17 PM
Latest comment: 09/14/11 04:01:21 PM
Expand all threads |
Collapse all threads
[1-7]
1.
AMD, you don't seem to deliver.
6
5
[
Posted by: Filiprino
|
Date: 09/12/11 02:40:17 PM]
+ expand thread (1 answer)
- collapse thread
Totally agree.. LOOOOL
3
5
[
Posted by: alaa_kalala
|
Date: 09/12/11 03:23:09 PM]
2.
This can only indicate the even despite the countless delays, the performance of the Zambezi is not upto the mark, even with the tons of cache onboard. The 8120 pitched against the 2500K? Somehow I get the feeling that the module is NOT two cores!
3
4
[
Posted by: psycho_mccrazy
|
Date: 09/12/11 03:59:46 PM]
+ expand thread (7 answers)
- collapse thread
what are you talking about?
2500k is 4 cores.
Current AMD CPUs are up to 6 cores.
These 8 core cpus are clocked much higher, and have more cache. There is no doubt, that AMD won't be able to beat or match intel in every benchmark, but when it comes to multi-tasking, virtual machines, multi-threated apps and will match or beat Intel's 4 core offerings. Note, the Intel 6 core, will probably beat these new cpus across the board. Do you have any idea how Intel paid to be in such a position; they emptied their pockets and yet AMD to a great extent will still be able to compete. These prices are amazing. An 8 core CPU that's highly clocked for 200$; I'm IN. Also note, that unlike Intel, AMD does not force users to upgrade their motherboard for every new cpu that comes out.
4
3
[
Posted by: ericore
|
Date: 09/12/11 04:50:49 PM]
Well, in fact, AMD FX requires AM3+ platform, while Ivy Bridge is compatiblw with LGA1155...
4
6
[
Posted by: Anton
|
Date: 09/12/11 05:18:43 PM]
yet you leave out the fact that Intel ditched and killed off the LGA 1156 platform after it's very short reign. Which left everyone that owns a LGA 1156 platform in the dark in terms of upgrading without having to upgrade their motherboard ontop of buying a new processor ontop of that. Where as AMD you could own an AM2+ socket and still were able to use a AM3 Phenom X6 CPU.
3
1
[
Posted by: SteelCity1981
|
Date: 09/13/11 01:26:22 AM]
Who upgrades their CPUs on the same old board? Oh that's right, AMD fanbois who keep buying $200 slower CPUs and throwing them out and upgrading again, only to throw them up and upgrade again. How is your X4 doing? Did you enjoy worse performance in the last 2-3 years, only to spend another $200 to have a CPU still slower than an overclocked SNB? Awesome.
Intel has destroyed every AMD processor outside of Athlon II X4 since 2006. They left AMD the irrelevant <$100 market since they could care less about making $20 off budget CPUs. The $ and profit margins are in the >$100-$1000 space where AMD has brought nothing to the table since 2006. Their server market share has dwindled to less than 6% from 25%. No one cares about AMD processors in the mobile space either because they lack the required performance or power consumption.
Once again they are only able to compete with budget Llano offerings, which are just Athlon IIs with decent graphics.
Have fun with your slower BD once again. In 6 months, it will be 3 generations behind IVB.
show the post
1
8
[
Posted by: BestJinjo
|
Date: 09/12/11 05:55:04 PM]
U R & Idiot its good that AMD is there yeah it true that Intel has the better processors right now but always remember every thing for a time..
AMD has the better grapics so suck on that i can wait till bulldozer come out so i can see benchmarks i am sure it will not beat Intel highend offerings but it will do what is design to do work and faster that previous generations ask Intel where is Larabee. AMD has a purpose and they purpose is to upset Intel in some for or fashion. The day AMD goes is the day the cheapest intel processor will start @ 500USD up to 2000USD for the Extreme edition
9
1
[
Posted by: blazzin
|
Date: 09/12/11 06:53:33 PM]
Just how many Bj's do you give out to intel executives daily? Talk about fanboy that was an ultimate fanboy comment. Hypocritc.
3
2
[
Posted by: SteelCity1981
|
Date: 09/13/11 01:28:37 AM]
Could you provide a source which verifies these $100-$1000 profit margins please?
0
0
[
Posted by: bined
|
Date: 09/13/11 02:36:20 AM]
3.
You can't judge the performance of the chip based on number alone. it could be a strategic move on AMD's part to reclaim market share by selling a better cpu for a little less.The i5 2500 made such a bold statement at $209, so Amd had no choice but to price the new chips around that mark.
7
3
[
Posted by: saneblane
|
Date: 09/12/11 04:04:09 PM]
+ expand thread (4 answers)
- collapse thread
In case AMD prices its Bulldozer chips on the level of Thubans, then it probably targets more or less similar market segments.
AMD will not be able to reclaim desktop market share this year: it needs to ship enough
16-core Opteron "Interlagos" processors (with two Zambezi dies per chip) for servers first. So, the ramp of FX is unlikely to be fast enough for a rapid reclaim of market share.
If the FX-8150 provides higher performance than the Core i7-2600K and costs less, it will become popular quickly. But AMD has a different shipment priority, so why not price the FX chip accordingly and make a premium on limited edition products?
12
1
[
Posted by: Anton
|
Date: 09/12/11 05:22:20 PM]
"If the FX-8150 provides higher performance than the Core i7-2600K and costs less, it will become popular quickly. But AMD has a different shipment priority, so why not price the FX chip accordingly and make a premium on limited edition products"
Rumors say that Bulldozer has the same IPC as Phenom II. In other words, outside of 5% of people who use their systems for rendering, and running 7-zip benchmarks all day, no one will care about an 8-core CPU that's no better than Phenom II.
Intel isn't even trying at this point. They could easily bankrupt AMD by shifting their entire lineup all the way down (i.e., positioning an i5-2500k at $150) considering they have 60% profits margins. But that would mean a monopoly for them.
It looks like AMD's engineers completely miscalculated current market demands. It will not be for another 3-4 years before an 8-core CPU will be necessary by which point we'll be way past Haswell in performance.
With next generation of consoles still 2-3 years away, and most office programs still struggling to utilize more than 4 threads, with CUDA accelerating things like Photoshop and Intel having QuickSync to encode video, there really isn't any point in launching an 8 core processor with a bunch of slow cores in 2011. AMD completely missed the mark this time.
Now it makes sense why no one wanted to take the position of the CEO for 7 months -- you are jumping aboard a sinking ship!
All I have to say is: AMD sold X4 vs. i3 and X6 vs. i5 and that strategy did not work in the last 2-3 years. Who are they trying to kid one more time? The desktop or mobile market in 2011 does not care about 6 or 8 core CPUs unless each of those cores is fast. Period.
show the post
3
7
[
Posted by: BestJinjo
|
Date: 09/12/11 06:02:41 PM]
When Athlon 64, X2, FX processors dominated Intel, AMD priced them sky-high.
So your logic is completely contrary to what AMD would have done if it had a superior processor given their historical track record.
Lack of benchmarks, constant delays only hinted that this processor will be a flop. Hopefully, AMD can turn it around in 6-12 months and release some faster clocked stepping at least.
5
5
[
Posted by: BestJinjo
|
Date: 09/12/11 06:04:51 PM]
But those price didn't come on the same time AMD released Athlon 64. Also, AMD had shortages of CPUs, it couldn't satisfy the demand.
The above comment has a good point. AMD has to regain some popularity and that can be done with a superior CPU at lower price.
On the other hand, the silence on Bulldozer performance is crap.
There should be a motherboard similar to what EVGA did with the SR-2 and will do with the LGA2011 equivalent, but with the G34 socket.
2
1
[
Posted by: Filiprino
|
Date: 09/13/11 06:54:54 AM]
4.
Damn if the lower-end six-cores are going to be around $180, then the quad-cores must be around $150. If these are final prices, then kudos to AMD for their aggressive pricing. I hope these chips are highly overclockable with aftermarket parts, more so than the unlocked Sandy Bridge parts with. I've never seen CPUs with stock turbo bins this high before. This could mark the beginning of the push into 4+ GHz stock clocks, or at least with turbo. From what I've heard, Bulldozer isn't too far below Sandy Bridge in performance. If AMD plays their cards right, I might even consider getting Bulldozer for my AM3 motherboard instead of waiting for Ivy Bridge. I need a better CPU for emulation.
3
2
[
Posted by: DirectXtreme
|
Date: 09/12/11 05:11:11 PM]
+ expand thread (2 answers)
- collapse thread
4+ Ghz clock speeds are meaningless when you have sub-par performance / clock:
1) Pentium 4
2) Pentium E
3) Penitum D
4) Phenom II X4 / X6
are all examples of CPUs that failed to compete despite being able to reach 4.0+ghz clocks.
In fact, what made AMD's most successful processors successful: Athlon XP+, Athlon 64, Athlon X2 was performance/clock. Yet, AMD fans continue to dismiss this metric today as irrelevant because AMD has no answer.
show the post
1
6
[
Posted by: BestJinjo
|
Date: 09/12/11 06:10:53 PM]
Yes I understand that, but what I'm saying is that Bulldozer will need plenty of overclocking headroom if it doesn't perform as well as Sandy Bridge comparing two similarly clocked CPUs. Overclocking can drastically increase performance. Also, new architectures can't give the performance boosts that older ones (when they were new) would, and devs for emulators aren't really optimizing them for anything above dual-cores. So in my case, I would need a CPU that has very high performance/clock and is highly overclockable.
4
0
[
Posted by: DirectXtreme
|
Date: 09/12/11 07:15:09 PM]
5.
Good luck Ivy Bridge on current 1155 boards - it needs new UEFI, which you cannot get without a hardware modification of the board...
If AMD really ships on or lower the rumored prices, they will make a killer. I would rather get cheaply 8 cores for multithread, than pay $400-$500 for a 2600k that is obsolete by the end of 2011.
5
3
[
Posted by: Ananke
|
Date: 09/12/11 05:33:06 PM]
+ expand thread (2 answers)
- collapse thread
Who needs IVB when a $220 4-core SB @ 4.7ghz mops the floor with the 4.0ghz overclocked X6 1100T?
http://www.xbitlabs.com/a...-2600k-990x_10.html#sect1
You think adding 2 more slow cores to the X6 ==> FX-8100 series will change much in those benchmarks?
2600k is also $317 (it's right in the article), not $400-500.
The point is, people like you who really need 8 cores are very very few. AMD is going to continue to lose market share because they did absolutely nothing to improve IPC. 95% of the market wants 2-4 FAST cores. What were they thinking, I mean really!?
1
4
[
Posted by: BestJinjo
|
Date: 09/12/11 06:13:18 PM]
My what a delicate answer you give, except for forgetting about the entirely new Bulldozer Architecture; enabling more use of cores even in single threaded applications. No I'm not just talking about shutting off cores and turbo. The architecture allows instructions to be executed more efficiently in general. Clearly, this isn't a magic pill since Intel will still pull ahead, but clearly this a clear distinction/improvement from current 6 core offerings.
0
0
[
Posted by: ericore
|
Date: 09/14/11 04:01:21 PM]
6.
Sad news, prices almost always reflects performance.. and these things look to be Pentium 4 duds...
Why did they increase the pipe to get more Mhz... did they not learn anything from intels mistake with doing that on the P4
4
3
[
Posted by: vid_ghost
|
Date: 09/12/11 06:35:06 PM]
+ expand thread (1 answer)
- collapse thread
So you prove that increasing the clock speed on a crap processor makes it even crappier?
lol, AMD cpu's are no peace of crap P4.
0
0
[
Posted by: ericore
|
Date: 09/14/11 03:56:01 PM]
7.
AMD will always be able to compete because it is illegal for Intel to drive them out so they don't have to compete. Whether AMD competes well or not is a matter of opinion.
Sad news, prices almost always reflects performance..
Considering all CPU prices go down over their product life cycle, without a reduction in performance along with these reductions (sometimes maybe even performance increases with driver updates) This statement makes no sense whatsoever. AMD has always been a advocate of the well made, not necessarily the fastest, but good bang for your buck marketing strategy. Just because the new line of FX processors is cheaper than the current mid life intel lines doesn't immediately indicate they will tank off the bat, the pricing scheme follows suite to their product placement/positioning strategy to the letter.
In my opinion, if the FX series can overclock well on air, which according to AMD it can(will), it is positioned to do very well at the price point that it will be entering the market at.
2
9
[
Posted by: veli05
|
Date: 09/13/11 09:09:51 AM]
[1-7]
Make Home Page
Add to Favorites
Xbitlabs on Facebook
XbitLabs is using Twitter
Windows Live Alerts
