Bookmark and Share


Advanced Micro Devices has quietly slashed pricing of its top-of-the-range eight-core AMD FX-8150 central processing units and adjusted pricing of some other chips in the light of the Intel Core i-series "Ivy Bridge" product launch. The eight-core flagship offering from AMD can now be obtained starting at $215 in the U.S.

AMD FX-8150 Black Edition (3.60GHz/4.20GHz, eight cores, 16MB total cache, 125W TDP, AM3+ form-factor) microprocessor officially costs $245 in 1000-unit quantities, but at present it can be acquired starting from $215 in the U.S. and starting from €180 ($238) in Europe. Such a significant difference between official price and actual price may indicate that AMD has quietly reduced the price of the FX-8150 model in the light of Intel's latest product launch as well as to clear the road for the new model FX-8170, which should become available in Q2 2012.

The less advanced FX-series microprocessor, the six-core FX-6200, is also available from $149 in the U.S., whereas the official price in 1000-unit quantities is $165.

AMD FX "Zambezi" multi-core microprocessors based on Bulldozer micro-architecture aimed at enthusiasts have failed to offer competitive performance when compared to high-end Intel Core i 2000-series "Sandy Bridge" microprocessors. Since the new Ivy Bridge chips are slightly faster than predecessors and by far more energy-efficient, the FX line will look even slower in demanding applications. Therefore, AMD needs to cut-down pricing and introduce faster models.

AMD did not comment on the news-story.

Tags: AMD, Zambezi, Bulldozer, 32nm, Ivy Bridge, Sandy Bridge, Core, Intel


Comments currently: 39
Discussion started: 04/26/12 02:05:30 AM
Latest comment: 05/28/12 08:25:34 PM
Expand all threads | Collapse all threads


show the post
1 4 [Posted by: Rollora  | Date: 04/26/12 02:05:30 AM]
- collapse thread

In this stage of time, semiconductors are gauged not by their performance but also power efficiency. Ivy Bridge chips bring a new level of performance/watt to the high-end CPU market (about 20 watts less consumption for the same workload compared to SB).

I feel sorry for AMD, Bulldozer is just a failure project, and IB makes it even worse for them. Even at the new price point, I don't see the point of buying the 125w FX-8150 or the rest of the BD line for that matter.
4 2 [Posted by: texasti  | Date: 04/26/12 02:51:31 AM]
Yeah of course. But in Performance per Watt, Bulldozer hasn't matched Sandy Bridge by far. Ivy Bridge did increase this dramatic situation but if you look at it, it didn't change the situation: Intel has far better performance per watt. It had that before, it still has it, by an even (sligtly) bigger margin - so why the price slashes, if the processors sold well before, there shouldn't be a need 4 that.
0 2 [Posted by: Rollora  | Date: 04/26/12 10:57:03 AM]
You may have been right several process nodes ago, but the price of semiconductor wafers continues to increase as we go down to smaller process sizes.

People are forgetting Moore's 2nd law:
"The cost of building chip fabrication plants will continue to increase (and the return on investment to decrease) until it becomes fiscally untenable to build new plants."

AMD sold their FABs and now everybody thinks Intel will just ride off into the sunset and win the race, but there's a wall that Intel is fast approaching that cannot be easily avoided. That wall is the outrageously huge amounts of capital necessary to retool FAB plants for the next process node shrink. Even Intel will run out of the resources necessary to maintain the 18 month cycle they've been on for so many years.

Perhaps this is why Apple has been hoarding stupifying amounts of money - they hope to be the last company able to spend the money necessary for that one extra die shrink that none of their competitors can afford.
0 0 [Posted by: anubis44  | Date: 04/30/12 12:49:03 PM]
Its because bulldozer is a failure, pure and simple. Microsoft has already said they won't fix the scheduler problem in Windows until Win 8, which with the amount of hatred metro is getting will probably be another Vista flop. I have been buying AMD since it came out the OEMs were getting bribed by Intel but after looking at Bulldozer i went with a Thuban X6, it beats the BD in most real world tests and since it has REAL 6 cores instead of the half cores of BD it simply is a better value.

Personally I hope that AMD drops the half core design or figures out how to move floating point onto the GPU (that is the rumored way they are going) because as it is the Pentium duals run better than FX, its just a really bad design flop and reminds me of netburst and not in a good way. Its too hot, too power hungry, the half cores don't run well with current Windows OSes, its just not a good buy even with the price drop. If I were recommending AMD I would stick with Thuban on the desktop and Liano and brazos on mobile and hope they get things fixed by Excavator.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 05/28/12 08:05:13 PM]

show the post
2 5 [Posted by: tedstoy  | Date: 04/26/12 03:06:37 AM]
- collapse thread

What's the point of bringing IB graphic weakness when BD doesn't have such one?

To me, IB graphic processor performance is more than enough for my day-to-day usage including all my graphic work on my laptops. If I were to use a high end IB CPU for my desktop machine, I won't think of using an integrated GPU to begin with.
3 0 [Posted by: texasti  | Date: 04/26/12 05:51:01 AM]

It's a good move. The more FX processors the public has the less impact of paid shills. FX is faster than Phenom in the real world, but you would never know listening to the BS floating around. No one is measuring nm or power at the wall. These processors are maxed out a few min per day. For 99% there is practically no discernable between them.
3 4 [Posted by: grundfunk  | Date: 04/26/12 03:18:23 AM]
- collapse thread

You are obviously not a gamer or using a high-end CPU for a real reason.
4 1 [Posted by: texasti  | Date: 04/26/12 05:32:29 AM]
show the post
1 4 [Posted by: grundfunk  | Date: 04/26/12 08:29:38 AM]
"For 99% there is practically no discernable between them."

^ Using your logic, there was no point in upgrading from Phenom II to Bulldozer or from Core 2 Duo to Core i7, etc. Right now SB/IVB mops the floor with Bulldozer in performance:


and consumes 90-95W less power at load:



FX8150 is barely better than an overclocked 1100T. It should have been priced at $169 from the beginning as it can't even better an overclocked 2500K for most tasks people use their CPU for. In today's smartphone and tablet generation of consumers, encoding video is also accelerated via QuickSync:

There are practically no applications or tasks left where Bulldozer wins. Piledriver can't get here fast enough.
1 1 [Posted by: BestJinjo  | Date: 04/26/12 07:51:12 AM]
show the post
1 5 [Posted by: grundfunk  | Date: 04/26/12 08:21:45 AM]
You are missing the point. That's 1 application, indexing. What about the rest? Did you upgrade your hard drive to an SSD in the process, etc.? How would that FX4100 fair against an SB/IVB chip?

Also, hardly anyone upgrades for just a 15% performance increase. A 1090T would smoke your FX4100 in just about everything else, gaming, office tasks, etc. Using 1 application to show the superiority of a CPU just applies to you, not 99.9% of consumers who buy CPUs for a wide variety of tasks. It's not sufficient to just be good at 1 benchmark. In fact, on average the 1100T is just 9% slower than the FX8150. So there is no way your FX4100 is faster than 1090T or 1100T:

A CPU has to deliver a good balance of performance across a wide variety of benchmarks, while consuming reasonable amount of power.

What about overall performance?

There’s no point to a Bulldozer unless you’re a die-hard AMD fan. Even if you make the argument that you’ll flat-line from GPU limitations in games (and ignore minimum framerates or gaming on multiple GPUs), at worst a Sandy Bridge/Ivy can achieve the same thing while using far less power and generating less heat.
4 1 [Posted by: BestJinjo  | Date: 04/26/12 08:30:52 AM]
If the processor is maxed out a few min per day then the difference in power consumption is nothing. My FX 4100 cost $109. There are 2 generations of upgrades left on this socket. FX for me, thanks.
2 4 [Posted by: grundfunk  | Date: 04/26/12 08:42:50 AM]
If 9 out of 10 tech journalists with bags over their heads can't tell the difference between Intel and AMD..

then maybe there isn't much difference.
2 3 [Posted by: grundfunk  | Date: 04/26/12 09:04:14 AM]
What are you even rambling about... what tech journalists?

I am glad you are happy with your setup. For most of my work, I don't quite need an i7 class CPU either. But on my home machine, for games and media encoding, my Sandy Bridge simply outpaces what AMD would sell me.

To each their own. Not sure where your whole "paid shills" angle comes in, at all.
1 0 [Posted by: hansmuff  | Date: 04/26/12 01:55:40 PM]
I agree, Bulldozer core is pathetic to upgrade to unless have to use AVX instruction. I think grundfunk is hiding the true that grundfunk upgrade the disk system. A faster disk system actually improves indexing than upgrading the processor.
1 0 [Posted by: tecknurd  | Date: 04/26/12 04:31:59 PM]
But how many people will HONESTLY notice 15%? I built new AMD systems for me and my boys recently...and went with Thuban and Deneb. there simply wasn't enough of a performance difference in games to justify the increased cost of the FX series and the A series has too weak a GPU for the kinds of games the boys play and thus would be pointless. The youngest got a 925, the oldest a Thuban 1045T and I got a 1035T and all told we spent less than $1300 after MIRs for the entire set with HD4850s all around.

These chips simply cost too much and deliver too little compared to the Thuban and Deneb. if AMD were smart they'd have kept a single Thuban chip and then simply disabled cores to cover the Athlon and Phenom II lines, as core unlocking at least gave folks a reason to buy and take a shot of getting an even better deal. While the A series is a decent mobile chip the FX series simply doesn't measure up, its more of a server chip than a desktop and doesn't lend itself well for desktop tasks.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 05/28/12 08:20:01 PM]
The more FX processors the public has the less impact of paid shills. FX is faster than Phenom in the real world

Thats really depends on the application you use

Try to use PCSX2 on FX, it would perform worse than Phenom II
1 0 [Posted by: maroon1  | Date: 04/27/12 01:22:51 AM]

FX-8170 for Q1 2012, hasn't that passed
0 0 [Posted by: madooo12  | Date: 04/26/12 04:25:33 AM]

Slashing prices - only one effective waepon in AMD arsenal
3 3 [Posted by: Tristan  | Date: 04/26/12 04:47:35 AM]
- collapse thread

Don`t you just love the Intel marketing? (Brain Washing) Where people rather pay more for a certain performance bracket than having to pay less, LOL.
2 3 [Posted by: keysplayer  | Date: 04/26/12 05:30:37 AM]
Yes, because 3570K @ $212 is paying "more" for "less performance than FX-8150.....

Did you even read Xbitlabs' review or you are just ignorant?

Things would get even more embarrassing once IVB is overclocked to 4.6ghz+ against a 4.6ghz FX8150.
2 1 [Posted by: BestJinjo  | Date: 04/26/12 07:55:48 AM]
Actually I've been buying AMD exclusively for years now and even I see that the FX is a bad value. It simply isn't as good as Deneb and thuban at many real world tasks and many places are selling the 135T and 1045T for less than $120 new, the FX simply doesn't compare on bang for the buck with that friend, sorry.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 05/28/12 08:25:34 PM]

referring back to the article about Trinity if one read it this makes sense as the Trinity with 4 Bulldoser/Piledriver core and 7000 series graphics will lower the demand for the FX. e.g an Fx 4100 series with an inbuilt 7000 graphics will shoot the flower powered apu's out of the water. Interesting times again with both sides having something to crow about. The fan-bois will be all of a lather again. One side will demand nay insist on additional graphic cards., whilst the other will poo poo the very idea. It will be interesting to see how the press treat this.Will they just hash press releases as usual.
0 1 [Posted by: tedstoy  | Date: 04/26/12 05:39:31 AM]

Well at least amd will gain back their losses in slightly improved sales in the long run. I doubt that those who really know their stuff would be going for IB much considering it doesn't overclock well and has thermal issues -_- So SB is pretty much the way to go on the intel side while I still think that phenom is the best for amd. PD might turn things around a little but not enough to compete.
1 2 [Posted by: nforce4max  | Date: 04/26/12 05:45:40 AM]
- collapse thread

It's important to keep in mind that Ivy Bridge is a brand new process, in many more ways than is normal. As a consequence, it will probably take more time to get it to a high level of efficiency. The only knock is, it overclocks slightly less than a processor that overclocks very well. That will almost certainly change, with newer steps and tweaks to the process.

On the other hand, it has a much more powerful GPU, slightly better IPC for the CPU, and much lower power use. On top of this, it's a relatively small die, and will be inexpensive to make.

It's a big win or Intel. And will only get better as they develop the manufacturing process further.
0 1 [Posted by: TA152H  | Date: 04/28/12 01:39:17 PM]

Piledriver for desktop is on its way.
makes sense to cut prices, September or October is only 5 to 6 months away. Whos gonna buy Bulldozer if Piledriver is so close.
1 1 [Posted by: campdude  | Date: 04/26/12 08:38:37 AM]
- collapse thread

dont josh around with delay of launch intel fans...
0 1 [Posted by: campdude  | Date: 04/26/12 08:39:20 AM]

3570K which is supposed to cost $212 performs better in most cases than FX-8150

AMD fx-8150 is still overpriced
2 0 [Posted by: maroon1  | Date: 04/27/12 01:26:56 AM]

People calm down, bulldozer is not a fail, is just a hard transition to a better chip.

Unfortunately it needed more time to catch up in terms of performance before it hit the market, but it definitely stopped the gap from increasing between intel and amd.

There is still a performance gap but now they have a change to close it with the next generation of CPUs, if they were just improving the phenom II design, maybe they could catch up a little with SB but lose the game completely in a couple of CPU generations because of the design's limitations.
1 3 [Posted by: nitro912gr  | Date: 04/27/12 11:35:19 AM]
- collapse thread

Actually, this was the chip that was the big change, and the one that was supposed to narrow the gap. It was the revolutionary chip. The next are evolutionary. So, while it's convenient to keep saying the next one is going to get them back into the game, it is untrue. You don't remember everyone saying this about Bulldozer? How it will beat Intel, bring AMD back, etc... Well, it didn't, and claiming the next iteration of the same processor will somehow do it is pretty naive.
0 1 [Posted by: TA152H  | Date: 04/28/12 01:42:05 PM]


Add your Comment

Related news

Latest News

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

10:48 pm | LG’s Unique Ultra-Wide Curved 34” Display Finally Hits the Market. LG 34UC97 Available in the U.S. and the U.K.

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

12:52 pm | Lisa Su Appointed as New CEO of Advanced Micro Devices. Rory Read Steps Down, Lisa Su Becomes New CEO of AMD

Thursday, August 28, 2014

4:22 am | AMD Has No Plans to Reconsider Recommended Prices of Radeon R9 Graphics Cards. AMD Will Not Lower Recommended Prices of Radeon R9 Graphics Solutions

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

1:09 pm | Samsung Begins to Produce 2.13GHz 64GB DDR4 Memory Modules. Samsung Uses TSV DRAMs for 64GB DDR4 RDIMMs

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

10:41 am | AMD Quietly Reveals Third Iteration of GCN Architecture with Tonga GPU. AMD Unleashes Radeon R9 285 Graphics Cards, Tonga GPU, GCN 1.2 Architecture