AMD FX-series chips show up in early listings

Last we checked, AMD hadn’t even announced shipments of desktop Bulldozer processors yet, and server-based offerings that were shipping weren’t due out until the fourth quarter. That hasn’t stopped a small, U.S.-based e-tailer from jumping the gun and putting up listings for FX-series Bulldozer CPUs, however.

The e-tailer, Bottom Line Telecommunications Corporation, is listing three chips:

  • An FX-6100 model with six cores, a 3.3GHz clock speed, 14MB of cache, a 95W thermal envelope, and an asking price of $188.32.
  • An FX-8120 model with eight cores, a 3.1GHz speed, 16MB of cache, a 125W TDP, and a $221.73 asking price.
  • And an FX-8150 model, which looks similar to the FX-8120 except for its 3.6GHz clock speed and $266.28 price tag.

The quoted specs match those leaked by Gigabyte in a motherboard compatibility page earlier this month, so we could be looking at the real thing here.

According to CPU-World, which first spotted the Bottom Line Telecommunications listings, final retail prices will likely be $10-20 lower than what you see in these early listings. $266 for the top-of-the-line FX-8150 sounds about right, though. Back in July, AMD quoted an “approximate retail value” of $300 for FX-series CPUs being given out as part of a contest.

Comments closed
    • burntham77
    • 8 years ago

    An FX-6100 model with six cores, a 3.3GHz clock speed, 14MB of cache, a 95W thermal envelope, and an asking price of $188.32.

    I have been saying for awhile that I would consider a six-core CPU if AMD could get it under 100W and they sure as heck did. And at 3.3GHz which is a nice bump up from my 2.8GHz quad-core Phenom II.

    However, I am not in the market for an upgrade as the quad-core still does everything I need. But when I am, I know where to look. Nice work AMD.

    • anotherengineer
    • 8 years ago

    Good news.

    However I am still satisfied with my 955 BE.

    Next purchase is some Baltic Birch plywood to build a nice desk/drawers.

    I am still saving for an SSD, and a 24″ IPS monitor.

    Even if it was 10x the performance of a 2600k, I probably still couldn’t justify it since my 955 idles 99% of the time.

    At least I could justify the SSD or monitor since I would be making use of them 100% of the time.

      • NeelyCam
      • 8 years ago

      [quote<]Next purchase is some Baltic Birch plywood to build a nice desk/drawers.[/quote<] That stuff smells soooo nice!

      • daddy0623
      • 8 years ago

      I love my SSD and compared to what is out now, it is low grade. I have a 120 GB Sata II MLC OCZ drive. Yet it makes my AMD-920 real snappy. I am so looking forward to a 256 Sata III MLC SSD for my next purchase. All my apps are so responsive. It out perforrms my sons Raid 0 with 4 disks. not on pure IO but on latency which makes a difference. My IO is just a little better then my sons Raid 0 on IO. But still my system seems snappyer.

    • ronch
    • 8 years ago

    Bulldozer news snippets are not so different from drinking your favorite beer drop by drop, with 10 seconds in between…

    • Tristan
    • 8 years ago

    Zambezi again in some unknown shop ? Old idea tried few months ago
    [url<]http://wccftech.com/amd-bulldozer-fx8130p-sale-priced-19980-yuan-308/[/url<] AMD is magic company.

    • UberGerbil
    • 8 years ago

    “Bottom Line Telecommunications Corporation” — Really? And it sells bare CPUs in single units? Can anybody verify this is even a legitimate business? Hmmm: pre-order from these guys, or just send my bank details to that nice Nigerian prince who keeps emailing me….

      • ronch
      • 8 years ago

      Or make you pay now and ship your product to you in November, because AMD isn’t shipping out desktop variants yet.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 8 years ago

    Friends don’t let friends pre-order. Don’t do it! You have so much to live for!

      • ClickClick5
      • 8 years ago

      der, you moved from the bread to here to post about not pre-ordering…

      This means a lot to you.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 8 years ago

        don’t do it! I’m trying to save you guys some money. I’m not saying “don’t buy BD”, because I think I will eventually. I’m just saying “don’t do it til you know it’s what you think it is”.

          • ClickClick5
          • 8 years ago

          I gotcha. Like those who pre-ordered The Force Unleashed 2…

            • derFunkenstein
            • 8 years ago

            Oh don’t even get me started on game pre-orders. Wait about 6 weeks and pay half price.

            • Meadows
            • 8 years ago

            You’re thinking of this from a completely wrong angle. Impatience has a price all of its own. It’s the reason the credit market exists.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 8 years ago

            Because a bunch of rich people figured out how they can make even more money buy selling promises to poor people?

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            Because a bunch of rich people figured out how they can make even more money by skewing the economy to almost require credit in order for average people to survive.

            there. fixed that for you

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 8 years ago

            I didn’t even take it that far and I get a minus 1.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 8 years ago

            Indeed you are correct. I have some patience, but it took me 30 years on this planet to develop it.

          • NeelyCam
          • 8 years ago

          Those folks who bought AM3+ boards earlier this year were essentially pre-ordering… I feel bad for them.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 8 years ago

            I did it but it’s because I had other needs. For example, I was on a DDR2 system that was essentially maxed out for RAM becuase I only had 2 RAM slots. I went AM3+ for the replacement board because of how money worked out – DDR3 is so much lower in cost that it was cheaper overall to buy AM3+ and 2x4GB of DDR3 than it was to buy a comparable AM2+ board and a second 2x2GB set that matched my first one. AM3+ support is a bonus but it wasn’t my primary goal. Plus, it’s not like BD is the only CPU that goes in an AM3+ board.

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            That makes sense.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 8 years ago

            Still, I think you’re right about most people who have upgraded to AM3+. Many have done so anticipating BD to be worth the wait.

    • ronch
    • 8 years ago

    Great! Can’t wait to see benchies! Congrats to the Bulldozer team!

      • sschaem
      • 8 years ago

      We already have the results, and it match the architecture expectations:
      [url<]http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QLn9rR2rn5oJ:www.sisoftware.net/?d=qa&f=cpu_amd_bulldozer&l=en&a=+sisoftware+bulldozer&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=en[/url<] What we dont know is power efficiency. This is where AMD put all its marbles. (and scaling up core count)

        • ronch
        • 8 years ago

        Interesting link, but is this an official, unbiased review of an official production model? As most of us know there were rumors that AMD wanted higher clocks so B2 was spun, which would connect well with the 2.8GHz clock of the unit tested in the article you pointed to. However, there were also rumors of ‘performance locks’ which AMD could remove in the final stepping. If this were true and AMD did implement these ‘locks’, I have no idea why they ‘locked’ the performance down in the first place. Nonetheless, if BD does turn out to be not so great I imagine a lot of people picking up a nice box of Sandy Bridge.

        I and another 84,205,715 people hope that BD will not be another Barcelona. Late and under-performing. Worse, we were all eager for it more than we were for Barcy.

        • Tristan
        • 8 years ago

        Do not try this with AMD fanboys. They believe in uncorfirmed super performance of bulldozer, and does not believe in uncorfirmed benchmarks. Only AMD may kick them in their ass 🙂

          • ronch
          • 8 years ago

          Can’t blame people, with all the crazy rumors surrounding BD. People making stuff up and all that.

          • cegras
          • 8 years ago

          You should look at the forums where AMD explicitly stated that this is fake. Also, Hans de Vries at xtremesystems suspects pre fetch was turned off.

          In addition, this bulldozer scores lower than phenom iis in certain benchmarks.

          I’d say you were the one that really wanted to jump to a conclusion.

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            All that’s needed to shut up the speculators is to release the thing and get some actual benchmarks out there.

            Why is it taking so long?

            • Meadows
            • 8 years ago

            You can’t rush art.

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            Those die photos are pretty

            • cegras
            • 8 years ago

            Dont ask me. AMDs failure to meet their deadlines may or may not have something to do with performance. You seem fond of blaming the foundry side, and I am not knowledgeable enough about these matters to comment. What I see is facts, however.

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            Re: blaming foundry – I’m just repeating rumors and speculating. I have zero facts.

            • khands
            • 8 years ago

            Because AMD has no money.

            • ronch
            • 8 years ago

            And so they’re in a precarious situation where in their failure and demise won’t bode well for everyone. No PC OEM or end user would want them to sink.

    • PrincipalSkinner
    • 8 years ago

    Just get them out already! They’ll look better after couple of revisions.

      • Game_boy
      • 8 years ago

      Specifically, the performance enhancing stepping due Q1.

        • NeelyCam
        • 8 years ago

        With all the hype about BD, and how late it was and how low the price now is (implying performance below expectations), would you really trust that this super-stepping is somehow magically going to fix everything?

        Overall, I guess it’s a moot point – at around Q1 time frame, it’ll have to go against Ivy Bridge anyways. BD (32nm planar) has no chance to compete with IB (22nm trigate), unless Intel’s new low-power ultrabook push means they won’t make high-TDP desktop CPUs anymore…

          • khands
          • 8 years ago

          Nah, they’ll still keep the crown, they can probably just over volt a low-power version if necessary.

          • Game_boy
          • 8 years ago

          No, of course not. But it’s a few percent BD would otherwise not have had.

          IB and SB-E are suffering from their share of delays too. Tom’s has an SB-E preview showing lower IPC than regular SB and a very hot chip with little headroom. That might be an unrepresentative ES but isn’t that all we have of BD now too?

          I expect no tangible benefit from trigate to clockspeeds or power. HKMG didn’t do much for them or for BD/Llano even when everyone was hyping it up, they both looked like normal jumps.

          Intel will retain the performance and perf/watt leadership in most benches but it will not be an easy ride.

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            Cool – thanks for the note. I hadn’t seen Tom’s SB-E preview. 1.456V!!?? That’s insane… doesn’t make sense. No wonder it’s burning up (also, the review mentioned that they didn’t have LGA2011-compatible heat sink, messing up the cooling).

            [quote<]I expect no tangible benefit from trigate to clockspeeds or power. HKMG didn't do much for them or for BD/Llano even when everyone was hyping it up, they both looked like normal jumps.[/quote<] I do. HKMG is no tri-gate. The purpose of HKMG is to enable shrinking the channel length (to improve drive current) without losing channel control (i.e., not being able to turn the transistor off) or having massive gate leakage from thinner oxide. The transistors are still planar, and suffer from the same incomplete depletion - it's just that they are smaller and thus perform better.... "normal" jumps, yes, but nearly impossible to achieve without adding HKMG. Tri-gate is different. Full channel depletion improves drive current beyond 'normal' shrinks, improves channel control significantly, reducing subthreshold leakage. It's just a better transistor... horribly difficult to make, I'm sure, but better. I think it might yield an extra one-generation "jump" in performance or efficiency beyond the "normal" jump, or at least half-a-generation. But I think what might be more important is that tri-gate enables yet another "normal" jump from shrink... without it, this "normal" jump might be extremely difficult.

      • ronch
      • 8 years ago

      The exercise in patience AMD is giving all of us nowadays with Bulldozer will come in handy around 2013-15, when AMD rolls their next architecture out and we’re all masters of patience. Or will this be AMD’s last architecture?

    • chuckula
    • 8 years ago

    [quote<]And an FX-8150 model, which looks similar to the FX-8120 except for its 3.6GHz clock speed and $266.28 price tag.[/quote<] Ignoring all the (likely faked) leaks on the Internet about how the FX series will perform, AMD just told you how it thinks the FX-8150 will perform: Better than a 2500K, but worse than a 2600K. It remains to be seen how things like power consumption and overclocking potential will factor in to Bulldozer's performance.

      • NeelyCam
      • 8 years ago

      Yeah; I’m actually a bit shocked to see such low prices. Back a while ago, when the first pricing rumors came out, the top-of-the-line CPU was said to be priced at $320 or so (i.e., higher than 2600K).

      Now it looks like BD really is weaker than expected. It was supposed to easily beat all 4-core SB’s, but being priced at $270, looks like it doesn’t.. while having a much larger die.

      I’m happy I pulled the SB trigger in the beginning of the year instead of waiting for 3.. wait, 6… no, 9 months to see if BD is a better option.

        • khands
        • 8 years ago

        That, or AMD expects Intel to price cut once Bulldozer launches (or shortly before then), which wouldn’t be unheard of.

          • sschaem
          • 8 years ago

          The i7-2700k is in effect that price cut. All chip goes down the price ladder. The 2600k should fall at ~$275
          Making the FX-8120 and i7-2600k priced equally.

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            Ah, good point. I guess the BD delays meant the prices had to be adjusted, as Intel’s price/performance keeps going down.

        • south side sammy
        • 8 years ago

        why shocked at the price ? the way of the world’s economies they better keep it low or nothing will sell. if the economies were good you can bet they would be getting twice the price.

          • NeelyCam
          • 8 years ago

          That only works if AMD’s prices can somehow change the overall world CPU demand significantly.

          Intel is still the volume king, and they determine the world market prices; AMD merely adjusts its prices to beat Intel’s price/performance points with some extra margin in order to grow market share.

      • ronch
      • 8 years ago

      So it takes 8 BD cores to beat a 4-core i5. Surely that’s with well-threaded apps. Or is AMD gonna give you twice the aggregate performance of an i5 for not much more?

        • dpaus
        • 8 years ago

        I don’t know, but I wish you’d stop calling me Shirley.

          • ronch
          • 8 years ago

          Can’t.

        • bwcbiz
        • 8 years ago

        That’s to be expected. SB cores have a 2nd set of registers. Bulldozer cores have full register and logic sets. So the 2nd Bulldozer core is there to out-hyperthread Intel’s hyper-threading. It probably also explains the difference in TDP. The question for me is whether an AMD “module” beats an Intel core and what the power utilization does in that equation,

          • khands
          • 8 years ago

          Yeah, this is what AMD’s been betting on, and it’s the most important question.

      • bwcbiz
      • 8 years ago

      Or it performs as well as a 2600 (stock) but they mark it down due to the excess power consumption. But yeah, this looks like it won’t catch the 2600K, or the markdown would be less.

      These numbers are mildly disappointing, if they are accurate. If AMD can’t hit 95W for a “8-core” CPU in the same performance range as the 2600K, Intel’s fabs and designers win again on the power efficiency front.

        • Vasilyfav
        • 8 years ago

        Considering that Intel has been 1 tech process ahead of AMD for at least 4 years now, I don’t see how you’re surprised that AMD cpus are on average less efficient both in task energy and average load.

          • NeelyCam
          • 8 years ago

          Intel 32nm bulk and GloFo 32nm SOI should be roughly equivalent in performance. Intel’s is much more mature, of course, giving them an edge, but it’s not a “1 tech process” difference right now.

    • Corrado
    • 8 years ago

    Depending on how it plays out in benchmarks, I’d be game for a 6 core 3.3ghz chip for $150-175.

      • flip-mode
      • 8 years ago

      For me it also depends a lot on power consumption. All else being equal, I’ll choose my next platform based on lowest idle power consumption. Load power consumption doesn’t matter as much to me.

      I’m still running DDR2. I suprise myself at how long I’ve held back from DDR3, but there hasn’t been a compelling enough reason to switch. But now with DDR3 prices so darn low and with DDR3 module capacities of 4GB and higher becoming common, the time is drawing near.

      I’m not going to be bothered by whether Bulldozer flies or flops, though. I will be perfectly content with a 2500K and a Z68 mobo.

        • NeelyCam
        • 8 years ago

        If you mostly care about the idle power consumption, you should look at Intel’s H61/H67 mobos instead..

          • flip-mode
          • 8 years ago

          Thanks, but no. Z68 if / when the time comes. I would never buy a 2500K and then cut myself off from the overclocking abilities of the chip.

            • Farting Bob
            • 8 years ago

            You care alot about power consumption but want a high end, power guzzling board to do high overclocks on? Are you familiar with the robot saying “DOES NOT COMPUTE”?

            • Ryhadar
            • 8 years ago

            I don’t see how the Z68 boards “guzzle” power. Even TRs review shows the Z68 boards at the bottom in terms of idle power consumption versus P67 (not sure about H67/1).

            And if flip overclocks like I do — which is to say turn up the multiplier and turn down the voltage/keep voltage at stock — then what he’s asking for is perfectly reasonable.

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            While TR reviews are usually superb, I’m not sure I would necessarily consider them the top authority in low power computing… I think that label goes to Silent PC Review. Check out this review:

            [url<]http://www.silentpcreview.com/article1143-page5.html[/url<] Compare the idle power numbers to any review on TR, and you'll see a major difference, mainly because most power measurements on TR reviews are done with a discrete graphics card and somewhat inefficient PSUs. The only one measured with an IGP I can find now is here: [url<]https://techreport.com/articles.x/20290/5[/url<] What I've seen on other sites is that P67/Z68 systems consume more power at idle than H61/H67 systems with IGPs. That said, I didn't know flip was going to overclock. If he is, then sure - Z68 makes sense. My Intel-branded H67 mobo bios doesn't even let me lower the CPU voltage!! Pretty sad..

            • flip-mode
            • 8 years ago

            Here’s spcr’s mobo article section:
            [url<]http://www.silentpcreview.com/section14.html[/url<] I don't see Z68 in there anywhere. But now you have me curious. So if you post a link to a source that compares the power consumption of Z68 to the P67 and H55 that you think is particularly worthy then I'd be interested in taking a look.

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            I looked but couldn’t find any… Comparing P67 to H61/H67 and Z68 is difficult in idle because P67 requires a discrete card. But I couldn’t find any H67/Z68 IGP idle comparisons anywhere.. I saw some with H67 using IGP, while others using discrete cards.

            In general, all the individual reviews have showed Z68 boards idling at higher power levels than H67 in [i<]different[/i<] individual reviews, but I haven't seen them compared face-to-face. PSU, memory/HDD etc. surely affect the results..

          • ronch
          • 8 years ago

          Huh? With the chipset? Why not go all-out on idle power savings with an Atom or a Bobcat variant? Or just an ARM-based tablet or something.

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            I meant H61/H67 instead of Z68. If he’s talking about BD vs. SB, I don’t think he would touch an Atom/Bobcat/ARM anything.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This