Monday, May 23rd 2011
AMD Bulldozer, Llano Pricing Surface
Here are the first figures made public of the market prices of AMD's upcoming two lines of desktop processors. AMD will approach the desktop PC market with two platforms, the A-Series "Llano" accelerated processing units (APUs), and the FX-series "Zambezi" processors (CPUs). APUs are functionally similar to Intel's Sandy Bridge processors, in having processor cores, a graphics processor, memory controller, and PCI-Express switch packed into a single piece of silicon. AMD is apparently relying on its powerful GPU architecture to make Llano a more wholesome product. Zambezi functionally resembles Intel Westmere/Bloomfield, in having a number of processing cores, a high-bandwidth memory controller, and a large cache packed into a single die, making up for a performance part.
By mid-June, AMD will launch the FX-Series with two a 4-core, a 6-core, and two 8-core parts. The series will be led by eight-core AMD FX-8130P priced at US $320, trailed by FX-8130 at US $290. The former probably is a "unlocked" part. Next up is the six-core FX-6110, priced at $240. Lastly there's the quad-core FX-4110, going for $220. You will notice that the price per core isn't as linear as it was in the previous generation.
Around the same time as the FX-Series, AMD will launch its A-Series APUs, based on the brand new FM1 socket and single-chip chipset. The series is capped off by A8-3550P, which is an unlocked quad-core part priced at $170. Its "locked" variant, the A8-3550, will be priced $20 less, at $150. The A8 sub-series consists of quad-core parts with 400 stream processors enabled in the iGPU. Next up is the unlocked A6-3450P quad-core priced at $130, its locked counterpart, the A6-3450, is priced at $110. With A6 sub-series, the iGPU has 320 stream processors. At the bottom of the pile are dual-core parts, A4-3350P priced at $80, and E2-3350 at $70. The E2 sub-series has 240 stream processors on the iGPU. All prices in 1000-unit tray quantities.
Source:
DigiTimes
By mid-June, AMD will launch the FX-Series with two a 4-core, a 6-core, and two 8-core parts. The series will be led by eight-core AMD FX-8130P priced at US $320, trailed by FX-8130 at US $290. The former probably is a "unlocked" part. Next up is the six-core FX-6110, priced at $240. Lastly there's the quad-core FX-4110, going for $220. You will notice that the price per core isn't as linear as it was in the previous generation.
Around the same time as the FX-Series, AMD will launch its A-Series APUs, based on the brand new FM1 socket and single-chip chipset. The series is capped off by A8-3550P, which is an unlocked quad-core part priced at $170. Its "locked" variant, the A8-3550, will be priced $20 less, at $150. The A8 sub-series consists of quad-core parts with 400 stream processors enabled in the iGPU. Next up is the unlocked A6-3450P quad-core priced at $130, its locked counterpart, the A6-3450, is priced at $110. With A6 sub-series, the iGPU has 320 stream processors. At the bottom of the pile are dual-core parts, A4-3350P priced at $80, and E2-3350 at $70. The E2 sub-series has 240 stream processors on the iGPU. All prices in 1000-unit tray quantities.
80 Comments on AMD Bulldozer, Llano Pricing Surface
I think people have gotten adjusted to the fact that Quad-Core AMD CPU's are around $100-175, Hex-Core are $150-200, and logically the means Octo-Core should be about $200-250. The flaw in that logic is that all the current generation AMD CPU's were noticably higher price when they were released, and AMD just drops the price so they stay competative from a Price:Performance perspective.
Also, Intel is hardly the first company to price their top-tier CPU's insanely high... FX-51/53 anyone? Granted those things probably were worth it by comparison, but that was when CPU's were a lot more important than they are now (from a gaming perspective) ;p
AMD also known for it's cheaper price than Intel, so to put price around $320 it's make AMD really confident to beat SB. So....we'll see BD flying to heaven or free falling to hell.
I doubt I will be making the upgrade this time, but thats only because I would need to upgrade my mobo at the sametime. So maybe next tax season will make the big leap.
Got the 1090T myself, but i hate to admit it, that Intel wins in every single bench test. If Amd's flagship cpu do better then the 2600k it wil most likely be smashed when the Ivy Bridge is released.
If someone is going to say this is going to crush this before it even comes out is a fool. We all know Bulldozer is going to be an improvement, as if it wouldnt be over what they have now. We just not sure how much, and this will all be answered within a month. And if you read my post i said "might" unlike the other guy that said "will" .
www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-2500k-and-core-i7-2600k-review/1
The real star of the SB lineup was in fact the i5-2500k, which offered similar performance in most applications to the i7-2600k, and managed to beat just about everything AMD had to offer for slightly more money. To say Sandy-Bridge didn't do great is living in denial. I expect even if Bulldozer can beat Sandy-Bridge (I expect it to be about on par for the SB lineup), it probably will stand little chance against the Ivy Bridge lineup :x
One of the major reasons I'm still with AMD is the incremental upgrades i have been able to do over the past 4 years, now it's time for a new motherboard, CPU and RAM so it's up to AMD to impress me if they want more of my money.
Of course you will get forum trolls such as araditus telling you that these prices must be fake just because TR hasn't picked them up yet :)
The good thing for AMD is that SB-E is nowhere to be seen yet so they can reap the benefits of their new architecture in top mainstream segment at least for a while. They had plenty of time to do the benchmarking and settle on pricing since SB came out so I'm confident that they have priced Bulldozer in accordance with its comparative performance to the competition. I only wish AMD didn't go for "-core" nomenclature (making 4-module CPU "octo-core") as this may come back to haunt them really soon: "yeah, it's octo-core but not entirely so due to sharing of many per-module resources, hence the not-really-eight-times-the-performance" and "yeah, it's octo-core that performs on par with competitor's quad-core" :( If they played it safe and called it "a four-module eight-thread CPU" from the get-go consumers would compare it to Intel's HT 4c/8t directly and find out that AMD's design of "HT" is obviously superior (displaying better performance per additional "thread" than Intel).
I am not going to pay sometimes hundreds more to get a movie done 2-3 minutes faster or 10 for FPS in a video game. I have done countless real world side by side comparisons between Intel and AMD processors for the better part of the past 10 years, my job allows me this luxury. The reason Intel lost me as a customer is the fact benchmarks are almost always over-hyped or inflated and they do not hold up in day to day real world usage on end-user machines. They may be a good "generalized" standard, but I am not generalized, I have specific needs and wants from my system, AMD meets all them and far more.
Like I said though, that's just my own personal opinion, one that I have formed over many years of being a system builder.
So in a nut shell, the AMD processors are less expensive, yet still perform well above their price. Intel is more expensive, and just does not meet my expected performance increase based on what I just paid for it over the AMD counterpart.
When it comes to where you say the i7-2600K beats the 980X across the board this is very wrong (unless overclocked), as from the link i gave you the 2600K won 2 out of 9, and for the 2500K against lets go lower the old i7-975 it also only won 2 out of 9. So im not sure where your scores are coming from? :wtf: But i will agree the performance is great for the price, that is a win. Just remember there is very few that OC.Once again i have no idea where you get these so called high numbers from, just refer to what i just said and look at the link^. Lets see how the 2500K went against the top AMD X6, out of the 13 benchmarks (excluding gaming) 2500K won 6, where the AMD got 7, so thats pretty good for an AMD chip to hold up against this omg new SB core dont you think?
Once again your just like the other guy saying that AMD Bulldozer version II wont stand up against Ivy when we both have no idea :shadedshu
This does not look good for AMD to me. If the pricing indicates it takes 8 cores to match a 4 core HTT cpu. This tells me they still won't be able to compete on top when skt2011 releases, and that depresses me. I admit I kinda expected this outcome, but I was hoping for IPC per core to be within striking distance of Intel at very least.
Also, Bulldozers are multi-threaded anyway. Even though multi-threading (Hyper-threading in an Intel trademark) has been around a long time, since the late P4 days. There are still far more applications that do not support it than do.
So it's not something I put much stock in. heh
a raid 0
amd 955
2x wd black 2tb
gigabyte 890Gx
i want to change to asrock 990Fx extreme4 + AMD FX-8130P 8 cores processor
do i need to reformat my raid 0 setup?
or i can just install over new board and update latest raid 0 driver from amd?
also sandybridge has almost exactly the same ipc as pevious gen core i" series but more cache, higher clocks & improved turbo make it seem alot better. its more an evolution than a revolution.