AMD Bulldozer, Llano Pricing Surface

A

annaconda

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
9,925
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.




121a.jpg
 
Last edited:
annaconda said:
FX-8130 is my Price Point. It will be interesting to see the final Benchs.
Click to expand...

Me too, although I want to see the benchmarks to see if AMD gave the 8130P some special sauce which makes it worth the extra money and a 125W TDP
 
I guess the main difference between the 8130P and 8130 is similar to 'Black' and non-Black versions of chips like the 555BE and the plain-jane 555

The 8130P may be unlocked and have higher Turbo clocks than the 8130, and I guess for Llano chips, the 'P' denotes higher IGP clocks.
 
JMccovery said:
I guess the main difference between the 8130P and 8130 is similar to 'Black' and non-Black versions of chips like the 555BE and the plain-jane 555

The 8130P may be unlocked and have higher Turbo clocks than the 8130, and I guess for Llano chips, the 'P' denotes higher IGP clocks.
Click to expand...

Or just plain unlocked. In fact I had a theory I stated earlier when we were looking over the ES lineup that the P models would be BE's, and would actually have reduced turbo sizes to minimize chance of issues if people really started to crank up the default clocks.
 
8130P seems like it would be the Black Edition equivalent, definitely what I'm aiming for!

I compromised with my 945 over the 955BE to save some money and I always regretted it. Probably would have a higher/easier overclock than I do if I had spent the extra 30 bucks or so.
 
pxc said:
If I buy a Llano CPU, it will be the cheapest one with the 400SP GPU. I'm not spending anywhere near SB quad core prices though, so $170 is lol, no way. glwt
Click to expand...

Well you might not but, depending on if the CPU speeds are at all comparable, anyone who is interested in a powerful quad core home office PC with a significantly better IGP, all at a 65W TDP, will be interested.

Core i5 2300 95W with inferior IGP - $185

AMD A-8 3550P 100W w/good IGP - $170
AMD A-8 3550 65W with good IGP - $150

I am very interested in the A-8 3550 and if it can reasonably compete CPU-wise, I will probably be building 3 or 4 mini-ITX rigs based on it for family members.
 
beto said:
Core i5 2300 95W with inferior IGP - $185
Click to expand...
The Llano models CPU performance will likely be quite a bit slower than the i5 2300's CPU performance (careful selection there by AMD, that's possibly the worst price/performance SB-based CPU Intel has right now, particularly with 6EU GPU performance ;)).

HD Graphics 3000 with 12EU is not as slow as you think compared to the speed AMD has mentioned for the 400SP Llano GPU. There's a reason why AMD only compares the Llano IGP against the slower HD Graphics 2000 ("3 times faster"), which is 1/2 the speed of the HD Graphics 3000. Llano graphics will still be faster of course, but the difference and even whatever IGP speed is available is not a critical consideration for most buyers. It works out great for those who buy low end and get a better IGP, but most people don't seem to care.

Anyways, Intel is shipping some new 65W Core i3 models in a few weeks that seem aimed at Llano, this time with 12EU GPUs included: i3 2130 3.4GHz (850/1100 12EU GPU), i3 2125 3.3GHz (850/1100 12EU GPU). Remember that Llano still uses what's basically a K10 on the CPU side. Quad core models need a significant clock speed advantage even against a dual core hyper threaded SB CPU, and I'm not sure there's the headroom above SB's 3.3/3.4GHz clock speeds.

Getting Llano out to reviewers before those new i3 models are released is key to making Llano look better. :p Just to be clear, those i3 2130/2125 models are cheaper, cooler, faster and have twice the IGP performance compared to the i5 2300.
 
the AMD A-8 3550 65W with good IGP - $150 is the APU i am interested in.

small-form-factor gaming pc on the cheap. be great in a low-profile silverstone HTPC case.
 
pxc said:
Getting Llano out to reviewers before those new i3 models are released is key to making Llano look better.
Click to expand...
Also the platform cost. AMD motherboards are invariably less expensive than their intel equivalents.
 
Topweasel said:
Or just plain unlocked. In fact I had a theory I stated earlier when we were looking over the ES lineup that the P models would be BE's, and would actually have reduced turbo sizes to minimize chance of issues if people really started to crank up the default clocks.
Click to expand...

All FX Models are unlocked aka BEs
 
seronx said:
All FX Models are unlocked aka BEs
Click to expand...

Second time someone has tried to say that. Honestly I don't buy it, one spec sheet 6 months ago doesn't make it a fact. There is a 8130 and an 8130P. Since it can't the difference between desktop and notebook then something else has to separate it, pretty sure that difference is BE and not BE.
 
Topweasel said:
Second time someone has tried to say that. Honestly I don't buy it, one spec sheet 6 months ago doesn't make it a fact. There is a 8130 and an 8130P. Since it can't the difference between desktop and notebook then something else has to separate it, pretty sure that difference is BE and not BE.
Click to expand...

Once again, All FX series will be multiplier overclockable

Regardless of your opinions....

The fact is

ALL FX MODELS will be multiplier OVERCLOCKABLE

The P simply signifies that it is the highest clocked part

8130P = 3.8GHz TC 4.2 GHz
8110 = 3.6GHz TC 4.0 GHZ

Based on the "clock speed" leak that was very recent

And there is no 8130 without the P there is only the 8130P and the 8110
 
Last edited:
seronx said:
Once again, All FX series will be multiplier overclockable

Regardless of your opinions....

The fact is

ALL FX MODELS will be multiplier OVERCLOCKABLE

The P simply signifies that it is the highest clocked part

8130P = 3.8GHz TC 4.2 GHz
8110 = 3.6GHz TC 4.0 GHZ

Based on the "clock speed" leak that was very recent

And there is no 8130 without the P there is only the 8130P and the 8110
Click to expand...
AMD has confirmed this where? Why in this pricing chart is there count not 1 but 2 8130 sku's? I don't know where this every FX is unlocked came from, but if AMD was going to do that why hasn't every Athlon II and Phenom II been unlocked, it would make more sense then every BD. Showing off BE box art and one sourceless chart doesn't make fact. This isn't my opinion, its common sense.

For all we know was that chart was just production ready ES's shipped to manufacturers where they got all unlocked chips for testing. The fact that it was 6 months prior to purchasable parts should be enough to tell you that it wasn't going to be tightly connected to actual shipping products.
 
Topweasel said:
AMD has confirmed this where? Why in this pricing chart is there count not 1 but 2 8130 sku's? I don't know where this every FX is unlocked came from, but if AMD was going to do that why hasn't every Athlon II and Phenom II been unlocked, it would make more sense then every BD. Showing off BE box art and one sourceless chart doesn't make fact. This isn't my opinion, its common sense.

For all we know was that chart was just production ready ES's shipped to manufacturers where they got all unlocked chips for testing. The fact that it was 6 months prior to purchasable parts should be enough to tell you that it wasn't going to be tightly connected to actual shipping products.
Click to expand...

A typo get over it

If you don't know what the FX product line is, I GOT ANGRY!

Common SENSE dictates whatever HAS THE FX = unlocked and is for the gamer!

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series FX-8130P.html

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series FX-8110.html

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series FX-6110.html

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series FX-4110.html

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/TYPE-FX-Series.html

http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2011/...FX-_E2-_and_A-Series_desktop_CPUs_leaked.html

Team Obi Juan said:
All new motherboards to support this or will existing AM3 be good?
Click to expand...

AM3+ is good to go...(Black Sockets)

Only super high-end white AM3 sockets support Bulldozer(But the warning is the support of AM3 Board <-> AM3+ CPU is limited)
 
Last edited:
seronx said:
Only super high-end white AM3 sockets support Bulldozer(But the warning is the support of AM3 Board <-> AM3+ CPU is limited)
Click to expand...

As far as that goes, no one is sure if FX processors will work in AM3 sockets, at least on Asus motherboards, because they specifically say on the BIOS pages of the"AM3+ Compatible" AM3 boards:
Crosshair IV Formula 3017 Test BIOS
For testing AM3+ CPU Function only, do not update this BIOS while using AM3 or previous type CPUs!
Click to expand...

If an AM3+ CPU may not work, how will you update the bios?
 
Considering getting the FX-6110 to replace my Phenom II x6 (naturally I'll wait till the 970x boards are out), but the Llano's always sounded nice to use in a home server that may at one point see some light gaming.
 
I don't mean to crap, but is AMD positioning these products based on similar performance or is this pricing their hope to stab Intel in the heart by blowing them away at every existing price-point? Also, I wonder if they are basing this on 'typical-usage' ie. bulldozer 8 core vs Intel 4 core: are they positioned similarly because of a lack of multi-threaded apps in typical-use scenarios?

A lot of questions left to be answered...
 
I know the P is for Peruvian, as in Peruvian coffee. The highest end Bulldozer will be so awesome it will make great coffee. One question down a few more to go.

Can't wait for these CPU's.
 
pxc said:
The Llano models CPU performance will likely be quite a bit slower than the i5 2300's CPU performance (careful selection there by AMD, that's possibly the worst price/performance SB-based CPU Intel has right now, particularly with 6EU GPU performance ;)).

HD Graphics 3000 with 12EU is not as slow as you think compared to the speed AMD has mentioned for the 400SP Llano GPU. There's a reason why AMD only compares the Llano IGP against the slower HD Graphics 2000 ("3 times faster"), which is 1/2 the speed of the HD Graphics 3000. Llano graphics will still be faster of course, but the difference and even whatever IGP speed is available is not a critical consideration for most buyers. It works out great for those who buy low end and get a better IGP, but most people don't seem to care.

Anyways, Intel is shipping some new 65W Core i3 models in a few weeks that seem aimed at Llano, this time with 12EU GPUs included: i3 2130 3.4GHz (850/1100 12EU GPU), i3 2125 3.3GHz (850/1100 12EU GPU). Remember that Llano still uses what's basically a K10 on the CPU side. Quad core models need a significant clock speed advantage even against a dual core hyper threaded SB CPU, and I'm not sure there's the headroom above SB's 3.3/3.4GHz clock speeds.

Getting Llano out to reviewers before those new i3 models are released is key to making Llano look better. :p Just to be clear, those i3 2130/2125 models are cheaper, cooler, faster and have twice the IGP performance compared to the i5 2300.
Click to expand...

I hope AMD does not/rethinks cutting down the SP's in the lower end chips, It kind of defeats these chips' purpose of not needing a dedicated video card. The HD Graphics 3000 is no slouch, and if those new i3's are coming out swinging with 12EU's I might have to rethink my llano HTPC/ light gaming build for next month. The mATX Z68 boards they pair with are not really that expensive either.
Id like to go AMD for this, but either way Its all good since we are getting some really good HTPC chips to choose from soon. I just need them to hurry Time Warner is coming to get their crappy dvr today.
 
seronx said:
The P simply signifies that it is the highest clocked part
Click to expand...

"p" probably denotes "performance", in the same manner as used in opterons, i.e. higher TDP parts with higher clockspeeds.

all the "p" parts seem to have the 100W TDP versus the 65W TDP of the non-p parts.
 
seronx said:
A typo get over it

If you don't know what the FX product line is, I GOT ANGRY!

Common SENSE dictates whatever HAS THE FX = unlocked and is for the gamer!

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series FX-8130P.html

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series FX-8110.html

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series FX-6110.html

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series FX-4110.html

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/TYPE-FX-Series.html

http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2011/...FX-_E2-_and_A-Series_desktop_CPUs_leaked.html



AM3+ is good to go...(Black Sockets)

Only super high-end white AM3 sockets support Bulldozer(But the warning is the support of AM3 Board <-> AM3+ CPU is limited)
Click to expand...

Common sense tells you that FX is the name of the CPU now and not a designation of extra features or performance. They haven't had a whole series unlocked since the K6-2. Why would start now when they have so many CPU options and at least 5 different FX-8k CPU's coming up? FX in this situation does not automatically mean unlocked, maybe they all are, maybe they aren't, but AMD using the FX moniker for a whole line instead of just an enthusiasts chip means absolutely nothing. Just like when people tried making the assumption that FX meant that all BD's would be over $800.
 
Play nice or you will no longer be allowed on the playground.
 
Never attacked him just the info but I understand. Sorry.

Lets leave it this way. If I am wrong I will eat my crow, and be back here posting just as I have the several years before it. Either way chances are I am buying the whatever the best option is for a BD 8-core at $300 or less.

I hope you can do the same if I am right.
 
Topweasel said:
Never attacked him just the info but I understand. Sorry.

Lets leave it this way. If I am wrong I will eat my crow, and be back here posting just as I have the several years before it. Either way chances are I am buying the whatever the best option is for a BD 8-core at $300 or less.

I hope you can do the same if I am right.
Click to expand...

All FX models are unlocked....case closed

All FX models should be twice their price

AMD FX-8110/8130P should cost more than $600 since what they are challenging in the multi-threaded race is not the i7 2600k but the 990X

AMD FX 8-core BD thread performance(all threads being used in a benchmark) = 720%
Intel Hexa-core HTT enabled thread performance(" " " " ") = 780%

^only thing not affected by that is clock speed and ipc

And the last time I checked IPC performance is 50% over the i7s and clock speed well based on the leaks it's a speed demon cpu 3.5GHz and higher wow....
 
Last edited:
seronx said:
All FX models are unlocked....case closed

All FX models should be twice their price

AMD FX-8110/8130P should cost more than $600 since what they are challenging in the multi-threaded race is not the i7 2600k but the 990X

AMD FX 8-core BD thread performance(all threads being used in a benchmark) = 720%
Intel Hexa-core HTT enabled thread performance(" " " " ") = 780%

^only thing not affected by that is clock speed and ipc

And the last time I checked IPC performance is 50% over the i7s and clock speed well based on the leaks it's a speed demon cpu 3.5GHz and higher wow....
Click to expand...
FX is no longer a designation for a particular high performance part. Now its a replacement for a name of a CPU like Phenom and Athlon before it. Any attempt to use past Athlon64 FX model comparisons before doesn't make sense.

AMD wants to simply names has much like Intel did with the i3, i5, and i7. E= economy, A= APU, and FX was a short nomenclature they used for their highest end parts in the Athlon64 days, Its fitting that in simplified naming structure that it be used to name the performance line of CPU's. Its litterally nothing more then that. When people think of performance from AMD, they think of Athlon first, and FX second. FX fits and AMD hasn't used for low end processors before.

We can talk about actual real world performance when the benchmarks comes out but for right now thing of the FX line as a CPU version of the new Charger. Its no slouch, but its a present day representation of a general consumer product rather then the straight forward top of the line performance then its name meant in the past. Just like the fact that the new Charger is more of a General Purpose sedan with a little extra umph rather then straight forward pony car that its predecessor was. Sure their is going to be an SRT-8 version (BE and or Unlocked) but if it was a true FX product, then their wouldn't be a 4 core or 6 core version (2.7 V6 or 3.5 V6).

Chances are the non-AMD document that set off this off was a chart of production model ES chips given to manufacturers for final testing. In the past both Intel and AMD have waited till the production lines have gone into for resale production to lock the CPU's and that happens at the very end of the packaging process where they can be plucked for BE or ES work.

I could be wrong. Just way to much history out there and with upwards of twelve different models available by the end of the year I don't see them implementing a complete reversal of 12 years of established policy. I would actually challenge that they are more likely to add measures like limiting the ability to unlock cores on 6k and 4k chips that are from the 8k line.
 
Topweasel said:
FX is no longer a designation for a particular high performance part. Now its a replacement for a name of a CPU like Phenom and Athlon before it. Any attempt to use past Athlon64 FX model comparisons before doesn't make sense.

AMD wants to simply names has much like Intel did with the i3, i5, and i7. E= economy, A= APU, and FX was a short nomenclature they used for their highest end parts in the Athlon64 days, Its fitting that in simplified naming structure that it be used to name the performance line of CPU's. Its litterally nothing more then that. When people think of performance from AMD, they think of Athlon first, and FX second. FX fits and AMD hasn't used for low end processors before.

We can talk about actual real world performance when the benchmarks comes out but for right now thing of the FX line as a CPU version of the new Charger. Its no slouch, but its a present day representation of a general consumer product rather then the straight forward top of the line performance then its name meant in the past. Just like the fact that the new Charger is more of a General Purpose sedan with a little extra umph rather then straight forward pony car that its predecessor was. Sure their is going to be an SRT-8 version (BE and or Unlocked) but if it was a true FX product, then their wouldn't be a 4 core or 6 core version (2.7 V6 or 3.5 V6).

Chances are the non-AMD document that set off this off was a chart of production model ES chips given to manufacturers for final testing. In the past both Intel and AMD have waited till the production lines have gone into for resale production to lock the CPU's and that happens at the very end of the packaging process where they can be plucked for BE or ES work.

I could be wrong. Just way to much history out there and with upwards of twelve different models available by the end of the year I don't see them implementing a complete reversal of 12 years of established policy. I would actually challenge that they are more likely to add measures like limiting the ability to unlock cores on 6k and 4k chips that are from the 8k line.
Click to expand...

http://www.ocmodshop.com/ocmodshop.aspx?a=324&p=872

Old review, yes

OCModshop said:
Gamers have enthusiastically embraced the FX line, as it outperforms current Intel processors and overclocks well. Many games are not multi-threaded, so gamers would get little benefit from a multi-core processor. So Why did AMD gamble on a dual-core FX for their target audience instead of releasing an upgraded single-core solution? Here is a quote from AMD on this decision:
Click to expand...

OCModshop said:
AMD said:
It made great sense for us (AMD) to maintain FX on single core throughout 2005. That was our plan and that was our execution. The benchmarks proved that out as FX has become the defacto CPU to have for ultimate PC gaming. Now it is our intention is for FX to once again stand for the ultimate desktop PC processor, not just the ultimate gaming processor. At 2.6GHz, the FX-60 replaces the FX-55, but it is much more than that. Combining dual-core at this higher frequency (than previous X2s) with our graphics partners' new dual-core optimized drivers make the FX-60 the perfect processor for not only gaming, but for all those multi-threaded or multi-tasking projects you would have rightfully chosen an X2 processor for. FX-57 will remain and be sold next to FX-60, eventually to be replaced with a dual-core FX at some point in the future as well.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Athlon was the additive(It was to tell the consumer it is based on the Athlon architecture)
The FX was there to say this CPU...well I quoted it didn't I


It is old but it does tell what the FX name means
 
seronx said:
http://www.ocmodshop.com/ocmodshop.aspx?a=324&p=872

Old review, yes





Athlon was the additive(It was to tell the consumer it is based on the Athlon architecture)
The FX was there to say this CPU...well I quoted it didn't I


It is old but it does tell what the FX name means
Click to expand...
Yes, but the FX moniker was a superlative quantifier, which actually only made sense on Socket 940, that was used to show that the Athlon64 FX (940) was better than the Athlon64 (754): Twice the memory channels, twice the cache, unlocked multiplers... Things the 'pedestrian' Athlon didn't have. Then came Socket 939, which basically removed all but one advantage the Athlon FX had over the Athlon64...

The 'FX' moniker is now nothing more than another brand name, at least this time, the FX line won't share anything with any other AMD desktop line.
 
JMccovery said:
Yes, but the FX moniker was a superlative quantifier, which actually only made sense on Socket 940, that was used to show that the Athlon64 FX (940) was better than the Athlon64 (754): Twice the memory channels, twice the cache, unlocked multiplers... Things the 'pedestrian' Athlon didn't have. Then came Socket 939, which basically removed all but one advantage the Athlon FX had over the Athlon64...

The 'FX' moniker is now nothing more than another brand name, at least this time, the FX line won't share anything with any other AMD desktop line.
Click to expand...


The AthlonFX was on all boards

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K8/AMD-Athlon 64 FX-53 - ADAFX53DEP5AS (ADAFX53BOX).html

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K8/AMD-Athlon 64 FX-51 - ADAFX51CEP5AK (ADAFX51BOX).html

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K8/AMD-Athlon 64 FX-51 - ADAFX51CEP5AT (ADAFX51BOX).html

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K8/AMD-Athlon 64 FX-62 - ADAFX62IAA6CS (ADAFX62CSBOX).html
Even AM2

The FX means the highest performance for gamers and desktop enthusiasts

I am going to ignore Socket F because....Quad FX didn't last long

and with the return!

2011-05-23-the-return.png
 
Last edited:
seronx said:
The AthlonFX was on all boards

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K8/AMD-Athlon 64 FX-53 - ADAFX53DEP5AS (ADAFX53BOX).html

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K8/AMD-Athlon 64 FX-51 - ADAFX51CEP5AK (ADAFX51BOX).html

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K8/AMD-Athlon 64 FX-51 - ADAFX51CEP5AT (ADAFX51BOX).html

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K8/AMD-Athlon 64 FX-62 - ADAFX62IAA6CS (ADAFX62CSBOX).html
Even AM2

The FX means the highest performance for gamers and desktop enthusiasts

I am going to ignore Socket F because....Quad FX didn't last long

and with the return!

2011-05-23-the-return.png
Click to expand...
When it was a designation for highest performance version of a high performance CPU it was one thing. The fact that it is the name of a whole line of CPU's it can and does mean something completely different.
 
Topweasel said:
The fact that they used Vision FX over and over again should be a clue that they have no idea what AMD was attempting to do when they brought back the FX name.
Click to expand...

Blah, blah, blah, He spouts nonsense

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Vision

Just a marketing term

http://sites.amd.com/us/vision/Pages/vision.aspx#/gaming

Vision Premium = APU (Best for mainstream)

Vision Ultimate = FX-4 FX-6 (Best for Vidya gaems)

Vision Black = FX-8 (World domination(All rounder and for the future))

FX - Numbers = Enthusiast, Overclockable, For Video Games, Not for the faint of heart, Beats Intel, License to Kill

as FX is also a marketing term
 
Last edited:
FX is a product name and not every rumor on the internet is true. Outside that I don't know how to get point across any better.
 
Im just saying, Failure to launch right now. And I have my doubts about how its going to perform as well. Im by no means an AMD hater. E8400 was my first Intel CPU EVER, previously everything had been AMD (and Ive been building for about 12 years now).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top