Bulldozer prices.

tech savvy

tech savvy

Active Member
AMD Bulldozer FX Series Prices:
FX-4110 Quad Core – $220.00
FX-6110 6-Core – $240.00
FX-8130 8-Core – $290.00
FX-8130P 8-core – $320.00

As you can see, the FX-8130P/8130 is around the same price as Intel's 2600k.Now that most mean that it's performance is on par with the 2600k(which is good news, but...).I was hoping that the 8130P/8130(it being 8 cores and all) would be atleast 25% better than Intel's 2600k, which would of put it at around $400, but I guess not.

It looks like AMD is going the root with; more cores=better.
And Intel is going with;better/more efficient cores=better.

It's a shame that AMD has to through 8 cores together just to compete with Intel's Sandy Bridge quad cores.Why dont they make the cores they already have better,instead of just making more of them?I mean...it's great that bulldozer is on par with sandy bridge, it just took 8 cores to do it.
 
Last edited:
There are no real benchmarks, so who knows? Maybe its miles better than the 2600k, maybe its worse. No one knows yet and specific speculation before any benchmarks are released is just pointless.
 
claptonman said:
There are no real benchmarks, so who knows? Maybe its miles better than the 2600k, maybe its worse. No one knows yet and specific speculation before any benchmarks are released is just pointless.
Click to expand...

Either it's on par with the new i7's or Intel will have to do some price cutting on there CPU's once bullbozer is released.Because if the 8130P@$320 has better performance than the 2600k at the same price, than AMD will make a killing.Intel will have no choice but to cut prices(which is good for all),to keep sells up.And that would be vice versa as wel. If bulldozer has less performance than the 2600k than AMD will have to lower it's price on the 8130P to compete.But this is how I see it...if the prices of these CPU's(bullbozer) are correct, that means only two things, one, it's on par, two, it's better, and im leaning towards...on par, not better.That brings me back to my OP.Why does it take 8 AMD cores to compete with 4 Intel cores?Oh, I know, because Intel is making there cores better rather than adding more.AMD on the other hand is pretty much saying, hey, who cares about making the cores more efficient/better lets just add a whole bunch of these weak cores to compensate the more better/efficient cores of Intel.
 
Last edited:
tech savvy said:
I mean...it's great that bulldozer is on par with sandy bridge, it just took 8 cores to do it.
Click to expand...

The i7 acts like a 8 core processor though. It has 4 physical cores and 4 virtual cores.

But!, I agree. It is a shame that they will not bulldoze the competition :( I sure hope the benchmarks prove the price tag wrong.. Can only hope :)
 
Last edited:
?? I am confused. You people are saying because the Bulldozer price tag is on par, that the performance will be on par. First off, could you please show the link where you got the prices. Second, from what i have always seen, AMD processors have always be substantially lower priced then Intel's. Performance not relevant. So not sure why you would say that. Link for benchmarks giving you these accusations.

I am just trying to comprehend what and why you would say what you say. :)
 
tech savvy said:
It's a shame that AMD has to through 8 cores together just to compete with Intel's Sandy Bridge quad cores.
Click to expand...

I think your misunderstanding what AMD is doing. Intels 2600k has Hyperthreading, 4 cores with 8 threads. AMD has 4 modules with a total of 8 threads. The Module with two sets of pipelines, it is AMD counter to Intel Hyperthreading. Both procesor can do 8 threads. To me AMD approach is superior, it has two sets of pipeline for two threads. Intel one set of pipelines has to share two threads.
 
CrazyMike said:
?? I am confused. You people are saying because the Bulldozer price tag is on par, that the performance will be on par. First off, could you please show the link where you got the prices. Second, from what i have always seen, AMD processors have always be substantially lower priced then Intel's. Performance not relevant. So not sure why you would say that. Link for benchmarks giving you these accusations.

I am just trying to comprehend what and why you would say what you say. :)
Click to expand...

here's one- http://www.guru3d.com/news/amd-bulldozer-llano-pricing-surface/

here's one- http://whatswithjeff.com/amd-bulldozer-price-llano-price/

And by the way im not saying these price are 100% correct.

And for the,"intel has Hyperthreading" thats what I ment on the,"Intel is going with;better/more efficient cores".But hyperthreading is NOT extra cores, it just makes the real cores run more efficient and have better performance.
 
tech savvy said:
And for the,"intel has Hyperthreading" thats what I ment on the,"Intel is going with;better/more efficient cores".But hyperthreading is NOT extra cores, it just makes the real cores run more efficient and have better performance.
Click to expand...

The extra threads in a processor is allowing a single core to handle two threads in a application or game, thus, that single core is acting like a dual core. So, since the i7 2600k has 4 physical cores (1 thread per core), it also has 4 logical cores (xtra thread per core). That creates a total of a 8 core processor.
 
Last edited:
tech savvy said:
it just makes the real cores run more efficient and have better performance.
Click to expand...

A Intel single core using Hyperthreading running 2 threads gives you on (average) a 30% increase in performance, compared to not having Hyperthreading. So A single core with Hyperthreading running two threads is on (average) the same performance as 1.3 full cores.

AMD has Modules, each one has two sets of pipelines, not two full cores. Having two sets of pipelines only takes up 13% more die space of a single core. AMD claims having two sets of pipelines will give it 1.8% the performance of two full cores. So on (average) you have 1.8 performance vs. two full cores.

Which do you think is the better idea.

1. A module with the performance of 1.8% of two full cores?

2. A core with Hyperthreading that has the performance of 1.3% of two full cores?
 
i thought the module was considered 1.6 cores, and also you left out some info on bulldozer when talking about the extra pipelins and stuff, i don't remeber the exacts, but i know each module had another of something else, like the floating point thing, but i can't remeber if it was that or something else, but even if the efficency of this without that stuff was the same as the phenoms, it seems to me like a phenom core with the threading and pipelines and whatever the other was chould at least match the hyperthreading if not surpass it by a considerable amount.

EDIT: It has 2 interger schedualers and 2 l1 caches along with the pipes, heres a pic of what it's supposed to be like from back when some of the stuff was leaked from like a presentation

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/amd/hotchips2010/bulldozerthreads.jpg
 
Last edited:
StrangleHold said:
I think your misunderstanding what AMD is doing. Intels 2600k has Hyperthreading, 4 cores with 8 threads. AMD has 4 modules with a total of 8 threads. The Module with two sets of pipelines, it is AMD counter to Intel Hyperthreading. Both procesor can do 8 threads. To me AMD approach is superior, it has two sets of pipeline for two threads. Intel one set of pipelines has to share two threads.
Click to expand...

How was adding to this statement with more information to why i believe it has a chance at being better so newbish and irritating, i even posted a link to what i was refering to, i had though there was something else also doubled but was wrong, wow, like you've never been wrong.

i think if i ever posted a perfect reply that you would have posted if i hadn't or something you would still say i was wrong somehow, no matter what about or how correct, you'd just look for something to point out as wrong or newb-ish and naive.
 
Last edited:
1. A module with the performance of 1.8% of two full cores?

2. A core with Hyperthreading that has the performance of 1.3% of two full cores?
Click to expand...

Does that mean the 4 Module AMD will be better than 2600k?
I have a question, why AMD new CPUs do not cost high.
 
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4749/amd-ships-bulldozer-for-servers-desktops-to-follow-in-q4

interlagos (server chip) shipped yesturday and september zambazi launch confirmed (or shipping at least), and so we can expect some peaks into bulldozers performance, only thing is the server chips always run much slower, and zambeezi also went through an additional stepping, suspectedly for higher clocks, meaning it should perform much better, but we can still get an idea of its performance increase if compared to the opteron 6128 and 6174's, being 1 is an 8 core and the other the top of the line 12 core model, so we can get more of a module to core performance comparison.
 
An eight-core FX Series processor actually has four Bulldozer modules with a total of eight integer cores and four floating-point units; a quad-core has two Bulldozer modules with four integer cores and two FPUs. Intel’s core, by comparison, has a single integer core and dedicated floating-point unit, but the integer core is capable of processing two threads simultaneously, a feature the company refers to as Hyper-Threading.

On a core vs. core basis, a single Bulldozer integer core is unlikely to be as fast as an Intel core with two threads. But by sharing the FPU and other components–and jumping to a more advanced 32nm manufacturing process–AMD was able to design a module with room for two separate integer cores in roughly the same space as the Phenom’s K10 core. That means AMD should be able to position an FX-8100 with four Bulldozer modules and eight integer cores against a Core i7-2600 with four cores and eight threads. In this scenario, the FX Series should be very competitive on multi-threaded applications since, all things being equal, eight physical cores should outperform eight threads.

So, what there trying to say is that the FX-8130P will be slower than intel's i7 2600k in single threaded apps, but have an advantage in multi threaded apps, do to AMD having 8 full cores rather than Intel's 4 cores with hyperthreading. Intel's cores are stronger than AMD's cores, thats why it take 8 cores to compete with Intel's 2600k.Even though Intel has hyperthreading it's still a quad core.Like I said in the very first post,AMD needs to stop trying to pack as much cores as they can on one die and start making the cores they got better.
 
tech savvy said:
An eight-core FX Series processor actually has four Bulldozer modules with a total of eight integer cores and four floating-point units; a quad-core has two Bulldozer modules with four integer cores and two FPUs. Intel’s core, by comparison, has a single integer core and dedicated floating-point unit, but the integer core is capable of processing two threads simultaneously, a feature the company refers to as Hyper-Threading.

On a core vs. core basis, a single Bulldozer integer core is unlikely to be as fast as an Intel core with two threads. But by sharing the FPU and other components–and jumping to a more advanced 32nm manufacturing process–AMD was able to design a module with room for two separate integer cores in roughly the same space as the Phenom’s K10 core. That means AMD should be able to position an FX-8100 with four Bulldozer modules and eight integer cores against a Core i7-2600 with four cores and eight threads. In this scenario, the FX Series should be very competitive on multi-threaded applications since, all things being equal, eight physical cores should outperform eight threads.

So, what there trying to say is that the FX-8130P will be slower than intel's i7 2600k in single threaded apps, but have an advantage in multi threaded apps, do to AMD having 8 full cores rather than Intel's 4 cores with hyperthreading. Intel's cores are stronger than AMD's cores, thats why it take 8 cores to compete with Intel's 2600k.Even though Intel has hyperthreading it's still a quad core.Like I said in the very first post,AMD needs to stop trying to pack as much cores as they can on one die and start making the cores they got better.
Click to expand...

For one thing, it is NOT full 8 cores. AMD calling it a 8 core is a marketing strategy. If it will be faster or slower in single thread is just a opinion, nobody knows yet. Plus each module has twice the amount of L2 cache as the whole 4 cores of Intel.

To me the module was a fantastic idea. Makes Hyperthreading look like a elementary cheap after thought.


AMD comes up with a way to put a extra set of pipelines for each core and just use 13% more die space and call it a module. Will have alot better performance then HyperThreading and you have a problem with it! I'm really stumped with that. Think there is a underlying fanboy attitude going on there.

I'm amazed at all these people that know how well Zambezi will perform. Wish somebody would give me one of these processors that dont exist yet. I mean man, all this insider info makes me jealous.
 
Last edited:
StrangleHold said:
A Intel single core using Hyperthreading running 2 threads gives you on (average) a 30% increase in performance, compared to not having Hyperthreading. So A single core with Hyperthreading running two threads is on (average) the same performance as 1.3 full cores.
Click to expand...

From my understanding HyperThreading performance in most instances will not boost processing performance by more than 10 percent. Now you are saying that Intel's Sandybridge boosts HyperThreading performance up to 30 percent higher. If so, Intel has improved on what HyperThreading can do.

I agree that the AMD technology looks more promising over HyperThreading. Time will tell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top