AMD launches two new Bulldozer chips, FX-6100 & FX-8120 get price cuts

By Lee Kaelin on February 28, 2012, 9:30 AM

AMD has added two new FX-series processors to their range of Bulldozer CPUs using the AM3+ socket. At the same time, the company announced it plans to reduce the retail price of the octa-core FX-8120 processor.

First up, the FX-4170 is a quad core part clocked at 4.2GHz with a Turbo Core Boost of just 100MHz on two cores. It has a 125w TDP, 4MB of L2 cache and 8MB of L3 cache. This model had been previously announced, but never quite made it to store shelves, and marks AMD's first processor that ships with a base clock speed above 4GHz.

The second CPU, the FX-6200, is a hexa-core processor clocked at 3.8GHz offering a Turbo Core Boost of 300MHz, featuring the same 125W TDP along with 6MB L2 cache and the same 8MB of L3 cache.

Both are black edition units with unlocked multipliers built on the same 32nm process. Interestingly, there appears to be some confusion as to whether they are the original B2 stepping models with faster clock speeds, or the new B3 stepping models that according to Hot Hardware have been in the works for months.

Exact availability or pricing has not yet been disclosed, besides AMD commenting that "global availability of the AMD FX-4170 and AMD FX-6200 is happening on a rolling timeline, so availability will vary by market." The CPU maker also confirmed prices would be announced as the two new products hit store shelves.

Along with the two new CPUs AMD also announced an immediate price drop of the FX-8120 model, althought how much it will be reduced by wasn’t disclosed. A quick search online shows that Newegg currently has it listed for $199.99 with free shipping. According to TechReport, however, the FX-8120 has slipped from $205 to $185 and the six-core FX-6100 from $155 to $145 when purchased in bulk quantities.




User Comments: 6

Got something to say? Post a comment
amstech amstech, TechSpot Enthusiast, said:

AMD doesn't need to snip the prices on Bulldozer, they need to SLASH them.

I've talked with a couple of our vendors and those chips are clogging up the shelves.

Only fanboys have been buying these and thier numbers are dwindling .

Thanks god AMD's Radeons are doing well.

Guest said:

As long as I know amd has good price performace ratio in the mid range, another story if you have the money and want to buy a intel solution for a gamming or video editing pc. Otherwise I don't know why would someone be unhappy with amd performance at their price point.

princeton princeton said:

Guest said:

As long as I know amd has good price performace ratio in the mid range, another story if you have the money and want to buy a intel solution for a gamming or video editing pc. Otherwise I don't know why would someone be unhappy with amd performance at their price point.

You're mistaken. AMD has no price point above $100 where using them in a system is a better choice, and below $100 it's hard to say who is better, but there is no real price point where it's a good idea to go AMD.

Guest said:

In newegg the core i3 and a phenom II X4 960t are at $124, right now they have the same performance, the 960T can be overlcocked, it is a true quad core and the core i3 don't. Also, as a plus, I have that cpu unlocket to X6. That is to put an example. Their apus has something like 50% more graphic performance than intel.

What I agree is than if amd doesn't come with something good they are dead in the future in the performance market. (sorry for the bad english)

Guest said:

excrement !

i'd eat bricks before i buy intel so whooopeee.

Guest said:

Umm, Bulldozer is selling very well, in fact it's selling better than Phenom II what that was released.

I think Bulldozer is pretty good, actually. It's just not a conventional multi-core implementation, which was a big gamble on AMD's part (one which may not pan out) -- but if the software begins to make use of it, which I think it will, we'll see some interesting stuff.

I don't think AMD is really gunning for the top performance crown anymore, and frankly, I think it's ridiculous for people to expect them to try. Intel pulls down billions of dollars more than they do -- they just don't have the resources to compete with that. They need to focus, like they did with the Athlon 64, on what Intel is f**king up -- which is to say, graphics.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.