Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

AMD Starts Shipping "Bulldozer" CPUs

By - Source: AMD Press Release | B 108 comments

AMD has announced the shipments of the x86 “Bulldozer” architecture... unfortunately for the masses, it is the Opteron server based processors and not the Zambezi (FX Series) desktop processors.

AMD announced that the initial production of the world’s first 16-core x86 processor, codenamed “Interlagos” (Opteron Series) began in August, with shipments now underway to customers (OEM customers). The Opteron is compatible with existing AMD Opteron 6100 Series platforms and will be available to partner systems by Q4 this year. The Opteron processors are built on 32nm process technology, utilizing either 8, 12, or 16 cores (model dependent), quad-channel DDR3 memory controller, up to 16MB of L3 cache, and four HyperTransport links. 

“This is a monumental moment for the industry as this first ‘Bulldozer’ core represents the beginning of unprecedented performance scaling for x86 CPUs,” said Rick Bergman, senior vice president and general manager, AMD Products Group. "The flexible new ‘Bulldozer’ architecture will give Web and datacenter customers the scalability they need to handle emerging cloud and virtualization workloads.”

Read more at AMD's Server Platforms

Display 108 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 39 Hide
    billybobser , September 8, 2011 9:15 AM
    they exist :o 
  • 32 Hide
    totalgenius , September 8, 2011 9:17 AM
    Yay its alive, can we get some benchmarks.

    Still waiting eagerly for the Zambezi, AMD please release the i7 exterminators.
Other Comments
  • 21 Hide
    ginnai , September 8, 2011 9:15 AM
    Yay! It has arrived!
  • 39 Hide
    billybobser , September 8, 2011 9:15 AM
    they exist :o 
  • 19 Hide
    Ciuy , September 8, 2011 9:15 AM
    o.O
  • 32 Hide
    totalgenius , September 8, 2011 9:17 AM
    Yay its alive, can we get some benchmarks.

    Still waiting eagerly for the Zambezi, AMD please release the i7 exterminators.
  • 15 Hide
    DjEaZy , September 8, 2011 9:22 AM
    ... the desktop version is not far away...
  • 15 Hide
    reagansmash , September 8, 2011 9:23 AM
    and, halfway there...
  • 24 Hide
    j_davis_1980 , September 8, 2011 9:32 AM
    still waiting for the desktop version.......
  • 11 Hide
    Archean , September 8, 2011 9:36 AM
    DjEaZy... the desktop version is not far away...


    It will be good if they are at least able to compete with SNBs, but unfortunately Q1-12 will also see the launch of IVBs which would mean that AMD will again be behind Intel by at least a one full cycle.
  • 25 Hide
    xyster , September 8, 2011 9:37 AM
    do we really expect this to be competitive with IvyBridge or SandyBridge-E?

    I really hope so, but I have my doubts..
  • 19 Hide
    Herr_Koos , September 8, 2011 9:41 AM
    Time will tell... Sooner or later, time will tell.
  • 1 Hide
    billybobser , September 8, 2011 9:43 AM
    highly doubt this will be competitive, since it's quite a large change, but the iterations of this design that follow should be awesome.
  • -9 Hide
    iam2thecrowe , September 8, 2011 9:44 AM
    i've heard this before, a few times, i'll believe it when i see a legit benchmark and a cpu on someones price list. This is crap, i just want to see a full review of a desktop bulldozer processor, is it too much to ask AMD??? its my birthday in a couple weeks, your too slow amd, i just found this neat z68 PCIE-3 Asrock motherboard that im going to get with an INTEL processor http://pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=18137&cPath=1183 you are losing customers to intel and they are people that would have been happy to own an AMD setup and may have waited for it if there was proof that it was any good.....
  • 22 Hide
    Herr_Koos , September 8, 2011 9:52 AM
    Quote:
    wait....what about x64 processors??


    All processors are in fact still built on the x86 architecture, so in reality, there is no such thing as x64, although it's a widely used term.

    The correct way to write it would be x86-32 and x86-64.
  • 7 Hide
    fffffffffff , September 8, 2011 9:59 AM
    BD delayed again

    http://www.insideris.com/amd-bulldozer-delayed-untill-q4-2011/
  • -3 Hide
    killerclick , September 8, 2011 10:07 AM
    Zambezi is going to be a disappointment, not because AMD sucks but because Intel is so good. In two years time ARM will be their only competitor.
  • 5 Hide
    AbdullahG , September 8, 2011 10:13 AM
    fffffffffffBD delayed againhttp://www.insideris.com/amd-bulld [...] l-q4-2011/

    Most people already knew that. BD is suspected to launch in at least October. If you guys really want to keep track and stay up-to-date on BD, you should head over to the CPU & Components forum (sub-forum CPU) and check out the BD rumors thread. There's some pretty useful info there.
  • 1 Hide
    sykozis , September 8, 2011 11:11 AM
    ArcheanIt will be good if they are at least able to compete with SNBs, but unfortunately Q1-12 will also see the launch of IVBs which would mean that AMD will again be behind Intel by at least a one full cycle.

    This seems to come up with every CPU article. AMD uses a completely different release cycle from Intel. For AMD to be "at least one full cycle" behind Intel, they would have to be attempting to use the same or similar release schedule.
  • 8 Hide
    Archean , September 8, 2011 11:18 AM
    @sykozis
    Well let me allow to clarify what I was saying, "AMD is just getting to 32nm process tech. and Intel is already preparing to launch 22nm processors, hence AMD is full 'process cycle' behind Intel (discounting all other architectural differences etc.)".
  • 19 Hide
    calguyhunk , September 8, 2011 11:20 AM
    Ironically, the very reason people choose AMD (choice)is being undermined by the guys at AMD themselves by delaying this thing since time immemorial.

    Having said that though, I'd rather they bring out a perfect product from the get-go rather than a half baked one which will actually do them more harm than good especially at this stage.

    Nobody buys AMD to compete with Intel. They buy it for...

    1. Value for money.

    2. Principle- Anti-monopoly.

    Of course, the unlocked cores never hurt. But of course now, even that is a non-issue.
Display more comments