AMD Launches Two Bulldozers, Reduces Price of FX-8120

AMD quietly announced the release of two new FX processors with Bulldozer core.

The company will be gradually rolling out the FX-4170 as well as the FX-6200.

The quad-core 4170 breaks through the 4 GHz mark with a base clock speed of 4.2 GHz (4.3 GHz Turbo) and complements the 4100 (3.6 GHz/3.8 GHz) on the lower end of the FX series. It is AMD's first processor that offers a base clock speed of more than 4 GHz. The 6-core 6200 will come with a base clock of 3.8 GHz (4.1 GHz Turbo). Both processors are rated at a TDP of 125 watts. The manufacturer did not reveal the prices of these two CPUs, but mentioned that their availability "is happening on a rolling timeline, so availability will vary by market."

With the introduction of these two new processors, AMD has also reduced the price of its FX-8120. The chip is now offered for a suggested retail price of $185, down from $205.

You need to be logged to post a comment

There are 70 Comments.

Top Comments

13

azathoth , February 28, 2012 12:43 PM

4.2Ghz Base clock? Very interesting indeed. However I have a feeling that the overclocking headroom is minimal at best.
I wonder what the pricing range will be?
15

randomkid , February 28, 2012 12:45 PM

Nothing new... Its just OC'd versions of the 4100 & 6100. Nothing you can't do yourself...
15

amuffin , February 28, 2012 1:06 PM

Well clock speed isn't everything...
25

anonymous@guest , February 28, 2012 1:08 PM

With Windows 8 Beta going public literally tomorrow, does Tom's Hardware have any planes to test Bulldozer on that OS? I remember reading that Windows 8 properly utilizes it during talks of a possible Windows 7 fix for the processor that didn't pan out.
13

Ragnar-Kon , February 28, 2012 1:29 PM

Still going to wait for 2nd Gen Bulldozer-based chips, but glad to see the price is dropping a little regardless. Something priced higher than an Intel chip and yet performs worse in 80% of the tasks is a bad thing.
19

SteelCity1981 , February 28, 2012 2:26 PM

These FX processors really aren't bad cpu's. People tend to want to stack them up against Intel's latest and greatest and if they aren't as good or better people want to act like they are worthless. Worthless to what, because it can't beat Sandy Bridge? So what that doesn't make them worthless by any means and then you get those that are very dissapointing. Lol Why, because Sandy Bridge is a few seconds faster than Bulldozer on avg that most people won't even notice the diff. The problem is people look at bechmarks down to seconds and come to the conclusion, instead of basing it on the overall productivity of a product itself to actually see a real diff in real world apps and not some Super PI or any of the non real world apps that no one in the real world uses let alone effects in what they will actually do in their everyday life. These FX chips are fine. Hell the vast majority of people complaining about these chips not being faster than Sandy Bridge are the same vast majority of people that these FX chips will suit their needs and then some without them noticing a diff between them and an Sandy Bridge cpu. Just be lucky AMD is still making cpu's or else Intel Core i3's would be over 200+ dollars right now let alone Core i5's or Core i7's prices none the less.
11

joytech22 , February 28, 2012 3:46 PM

jdwiiThe 8150 can barley beat the 6 core Phenom!

If your a video editor like me, the 8150 smashes the 6-Core Phenoms.

It really depends on the scenario.
13

punnar , February 28, 2012 5:24 PM

That's right! Not everyone play the same games and applications. What's a bad system for you may not be bad for another. That's why I thank TH and others that do these tests for us so we're better informed when making our next purchase. Save me lots of headaches and regrets. Thank you TH. I can't wait for you report on these new chips.

Other Comments

25

anonymous@guest , February 28, 2012 1:08 PM

With Windows 8 Beta going public literally tomorrow, does Tom's Hardware have any planes to test Bulldozer on that OS? I remember reading that Windows 8 properly utilizes it during talks of a possible Windows 7 fix for the processor that didn't pan out.
19

SteelCity1981 , February 28, 2012 2:26 PM

These FX processors really aren't bad cpu's. People tend to want to stack them up against Intel's latest and greatest and if they aren't as good or better people want to act like they are worthless. Worthless to what, because it can't beat Sandy Bridge? So what that doesn't make them worthless by any means and then you get those that are very dissapointing. Lol Why, because Sandy Bridge is a few seconds faster than Bulldozer on avg that most people won't even notice the diff. The problem is people look at bechmarks down to seconds and come to the conclusion, instead of basing it on the overall productivity of a product itself to actually see a real diff in real world apps and not some Super PI or any of the non real world apps that no one in the real world uses let alone effects in what they will actually do in their everyday life. These FX chips are fine. Hell the vast majority of people complaining about these chips not being faster than Sandy Bridge are the same vast majority of people that these FX chips will suit their needs and then some without them noticing a diff between them and an Sandy Bridge cpu. Just be lucky AMD is still making cpu's or else Intel Core i3's would be over 200+ dollars right now let alone Core i5's or Core i7's prices none the less.
15

amuffin , February 28, 2012 1:06 PM

Well clock speed isn't everything...

Display more comments