AMD Starts Shipping Bulldozer Processors

AMD announced that it has started shipping the first processors based on its new Bulldozer architecture.

Initial production of the world's first 16-core x86 processor, codenamed "Interlagos," began in August and shipping to customers is already underway. Compatible with existing AMD Opteron 6100 Series platforms and infrastructure, "Interlagos" is expected to launch and be available in partner systems in the fourth quarter of this year. Many of the initial shipments have been earmarked for large custom supercomputer installations that are now underway.

"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."

Add new comment

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.


why upgrade atall

wonder if they realize that's a pic of an excavator not a bulldozer lol,
also i have the first intel quad that was released. i think.
its a q6600 intel core 2 quad got it overclocked to 3.6 ghz and have had no probs since i got it like 5 years ago or so. and still have never seen the usage go to %100 ever and i play every new game there is.

The Truth Is....

Fanboys Suck no matter what side they are on. Just because you paid your parents hard earned money for it doesn't make it the best. Suck it fan boys, you are a disgrace to the tech world

I agree with what some people

I agree with what some people are saying about the advantages, from multiple standpoints, of single core processors over multiple core processors. However, AMD isn't just increasing the number of cores, the processors are more powerful as well, admittedly they may not stand up to a high end Intel processor in terms of speed, but unless your using the processor for emulation, you're not going to need that much power in one core. Most software that isn't multi-threaded aren't going to need more than one core and any new software is going to be as it will boost performance.


You Know why AMD is So far behind Intel in CPU's, it is because they are Way Ahead of Intel with GPU (Graphics Processing Unit), If you can name one Intel made GPU that can beat my AMD HD6990, then i will go to Intel, otherwise its AMD all the way for me. Also AMD have now gone into production of the DDR3 RAM module, which is branded ATi, AMD has at least two sister companies to their main company of AMD, how many has Intel Got?

AMD is the future of Gaming!!!

My Intel :D

My first CPU was AMD, it crash&Burn, so did my 2nd AMD. But my 3rd one was also AMD Guess what happened. Now i have a Q6600, without any failure or Win7 Install... :D

For what reasons?

Heil Intel! Heil Intel! What are you their Third Reich? Do you realize that every AMD owner that comes here (which I am not currently but will be again on my next system) is going to be able to say that they run it w/out any problems? You know Germany built weapons of war too expensively & that helped them lose it. They were a formidable failure, much like Intel.


Sorry to hear that I run a amd 5600 x2 and never had a crash or reinstall of windows 7 ..yes my chip is 6 years old but can run modern games.


Sorry to hear that I run a amd 5600 x2 and never had a crash or reinstall of windows 7 ..yes my chip is 6 years old but can run modern games.


You guys haven't done your research at all. Say for instance you have an old 1 thread application. This new processor can take that 1 thread, and have all cores working on it at the same time. Instead of 1 thread per core, its all cores on that 1 thread if you want. That's the major difference.

x64 = x86

x64 is only an extension of x86, Not an entirely new architecture. I'd imagine when they say x86 that they mean its 64bit x86. Being 32bit would be a step backwards, not to say its impossible but I'd doubt its 32 bit.


If your Intel then yes that applies to you, but not AMD they deal in different architecture models thus x64 is an actual core level possibility. Where as Intel is concerned they use emulation layers in order to achieve a 64bit core process. Which is much like the ps3, a theoretical factor. - Former IBM Employee

Looking good.

Im ditching Intel for my next build, AMD all the way. These no point in spending an extra 1-200 bucks on a CPU because of it popularity, its supposed better performance and future proofing(In gaming anyway) only to have a newer version 12months down the track with better feature. I know, its how they do their marketing but sorry intel, AMD is all a game needs :)

incorrect, only faster if

incorrect, only faster if your applications support more than one core for applications, so you see the fault line right? So it wouldn't hurt to have a few faster cores than tons of cores at lower speed, and for gaming you honestly don't need more than two cores, four at max, and anything after is a waste of money and time.


if an application is designed to be multithreaded does that mean it make use of any number of processors or does it have be designed to handle a certain number of processors..? I think it's awesome AMD is again proving to be a leader in innovation it would just be some much better if the current software could take advantage of it...


if application is designed to be multithreaded then core count usually does not matter. It's likely that some not so futureproof games have been coded to efficiently only utilize 4 cores though. Other than that this is a cpu intended for servers, desktop users will probably get 8 core version by end of the year (also 1 from intel), just wild guess.

Add new comment