AMD launched Bulldozer about a month ago, but the initial CPUs were only for desktops. As a follow up, AMD has today released the server variants of Bulldozer. There are a total of 18 CPUs launching today, and they are branded as Opteron 4200 and 6200 series, although some of you may be more familiar with the codenames "Valencia" and "Interlagos". AMD actually began the shipments of 4200 and 6200 series in September but the lineup was not officially released until today. Below is a specification table. 

AMD Opteron 4200 and 6200 Series Specifications
Series Model number Core/Thread Count Frequency Max Turbo L3 Cache TDP Price
4200 series "Valencia" 4226 6/6 2.7GHz 3.1GHz 8MB 95W $125
4228 HE 6/6 2.8GHz 3.6GHz 8MB 65W $255
4234 6/6 3.1GHz 3.5GHz 8MB 95W $174
4238 6/6 3.4GHz 3.7GHz 8MB 95W $255
4256 EE 8/8 1.6GHz 2.8GHz 8MB 35W $377
4274 HE 8/8 2.6GHz 3.5GHz 8MB 65W $377
4280 8/8 2.8GHz 3.5GHz 8MB 95W $255
4284 8/8 3.3GHz 3.7GHz 8MB 95W $316
6200 series "Interlagos" 6204 4/4 3.3GHz N/A 16MB 115W $405
6212 8/8 2.6GHz 3.2GHz 16MB 115W $266
6220 8/8 3.0GHz 3.6GHz 16MB 115W $523
6234 12/12 2.4GHz 3.1GHz 16MB 115W $377
6238 12/12 2.6GHz 3.3GHz 16MB 115W $455
6262 HE 16/16 1.6GHz 2.9GHz 16MB 85W $523
6272 16/16 2.1GHz 3.1GHz 16MB 115W $523
6274 16/16 2.2GHz 3.2GHz 16MB 115W $639
6276 16/16 2.3GHz 3.3GHz 16MB 115W $788
6282 SE 16/16 2.6GHz 3.5GHz 16MB 140W $1,019

We did an overview of Bulldozer lineup in our Details on AMD Bulldozer: Opterons to Feature Configurable TDP article. The basics are still the same. 4200 series is compatible with 4100 series' C32 socket; and 6200 series is compatible with 6100 series' G34 socket. That means existing motherboards are compatible with the new CPUs, although a BIOS update may be needed. The main difference between 4200 and 6200 series, on top of the core count, is the CPU configuration support: 4200 is limited to dual CPU configuration whereas 6200 series supports up to four CPUs in one system. 6200 also has a quad-channel memory controller, whereas 4200 is limited to two channels. 

While Bulldozer was a letdown for desktops, it may be more attractive for servers. The biggest shortage of Bulldozer was its poor single-threaded performance, but server software is usually well threaded and can hence take advantage of all Bulldozer's cores. 

Johan has received Opteron 6276 CPU and is already working on a review, so stay tuned!

Source: AMD

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Beenthere - Monday, November 14, 2011 - link

    I'm sure Johan's review will confirm what Cray and others have learned already that the Opteron 6200 and 4200 series are far better CPUs than most people expected, and that's a good thing.
  • shiznit - Monday, November 14, 2011 - link

  • Kristian Vättö - Monday, November 14, 2011 - link

    Should be related, at least.
  • Beenthere - Monday, November 14, 2011 - link

    Over double the prior server performance in the same socket...
  • MonkeyPaw - Monday, November 14, 2011 - link

    Yeah, I think the only reason AMD launched bulldozer for was for holiday sales. Traditionally, AMD has been designing high end CPUs for the server market first, desktop second. For good reason, as this approach has gained them traction in a more lucrative market. These CPUs will likely shine in this regard.
  • Kristian Vättö - Monday, November 14, 2011 - link

    And that's where the big money is. One company can buy more CPUs in one order than consumers buy as a whole in months. While everyone talks about the high-end consumer CPUs, they represent a fairly small volume. The big demand is in budget CPUs and server CPUs.
  • frozentundra123456 - Monday, November 14, 2011 - link

    well, if servers are where the big money is, AMD had better hope that Bulldozer is much more competitive than it was on the desktop and helps them gain some market share. What I dont understand is how it can be such a great server chip when the power consumption is so high. Guess the review will clarify the situation. Will be anxious to see it.

    The last figures I saw if I recall correctly showed AMD with I believe only about 5% of the server market.
  • shiznit - Monday, November 14, 2011 - link

    You can't understand it because it's probably not true. Sure there are cases where AMD's design is better such as huge clusters like Cray, but for the majority of 2p and 4p servers, AMD is behind in performance and efficiency.
  • Beenthere - Tuesday, November 15, 2011 - link

    You continue to talk foolishness.

    Over double the system performance from the same socket means lower TCO in addition to the substantial lower power consumption from 35w-115w.

    HATING does not change reality !
  • ajp_anton - Monday, November 14, 2011 - link

    I think the problem is that they don't do very well at high frequencies. These server chips have a more "sweetspot" frequency where they are much more power efficient.
    And here they can trade frequency for more cores without losing performance, because servers can use them. Only problem is they are expensive to make, but that's AMD's loss. The chips themselves are just fine.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now