Rumor: AMD "Piledriver" FX CPU production to begin Q3 2012

[Rick]

Citing information from "industry sources", TechPowerup reports that the next generation of AMD FX processors will be in production during Q3 of 2012. While the wheels of production are expected to spin up for high-end FX desktop CPUs later this year, it was hardly a week ago that AMD announced the launch of its Trinity APU. Trinity, a Piledriver-based  APU, represents the latest step in the gradual evolution of AMD's Fusion family, an integrated APU solution aimed primarily at ultra-portables. Although AMD Fusion continues to be most well-suited for mobile devices, it can be found in just about everything though, from netbooks to desktops.

Enthusiasts may be pleased to hear that upcoming Piledriver CPUs will maintain compatibility with AMD's existing AM3+ platform, a 942-pin socket design which coincided with last year's launch of first-generation Bulldozer chips.

As such, FX chips which bear the Piledriver architecture will feature a familiar 32nm design with integrated dual-channel 1866MHz DDR3 memory controllers -- the same found in current generation FX CPUs. Turbo Core will also carry over to Piledriver FX processors, a technology similar to Intel's TurboBoost feature. 

Although the new architecture seems more evolutionary than revolutionary per se, Piledriver will feature some unique bulletpoints -- features which will set it apart from current FX offerings. Most notably, the new CPUs are expected to deliver about a 10 percent performance bump while simultaneously offering a 10 to 24 percent energy savings. This lower power consumption is the direct result of AMD's new energy-recycling technology, resonant clock mesh, a clever feature which will also be responsible for improved thermals and higher attainable clock speeds.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/48742-rumor-amd-piledriver-fx-cpu-production-to-begin-q3-2012.html

 

[Zeromus]

Price, price, price. That's all that really matters with AMD :/

 

[yRaz]

<p>Price, price, price. That's all that really matters with AMD :/</p>

I use AMD because I love to overclock and it's extremely expensive to get an unlocked multiplier on an intel chip.

 

[Guest]

why 32 nm?

 

[Wendig0]

I use AMD because I love to overclock and it's extremely expensive to get an unlocked multiplier on an intel chip.

The i5 2500k isn't too expensive (less than some high end AMD processors), and it will make just about any AMD processor on the market beg for mercy before you even overclock it.

 

[Guest]

Well it will not be like that when HASWELL comes out. I predict that prices will increase somewhere to 15% TO 25% with next release.

 

[Wendig0]

Well it will not be like that when HASWELL comes out. I predict that prices will increase somewhere to 15% TO 25% with next release.

We'll see what happens.

 

[yRaz]

The i5 2500k isn't too expensive (less than some high end AMD processors), and it will make just about any AMD processor on the market beg for mercy before you even overclock it.

I'm not that worried about performance, my 720BE still does all I ask of it. I like to overclock, I'm not overclocking for the performance.

 

[LinkedKube]

<p>I'm not that worried about performance, my 720BE still does all I ask of it. I like to overclock, I'm not overclocking for the performance.</p>

That's like being on a swim team because you like to get wet, you don't even care if you lose.

 

[Zeromus]

<p>

<p>Price, price, price. That's all that really matters with AMD :/</p>

</p>
<p> I use AMD because I love to overclock and it's extremely expensive to get an unlocked multiplier on an intel chip.</p>

That's right, a 3770 and a 3770K are only 20-30 dollars apart, seems fair enough.

 

[Wendig0]

I'm not that worried about performance, my 720BE still does all I ask of it. I like to overclock, I'm not overclocking for the performance.

That wasn't the point of your original post though yRaz. Your original point was that it was extremely expensive to find an Intel chip with an unlocked multiplier, and that's just simply not true.

 

[Guest]

"Price, price, price. That's all that really matters with AMD :/"

For some of us, price and bang for per buck is what matters to us.
I was able to get a quad core AMD FX4100, 8gig ddr3 memory, and free motherboad (via Microcenter's combo sale) and 2yr warranty for just a shade under $160 total

It's plenty fast enough for me.

Noone's doubting Intel has a faster CPU. It's just for some of us "good enough" is just fine.

 

[Marnomancer]

Face it guys, AMD isn't the superpower it once was.
The i5 2500K is about £150. The FX-8150 is £160 minimum.
The 2500K uses less power, clocks higher, runs cooler and performs better in most situations. And It's cheaper.
www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=288
Even the old Phenoms are better than faildozer.
www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=362

I somewhat share that opinion. If Intel offers a better warranty policy and bang-for-buck ratio, I'll fully ditch AMD.

Odd coming from a fanboy? True. But before a fanboy, I'm a performance enthusiast. AMD is reputed for its reasonable prices, and the Bulldozer broke that track record. The Athlons are holding the old fans (like me) tied to the banner, and the Phenoms' phenomenon is the draw for new fans, but when performance computing is concerned, AMD will lose ground fast if it doesn't come up with something more efficient (cheaper-faster or same cost-faster or cheaper-same speed).

 

[Guest]

This is what I based my buying purchasing on " CPU Value (CPU Mark / $Price )"
25/May/2012 - Higher results represent better value
source link = cpubenchmark

AMD FX-4100 Quad-Core

36.20
Intel Core i5-2500 @ 3.30GHz

33.82
Intel Core i5-2500K @ 3.30GHz

32.10
Intel Core i7-2600K @ 3.40GHz

30.29
Intel Core i7-2600 @ 3.40GHz

30.15
Intel Core i7 960 @ 3.20GHz

21.96
Intel Core i7 950 @ 3.07GHz

20.37
Intel Core i7 870 @ 2.93GHz

18.62
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T

18.30

Obviously the i5-2500 is a much better CPU, but I'd have paid more for the Intel CPU and not get a free Motherboard (via Microcenter/AMD tie-in combo). For my case I'm not doing anything hardcore, just casual Source FPS gaming, light DVD/MP3/photo editing, surfing. And I set a budget of less than $175 total (for CPU/MB and 8GB DDR3 Memory).

If AMD's new CPU can improve the speeds, it could force lower pricing for the older FX model and further up the CPU value bang for buck.

If I'm a fanboy for anything, it's being a cheap bastard that wants my quad core cake and eat it cheaply too

 

[Holyscrap]

lol on the front page this article has an Intel Cpu Image......

 

[dividebyzero]

This is what I based my buying purchasing on...etc...etc..Obviously the i5-2500 is a much better CPU, but I'd have paid more for the Intel CPU and not get a free Motherboard (via Microcenter/AMD tie-in combo).

Why bother using CPUbenchmark's bench score/$ when it's obvious that the "score" is based upon Amazon and Newegg pricing?...
You've just told world+dog that you shopped at Microcenter...and MC have the 2500K for $169.99 ? - which makes then pretty much equal in the "abstract benchmark" race. As for value for money and comparable productivity;
i3 2100: 3858 points / $89.99 = 42.87
FX-4100: 3982 points / $99.99 = 39.82

For my case I'm not doing anything hardcore, just casual Source FPS gaming, light DVD/MP3/photo editing, surfing. And I set a budget of less than $175 total (for CPU/MB and 8GB DDR3 Memory)

For the same parameters you've set, and using the i3 2100...+ board + 8gb RAM ( or this if you don't believe in MIR's)= $173

 

[yRaz]

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2075360

@ PC nerd:
Overclocking record was made on an FX8150. I intend to buy one and overclock it.

http://valid.canardpc.com/records.php
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2075360

@Wendig0
I was going on information from a build I did in July of last year. I see that prices have changed a lot since then. It's been my experience that Intel motherboards are more expensive than AMD motherboards. I'll admit that I'm an AMD fanboy. My first CPU was a K6-2 and I've been with them ever since. I'll do the "American" thing and support small business by continuing to buy AMD. I have no problem building someone and intel machine, but I will personally go AMD.

 

[Guest]

@i3-2100

The i3 was a dual core with 4 threads. The fx4100 had 4 cores in 2 dual module format.
I wanted something with 4 cores as I do a lot of multitasking under win8, which has better support/ thread alignment support for bulldozer processors.

Again I did consider Intel but was under a budget. For me this is a big jump coming from pentium d, which I spent more money initially years ago.

Will certainly look at intel if they can come up with a quad core I series under $100.

 

[PC nerd]

AMD can't pull the bang for buck crap anymore.

The i5 2500K is pretty cheap and performs better than anything AMD has to offer.

There is literally no reason to buy AMD anymore.

 

[dividebyzero]

@Guest
Move those goalposts any further and they'll be out with the tailgate party

I wanted something with 4 cores as I do a lot of multitasking under win8, which has better support/ thread alignment support for bulldozer processors. Meanwhile in the earlier post....For my case I'm not doing anything hardcore, just casual Source FPS gaming, light DVD/MP3/photo editing, surfing.

Let me paraphrase;
" My demographic is the exact price range and narrow mix of apps that makes AMD look competitive"
Personally, I'd spring for an extra few dollars; get the 2500K and get better all round performance using less power, and have overclocking headroom if required that is commensurate with the performance gain. Judging by the relative marketshare and sales figures I'd say I'm not alone.

The fact remains that the value proposition that AMD has been associated with has largely eroded into myth , a trend that is likely to continue. Keen followers of tech might notice that AMD has both a new CEO, and a new pricing structure to go along with him

Overclocking record was made on an FX8150. I intend to buy one and overclock it.

If that's your criteria for buying a system you should save some cash and buy a Celeron- it's helluva lot cheaper than an FX

 

[yRaz]

If that's your criteria for buying a system you should save some cash and buy a Celeron- it's helluva lot cheaper than an FX

@ PC nerd:
Overclocking record was made on an FX8150. I intend to buy one and overclock it.

It seems as though the post I was referring to was deleted. He was talking about how Intel overclocks higher than AMD. I already said I was a fanboy, what more do you want? But, you know, funny joke

 

[dividebyzero]

He was talking about how Intel overclocks higher than AMD. I already said I was a fanboy, what more do you want?

You maybe should have just left the argument at "I'm a fanboy". A subjective statement needs no supplied facts. Justifying fanboyism with a cherry-picked fact tends to open the lid on a can of worms...defending a stance with "fact" also tends to invite discussion- in this case you're saying the 8150 by dint of the absolute record justifies that AMD OC's better than Intel. FX might to AMD, but there's more to AMD than FX.
Some might also argue that frequency is only one indicator of a CPU's effectiveness...that's why there are records for PCMark7, wPrime etc., although the biggest indicator of performance (as opposed to a number) are probably comments like this:

Sadly this brand new FX CPU will not be benchers delight either. I benched 6.3Ghz all cores with the GTX480 card plugged in and didn't come even close to an older run with similar specs and a SB at 5.6Ghz (30K vs 34K).

So its all relative. I'd have to admit to being somewhat at the other end of the AMD enthusiasm scale to yourself. Hardware (individual models and platforms) get judged on their merits. AMD management, however- including the shameful guerilla marketing and outright bs from sales/marketing prior to Bulldozers launch pretty much put them over the top for me...and I was surprised that they managed to outdo themselves.

 

[Guest]

"Personally, I'd spring for an extra few dollars; get the 2500K "

Um, the Intel i5-2500 is $209 on newegg, the AMD FX4100 is $109, that's more than "a few extra dollars" and not a "myth".

Yes there is a performance difference, but again personally I'm not benchmarking or timing how long it takes to do "x" process. As long as my OS runs smooth enough, and my games run about 30fps, that's good enough for me. At the end of December 2011, the FX4100 was a better fit for my budget. Not everyone can afford or need a Corvette or Porsche, sometimes a Camaro or Mustang is good enough. You should be happy that AMD is still even alive, if it weren't for AMD, Intel would surely price gouge everyone.

 

[Guest]

I've built 10+ amd Phenom II systems over the last 2 years.

Now I am glad there is a slight upgrade path for the AM3+ platform... but, anyone new looking to build will go Z77 chipset, or FM2.

 

[dividebyzero]

"Personally, I'd spring for an extra few dollars; get the 2500K "
Um, the Intel i5-2500 is $209 on newegg, the AMD FX4100 is $109

Well, three points:
1. I've already linked to the Microcenter price of $170, since the guest in question was actually shopping at MC , and...
2. From the links already provided, it's readily apparent that the i3 2100 offers comparable performance to the 4100...and is $90
3. Note the word "personally". Personally, a hundred bucks is neither here nor there. Personally, it's so not here not there that I use a 2600K.

and not a "myth"

Really? The link you put up doesn't exactly show BD setting the world alight (maybe with an OC and stock cooler it could be classed as an incendiary device). So, it comes down to virtually every tech and benchmark site (feel free to post a review link with glowing recommendations for FX)...versus..random internet guy who lurrrrrves AMD...mmmmm who to believe? Look on the bright side, Tom's gave it an honorable mention...that's almost a win, right? VINDICATION...Hell Yeah!
Long story short; If the 4100 rings your bell, I hope you'll be very happy together. Reviews, benchmarks, sales figures, earnings figures, common sense, and AMD ceding the performance/enterprise market to Intel say you are in the minority.

Yes there is a performance difference, but again personally I'm not benchmarking or timing how long it takes to do "x" process. As long as my OS runs smooth enough, and my games run about 30fps, that's good enough for me

I also sincerely doubt you could tell the difference between a 4100 and i3 2100 either...unless you didn't have a discrete graphics card installed.

You should be happy that AMD is still even alive

Haven't said anything to the contrary...or is it a case of you getting emotionally invested in what should be a straight head-to-head evaluation of two hardware platforms. Just to reiterate; Not singing AMD's praises at every opportunity =/= Wanting to see AMD eradicated

if it weren't for AMD, Intel would surely price gouge everyone.

Living in a waking dream? Firstly, AMD and Intel have cross licence agreements which basically keep AMD viable for as long as x86-64 is the dominant consumer ISA even if their processor line turned to feces on silicon, and secondly, AMD's largest individual shareholder is the Abu Dhabi royal family (also known as Mubadala). Connect the dots.

And as for price gouging...whenever there's a lack of competition in the marketplace that tends to happen....a variation on this theme happens when two or more companies "independently decide not to have a price war". The latter; Remember when AMD were top dog in CPU's (yup, that's $1k in 2005)? The former; How about the $549 launch price tag on the HD 7970 ?