Three AMD FX-Series CPUs get listed for pre-order

By Jos · 20 replies
Sep 12, 2011
Post New Reply
  1. We're still waiting an official launch date for AMD's FX-Series processors, but over the weekend the first three models went up for pre-order at online retailer The chips in…

    Read the whole story
  2. FX8120 vs. 2500k. 4 Core vs. 8 Core. So basically AMD is a no show on a per core basis trying to market more slow cores. What happened since A64 days when IPC was prioritized? Sad, sad day for me as an AMD fan.

    SKYSTAR TS Enthusiast Posts: 207

    finally we will see the power of the AMD FX-Series
  4. Well, 8 cores and 16 mb of cache for $222 is pretty impressive to me.
  5. Vrmithrax

    Vrmithrax TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,352   +293

    It's not that black and white. The FX8120 has 4 of AMD's dual core modules, making for 8 logical cores in practice. So, in that respect, it's 8 core vs 8 core. But, we'll have to see just how well AMD's philosophy on those dual-core modules (with their shared resources) translates into actual raw processing power. Once the benchmarks start flowing, we'll see if data bottlenecks keep the performance specs too low to be real competition to Intel's proven high performance.
  6. 1977TA

    1977TA TS Rookie Posts: 89

    Well that's being very negative mister. I'm pretty positive AMD and Intel don't develop CPU's to match each others hardware specs, just to see who has the better CPU. You're making it sound like the ole' MHZ battle from the old days.

    We have so many options in regards to CPU's today. Now a days it comes down to a price/performance battle, the biggest bang for your buck. I'm being optimistic here, without any solid benchmarks it's hard to tell, but I think these new chips are going to be a much needed influx from AMD.

    Pretty exciting! Show me the benchmarks!!
  7. Puiu

    Puiu TS Evangelist Posts: 2,667   +1,097

    It's called SMT (simultaneous multithreading). It's AMD's response to Intel's multithreading: 4 cores/8threads; AMD has 8cores/8threads. Which one do you thinks is better (on paper at least, until we get some benchmarks)? Just research Bulldozer's architecture to see what they did.
  8. I did research BD architecture many times.

    2500k = 4 core / 4 threaded CPU, not 4C/8T as you put it. And HT for Intel barely adds much more than 10% performance on average.

    As I see it, 2500k = 4 cores is being positioned against an 8-threaded FX8000 series from AMD. That only tells me 1 thing: AMD cannot compete unless they sell more cores at the same price. This means they will be slower in most modern applications since most apps outside of workstation/encoding/rendering apps do not at all support more than 4 threads.

    If you revisit 1st generation i5/i7 processors, X6 was not all competitive in those outside of users who need more slow cores (very few people given AMD's market share). So throwing more slow cores isn't going to solve anything for AMD. :(

    I guess I am going to have to buy an Intel system after 9 months of waiting. I hope the benchmarks prove me wrong.
  9. codefeenix

    codefeenix TS Rookie Posts: 39

    FX-8150 will be closer to $250
    FX-8120 " " $210
    FX-6100 " " $180
  10. dividebyzero

    dividebyzero trainee n00b Posts: 4,891   +1,264

    Never heard of Bottom Line Technologies before today. Judging by the amount of stock they carry (check desktop CPU's/boards), this seems more like a viral ad campaign and trawling for page views.
  11. captainawesome

    captainawesome TS Guru Posts: 428   +44

    two things - anyone know how that opteron from the Bulldozer series benchmarks? and will I need to buy a new mobo for the BD FX series?
  12. stan4

    stan4 TS Rookie Posts: 34

    Bottom line? wtf
  13. Sarcasm

    Sarcasm TS Guru Posts: 367   +46

    You clearly already have your mind made up. Go ahead and spring up for an i7 2600k since it's so great.

    As for Bulldozer, pricing will determine where it will be positioned. All we know is that no matter what, it will be faster than the Phenom II's core per core. And who honestly cares about number of cores when it really boils down to overall performance.
  14. "You clearly already have your mind made up. Go ahead and spring up for an i7 2600k since it's so great."

    Nah, I think I'll grab the faster clocked FX-4170. I want to support AMD. I'll probably spend another $100 for an SSD. I think this is better for the overall system speed than getting a $320 2600k + mechical drive. ;)
  15. Sarcasm

    Sarcasm TS Guru Posts: 367   +46

    I think that's probably the best thing to do at this point is to wait for the 8170 in Q1 2012. That's probably going to be my route since I already have an AM3+ board.

    I almost pulled the trigger on an i7 2600K last month, but I figured I'd just upgrade my AM3 board to AM3+ and use my old Phenom 965BE and then upgrade to Bulldozer so I'm stuck on that path now.

    But if I can do it all over again, I'd probably end up waiting for Ivy Bridge whenever that is.
  16. Sarcasm

    Sarcasm TS Guru Posts: 367   +46

  17. You can also overclock SB to 5.0-5.2ghz if you bump the voltage to 1.5V-1.6V. However, such overclocking is not realistic for 24/7 operation. Without knowing what voltage it took for them to reach 5.0ghz, we still don't know if that's anything special.

    Also, since SB is around 40% faster per clock than Phenom II is, a 4.8-5.0ghz Bulldozer will still lose badly to the overclocked SB CPU. And that's not even taking into account the unbelievably low power consumption that SB CPUs have even when overclocked to 4.7-4.8ghz.

    Based on all the info swirling around, it looks me like Bulldozer is more of a workstation/rendering/encoding processor. But most people I know who encode video do so for a smartphone or tablet (something QuickSync is perfect for). So really, AMD once again will compete on price selling to niche consumers that care for 6-8 cores. I think their focus on such a heavily multi-core processor is way way too early in this generation. Personally, I think they should have focused on a fast 4-6 core CPU instead.
  18. Just because the price is lower then SB does not mean it's not as good as SB. AMD could be under cutting the price so they can make up some ground that Intel has taken.
  19. SeiveD

    SeiveD TS Enthusiast Posts: 37

    Whose to say that a Bulldozer core isn't 40%+ faster per clock than a Phenom II? You sure as hell don't. How do I know this? You will find that the Dark Brotherhood knows a great many things. Er.. I mean.. Yes, it is _extremely_ unlikely that you have a Bulldozer sample to compare it with. Nor do you have any concrete benchmarks which to base this opinion on.
  20. SeiveD,

    What are you smoking? I want some of that.

    If Bulldozer was to be 40% faster in performance per clock vs. Phenom II (i.e., ~ SB), than an 8 core variant with 3.6ghz clocks and 4.2ghz Turbo Boost would be MORE than 2x faster than a 2500k/2600k series. You expect AMD to bring out a CPU 2x faster than SB for <sub $300 pricing?

    But the debate on this is already over anyway:

    FX-8120 can't even beat the Core i5-2400 at the same clocks.
  21. SeiveD

    SeiveD TS Enthusiast Posts: 37

    I'm smoking facts. The analysis you linked to was a narrowly targeted, single sample. I'll wait until more places, ones that I know, come up with wider detailed analyses to make my determination. Also, each bulldozer "core" is not really a whole core, and until you can come here and tell me why, I don't care about anything you say. And last but not least, I never actually made claims of Bulldozer's performance. You did, and I called you out on it.

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...