Thursday, July 14th 2011

FX-Series Processors Clock Speeds 'Revealed'

On several earlier articles like this one, we were versed with the model numbers and even possible prices of AMD's next-generation FX series desktop processors, but the clock speeds stayed under the wraps, that's until a table listing them out was leaked. AMD's FX-series consists of eight-core FX-81xx parts, six-core FX-61xx, and quad-core FX-41xx parts, probably harvested out of the Zambezi silicon by disabling modules (groups of two cores closely interconnected with some shared resources). Most, if not all, FX series chips have unlocked multipliers, making it a breeze to overclock them. All chips come in the AM3+ package, feature 8 MB of L3 cache, and 2 MB L2 cache per module.

Leading the pack is FX-8150, with a clock speed of 3.6 GHz, and TurboCore speed of 4.2 GHz, a 500 MHz boost. The next chip, FX-8120, has a boost of close to a GHz, it has a clock speed of 3.1 GHz, that goes all the way up to 4 GHz with TurboCore. This will be available in 125W and 95W TDP variants. Next up is the FX-8100, with 2.8 GHz clock speed, that goes up to 3.7 GHz, another 900 MHz boost. The scene shifts to 6-core chips, with FX-6120, no clock speed numbers were given out for this one. FX-6100, on the other hand, is clocked at 3.3 GHz, with 3.9 GHz Turbo. The FX-4100 is the only quad-core part with clock speeds given out by this source: 3.6 GHz, with a tiny 200 MHz boost to 3.8 GHz. You can see that there is no pattern in the turbo speed amounts specific to models, and hence we ask you to take these with a pinch of salt.


Source: DonanimHaber
Add your own comment

412 Comments on FX-Series Processors Clock Speeds 'Revealed'

#1
1Kurgan1
The Knife in your Back
3.6 out of the box, interesting that they are starting with the clocks so high.

Also there is a typo here
Next up is the FX-8100, with 2.8 GHz clock speed, that goes up to 3.8 GHz, another 900 MHz boost.
I believe thats suppose to be 3.7 as the chart and your final 900mhz gap show.
Posted on Reply
#2
.Tk
I'm really curious about the FX-6xxx perfomance, since it's basically 3 "Bulldozer" Modules with 2 cores each.
Posted on Reply
#3
_JP_
These speeds look good. But if this is accurate, I would jump right to a FX-8120 instead of a 8150. The clocks are close and the gap can be eliminated by OC.
C'mon AMD! I'm almost changing my mind and about to consider Intel. Launch the CPUs. DO EEEEEET!
Posted on Reply
#4
Widjaja
As we have seen in the past clock speeds mean nothing if the architecture of the CPU isn't performing.
I remain skeptic until the final product is released.
Posted on Reply
#6
Thassodar
It's all about the cash money for me; will it be worth getting it brand new to replace my current processor? As an AMD fan for MANY, MANY years I held off of going to The Dark Side JUST so I could see how these stack up to Intel. If I can get better/comparable performance than my current processor and reach or exceed the performance of a i5/i7 for slightly (or significantly) cheaper I am all down for it. Maybe I'm oversimplifying a little but that's how I see things.
Posted on Reply
#7
Benetanegia
So I was mostly right when I said we could expect around 10% better clocks at most than on the engineering sample. And it's pretty clear they are doing some very tight binning to do so, if we consider the second and 3rd chips are clocked so low, even below the ES, 500 Mhz difference with the top one is a very big difference. Yield issues can almost be taken as granted too.

Sorry to sound negative, but I'm just being realistic. AMD will have some solid products at good prices with these, but in no way capable to compete with Intel head on, if Intel does not want to, at least. And of course, like in the past few years the reality is that Intel will continue to price their CPUs too high (compared to what they could or should be "fair") because they have no competition. Only as low as required to be or look like a better deal than AMD's.

Sigh. Let's hope that AMD can at least fix it in a few months, kind of like Nvidia did with GF110 or if AMD manages an improvement akin to what they did with Phenom II, there's at least some hope. BD is not right there (quite far yet), but it's closer to compete with Intel's best than Phenom and P2 ever were.

PS: I'm going to buy some popcorn. Need to be prepared before seronx joins in and starts his own damage control campaign.
Posted on Reply
#8
Pestilence
by: Thassodar
It's all about the cash money for me; will it be worth getting it brand new to replace my current processor? As an AMD fan for MANY, MANY years I held off of going to The Dark Side JUST so I could see how these stack up to Intel. If I can get better/comparable performance than my current processor and reach or exceed the performance of a i5/i7 for slightly (or significantly) cheaper I am all down for it. Maybe I'm oversimplifying a little but that's how I see things.
Why does everyone assume BD os going to be dirt cheap?

Top 8 Core BD - 330 dollars
Top 6 Core BD - 230 dollars

Thuban and denab were so cheap because they were shit compared to Bloomfield.
Posted on Reply
#9
Dent1
by: Pestilence

Thuban and denab were so cheap because they were shit compared to Bloomfield.
No Thuban and Deneb only seemed cheap compared to Intel's bloated prices.

by: Benetanegia
if Intel does not want to, at least. And of course, like in the past few years the reality is that Intel will continue to price their CPUs too high (compared to what they could or should be "fair") because they have no competition.
Intel will price their CPU high with or without competition. Intel are not concerned about what AMD are doing. Intel care only about Intel and will charge whatever they want regardless of how well or not-so-well Bulldozer performs.
Posted on Reply
#10
repman244
by: Pestilence
Thuban and denab were so cheap because they were shit compared to Bloomfield.
I got my 1090T for ~290€ when it came out, i7-930 was around ~280€ at that time, they weren't cheap then.
And if 4 module Zambezi will be ~$330, I don't think that is expensive, it's 8 cores we are talking about here.
Posted on Reply
#11
TheLaughingMan
by: Pestilence
Why does everyone assume BD os going to be dirt cheap?

Top 8 Core BD - 330 dollars
Top 6 Core BD - 230 dollars

Thuban and denab were so cheap because they were shit compared to Bloomfield.
That is pretty cheap considering Intel has several desktop models at $500+.

These are a lot higher clocks than I expected. If these are accurate, OC may actually be pointless depending on how well turbo works. If it works like AMD claims, all you will need to do is put a big fat cooler over the CPU. You turn on something CPU intensive, it notes the low temp, and boosts all 4, 6, or 8 cores to max.

Still want real performance figures, but I can wait.
Posted on Reply
#13
Thefumigator
by: .Tk
I'm really curious about the FX-6xxx perfomance, since it's basically 3 "Bulldozer" Modules with 2 cores each.
I'm really curious about how bulldozer performs, since it's a completely new microarch. (not sure about the E.Sample)
Posted on Reply
#14
Pestilence
by: TheLaughingMan
That is pretty cheap considering Intel has several desktop models at $500+.
The 1366 Chips are an absolute waste of money ever since Sandy Bridge was released. The ONLY reason to even consider a 970/980/990X is if you really need 6 cores.
Posted on Reply
#15
happita
I always had this urge to get an AMD processor because of a few things:
1. Price/Performance
2. Upgrade paths
3. Help support the underdog

#1 and #3 are no longer a factor for me and haven't been for a long time. My E8400 has been flying, spanking PII's for years and I haven't looked back. Also, the underdog argument...I'm starting to care less and less about AMD's processor lineups because they haven't shown ANYTHING worthwhile to me, at least in relation to competing with similar Intel processors in terms of performance. So the only thing left for me to root them on in is the fact that they don't change their sockets every 6 months or so like Intel does. And that alone will not get me to go to AMD's side. I'm starting to lose faith more and more as time goes on in this never-ending struggle to see who is going to be on top (because we all know Intel will always be on top with enthusiasts, other segments are up for debate though).

by: Benetanegia

PS: I'm going to buy some popcorn. Need to be prepared before seronx joins in and starts his own damage control campaign.
Was thinking the same thing :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#16
Dent1
by: Pestilence
Intel was priced higher because Amd couldn't compete clock for clock.

Examples :

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/100?vs=80

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/100?vs=185
Those examples don't dismiss what I'm saying.

We all know the Phenom IIs are slower so those benchmarks are irrelevant.

Hypothetically even if the Phenom Is performed better than the Core 2 Duos or the Phenom IIs better than the I7s, Intel wouldn't care. They have a big name, big marketing campaigns and will still charge you more for a slower processor. Why because they're Intel, look back in history back when AMD was on top, Intel couldn’t care less and charged ridiculous prices still and the customers still bought it!
Posted on Reply
#17
devguy
I purchased my 1055T on launch date from TigerDirect for $150 - $25 MIR with free shipping. The rebate came quickly too! Maybe I just got lucky (as TD sold out in like 30 mins), but nothing else from AMD or Intel has ever come close to that kind of value on launch date (hell, even months afterwards).

Edit: You guys see this? If you cannot wait and B1 is good enough, throw down some dough!
Posted on Reply
#18
TheLaughingMan
by: Pestilence
Intel was priced higher because Amd couldn't compete clock for clock.

Examples :

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/100?vs=80

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/100?vs=185
You do realize that Intel's prices were that high before the Phenom II's came out right? They didn't lower the price due to lack of competition in the highest performance market. They didn't raise it because of it. Hell, those chips are cheaper now than when they first came out and they are still over prices to me.

by: Pestilence
The 1366 Chips are an absolute waste of money ever since Sandy Bridge was released. The ONLY reason to even consider a 970/980/990X is if you really need 6 cores.
They have been a waste of money to me for quite some time. And while you are correct about the 2600K competing well against the 1366 chips, it often required 4 Ghz+ OC to do well against them at stock. Just saying.
Posted on Reply
#19
Pestilence
by: TheLaughingMan

They have been a waste of money to me for quite some time. And while you are correct about the 2600K competing well against the 1366 chips, it often required 4 Ghz+ OC to do well against them at stock. Just saying.
Sandy Bridge Decimates all the 4 core 1366 chips at stock speeds and only loses a few tests to the 6 cores. Where did you read it needs to be overclocked to compete?
Posted on Reply
#20
TheLaughingMan
by: Pestilence
Sandy Bridge Decimates all the 4 core 1366 chips at stock speeds and only loses a few tests to the 6 cores. Where did you read it needs to be overclocked to compete?
Thats nice as I was only talking about the 6-core chips. And pretty much every review that included figures from the 980X. Which is a little unfair, but whatever. It beat it out in a few test, by a little. Everything else was often not even close. Granted the 2600K put a nice gap between it and everything else on the market, but the 980X hill is just monsterous.
Posted on Reply
#21
Aleksander
They were shown a day before in fudzilla
Posted on Reply
#22
repman244
Found this on OBR's blog:
all DH results were Fakes ... you will see tomorrow here!
Tomorrow means today, since that was written yesterday. So I'm guessing more masked numbers from OBR :laugh:
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment