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
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.
412 Comments on FX-Series Processors Clock Speeds 'Revealed'
I did give a Grain of Salt message
and SunnyKFC and OBR did have a huge major fight at the Xtreme System forumsIt is just Seronx short for Seronxolitus
I am not him trust me look up Seronx, lol
Screw you guys, I'm going to buy a VIA QC. :pimp:
But seriously, these guys should be supported, so that they can enter the race as well.
P.S. Typo: from 3.6GHz to 4.2GHz it's not 500MHz, it's 600MHz turbo boost. Everything else is ace. Keep 'em coming, bta. :toast:
Why do company's produce different stepping processors? To fix issues with a prior stepping. Want an Example?
Phenom II X4 955 C2 :
Had issues going over 3.6Ghz, Memory Controller hated anything over 1333
Phenom II X4 955 C3 :
Over 4Ghz without much issue, Much better memory performance with 1600
Amd had to revise the processor because it was having issues.
Heres exactly what we do know in totallity
New design
Everything else is Bullshit.
(besides temperature being lower)
Thanks.
What you just said plus a bit more room to OC compared to 125W; same as 125W CPU compared to 140W TDP CPU. :) Though that's not the only thing you should worry: look what revision the CPU is - if it's rev. B2 95W TDP & the other is rev. C0 125W TDP, go for rev. C0 one even though it's 125W. Tends to OC better then lower (B2) revision.
your point about 3 is the same as what i do, I never shut windows down and it says "safe mode" and shit, you are an intel fanboy and worried that AMD may take back the performance crown
he uses windows because it easier, notice how cpu-z reflects this doesn't matter the CPU clocks higher and is faster (by a margin) than the 2600k
<---this people know