Friday, February 10th 2012

AMD 2012 CPU Roadmap Unveils FX-X300 and A10 Series

AMD is pushing on with a desktop product lineup that's leveraging its Piledriver CPU and Graphics CoreNext GPU architectures in 2012. Apparently, the company will have a faster product development cycle to catch up with Intel's "Tick-Tock", as revealed in a roadmap slide scored by DonanimHaber. The current product lineup will remain unchanged in the first quarter of 2012. Then in the second quarter, AMD will launch a few more socket AM3+ FX-8000, FX-6000, and FX-4000 series eight, six, and four-core processors; along with the much talked about "Trinity" accelerated processing unit.

The fastest "Trinity" APUs will get a new brand identifier, the A10-5000 series. These APUs will pack next-generation "Piledriver" modular cores and Radeon HD 7600D series graphics. Around this time, AMD will also launch the Brazos 2.0 low-power APU for netbooks, nettops, and embedded computing devices. Brazos 2.0 will get the E2-1000 series branding. The big change is reserved for the third quarter of 2012, when AMD launches the successor of its less-than-lucky AMD FX "Bulldozer" processor family.

Codenamed "Vishera", AMD's new FX-x300 family (where x = 8 in case of eight-core, 6 in case of six-core, and 4, in case of quad-core), will likely be built on the same AM3+ platform, but based on the "Piledriver" core architecture, which brings in about 15% IPC increase over Bulldozer. The roadmap slide talks about FX-8350 being the top-end part, followed by FX-8320, FX-6300, and FX-4320. Around that time, AMD will replace its A6 and A4 "Llano" parts with new A6 and A4 "Trinity" ones. The A6-5400 APU features Radeon HD 7540D graphics, while the A4-5300 features Radeon HD 7480D.Source: DonanimHaber
Add your own comment

43 Comments on AMD 2012 CPU Roadmap Unveils FX-X300 and A10 Series

#1
NC37
Hmm. So they'll still sell Llano alongside Trinity. Curious to see the performance difference.

I just hope they don't get lost in a sea of number revisions. Hopefully they'll focus on the initial model. They seem to have done away with the triple core A6 so that is one potential issue down.
Posted on Reply
#2
TRWOV
Bulldozer modules have a pair of "cores" so no tri-core is possible.
Posted on Reply
#3
mamisano
by: NC37
Hmm. So they'll still sell Llano alongside Trinity. Curious to see the performance difference.

I just hope they don't get lost in a sea of number revisions. Hopefully they'll focus on the initial model. They seem to have done away with the triple core A6 so that is one potential issue down.
Looks like they will sell both only until the lower-end Trinity is released in Q3. Then it is all Trinity.

A triple core Trinity is not possible. LLano was based on Phenom/Athlon II based "Stars" core so triple was possible. Trinity uses PileDrive modules, each with 2 integer cores, so the core count will always be an even number.
Posted on Reply
#4
Hustler
"based on the "Piledriver" core architecture, which brings in about 15% IPC increase over Bulldozer."


Great, so that makes them roughly as fast as a Phenom II, but not until nearly 2013....:rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#5
CAT-THE-FIFTH
by: Hustler
"based on the "Piledriver" core architecture, which brings in about 15% IPC increase over Bulldozer."


Great, so that makes them roughly as fast as a Phenom II, but not until nearly 2013....:rolleyes:
The roadmap says Q3 2012. Anyway,a 15% IPC increase is probably going to happen in line with a clockspeed increase too.
Posted on Reply
#6
robal
by: Hustler
Great, so that makes them roughly as fast as a Phenom II, but not until nearly 2013....:rolleyes:
Well... Current Bulldozer IS faster than PII. Only some specific benchmarks are lower.

Still, it is a disappointment.
That's why I keep my PII until Vishera comes out.
Posted on Reply
#7
Andy77
by: Hustler
"based on the "Piledriver" core architecture, which brings in about 15% IPC increase over Bulldozer."

Great, so that makes them roughly as fast as a Phenom II, but not until nearly 2013....:rolleyes:
IPC wasn't the only downfall Bulldozer had... there were others, probably due to it being a late architecture picked up from the cellar. What PD will make up in performance won't be just based on IPC.
Posted on Reply
#8
naoan
by: Andy77
IPC wasn't the only downfall Bulldozer had... there were others, probably due to it being a late architecture picked up from the cellar. What PD will make up in performance won't be just based on IPC.
Indeed, there's this increased power consumption/performance compared to even Phenom II, oh wait...
Posted on Reply
#9
Hustler
by: robal

Still, it is a disappointment.
Your not kidding, at the current rate of progress the Bulldozer range will be as fast as the i5/i7 by about, what?...2016:rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#10
devguy
Hmm, no FX 8170 or any supposed B3 Bulldozer processors on the roadmap. I guess they're going straight to Piledriver.
Posted on Reply
#12
xenocide
I kind of want a laptop with an A10-5700, but the rest of that roadmap looks pretty uninteresting...
Posted on Reply
#13
Super XP
by: devguy
Hmm, no FX 8170 or any supposed B3 Bulldozer processors on the roadmap. I guess they're going straight to Piledriver.
AMD either scrapped the FX 8170 Bulldozer based CPU (B3 stepping) or they will release it sometime in the Q2 2012 as it stated in one of there older roadmaps.

Anyhow B3 along with the much needed modifications hopefully should be enough for Piledriver to make a performance leap over today's Bulldozer.
AMD may be using TMSC after 2013, though it does depend on which can produce better yields.

This is a well written article, good job. Also, AMD hired an IBM Processor Engineer within closed doors to assist in ensuring that Piledriver performs the way it was meant to, for massive multi-tasking and the ability to outperform the Phenom II line by as much as 50% to 70%. But not in a clock for clock senario due to both designs being quite different.
Take that with a grain of salt. Piledriver has been fixed well enough to replace the complete Bulldozer line. There is no more Enhanced Bulldozer, only Piledriver. AMD wants to leave Bulldozer behind them from what I was told.
http://semiaccurate.com/2012/02/07/fabless-works-for-amd/
Posted on Reply
#14
eidairaman1
Hmm AMD A10, They Should Mark the Box with a Fairchild Republic A10 Thunderbolt II on the box and a Case Sticker with the Same CAS Jet.


by: Yo_Wattup
*yawn*
^^
Says The Troll
Posted on Reply
#15
TRWOV
I think skipping Zambezi B3 and going straight to Piledriver is a good move. Better spend those precious resources on the optimized core.
Posted on Reply
#16
eidairaman1
by: TRWOV
I think skipping Zambezi B3 and going straight to Piledriver is a good move. Better spend those precious resources on the optimized core.
They could always make those Units for OEM/Business Class CPUs...
Posted on Reply
#17
seronx
by: TRWOV
Bulldozer modules have a pair of "cores" so no tri-core is possible.
Two cores
Four cores
Eight cores

The Bulldozer family module can have any number of cores and tri-core is possible but not logical

by: naoan
Indeed, there's this increased power consumption/performance compared to even Phenom II, oh wait...
The FX series has the same power/performance compared to Phenom II in the same usage of threads

Opteron 6174 - $1240
AMD Opteron 6174 Magny-Cours 2.2GHz 12 x 512KB L2 ...
Opteron 6234 - $400
AMD Opteron 6234 Interlagos 2.4GHz 16MB L3 Cache S...

FX isn't the only series which used Bulldozer
Posted on Reply
#18
mastrdrver
by: seronx
Two cores
Four cores
Eight cores

The Bulldozer family module can have any number of cores and tri-core is possible but not logical
No.

A module is considered by AMD to be 2 cores. A module is also the smallest working unit and thus a single core can not be disabled. Cores have to be disabled in pairs. Since the smallest unit that can be disabled in an entire module and not individual cores.
Posted on Reply
#19
seronx
by: mastrdrver
No.

A module is considered by AMD to be 2 cores. A module is also the smallest working unit and thus a single core can not be disabled. Cores have to be disabled in pairs. Since the smallest unit that can be disabled in an entire module and not individual cores.
You can disable cores...

Power gating is allocated to each core and the module(You can have either the whole module turned off or have one or the other core turned off)
Posted on Reply
#20
Super XP
by: mastrdrver
No.

A module is considered by AMD to be 2 cores. A module is also the smallest working unit and thus a single core can not be disabled. Cores have to be disabled in pairs. Since the smallest unit that can be disabled in an entire module and not individual cores.
Just like seronx you can disable 1 core per module.
Posted on Reply
#21
xenocide
by: seronx

The FX series has the same power/performance compared to Phenom II in the same usage of threads
Well every review had different power numbers because the FX-8150 was largely inconsistent when it came to power draw. It did seem to use at least as much power as Phenom II's did, which is the complete opposite of Intel where each line seems to use less power...
Posted on Reply
#22
seronx
by: xenocide
Well every review had different power numbers because the FX-8150 was largely inconsistent when it came to power draw. It did seem to use at least as much power as Phenom II's did, which is the complete opposite of Intel where each line seems to use less power...
The inconsistency is do variations in benchmarking methodology

Some used 3dmark/game, some used Cinebench, some used a HPC app, and some used LinX/IBT/OCCT/Prime95.

AMD didn't change the socket thus power specification hasn't changed. Intel changes sockets and with that comes changes in power consumption and other components

FM2/C2012/G2012 Komodo/Sepang/Terramar would have brought the power specification change that AMD needed and it would come with an embedded NB and I/O Links but those were killed off for the more "affordable" and much "cheaper" Vishera/Seoul/Abu Dahbi
Posted on Reply
#23
DrunkenMafia
I can't say I am going to be excited over this piledriver considering how much hype was around BD launch.. :(
Posted on Reply
#24
theoneandonlymrk
by: DrunkenMafia
I can't say I am going to be excited over this piledriver considering how much hype was around BD launch..
probably wise, heres hopein though eh:D
Posted on Reply
#25
mastrdrver
by: seronx
You can disable cores...

Power gating is allocated to each core and the module(You can have either the whole module turned off or have one or the other core turned off)
by: Super XP
Just like seronx you can disable 1 core per module.
Actually your still wrong.

The BIOS does not disable the other core in the module since it is the whole module that is power gated.

The BIOS just does not expose the other core to the OS. AMD only power gates the module not the cores since the cores share parts and to shut down the only part that is not shared would save little to no power.

edit:The Tech Report's Bulldozer Review
The headliner here, though, is the use of power gates for each of the modules.......
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment