Wednesday, May 23rd 2012

Production of AMD "Piledriver" FX Processors Begin Q3 2012

Production of AMD's next-generation FX processor family, which are based on its "Piledriver" microarchitecture, will commence in Q3 2012, according to industry sources. Some of the first client processor models based on the "Vishera" silicon, will be the eight-core FX-8350, six-core FX-6300, and quad-core FX-4320. The three model names were earlier misinterpreted with an "x" prefix from a roadmap slide.

A few more details are known about these chips. For starters, the chips will be built on the existing AM3+ package, retaining compatibility with current AM3+ platforms. The chips will also retain dual-channel DDR3-1866 MHz integrated memory controllers, and Turbo Core 2.0. The main differences here, are increases in IPC (performance to clock-speed ratio), and the implementation of resonant clock mesh technology, which increases energy efficiency.Source: DonanimHaber
Add your own comment

63 Comments on Production of AMD "Piledriver" FX Processors Begin Q3 2012

#4
fullinfusion
1.21 Gigawatts
I hope AMD can pull the rabbit outta the hat with this cpu :toast:

I'll be watching this one.
Posted on Reply
#5
NC37
by: fullinfusion
I hope AMD can pull the rabbit outta the hat with this cpu :toast:

I'll be watching this one.
They won't, only projected to be 10-15% over BD. Even if it was more, it still wouldn't be super. It'll be another revision or two before AMD gets the design flaws ironed out.

Keep an eye out for Steamroller, but don't hold your breath.
Posted on Reply
#6
seronx
by: NC37
They won't, only projected to be 10-15% over BD. Even if it was more, it still wouldn't be super. It'll be another revision or two before AMD gets the design flaws ironed out.

Keep an eye out for Steamroller, but don't hold your breath.
It's actually a little higher than 10% to 15%... 24% overall lower power consumption(RCM)((4+ GHz while ~3.5 range can see 30% lower power). I have also seen no signs of increased performance per core with the same clock based on theoretical upscaling from Trinity.

http://ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/sscs/Presentations/2012_01_Doyle.pdf <-- It hasn't been talked about even though this design is already in Orochi B2, so I am not sure if Orochi Revision C(x) would get the 8 Gbit/s interconnect.
Posted on Reply
#7
eidairaman1
lets see the final end user testing at the hands of the TPU staff here
Posted on Reply
#8
hardcore_gamer




This is is going to be a problem for overclockers. Because of the resonant mesh design, efficiency is maximum at the resonant frequency, and it decreases when frequency increases.

edit:

There are better CMOS energy recovery schemes out there. One example is the adiabatic logic. Most chip companies will be forced to use energy recovery circuits when CMOS scaling reaches its limit.
Posted on Reply
#9
Melvis
I hope to see a good increase in IPC and the power use to come, that would be nice, if it gets up around the 2600K id buy one, if not then boo =/
Posted on Reply
#10
ZoneDymo
Its messed up the current Bulldozer is not even as fast as previous models of amd sure, but what annoys me the most is that Bulldozer in no area beats Intel other then arguably price.

If the Bulldozer had the performance it currently had but would be a lot more power efficient it would suddenly be appealing to me.
Posted on Reply
#12
Dent1
by: ZoneDymo
but what annoys me the most is that Bulldozer in no area beats Intel other then arguably price.
Might be true with Ivy Bridge.

But read over the old Bulldozer reviews from Dec 2011 there was a few multi threaded benchmarks which were faster than Nehalem and Sandy Bridge.

The problem with Bulldozer is it's leads were not consistant enough to stand out. But I hear you. Performance was disappointing.
Posted on Reply
#13
Hustler
by: Melvis
I hope to see a good increase in IPC ,if it gets up around the 2600K
Lolz..not a chance.

Given that SB is up to 40% faster clock for clock than Phenom II, combine that with the fact that Bulldozer is up to 15% slower clock for clock than a Phenom II, you can see there is not a chance in hell of these Piledriver CPU's even matching SandyBridge, let alone IvyBridge.
Posted on Reply
#14
Vinska
by: Dent1
Might be true with Ivy Bridge.

But read over the old Bulldozer reviews from Dec 2011 there was a few multi threaded benchmarks which were faster than Nehalem and Sandy Bridge.

The problem with Bulldozer is it's leads were not consistant enough to stand out. But I hear you. Performance was disappointing.
In the old reviews where they did benchmarks under linux, bulldozer did really well. There it did beat Nehalem & Sandy Bridge on numerous tests, and was head to head in most where it did not beat 'em, losing in just a few. It did especially well in compiling. That is, IIRC.
So, myeah...
Posted on Reply
#15
TheLaughingMan
Wow. People still base their opinions of figures they just make up or rumors there heard from people that just made some figures up.

I reserve my opinion until I see the Piledriver FX chips. Glad to see they are going to stick with AM3+ for at least another generation.
Posted on Reply
#16
Prima.Vera
Cannot wait for a CPU that finally can be faster in games than my good ol' Core 2 Quad Q9650....
Posted on Reply
#17
HossHuge
So if production begins in Q3, when would they come on sale?
Posted on Reply
#18
Vinska
by: HossHuge
So if production begins in Q3, when would they come on sale?
I also had the same question on my mind.
Posted on Reply
#19
dzero
Q3 production mid Q4 release date.

Hopefully they have dealt with some of the heat and power issues. IPC is important but you can't really think there will win there for Piledriver.
Posted on Reply
#20
Dent1
by: Prima.Vera
Cannot wait for a CPU that finally can be faster in games than my good ol' Core 2 Quad Q9650....
Urrm,
Athlon II X4, just as fast in singethreaded and multi threaded games
Phenom II X6 in multi-threaded games, just as fast in singlethreaded.
Bulldozer in multi-threaded games, just as fast in singlethreaded.
LLano APU faster in games period.
Trinity APU faster in games period.

by: Hustler
Lolz..not a chance.

Given that SB is up to 40% faster clock for clock than Phenom II, combine that with the fact that Bulldozer is up to 15% slower clock for clock than a Phenom II, you can see there is not a chance in hell of these Piledriver CPU's even matching SandyBridge, let alone IvyBridge.
Bulldozer is not 15% slower than Phenom II clock for clock . Please stop spreading misinformation.

Secondly, Anantech already says that the LOW END Trinity APU based on Piledriver is 20-25% slower than Ivy Bridge. So I would assume the HIGH END Piledriver desktop CPU would be even faster than Trinity. My conservative guess would be a 10% improvement from from a low end APU to a high end CPU. So based on that information I would say Piledriver should* be as fast as Sandybridge +/- a few % depending on the benchmark.
To recap, Trinity is AMD’s continued journey down the path they started with Llano. Both CPU and GPU performance have improved over Llano. The general purpose CPU performance gap vs. Intel is somewhere in the 20—25% range.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5831/amd-trinity-review-a10-4600m-a-new-hope/9
Posted on Reply
#21
Hustler
by: Dent1
Urrm,
Bulldozer is not 15% slower than Phenom II clock for clock . Please stop spreading misinformation.
First of all i said 'up to' 15% slower, meaning in some CPU bound benchmarks, 1 Bulldozer core is 15% slower than 1 Phenom II core.

The benchmarks are out there if you look....
Posted on Reply
#22
Fourstaff
by: Dent1
Urrm,
Athlon II X4, just as fast in singethreaded and multi threaded games
Phenom II X6 in multi-threaded games, just as fast in singlethreaded.
Bulldozer in multi-threaded games, just as fast in singlethreaded.
LLano APU faster in games period.
Trinity APU faster in games period.
You can stop spreading misinformation too, 9650 is about as powerful as the Phenom II, and from that we can tell 9650 is more powerful than AII x4 and about as powerful as Bulldozer. Llano is no faster than Phenom II either, and we have yet to see desktop Trinity yet, but judging by the mobile side, should be faster than 9650. As for clock for clock I don't really care between Phenom II and Bulldozer, just that in singlethreaded applications, Bulldozer is not significantly powerful than Phenom II, and the average user cannot take advantage of the superior multitasking by Bulldozer (they do fine in server though).

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2009/08/17/amd-phenom-ii-x4-965-black-edition-review/6
Posted on Reply
#23
Vinska
by: Fourstaff
[...]just that in singlethreaded applications, Bulldozer is not significantly powerful than Phenom II, and the average user cannot take advantage of the superior multitasking by Bulldozer (they do fine in server though).
me >> average user (sort of) >> [*gasms over bulldozer compiling speed ('is highly MT)]

EDIT: Also, to me, additional modules/cores are pure gold when recording gameplay videos. Encoding with the high compression rates, that is (the processing-intensive, not the quality-reducing type). While the game still runs as smooth as silk. YYY!
Posted on Reply
#24
Dent1
by: Fourstaff
You can stop spreading misinformation too, 9650 is about as powerful as the Phenom II, and from that we can tell 9650 is more powerful than AII x4 and about as powerful as Bulldozer.
Dude read my post again. As far as Phenom II and Bulldozer you just agreed with me :laugh: :slap:
Phenom II X6 in multi-threaded games, just as fast in singlethreaded.
Bulldozer in multi-threaded games, just as fast in singlethreaded.
Also, if we are in agreement the 9650, Phenom II and Bulldozer perform about the same (atleast in single threaded games) That means it's impossible for Phenom II to be 15% faster than Bulldozer as Hustler suggested :)
Posted on Reply
#25
Fourstaff
by: Dent1
Dude read my post again. As far as Phenom II and Bulldozer you just agreed with me :laugh: :slap:



Also, if we are in agreement the 9650, Phenom II and Bulldozer perform about the same (atleast in single threaded games) That means it's impossible for Phenom II to be 25% faster than Bulldozer as Hustler suggested :)
That is what I get when I skim through posts :shadedshu

Well, there will always be fanboys everywhere, and aggressive weeding is needed every so often.

Either way, AMD needs to boost their singlethreaded heavily to compete with Sandy Bridge past the $150 dollar mark, but I think AMD has given up in that segment and focus their resources in server and also low to mid end. Bulldozer while lacking in high end gaming does very well in mid and below, trading blows with the i3 and non-k i5 when overclocked. Power consumption still needs to be improved by 50% to make it truly competitive, no just on benches.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment