Sunday, June 16th 2013

AMD Athlon X4 Socket FM2 CPUs Based on Richland Silicon Go On Sale

AMD unveiled the first batch of Athlon X4 CPUs in the socket FM2 package, based on its latest Richland silicon. These chips stop short of being labeled APUs, for they lack integrated graphics. You need a discrete graphics card. Unlike its previous generation "Trinity" silicon-based Athlon X4 CPUs, AMD unveiled a few parts with high clock speeds, some even with unlocked base-clock multipliers, targeting consumers who want to build socket FM2-based gaming PCs, but don't intend to use the integrated graphics.

At the top of the stack is the Athlon X4 760K Black Edition (AD760KWOHLBOX). This chip offers 3.80 GHz of clock speed, and 4.10 GHz maximum Turbo Core frequency. Despite its lack of the graphics core, its TDP is rated on par with the A10-6800K, at 100W. In its consumer-friendly PIB (processor-in-box) package, the X4-760K Black Edition is priced around US $135. A variant of this exact chip, which lacks unlocked BClk multiplier, is named just Athlon X4 760K (the "K" here can be misleading), and is priced around $100. AMD has other quad-core and dual-core Athlon parts based on the "Richland" silicon planned for later.

If you put aside its industry-leading integrated graphics, "Richland" features two modules based on the "Piledriver" micro-architecture, with four x86-64 cores, 192 KB of total L1 cache, 4 MB of total L2 cache, a dual-channel DDR3 integrated memory controller with native support for DDR3-2133 MHz, and a PCI-Express gen 2.0 root complex. In its FM2 package, the chip supports FM2 motherboards based on AMD's A55, A75, and A85X FCH chipsets.Source: CPU World
Add your own comment

20 Comments on AMD Athlon X4 Socket FM2 CPUs Based on Richland Silicon Go On Sale

#1
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
I'm surprised they haven't dumped out a six core fm2 chip by now...
Posted on Reply
#2
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
They won't do that till they get the fab process sorted out. The next logical step is a chip with three modules and a 640 SP IGP. AMD is banking on GloFo to get 20 nm right. Then it can build APUs and CPUs on that node. High TC GPUs are better left to the expertise of TSMC.
Posted on Reply
#3
de.das.dude
Pro Indian Modder
are these like the apus but with the gpu portion locked due to instability?
Posted on Reply
#4
scope54
I'm now really curious to see if it performs as well as the FX-4350.
Posted on Reply
#5
TheGuruStud
*sigh* Is binning really that expensive? They could cut the TDP to 50 watts lol.
Posted on Reply
#6
Roph
So it's basically an FX-43xx with less cache? Odd that this is FM2 instead of AM3+ also.
Posted on Reply
#7
Jorge
These are "Athlon" model CPUs people - with no GPU section. Trinity and Richland models are APUs not CPUs. These models offer improved desktop performance over Trinity APUs at a good price, for those desiring to use descrete GPU cards. You save some $$$ on these CPUs that you can apply toward your GPU card. It's just another market segment niche. Some folks don't want to pay for an APU with IGP when they plan to use a descrete GPU. This will make those folks happy. :)
Posted on Reply
#8
_Zod_
by: Jorge
These are "Athlon" model CPUs people - with no GPU section. Trinity and Richland models are APUs not CPUs. These models offer improved desktop performance over Trinity APUs at a good price, for those desiring to use descrete GPU cards. You save some $$$ on these CPUs that you can apply toward your GPU card. It's just another market segment niche. Some folks don't want to pay for an APU with IGP when they plan to use a descrete GPU. This will make those folks happy. :)
That's what the AM3+ socket is for, FM2 is for APU's. So really this makes no sense at all.
Posted on Reply
#9
Dent1
by: _Zod_
That's what the AM3+ socket is for, FM2 is for APU's. So really this makes no sense at all.
Socket AM3+ already has the FX-4xxx series, to put the Richland Athlon II X4 on AM3+ also would be to compete against itself. Hence, why FM2 was used.
Posted on Reply
#10
Fourstaff
by: Dent1
Socket AM3+ already has the FX-4xxx series, to put the Richland Athlon II X4 on AM3+ also would be to compete against itself. Hence, why FM2 was used.
No, all APUs with defective graphics cores becomes this. They are designed with FM2 in mind, not AM3+. I am also interested in 4350 vs 6800K, no one seems to be doing it?
Posted on Reply
#11
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: Roph
So it's basically an FX-43xx with less cache? Odd that this is FM2 instead of AM3+ also.
by: _Zod_
That's what the AM3+ socket is for, FM2 is for APU's. So really this makes no sense at all.
They have to get rid of the chips with bad iGPUs somehow.
Posted on Reply
#12
MadMan007
by: Jorge
These are "Athlon" model CPUs people - with no GPU section. Trinity and Richland models are APUs not CPUs. These models offer improved desktop performance over Trinity APUs at a good price, for those desiring to use descrete GPU cards. You save some $$$ on these CPUs that you can apply toward your GPU card. It's just another market segment niche. Some folks don't want to pay for an APU with IGP when they plan to use a descrete GPU. This will make those folks happy. :)
The base and turbo speeds are actually lower than the A10-6800K (which is 4.1 base and 4.4 turbo)...so it won't have 'improved desktop performance' unless it overclocks way higher. But at least it's cheaper although only by a few dollars for the BE, the locked multiplier version for $100 actually seems like a better buy.
Posted on Reply
#13
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: MadMan007
The base and turbo speeds are actually lower than the A10-6800K (which is 4.1 base and 4.4 turbo)...so it won't have 'improved desktop performance' unless it overclocks way higher. But at least it's cheaper although only by a few dollars for the BE, the locked multiplier version for $100 actually seems like a better buy.
Read what he said again:
These models offer improved desktop performance over Trinity APUs at a good price
A10-6800K isn't a Trinity APU, it is a Richland APU.
Posted on Reply
#14
Madn3ss795
Athlon II 750k BE + Hyper 212 EVO = 120$
Athlon II 760k BE = 135$

:roll:
Posted on Reply
#15
scorpion_amd13
AMD's biggest problem in making a six-core/three-module APU with an even better IGP is not necessarily the TDP, but the memory bandwidth. The integrated memory controller performs very poorly in regards to actual bandwidth and I don't think it can feed both the CPU and GPU parts simultaneously well enough.
Posted on Reply
#16
drdeathx
by: cdawall
I'm surprised they haven't dumped out a six core fm2 chip by now...
FX is that step. 6 core A10 would step into FX pricing
Posted on Reply
#17
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: drdeathx
FX is that step. 6 core A10 would step into FX pricing
But offer a larger upgrade path for FM2.
Posted on Reply
#18
Fourstaff
by: cdawall
But offer a larger upgrade path for FM2.
Not a good idea to cannibalise your own products.
Posted on Reply
#19
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: Fourstaff
Not a good idea to cannibalise your own products.
Very few people would buy fm2 just to get a six core when they are easily available with am3, but down the road the upgrade would be nice.
Posted on Reply
#20
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
by: cdawall
Very few people would buy fm2 just to get a six core when they are easily available with am3, but down the road the upgrade would be nice.
Personally, I would like to see what AMD initially had several years ago on their roadmap. Tighter coupling of the CPU cores to the GPU cores. I really would like to see another step made towards a heterogeneous CPU. That's me though.

Honestly, I think the smart move would be to shrink the die and try to reduce power consumption. The smaller die would also give a little more room for more GPU horsepower. I don't think FM2 needs more cores. It would be nice, but it doesn't need it.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment