1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Three New, 95 W AMD FX Series Processors Coming Up

Discussion in 'News' started by Cristian_25H, Feb 17, 2012.

  1. Thefumigator

    Thefumigator

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    417 (0.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    66
    we shouldn't forget these are all 95watts processors, if pricing is ok then power consumption will drop to competitive levels. Performance won't be improved tho
     
  2. Inceptor

    Inceptor

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    497 (0.43/day)
    Thanks Received:
    119
    This is just speculation, but it just occurred to me:

    B2 Bulldozers are numbered FX-x1xx.
    Piledrivers are supposedly FX-x3xx.
    So, B3 Bulldozers will be FX-x2xx?

    It seems reasonable but reasonableness on this topic doesn't give me much confidence.
    Any opinions or scraps of info?
     
    Super XP says thanks.
  3. Super XP

    Super XP

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,773 (0.79/day)
    Thanks Received:
    539
    Location:
    Ancient Greece, Acropolis
    Great catch, makes sense. Piledriver will either be B4 or C2/3 stepping IMO. I know for a fact AMD modified Bulldozer's original design many months before Bulldozer's release and named it Code Name Piledriver. So they've been messing around with Piledriver for some time now. That so called 20% better performance (clock 4 clock) for Piledriver over today's Bulldozer may very well grow to over 20% by the time it's released sometime in Q3 2012.
     
  4. jpierce55

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,335 (0.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    91
    It is a surprising move in the correct direction at least.
     
  5. jihadjoe

    jihadjoe

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    392 (0.35/day)
    Thanks Received:
    100
    AMD knows exactly what cache can do, and has known for a long time. The main reason the K6-III was so good was the large amount of on-die L2 cache running at full CPU speed. At the time of release, the K6-III 450 was one of the fastest x86 CPU around, handily beating out the K6-II 400 and Pentium II 450 in integer, or when running stuff that made good use of 3DNow.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2012
  6. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    I know this has probably been asked before, but never really answered to my satisfaction. What would the equivalent power envelope be in an Intel cpu? Would an Intel that consumes this much power also be rated at 95w? Higher? Lower? What?
     
  7. TheGuruStud

    TheGuruStud

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,641 (0.63/day)
    Thanks Received:
    172
    Location:
    Police/Nanny State of America
    Lower.

    Neither really calculate TDP the same, but intel doesn't include non-core into the figures (aka lying).

    Unfortunately, testing this is very hard since intel also draws power besides the 12v rail (really convenient). Intel finally admitted to it and IIRC non-core can consume up to 28 watts as per their documentation (I'm skeptical of anything they say, I don't trust crooks, but it does seem realistic).

    You would think total system power consumption could show a clear picture, but it doesn't. With the new FX, power figures are varying greatly, b/c of crap bioses (not sure how much has been fixed). AMD boards seem to be designed a lot different, regardless. The heat produced isn't matching the power figures. If an X6 was really drawing more power than intel's, then how come it runs pretty cool even when OCed? Nothing adds up right. You can't claim an AMD chip is using 250 watts OCed if it's running cool haha. I doubt that the design of the chip can account for using that much power, but not turning it into heat.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2012
  8. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    Any independent links on this? Somebody had to test it at some point.
     
  9. Mathragh

    Mathragh

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,103 (0.61/day)
    Thanks Received:
    305
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Thats part of the problem, because of the way processors use current from different sources(like the both the motherboard, and the CPU 12V socket).

    If both processors are not comparable in how they use the current provided to it by both the mobo and PSU directly, you cannot compare the power draw, because measuring the powerdraw from the motherboard to the cpu directly cannot be done in any easy way.
     
  10. Thefumigator

    Thefumigator

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    417 (0.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    66
    All I can say is that I have an amp clamp multimeter to measure power consumption
    and I've measured power consumption of things (usually entire systems like TV, ovens, computers, but not the individual parts that conform them) on several scenarios. I find impressive how energy consumption can drop when using a "low power" energy profile, no matter which system while modern enough (post 2006 I imagine). Its funny how the readings in the clamp meter drop instantly with just a mouse click over energy saving profile, (that if cool n quiet -or the intel equivalent- is enabled of course)

    Maybe I should make some tests again and document them. I also did (a long time ago) 80plus vs non-80plus test on the same system and I can't remember a thing.
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page