Tuesday, June 7th 2011

AMD FX 8 Core and 4 Core Processor Systems Seen Running at E3

At the Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) 2011, AMD made its revival of the FX brand identifier official. The company steered clear of actually launching anything, but reran the audience through the AMD Bulldozer architecture, something AMD first did way back in August 2010 (yeah, it's been that long!). Knowing the audience needed a lot more than just that, AMD ran live demos of gaming PCs running the new FX series processors, again, without giving away any performance figures.

AMD first showed the final box art design. The box of the eight-core FX Black Edition processor is a classy metal canister, while the quad-core FX chip is housed in a more common-looking paperboard box, the design of which matches the one revealed in a box-art exposé back in March. The gaming rigs shown run the eight-core FX processor on an ASUS Crosshair V Formula motherboard, with Radeon HD 6900 series graphics, with an Eyefinity display setup.
An instance of next-generation AMD Overdrive software is running, displaying a surprisingly low 19°C temperature on all cores. This could be a glitch, probably because AOD doesn't support the sensor interface of the new FX chips properly, yet. The other thing AOD reveals is that each of the eight cores is running on its own BClk multiplier value, ranging from 1.00 GHz (5 x 200 MHz), to 3.20 GHz (16 x 200 MHz). The core voltage for all the cores is displayed as 1.4V, again we suspect a low-level interface glitch.

Source: 4Gamer.net
Add your own comment

178 Comments on AMD FX 8 Core and 4 Core Processor Systems Seen Running at E3

#1
seronx
[H]@RD5TUFF said:
fixed

This really tells us nothing, given neither of those games are cpu intensive. :mad:


Ya GPU intensive

code:
Test System Specs
- Intel Core i7 920 (Overclocked @ 3.70GHz)
- x3 2GB G.Skill DDR3 PC3-12800 (CAS 8-8-8-20)
- Asus P6T Deluxe (Intel X58)
- OCZ ZX Series 1250w
- Crucial RealSSD C300 256GB (SATA 6Gb/s)
- GeForce GTX 590 (3072MB)
- GeForce GTX 580 (1536MB)
- GeForce GTX 570 (1280MB)
- GeForce GTX 560 Ti (1024MB)
- GeForce GTX 550 Ti (1024MB)
- GeForce GTX 480 (1536MB)
- GeForce GTX 470 (1280MB)
- GeForce GTX 460 (1024MB)
- GeForce GTS 450 (1024MB)
- Radeon HD 6990 (4096MB)
- Radeon HD 6970 (2048MB)
- Radeon HD 6950 (2048MB)
- Radeon HD 6870 (1024MB)
- Radeon HD 6850 (1024MB)
- Radeon HD 5870 (2048MB)
- Radeon HD 5830 (1024MB)
- Radeon HD 6790 (1024MB)
- Radeon HD 6770 (1024MB)
- Radeon HD 6750 (1024MB)
- Radeon HD 6670 (1024MB)
- Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
- Nvidia Forceware 275.27
- ATI Catalyst 11.5
590GTX is getting CPU Bottlenecked rofl!!!

Dirt 3 is the first game built for FX I guess

Dragon Age 2 is GPU dependent

Dirt 3 is a CPU intensive game having a gpu is just a plus

I told techspot to use AMD more got the ban

Techspot doesn't seem to understand that intel doesn't scale well with the nvidia gpus(i7 920 @ stock beating a i7 2600K @ stock, proof, proof 2: i7 2500K @ stock getting beat by a i5 750 @ stock)

I have a request to TPU can you do a benchmark of a AMD Phenom II 1100T(and 980BE) and i7 2600K/2500K OC'ed to 3.7GHz with a 6970,6990,590GTX with a 3 monitor setup (7680x1600) for dirt 3 and get the fps list
Posted on Reply
#2
fullinfusion
1.21 Gigawatts
seronx said:
http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/403/bench/CPU2.png

Ya GPU intensive

http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/403/bench/7680.png



590GTX is getting CPU Bottlenecked rofl!!!

Dirt 3 is the first game built for FX I guess

Dragon Age 2 is GPU dependent

Dirt 3 is a CPU intensive game having a gpu is just a plus

I told techspot to use AMD more got the ban

Techspot doesn't seem to understand that intel doesn't scale well with the nvidia gpus(i7 920 @ stock beating a i7 2600K @ stock, proof, proof 2: i7 2500K @ stock getting beat by a i5 750 @ stock)

I have a request to TPU can you do a benchmark of a AMD Phenom II 1100T(and 980BE) and i7 2600K/2500K OC'ed to 3.7GHz with a 6970,6990,590GTX with a 3 monitor setup (7680x1600) for dirt 3 and get the fps list
Im pretty sure that graph is a joke and been altered. Im sure cadaveca ran a few tests of his own and he thought it was weird because those results were different then his runs.
Posted on Reply
#3
cadaveca
My name is Dave
fullinfusion said:
Im pretty sure that graph is a joke and been altered. Im sure cadaveca ran a few tests of his own and he thought it was weird because those results were different then his runs.
Yep. I even installed Dirt3 on a review setup just to check it out.

results are very similar to this, although the difference is not as large. I think that when I redo some boards, I'll be swapping Dirt3 in for F1 2010, in fact...I want to replace Civ 5 too.I think I'll await bulldozer though, and do what board I have on hand then. I don't know that I'll keep every board.:



seronx said:
6970,6990,590GTX with a 3 monitor setup (7680x1600) for dirt 3 and get the fps list
Get me the videocards, and I'll see what I can do.


I'm actually part way through setting up eyefinity right this moment...was gonna shut this rig down and move it over to the triple monitors, but decided to check my mail first, and here I am. So I got the monitors, and the boards/cpus/rams.

I don't do videocard reviews, and never will, and W1zz doesn't do motherboard/CPU reviews, so that's kinda asking for a bit much. Also, asking for triple 30-inch numbers is a bit silly. Common triple setup is 5760x1080, which is what I got.
Posted on Reply