Thursday, July 14th 2011
FX-Series Processors Clock Speeds 'Revealed'
On several earlier articles like this one, we were versed with the model numbers and even possible prices of AMD's next-generation FX series desktop processors, but the clock speeds stayed under the wraps, that's until a table listing them out was leaked. AMD's FX-series consists of eight-core FX-81xx parts, six-core FX-61xx, and quad-core FX-41xx parts, probably harvested out of the Zambezi silicon by disabling modules (groups of two cores closely interconnected with some shared resources). Most, if not all, FX series chips have unlocked multipliers, making it a breeze to overclock them. All chips come in the AM3+ package, feature 8 MB of L3 cache, and 2 MB L2 cache per module.
Leading the pack is FX-8150, with a clock speed of 3.6 GHz, and TurboCore speed of 4.2 GHz, a 500 MHz boost. The next chip, FX-8120, has a boost of close to a GHz, it has a clock speed of 3.1 GHz, that goes all the way up to 4 GHz with TurboCore. This will be available in 125W and 95W TDP variants. Next up is the FX-8100, with 2.8 GHz clock speed, that goes up to 3.7 GHz, another 900 MHz boost. The scene shifts to 6-core chips, with FX-6120, no clock speed numbers were given out for this one. FX-6100, on the other hand, is clocked at 3.3 GHz, with 3.9 GHz Turbo. The FX-4100 is the only quad-core part with clock speeds given out by this source: 3.6 GHz, with a tiny 200 MHz boost to 3.8 GHz. You can see that there is no pattern in the turbo speed amounts specific to models, and hence we ask you to take these with a pinch of salt.
Source:
DonanimHaber
Leading the pack is FX-8150, with a clock speed of 3.6 GHz, and TurboCore speed of 4.2 GHz, a 500 MHz boost. The next chip, FX-8120, has a boost of close to a GHz, it has a clock speed of 3.1 GHz, that goes all the way up to 4 GHz with TurboCore. This will be available in 125W and 95W TDP variants. Next up is the FX-8100, with 2.8 GHz clock speed, that goes up to 3.7 GHz, another 900 MHz boost. The scene shifts to 6-core chips, with FX-6120, no clock speed numbers were given out for this one. FX-6100, on the other hand, is clocked at 3.3 GHz, with 3.9 GHz Turbo. The FX-4100 is the only quad-core part with clock speeds given out by this source: 3.6 GHz, with a tiny 200 MHz boost to 3.8 GHz. You can see that there is no pattern in the turbo speed amounts specific to models, and hence we ask you to take these with a pinch of salt.
412 Comments on FX-Series Processors Clock Speeds 'Revealed'
If you disagree that's fine but your treating him like he's an idiot when we're in a thread that's entirely based on speculation.
Which is just as stupid.
It's kind of annoying coming in here and seeing people talk down to one person so much.
Also they are benchmarks with almost never represent actual performance, because they are highly optimized for MT and floating point math, which is not attainable on REAL code.
I happen to spend a lot of time doing CAD btw. For work. So I have always been highly interested in BD. That does not mean that I will believe in AMD's claims 100%, when they contradict everything I know about computer science, much less those claims coming from an AMD evangelist. I dont need AMD nor anyone to tell me what would be the performance and the trade offs, when I can look at their architecture and know what to expect. It's like I don't need an evangelist telling me how the universe was created or how the world was populated with different animals, when I actually know about the big bang and evolution.
To be honest I don't think there's anything else about clock speed to be discussed and everyone should go have a nice cup of coffee or tea. :laugh:
been work 6-12, il go av a lie down get out tother side o bed this time lol:D
^that was in April 2011
And there is a conference call on Thursday @ July 21st
I don't know what is about but the "yield" issue will be shot down in that conference call supposedly I do gaming + recording and the recording application can address up to 12 cores
SSE3 -> SSE4.2 is going to mean I'll be able to record at 60fps
(I don't record to my hard drive)
www.twitch.tv/seronx/b/286984318
me playing a space game WITH nothing to do Multithreaded performance is what I deal with everyday! I am not an AMD Evangelist sadly, I own 2 Pentium 4s ($2000 PCs) I know a couple things >=(
Clock speeds are higher than 3.6GHz, how high I don't know but the sky is the limit(or until the heat melts the interconnects)
their are but theories and scientists are fond of making new ones;)
topdocumentaryfilms.com/is-everything-we-know-about-the-universe-wrong/
much can and will change in the next month regardless of what any of us knows or realises and hence such surety is false
The evidence seems to support the idea. You bought 2 P4s, but you have not used any other Intel CPU since. That's it you never actually used the good Intel chips, only the worst ones. That pretty much equals fanboyism. Read this:
techreport.com/discussions.x/21294
Only one purchase is needed to become a fanboy. Whatever you used before is irrelevant, it is the last purchase/election what matters. None of that actually contradicts the big bang, only the way it may have happened. It does not contradict, it does show some flaws in the model.
Anyway, that was not my point. i.e. the big bang theory being "wrong" does not make the Bible right.
An 6-core 32nm HKMG CPU that uses the FX+Ultimate Moniker
An 4-core 32nm HKMG that will likely get replaced next year by an APU that uses the FX+Ultimate Moniker
The Processor is from AMD
The CPU is set to release in 2011, no real date on launch since it's a surprise!!!!
and there is a Flex FPU and what it does is magic, you know the unicorn kind
:pimp: Unicorn Magic.... #$%^ Yeah If is the question, and we won't find out will we since Zambezi will be cheap because of the "Better Protection" False, SSE is where it is at
You are talking about Conversion
I am talking about capturing 3 IPC to 4 IPC is not complete bollocks
You aren't looking at the right areas
Scaling factors are the easiest to calculate with AMD CPUs
The difference is that I don't post every single AMD (Intel in my case I supose) PR stuff I come across and pretend it's a fact.
BD can do 8 threads and 4 IPC, but not at the same time. The BS comes from the fact that they are pretending to sell the idea that BD has 8 cores AND 4 IPC at the same time which is completely false.
Phenom II can only do 1 of these scenarios
3 ALU ops
3 AGU ops
Not both
6 IPC in theory but the architecture didn't allow it so half/half was done 3 ALUs ops or 3 AGUs ops
Zambezi can do 2 ALU ops and 2 AGU ops per cycle thus it has a max of 4 IPC
but utilization of both increased(The IPC doubled realistically)
And I am pretty sure the last ALU and AGU weren't used often because they were called an AMU whatever the f that means
(Phenom II)
and most programs didn't even support it it was there just for the third floating point pipeline
1 Each module can only issue 4 instructions 2 integer and 2 fpu= 4x4 =16 ipc max so how is it being limited to 8??
each module is doing its own scheduling? so it shouldnt need to drop below 3-4 ipc per module(2 integer 2 fpu or 1 integer 2fpu etc etc) still making anything between 4 - 16 ipc total not 8? thats why im saying your wrong though dude as performance benches etc might not best make use of this new archtecture for a while if at all.
2 IPC x 8 "cores" == 16 IPC for the entire chip <- this is also true for SB with HT
or
4 IPC x 4 cores == 16 IPC <- this is also true for SB w/o HT
What is not posible and is being claimed is:
4 IPC x 8 cores == 32 IPC
so is AMD sayin that?:laugh:
i hadnt heard that.
imho thats why its got a scheduler on the flex fpu as it will likely be used to allow double precision 64b x 2 per 128b fpux2 + 2 integer in use and that is then impressive no?.
How it increases is unknown till it releases
It is 4 Complex Instructions per clock per module
The decoders are a fusion of Complex and Simple which is like
What is the difference between
3 Simple Instructions(Phenom II)
to
4 Complex Instructions(FX)
The more you tell me that, the more I believe. Faith is starting to grow on me!
God, I've been so wrong. How could I have assumed it had anything to do with tech, when it's all magic! It's something mystical that nobody knows until the truth is revelaed to us by the Lords. The answer is not on the architecture, it's on our faith. Through faith we will be stronger and beat competition!!
No, now seriously. Pretty much everything has been revealed about the architecture and there's no magic formula. Actual/runtime IPC (as oposed to theoretical IPC) in BD might end up higher than on previous AMD architectures because of 2 main reasons:
1- use of multi-threading.
2- better branch prediction.
Point n. 1 is what we are mostly discussing. How much better is CMT over SMT? AMD will obviously want make you believe it's much much better and so much better in fact that it equals 2 complete cores. I call BS.
Point n. 2 is from where most serious IPC improvement claims come from. Most of the improvements for Sandy came exactly from increased IPC due to better scheduling and branch prediction. Theorerical IPC remains the same as Nehalem after all, and the 2500k can often times match 6 core i7's on threaded apps. Westmere already had much improved front end, and SB supposed an even bigger jump.
Bulldozer does introduce a much stronger branch predictor, but it's still to be seen if it can match or even come close to Intel's, which is its strongest point since Core 2. Read the link I posted, please.
At some point you will have to stop posting BS. Istanbul could do 3 simple and 3 complex too and Bd does 4 simple/4complex per module. So does Intel (mixing simple and complex), although differently.
What worries me about BD is the fact they said an over all increase of 30%......Thats AMD cherry picking stats to get that 30% increase for marketing. So in the real world its more like 15% or 20%......maybe.
This has been my number one concern. Not the IMC. Not the Mhz. Not the architecture. That little marketing number. You can tell far more about a pre-release product on the marketing you see IF you know what to look for in marketing. Both AMD and Intel are famous for inflating numbers. More then car manufactures! So everything you see. Everything you read. Its all FUD until we see real world numbers. No math in the world can explain how a CPU will work based of marketing slides.
The increase is like this
1000 for Phenom II per core
1000 for Zambezi per core
It is the same, the performance didn't drop like you think it would it actually increased
1150 for Zambezi per core
There is another increase but I would wait till benchmarks to see this increase
(there is a huge difference between the Bulldozer/Zambezi to the Bulldozer/Zambezi we would have gotten in 2009, and it doesn't help that it only says this in the software guide)
:laugh::laugh::laugh: for Phenom 2 per :nutkick:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: for Zambezi per :nutkick: plus :roll::roll: when the :banghead: is activated and a good deal of Turbo:slap: too.
Ok, ok I'm done with feeding the troll. Sorry guys.