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
Add your own comment

412 Comments on FX-Series Processors Clock Speeds 'Revealed'

#1
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
Pestilence said:
Ahh Netburst. What a piece of shit
Naaah, if you had the cooling for it some CPU's were pretty good.
Posted on Reply
#2
Steevo
Frick said:
Naaah, if you had the cooling for it some CPU's were pretty good.
Meh.
Posted on Reply
#3
Pestilence
Frick said:
Naaah, if you had the cooling for it some CPU's were pretty good.
I have a 965 EE in the closet. Even under water it sucked.
Posted on Reply
#6
Heavy_MG
XoR said:
Bulldozer will be fast CPU coz it will have high clocks for 1-4 thread apps and many cores for >4 thread apps :toast:

I wouln't hope for beating Intel in performance/clock ratio or performance/power_consumption though... Bulldozer will be one power hungry beast :)

ps. there were only one cpu family that was without confusion of how much cores it does really posess, legendary Pentium D :rockout:
http://gadgets.softpedia.com/images/gadgets/gallery/large/The-INTEL-Pentium-D-920-Dual-Core-CPU-1.jpg
and it ran 5GHz with ease :nutkick:

all other multi-cores are just a scam... :(
It also doubles as a space heater.
Posted on Reply
#7
YautjaLord
Poor AMD if it doesn't fix the blocking factor, just like Intel got rid off NetBurst & gained the market share in performance; i'll feel sorry & besided - there's another issue involved: Intel's monopolistic reign if AMD winds up dead. :laugh: Gotta wait til some benchies proove otherwise, but for now only thing AMD & Intel fans (me included, though not entirely AMD or Intel fan but rather tech abuser :)) need to do is - fear; fear of monopoly & sky high prices if Intel wins. Is there a news on when exactly Dozer releases or what? :toast:
Posted on Reply
#8
Heavy_MG
seronx said:
If you have a 4 thread application it will use 4 cores



Zambezi does have a different IMC

Llano's IMC is Phenom IIs tweaked for CPU/GPU

The GPU has leeway

http://img.hexus.net/v2/cpu/amd/Llano/desktop/OC/AIDA.png

But, there was a improvement regardless



Modules don't play a part, so ignore them

it will use 3 cores
Woah,it's faster than the 1100T.
Posted on Reply
#9
Heavy_MG
YautjaLord said:
Poor AMD if it doesn't fix the blocking factor, just like Intel got rid off NetBurst & gained the market share in performance; i'll feel sorry & besided - there's another issue involved: Intel's monopolistic reign if AMD winds up dead. :laugh: Gotta wait til some benchies proove otherwise, but for now only thing AMD & Intel fans (me included, though not entirely AMD or Intel fan but rather tech abuser :)) need to do is - fear; fear of monopoly & sky high prices if Intel wins. Is there a news on when exactly Dozer releases or what? :toast:
You do have a point there,even if BD kicks SB ass,Intel will still outsell them because they have their ways of squeezing AMD out of the market. However i've been told if AMD ever went under,there would be several lawsuits(though I think Intel would just pay them off) and the FTC splitting up Intel before they get a chance to sucker consumers with sky high prices,and the government possibly giving AMD a bailout. After Netburst Intel has gained themselves almost all of the market share and huge sum of profits,Intel is most likely going to win with faster processors every time. AMD simply doesn't have the R&D funding to beat Intel & force further innovation anymore. Without AMD we would still be on Netburst.
Posted on Reply
#10
xenocide
YautjaLord said:
fear of monopoly & sky high prices if Intel wins. Is there a news on when exactly Dozer releases or what? :toast:
Okay there are multiple things wrong here. If Intel ever did develop a monopoly they would be subject to a number of Anti-Trust laws, and within years it would be resolved. As for the price, Intel's CPU's offer performance that greatly exceeds the current lineup of AMD CPU's, and are priced accordingly. Yes, you can get a Thuban x6 and in some applications it will be on par for a 2500k or 2600k, but 9/10 times the SB CPU's decimate it in performance. So if it performs significantly better, why would it be cheaper?

The new SB-E CPU's announced have high price points because there is NOTHING else at that price point from AMD, and Intel isn't really sure how Bulldozer will affect how competative their pricing is. If BD does well, SB\SB-E CPU's will drop in price accordingly. It boils down to economics, why sell the best possible product at the lowest possible price when you can space out your products to maximize profits? Millions of companies have done this before Intel, and millions will do it after.
Posted on Reply
#11
YautjaLord
Had to add - my 2 cents/IMHO; my bad guys. :laugh: Maybe i just fear for the worst way too much; gotta wait til CPU hits the PC store shelves & benchmarked rather then speculate what will or will not happen. Thanx. It's just that anticipation sometimes kills even pretty much patient person like me. Hope the CPU will arrive by end of August so PC store near me have it by the time i'll upgrade.
Posted on Reply
#12
XoR
Pestilence said:
Ahh Netburst. What a piece of shit
NetBurst wouldn't be that bad overall if Intel didn't made Prescott and just shrinked Gellatin cores to 90nm for top P4HT and Northwood (with at least 256kb L2) for Celerons and cheaper P4s. Then we would definitely see >4GHz dual-core 65nm cpus and those would be much faster per MHz than 9xx :banghead:

and as for Pentium D, those cpus were quite cheap. I got 805 + Asus SLI mobo for less than X2 3800+ was priced :roll: Maybe 805 was not as fast and not as power efficient but it was faster overal than similary priced Athlons X1 and @3.8GHz didn't lacked performance at anything. Just like today Phenoms II, not as fast and not as good but at least cheap :toast:
Posted on Reply
#13
Thatguy
xenocide said:
Okay there are multiple things wrong here. If Intel ever did develop a monopoly they would be subject to a number of Anti-Trust laws, and within years it would be resolved. As for the price, Intel's CPU's offer performance that greatly exceeds the current lineup of AMD CPU's, and are priced accordingly. Yes, you can get a Thuban x6 and in some applications it will be on par for a 2500k or 2600k, but 9/10 times the SB CPU's decimate it in performance. So if it performs significantly better, why would it be cheaper?

The new SB-E CPU's announced have high price points because there is NOTHING else at that price point from AMD, and Intel isn't really sure how Bulldozer will affect how competative their pricing is. If BD does well, SB\SB-E CPU's will drop in price accordingly. It boils down to economics, why sell the best possible product at the lowest possible price when you can space out your products to maximize profits? Millions of companies have done this before Intel, and millions will do it after.
this gets so annoying, you don't have to make ferraris to be competitive, you just have to build a better toyota camary.
Posted on Reply
#14
Pestilence
YautjaLord said:
Poor AMD if it doesn't fix the blocking factor, just like Intel got rid off NetBurst & gained the market share in performance; i'll feel sorry & besided - there's another issue involved: Intel's monopolistic reign if AMD winds up dead. :laugh: Gotta wait til some benchies proove otherwise, but for now only thing AMD & Intel fans (me included, though not entirely AMD or Intel fan but rather tech abuser :)) need to do is - fear; fear of monopoly & sky high prices if Intel wins. Is there a news on when exactly Dozer releases or what? :toast:
There isn't going to be any monopoly
Posted on Reply
#15
YautjaLord
Though i have to add that few things doesn't change over the time when those sites present Dozer, namely: 8MB of L3 cache, DDR3 1866MHz mem controller & Black Edition moniker for 8/6/4-core CPUs, but Black Edition is the obvious one. lol If this will be true for all those CPUs once they released - it's quite understandable why it takes for AMD so long to launch it & why there are delays like that; B2/C0 revisions (& not B1 as in Engineering Sample's case) have to be as fast (if not faster) as 2600K/980X in both synthetic & gaming benchies; plus SLI tech in AMD core-logic: someone there beleives he/she/they could get market share once the Dozer is out & benchmarked, whether it wins or loses.
Posted on Reply
#16
Pestilence
YautjaLord said:
Though i have to add that few things doesn't change over the time when those sites present Dozer, namely: 8MB of L3 cache, DDR3 1866MHz mem controller & Black Edition moniker for 8/6/4-core CPUs, but Black Edition is the obvious one. lol If this will be true for all those CPUs once they released - it's quite understandable why it takes for AMD so long to launch it & why there are delays like that; B2/C0 revisions (& not B1 as in Engineering Sample's case) have to be as fast (if not faster) as 2600K/980X in both synthetic & gaming benchies; plus SLI tech in AMD core-logic: someone there beleives he/she/they could get market share once the Dozer is out & benchmarked, whether it wins or loses.
BD will beat a 2600K in mulithreaded benchmarks but it has no shot in gaming thanks to intel's superior IPC
Posted on Reply
#18
[H]@RD5TUFF
I will be skipping them as they will be phased out shortly after release, which really makes me wonder why AMD is bothering other than a desperate effort to stay relevant.
Posted on Reply
#19
Pestilence
[H]@RD5TUFF said:
I will be skipping them as they will be phased out shortly after release, which really makes me wonder why AMD is bothering other than a desperate effort to stay relevant.
Over at XS all they really can say is GF's 32nm process is absolute shit.
Posted on Reply
#20
[H]@RD5TUFF
Pestilence said:
Over at XS all they really can say is GF's 32nm process is absolute shit.
Time will tell.
Posted on Reply
#21
erocker
Pestilence said:
Over at XS all they really can say is GF's 32nm process is absolute shit.
Yeah, I read over there. They know as much as anyone else on this subject. It means nothing.
Posted on Reply
#22
[H]@RD5TUFF
erocker said:
Yeah, I read over there. They know as much as anyone else on this subject. It means nothing.
I would agree, it's too early to be making assumptions, only when you get a retail product can you start to evaluate.
Posted on Reply
#23
YautjaLord
Pestilence said:
Just for you Ser..

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=117843&d=1311031770
That looks f***ed up for all revisions, excluding C0; how come they (XS) know this? Is it how people find out info these days? Did they stole the rev. B1/B2/C0 CPUs or something? :laugh:

Jokes aside, this wouldn't look good if FX-8120 will be rev. B2 CPU; make it & it's older 8150 bro C0 along with 6100 & 4100. The rest doesn't need to be changed, i.e. L1/L2/L3 caches, DDR3 1866MHz mem controller, etc...... Unless it's speculations again.
Posted on Reply
#24
Pestilence
YautjaLord said:
That looks f***ed up for all revisions, excluding C0; how come they (XS) know this? Is it how people find out info these days? Did they stole the rev. B1/B2/C0 CPUs or something? :laugh:

Jokes aside, this wouldn't look good if FX-8120 will be rev. B2 CPU; make it & it's older 8150 bro C0 along with 6100 & 4100. The rest doesn't need to be changed, i.e. L1/L2/L3 caches, DDR3 1866MHz mem controller, etc...... Unless it's speculations again.
People know because everyone has a computer these days as well as a cell phone. News travels fast
Posted on Reply
#25
erocker
Pestilence said:
People know because everyone has a computer these days as well as a cell phone. News travels fast
FUD travels just as fast too.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment