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'

#2
seronx
Pestilence said:
1. Doesn't show what kind of cooling it has. Could be air like he says.. Could be LN2.
2. Overclocking in windows? Are you kidding me?
3. It's unstable as shit. Notice when he starts up the computer windows is asking him if he wants to boot into safe mode? Why is that. Because it's crashing
4. 2 core overclocking? Who cares
I know don't shoot the messenger
I did give a Grain of Salt message
and SunnyKFC and OBR did have a huge major fight at the Xtreme System forums

cadaveca said:
True enough. I know for a fact that he was running into the smae on other forums, and stopped as well.

For all we know, he's SeronX. :laugh:
It is just Seronx short for Seronxolitus
I am not him trust me look up Seronx, lol
Posted on Reply
#3
Pestilence
seronx said:

and SunnyKFC and OBR did have a huge major fight at the Xtreme System forums
l
LINK???????????? Must See Bitch Fight
Posted on Reply
#4
laszlo
news like this always transform in a endless posting with nothing good to read in ...
Posted on Reply
#5
Zubasa
laszlo said:
news like this always transform in a endless posting with nothing good to read in ...
Especially now we have 2 guys with too much time to spends going back and forth with each other. :shadedshu:respect:
Posted on Reply
#6
_JP_
Since there is nothing else useful to add here...

Screw you guys, I'm going to buy a VIA QC. :pimp:
But seriously, these guys should be supported, so that they can enter the race as well.
Posted on Reply
#7
YautjaLord
FX-8120? Where's then FX-8130P? Nevermind: as long as this 8120 Turbo Boosts from 3.1 to 4.0GHz it's going to be one hell of OC'er; only thing left is the figures/tables showing how it performes vs Sandy/Ivy Bridge & Westmere. Hope you will make new "Dozer OC'ers Club" thread after it launches. :) And bta, you always deliver.

P.S. Typo: from 3.6GHz to 4.2GHz it's not 500MHz, it's 600MHz turbo boost. Everything else is ace. Keep 'em coming, bta. :toast:
Posted on Reply
#9
Jizzler
_JP_ said:
Screw you guys, I'm going to buy a VIA QC. :pimp:
But seriously, these guys should be supported, so that they can enter the race as well.
Any products out that we can look at? A quick search didn't turn up anything besides VIA's websites and some PR releases.
Posted on Reply
#10
Steevo
Bla bla bla. I want hard numbers not this fanboi bullshit.
Posted on Reply
#12
YautjaLord
I'm with Steevo plus one more question, bta: what revision these CPUs are? B2? C0?
Posted on Reply
#13
Pestilence
YautjaLord said:
I'm with Steevo plus one more question, bta: what revision these CPUs are? B2? C0?
The ones tested? B1. B2 is the new revision that will be released to consumers
Posted on Reply
#14
Thatguy
Pestilence said:
The ones tested? B1. B2 is the new revision that will be released to consumers
no the ones tested " or claimed" are ES
Posted on Reply
#15
Pestilence
Thatguy said:
no the ones tested " or claimed" are ES
They are all ES but with a B1 stepping. Amd delayed releasing the B1's to consumers because they were performing like shit.
Posted on Reply
#16
Thatguy
Pestilence said:
They are all ES but with a B1 stepping. Amd delayed releasing the B1's to consumers because they were performing like shit.
Says who ? none of this is even properly documented. ES is ES, its nothing more. Its all FUD so stop railing on about it already, your just making yourself look like a dumbass doing so.
Posted on Reply
#17
Pestilence
Thatguy said:
Its all FUD so stop railing on about it already, your just making yourself look like a dumbass doing so.
:laugh:

Why do company's produce different stepping processors? To fix issues with a prior stepping. Want an Example?

Phenom II X4 955 C2 :

Had issues going over 3.6Ghz, Memory Controller hated anything over 1333

Phenom II X4 955 C3 :

Over 4Ghz without much issue, Much better memory performance with 1600

Amd had to revise the processor because it was having issues.
Posted on Reply
#18
Thatguy
Pestilence said:
:laugh:

Why do company's produce different stepping processors? To fix issues with a prior stepping. Want an Example?

Phenom II X4 955 C2 :

Had issues going over 3.6Ghz, Memory Controller hated anything over 1333

Phenom II X4 955 C3 :

Over 4Ghz without much issue, Much better memory performance with 1600

Amd had to revise the processor because it was having issues.
Regardless you have NO IDEA what exactly these folks may or may not have had, so stop with the shit talking. seriously you come like a Intel shill and its tiring.

Heres exactly what we do know in totallity

New design

Everything else is Bullshit.
Posted on Reply
#19
erocker
Senior Moderator
Thatguy said:
Regardless you have NO IDEA what exactly these folks may or may not have had, so stop with the shit talking. seriously you come like a Intel shill and its tiring.

Heres exactly what we do know in totallity

New design

Everything else is Bullshit.
Indeed. Since we now know that all of these "leaks" were nothing but fakes. So as it stands we have nothing to base speculation upon other than a leaked blurry photo of a Bulldozer die that may or may not be real.
Posted on Reply
#20
YautjaLord
I beleive B1 & Engineering Sample are the same thing; need to wait for info where it says that rev. B2 or C0 are hitting launch date; any info that says when those revisions are out will be more than sufficient.
Posted on Reply
#21
Thatguy
erocker said:
Indeed. Since we now know that all of these "leaks" were nothing but fakes. So as it stands we have nothing to base speculation upon other than a leaked blurry photo of a Bulldozer die that may or may not be real.
Definately some ares ass's and definately they are talking.
Posted on Reply
#22
Disruptor4
May I ask, can anyone speculate what the difference between the 125W TDP varient and the 95W TDB variant of the FX-8120 will be?
(besides temperature being lower)

Thanks.
Posted on Reply
#23
YautjaLord
2Disruptor4:

What you just said plus a bit more room to OC compared to 125W; same as 125W CPU compared to 140W TDP CPU. :) Though that's not the only thing you should worry: look what revision the CPU is - if it's rev. B2 95W TDP & the other is rev. C0 125W TDP, go for rev. C0 one even though it's 125W. Tends to OC better then lower (B2) revision.
Posted on Reply
#25
lashton
Pestilence said:
1. Doesn't show what kind of cooling it has. Could be air like he says.. Could be LN2.
2. Overclocking in windows? Are you kidding me?
3. It's unstable as shit. Notice when he starts up the computer windows is asking him if he wants to boot into safe mode? Why is that. Because it's crashing
4. 2 core overclocking? Who cares
you are a fool
your point about 3 is the same as what i do, I never shut windows down and it says "safe mode" and shit, you are an intel fanboy and worried that AMD may take back the performance crown
he uses windows because it easier, notice how cpu-z reflects this doesn't matter the CPU clocks higher and is faster (by a margin) than the 2600k
<---this people know
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment