Wednesday, October 12th 2011

AMD Unlocked FX Processors Announced

AMD today unleashed the AMD FX family of CPUs, delivering a fully unlocked and customizable experience for desktop PC users. The AMD FX series of desktop CPUs includes the first-ever eight-core desktop processor, enabling extreme multi-display gaming, mega-tasking and HD content creation for PC and digital enthusiasts – all for less than $245 (suggested U.S. retail price). This marks the first retail availability of processors that use AMD’s new multi-core architecture (codenamed “Bulldozer”), which is included in AMD’s upcoming server CPU (codenamed “Interlagos”) and the next-generation of AMD Accelerated Processing Units.

“AMD FX CPUs are back with a vengeance, as validated by the recent feat of setting a Guinness World Records title for ‘Highest Frequency of a Computer Processor,’” said Chris Cloran, corporate vice president and general manager, Client Group at AMD. “While overclockers will certainly enjoy the frequencies the AMD FX processors can achieve, PC enthusiasts and HD media aficionados will appreciate the remarkable experience that AMD FX processors can provide as part of a balanced, affordable desktop system.”
All AMD FX CPUs offer completely unlocked processor clock multipliers for easier overclocking, paving the way for PC enthusiasts to enjoy higher CPU speeds and related performance gains. Additionally, these processors use AMD Turbo Core Technology to dynamically optimize performance across CPU cores enabling maximum performance for intense workloads.


Starting today, the below AMD FX CPUs will be available from global retailers. Additional AMD FX CPUs and systems based on the AMD FX processors will be available for purchase following the initial launch.
  • FX-8150: Eight cores, 3.6 GHz CPU base (3.9 GHz Turbo Core, 4.2 GHz Max Turbo), $245 suggested retail price (U.S.)
  • FX-8120: Eight cores, 3.1 GHz CPU base (3.4 GHz Turbo Core, 4.0 GHz Max Turbo), $205 suggested retail price (U.S.)
  • FX-6100: Six cores, 3.3 GHz CPU base (3.6 GHz Turbo Core, 3.9 GHz Max Turbo), $165 suggested retail price (U.S.)
  • FX-4100: Four cores, 3.6 GHz CPU base (3.7 GHz Turbo Core, 3.8 GHz Max Turbo), $115 suggested retail price (U.S.)
Without spending a small fortune, users can combine an AMD FX CPU with an AMD 9-series chipset motherboard and AMD Radeon HD 6000 series graphics cards to create the AMD “Scorpius” platform for an astounding gaming and HD entertainment experience. As part of the “Scorpius” platform, AMD FX CPUs also support AMD CrossFireX technology, which allows the combination of multiple graphics cards in a PC for stunning visual experiences, and AMD Eyefinity technology support for super resolution on up to six monitors.1 With AMD CatalystControl Center / AMD VISION Engine Control Center, users can get regular updates to help improve system performance and stability, and to add new software enhancements.
Add your own comment

190 Comments on AMD Unlocked FX Processors Announced

#1
Fourstaff
So AMD lost this not because they don't have a good chip, but because the software couldn't manage to take advantage of the special architecture. Redo this benches in a year time, I think its going to paint a different picture. As of now though, 2500K still gets "most value for money" in my books, and the budget gamer will still get recommended i3 2100/2120. Sorry AMD, as much as I like to believe, The only recommendation you get from me is the productivity section, and even then its the 1100T, not Bulldozer.
Posted on Reply
#2
YautjaLord
F*** YEAH!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh:

Need to read my eyes out, but that one is obvious; let's see what this f***er is all about/capable of/how's it blend/etc.... One more reason to start looking for some awesome web design job.

LET THE DOZERING BEGIN!!!!!!!!!!!! :rockout:
Posted on Reply
#3
bear jesus
I'm relatively meh towards bulldozer, it's good enough with heavy workloads but not really amazing and far from urging to upgrade but saying that sandy bridge did not urge me to upgrade so i had little expectation for bulldozer to be able to make me, time to wait to see what the price and performance of sandy bridge E is like.

cadaveca said:
Seems to me that it ticked those boxes were goals, and not facts, based on a lot of the reviews out already at nearly every site...except here.

I guess I was right, and AMD marketing IS fail.:shadedshu

Do I really need to go buy a chip and do a review? :laugh: I want to believe you, I really do.
I find it shameful that AMD has not sent you a chip, how are you supposed to provide accurate reviews of the scorpius platform without the CPU?

Admittedly i would not like to suggest that you buy one but i think AM3+ boards should probably be tested with bulldozer now, have you been in contact with AMD attempting to get one?
Posted on Reply
#4
thanatoscries
So much for the PR, guess my road stays with the 2500k... considering I'm only looking to game...
Posted on Reply
#5
Yellow&Nerdy?
It's not a bad chip, but it got over-hyped before launch. It's pretty much the same situation as it was with first gen i7 and i5 processors and Phenom II processors, as it is now with BD and SB. It's not bad value wise, but as of now, performance still lacks some. It might be, that the current benchmark-software is not working so well with the architecture, but the i5 2500K is probably the best gaming CPU.
Posted on Reply
#6
entropy13
Yellow&Nerdy? said:
It's not a bad chip, but it got over-hyped before launch. It's pretty much the same situation as it was with first gen i7 and i5 processors and Phenom II processors, as it is now with BD and SB.
No, quite far from it. Bulldozer is more like Phenom I and Netburst (Williamette) rather than Nehalem.
Posted on Reply
#7
the54thvoid
Fourstaff said:
So AMD lost this not because they don't have a good chip, but because the software couldn't manage to take advantage of the special architecture. Redo this benches in a year time, I think its going to paint a different picture.
Yeah, I read a few reviews mentioning that. The problem is the chip is out now and in a year their will be more new tech (what comes after IvyBridge, then there's Piledriver too).

It looks poor against it's own stable mate (1100T) in per core performance and although it shines in super multi core tasking, the real word majority usage doesn't call for it. Folk are also blabbing about it's a great OC'er but so is SB so it's not really a victory there. Hell, my C0 stepping i7 920 runs at 3.66GHz (which equates to a 1 GHz overclock which is 137% stock.)
Posted on Reply
#8
deleted
Won't say what review site I'm from. But bulldozer has had the to be the worst benching I've ever experienced in my life.

It performs like an 1100T, there is no question about it. Not kernel, no enhancement, other than having the latest CPU code, which all of these have.

While I was benching BD gave us very inconsistent, VERY inconsistent benchmark scores. Something is wrong with the CPU and how it handles data with its modules- By any comparison to an 1100t, I felt like BD was two cores behind at all times.

We ran wPrime, SuperPI, CineBench, and Vantage, and get different scores every time, and the only that changed was the voltage output or nothing at all.

You can just keep running it again and again but the scores are wildly different. But you can grab and average, or wait until you see the same score, or take the best and run with it.

Don't believe me? Look at all the scores so far, either it looks OK or it's just terrible. The next few days will be a PR disaster from AMD
Reposted here from an anonymous source. It would certainly explain why some of the reviews seem mostly favorable towards Bulldozer, while at the same time some benches show the FX 8150 performing worse than the 1100T or even the 955 BE.
Posted on Reply
#9
entropy13
Fourstaff said:
So AMD lost this not because they don't have a good chip, but because the software couldn't manage to take advantage of the special architecture. Redo this benches in a year time, I think its going to paint a different picture.
Did you say the same thing when Intel first came up with Hyper-Threading (as well as its more recent incarnation) and the software couldn't manage to take advantage of it?
Posted on Reply
#10
twindragon6
Awh, now I'm sad...

It had so much potential. Stock it benches worse than a phenom II X6. Just get an I5 2600 or better and it's spanked. I guess I'll just rock my FX-57 for another year or wait to see what new parts Intel spits out...
Posted on Reply
#11
MikeMurphy
Yellow&Nerdy? said:
It's not a bad chip, but it got over-hyped before launch.
Not a bad chip??

After reading countless reviews I would prefer to pick up an 1100T based on the very old K10.5 architecture.
Posted on Reply
#12
YautjaLord
Well, what can i say: reviews (as well as CPU[s]) are a mixed bag; on few sites the 8150 dissing out 2600K & it's own predecessors, on another sites it actually beaten by them - either it is a complete fail or something went wrong with few chips. Mostly checked how it performs in 3DMarks of all flavors & games (more specifically AvP3 & Crysis 2); not so meh but not ground breaker either. Where it does shine is in OC'ing potential: some sites mention 1.0GHz+ OCs.

Also, what's with this Win 8 unlocks all Dozer instructions potential s***; is it real? The only way to find out is to have one for one self: i'll see how it runs once hit the store shelves here & bought. And yeah - i did read through the entire reviews database as promised few posts back, so now my eyes hurt abit. :laugh: :toast:
Posted on Reply
#13
Fx
btarunr said:
In short, FX-8150 gives you:
  • 90~95% the performance of Core i7-2600K
  • 24% lower price
  • Roughly 22% greater performance per dollar
  • Overclocks like Chuck Norris
No fail.
+1

perfect summary
Posted on Reply
#14
Fx
reverze said:
And thats what is so great about AMD, whatever CPU you buy its always a good deal.

CPUs are so fast that even a 2.5 year old phenom II 940 plays any game out there perfectly, all this performance unless time is money for the very few encoding for a living, is pure luxery.
so true. I am sticking with my 955 until the 8170 is released and matures. until then I am doing just fine for gaming and encoding. like you said though- mostly tasks such as encoding will be the areas for improvement
Posted on Reply
#15
Fx
YautjaLord said:
Also, what's with this Win 8 unlocks all Dozer instructions potential s***; is it real? The only way to find out is to have one for one self: i'll see how it runs once hit the store shelves here & bought. And yeah - i did read through the entire reviews database as promised few posts back, so now my eyes hurt abit. :laugh: :toast:
that is interesting news which I hadnt came across. that would be awesome if it turns out mostly true :)
Posted on Reply
#16
MikeMurphy
I don't think its a Win7 scheduler problem. AMD with its millions spent on this thing surely could have sent a team to Microsoft to work out a revised scheduler.

They didn't. There is a reason for it.
Posted on Reply
#17
Fourstaff
entropy13 said:
Did you say the same thing when Intel first came up with Hyper-Threading (as well as its more recent incarnation) and the software couldn't manage to take advantage of it?
I would have said the same thing, yes. Now we just need to sit back and let those code monkeys bang something which use Bulldozer to its fullest. This processor still feels very "server-ish".
Posted on Reply
#18
YautjaLord
Thinking of it, i was actually prepared for some s*** like that but thought it'll be a bit better; nevermind, Crysis 2 @ full-blown DX11/1920x1200 runs just fine & so is AvP3; on few sites all CPUs (both AMD's & Intel's) go nose to nose in those specific benchies stock & OC'd; 8150 is great OC'er with C5F on wc & regular air: 4.9GHz stable on air? Do the same trick with 965BE - see what you get when you'll OC it 1.3GHz above stock clock on air. :laugh: jk

The way i see it: give both app developers (atleast to Futuremark & game developers) to catch up with all possible updates & AMD to polish the otherwise great tech in a month possibly 2 & see what cooks out of it; buy the all Dozer/AM3+ equipment & test yourselves; and possibly it'll wind up not so average afterall. There must be something behind the tech & name that is more than just marketing gimmick; plus inclusion of SLI into AMD's MCP & it's overall implementation indicates something quite great nevertheless. I still find it a great reason to keep saving for this setup. Hope to see review over here & after that i'll check this out in my rig, if you'll want. :toast:
Posted on Reply
#19
techtard
I need to see some benches. It might be worth it if every chip overclocks well.
Going to spend the next while looking at all the reviews.

Being that I am primarily a gamer, and most games these days are not optimized for multi-core, FX is probably not in my future.
If they can hit the sweet spot with an OC though, that might make things interesting.
Posted on Reply
#20
Crap Daddy
Anyway you look at it it's a disaster. The only strong point should have been the overclockability but... On air all reviewers barely reached stable 4.8 with a power consumption that needs to be sustained by a nucular plant.

Haven't seen a comparison yet between say 2500K at 4.5 (easily attainable) and 8150 at 4.8. I'm pretty sure the 2500 is better in 90% of the benches with half the power draw and 20% less expensive. I think the worse part of this launch is that AMD is compromising its position as bang/buck CPU provider. The whole lineup of FX pricewise is a mess.

I can't even think about the performance compared to the competition - and I would include here also the Thubans and such - of lower level Zambezis, the 6000 and 4000 series.
Posted on Reply
#21
techtard
Did any of the reviewers increase the HTT and NB when they overclocked? Or was it a vanilla cpu multiplier only overclock?
AMD performance is usually better when you overclock the other components too.
Posted on Reply
#22
xenocide
techtard said:
Did any of the reviewers increase the HTT and NB when they overclocked? Or was it a vanilla cpu multiplier only overclock?
AMD performance is usually better when you overclock the other components too.
I know for a fact Overclockers.com did.
Posted on Reply
#23
blibba
AMD would have been better off just releasing a 32nm Phenom II. I don't understand why they bothered at all.
Posted on Reply
#24
cadaveca
My name is Dave
bear jesus said:
I find it shameful that AMD has not sent you a chip, how are you supposed to provide accurate reviews of the scorpius platform without the CPU?

Admittedly i would not like to suggest that you buy one but i think AM3+ boards should probably be tested with bulldozer now, have you been in contact with AMD attempting to get one?
No, I have not been in contact with the right people @ AMD, obviously. I did ask JF-AMD numerous times for chips, and was quite serious; I'm sure you've seen my posts, and I am pretty sure I asked him in PM too. He did not offer me a contact name.

That said, everything I use for reviews so far, other than the boards; memory, CPUs, PSU, HDD, and everything else, I bought with my own dollar.

I have asked board partners for a chip to review 9-series board with, however.

I'm going to ask AMD's marketing directly, again, for a CPU, but I totally expect to have to buy Bulldozer. It just sucks that no chips are available to me here in Canada yet.


Who knows, maybe TPU will have a review up in the future. I don't see much point though, as reviews are on nearly every other tech site but here already. It would be great to see a review done with Crossfire 6950's and Eyefinity though. I could do that, but I'm not likely to have much in the way of motivation when I got to buy a chip.
Posted on Reply
#25
JrRacinFan
Served 5k and counting ...
the54thvoid said:
The problem is the chip is out now and in a year their will be more new tech (what comes after IvyBridge, then there's Piledriver too).
Then what happens if the software side of things still isn't corrected by then?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment