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
techtard
Well, at least you tried.
You'd figure that a company that is as large as AMD could afford to send out one more review sample.:rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#2
YautjaLord
2cadaveca:

It is sad for those that expected way too much from this CPU (almost including me, but i took 3 grains of salt with every AMD Dozer news later :)), but you know what? I still gonna buy Sabertooth 990FX & other stuff i said i'll buy; besides, just like with anything new there's some chance that it'll either work like charm or f*** up badly; on bit more than few occasions it looses to it's own predecessor :laugh:, but it also either on par or outperforms (even if by small margin) 2600K. In short - don't expect too much & you won't be dissappointed, Doom3 being otherwise great game thought us that methinks. lol

P.S. Here's what i promised regarding the samples used in all these reviews posted on your front page:

Guru3D: CPU-Z v.1.58 FX-8150 listed as FX-8130P|[ES] TDP: 223W?
HardwareCanucks: same shit
LegitReviews: CPU-Z v.1.58.7 FX-8150|rev. B2 TDP: 124W
MadShrimps: same as LegitReviews
NeoSeeker: same as Guru3D & HardwareCanucks
Overclock3D: same as 1 above
OverclockersClub: the trend continues, ES, AMD Processor as CPU's name, CPU-Z version 1.57.2
Overclocker.com: this gets tiresome, but atleast CPU-Z is version 1.58|same as Guru & Canucks FX-8130P is name
PureOverclock: it's trend following day with ES revision & CPU-Z 1.58
Rage3D: same as above it, but atleast Crysis 2 runs @ FullHD|DX11 & actually puts it almost on par with 2600K, both 8150|2600 OC'd & pitted gainst each other
TechwareLabs: ES
TweakTown: ES again
Vortez: surprisingly rev. OR-B2 TDP 124

The reviews that i didn't mentioned either had no CPU-Z screenie or didn't worked (VR-Zone). Just my 2 cents/pennies/etc.....
Posted on Reply
#3
cadaveca
My name is Dave
techtard said:
Well, at least you tried.
You'd figure that a company that is as large as AMD could afford to send out one more review sample.:rolleyes:
I actually believe they could not. In the post above, you can see that most reviews are using ES smples, even, and not retail, and near every retailer has sold out now of what little stock they had. This was not a "global launch" with wide retail availability.

Personally, I detest ES parts, and would much rather do my reviews with retail parts so that the stuff I am using, you guys can get the same results with, with no questions left as to whether the "ES factor" is involved.

It does piss me off though, that many sites with reviews have far less traffic than we do here @ TPU. It does, however, serve the purpose of highlighting how none of the reviews posted here contain any bias for favortism because whatever marketing department requested it.

And most of these launch reviews are HIGHLY biased, with most using the exact same benchmarks, and not benchmarks that are all that common, either.

I due time, I'll be posting in the Bulldozer OC thread, along with erocker, at least, with Crossfire and Eyefinity results with Bulldozer, with retail chips. Although the stock perforamcne isn't "all that", I love to tweak BIOSes, and this is yet another platform that offers some new tweaking.


I will not say, however, that theere is lots of headroom, or that the FX moniker is appropriate. 4.2 GHz is stock turbo, and most sites are posting reviews with 4.6 GHz, a mere 400 MHz over stock. Fortunately there are some big gains to be had by the extra clocks, but I want to take a look for myself, and see what's what, and what I can do with these chips.

I took the non-standard position for OC'ing 1155 chips, compared to other sites, so I am looking forward to finding the things that have been missed, for sure.
Posted on Reply
#4
erocker
Senior Moderator
cadaveca said:
I actually believe they could not. In the post above, you can see that most reviews are using ES smples, even, and not retail, and near every retailer has sold out now of what little stock they had. This was not a "global launch" with wide retail availability.

Personally, I detest ES parts, and would much rather do my reviews with retail parts so that the stuff I am using, you guys can get the same results with, with no questions left as to whether the "ES factor" is involved.

It does piss me off though, that many sites with reviews have far less traffic than we do here @ TPU. It does, however, serve the purpose of highlighting how none of the reviews posted here contain any bias for favortism because whatever marketing department requested it.

And most of these launch reviews are HIGHLY biased, with most using the exact same benchmarks, and not benchmarks that are all that common, either.

I due time, I'll be posting in the Bulldozer OC thread, along with erocker, at least, with Crossfire and Eyefinity results with Bulldozer, with retail chips. Although the stock perforamcne isn't "all that", I love to tweak BIOSes, and this is yet another platform that offers some new tweaking.


I will not say, however, that theere is lots of headroom, or that the FX moniker is appropriate. 4.2 GHz is stock turbo, and most sites are posting reviews with 4.6 GHz, a mere 400 MHz over stock. Fortunately there are some big gains to be had by the extra clocks, but I want to take a look for myself, and see what's what, and what I can do with these chips.

I took the non-standard position for OC'ing 1155 chips, compared to other sites, so I am looking forward to finding the things that have been missed, for sure.
Become the official CPU reviewer here. Problem solved.:)
Posted on Reply
#5
theoneandonlymrk
+1 to that

theres still many a question unanswered im not over awed but i dont think AMDs new baby is as bad as it appears as none of the tests in any of the reviews afaik use all or any of the processors new features , none oc the memory and few run past 1600;) i mean whats that about if your going to oc a system oc it ya lazy tard or do they not bother to oc there own mem at home

ive been told i oc like a tard and thats fair enough but i deffinately try to push Every bit in my pc
Posted on Reply
#6
cadaveca
My name is Dave
erocker said:
Become the official CPU reviewer here. Problem solved.:)
:laugh:


Done. But that doesn't help with Bulldozer.


:laugh:


Or you could. :D


I was gonna take a long vacation from reviews because of my upcoming surgery, but too many people have asked me to keep going, so I made plans to deal with my downtime, and onward and upward it is.

I don't even have a staff tag or anything like that; maybe it's time to get one.
Posted on Reply
#7
[H]@RD5TUFF
PopcornMachine said:
Win 7 is not optimized for Bulldozer?

Lamest excuse I ever heard.

I had great hopes for Bulldozer, but that statement screams bad design, bad management, bad planning, bad everything.

Build a chip that runs well on the OS everyone is using. Give me a break.
Agreed, just a lame attempt to shift blame onto M$ for why their chip didn't meet their hype.
Posted on Reply
#8
PopcornMachine
theoneandonlymrk said:
+1 to that

theres still many a question unanswered im not over awed but i dont think AMDs new baby is as bad as it appears as none of the tests in any of the reviews afaik use all or any of the processors new features , none oc the memory and few run past 1600;) i mean whats that about if your going to oc a system oc it ya lazy tard or do they not bother to oc there own mem at home

ive been told i oc like a tard and thats fair enough but i deffinately try to push Every bit in my pc
Memory scaling tested here. Makes little to no difference.

http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-fx-8150-memory-scaling-investigation--feeding-the-bulldozer/13704.html

Let's go down the list.

Bad memory controller.
Worse per core performance than previous generation Thuban.
Out of control power usage when overclocked.

Am I missing anything?

They'd been better off not releasing this at all.
Posted on Reply
#9
cadaveca
My name is Dave
Offical announcement(including link to Canadian retailer that says "no such product":laugh:!)

Oh wait, we already did.
Great marketing!!:roll:

The Canadian link:

We already did.
Actually, no, you didn't! :laugh: Good job, AMD!!! :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#10
dumo
I still have hope for this cpu:) We never know until we tested (non ES) retail box cpu ourselves

The first retail batch of FX8150 for US went to Newegg in limited quantity....wonder why:)
Posted on Reply
#11
techtard
cadaveca said:
Offical announcement(including link to Canadian retailer that says "no such product":laugh:!)

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=43930&stc=1&d=1318446053





Great marketing!!:roll:

The Canadian link:

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=43931&stc=1&d=1318446304





Actually, no, you didn't! :laugh: Good job, AMD!!! :laugh:
That's more of an Ncix fail. They always have little screwups somewhere in their pages.

If you have an account there, you can point that out to their staff and get some Ncix points. :)
Posted on Reply
#12
cadaveca
My name is Dave
techtard said:
That's more of an Ncix fail. They always have little screwups somewhere in their pages.

If you have an account there, you can point that out to their staff and get some Ncix points. :)
Cool info! Thanks!


Now the link works....



but....TWO HUNDRED AND NINETY DOLLARS!!!!!

and OOS.

Posted on Reply
#13
techtard
That's a double whammy! Out of stock and way over the suggested price.
Just wait a week and then use Ncix pricematch.
Posted on Reply
#14
Nick89
Its like Pentium 4 all over again.
Posted on Reply
#15
Super XP
Nick89 said:
Its like Pentium 4 all over again.
Agreed. In the meantime AMD needs to do some massive damage control, tweak the shit out of Bulldozer and get a re-fresh out the door ASAP.

Nobody wants to see AMD go belly up, or we are all screwed....
Posted on Reply
#16
Grings
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.)
This is what got my attention, lookit dat price!

I wonder if these overclock any better than the 8 core models...
Posted on Reply
#17
xenocide
Super XP said:
Agreed. In the meantime AMD needs to do some massive damage control, tweak the shit out of Bulldozer and get a re-fresh out the door ASAP.

Nobody wants to see AMD go belly up, or we are all screwed....
Unlikely considering they don't even have a decent number of these CPU's available. They just don't have the manufacturing capacity to get anything out the door in a reasonable amount of time...
Posted on Reply
#18
YautjaLord
On TweakTown they still use ES, but that's not exactly what captured me in the review; it's the last CPU review of today on your front page & one that particularly of interest for me or any other that games on AMD: FX-8150 gaming perf. Again, they used ES, but they pitted it gainst 2600K & OC'd both; 2600K was @ 5.2GHz, 8150 - 4.76GHz; for ES it was 1-3fps behind 2600K in all scenarios; also they used both CPUs OC'd in AA/AF image quality tests. The way i saw it for ES (i don't even know ES equals what - B0? B1?) it was bit more than just decent.

Bottom line: i don't find any flaws in this CPU when comes down to gaming, even with fact it's ES; can you proove me wrong? I'll continue looking for other reviews on your front page, but as far as i'm concerned - the only flaw i see is that both reviewers & AMD rushed & started to give (in case of AMD) & bench (in case of reviewers) the f***ing ES samples. That's the only major flaw the way i see it. Hope when the time comes & there are both rev. B2 & C0 versions of 8150 you'll bench both. FX-8150 @ 4.76GHz almost on par with 5.2GHz 2600K & it's ES (8150)? I don't find it that much f***ed up, afterall. :toast:
Posted on Reply
#19
xenocide
The "flaw" is that it's an 8-Core CPU with about 2 Billion Transistors that costs ~$250 that performs on par or worse than a 4-Core CPU with about 1 Billion Transistors and costs ~$215. The "flaw" is that per-core performance is worse than their previous--now 2-3 year old--architecture.

You also keep saying all these sites are using Engineering Samples, which I don't think is true considering almost all of them have picture the retail packaging that their benchmarking samples came in. Are you implying that AMD would seriously take broken Engineering Samples, package them in retail boxes, and tell people to test them for the sake of getting others to buy them? Do you realize exactly how fucking retarded that sounds lol?
Posted on Reply
#20
techtard
This is just pure speculation, but does the whole FX on AM3+ have anything to do with the performance issues these chips are having?
Would it have been better to have broken compatibility and released on FM2?
Could be they shot themselves in the foot.
Posted on Reply
#21
YautjaLord
2xenocide:

:laugh:

I only care for one thing: review of the rev. B2/C0 FX-8150, that's what i'd like to see. Besides, i'm only guessing, but as far as i'm concerned i think it's the case actually: some AMD department is that retarded. :roll: Just guessing; don't tell me i hurt your feelings with this now, or did i? lol jk :toast:

P.S. Dozer quantites are that small, the way i saw it when i checked yesterday on few etailers/retailer sites: 2 or 3 at most; in Newegg it's 1 FX-8150, 1 FX-8120 & 2 or 3 FX-4100, same was with other e/retailer sites names of which i already forgot; the samples used in reviews i think were not bought but rather were given by AMD methinks; besides, it's launch not final release. Just saying.
Posted on Reply
#22
3volvedcombat
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.
Im not even going to read any other opinion's.

Cause this is fact.

Great job AMD. <3!!!!

Thanks for clarifying btarunr!!!!! +1



For all of you thinking its fail? you go right ahead, i accept everybody's opinion
But who ever though AMD was going to not compete was stupid, for that AMD is keeping to there trend's and always will. :slap::slap::slap::slap::slap::slap::slap::slap::slap::slap::slap:
(always will is more like a maybe you never know.
Posted on Reply
#23
cadaveca
My name is Dave
xenocide said:
You also keep saying all these sites are using Engineering Samples, which I don't think is true considering almost all of them have picture the retail packaging that their benchmarking samples came in. Are you implying that AMD would seriously take broken Engineering Samples, package them in retail boxes, and tell people to test them for the sake of getting others to buy them? Do you realize exactly how fucking retarded that sounds lol?
Yes, it's retarded. But guess what?


THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. Go to the reviews, check CPU-Z screens...you'll see many, if not most sites with "8130P", which is the 8150 ES chip.

Then look at the TPU front page, and realize that AMD did not send TPU a sample for review.

AMD's current marketing staff IS retarded. There is no denying it. I wish it wasn't so, but it is what it is. Most sites received the packaging tin and watercooler in seperate shipments, even.

I had OEMS asking AMD for a chip for me, even...and in the end, I'll probably have to buy my own. As soon as chips are available in retail locally, I'm going to get one, because clearly AMD isn't exactly working well on the marketing side.

techtard said:
This is just pure speculation, but does the whole FX on AM3 have anything to do with the performance issues these chips are having?
I asked JF-AMD directly, if a new socket would be required to take full advantage of Bulldozer.

His response:

YES.

;)

In the end, it doesn't matter. Everyone bitched about backwards compatibility, and now ya got it, and the chip does not meet expectations.

You can't always have your cake and eat it too, I'm afraid.:(
Posted on Reply
#24
JrRacinFan
Served 5k and counting ...
@[USER=75242]techtard[/USER]
I don't think it would have mattered. Methinks, its just a weak IMC rehash like the PHII lineup. It was very close to my expectations tbh.
Posted on Reply
#25
TheMailMan78
Big Member
Man the box art BLOWS AWAY anything Intels done lately. These new CPU boxes are cutting edge. Sorry Intel fanboys. You've lost this round.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment