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
purecain
at last!!!!! someone that REALLY knows his cpu box's..... (looks at TheMailMan's post)

just buy it for the box people...!!!!! buy it for the box....

but in all seriousness, i'm badly in need of an upgrade...

i'm still using core2quad@4ghz... i didnt feel that core i7 offered enough extra performance to upgrade... (and yes i realise we are in the realms of diminishing gains)

so i've been hoping that bulldozer would offer i7 performance and then some at a reasonable price... seems i'm hoping for a miracle at this point...

Unless the ES chips sent to reviewers are not representitive of retail chips performance... but would AMD really be that stupid... i doubt it...

so what to do now... i think i may still buy bulldozer for the tech hit... but i've built a few SB setups for customers and friends and i know i'm going to feel massive dissapointment if the speed of the BDcpu is noticably slower... DAMN!!!!
Posted on Reply
#2
3volvedcombat
I will agree with this(from reading thread), AMD marketing is not accomplishing anything right now.

*There Marketing team has managed to continue to tease us with "announcements" and weird dialog, that frankly I could have thought of after I woke up from a wet dream.

*There marketing has managed to cause almost more damage literally then what they were originally trying to do :eek:

*Seeing the PR review's on T.direct ect ect.... Is way to obvious, and that's negative points to me.

*The more I examine the wide range of opinion's and review's, and the current situation with low stock is shady and that is obvious also.

*My opinion has changed from my previous post, frankly because the marketing team has managed to jumbo up the internet with flame, conflicting against what they marketed ect..

*So ill leave my prev post up there to show I am stupid :rolleyes:

*If I were you guy's, I would stay away from bulldozer and generally move to the more stable and confident company that is Intel, providing the bang right now. (there !@%@ greedy though)

*Getting teased to much by marketing has drove my ass away.

(walks away, *chewz bubblegum*)
Posted on Reply
#3
TheMailMan78
Big Member
3volvedcombat said:
I will agree with this(from reading thread), AMD marketing is not accomplishing anything right now.

*There Marketing team has managed to continue to tease us with "announcements" and weird dialog, that frankly I could have thought of after I woke up from a wet dream.

*There marketing has managed to cause almost more damage literally then what they were originally trying to do :eek:

*Seeing the PR review's on T.direct ect ect.... Is way to obvious, and that's negative points to me.

*The more I examine the wide range of opinion's and review's, and the current situation with low stock is shady and that is obvious also.

*My opinion has changed from my previous post, frankly because the marketing team has managed to jumbo up the internet with flame, conflicting against what they marketed ect..

*So ill leave my prev post up there to show I am stupid :rolleyes:

*If I were you guy's, I would stay away from bulldozer and generally move to the more stable and confident company that is Intel, providing the bang right now. (there !@%@ greedy though)

*Getting teased to much by marketing has drove my ass away.

(walks away, *chewz bubblegum*)
Phft. You obviously don't know epic box art when you see it.
Posted on Reply
#4
YautjaLord
Man, i wish i would have enough money to get both FX-8150 & 2600K setups (best of both worlds) to pit gainst each other, i actually wish i would have cash in 1st place; that way i could personally see where each of these @, performance-wise. Also when i say FX-8150 vs 2600K in case of 8150 i mean rev. B2 or even better C0 FX-8150; with CPU-Z 1.58.7 or if by the time it actually hits store shelves 1.59 & higher. By the end of this month i hope that atleast rev. B2 be available & tech sites (TPU included :)) benchmark the f*** out of it.

The only other thing i don't remember if there was or wasn't & wanna see it, is - review of FX-8150 (prefferably rev. B2, i know i sound repetitive) in multi-GPU (CFX & SLI) config; i'll search for it again, i bet there were 1 or 2 reviews like that from your reviews db on your front page. That, or i'm loosin' it. :toast:

P.S. And yes - the box (actually it's can the way i saw it on all the reviews i read) & it's art looks f***in' ACE!!!!!!! Hope it'll be even better with rev. B2/C0 printed on it's upper side (though not too big) & with actual rev. B2/C0 CPU in it. :rockout:
Posted on Reply
#5
3volvedcombat
TheMailMan78 said:
Phft. You obviously don't know epic box art when you see it.
I do have to say, that they nailed the box art, it actually fits the trends of today pretty well :toast: I'm series :P

You could say, AMD focused on marketing more then performance with this release.


EDIT*** Actually I thank Mailman for noticing the positive of this and not bring so much negativity to mind, really bad for the mind :P
Posted on Reply
#6
techtard
JrRacinFan said:
@techtard
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.
That was just an idle thought. I read that other thread where a supposed ex-AMD engineer detailed all the problems AMD had leading up to that launch. If what he said was truthful, AMD has an executive board full of retards for going in the direction they did.
Posted on Reply
#7
Steevo
I had the cash and when i saw the writing on the wall with the fast release of "Piledriver" facts from AMD, and the other benchmarks, the silence of AMD on performance other than how it would be better somehow in performance per dollar....


I spent a grand on hard drives and a RAID card. It was a much better investment, AMD/ATI just isn't getting it, they need to pay some people to write the software that makes their shit go. Now I think I will just buy a X6 Thuban and live with it for another few months as I wait for the new Intel chips so I can do a full upgrade.
Posted on Reply
#8
3volvedcombat
Steevo said:
I had the cash and when i saw the writing on the wall with the fast release of "Piledriver" facts from AMD, and the other benchmarks, the silence of AMD on performance other than how it would be better somehow in performance per dollar....


I spent a grand on hard drives and a RAID card. It was a much better investment, AMD/ATI just isn't getting it, they need to pay some people to write the software that makes their shit go. Now I think I will just buy a X6 Thuban and live with it for another few months as I wait for the new Intel chips so I can do a full upgrade.
ATi is now AMD, Pure marketing take over.

You can tell that AMD is really trying to put there name out there in marketing now then real performance numbers.
Posted on Reply
#10
YautjaLord
Promissed or not, here it comes: of all the reviews that were posted yesterday & today, i found only 1 review that had multi-GPU setup & that one came from PureOverclock that was yesterday - they had ES 8150 with 2xHD6870; not that i wanna rant, just for fun. :)

Course there were reviews (couple i think) with 6990 in test system but it's more of one card with 2 CFX'd GPUs, if that's correct. With that said, i'm now hungry for FX-8150 rev. B2/C0 review with either 2xHD6970 or 2xGTX 570/580 in the rig.
Posted on Reply
#11
Super XP
Not sure if your question about ES was answered but ES stands for Enginering Sample. If they were using Engineering Samples, then the reviews are flawed IMO.
Posted on Reply
#12
Horrux
Wow, BD is totally fail. I am disapppointed AMD, I'll have to move over to Intel now. I really didn't want to, but what kind of choice do I have? I find my Phenom II X6 1100t to be on the slow side, yet you don't offer anything faster with the new stuff. Ah well. Good thing for the company they have APUs and GPUs, otherwise things would look dire indeed.
Posted on Reply
#13
YautjaLord
Super XP said:
Not sure if your question about ES was answered but ES stands for Enginering Sample. If they were using Engineering Samples, then the reviews are flawed IMO.
Dude, if you talking to me yes - i know what ES stands for; B0 is Engineering Sample. :laugh: Most reviews on TPU's front page used ES samples, so yeah - it's flawed than. :toast:
Posted on Reply
#14
WarEagleAU
Bird of Prey
Wow I have been away for too long. Epic fail? No, not hardly. Epic fail on blaming code for poor performance? Yes indeed. Coming from this AMD fanboi and proud supporter, you bet your ass when I get cash I am getting the ASUS sabertooth 990FX board and one of these so called "octo" core procs. Did I expect it to blow away Intel? Not really but I did expect it to trade blows with them. I have yet to really read a review minus feedback left on newegg.com tigerdirect, amazon, etc. I am interested in how these ass hats got a chip so fast when they were released like yesterday. I will buy but hopefully by the time I do, it will be with, what I am hoping based on all fanboi and pissed off talk here, "fixed" chips. I was hoping to see a CPU review here as I truly believe there is no bias on them and they tell it like it is. Ah well, here is to waiting.
Posted on Reply
#15
Super XP
YautjaLord said:
Dude, if you talking to me yes - i know what ES stands for; B0 is Engineering Sample. :laugh: Most reviews on TPU's front page used ES samples, so yeah - it's flawed than. :toast:
Yes Dude :laugh: I was talking to you. I didn't know B0 meant ES :) Anyhow hopefully W1zzard gets a retail B2 or something for his testing :D
WarEagleAU said:
Wow I have been away for too long. Epic fail? No, not hardly. Epic fail on blaming code for poor performance? Yes indeed. Coming from this AMD fanboi and proud supporter, you bet your ass when I get cash I am getting the ASUS sabertooth 990FX board and one of these so called "octo" core procs. Did I expect it to blow away Intel? Not really but I did expect it to trade blows with them. I have yet to really read a review minus feedback left on newegg.com tigerdirect, amazon, etc. I am interested in how these ass hats got a chip so fast when they were released like yesterday. I will buy but hopefully by the time I do, it will be with, what I am hoping based on all fanboi and pissed off talk here, "fixed" chips. I was hoping to see a CPU review here as I truly believe there is no bias on them and they tell it like it is. Ah well, here is to waiting.
Great point. Let's keep AMD Alive. Dam code, hope they get it resolved soon.
Posted on Reply
#16
YautjaLord
Saw the Guru3D review the FX-8xxx/6xxx/4xxx CPUs (it was FX-8150/8120/6100/4100 performance review), jumped immedietally to test setup & after that skipped right to Crysis 2 & synthetic (3DMark11) performance: surprisingly being ES both FX-8150 & 8120 stock clock i beleive being almost on par with 2600K in chart with exception of 980X performance - that one gave 72fps in Crysis 2 @ 1920x1080|DX11, ~20fps higher then 8150, 8120 & 2600K, though i could be wrong. Where the F*** are rev. B2/C0 parts if the quad-, hex- & octo-cored parts already being tested? Also my rant bout why there are no multi-GPU'd FX-8xxx reviews still intact.
Posted on Reply
#17
Fx
TheMailMan78 said:
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.
lmao
Posted on Reply
#18
nt300
YautjaLord said:
Saw the Guru3D review the FX-8xxx/6xxx/4xxx CPUs (it was FX-8150/8120/6100/4100 performance review), jumped immedietally to test setup & after that skipped right to Crysis 2 & synthetic (3DMark11) performance: surprisingly being ES both FX-8150 & 8120 stock clock i beleive being almost on par with 2600K in chart with exception of 980X performance - that one gave 72fps in Crysis 2 @ 1920x1080|DX11, ~20fps higher then 8150, 8120 & 2600K, though i could be wrong. Where the F*** are rev. B2/C0 parts if the quad-, hex- & octo-cored parts already being tested? Also my rant bout why there are no multi-GPU'd FX-8xxx reviews still intact.
Good point, there was a 3 x HD 6970 Crossfire review and it seems Bulldozer did quite well. The SB was Overclocked 430MHz more than Bulldozer and yet Bulldozer stood it's ground just losing on a few game benchies. Now where is that link?
Posted on Reply
#19
Horrux
nt300 said:
Good point, there was a 3 x HD 6970 Crossfire review and it seems Bulldozer did quite well. The SB was Overclocked 430MHz more than Bulldozer and yet Bulldozer stood it's ground just losing on a few game benchies. Now where is that link?
That's somewhat irrelevant, given that driving 3 x HD 6970 is going to introduce a bandwidth limitation.

It's another way to achieve the same effect as gaming on a single HD 6970 and 5760 x 1080 eyefinity resolution. It puts the load on another part than the CPU, and suddenly BD looks competitive with SB.

I the 3xHD case, it's bandwidth to feed the PCI-E bus, in the eyefinity case it's the GPU throughput, but they are both simple tricks to fool the general public.
Posted on Reply
#20
dumo
This FA1 that most of the reviewer got



FA retail chip from Newegg



Both batches will show ES with CPUZ 1.58
Posted on Reply
#21
xenocide
dumo said:
Both batches will show ES with CPUZ 1.58
Mystery debunked.
Posted on Reply
#22
cadaveca
My name is Dave
dumo said:
Both batches will show ES with CPUZ 1.58
But they will show up as diff ES chips. Non-ES does not show as 8130P.


CPU-Z 1.58.7 has fixed the problem, all reviewers should have used it.

xenocide said:
Mystery debunked.
Um, what mystery?
Posted on Reply
#23
xenocide
cadaveca said:
Um, what mystery?
I remained skeptical that AMD would ship ES to reviewers. It appears they did not, the only outlier is the reviews where it showed up as an 8130p.
Posted on Reply
#24
cadaveca
My name is Dave
xenocide said:
the only outlier is the reviews where it showed up as an 8130p.
Yes, and there are actually quite a few that do show 8130P. I made a point of pointing out 8130P as ES just because of that.

The others that showed ES, but not 8130P, simply didn't use up-to-date software, and you can judge that how you will...I knew what the story was, and I'm not the one @ TPU to do CPU reviews, so I do expect reviewers to use the proper software, if I know what software to use...I have no real reason to know what version of CPU-Z properly supports Bulldozer, now do I?

And those that used ES chips..well, of course, they did it for the traffic.
Posted on Reply
#25
zithe
reverze said:
unless you beat the fastest cpu on the market in every single benchmarkmark while being half the price its considered fail these days.
To think that an underdog company with less money, less resources, etc. will trump a technology giant like intel is just asking for someone to assume you're not all well.

I really don't get the big disappointment here. It's not a surprise at all.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment