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
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.
412 Comments on FX-Series Processors Clock Speeds 'Revealed'
Also there is a typo hereI believe thats suppose to be 3.7 as the chart and your final 900mhz gap show.
C'mon AMD! I'm almost changing my mind and about to consider Intel. Launch the CPUs. DO EEEEEET!
I remain skeptic until the final product is released.
I bet that the yields are horrible (my guess: f one of the cores in a module isn't good, then the whole module is "dead"), IF this is true.
Sorry to sound negative, but I'm just being realistic. AMD will have some solid products at good prices with these, but in no way capable to compete with Intel head on, if Intel does not want to, at least. And of course, like in the past few years the reality is that Intel will continue to price their CPUs too high (compared to what they could or should be "fair") because they have no competition. Only as low as required to be or look like a better deal than AMD's.
Sigh. Let's hope that AMD can at least fix it in a few months, kind of like Nvidia did with GF110 or if AMD manages an improvement akin to what they did with Phenom II, there's at least some hope. BD is not right there (quite far yet), but it's closer to compete with Intel's best than Phenom and P2 ever were.
PS: I'm going to buy some popcorn. Need to be prepared before seronx joins in and starts his own damage control campaign.
Top 8 Core BD - 330 dollars
Top 6 Core BD - 230 dollars
Thuban and denab were so cheap because they were shit compared to Bloomfield.
And if 4 module Zambezi will be ~$330, I don't think that is expensive, it's 8 cores we are talking about here.
These are a lot higher clocks than I expected. If these are accurate, OC may actually be pointless depending on how well turbo works. If it works like AMD claims, all you will need to do is put a big fat cooler over the CPU. You turn on something CPU intensive, it notes the low temp, and boosts all 4, 6, or 8 cores to max.
Still want real performance figures, but I can wait.
Examples :
www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/100?vs=80
www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/100?vs=185
1. Price/Performance
2. Upgrade paths
3. Help support the underdog
#1 and #3 are no longer a factor for me and haven't been for a long time. My E8400 has been flying, spanking PII's for years and I haven't looked back. Also, the underdog argument...I'm starting to care less and less about AMD's processor lineups because they haven't shown ANYTHING worthwhile to me, at least in relation to competing with similar Intel processors in terms of performance. So the only thing left for me to root them on in is the fact that they don't change their sockets every 6 months or so like Intel does. And that alone will not get me to go to AMD's side. I'm starting to lose faith more and more as time goes on in this never-ending struggle to see who is going to be on top (because we all know Intel will always be on top with enthusiasts, other segments are up for debate though).Was thinking the same thing :laugh:
We all know the Phenom IIs are slower so those benchmarks are irrelevant.
Hypothetically even if the Phenom Is performed better than the Core 2 Duos or the Phenom IIs better than the I7s, Intel wouldn't care. They have a big name, big marketing campaigns and will still charge you more for a slower processor. Why because they're Intel, look back in history back when AMD was on top, Intel couldn’t care less and charged ridiculous prices still and the customers still bought it!
Edit: You guys see this? If you cannot wait and B1 is good enough, throw down some dough!
Thanks for that btarunr, had a laugh :toast:
I think this should wrap up all the results, and they aren't fake: img.techpowerup.org/110714/Untitled.jpg