# AMD 2012 CPU Roadmap Unveils FX-X300 and A10 Series



## btarunr (Feb 10, 2012)

AMD is pushing on with a desktop product lineup that's leveraging its Piledriver CPU and Graphics CoreNext GPU architectures in 2012. Apparently, the company will have a faster product development cycle to catch up with Intel's "Tick-Tock", as revealed in a roadmap slide scored by DonanimHaber. The current product lineup will remain unchanged in the first quarter of 2012. Then in the second quarter, AMD will launch a few more socket AM3+ FX-8000, FX-6000, and FX-4000 series eight, six, and four-core processors; along with the much talked about "Trinity" accelerated processing unit.

The fastest "Trinity" APUs will get a new brand identifier, the A10-5000 series. These APUs will pack next-generation "Piledriver" modular cores and Radeon HD 7600D series graphics. Around this time, AMD will also launch the Brazos 2.0 low-power APU for netbooks, nettops, and embedded computing devices. Brazos 2.0 will get the E2-1000 series branding. The big change is reserved for the third quarter of 2012, when AMD launches the successor of its less-than-lucky AMD FX "Bulldozer" processor family.






Codenamed "Vishera", AMD's new FX-x300 family (where x = 8 in case of eight-core, 6 in case of six-core, and 4, in case of quad-core), will likely be built on the same AM3+ platform, but based on the "Piledriver" core architecture, which brings in about 15% IPC increase over Bulldozer. The roadmap slide talks about FX-8350 being the top-end part, followed by FX-8320, FX-6300, and FX-4320. Around that time, AMD will replace its A6 and A4 "Llano" parts with new A6 and A4 "Trinity" ones. The A6-5400 APU features Radeon HD 7540D graphics, while the A4-5300 features Radeon HD 7480D.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## NC37 (Feb 10, 2012)

Hmm. So they'll still sell Llano alongside Trinity. Curious to see the performance difference. 

I just hope they don't get lost in a sea of number revisions. Hopefully they'll focus on the initial model. They seem to have done away with the triple core A6 so that is one potential issue down.


----------



## TRWOV (Feb 10, 2012)

Bulldozer modules have a pair of "cores" so no tri-core is possible.


----------



## mamisano (Feb 10, 2012)

NC37 said:


> Hmm. So they'll still sell Llano alongside Trinity. Curious to see the performance difference.
> 
> I just hope they don't get lost in a sea of number revisions. Hopefully they'll focus on the initial model. They seem to have done away with the triple core A6 so that is one potential issue down.



Looks like they will sell both only until the lower-end Trinity is released in Q3. Then it is all Trinity.

A triple core Trinity is not possible. LLano was based on Phenom/Athlon II based "Stars" core so triple was possible. Trinity uses PileDrive modules, each with 2 integer cores, so the core count will always be an even number.


----------



## Hustler (Feb 10, 2012)

"based on the "Piledriver" core architecture, which brings in about 15% IPC increase over Bulldozer."


Great, so that makes them roughly as fast as a Phenom II, but not until nearly 2013....


----------



## CAT-THE-FIFTH (Feb 10, 2012)

Hustler said:


> "based on the "Piledriver" core architecture, which brings in about 15% IPC increase over Bulldozer."
> 
> 
> Great, so that makes them roughly as fast as a Phenom II, but not until nearly 2013....



The roadmap says Q3 2012. Anyway,a 15% IPC increase is probably going to happen in line with a clockspeed increase too.


----------



## robal (Feb 10, 2012)

Hustler said:


> Great, so that makes them roughly as fast as a Phenom II, but not until nearly 2013....



Well...  Current Bulldozer IS faster than PII. Only some specific benchmarks are lower.

Still, it is a disappointment.
That's why I keep my PII until Vishera comes out.


----------



## Andy77 (Feb 10, 2012)

Hustler said:


> "based on the "Piledriver" core architecture, which brings in about 15% IPC increase over Bulldozer."
> 
> Great, so that makes them roughly as fast as a Phenom II, but not until nearly 2013....




IPC wasn't the only downfall Bulldozer had... there were others, probably due to it being a late architecture picked up from the cellar. What PD will make up in performance won't be just based on IPC.


----------



## naoan (Feb 10, 2012)

Andy77 said:


> IPC wasn't the only downfall Bulldozer had... there were others, probably due to it being a late architecture picked up from the cellar. What PD will make up in performance won't be just based on IPC.



Indeed, there's this increased power consumption/performance compared to even Phenom II, oh wait...


----------



## Hustler (Feb 10, 2012)

robal said:


> Still, it is a disappointment.



Your not kidding, at the current rate of progress the Bulldozer range will be as fast as the i5/i7 by about, what?...2016


----------



## devguy (Feb 10, 2012)

Hmm, no FX 8170 or any supposed B3 Bulldozer processors on the roadmap.  I guess they're going straight to Piledriver.


----------



## Yo_Wattup (Feb 10, 2012)

*yawn*


----------



## xenocide (Feb 10, 2012)

I kind of want a laptop with an A10-5700, but the rest of that roadmap looks pretty uninteresting...


----------



## Super XP (Feb 10, 2012)

devguy said:


> Hmm, no FX 8170 or any supposed B3 Bulldozer processors on the roadmap.  I guess they're going straight to Piledriver.


AMD either scrapped the FX 8170 Bulldozer based CPU (B3 stepping) or they will release it sometime in the Q2 2012 as it stated in one of there older roadmaps.

Anyhow B3 along with the much needed modifications hopefully should be enough for Piledriver to make a performance leap over today's Bulldozer.



> AMD may be using TMSC after 2013, though it does depend on which can produce better yields.
> 
> This is a well written article, good job. Also, AMD hired an IBM Processor Engineer within closed doors to assist in ensuring that Piledriver performs the way it was meant to, for massive multi-tasking and the ability to outperform the Phenom II line by as much as 50% to 70%. But not in a clock for clock senario due to both designs being quite different.
> Take that with a grain of salt. Piledriver has been fixed well enough to replace the complete Bulldozer line. There is no more Enhanced Bulldozer, only Piledriver. AMD wants to leave Bulldozer behind them from what I was told.


http://semiaccurate.com/2012/02/07/fabless-works-for-amd/


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 10, 2012)

Hmm AMD A10, They Should Mark the Box with a Fairchild Republic A10 Thunderbolt II on the box and a Case Sticker with the Same CAS Jet.




Yo_Wattup said:


> *yawn*




^^
Says The Troll


----------



## TRWOV (Feb 10, 2012)

I think skipping Zambezi B3 and going straight to Piledriver is a good move. Better spend those precious resources on the optimized core.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 10, 2012)

TRWOV said:


> I think skipping Zambezi B3 and going straight to Piledriver is a good move. Better spend those precious resources on the optimized core.



They could always make those Units for OEM/Business Class CPUs...


----------



## seronx (Feb 11, 2012)

TRWOV said:


> Bulldozer modules have a pair of "cores" so no tri-core is possible.



Two cores
Four cores
Eight cores

The Bulldozer family module can have any number of cores and tri-core is possible but not logical



naoan said:


> Indeed, there's this increased power consumption/performance compared to even Phenom II, oh wait...



The FX series has the same power/performance compared to Phenom II in the same usage of threads

Opteron 6174 - $1240
AMD Opteron 6174 Magny-Cours 2.2GHz 12 x 512KB L2 ...
Opteron 6234 - $400
AMD Opteron 6234 Interlagos 2.4GHz 16MB L3 Cache S...

FX isn't the only series which used Bulldozer


----------



## mastrdrver (Feb 11, 2012)

seronx said:


> Two cores
> Four cores
> Eight cores
> 
> The Bulldozer family module can have any number of cores and tri-core is possible but not logical



No.

A module is considered by AMD to be 2 cores. A module is also the smallest working unit and thus a single core can not be disabled. Cores have to be disabled in pairs. Since the smallest unit that can be disabled in an entire module and not individual cores.


----------



## seronx (Feb 11, 2012)

mastrdrver said:


> No.
> 
> A module is considered by AMD to be 2 cores. A module is also the smallest working unit and thus a single core can not be disabled. Cores have to be disabled in pairs. Since the smallest unit that can be disabled in an entire module and not individual cores.



You can disable cores...

Power gating is allocated to each core and the module(You can have either the whole module turned off or have one or the other core turned off)


----------



## Super XP (Feb 11, 2012)

mastrdrver said:


> No.
> 
> A module is considered by AMD to be 2 cores. A module is also the smallest working unit and thus a single core can not be disabled. Cores have to be disabled in pairs. Since the smallest unit that can be disabled in an entire module and not individual cores.


Just like seronx you can disable 1 core per module.


----------



## xenocide (Feb 11, 2012)

seronx said:


> The FX series has the same power/performance compared to Phenom II in the same usage of threads



Well every review had different power numbers because the FX-8150 was largely inconsistent when it came to power draw.  It did seem to use at least as much power as Phenom II's did, which is the complete opposite of Intel where each line seems to use less power...


----------



## seronx (Feb 11, 2012)

xenocide said:


> Well every review had different power numbers because the FX-8150 was largely inconsistent when it came to power draw.  It did seem to use at least as much power as Phenom II's did, which is the complete opposite of Intel where each line seems to use less power...



The inconsistency is do variations in benchmarking methodology

Some used 3dmark/game, some used Cinebench, some used a HPC app, and some used LinX/IBT/OCCT/Prime95.

AMD didn't change the socket thus power specification hasn't changed.  Intel changes sockets and with that comes changes in power consumption and other components

FM2/C2012/G2012 Komodo/Sepang/Terramar would have brought the power specification change that AMD needed and it would come with an embedded NB and I/O Links but those were killed off for the more "affordable" and much "cheaper" Vishera/Seoul/Abu Dahbi


----------



## DrunkenMafia (Feb 11, 2012)

I can't say I am going to be excited over this piledriver considering how much hype was around BD launch..


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Feb 11, 2012)

DrunkenMafia said:


> I can't say I am going to be excited over this piledriver considering how much hype was around BD launch..



probably wise, heres hopein though eh


----------



## mastrdrver (Feb 12, 2012)

seronx said:


> You can disable cores...
> 
> Power gating is allocated to each core and the module(You can have either the whole module turned off or have one or the other core turned off)





Super XP said:


> Just like seronx you can disable 1 core per module.



Actually your still wrong.

The BIOS does not disable the other core in the module since it is the whole module that is power gated.

The BIOS just does not expose the other core to the OS. AMD only power gates the module not the cores since the cores share parts and to shut down the only part that is not shared would save little to no power.

edit:The Tech Report's Bulldozer Review


> The headliner here, though, is the use of power gates for each of the modules.......


----------



## nt300 (Feb 12, 2012)

mastrdrver said:


> Actually your still wrong.
> 
> The BIOS does not disable the other core in the module since it is the whole module that is power gated.
> 
> ...


They are talking about a modified BIOS where it lets you disable one core per module. It was tested in benchmarks and had better performance per clock with having 1 core per module disabled.

Example:
FX-8120 @ 1 Core per Module = 4 single cores = Quad-Core (4/4) performed MUCH faster than the FX-4100 (2/4) at same clock speed. AMD needs to setup Piledriver so it can disable and enable both ways, which ever way gives you better performance.


----------



## user21 (Feb 12, 2012)

the way i see it? world's first 4.2ghz clocked processor. AMD FX-4170

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series%20FX-4170%20FD4170FRW4KGU.html


----------



## Super XP (Feb 12, 2012)

user21 said:


> the way i see it? world's first 4.2ghz clocked processor. AMD FX-4170
> 
> http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series%20FX-4170%20FD4170FRW4KGU.html


I think AMD cancelled that CPU in favour for newer Piledriver based CPU's. I may be wrong though. They were suppose to also release the FX 8170 which is also based on the newer B3 stepping based on Bulldozer. I believe Piledriver is C3 or C4 stepping which would have a different naming scheme IMO.


----------



## mastrdrver (Feb 13, 2012)

nt300 said:


> They are talking about a modified BIOS where it lets you disable one core per module. It was tested in benchmarks and had better performance per clock with having 1 core per module disabled.
> 
> Example:
> FX-8120 @ 1 Core per Module = 4 single cores = Quad-Core (4/4) performed MUCH faster than the FX-4100 (2/4) at same clock speed. AMD needs to setup Piledriver so it can disable and enable both ways, which ever way gives you better performance.



I understand what they are saying and I'm telling them that it is not going to happen and never will because of the way AMD designed the module.


----------



## mastrdrver (Feb 13, 2012)

Found this link to the notebook review forum over on the S|A forums:

Link
http://forum.notebookreview.com/8242858-post4780.html

http://forum.notebookreview.com/8247215-post4801.html

http://forum.notebookreview.com/8248595-post4815.html

http://forum.notebookreview.com/8265815-post4938.html


----------



## Nil Einne (Feb 13, 2012)

mastrdrver said:


> I understand what they are saying and I'm telling them that it is not going to happen and never will because of the way AMD designed the module.



I agree we're not going to see a tri core Bulldozer based CPU. What I'm a bit surprised is they didn't have 6 core (tri module) for the high end APU, 4 core for the mid and perhaps some of the high end and 2 core for the low and perhaps some mid end. That way in terms of performance the A10-5800K should beat the A8-3870K by a handy margin in pretty much most highly multithreaded, CPU bound apps whereas I'm not sure it will based on what I've seen in Bulldozer reviews (although I admit I haven't looked that much). But I guess in terms of yields, power consumption, core size, performance etc it didn't make sense. It will be interesting to see how the performance boundary (and price-performance) between A6 and A8 will be.


----------



## mastrdrver (Feb 14, 2012)

There's no need for a 6 core APU.

There's very good reason to believe that the 17w ULV Trinity parts will equal 25/35w Llano parts (talking notebooks here). 25/35w Trinity parts will blow Llano out of the water.

Realize that Trinity looses the slow L3 cache that definitely does not help BD on the desktop.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 14, 2012)

mastrdrver said:


> there's no need for a 6 core apu.
> 
> There's very good reason to believe that the 17w ulv trinity parts will equal 25/35w llano parts (talking notebooks here). 25/35w trinity parts will blow llano out of the water.
> 
> Realize that trinity looses the slow l3 cache that definitely does not help bd on the desktop.




l3 cache is designed as a compensator for ddr3. It worked for phenom 2...


----------



## nt300 (Feb 29, 2012)

Hustler said:


> "based on the "Piledriver" core architecture, which brings in about 15% IPC increase over Bulldozer."
> 
> 
> Great, so that makes them roughly as fast as a Phenom II, but not until nearly 2013....


Wrong, 25% faster over Phenom II and 15% faster over Bulldozer. In most benchmarks Bulldozer outperforms PII by about 70% to 80% of the time.


mastrdrver said:


> I understand what they are saying and I'm telling them that it is not going to happen and never will because of the way AMD designed the module.


http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161031


----------



## Mulderer (Feb 29, 2012)

the first brazos amazed me,cheap and quite powerful..
so i'm looking forward to brazos 2.0


----------



## trickson (Feb 29, 2012)

Yo_Wattup said:


> *yawn*



I am with you. *yawn*


----------



## Super XP (Feb 29, 2012)

trickson said:


> I am with you. *yawn*


Would you prefer Intel kill off AMD and AMD kill off NVIDIA 
Then we can kiss Competition GoodBye 
That's how you sound in some of your posts


----------



## trickson (Feb 29, 2012)

Super XP said:


> Would you prefer Intel kill off AMD and AMD kill off NVIDIA
> Then we can kiss Competition GoodBye
> That's how you sound in some of your posts



LOL. There is NO way this will ever happen. You sound like it is the end of the WORLD! 
AMD is doing great, Just not a GREAT as they once were is all. Get over this BS of Intel Killing AMD and the end of competition will you?!


----------



## Goodman (Feb 29, 2012)

nt300 said:


> Wrong, 25% faster over Phenom II and 15% faster over Bulldozer



Wrong piledriver 15% faster then the FX would put it 5-10% faster then PIIx6... 



nt300 said:


> In most benchmarks Bulldozer outperforms PII by about 70% to 80% of the time.



Maybe but not by that much & as for the rest of the 20-30% PII kicks out Bulldozer butt like there were no tomorrow :shadedshu

Anyhow it's hard to tell if Piledriver will be better than the current FX line , we'll have to wait & see
I don't care if they don't get it out before Sept 2012 as long as they "fixed" the god damn thing , i want higher performance at same clock speed first , after that they can start raising clock speed all they want


----------



## trickson (Feb 29, 2012)

Till the Chips hit the market there will be all the fuzzy math and speculation as to how great it will be. just like the Bulldozer! More paper launching and more hype from AMD is all I see here.


----------



## xenocide (Feb 29, 2012)

Goodman said:


> Wrong piledriver 15% faster then the FX would put it 5-10% faster then PIIx6...
> 
> Maybe but not by that much & as for the rest of the 20-30% PII kicks out Bulldozer butt like there were no tomorrow



Depends on the workload and the model numbers.  A Phenom II X6 will crush an FX-6xxx across the board, but still lose out to the FX-8xxx line in heavily threaded applications.  If we're talking about per thread performance, Phenom II is about 5-10% faster.  PD is basically intended to push per thread performance just past Phenom II, whether or not that actually happens is another story.


----------



## Super XP (Feb 29, 2012)

Here is logic. A quote from friend off Hardware Analysis.

A_Pickle said: 





> I think Bulldozer is pretty good, actually.  It's just not a conventional multi-core implementation, which was a big gamble on AMD's part (one which may not pan out) -- but if the software begins to make use of it, which I think it will, we'll see some interesting stuff.
> 
> I don't think AMD is really gunning for the top performance crown anymore, and frankly, I think it's ridiculous for people to expect them to try.  Intel pulls down _billions_ of dollars more than they do -- they just don't have the resources to compete with that.  They need to focus, like they did with the Athlon 64, on what Intel is _f**king up_ -- which is to say, graphics.


----------



## tacosRcool (May 24, 2012)

I love all the AMD hate here. Everybody seems to forget that they do not compete with what everybody says they do, they compete at lower price points.


----------

