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'
Please stop spamming the Bulldozer threads with made up numbers and rumors unless you can show something solid and believable.
Now what I would like to know is would it make any sense to combine CMT and HT, if at all possible? The thread management and logistics horror aside, 16 threads would be better than 8 if half the time you can't saturate the cores with information at a 100%.
This guy bullshit or not is giving more then others. If it's not an Intel fan bashing the BD *imo im thinking some are feeling threatened by amd this go around* but hey Who knows till the chip hits the reviews... Half the shit in these threads are BS any ways so to point fingers is some what bios don't you think? ;)
Phenom II with Zambezi has the same performance
But there is some unknowns with the Bulldozer architecture particularly the(4 ALUs + 2AGUs + 1 Store/Load Unit) per core
2 ALUs + 2 AGLUs + 1 Store/Load
and what does this design mirror?
Sandy Bridge
I looked it up, in the k15h handbook in programming
What they changed is instead of:
4 Simple AGLUs like originally planned(8 IPC per module)
We get:
2 Complex ALUs + 2 Simple AGLUs + 1 Load Store Unit(8-10 IPC per module)Well I never read your postsYes, IBM is going to do it for their new "undisclosed" processor
All things surrounding actual performance are under NDA. Zambezi is in the wild, and those that have it can't talk about it.
So rather than getting all giddy like a preschool girl with Barbie dolls, and falsely rasing expectations, it seems most prudent to sit back adn watch the show.
There's nothing wrong with seronx's posts, except that alot of people can't seem to accept his posts as just a post, and are getting a bit excited. This causes arguments, which really serve no purpose but to create dissention among our members.
That's where the problem is..the arguments his posts spawn.
It'as doubly bad when really, nobody cares about Bulldozer no, really, because nobody can buy it. When we can go and pick it up, toss it in our boards, then we can discuss the ins and outs of it...doing such before having the product in hand can be nothing other than marketing.
are you talking about two different things in these explanations?
Two different explainations
1 is talking about utilization and 2 is talking about the amount of utilization in a module scale because the module is pointless to talk about as the windows OS will schedule it not us
Core 1 will be utilized 100%
Core 2 will be utilized 100%
They won't be fighting for resources
If the module provides 2x that of a normal core that means 200%
Core 0 will use 100% of that 200%
Core 0 and 1 will use 200% of that 200%
Core 1 will use 100% of that 200%
CMT = Real cores
A lot of people are dissing this design thinking it is worse
but it isn't!
It is a lot better than what is expected
*Here's a statement. AMD FX series will be released (in retail) at or before 8/23/2011 which is the release date for "something else".
www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4217113/Analyst-chip-yield-Globalfoundries
I really don't know what to make of it though. I do know that the laptop I'll be getting for school will have Llano inside. They better not be sold out.:mad:
I love theorizing, but facts are facts. We have none and wont till it is released.
Back to topic. Seeing that AMD vs Intel trend is bad for my eyes + i don't know much about this ALU/FP/SSE stuff that much like you all, i tend to side with majority & say: til TechPowerUp gets the hands on actual CPU (be it 8-, 6- or 4-core Dozer) & pits it vs Sandy/Ivy Bridge as much as the speculation might sound valid, it's still speculation. Hard gaming/benchmarking numbers is what needed, period. If frequency-wise Dozer beats the f*** out of Sandy Bridge or vice versa (for example 3.1GHz FX-8120 vs 3.4GHz i7 2600K) in - say - SuperPi, wPrime, PCMark Vantage & 3DMark11's CPU benchies than this what counts. Til that happens - as much as the info sounds good it's only speculation. Hope this happens by end of August though: this delay is f***ed up.
I wouln't hope for beating Intel in performance/clock ratio or performance/power_consumption though... Bulldozer will be one power hungry beast :)
ps. there were only one cpu family that was without confusion of how much cores it does really posess, legendary Pentium D :rockout:
and it ran 5GHz with ease :nutkick:
all other multi-cores are just a scam... :(