Thursday, August 21st 2014
AMD Readies Two New Performance-segment FX Processors
AMD is preparing to expand its performance-segment socket AM3+ processor lineup, steering clear of the 220W TDP of its FX-9000 series. The two chips are the FX-8370, and the FX-8370E. The FX-8370 will likely replace the FX-8350 around the $180 mark; while the FX-8370E will be its energy-efficient variant. Both chips offer clock speeds of 4.10 GHz, with 4.30 GHz TurboCore frequencies. While the FX-8370 has a rated TDP of 125W, the FX-8370E features 95W, without a reduction in clock speeds. The FX-8370E could hence come at a slight premium.
Both the FX-8370 and FX-8370E are eight-core processors based on the 32 nm "Vishera" silicon, featuring four "Piledriver" CPU modules that have 2 MB of L2 cache each, and 8 MB of L3 cache shared between the four modules. The chips feature dual-channel DDR3 integrated memory controllers, with native support for DDR3-1866 MHz, and 5.2 GT/s HyperTransport 3.1 system bus. Instruction-sets include AVX, AES, SSE4.2, FMA3, and XOP. The chips will run on all existing socket AM3+ motherboards, with some needing BIOS updates.
Source:
X-bit Labs
Both the FX-8370 and FX-8370E are eight-core processors based on the 32 nm "Vishera" silicon, featuring four "Piledriver" CPU modules that have 2 MB of L2 cache each, and 8 MB of L3 cache shared between the four modules. The chips feature dual-channel DDR3 integrated memory controllers, with native support for DDR3-1866 MHz, and 5.2 GT/s HyperTransport 3.1 system bus. Instruction-sets include AVX, AES, SSE4.2, FMA3, and XOP. The chips will run on all existing socket AM3+ motherboards, with some needing BIOS updates.
54 Comments on AMD Readies Two New Performance-segment FX Processors
Give us Steamroller on AM3+ or GTFO.
You can already get an Opteron 6344 6-module or Opteron 6376 8-module (both at @ 115W) and a single socket G34 motherboard for less than $1000. However, even the faster of the CPUs is only clocked at 2.6GHz, so they're not going to be winning any single threaded benchmarks. You have to have software that uses all the modules for its performance to be competitive. In a desktop environment, such software is not common
I think you are wrong, this tuning can not be done to the infinity either, so your argument should be thrown.
We need more speed but those corporations think otherwise. Only GOD knows why...
Maybe their cross-license for x86 with Intel doesn't give them freedom?
The underdog is just a term used for user-friendly purposes in order to better describe their current market position of the smaller producer of inferior (slower) products.
Why?
If AMD renegotiated their cross-license agreement in 2009 to allow Intel to dictate what AMD can and can't develop using their own IP they deserve to be curb-stomped. Bulldozer cores were used in both APU and CPU, Piledriver cores were used in both APU and CPU. Why would Steamroller (or Excavator for that matter) be any different? The only reason it isn't presently used in CPUs is AMD lacks the R&D (and by extension, the design teams) to bring them to fruition.
FWIW, AMD's combined x86, ARM, and graphics R&D budget is less than Nvidia's - who really only have graphics and an ARM architectural license. You expect that limitation to somehow produce products across the board?
In November 2013, AMD confirmed it will not update the FX series in 2014, neither its current Socket AM3+ version, nor will it receive a Steamroller version with a new socket.[30][31] An unconfirmed article, citing anonymous sources with knowledge of AMD's internal roadmap extending into 2015, also did not mention plans for a new FX processor.[32]
Somehow my mind cannot figure it out how it would be possible, unless AMD is in bankruptcy unable to produce anything. This here is not a matter or question of having money or not. If you can launch Steamroller in Kaveri and new Piledreiver FXs, then you can expect that there are no technical diffuclties to show new Steamroller or Excavator or whatever FXs!
1. That which I have already outlined. AMD has insufficient R&D funds to develop APUs and graphics and ARM as well as CPUs for desktop and server
2. AMD has given up on non-graphics x86 microprocessors. They've already tapped out of the x86 server market (their 5% probably represents legacy systems almost entirely), which means that any CPU they develop has to recoup its R&D and make a profit solely off consumer parts. Now, given that APUs probably share R&D with console development and budget APUs nearly hold market share against their Intel counterparts, where should AMD's priorities lie?
investing.money.msn.com/investments/stock-cash-flow/?symbol=amd
They're not in danger of going bankrupt imo. They are still able to sell their debt. How well they profit from the chips they sell for the newgen consoles should help if they're making a decent profit on them. The thing with AMD is, in most cases, they sell their products too cheap and over the years this has left too little money to invest in R&D. The last thing in the world I want to see is for AMD to go under. No competition for Nvidia and Intel would be a sad state of affairs for consumers.
AMD is focusing on APUs and improving GPUs to balance on laptops, desktops, and tablets (at some point) because that's where they have the best chance to start really selling and profiting. More users than naught are basic users who want a laptop, desktop, or whatever for a decent price that will handle all their media needs whether it be checking email all the way to playing some light games. APUs are much better at that than a CPU and separate GPU on small devices for reasons of energy, design, and heat dissipation which laptop makers especially want.
They will eventually return to the FX or AMX socket, however they first need to improve things to the point they can actually be fully competitive (or wait for heavily threaded software to become the norm).