Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Will AMD make any more FX processors?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2014 3:09:06 PM

AMD has been recently going into the world of APUS, and ive heard they will be staying that way, and not going back to FX CPUs.

is this true?

More about : amd make processors

Best solution

a c 154 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 6, 2014 3:14:06 PM

It appears this is the case.

They've released roadmaps of CPU's and APU's into 2015 and there's no hint of a high-end CPU.

I think Intel's currently too far ahead to catch up to, and with limited funds they have to focus on what is most profitable.
Share
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2014 3:17:51 PM

damn, i am going to build a new pc this summer and i guess im gonna have to stick with an fx 8320.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2014 3:46:00 PM

Probably not.

FX chips were die-harvested Opteron chips. Since there is an almost certain chance that there wont be any Steamroller Opterons, I wouldn't count on the FX line going foward.
m
0
l
a c 810 à CPUs
a c 344 À AMD
May 6, 2014 4:11:45 PM

AMD has hinted lately that the FX chips lineup is over.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2014 4:12:53 PM

alright well this is a bummer,

thanks for the info.
m
0
l
a c 154 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 6, 2014 7:01:39 PM

Hey,
I recommend building with an INTEL i5-4440 or similar. The AMD FX-8320 is a poor choice. The FX-6300 isn't bad on a budget, but the FX-8320 is a big bottleneck and approaching the same price.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-a...

Ignore the low resolution of these benchmarks, at 1920x1080 they're about the same. I could provide lots more benchmarks but basically it works out that the FX-8320 loses in over 95% of the games by up to 40%. I don't think it even wins in a single game.

Also, due to the poor single-core performance which is the main reason it loses (since most games don't benefit much beyond two cores) you get lower LOW frame rates in the FX CPU's compared to the Intel. Just an EXAMPLE:

Intel i5-4440 (Game A): 50FPS average, 28FPS low

FX-8320 (Game A): 40FPS average, 10FPS low

Summary:
The i5-4440 is a better CPU overall, uses less power (less heat into room), and costs only $27 more. I simply can't recommend the FX-8320 under any circumstances.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2014 7:04:52 PM

oh and my monitor is 1680x1050....

i am also a video editor, so the extra cores do come in handy for me.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2014 7:06:03 PM

and i would say the 8320 is more future proof as its more core will be utilized by games as time goes on...

and im also gonna overclock to 4.2ghz
here is my build if you are wondering.

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3Evwb
i already have a amd radeon hd 7850 2gb
m
0
l
a c 154 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 6, 2014 7:17:11 PM

babachicken said:
and i would say the 8320 is more future proof as its more core will be utilized by games as time goes on...

and im also gonna overclock to 4.2ghz
here is my build if you are wondering.

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3Evwb
i already have a amd radeon hd 7850 2gb


I just read an article (forget link) that provided solid evidence on how it's unlikely the FX CPU's would pull ahead of the similar i5 CPU's.

As for VIDEO EDITING, the FX-8320 loses on average but you have to get a lot of benchmarks to make an informed decision.

The following HANDBRAKE benchmark is best because I use that program and know it fully used all EIGHT threads on the date this was published: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350...

It's an FX-8350 which would be slightly faster, and you need to compare the frequency carefully. Neither CPU is on the list but it turns out the i5-4440 wins.

Of course, you can OVERCLOCK the FX-8320 but then you'd need a more expensive motherboard and cooler so calculating value is difficult. At that point, I'd be recommending the i5-4670K setup.

Anyway, do whatever you wish but I recommend reading a lot of reviews and look carefully look at benchmarks to make an informed decision.

(There's also a Haswell refresh very soon, May 11th?, but the improvements are about 2.5% or so. It may affect pricing though. Same socket, 1150.)
m
0
l
a c 154 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 6, 2014 7:40:29 PM

Your build:
Not a bad build, and I see no major issues.

At $130 that's a pretty good value for the CPU, and since you seem pretty committed to that I won't comment further.

If you need any advice you can PM me as well.

I also recommend Windows 8 64-bit ($90) and Start8 ($5) if you don't have an OS yet.

Here's some handy install tips:

1. Read the Motherboard Manual
(especially for DDR3 slots to use, and front case connectors.)
- attach NOTHING that isn't essential (like 2nd hard drive)

2. Setup PC hardware

3. BIOS:
- check "AMP" or whatever the optimal CPU/DDR3 memory configuration is (don't overclock yet) and SAVE
- SATA to AHCI (not IDE)

4. test DDR3 memory www.memtest.org for a full pass
- BIOS can be updated without Windows, so if your PC appears "dead" that may be the problem.

5. Install Windows

6. Install drivers:
- motherboard MAIN CHIPSET
- audio, video (AMD) and other drivers/software

7. Setup FAN CONTROL software
- may require enabling in BIOS.
- CPU fan should idle at roughly 50% and ramp up with temp (varies)
- not all FANS can be controlled. Some case fans are one speed, or three with mechanical switch built-in
- for case fans you CAN control they should be attached to the FAN connectors on motherboard and a profile setup in fan control software

8. Other Programs.

9. SSD:
- update firmware
- overprovision it
- test it
(I prefer the Samsung drives. the Samsung 840 EVO 120GB is $80. The Samsung Magician software works great. Both SSD's likely works similarly in real-world usage though.)

10. Create a BACKUP IMAGE (Acronis True Image or similar).
- WD has a free version (requires internal or external WD drive present)
- Seagate has the same program named Seagate DiscWizard

*I strongly, strongly advise you make a backup Image once everything's installed. For example:
a) Install Acronis True Image Full/Free
b) Make a backup of the C-drive (SSD) to the hard drive (use Maximum Compression) and Verify it.
c) Keep the first backup (in case malware or issues creep in that you don't realize so the 2nd backup is useless)
d) Create a 2nd one later and periodically replace it

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2014 7:53:20 PM

Wow thanks,
I have a microsoft dreamspark account as i am a student so I am able to get the win 8.1 iso for free, im just gonna have to make a boot drive.

and yes, i will be backing up my c drive from my ssd pretty regularly, probably to an external hard drive though.
m
0
l
May 6, 2014 9:00:51 PM

Read more news guy. The roadmap is a new Carizzo line of APUs in early 2015. Then there's a whole new line of high performance CPU based on traditional SMT instead of CMT by the end of 2015 or early 2016. The x86+ARM core CPUs is another line of CPUs focused on low power consumption.
m
0
l
a c 154 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 7, 2014 12:37:14 PM

x86 + ARM:

It's not a single CPU combining both chips, they are designing a new x86 SoC and new ARM SoC that both have the same pin-outs to work in the same motherboard.

If you read more carefully:
"The 64-bit ARM variant of Project Skybridge will be based on the ARM Cortex-A57 core and will be AMD's first Heterogeneous System Architecture (HSA) platform for Android. The x86 variant will feature next generation Puma+ CPU cores."
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 7, 2014 2:36:13 PM

babachicken said:
AMD has been recently going into the world of APUS, and ive heard they will be staying that way, and not going back to FX CPUs.

is this true?

There could well be an fx apu, even intel hasn't improved massively since sandy bridge on the cpu side, the future seems to be apus with gpu assisted software. That's where we'll see the next big jump in benchmark and software performance, lets also see what the game makers do with the ps4, it has an x86/gcn apu with huma.
People recommend (I thought the same) the fx8xxx as future proof because of the 8 cpu cores and the ps4 having 8 cpu cores as that would mean games get better threaded but that was possible with mantlle alone and dx12 soon. The ps4 uses the 8 cores for multi tasking eg 2 for the os and I now think amd were trying with the ps4 to get developers to use hsa not the many x86 cores. So if you wanted to *gamble* on future proof imo an apu like kaveri/carizzo with hsa/huma would be a cheap bet.
m
0
l
a c 154 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 9, 2014 12:23:30 AM

con635 said:
babachicken said:
AMD has been recently going into the world of APUS, and ive heard they will be staying that way, and not going back to FX CPUs.

is this true?

There could well be an fx apu, even intel hasn't improved massively since sandy bridge on the cpu side, the future seems to be apus with gpu assisted software. That's where we'll see the next big jump in benchmark and software performance, lets also see what the game makers do with the ps4, it has an x86/gcn apu with huma.
People recommend (I thought the same) the fx8xxx as future proof because of the 8 cpu cores and the ps4 having 8 cpu cores as that would mean games get better threaded but that was possible with mantlle alone and dx12 soon. The ps4 uses the 8 cores for multi tasking eg 2 for the os and I now think amd were trying with the ps4 to get developers to use hsa not the many x86 cores. So if you wanted to *gamble* on future proof imo an apu like kaveri/carizzo with hsa/huma would be a cheap bet.


1) The FM2+ socket has both APU's and CPU's that are the same thing without the graphics. The X4-760K for example is fairly cheap and makes the most sense with a dedicated graphics card like the GTX750Ti (or R9-270X if you want Mantle support which helps reduce the CPU bottleneck).

2) You're a little confused on HSA and the x86 cores... The PS4 and XBOX ONE have six of the eight cores used for a game. They are ALWAYS used by a game, as is the GPU.

HSA has to do with the Shared Memory. http://developer.amd.com/resources/heterogeneous-comput...

So developers will learn how to code better to make Shared Memory work properly but ideally they are fully using all the processing power that the six x86 cores, and the GPU provide as well. The Shared System Memory just stores the data that the CPU and GPU process. There's a LOT devs can do however to be more efficient about it but game engines are complicated so it will take a few years until we really see massive changes.

3) "Gamble on an APU"
An APU is a GPU and CPU combined but if it's massively underpowered there's only so much you can do.

a) The GPU portion uses some of the System RAM. They tested the fastest APU to date and it was still getting bottlenecked at 2400MHz Dual-Channel so the GPU was waiting to talk to the slower DDR3 memory. For comparison, top-end cards use about 7000MHz of VRAM I believe. (What's worse is some people bought top-end APU's and have a single stick of 1333MHz DDR3 memory which is the same as 667MHz in Dual-Channel).

b) Windows games won't be exploiting Shared Memory any time soon for gaming like the PS4 is capable of, especially with APU's being relatively underpowered which they will remain for a long time. Look at how large a top-end AMD graphics card is to cool the GPU and Video RAM. Plus, again the System RAM bottleneck so APU's can't go beyond that bottleneck.

So Windows games will continue to be coded without Shared Memory.

(It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation. Nobody will code for a high-end Shared Memory PC until it exists in a high enough percentage, and nobody will make one until there's a definite need for one. This also includes Operating System support.)

Other:
What we will LIKELY see in the near future is DirectX games start to employ "Shared Tile Resources" which hold a lot of texture data and efficiently stream this to the graphics card. Microsoft did a demo of this zooming into a planet (Mars?) so when you highlighted a certain spot a lot of data was copied into Video RAM, and as you zoomed in it would anticipate and buffer the most likely next data you'd use.

The reason for Shared Tile Resources of course is because System RAM is cheaper. So if these and other methods such as Tessellation mitigate the need to make the big commitment in hardware and software to make the switch it's going to be quite a while.

So never?
A Shared System Memory PC will happen, possibly at the low-end first like the consoles but it likely won't be mainstream for quite a while.

I may be proven completely wrong though. I have limited programming skills. I think it would mainly depend on how easy it is to implement a Shared Memory code path alongside the normal path. That's similar to having both MANTLE and DX in the same game (like BF4). Regardless, these are all things that take YEARS to accomplish so nobody should base a purchase decision on this.

Cheers.

m
0
l
!