Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD FM2+ socket CPU upgradeability

Tags:
  • Performance
  • CPUs
  • AMD
  • Socket
Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 29, 2014 8:02:06 AM

Hi, I don't have much knowledge about the sockets/motherboard capabilities... My doubt it how much FM2+ can handle in theory.

Currently AMD has the FX processor line in AM3+ which performs best for gaming and any other heavy tasks. In FM2+ they have the budget performance APUs plus a few Athlons and also the latest tech like PCI-e 3.0, USB 3.0, etc while also draining less PSU.
This leaves us with a confusing choice.

Is it possible that AMD could release a FX-level performance CPU that fits in the FM2+ socket in the future? Is FM2+ able to handle them (e.g. power usage, the socket bandwidth)? And if any current motherboards would support these hypothetical CPUs?

PS. Not interested in Intel alternatives.

More about : amd fm2 socket cpu upgradeability

a c 82 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 29, 2014 8:04:50 AM

Not really,FX series of CPUs are AM3+ socket and AM3+ socket only.
And AM3+ CPUs can't go an FM2+ MoBos and vice versa.
m
0
l
a c 902 à CPUs
a c 171 À AMD
September 29, 2014 8:07:00 AM

PCI-E 2.0 vs 3.0 is a non issue right now. Not many USB 3.0 devices out really either. There are AM3+ boards with USB 3.0, though. AMD is not going to release any FX level performance chips for FM2+. It is their mainstream/budget platform. AM3+ is essentially dead. AMD's new performance line is still a year and half away, at least. Like it or not, unless you are building an HTPC, or live near a Microcenter, to take advantage of their motherboard combo deals, Intel is the way to go right now. It was a big disappointment when AMD decided not to make a steamroller variant for AM3+. Not sure what will happen with regards to excavator. Most likely it will be another APU, like steamroller.
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 124 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 29, 2014 8:11:19 AM


Actually, FM2+ sets a platform that is excellent for the transition to DDR4 by expanding the Fusion control links, L2 cache coherency and the IOMMU.

Edit: And ... unified memory addressing and HSA
(don't want to forget that)



m
0
l
September 29, 2014 9:01:44 AM

@LukaBoki @logainofhades Guys, this is not what I'm asking...

I'm asking if it's technically possible for a CPU with FX-level of performance to be built for the FM2+ socket. If it can take it (the wattage, pins or whatever limiting factors). Not if AMD is doing it or not, not if it's going to be called "FX", not if actual FXs fit on it.
m
0
l
a c 902 à CPUs
a c 171 À AMD
September 29, 2014 9:37:00 AM

Is it technically possible, I would think so. All AMD would have to do is take their current chips and give them an L3 cache. That would instantly give you FX 43xx performance on the CPU side. They could probably make an IGP free CPU and add cores and L3 cache for FX 63xx and FX 83xx performance. Why they don't I am not entirely sure. I really think the two socket strategy is a bad idea, for AMD.
m
0
l
a c 124 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 29, 2014 4:11:40 PM



It's apples and oranges -- the principles behind each arch are completely different even though they do share a few 'core' principles (the 'module' concept being primary). Even if it were possible, the chips don't even share the same substrate (SOI 32nm versus 28nm bulk silicon).

Adding L3 cache to an APU would only introduce more latency and reduce transistor density -- A Kaveri FM2+ 'Steamroller' APU on 28nm bulk silicon has 3X the transistor density of the Piledriver Vishera on 32nm SOI ...
m
0
l
September 29, 2014 4:58:06 PM

Intel's latest i7s are 22nm so why can't AMD make a high-end (new line) fit in the FM2+ socket?
m
0
l
a c 902 à CPUs
a c 171 À AMD
September 30, 2014 8:17:14 AM

Rafael Luik said:
Intel's latest i7s are 22nm so why can't AMD make a high-end (new line) fit in the FM2+ socket?


Well they are behind Intel in process node as well. Globalfoundries is partly to blame on that one.
m
0
l
!