AMD FM2+ socket CPU upgradeability

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
R

Rafael Luik

Reputable
Sep 18, 2014
86
0
4,660
Hi, I don't have much knowledge about the sockets/motherboard capabilities... My doubt is 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.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
logainofhades

logainofhades

Titan
Moderator
Apr 27, 2009
37,552
3,221
143,290
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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
R

Rafael Luik

Reputable
Sep 18, 2014
86
0
4,660
@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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
logainofhades

logainofhades

Titan
Moderator
Apr 27, 2009
37,552
3,221
143,290
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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Wisecracker

Wisecracker

Splendid
Jan 15, 2007
8,106
17
31,965
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 ...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
R

Rafael Luik

Reputable
Sep 18, 2014
86
0
4,660
Look at that Athlon X4 860k vs. FX 6300 benchmark... Interesting?

Code: 
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2362&cmp[]=1781

It looks like it's a matter of time? An "Athlon X4 960K" with Excavator may beat it.
The single threaded performance has increased compared to the FXs (up to the 8370).

The discrepancy in L2 and L3 cache between the two screams though.

I don't know but FM2+ future looks promising to some extent. Athlon X4 860K looks like the perfect budget/mid pair for a R9 270(X) or R7 265/260X if the games you want aren't a lot CPU-bound.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom