Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

AMD FX-8350 Piledriver CPU Expected to Launch Mid-Q3

Last response: in News comments
Share
a b à CPUs
July 3, 2012 9:12:14 AM

Yeah, but in 2013 and 2014, Haswell and Broadwell will be out... AMD has a huge gap to cover and for the sake of competition (and low prices for us), lets hope this will not be just talking like buldozer architecture.
July 3, 2012 9:29:17 AM

32mn? Sounds more like 8 core Phenom than an upgraded Bulldozer. I wonder if they'll work in AM3 mobos with bios updates.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
July 3, 2012 9:44:52 AM

Is it just me or is everyone just over it and not really interested in any of these future AMD cpu's and there promise on more performance?

Gone are the days of intense competition and exciting new hardware releases, amazing performance and change (new revolutionary things) etc.

Not really interested any more.....
July 3, 2012 9:45:21 AM

if they could do 1GHz 8core cpu with 8150 level of performance....

then we know AMD is back in the game!
July 3, 2012 9:52:17 AM

I wanna see some benchmarks ASAP.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 3, 2012 9:56:08 AM

Quote:
if they could do 1GHz 8core cpu with 8150 level of performance....


The absolute clock rates are irrelevant as long as they reach clock rates high enough to deliver the necessary performance.
I don't care if Intels CPU give the same performance at 3 GHz as AMDs CPU at 4,5 GHz, as long as AMD is reaching 4,5 GH. - especially if they got the pricing right.
July 3, 2012 10:16:30 AM

ZoidoThe absolute clock rates are irrelevant as long as they reach clock rates high enough to deliver the necessary performance.I don't care if Intels CPU give the same performance at 3 GHz as AMDs CPU at 4,5 GHz, as long as AMD is reaching 4,5 GH. - especially if they got the pricing right.

yeah price will play a big role

but lower clock = lower tdp = lower temp (usually) = good overclock
i remember intel pentium e21xx series overclocks up to 100%
a c 108 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 3, 2012 10:16:47 AM

Enough with the "cloud" already. Two good synonyms for "cloud" are "vapor" and "fumes."
July 3, 2012 10:18:33 AM

If the price is right, i'll probably stay w/ AMD for my next upgrade. Im not really a hardcore gamer, so price/performance matters most to me..
July 3, 2012 10:19:57 AM

Zoidoespecially if they got the pricing right.

They might have their pricing right but they surely will not have their TDP right...
July 3, 2012 10:44:09 AM

well, piledriver showed great potential in the trinity CPUs. Im interested in this next gen of AMD cpus.
July 3, 2012 10:51:55 AM

bustaprwell, piledriver showed great potential in the trinity CPUs. Im interested in this next gen of AMD cpus.

what to buy if it came out - FM2 or AM3+ ??
July 3, 2012 11:02:06 AM

apache_livesIs it just me or is everyone just over it and not really interested in any of these future AMD cpu's and there promise on more performance?Gone are the days of intense competition and exciting new hardware releases, amazing performance and change (new revolutionary things) etc.Not really interested any more.....


Just you ;D
July 3, 2012 11:21:00 AM

ZoidoI don't care if Intels CPU give the same performance at 3 GHz as AMDs CPU at 4,5 GHz, as long as AMD is reaching 4,5 GH. - especially if they got the pricing right.

I care as well as most others in the biz.
Its a problem with a 4.5ghz CPU that is runnin 150watts is equal to an 80watt 3ghz from another company. Hence the disapointment of the FX series... There is a PROBLEM when the spanking *new* "8core" CPU has trouble competing against its older sisters with 4 or 6 real cores or intel's 4-core CPU that also costs less money.

I've built nothing but AMD mostly in the past 10 years since the P4 days. Now I'm building mostly intel i5 systems. I can pick up an i5-3570K for $190 and it'll smack down any AMD CPU.

So on these intel systems (I'm getting Gigabyte Z77 boards for $80~110), the cooler is better than AMD's, they are quiter and smaller. The systems run quite cool. AMD cooler fans have gone low-quality in the past year or so. :( 

An AMD friend bought an FX-3core CPU... I showed him what he could have bought for $40 more. He was able to get his money back and went i5-2500K and noticed a HUGE difference in performance.

I want AMD to do better. I'm will to use AMD if the price is right... and that is with low-cost systems... and at those prices, I can't compete with HP/Dell, etc. I just have such clients buy thoses (I do offer to build but I have to give them options).

So as of today, an AMD FX-8150 has to be OC to 4~5Ghz to beat an i5 class CPU that is cheaper running at stock 3.3~3.4Ghz. What do you think happens when the i5 is overclocked?
July 3, 2012 11:35:27 AM

regor245I wanna see some benchmarks ASAP.

Look at an overclocked fx-8150 running at 4.6~4.8Ghz, apply that performance to a 4.0Ghz FX-8350 (if it is running 4 Ghz) and if its prices over $200, it'll be too much.

Thing is: AM3+ is a dead end... maybe 2 or 3 more upgrade CPUs come out.

FM2 replaces AM3 and FM1. Intel i5s with the onboard GPU uses the GPU to help render video and 3D graphics. Something the A-series Llano/Piledrivers can do and FX cannot. Thats another reason to buy an i5 over an FX CPU. Really, I wish AMD was doing better. Intel screwed AMD out of market share which is $$$ they could have used for better R&D.

When AMD decided to go down the Netburst path, it was a screw up from the start. (didn't they learn anything about how they kicked Pentium4 butt? P4s ran HIGH clock rates with high heat and low performance)
July 3, 2012 11:42:55 AM

MemnarchonYeah, but in 2013 and 2014, Haswell and Broadwell will be out...

Where is this "Broadwell" coming from? It's supposed to be Rockwell, not Broadwell. ALL of Intel's roadmaps since before 2009 have called it Rockwell. Why the sudden change?

ZoidoThe absolute clock rates are irrelevant as long as they reach clock rates high enough to deliver the necessary performance.I don't care if Intels CPU give the same performance at 3 GHz as AMDs CPU at 4,5 GHz, as long as AMD is reaching 4,5 GH. - especially if they got the pricing right.

No, just no. A CPU running at or above 4GHz is known to be bad for your health and is an unnecessarily high clock rate besides. I'd much rather have a 3.something GHz CPU with a highly efficient IPC.

Regardless, even a dual core Sandy Bridge Pentium is faster than an 8-core Bulldozer for most tasks.
July 3, 2012 12:05:43 PM

Glad I got a 3770K
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 3, 2012 12:06:31 PM

"Yeah, but in 2013 and 2014, Haswell and Broadwell will be out..."

Yes, because every Intel CPU generation and process node is guaranteed to give stunning gains, just like Ivy... Oh wait...
July 3, 2012 12:14:06 PM

00wait"Yeah, but in 2013 and 2014, Haswell and Broadwell will be out..."Yes, because every Intel CPU generation and process node is guaranteed to give stunning gains, just like Ivy... Oh wait...


/shrug.

Maybe you missed the mobile benchmarks.
July 3, 2012 12:45:03 PM

Quote:
No, just no. A CPU running at or above 4GHz is known to be bad for your health and is an unnecessarily high clock rate besides.


Good thing I have my tinfoild hat to protect me from those high Ghz
a b à CPUs
July 3, 2012 12:59:26 PM

I really want AMD to improve, and also i dont want 300+ for a decent mobo + processor combo, so i hope THAT 15% improvement over bulldozer will be enough for 150ish bucks upgrade over my aging phenom i 2. If not, well my Christmas Gift will be an I5 + intel mobo... Im an AMD fan, but i dont feel like AMD is rewarding my loyalty. If Piledriver worth the money, I will be really happy of getting a new processor!
a b à CPUs
July 3, 2012 1:13:19 PM

belardoLook at an overclocked fx-8150 running at 4.6~4.8Ghz, apply that performance to a 4.0Ghz FX-8350 (if it is running 4 Ghz)..


Wrong. Allow me to explain:

Pair the best cpu available today with the worst graphics card, and you have a "bottleneck" in gaming, correct? Now overclock the cpu to 1284048ghz, the gpu will still bottleneck and fps will remain largely unchanged, correct?

Now, there are many factors in a cpu that determines its speed other than clock rate, and most of those can't be changed. Now if for example the cache isn't "optimized" so the cpu has to wait for data from the next level cache or, god forbid, from the RAM, then the cpu is missing a ton of clock cycles until the data is available. Now if you overclock, the cpu will get it done faster, but this doesn't change the fact that it waited a ton of time for the data to arrive.

Now, in an overclock, you can get a hint of an efficient architecture by observing speed gains by overclocking. If it's a linear / almost linear gain, the architecture is very efficient, and can provide data very fast to the execution units. If the gains are sub-linear (some / most of the time) then the architecture could use some more optimizations - Such is the case of Bulldozer.

So don't let the 10-15 percent gains fool you - If it's in the right places, we may see more performance out of an overclock AND a more consistent performance (other than high FP workloads, which is a disadvantage inherent to the design, and will probably change when FP units will be replaced by a gpu block in future generations).
a b à CPUs
July 3, 2012 1:16:57 PM

belardo said:


Thing is: AM3+ is a dead end... maybe 2 or 3 more upgrade CPUs come out.

FM2 replaces AM3 and FM1.


Thing is: AM3+ is a desktop socket, FM2 is an APU socket, and FM2 replaces FM1 not AM3+. Not sure what you're smoking

AMD sockets always last longer than intel, and you can bet even if steamroller or excavator switches sockets for DDR4 They will still include the DDR3 memory controller and work on AM3+ boards.
July 3, 2012 1:17:32 PM

i'll consider pd if amd shrinks the die size and reduces the tdp...oh, yeah and increase performance too :p 
a b à CPUs
July 3, 2012 1:21:30 PM

agawtripyeah price will play a big rolebut lower clock = lower tdp = lower temp (usually) = good overclocki remember intel pentium e21xx series overclocks up to 100%


We already saw that Trinity @ 3.8 - 4.2 ghz is equal / better than a similarly priced core i3.
We also saw that mobile Trinity is roughly comparable to mobile core i5 in terms of TDP, with a bit slower cpu (around 20% difference or less) and much faster gpu (about 40-50 percent difference if i'm not mistaken).

Given the fact that Trinity is with a huge gpu block and still should cost around the same as a core i3, and the fact that core i3 can't overclock at all, I suspect that a 2-module Piledriver may cost even less than an i3 and if it'll have unlocked multi then @ 4.8+ ghz it should beat the Intel offering. Sure it'll suck more juice but we should see how much more.

This is a great thing because I never liked to offer anything below core i5 to gamers on a budget, now we should have more choice and more competition at this price point.
a c 97 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 3, 2012 1:28:10 PM


Vishera Piledriver is essentially the mid-point of on-die integration, unified memory and address space, and HSA open-source third-party IP.

The point is consistently made that as the transition nears completion, the physical CPU hardware is unlikely to be the bottleneck -- software properly utilizing the hardware is the bottleneck.

While '15% overall' improvement with Piledriver cores is good news, ultimately, AMD's HSA arch is targeting gains in multiples, not 'percents'

a b à CPUs
July 3, 2012 1:50:49 PM

hopefully, piledriver doesnt get pinned down like how bulldozer got stuck in the mud.

Dont fail us AMD. if you do, we will see i5s that cost 500 dollars
July 3, 2012 2:30:07 PM

$500? Back in the day... a Pentium II 400Mhz = $1000. I used to have a $800 PIII-866Mhz. Go back to 1980 and the 68000 was a $2000+ CPU. (That is a 16/32bit CPU)

00wait"Yeah, but in 2013 and 2014, Haswell and Broadwell will be out..."Yes, because every Intel CPU generation and process node is guaranteed to give stunning gains, just like Ivy... Oh wait...

Ivy Bridge is not a TOCK, its a TICK+. Do you understand? On a TOCK, intel introduced a new type of CPU. on a TICK, they do a die-shrink. Not both at the same time. On the TICK+, they tweaked the CPUs a bit and enhanced the GPUs big-time (still sub-standard to Llano, but more than fine for HD-movies and general purpose PCs) Next year is the TOCK.
a b à CPUs
July 3, 2012 2:34:45 PM

The roadmap of future AMD should be interesting. I would like to witness the birth of a processor that runs at a constant 4.0+GHz just for the heck of it.
July 3, 2012 2:43:09 PM

unksolThing is: AM3+ is a desktop socket, FM2 is an APU socket, and FM2 replaces FM1 not AM3+. Not sure what you're smokingAMD sockets always last longer than intel, and you can bet even if steamroller or excavator switches sockets for DDR4 They will still include the DDR3 memory controller and work on AM3+ boards.

Are you brain damaged? A socket is a socket. So you are saying that FM1/2 are not used in desktops but some magical device that looks like a desktop? Guess what, they are ALL DESKTOP sockets!

FM1 is at its end. FM2 is already in mass-production (in HP / Acer PCs). FM2 CPUs are using Piledriver... which has a GPU attached to it. Nothing more. Having the GPU built into the CPU is the future... and if you have a REAL gaming card, that GPU (or APU) becomes another co-processor.

All intel CPUs have an APU/GPU built in... and they help in rendering video frames/3D images.

All mainstream AMDs are FM1/FM2... the AM3+ is already fading out the door. There is NO need for it.
When AMD is ready, they'll have their "8 core" FX or A16 CPU on FM2. Its already on the map.

Socket AM3 doesn't have NATIVE USB3 support (okay the AMD 900 chipset - the last AM chipset).

All of 2013 is a phase out of the old tech... it'll take a while... and AMD won't have PCI-E 3.0 until 2014?!

And yes, AMD is generally better with their motherboard standards. Not this time. FM2 uses the same chipset (A75) as FM1... yet they are not cross compatible in any way. How is that for a screw over?

The market for GPU-less CPUs is pretty much gone. It adds little costs and gives better performance.

Very soon, we'll see an "8 core" FM2 CPU, that will be your big sign.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 3, 2012 3:13:28 PM

What's the point of all this AMD bashing? If you don't like AMD, there's always Intel. But whatever you do, let's not hope that Piledriver is an epic failure.

Because if it is, AMD might lose whatever competitive edge it has right now, and Intel will be the only company making consumer CPUs. Intel has already killed the low-end overclocking market with their Pentium and i3 series. You guys talk about the E-series of Core 2 Duo processors, but that was an era ago. It means nothing now. Intel has also been switching sockets like crazy (1366, 1156, 1155, 775, 2011, etc.). Intel has overpriced its products. The i5 2500K is 20 dollars more expensive than the vanilla i5 2500. Do you think it really costs $20 per processor just for Intel to hit a switch and make it unlocked? That's $20 of pure profit right there.

Whether you like AMD is immaterial. Whether Piledriver whoops Intel, I don't care. From the looks of it, Piledriver won't be whooping the i7 3770K, but I don't care. As long as Piledriver gets here in Q3 and puts the fire to Intel's feet, I'm good. It'll force Intel to move on and offer bigger performance gains rather than give us paltry 4-6% gains (e.g. Ivy Bridge). You guys can excuse Ivy Bridge as a tick or a tick+ but that's BS. Companies should strive to give us all they can. If they can give is 4-6% gains, good. But if they can give us more, they should give it to us. Intel could easily have given us more performance ... just look at the jump from P4 -> Conroe. A $999 processor getting whooped by a $300 dollar processor.

Piledriver can't come sooner. I buy Intel, but I also cheer on AMD. AMD is what makes Intel products worth it. So I don't understand all this Intel-fanboyism. You guys should be hoping that Piledriver kicks some serious butt because then Intel will be forced to innovate even faster - faster than its rather conservative tick/tock cadence. Two years between major performance boosts? 2 years between Tocks? Give me a break. This is technology, for goodness sake. In the mobile industry, no body waits 2 YEARS FOR MAJOR PERFORMANCE BOOSTS. We went from dual-core mobile processors to quad-core mobile processors in NO TIME.
July 3, 2012 5:55:43 PM

They should have placed FX prices lower ( perhaps 199.99 for 8150) and everybody would have been happy. Need better sales management.
July 3, 2012 6:26:07 PM

The Sandy Bridge i5-2500k processor is a hard processor to beat for the price and performance.

I would like to see a competitive AMD desktop processor. They made great server processors with their Opteron series. I hope they can continue being relevant.
a b à CPUs
July 3, 2012 6:28:51 PM

bulldozer is awesome in multi-threaded applications (sometimes beat the i7) but it sucks in everything else. bulldozer was more optimized for the server environment
July 3, 2012 7:03:24 PM

I'm gonna wait til they release the spinning piledriver.
July 3, 2012 7:42:22 PM

AMD still wins in naming their products.
a c 79 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 3, 2012 10:01:13 PM

10-15% is not enough to close the gap right now. Especially since that percentage is likely to be in threaded, integer intensive apps. FP performance the only thing that needs the improvement, and it needs to be more like 25% increase to come close to an intel quad core.
a c 97 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 3, 2012 10:33:30 PM


iam2thecrowe said:
10-15% is not enough to close the gap right now. Especially since that percentage is likely to be in threaded, integer intensive apps. FP performance the only thing that needs the improvement, and it needs to be more like 25% increase to come close to an intel quad core.


The graphics chip on an APU is called a SIMD Engine Array. As the 'transition' and integration of the CPU modules, unified memory controller and address space, and the *GCN* SIMD Engine Array continues, I'll bet yah a nickle AMD will meet or exceed Intel in FP and 2FP.

I'm too lazy to link it up, but if you look you will find the A10 Trinity quads (2mod/4cores) whip Bulldozer Zambezi. Vishera should bring a boost, but it's really the launching point to Kaveri and Steamroller.

And apparently, AMD is binning high-flying chips for Trinity Opterons in Q4. A 2p G34 Trinity *MCM* (not sure what AMD calls their chip 'sandwiches') running a total 8 HT links with four DDR3 memory ports per chip (and FirePro accelerators) might be kinda nifty for FP/2FP.


July 3, 2012 11:06:37 PM

agawtripyeah price will play a big rolebut lower clock = lower tdp = lower temp (usually) = good overclocki remember intel pentium e21xx series overclocks up to 100%
Hi there, Ivy Bridge just called to say you're wrong. Lower TDP and smaller process doesn't automatically guarantee jack. Also, if you're advocating lower clocks... so that you can overclock... they should just sell you an underclocked and undervolted chip. That would no doubt please you to no end!

Anyway, clock speed doesn't really matter. That's why we use model numbers instead of just clock speed. Final performance is what matters, and that is due to a combination of factors. Clocks are just one of them. If it can increase IPC over Bulldozer by 10-15%, and increase clocks by another 5-10%, it might actually make for a good value throughout the FX lineup.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 3, 2012 11:28:31 PM

Im interested in all new processors. The problem is during the last few years all we get is 10% here, 5% there. And thats is NOT enough to justify an upgrade.

I miss the days when processors were doubling speed every year. So ya release a generation that doubles the last one, and ill be all over it. I dont care who does it, intel or amd. But these 10% or 15% chips each year. Who cares.

My 2008 hardware still works on everything i throw at it, since the 2012 hardware is mabye 20% faster who cares? Sure there are a few select areas where there is a much larger perfromance increase, in general computing its barely a speed up so again who cares about new hardware.
July 3, 2012 11:44:39 PM

Finally something to look forward to with the FX processors. Let's hope they not only meet but exceed those expected performance numbers.
July 3, 2012 11:45:32 PM

Quote:
Im interested in all new processors. The problem is during the last few years all we get is 10% here, 5% there. And thats is NOT enough to justify an upgrade.

I miss the days when processors were doubling speed every year. So ya release a generation that doubles the last one, and ill be all over it. I dont care who does it, intel or amd. But these 10% or 15% chips each year. Who cares.

My 2008 hardware still works on everything i throw at it, since the 2012 hardware is mabye 20% faster who cares? Sure there are a few select areas where there is a much larger perfromance increase, in general computing its barely a speed up so again who cares about new hardware.

I think we're reaching the point where it's harder to get more than 10-15% a year unless there is a major change in technology.
July 4, 2012 2:39:12 AM

belardoAre you brain damaged? A socket is a socket. So you are saying that FM1/2 are not used in desktops but some magical device that looks like a desktop? Guess what, they are ALL DESKTOP sockets!FM1 is at its end. FM2 is already in mass-production (in HP / Acer PCs). FM2 CPUs are using Piledriver... which has a GPU attached to it. Nothing more. Having the GPU built into the CPU is the future... and if you have a REAL gaming card, that GPU (or APU) becomes another co-processor.All intel CPUs have an APU/GPU built in... and they help in rendering video frames/3D images.All mainstream AMDs are FM1/FM2... the AM3+ is already fading out the door. There is NO need for it.When AMD is ready, they'll have their "8 core" FX or A16 CPU on FM2. Its already on the map.Socket AM3 doesn't have NATIVE USB3 support (okay the AMD 900 chipset - the last AM chipset).All of 2013 is a phase out of the old tech... it'll take a while... and AMD won't have PCI-E 3.0 until 2014?!And yes, AMD is generally better with their motherboard standards. Not this time. FM2 uses the same chipset (A75) as FM1... yet they are not cross compatible in any way. How is that for a screw over?The market for GPU-less CPUs is pretty much gone. It adds little costs and gives better performance.Very soon, we'll see an "8 core" FM2 CPU, that will be your big sign.


I think he meant that AM3+ is for BD and PD CPUs (the ones without IGPs) while FM1 and FM2 are for the APUs. That being said, I really hope AMD decides to stick with AM3+ for a while, but I can definitely see AMD releasing the successors to Piledriver on a different socket (AM4 or FM3 perhaps?) especially after the recent move from FM1 to 2. That socket was released last year... Felt a lot like Intel's move from LGA 1155 to 1156. :( 
July 4, 2012 2:56:34 AM

As long as the performance/price is not on AMD side I wont be jumping to AMD.

Currently the useless FX8150 are more expensive than 2500K and rarely out perform it. IMO, all current AMD CPU should get -50% discount to reflect their performance/price vs Intel's. AMD want my support? be reasonable on pricing first.
July 4, 2012 5:13:46 AM

subjectivedeontologistWhat's the point of all this AMD bashing? If you don't like AMD, there's always Intel. But whatever you do, let's not hope that Piledriver is an epic failure.

The i5 2500K is 20 dollars more expensive than the vanilla i5 2500. Do you think it really costs $20 per processor just for Intel to hit a switch and make it unlocked? That's $20 of pure profit right there.

Only stupid intel fanboys want AMD to die. I buy/sell what works best at certain price points. For performance, I go with intel... for a budget PC with a $75~100 CPU will be AMD. These are facts, is not about bashing AMD. AMD's top of the line is sub-standard to intel's middle/upper range of CPUs.

AMD charges an extra $5~10 for their A-series K and black (unlocked) cpus... but includes a 100mhz speed bump usually. So what? Don't buy a K-series CPU if you don't want.

subjectivedeontologist
Just look at the jump from P4 to Conroe. A $999 processor getting whooped by a $300 dollar processor.

Two things happened... First, Conroe was a simpler design over the P4 and it used a smaller process. Also, Intel was selling $100~300 P4 along with the EXTREME Edition. So yes, the $300 Core2 was faster than any Pentium 4.

Even the "celeron" Core2 tech in my notebook at 1.6Ghz is STILL faster than any 3.xGhz Pentium4. So combine price and performance, they killed AMD... which quickly dropped their pricing.

subjectivedeontologist
You guys should be hoping that Piledriver kicks some serious butt because then Intel will be forced to innovate even faster - faster than its rather conservative tick/tock cadence. Two years between major performance boosts? 2 years between Tocks?

PD (PileDriver) will help a little bit... but you seem to forget than in some benchmarks, the BD CPUs are up to 50% slower than an i5 or i7 CPU. If PD is 10~15% better, then it means AMD is 35% slower... against the intel 2000 series.

This IS AMD's fault for going with Netburst-like architecture. IVB is a tick... nobody expects intel to improve performance that much on those. 2 years? AMD CPUs didn't have a major change for about 8 years... The changes came out whenever they were ready. Like the AMD PII was a good improvement over the AMD PI CPUs... it got AMD on par with Core2... and then intel releases the Core i-series.

Intel's works this way:
Tock = new microcode
Tick = smaller process / die shrink
Tock = new microcode
Tick = new process / die shrink

Core2 Wolfedale = tick (smaller version of Core2) 45nm
Core i5-xxx = Tock (new microcode) 45nm Lynnfield (i5-750 / i5-760)
Core i5-xxx = Tick (smaller) 32nm Clarkdale (i5-660 / i5-670)
Core i5-2xxx = Tock (new microcode) 32nm Sandy Bridge
Core i5-3xxx = Tick (smaller) 22nm Ivy Bridge
Core i5-4xxx = Tock (new microcode) 22nm Haswell - March 2013.
Core i5-???? = Tick (smaller) 14nm Broadwell - 2014~15
Core i5-???? = Tock (new microcode) Skylake - 2015~17

AMD is doing this with their GPUs... kind of.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 4, 2012 6:36:17 AM

For Piledriver, higher clock /= higher TDP.
Don't forgetting Piledriver is using resonant clock mesh.
July 4, 2012 7:21:18 AM

I believe 8350 Piledriver will be the last of it's kind
Amd will most likely start producing 2 - 10 core apus' with eye popping igpu by 2014 the age of the super computer

July 4, 2012 4:54:16 PM

kyraikiI think he meant that AM3+ is for BD and PD CPUs (the ones without IGPs) while FM1 and FM2 are for the APUs. That being said, I really hope AMD decides to stick with AM3+ for a while, but I can definitely see AMD releasing the successors to Piledriver on a different socket (AM4 or FM3 perhaps?) especially after the recent move from FM1 to 2. That socket was released last year... Felt a lot like Intel's move from LGA 1155 to 1156.

I know what he said. AM3 is at a dead end, no native USB3 or PCIe3.0 support. There is no AM4.
FM2 replaces everything. FM1 is also a dead end. No more FM1 CPUs. What you see on newegg is whats left.

Yeah, its shocking that FM1 is about a year old (AMD did this before with Socket 940>939). The kicker is... FM2 uses the same chipset as FM1. FM1 is completely incompatible with FM2 (you cannot mix CPU/mobo) - even thou its the same number of pins, same socket design, etc.

Like intel, even if you buy an FM2 CPU, you don't have to use the APU part of the chip. Again, the APU can be used as a co-processor. So its better to have it than not. Hence, intel i5-CPUs since Sandy Bridge get a performance boost with the "GPU" built in. Supporting 2 mainstream sockets is bad business. Imagine someone with an FM1 X2 core system who wants a "8 core" FX-like CPU... nope, gotta throw the whole system out.

Read this: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sandy-bridge-core-i...
Thats a huge performance increase. But the problem with QuickSync is that it appears to be disabled when a gaming card is installed... even with IVB.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-benchmar...

!