Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD processors

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 2, 2012 8:02:17 AM

Can any1 give me the difference between
A series, FX series, Phenom series and athlon series from AMD ?

im planning to build a new gaming/designing rig...... mid range..... and i want to build using AMD components.... but i dont know anything abt AMD......
.
1 guy told me to wait till then end of September this year as new set of
A series processors are coming out ( trinity ).

but i want to find out as much info abt AMD processors before i buy......

More about : amd processors

a c 109 à CPUs
June 2, 2012 8:13:20 AM

A Series - I.E A8, A6 etc. They're all APUs which have a CPU AND GPU core on the same die. Great for HTPC's, budget builds, and even small little compact gaming rigs.

FX Series - 'Bulldozer' and supposed to be AMD's current Flagship CPU's. Basically they're a big flop..if you're going for the higher end FX series of chips, you're better off going with Intel.

Phenom - AMD's old Flagship CPU's, they're still very respectable today and some even outperform the FX/Bulldozer chips!

Athlon - Basically the bottom of the food chain. They're great for small gaming rigs, basic web surfing rigs, all that jazz. They're basically like APU's without the graphics core.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong...I'm going to use the "It's past 12AM" excuse... :lol:  4AM to be exact :D 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 2, 2012 8:16:36 AM

late 2nd quarter early 3rd quarter there will be new fx chips comming out based on pile driver cores ... the current line of fx processors while perfectly capable are usually out done by a 1090t or 1100 t phenom 2 the fx 8150 is an 8 core 4 module cpu where ast the 1090t or 1100t phenom 2 is 6 logical core cpu personally depending on the game you wont notice much difference between the two the 1100t tends to be faster in some games apps then the 8150 which is the current top of the line for the fx line there are some benfits to 8150 though such as higher memory clock rates and more instruction like sse4 .. really though ... if your looking for top of the line performance just get you a 3630k or a 2500k and be done with it both are better then amd but if your looking at it from a budget standpoint you can pair say a amd 965 quadcore with a decent graphics card or cards.. if your looking for crossfire or sli personally i have a 1090t in my gaming rig.. and 2 6870s in crossfire .. i really dont have any complaints it plays all the games i want to play .. battle field 3 will utilize 6 to 8 cores in multiplayer though.. and skyrim seems to run better on the fx line more so with intel.. just saying ... id either wait till pile driver comes out or just get either an 1100t or a 8150 for amd .. other then that .. 2500k all the way..although if i had the money to sink into it a 3630k would be perfect..
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
June 2, 2012 8:23:38 AM

Toms has many articles on the different architectures as do other sites. Here's a very short comparison from what I remember. I may be a little off.

the A series are their APU's. They include a GPU on the chip. They are great for laptops. The lano series used an older CPU and GPU architecture. Trinity is built on the new piledriver CPU cores and the GPU is built using the architecture of the 6900 series cards. Trinity provides benefits to CPU/GPU power with increased power efficiency. In general AMDs APUs loose to Intel on CPU performance but are "good enough". they also provide good battery life, are cheaper, and destroy Intel on graphics.

The Phenom II was their main processor and has been replaced by FX. Phenom IIs provide better single core performance and are generally preferred over the new FX CPUs.

Athlon IIs are just Phenoms with some cache disabled.

FX desktop CPUs are built on bulldozer modules. each module has 2 integer cores and shares floating point units and some other hardware. It is not a complete core like on a Phenom II, which means lower performance per core, but more cores on a chip. Since most consumer applications are not highly enough threaded it generally loses to the older Phenom IIs. It needs to achieve higher clock rates than.it can right now to be competetive. its also power hungry and windows does not know how to use it properly, despite a patch. Windows 8 may fix this, but unfortunately windows 8 is a mess. FX CPUs should be avoided at least till the piledriver desktop versions come out toward the end of the year.

Finally if you are building a gaming machince you really need to go Intel. I love AMD, but they really have nothing to offer outside of the mobile space right now
m
0
l
a c 109 à CPUs
June 2, 2012 8:30:11 AM

unksol said:
Finally if you are building a gaming machince you really need to go Intel. I love AMD, but they really have nothing to offer outside of the mobile space right now


Agreed...Sad how an i3 can smack around some of the AMD chips in gaming :sarcastic: 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 2, 2012 9:10:53 AM

Most of the replies are correct, but going more technical.

A-series are CPU+GPU, amd calls it an advanced processing unit because they are inter-weaving the two with trinity. Not recommended for gaming because you will be adding your own GPU, 25-50% of the cost is wasted.

Phenom II. A fully developed cpu thats at the end of its rope. 45nm has all the bells and whistles, only BE are easily overclocked.

Athlon II - missing L3 cache on either the entire die or disabled from a PII Die (originally called Phenom II 8xx). Games are one thing that benefit from L3 cache.

FX- New in town, underdeveloped like the phenom I, has some good, some bad, mixed reviews, all are highly overclockable, possibly too much l3 cache, odd design.
Complaints: pick a website, you will find something because the only people who are happy are the people using it. AMD marketing team really painted a target on this thing and its got soo many bullet holes in it, people can't even see it anymore.

one program is slower than PII, another program is slower than SB, another program is slower than Athlon II, one website said it draws 500 watts. , IPC IPC IPC ... without realizing every single program has a different IPC result. IPC is controlled by software. Everyone latched onto one thing or another.
m
0
l
June 2, 2012 12:45:26 PM

Thanks guys for the replys.
.
.
1 last thing....... so what processor should i buy ? , that will suit my needs for playing games at high settings and also use software's like Auto desk / Solidworks for designing/simulation ?
intel or amd ? which series from them ?
m
0
l
a c 79 à CPUs
June 2, 2012 1:10:58 PM

to 'want to use AMD' but to 'not know anything about AMD' is a bit daft do you not think?

Its like I want to buy a car, I insist on it being a hyundai even though I know nothing about cars or hyundai. if you were to say,
"but I can only use suppliers who supply hydundais/AMD's or can only afford hyundais/AMD's so whats the best I can get"
That would be fine and would be a logical decision, rather than where you are, and where you are may not give you the best outcome (it might, but it might not)
m
0
l
June 3, 2012 1:41:20 PM

U know there is nothing daft abt what i asked..... u see....i now nothing/few abt AMD processors..... not other processors such as Intel..... so saying dat i dont know much abt da different cars made buy Hyundai only and know things abt other cars manufactures (intel)......
m
0
l
a c 79 à CPUs
June 3, 2012 1:47:50 PM

I understood nothing of what you just wrote.

You put yourself at risk of paying more for less. Your problem not mine.
m
0
l
June 3, 2012 6:51:17 PM

ur making no sense at all O.O
m
0
l
a c 109 à CPUs
June 3, 2012 9:10:34 PM

13thmonkey said:
I understood nothing of what you just wrote.

You put yourself at risk of paying more for less. Your problem not mine.



He means go with AMD CPU's if you want, but you're paying more for them than what they're worth. And for the same price, if not cheaper, Intel CPU's will perform much better.
m
0
l
a c 79 à CPUs
June 3, 2012 9:25:43 PM

mocchan said:
He means go with AMD CPU's if you want, but you're paying more for them than what they're worth. And for the same price, if not cheaper, Intel CPU's will perform much better.


thats what I meant, in followup to an earlier post, the OP is unintelligible though
m
0
l
a c 109 à CPUs
June 3, 2012 9:34:21 PM

Quote:
FX, as it stands... depicted in this great short film:




LMAO :pt1cable: 
m
0
l
June 3, 2012 10:50:46 PM

All of you seem not to know many things about AMD. Yes, intel has better cpu's but they are expensive. But dont tell me that an i3 will do better than the FX 6100 (they cost the same !) in gaming. I own a fx 6100 and installed the patches/hotfixes and it flys with just a gt440 video card at any game ! Just do a passmark test and compaire.
m
0
l
a c 79 à CPUs
June 3, 2012 11:18:18 PM

taseas said:
All of you seem not to know many things about AMD. Yes, intel has better cpu's but they are expensive. But dont tell me that an i3 will do better than the FX 6100 (they cost the same !) in gaming. I own a fx 6100 and installed the patches/hotfixes and it flys with just a gt440 video card at any game ! Just do a passmark test and compaire.


flys with a GT440? thats because the 440 is barely putting any stress on it, it is the bottleneck.

we can read benchmarks

passmark is pointless.

m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 3, 2012 11:25:42 PM

Quote:
Yup... i3 will rape it in nearly all games.
2500k will rape it then pillage the motherboard.


Very well put, recon! :lol: 
m
0
l
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 3, 2012 11:48:27 PM

taseas said:
All of you seem not to know many things about AMD. Yes, intel has better cpu's but they are expensive. But dont tell me that an i3 will do better than the FX 6100 (they cost the same !) in gaming. I own a fx 6100 and installed the patches/hotfixes and it flys with just a gt440 video card at any game ! Just do a passmark test and compaire.


Yea right.......keep telling yourself that. The Bulldozer will beaten by a measly dual core I3 in all but a few games. Sounds like you bought into AMD's scam of more cores/more GHz must be better. You probably also believe the 4100 is really a quad core, the 6100 is really a six core and 8000 Bulldozers are really 8 cores.
m
0
l
a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 4, 2012 12:00:10 AM

taseas said:
All of you seem not to know many things about AMD. Yes, intel has better cpu's but they are expensive. But dont tell me that an i3 will do better than the FX 6100 (they cost the same !) in gaming. I own a fx 6100 and installed the patches/hotfixes and it flys with just a gt440 video card at any game ! Just do a passmark test and compaire.

m
0
l
a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 4, 2012 12:03:51 AM

Passmark=POS!
m
0
l
a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 4, 2012 12:20:52 AM

Screenshot? I'll go and bench my 2600k I guess. :p 
m
0
l
a c 109 à CPUs
June 4, 2012 12:22:35 AM

The person talking about the FX 6100 :sarcastic: 

My X4 955 is better than the FX 6100, and it still loses to the i3 2120 in gaming :lol: 
m
0
l
a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 4, 2012 12:31:38 AM

CPU Mark
This Computer 11565.0

CPU - Integer Math
This Computer 3440.8

CPU - Floating Point Math
This Computer 3995.8

CPU - Find Prime Numbers
This Computer 1631.8

CPU - SSE
This Computer 53.8

CPU - Compression
This Computer 13954.0

CPU - Encryption
This Computer 40.6

CPU - Physics
This Computer 564.3

CPU - String Sorting
This Computer 7012.2

m
0
l
a c 79 à CPUs
June 4, 2012 12:33:51 AM

mocchan said:
The person talking about the FX 6100 :sarcastic: 

My X4 955 is better than the FX 6100, and it still loses to the i3 2120 in gaming :lol: 


respect to the PHII's not so much to the FX's.

the 8,10 and 12 cores coming out might change the game, 8 = true quad with hyper equivelent
m
0
l
a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 4, 2012 12:35:41 AM

3D Graphics Mark
NewBaseLine.pt 2229.2

Graphics 3D - Simple
NewBaseLine.pt 2275.3

Graphics 3D - Medium
NewBaseLine.pt 1035.8

Graphics 3D - Complex
NewBaseLine.pt 117.5

Graphics 3D - DirectX 10
NewBaseLine.pt 36.1

2D Graphics Mark
NewBaseLine.pt 537.4

Graphics 2D - Solid Vectors
NewBaseLine.pt 1.5

Graphics 2D - Transparent Vectors
NewBaseLine.pt 1.5

Graphics 2D - Complex Vectors
NewBaseLine.pt 205.1

Graphics 2D - Fonts and Text
NewBaseLine.pt 351.9

Graphics 2D - Windows Interface
NewBaseLine.pt 147.7

Graphics 2D - Image Filters
NewBaseLine.pt 539.4

Graphics 2D - Image Rendering
NewBaseLine.pt 946.8

GTX 550ti...
m
0
l
a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 4, 2012 12:39:42 AM

480 is apparently 2x faster than the 550ti!
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 4, 2012 12:41:45 AM

This thread is going off on a tangent... :lol:  :pt1cable: 
m
0
l
a c 109 à CPUs
June 4, 2012 12:45:54 AM

13thmonkey said:
respect to the PHII's not so much to the FX's.

the 8,10 and 12 cores coming out might change the game, 8 = true quad with hyper equivelent


@ your first statement - Definitely.

And yes, about the 8 cores with HyperThreading equivalent, I'm aware. Though I really hope the new chips coming out will change the game :lol: 
m
0
l
a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 4, 2012 12:46:52 AM

I feel like they're just naming them Phenom, just to get everyone's hopes up.
m
0
l
a c 109 à CPUs
June 4, 2012 1:05:58 AM

Quote:
Phenom III <3


I hope the Phenom III case badge would be holo like the Intel Core stickers :bounce:  :lol: 
m
0
l
June 4, 2012 9:14:41 AM

1. The reason that the buldozers apear to have less cores is because of the dual core modules they have. Windows 7 doesnt recognises the dual core modules and randomly asigns to any core. And for one more reason : fx cpus have CORE PARKING technology to save energy. Because of that they use all their cores ONLY when you open 3d games & progs. To resolve that I instaled the hotfixes KB2645594 & KB2646060. Now it flys. Cpu Passmark score after the hotfixes : 5890.
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 4, 2012 9:18:15 AM

taseas said:
1. The reason that the buldozers apear to have less cores is because of the dual core modules they have. Windows 7 doesnt recognises the dual core modules and randomly asigns to any core. And for one more reason : fx cpus have CORE PARKING technology to save energy. Because of that they use all their cores ONLY when you open 3d games & progs. To resolve that I instaled the hotfixes KB2645594 & KB2646060. Now it flys. Cpu Passmark score after the hotfixes : 5890.


Bench it beside a 2500K in games (and pretty much anything else) and come back to us... Passmark is a joke.
m
0
l
June 4, 2012 9:35:30 AM

The i5 2500K is much better than the fx 6100. The i3 ISN'T. Could anyone tell me in which games and with what video card & ram the i3 perform better ?
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
June 4, 2012 9:53:07 AM

DJDeCiBeL said:
Bench it beside a 2500K in games (and pretty much anything else) and come back to us... Passmark is a joke.

Kay... I ACCEPT! FX-8120 currently priced at $170 from Newegg, i5-2500K currently priced at $220

http://www.overclock.net/t/1210060/fx8120-vs-2500k-benc...

Do I win? Btw, its been awhile since I ventured over to the CPU forum, since they mostly seem like troll threads, I much prefer the homebuild section helping people who are actually here to find advice on what to build.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
June 4, 2012 10:23:00 AM

From what I understand the hotfixes don't really do anything, Windows8 is theoretically going to improve Bulldozer performance by 5-10 percent.

Its clear to me that AMD expects their customers to overclock their CPUs, (and lets face it, anybody doing homebuilds SHOULD at least be considering it) based on the results I gave, and the limited overclocking benches I've seen from tech sites, they clearly do perform just fine when overclocked.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 4, 2012 10:23:22 AM

Another TL;DR thread.....

OP runs professional apps that make use of more threads. The FX 8120 can offer good performance in that realm after all the FX 81XX was premised around AMD server design, in that realm it is a good alternative.

For peace of mind - Intel.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
June 4, 2012 10:25:54 AM

sarinaide said:
Another TL;DR thread.....

OP runs professional apps that make use of more threads. The FX 8120 can offer good performance in that realm after all the FX 81XX was premised around AMD server design, in that realm it is a good alternative.

For peace of mind - Intel.

There you go lol, now all you have to do is convince all these kids that computers really can do stuff other than play games. :lol: 
m
0
l
June 4, 2012 10:36:27 AM

The hotfixes really do a lot. I was using the xilisoft converter to covert full hd videos. Without the hotfixes it was using only 3 cores but with them it was using all 6 cores !
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 4, 2012 10:56:22 AM

OP needs are centered around a i7 3770/2700 and FX 8120/8150 specifications, the Intel chips in multithreaded performance basically give the same results as the FX 8XXX but at a near $400 premium as opposed to the sub $200 premium FX offers up.

But at least with Intel you will have peace of mind, synthetically that is...that the Intel setup is great for everything.....oh wait you are going to have to excuse me I have some BF3 to attend to......I am so displeased with the 120FPS I am getting on my thuban...gods blood.
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 4, 2012 7:43:44 PM

I never said the FX-81xx was junk, I was saying the the FX-4XXX and FX-6xxx is, and I'm basically right. There's no point in getting a Bulldozer CPU if you don't get a FX-81xx. And I'm not just some game playing kid by the way (not even close to being a kid at all, actually)...
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
June 4, 2012 9:35:02 PM

DJDeCiBeL said:
I never said the FX-81xx was junk, I was saying the the FX-4XXX and FX-6xxx is, and I'm basically right. There's no point in getting a Bulldozer CPU if you don't get a FX-81xx. And I'm not just some game playing kid by the way (not even close to being a kid at all, actually)...



I don't agree with that statement either. We have all seen the benchmarks available on various sites, and we have all drawn are own conclusions from them. People are entitled to their opinions. The only problem I see with Bulldozer was initially they were priced too high for the stock performance they offer. There are benches floating around out there that show these CPUs perform just fine under overclocking conditions, and now they are priced on-par with their performance. Yes some people have said "Well the only reason bulldozers are that cheap now is because they have to be". I don't consider that a valid argument. The reason they are priced cheaper is irrelevant, the fact is they are now priced on par with where their stock performance (this isn't even considering their overclocking potential) is what concerns me.

If one were to get into overclocking, I view the FX-8120 at 170 dollars to be a better buy than an i5-2500k priced at 220. But I still generally recommend 2500ks to people looking for build recommendations over FX-8120s, because I as a student of ze computer tech knows that stock performance is important, and one must know what they're getting into if they want to take a bulldozer home.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
June 4, 2012 9:38:02 PM

Quote:
Want to ask about power draw?



No I don't. If I buy a 2012 Ford Mustang because I want a car with lots of muscle, how much gas it guzzles is not high on my priority list. But yes, I've seen the power consumption rates.
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 4, 2012 9:39:56 PM

nekulturny said:
No I don't. If I buy a 2012 Ford Mustang because I want a car with lots of muscle, how much gas it guzzles is not high on my priority list. But yes, I've seen the power consumption rates.


Eh, power draw is beside the point anyway. When the last gen Phenom II's perform better than most of your current line at stock speed, that's a problem.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
June 4, 2012 9:47:10 PM

That is a problem, but if you understand the theory behind the Bulldozer architechure in regards to increasing the clock rates, it puts it into context. Like I said, unless I'm dealing with someone who knows what they're getting into with a Bulldozer, my recommendations for CPU hierarchy is as follows (I do a lot of build rec's in homebuild forums):

i5-2500K
i5-2400
Phenom II 965
i3-21xx

Yes, I know that some benches have shown i3s getting slightly higher FPS rates than Phenom IIs in games, but I am not convinced a dual core CPU is an appropriate choice for a modern computer. My biggest gripe about Intel's lineup is that they have far too big of a price gap between their duals and quads, if and when they resolve that issue, they trully might knock AMD off the market (as far as I'm concerned)
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 4, 2012 9:52:46 PM

I actually agree with that thought process. For anything more than gaming, I'd rather have a "true" quad core CPU.
m
0
l
!