• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

AMD Bulldozer FM1 and the Future?

Googer

Googer

Lifer
I am thinking of getting an AMD FM1 based system but have some reluctance because I am unsure of the upgrqade path of the socket. Will there be any chance of Bulldozer making it's way over to that platform? What is in store for FM2 and will FM2 CPUs be reverse compatible with FM1 in the same way AM2 and AM3 were interchangeable?
 
BD won't come to FM1. Future-gen BD will be going to newer sockets.

That said, Llano FM1 too weak for gaming / CPU intensive stuff and too expensive for HTPC. Lousy socket overall. Plus, I don't even need a single finger to count the times I upgraded my CPU without the changing the mobo.
 
NUSNA_Moebius said:
Is FM1 purely tied to the chipset or is it just something with better power management in mind?
Click to expand...
FM1 is tied to Llano which has a built in GPU. Socket FM1 contains connections for both CPU and GPU. Bulldozer, which does not have a built in GPU can work in a slightly modded AM3 socket dubbed AM3+. According to the OFFICIAL roadmaps, Bulldozers replacement "Piledriver" will require socket FM2. However, one of the rumors floating around out there is that piledriver will now go also go into AM3+, but I wouldn't spend any money on that idea until its official.

The fact Piledriver will require FM2 versus AM4 makes me think its a CPU+GPU combo as well, but we will see. Too many rumors floating around to make any kind of intelligent decision.
 
I think those are two separate families.

One is 2 module 4 "core" Bulldozer with GPU which will be FM2 and replace Llano. Second is enthusiast level next gen Bulldozers which will go into separate sockets.
 
Chip names have gotten a little out of control lately...Bulldozer and Piledriver sound pretty good but, I'll wait for AMD's Rambo, Undertaker, and Haduoken chips. They should be much faster.
 
lifeblood said:
FM1 is tied to Llano which has a built in GPU. Socket FM1 contains connections for both CPU and GPU. Bulldozer, which does not have a built in GPU can work in a slightly modded AM3 socket dubbed AM3+. According to the OFFICIAL roadmaps, Bulldozers replacement "Piledriver" will require socket FM2. However, one of the rumors floating around out there is that piledriver will now go also go into AM3+, but I wouldn't spend any money on that idea until its official.

The fact Piledriver will require FM2 versus AM4 makes me think its a CPU+GPU combo as well, but we will see. Too many rumors floating around to make any kind of intelligent decision.
Click to expand...

Is their any practicality in merging the functions of FM series and AM series sockets, so future lines of product can run on the same socket?
 
With only dual-channel RAM supported, AMD users will really need to start using some very high-speed DDR3 when using 8-cores+. They really need to up the badnwidth, especially if 6-8C BDs + GPU get released. Dual channel 1333mhz RAM is just too slow.
 
NUSNA_Moebius said:
Is their any practicality in merging the functions of FM series and AM series sockets, so future lines of product can run on the same socket?
Click to expand...

For starters, getting rid of the northbridge. If Intel can do that 2 years ago it's about time for AMD to do the same for next-gen BD. Having a northbridge just for PCI-E 16x is just a major waste of mobo space at this age.
 
ExarKun333 said:
With only dual-channel RAM supported, AMD users will really need to start using some very high-speed DDR3 when using 8-cores+. They really need to up the badnwidth, especially if 6-8C BDs + GPU get released. Dual channel 1333mhz RAM is just too slow.
Click to expand...

Intel was on to something with triple channel DDR3. Shame they turned LGA1366 in to another one of their broken enthusiast promises like Skulltrail. Where are the 5 or more core processors the platform was promised? No Sandy Bridge Either.
 
ExarKun333 said:
With only dual-channel RAM supported, AMD users will really need to start using some very high-speed DDR3 when using 8-cores+. They really need to up the badnwidth, especially if 6-8C BDs + GPU get released. Dual channel 1333mhz RAM is just too slow.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, aside from synthetic benchmarks, there wasn't much real world difference between triple and dual channel performance on Intel Nehalem platforms. I expect dual-channel will suffice for AMD this time.
 
Munky said:
If I remember correctly, aside from synthetic benchmarks, there wasn't much real world difference between triple and dual channel performance on Intel Nehalem platforms. I expect dual-channel will suffice for AMD this time.
Click to expand...

At it's launch Intel was promising 8+ core CPUs for LGA1366 where triple channel ram would have likely been beneficial. But it's another broken promise like all their other past enthusiast platforms of yore.
 
ZOMFG blast from the past 😱 it's googer 😵

Why the rage against Intel? Not sure what broken promises you are referring to, sounds like you had some unrealistic expectations that went unmet?
 
Googer said:
At it's launch Intel was promising 8+ core CPUs for LGA1366 where triple channel ram would have likely been beneficial. But it's another broken promise like all their other past enthusiast platforms of yore.
Click to expand...

what are you talking about. there are 8 and 10 core xeons on 1366.
 
StrangerGuy said:
For starters, getting rid of the northbridge. If Intel can do that 2 years ago it's about time for AMD to do the same for next-gen BD. Having a northbridge just for PCI-E 16x is just a major waste of mobo space at this age.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but it's a cheaper solution overall to provide TWO x16 PCI-E 2.0 (soon 3.0?) lanes, as well as a few for the southbridge. If they had to put that many PCI-E lanes on the CPU itself, it would increase costs significantly, because they would have to increase the pinout of the CPU quite a bit for all of those lanes. It's the reason why SB/1155 only provides 16 lanes from the CPU itself, instead of 32.
 
Idontcare said:
ZOMFG blast from the past 😱 it's googer 😵

Why the rage against Intel? Not sure what broken promises you are referring to, sounds like you had some unrealistic expectations that went unmet?
Click to expand...

Intel has released handful of enthusiest systems over the past 9 years or so. And all of them were hyped and then dumped with no upgrade path or support for future processors.
 
VirtualLarry said:
Perhaps, but it's a cheaper solution overall to provide TWO x16 PCI-E 2.0 (soon 3.0?) lanes, as well as a few for the southbridge. If they had to put that many PCI-E lanes on the CPU itself, it would increase costs significantly, because they would have to increase the pinout of the CPU quite a bit for all of those lanes. It's the reason why SB/1155 only provides 16 lanes from the CPU itself, instead of 32.
Click to expand...

I agree, an intergrated on DIE chipset increases complexity and means a larger die size which often results in lower yields at the foundry which translates in to higher costs due to a reduction in supply. Enjoy paying 2x more for your CPU.. and getting poorer overclocking results.

With this current gen of Chipsets, hasnt intel reduced the number of PCI-e lanes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top