ITT: We propose our own Socket AM3+ SKUs

[cbn]

Just like in the other threads here, here and here we propose our own SKUs. This time it will be for Socket AM3+.

So here two of mine:

1. FX-4350 FX-4370: Quad core Vishera @ 4.4 Ghz base clock with 4.7 GHz turbo, TDP 125 watts. (Think of this as one half of a 220 watt FX-9370).

Reason for proposing this SKU:

----The existing FX-4300 is rated at only 95 watts with a 3.8 Ghz base clock and 4.0 GHz turbo. However, the vast majority of budget oriented AM3+ boards are capable of handling a 125 watt CPU. Therefore I thought it made sense to take advantage of that extra headroom and create a faster clocked entry level chip for those who don't like to overclock.

2. FX-6300E: Hex core Vishera @ 3.0 Ghz based clock with 4.0 Ghz turbo, 65 watt TDP.

Reason for proposing this SKU:

----A lower TDP hexcore primarily for slim form factor Pre-built desktops.

Side Note: I also had a FX-4300E created, but I am under the impression AMD really doesn't have so many harvested Vishera quad core dies available. That and I really didn't think it fit considering what is already available. So I decided instead to focus the relatively low volume quad core chip in a more high performance budget enthusiast oriented direction and thus we only have the FX-4350 FX-4370.

3. Athlon x8 8300: Octocore Vishera @ 3.3 Ghz with 4.2 Ghz turbo. L3 cache disabled. TDP? (Not sure what it should be. I would assume removing L3 would lower power consumption somewhat compared to the 95 watt FX8300)

Reason for proposing this SKU:

----Looking thru the AM3+ Lineup here and here, I've noticed all the processors have the full 8MB L3 cache (with the exception of the FX-4300 which only has 4MB). However, it should be noted that the Vishera die is occupied by a very large amount of L3 cache (see below). This would make the chances of having a die with the full eight cores, but a defect in part of the L3 cache very high. Therefore I believe AMD should release additional chips with some or all of the L3 cache disabled.

 

[Abwx]

Just like in the other threads here, here and here we propose our own SKUs. This time it will be for Socket AM3+.

So here two of mine:

1. FX-4350: Quad core Vishera @ 4.4 Ghz base clock with 4.7 GHz turbo, TDP 125 watts. (Think of this as one half of a 220 watt FX-9370).

Reason for proposing this SKU:

----The existing FX-4300 is rated at only 95 watts with a 3.8 Ghz base clock and 4.0 GHz turbo. However, the vast majority of budget oriented AM3+ boards are capable of handling a 125 watt CPU. Therefore I thought it made sense to take advantage of that extra headroom and create a faster clocked entry level chip for those who don't like to overclock.

Side Note: I also had a FX-4300E created, but I am under the impression AMD really doesn't have so many harvested Vishera quad core dies available. That and I really didn't think it fit considering what is already available. So I decided instead to focus the relatively low volume quad core chip in a more high performance budget enthusiast oriented direction and thus we only have the FX-4350.

A few precisions about this CPU, that is the FX4350, and we are talking of an early batch, first TDP is overated in respect of measurements, at stock settings and under Prime 95 TDP is 80W and barely 62W with a regular multithreaded loading a la Cinebench or Fritzchess bench, so in this respect the 4350 is largely within 95W rating at stock settings, also the 4350 clocks better than the 4300, the numbers above are from Hardware.fr, they got their early 4350 up to 4.8, at this frequency it reach the 132W TDP under Prime 95, with a regular heavy loading it wouldnt get over 108W.

 

[SPBHM]

only being realistic, right?

65W CPUs?

also better low cost chipsets, get rid of SB700/SB710 and only use southbridges with sata III

 

[el etro]

Excavator based FX with new 1000 series chipset:

FX 8450: 4GHZ base, 125W TDP
FX 9690: 5GHZ turbo, 220W TDP
FX 6450: 4GHZ base, 125W TDP
FX 4450: 4.4GHZ base, 125W TDP

 

[SPBHM]

Excavator based FX with new 1000 series chipset:

FX 8450: 4GHZ base, 125W TDP
FX 9690: 5GHZ turbo, 220W TDP
FX 6450: 4GHZ base, 125W TDP
FX 4450: 4.4GHZ base, 125W TDP

new chipset and new CPU, it would be better to abandon AM3+ and use fm2+, or something more like it.

 

[NTMBK]

I propose no new AM3 products. It's an outdated antique.

 

[Abwx]

I propose no new AM3 products. It's an outdated antique.

Certainly less outdated than statements parroting hearsay with no respect to the numbers, a FX4 is of i3 level on applications at a quite lower price, the plateform can be very cheap and has comparable perfs than the most recents MB, so i dont see what else is antiquated than the same old absence of argument when bashing AMD.

 

[R0H1T]

Excavator FX 11155E (an extra five at the end denoting the breakthrough year 2015) 5GHz base clock & 5.5GHz turbo, ships with 295x2 style hybrid cooler, can be had around Christmas 2015 for 600$
AM4 mobo with DDR4 + pcie 4 (pin compatible with AM3+)
150W TDP, fabbed at GF/Samsung 14nm

P.S. dodeca-core

 

[SPBHM]

Certainly less outdated than statements parroting hearsay with no respect to the numbers, a FX4 is of i3 level on applications at a quite lower price, the plateform can be very cheap and has comparable perfs than the most recents MB, so i dont see what else is antiquated than the same old absence of argument when bashing AMD.

Am3+ is very old with its NB+SB chipset configuration, external PCIE controller, and chipsets basically from 2010 (with no native USB 3.0 controller)

also am3+ is basically am3 (2009), which is a direct evolution from socket 754 (2003), so it's clear that some aspects of it made more sense 10 years ago and it limits AMD a little, it's very obvious if you compare it to fm2+ for example that it's outdated.

also even the newest am3+ CPU is basically from 2012, and while the FX 43xx can look good in some programs compared to an i3, overall it's clearly not quite the same,

for example 35W (including PCIE and IGP) I3 vs 125W FX
http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1273?vs=1367

 

[Chevron]

I propose no new AM3 products. It's an outdated antique.

My 990FX Sabertooth Mobo is still awesome thanks. Would some some Excavator stuff on AM3+.

 

[el etro]

Excavator FX 11155E (an extra five at the end denoting the breakthrough year 2015) 5GHz base clock & 5.5GHz turbo, ships with 295x2 style hybrid cooler, can be had around Christmas 2015 for 600$
AM4 mobo with DDR4 + pcie 4 (pin compatible with AM3+)
150W TDP, fabbed at GF/Samsung 14nm

P.S. dodeca-core

Moar corz! is a damn cool thing, we all want but we know it won't take AMD anywhere. Sad but true.

Would be better to AMD spend the Die Size of the chip building a more robust arch with higher IPC. Time will show AMD High Density Libraries being a true Win for AMD processors, at least at sub 45W TDP CPU processors.

new chipset and new CPU, it would be better to abandon AM3+ and use fm2+, or something more like it.

Will be bad to ditch the awesome iGPU, but at least getting off from the 700-800 series chipsets(900 series chipset is meh) will be very good. AMD needs to adjust the pricing of their offerings too, Kaveri didn't sold well because its bad value compared to their previous offerings.

 

[R0H1T]

Moar corz! is a damn cool thing, we all want but we know it won't take AMD anywhere. Sad but true.

Would be better to AMD spend the Die Size of the chip building a more robust arch with higher IPC. Time will show AMD High Density Libraries being a true Win for AMD processors, at least at sub 45W TDP CPU processors.

Sadly till the time they catch up with Intel's single threaded performance their travails are never gonna be over, I'm not saying that they will (at least not anytime soon) but they can still push more cores & improve IPC to be highly competitive in gaming & PROsumer computing segments.

Imagine the FX9590 slightly tweaked (excavator cores) & clocked higher, besides fabbed on 14nm node & having two more modules. I think it's fair to say that when the TDP is kept under control (hence the Energy efficient model) the FX is still pretty competitive at certain price points.

 

[Abwx]

for example 35W (including PCIE and IGP) I3 vs 125W FX
http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1273?vs=1367

FX4350 use 62W in heavy threaded loads, the FX4300 is at 56W, looking at the applications scores the FX is quite better than the i3, even if one is to take into account single threaded scores of Multithreaded applications...

 

[el etro]

It would be better to abandon AM3+ and use fm2+, or something more like it.

The problem is FM2+ is more SoC-Oriented(much more chipset functions are integrated in the APUs CPU part, AM3/AM3+ have more functions to do) than AM3plus, they would need to add a big bunch of resources in order to make FM2+ compatible with AM3+ style processors.

 

[el etro]

Sadly till the time they catch up with Intel's single threaded performance their travails are never gonna be over, I'm not saying that they will (at least not anytime soon) but they can still push more cores & improve IPC to be highly competitive in gaming & PROsumer computing segments.

I personally believe Zen and the CPU Next to Zen will bring AMD closer to intel in the IPC race, but they still will not match intel on single-threaded performance.

Imagine the FX9590 slightly tweaked (excavator cores) & clocked higher, besides fabbed on 14nm node & having two more modules. I think it's fair to say that when the TDP is kept under control (hence the Energy efficient model) the FX is still pretty competitive at certain price points.

High Density Libraries combined with 14nm FinFet tech can make part of this dream true. They simply can build a more robust architecture with up to 3Ghz clocks and tons of tons of cores in order to fight the Bigger Xeons in the Server Market. Higher IPC they need to achieve this.

My 990FX Sabertooth Mobo is still awesome thanks. Would some some Excavator stuff on AM3+.

For today's chipset standards, 990FX premium tier MoBos are still pretty good(and the unique decent) MoBos.

 

[cbn]

A few precisions about this CPU, that is the FX4350, and we are talking of an early batch, first TDP is overated in respect of measurements, at stock settings and under Prime 95 TDP is 80W and barely 62W with a regular multithreaded loading a la Cinebench or Fritzchess bench, so in this respect the 4350 is largely within 95W rating at stock settings, also the 4350 clocks better than the 4300, the numbers above are from Hardware.fr, they got their early 4350 up to 4.8, at this frequency it reach the 132W TDP under Prime 95, with a regular heavy loading it wouldnt get over 108W.

To be quite honest with you I didn't even know the FX-4350 existed, so I renamed my SKU FX-4370.

Based on that info you mentioned and the fact the FX-9590 (4.7 Ghz base clock and 5.0 Ghz turbo octocore, 220 watt TDP) also exists, I wonder if they couldn't realistically make an even faster quad core than the one I listed in the 125 watt category?

 

[SPBHM]

FX4350 use 62W in heavy threaded loads, the FX4300 is at 56W, looking at the applications scores the FX is quite better than the i3, even if one is to take into account single threaded scores of Multithreaded applications...

where did you get this 62W power usage number (and doing what exactly)? 62W power seems wrong for a CPU with 125W TDP.

here the 4350 is using 100W more under load than idle
http://www.technic3d.com/review/cpu-s/1534-amd-fx-4350-im-kurztest/7.htm

more power than the old i7 2700K,

noticed that I used a 2.9GHz i3 vs 4.2GHz FX (+ turbo?) and on average they are both pretty close, while most i3s run at 3.4-3.6GHz with 54W TDP.

the FX have a significant advantage for some software, the i3 on others, no clear winner for the software they used... just a huge difference in TDP

 

[cbn]

How do folks feel about 65 watt FX-6300E vs. 65 watt A8-7600.

Both have cpu base and turbo clocks in the same range, but the FX-6300 has two more cores at the expense of iGPU.

P.S. One thing to remember about the 65 watt A8-7600 APU is that when a heavy iGPU load is thrown at it the cpu cores will throttle down. ( Example: When furmark was used in this review, the cpu cores dropped down to 2.4 Ghz during Prime 95.)

 

[el etro]

Would be cool for AMD to fuse the best of the FX line(Big caches) with the best of the APU lines(both iGPU and SoC characteristics integrated). Intel already does this with their Desktop/Notebook core processors line.

 

[cbn]

It would be nice to see a new integrated graphics chipset for AM3+.

But I would only want a very small iGPU for it, maybe 64 GCN stream processors (ie, one CU).

 

[BSim500]

where did you get this 62W power usage number (and doing what exactly)? 62W power seems wrong for a CPU with 125W TDP.

Same place he gets his "calculated 70w FX-8350" numbers from on other threads which are almost completely divorced from reality of everyone else's actual measurements... In reality, 82-105w delta (load-idle) power consumption is about right for a stock FX-4350 (obviously varies due to PSU & motherboard, etc, as all CPU's on all platforms do):-
http://www.play3r.net/reviews/amd-piledriver-fx-4350-fx6350-fx-8350-shootout-review/10/
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/original/2013/05/Test-FX-6350-FX-4350-Power.png
http://www.xtremehardware.com/images/stories/AMD/FX-6350_FX-4350/consumi.jpg
http://media.bestofmicro.com/I/8/395936/original/AMD-Power-Consumption.png
http://www.ocaholic.co.uk/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1117&page=12

 

[Enigmoid]

2. FX-6300E: Hex core Vishera @ 3.0 Ghz based clock with 4.0 Ghz turbo, 65 watt TDP.

Reason for proposing this SKU:

----A lower TDP hexcore primarily for slim form factor Pre-built desktops.

Side Note: I also had a FX-4300E created, but I am under the impression AMD really doesn't have so many harvested Vishera quad core dies available. That and I really didn't think it fit considering what is already available. So I decided instead to focus the relatively low volume quad core chip in a more high performance budget enthusiast oriented direction and thus we only have the FX-4350 FX-4370.

May be a good choice for the self built crowd but not for OEMs. The chipset and motherboard consume significantly more power than similar platforms, especially when you need a dgpu. OEM's would probably put in a haswell or FM2+ chip instead.

where did you get this 62W power usage number (and doing what exactly)? 62W power seems wrong for a CPU with 125W TDP.

here the 4350 is using 100W more under load than idle
http://www.technic3d.com/review/cpu-s/1534-amd-fx-4350-im-kurztest/7.htm

more power than the old i7 2700K,

noticed that I used a 2.9GHz i3 vs 4.2GHz FX (+ turbo?) and on average they are both pretty close, while most i3s run at 3.4-3.6GHz with 54W TDP.

the FX have a significant advantage for some software, the i3 on others, no clear winner for the software they used... just a huge difference in TDP

Subtracting the rest of the system, assuming power consumed at idle is 0, taking the idle/load difference and subtracting PSU efficiency and VRM losses......all the while comparing it to similar entire systems at the wall.


(When all you really care about in a desktop is the wall socket power draw)

 

[Abwx]

where did you get this 62W power usage number (and doing what exactly)? 62W power seems wrong for a CPU with 125W TDP.

here the 4350 is using 100W more under load than idle
http://www.technic3d.com/review/cpu-s/1534-amd-fx-4350-im-kurztest/7.htm

more power than the old i7 2700K,

noticed that I used a 2.9GHz i3 vs 4.2GHz FX (+ turbo?) and on average they are both pretty close, while most i3s run at 3.4-3.6GHz with 54W TDP.

the FX have a significant advantage for some software, the i3 on others, no clear winner for the software they used... just a huge difference in TDP

Your link is with Prime 95 and a 100W delta at the main will yield close to 80W at the CPU level, exactly the number i posted above for P95, also under Prime the FX is stressed not only with AVX but also FMA.

The power figure i got are from hardware/fr review of the 6350/4350, the 62W are the CPU TDP under Fritchess.

The overclocking tests use Prime 95 while the regular compsumption is measured with Fritzchess :

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/899-3/influence-turbo-undervolting-overclocking.html

Column ATX 12V is the power drain measured before the VRMs, this has to be factored by 0.9 for the CPU actual TDP, the stock settings is the first tested with stock voltage, at 88.8W before the VRMs, all figures are with Prime 95, including when with stock settings.

To be quite honest with you I didn't even know the FX-4350 existed, so I renamed my SKU FX-4370.

Based on that info you mentioned and the fact the FX-9590 (4.7 Ghz base clock and 5.0 Ghz turbo octocore, 220 watt TDP) also exists, I wonder if they couldn't realistically make an even faster quad core than the one I listed in the 125 watt category?

According to HFR numbers they could release a 4C 4.6 base frequency SKU that would still be within 125W with Prime 95 and of course within their usual voltage margins, they could even implement a turbo up to 4.8-5.0, but surely that they dont want to bother with the harvested parts, prove is that only two SKUs exist for both 6C and 4C.

 

[cbn]

2. FX-6300E: Hex core Vishera @ 3.0 Ghz based clock with 4.0 Ghz turbo, 65 watt TDP.

Reason for proposing this SKU:

----A lower TDP hexcore primarily for slim form factor Pre-built desktops.

Side Note: I also had a FX-4300E created, but I am under the impression AMD really doesn't have so many harvested Vishera quad core dies available. That and I really didn't think it fit considering what is already available. So I decided instead to focus the relatively low volume quad core chip in a more high performance budget enthusiast oriented direction and thus we only have the FX-4350 FX-4370.

May be a good choice for the self built crowd but not for OEMs. The chipset and motherboard consume significantly more power than similar platforms, especially when you need a dgpu. OEM's would probably put in a haswell or FM2+ chip instead.

There are AM3+ chipsets with integrated graphics, so a dGPU is not mandatory.

Granted the HD4250 on the 980G (or 880G) is only 40 stream processors, but I have successfuly used a 40 stream processor VisionTek HD4350 for many years off and on without problems.

 

[Abwx]

Same place he gets his "calculated 70w FX-8350" numbers from on other threads which are almost completely divorced from reality of everyone else's actual measurements... In reality, 82-105w delta (load-idle) power consumption is about right for a stock FX-4350 (obviously varies due to PSU & motherboard, etc, as all CPU's on all platforms do):-
http://www.play3r.net/reviews/amd-piledriver-fx-4350-fx6350-fx-8350-shootout-review/10/
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/original/2013/05/Test-FX-6350-FX-4350-Power.png
http://www.xtremehardware.com/images/stories/AMD/FX-6350_FX-4350/consumi.jpg
http://media.bestofmicro.com/I/8/395936/original/AMD-Power-Consumption.png
http://www.ocaholic.co.uk/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1117&page=12

Before getting further in your usual thread crapping of AMD related thread get a look at the slide i posted and at Hardware.fr site, thoses numbers are documented, now please find an Intel thread if you want, there s enough of them by here, and go post there rather than trolling all the way whenever you read "AMD".