AMD FX

AMD 8 Core FX 8350

AMD FX is a range of desktop-class consumer processors sold from 2011 to 2017 with the notable feature of providing high core counts to its consumers across the lineup. These high core counts promised to improve performance by dividing workloads into smaller chunks which could be computed simultaneously in a process called parallel computing. This feature sparked a lawsuit, however, which claimed that parallel compute performance was worse than advertised. This was due to the processor’s reliance on spreading common resources such as the FPU and cache across multiple cores. In reviews, the lineup was also known for its poor IPC improvements over its predecessor and lacklustre performance per watt.

The lineup launched on the bulldozer architecture and was later refreshed on the piledriver architecture. In 2017 it was succeeded by the Ryzen lineup of processors.

History

Prior to FX Launch

In the years prior to the AMD FX range of processors, the AMD Phenom II and Athlon II lineup of processors, while not beating Intel's Core lineup in raw performance, were generally competitive when price was taken into account. By the end of the Phenom's lifespan, however, Intel's Sandy Bridge architecture could provide performance that Phenom II could not compete with. Rumors suggested that the FX line would change that as leaked information suggested improved performance of the upcoming bulldozer architecture that AMD FX was based on.

FX Launch

The FX series launched on October 12, 2011, on the bulldozer architecture. The launch lineup included the 4 core FX 4100 at $115, the 6 core FX 6100 at $165, and the 8 core FX 8120 at $205 and FX 8150 at $185. The FX refresh on the piledriver architecture launched on October 23 2012. The launch lineup included the refreshed 4 core FX 4300 at $122, 6 core FX 6300 at $132, and 8 core FX 8320 at $169 and FX 8350 at $195.

See also: List of AMD FX processors

Reception

Upon launch, the FX series was met with criticism from reviewers. Due to multiple cores sharing common resources, most tasks were substantially slower on the FX lineup than the Intel Sandy Bridge equivalent. In many single-threaded applications, it was worse than the previous generation of Phenom II microprocessors. The power consumption of the lineup, while not as poor as the Phenom II generation, was also worse than what Intel was providing at the time. The refresh to the processors that were brought about by the piledriver architecture in 2012 generally improved performance across the board by increasing clock speeds at similar power consumption levels, but by then Intel's Ivey Bridge architecture was available and provided much better performance per watt and total performance to consumers. With AMD only being responsible for 20% of consumer CPU sales in 2016, Intel continued to gain market share in the industry during the lifespan of the FX series.

Features

Core counts

From the 8 core FX-8150, which was the first 8 core consumer CPU to be launched by AMD, to the 4 core FX 4100, the FX series had higher core counts across the lineup when compared with Intel counterparts. This lead to higher parallel compute performance in many workloads at similar prices.

Overclocking

Unlike many of Intel's competing processors, all of AMD FX lineup was unlocked, allowing end-users to overclock their processors and increase performance. The FX lineup was known to overclock well given enough cooling headroom.

Support

AMD FX processors were backwards compatible with many AM2, AM2+, and AM3 coolers, cooling performance permitting. This was due to the design of the AM3+ socket which FX series used. The FX range is officially compatible with DDR3 memory running at up to 1866 MHz.

Performance

The AMD FX lineup was generally worse performing than its intel competitors during the lifespan of the range. The floating-point performance was poor for and most games could not take advantage of the high core counts that the series provided. In processes that thrived in multithread applications, where AMD SKUs typically pulled ahead. This came at a great cost however as thermal efficiency was often worse than the last generation of processors. Updates to the architecture that came with the piledriver revision allowed for higher clock speeds. This lead to better performance but that came with the cost of even worse thermal output on the high end as can be seen with the FX 9590 which output 220 Watts.

Controversy

In 2015 AMD was accused of falsely advertising the core count of its FX lineup. The claim stated that because the FX series' cores shared common resources such as the FPU, AMD was falsely advertising its high core counts. The company had to pay out $12.1 million to California residents who bought a high-end FX chip.

See Also

• Bulldozer Architecture
• Piledirver Architecture
• AMD Ryzen
• AMD Phenom II
• AMD Athlon II
• List of FX Processors

References

This article "AMD FX" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical and/or the page Edithistory:AMD FX. Articles copied from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be seen on the Draft Namespace of Wikipedia and not main one.

This page exists already on Wikipedia.

---