Beelink GTR6 (Ryzen 9 6900HX) mini PC review
ASRock X670E Steel Legend review
Solidigm P44 Pro (1TB/2TB) M.2 NVMe SSD Review
EnGenius ECW336 WIFI6E Access Point review
MSI MEG Z790 ACE review
Deepcool LT720 LCS Cooler Review
Arctic A35/I35 A-RGB air coolers review
Minisforum HX90G (Ryzen 9 5900HX + RX 6600M) mini PC review
MSI MPG Z790 Edge (DDR4) review
MSI GeForce RTX 4080 Gaming X TRIO review
Return of AMD FX processors within two years
AMD mentioned that the FX processor will be making a return in two years time. Very little information otherwise is shared really, there is no mention about the new architecture except that it will be developed from the ground up, it will not be a derivative of the Bulldozer architecture but a totally new high performance x86 (x86-64) architecture.
As wccftech reported (see source link), we dont really have any more details about the upcoming FX Series, apart from the fact that you will definitely be seeing a new high performance x86 (x86-64) architecture within two years. Now the move about AMD concentrating on the Chinese Market is itself very interesting. It is interesting because a big chunk of the Chinese Market is DIY (do it yourself) as opposed to OEM based.
This would affect manufacturer tactics of shipping lower end products to OEMs. Infact this very question was raised about Kabini and AMD replied in a negative by stating that Kabini is not meant for the high performance demanding DIY sector and is mostly OEM based so it will not be appearing in the Chinese market anytime soon. We already know AMD has a new architecture planned for 2016 and needless to say the following years are going to become very interesting for Red.
xIcarus
Senior Member
Posts: 974
Joined: 2010-08-24
Senior Member
Posts: 974
Joined: 2010-08-24
#4821769 Posted on: 05/21/2014 11:40 AM
It really doesn't matter much what AMD does. They're only going to compete as well as Intel allows them to. The days of AMD being able to surprise Intel are done and over with. Anything AMD can put out, Intel can top in 6 months. Intel's CPU R&D is so far ahead of AMD's that real competition isn't possible anymore. If AMD suddenly becomes competitive again, it's purely because Intel allowed them to.
you're probably right. and I wouldn't be surprised if intel is holding some of its tech back.
nvidia with the optimized drivers comes to mind. optimized their drivers so fast after mantle's release? plausible, but seems unlikely.
Interesting. Will wait and see what AMD will bring to the table.
If they can made and redesign the upcoming FX processor as good as they were in 2000, it should kick ass.
I sure hope so lol. it would be nice to get the next-gen i7s at a more reasonable price.
It really doesn't matter much what AMD does. They're only going to compete as well as Intel allows them to. The days of AMD being able to surprise Intel are done and over with. Anything AMD can put out, Intel can top in 6 months. Intel's CPU R&D is so far ahead of AMD's that real competition isn't possible anymore. If AMD suddenly becomes competitive again, it's purely because Intel allowed them to.
you're probably right. and I wouldn't be surprised if intel is holding some of its tech back.
nvidia with the optimized drivers comes to mind. optimized their drivers so fast after mantle's release? plausible, but seems unlikely.
Interesting. Will wait and see what AMD will bring to the table.
If they can made and redesign the upcoming FX processor as good as they were in 2000, it should kick ass.
I sure hope so lol. it would be nice to get the next-gen i7s at a more reasonable price.
Lane
Senior Member
Posts: 6361
Joined: 2005-02-25
Senior Member
Posts: 6361
Joined: 2005-02-25
#4821779 Posted on: 05/21/2014 12:11 PM
They will need to be really much faster, but too to got the possibility to gain specially market point with laptop, desktop brands.. because otherwise, even if they are faster, they will not sale much... you get a tons of laptop with i3 dualcores who are not even the equivalent of the APU of AMD, but most laptops have Intel CPU's. If you count only on peoples who buy cpu and build their systems... good luck.
Now, im more interested to see what could be the result on Professional server, workstations, HPC markets.. Released simultaneously with an AMD-ARM 64bits high performance core ( not one for tablet or mobile, but for high computing tasks ), they could cover a large spectre of use and can start to deploy really HSA features...
Intel was full of crappy idea at this time too: for them, multi cores processors was a bad idea, no 64bits... etc etc.
has to be faster, price is irrelevant
They will need to be really much faster, but too to got the possibility to gain specially market point with laptop, desktop brands.. because otherwise, even if they are faster, they will not sale much... you get a tons of laptop with i3 dualcores who are not even the equivalent of the APU of AMD, but most laptops have Intel CPU's. If you count only on peoples who buy cpu and build their systems... good luck.
Now, im more interested to see what could be the result on Professional server, workstations, HPC markets.. Released simultaneously with an AMD-ARM 64bits high performance core ( not one for tablet or mobile, but for high computing tasks ), they could cover a large spectre of use and can start to deploy really HSA features...
Having several of the K7 designers back, it's quite possibly that they can pull off a miracle.... I just don't expect them to surprise Intel like they did with the K7.
Intel was full of crappy idea at this time too: for them, multi cores processors was a bad idea, no 64bits... etc etc.
AzzKickr
Senior Member
Posts: 141
Joined: 2013-10-26
Senior Member
Posts: 141
Joined: 2013-10-26
#4821976 Posted on: 05/21/2014 06:43 PM
From a gaming point of view I believe AMD's current FX offerings are shown in a too negative daylight. As an overclocked FX-8350 owner I have to admit that -sure- they run hot and -agreed- they are insanely power hungry. So as efficiency goes it's really literally nowhere as per today's standards.
BUT
the performance on it's own, especially the price/performance ratio is, in my opinion highly debatable. I question most of the reviews out there and I have never seen a more divided landscape in reviews. Most of them show the FX as an i5 contender, mostly even "only" i3. i7 is supposedly "way out of it's league".
As a total package, all things considered; yes. It is.
As a gamers product, aka floating point, physics, whatever they do in games: no f*cking way. As an owner and enthousiast I ran a lot of benchmarks, primarily focused on 3D performance, but just as well on other tasks and almost every single time it rivals the (a lot) more expensive i7's.
Also, yet this is probably just having luck, my sample overclocks perfectly. Although I can only do 4.7Ghz without heat issues and Prime stable, I am able to run FSB speeds of 325 and beyond (200 being the default). That gives it soo much more overall boost that it really is a solid power puncher !
So again: sometimes I can relate in the reviews being hard on the FX's (the price is what persuaded me) but have never ever regreted my purchase. I feel that they come out in a more negative light than they deserve.
From a gaming point of view I believe AMD's current FX offerings are shown in a too negative daylight. As an overclocked FX-8350 owner I have to admit that -sure- they run hot and -agreed- they are insanely power hungry. So as efficiency goes it's really literally nowhere as per today's standards.
BUT
the performance on it's own, especially the price/performance ratio is, in my opinion highly debatable. I question most of the reviews out there and I have never seen a more divided landscape in reviews. Most of them show the FX as an i5 contender, mostly even "only" i3. i7 is supposedly "way out of it's league".
As a total package, all things considered; yes. It is.
As a gamers product, aka floating point, physics, whatever they do in games: no f*cking way. As an owner and enthousiast I ran a lot of benchmarks, primarily focused on 3D performance, but just as well on other tasks and almost every single time it rivals the (a lot) more expensive i7's.
Also, yet this is probably just having luck, my sample overclocks perfectly. Although I can only do 4.7Ghz without heat issues and Prime stable, I am able to run FSB speeds of 325 and beyond (200 being the default). That gives it soo much more overall boost that it really is a solid power puncher !
So again: sometimes I can relate in the reviews being hard on the FX's (the price is what persuaded me) but have never ever regreted my purchase. I feel that they come out in a more negative light than they deserve.
-Tj-
Senior Member
Posts: 17691
Joined: 2012-05-18
Senior Member
Posts: 17691
Joined: 2012-05-18
#4821985 Posted on: 05/21/2014 06:50 PM
Last time I've read they're gonna ditch Excavader? and build something new with x86+ARM.
imo should be a monster cpu deserving FX name, like back in the old days..
Last time I've read they're gonna ditch Excavader? and build something new with x86+ARM.
imo should be a monster cpu deserving FX name, like back in the old days..
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 8396
Joined: 2007-08-07
Interesting. Will wait and see what AMD will bring to the table.
If they can made and redesign the upcoming FX processor as good as they were in 2000, it should kick ass.