Leaked document shows new AMD Piledriver FX CPUs

Would be nice to be able to see the chart but I get a Forbidden when I try to see the png file??????

It seems the link is down indeed. Here it is attached:

http://club.myce.com/f184/leaked-doc...x-cpus-328851/

For the mainsteam lineup, the 83xx processors never matched Intel's 2500k and 3570k lineup (or even the 965's for that matter). not even close, yet the prices are similar.. That is a big wakeup call, because consumers won't be fooled by GHZ/Mhz ratings, it's what the proessor can do on benchmarks and real-world applications... apps such as video encoding, gaming, content creation (desktop publishing/cad/word processing) are all important.. and the AMD chips are running at a power disadvantage.. requiring more power per operation than Intel analogous processors. The core I5 series run at 77 and 95 watt respectively.. anything comparative on AMD runs @ 125 watts+
There is so little demand for AMD chips & motherboards that motherboard comanies pratically have to give away the boards just to sell AMD chips..

http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/0c722967#/0c722967/2
(lower left hand corner, there were more last month, but this month is promote Intel chips & boards @ Microcenter)

That's a shame, too. For home-servers, though, they're tops for their 6 RAID-able SATA3 ports, and that's a big push for our customers.

I became aware that I wasn't certain what APU stood for.

Being wary and suspicious of any endeavor to short-circuit my annointment as Empress Of The Galaxy, I thought "All Processor Unit" might be the nomenclature. Grrr... although that does have this Superior To SkyNet concept - "not just the Terminator's CPU, but now an APU-!!" Oh yeah, baby...

Then I thought, "What if it stands for Alien Processing Unit?" Gulp. Uh, like even Predator wouldn't face an Alien Processing Unit - an APU?!!" Wowser. What a sequel-!

In practice, though, I feared it actually stood for Anti-Processing Unit, although I think they make great home-theater PCs. With 6 RAID5 SATA3 ports!

Ah well, finally the correct, AMD-styled name was revealed.

Heck. I think all of mine are better options.

I bet AMD hand delivered the 'leak'...Interesting that they all have graphics now...125 Watts? how to cool it???

Consumers need AMD to survive, both in the CPU and GPU markets. Lack of competition against NVIDIA and Intel would hurt us... badly.

I, for one, don't want to go back to the days of $1,000 processors. I buy only AMD (ATI) video cards and Intel CPUs. If AMD would come out with an 8-core CPU that actually made an attempt at catching up with Intel, then I'd plunk down the cash.

Duke, absolutely. We NEED them not to just survive, but excel. If AMD indeed refuses to compete in the x86 Computational World, I hope they'll power their way into the cutesy Gamer world. I don't know why they need to choose one or the other, though. Excel at both!

I thought APU was "accelerator" as in graphics (onboard) because graphics cards that were discrete (and not integrated into a motherboard) were called graphics accelerator cards.. 8bit, then 16, 32, 64, 128, etc.. are we upto 256bit yet?

There is no i5 processor that is faster than the FX-8150 overall.

AMD FX-8150 @ 3.6GHz 8,162

Intel Core i5-3570k @ 3.40GHz 7,722

Intel Core i5-2500k @ 3.20GHz 6,719

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

The Tech report did an article titled "further overclocked" when they were able to attach AMD's closed loop solution and reported "turning up the clock frequency allows the FX-8150 to put up some really nice numbers, tying or beating a Core i7-2600K overclocked to 4.5GHz in several cases".

http://techreport.com/articles.x/21848

This is all on an unoptimized Windows 7 platform as well. If things were using the right instructions and optimized for bulldozer the benchmarking numbers would be looking much better for it. With the developer build of Win 8, the FX did, in fact, yield better numbers.

The i7-2600 has Hyper-Threading whereas the two i5's mentioned do not. My 2600 cannot keep up with my FX-8150 when it pertains to multitasking. Try playing BF3 while capturing the game with Fraps and encoding other video within a VM and see how well that 2600 does let alone the weaker i5. The FX-8150 is a multitasking powerhouse, albeit a power hungry one as previously mentioned.

To be honest I had no expectations going into the Bulldozer build. As a seller I knew if I wasn't happy I could simply sell the machine but would be forking out a lot more money in favor of the i7-3930k to do what I need. I was tired of having two PC's in my office when I knew with the right processor, I could do everything with one system. The FX-8150 made that happen and for much less money. In no way does the FX-8150 feel slow as a desktop and compare the prices at Newegg, you'll get far more bang for your buck building an FX-8150 system than you would a 2500k.

"The FX-8350 is an average of 10% faster than the FX-8150"

http://www.extremetech.com/computing...0s-performance

It really depends on which benchmark is used to measure performance.
In SysMark for example, the 2500K is well ahead of the 8150 in nearly all test scenarios.

In Cinebench the 2500K is also ahead for the single threaded test, it's only in the multithreaded test that the 8150 manages to pull ahead.

Then of course there is the power consumption of the 8150, and when overclocked to 4.7GHz was consuming nearly 350 watts.

Hasn't AMD already conceeded the performance tier to Intel? Instead I thought they were concentrating on mainstream and budget end as well as a continual push on the integrated and mobile end?

@ H2O,

Interesting. Haven't run across anyone that has stressed their 81xx with that many power hungry applications at once. Think I'll need to invest in a FX-8350 one of these days as a purely dev machine.

AMD knows their place better than anyone and we all know it isn't first. There is a reason why I selected the FX 8150 to replace my i7-2600 and it's not because of Benchmark software AMD doesn't support or even lower single threaded performance on some other benchmarks. I went with the FX 8150 to see if it could handle my workload. I was already prepared to spend the money for the beastly 6 core Intel but I went ahead and built an FX-8150 system for much less just to see how it would perform. People read negative reviews and base their opinions on something they haven't used. If the processor sucked it wouldn't have 5 out of 5 eggs from Newegg's consumer reviews.

My only complaint is Asus. I had three boards fail in 8 months. Both Crosshair V's lost the top PCI-E slot within 2 months and the Sabertooth stopped liking memory after 6 weeks. I finally went for the Fatal1ty and never looked back. It's by far the best for overclocking IMO and the only board with a V12+2 Power Phase.

As far as the power consumption goes it's not really all that bad. The only time this thing pulls even close to 350 Watts @ 4.7 is when I run prime. I have yet to max out all 8 cores when playing BF3 and encoding video within a Linux VM. Cool and quiet keeps this processor throttled back quite well when doing basic stuff. I forgot to mention I always have a small Linux VM running that is used to monitor a wireless weather station. It's updating/uploading data every 3 seconds and has it's own display as well.

I'll definitely upgrade to the FX 8350 when it comes out. I may as well since it will be the last that will fit into this motherboard. One more thing to add. I compiled my Linux kernel for this platform and it's fast. My weather station VM experiences no more than 30 seconds of downtown between Windows and Linux when changing between the two. On the Linux side I can be at my desktop in about 8 seconds. On the Windows 7 side around 18. Windows 8 is much faster too.