AMD Bringing Back 'FX' Processor Branding

[Rob Williams]

Things were a lot different in the computer market when Techgage first came to be in March of 2005. At the time, AMD totally dominated the processor market for enthusiasts, and its "FX" processors were the parts that everybody wanted. But with prices hovering around the $1,000 mark, only a select few actually had the pleasure of using them. After Quad FX's launch in late 2006, AMD unofficially killed off the "FX" branding, for what I'm sure are rather obvious reasons. But, in a bit of good news: it's back.

Read the rest of our post and then discuss it here!

 

[Optix]

Nice marketing move - using a previous branding to draw the attention of past AMD users to the processor line. Too bad it likely won't add up to what Intel has cooked up for its LGA2011 boards. Might be a nice alternative to Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge on the 1155.

 

[Rob Williams]

Nice marketing move - using a previous branding to draw the attention of past AMD users to the processor line. Too bad it likely won't add up to what Intel has cooked up for its LGA2011 boards. Might be a nice alternative to Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge on the 1155.

Ye of little faith!

Yeah, I agree

 

[Kayden]

I all ready moved away from AMD. Names don't mean much only performance does and AMD need's to put out performance not try to hold on to past glories.

BTW Rob the comments here aren't linked to the article on the main page. (c;

 

[Rob Williams]

BTW Rob the comments here aren't linked to the article on the main page. (c;

Doh, thanks a lot It's an easy mistake to make, but generally I double-check. Didn't that time

I all ready moved away from AMD. Names don't mean much only performance does and AMD need's to put out performance not try to hold on to past glories.

I like that anti-fanboi attitude... going with whichever hardware makes the most sense. That said, I'd REALLY love to get an AMD CPU back into my main rig, it'd be exciting.

 

[Kayden]

I like that anti-fanboi attitude... going with whichever hardware makes the most sense. That said, I'd REALLY love to get an AMD CPU back into my main rig, it'd be exciting.

I had AMD until February this year in my main rig, going all the way back to the K6 450mhz with out even blinking. It finally came down to the price vs performance and when the I7 4 core was running circles around AMD 6 core in gaming and general use I had to finally tip my hat to AMD and make the switch.

It also didn't help that I had jumped on board with the AMD 4x4 and when my board died I sent it back to Asus they then sent me a bad board, then I sent that one back and it couldn't be fixed or replaced. That's when I was told to pick any board I wanted on their site at the time cause they messed it up, I got my Intel board and haven't looked back. I did the research on the best CPU on the market and made sure I spent the money on the best performer and it was Intel. Unfortunately it took me about a year to get the CPU and ram but it happened and I am very happy with it.

If I know some one in the market for a budget machine though I will recommend an AMD machine not a problem, however if some one wants a gaming machine with terrific OC options then Intel is the way to go that's for sure. I am not saying AMD can't handle gaming far from it, but it isn't top dog that's for sure.

Doh, thanks a lot It's an easy mistake to make, but generally I double-check. Didn't that time

Were all human, just lookin out for you Rob (c;

 

[Optix]

I'd love to get my mitts on a good price/performance chip in a higher end board but so far, Intel is pounding AMD into the ground in that respect although the BEs have fallen to super lows. I also like where Intel is going with add on technology like QuickSync and Rapid Storage Technology.

Until AMD can match performance and forward thinking, I'll stick with the blue team.

 

[Rob Williams]

I did the research on the best CPU on the market and made sure I spent the money on the best performer and it was Intel.

As Metallica said, it's sad but true. For enthusiasts, Intel's chips even overclock easier, so it's hard to go with AMD. If you do, it'll be more for patronage than for what's best for your rig.

Until AMD can match performance and forward thinking, I'll stick with the blue team.

That reminds me, how do IBM's chips run in a desktop PC? ;-)

 

[Kougar]

I don't think AMD will be selling their eight-core FX processors at nice price/performance points. It's a shame really, the FX branding was at the height of the CPU wars and although both the processors and specialized platform they developed into were expensive, they easily were the best performers until the latter half of 2006.

Given that most types of programs don't scale well, if at all, past two threads, making up for lower performance by adding more cores won't win over the serious enthusiasts that an eight-core monster like the FX series targets. It'll get them plenty of sales with people that buy based on number of cores though, just as people bought those Pentium 4's because of the higher clockspeeds, despite that it is a poor metric to compare CPUs by.

The issue is, if someone is going to buy a six to eight-core AMD processor at what point should they look at switching to an Intel dual or quad-core chip? The higher IPC system would be better off with a fast quad than a huge eight-core chip at a given price point for many workloads.

At the opposite side to the arguement, even large 6-24 core systems that are maxed out by Folding@home, core for core Intel systems were putting out performance 2:1 that of the AMD systems. For serious users that need genuine computational power and would actually be buying 6-8 core processors, Intel's chips are still it. And for those buying on price, a nice Core i3 or i5 will probably smoke AMD at a the given price point despite having half the cores.

 

[Optix]

I'm waiting for these to launch to drive down the existing 9xx or 1xxx series Black Edition processors. There's something in the back of my mind that has me toying with the notion of switching to AMD with a nice 990 board.

Apparently AMD's Turbo feature will shut down inactive cores all together and pump up a couple of them up to 1Ghz! Not too shabby! I'd like to have full control over this feature to really bang out high frame rates in games.

 

[Kougar]

That's the catch though... take a $200 AMD processor (AMD 980 Black Edition) and pit it against a $200 Intel processor (Core i5 2400)... The result, Intel will give you on average an easy 10FPS higher performance, at worst equal FPS. Power, IPC, price, or any combination thereof, AMD doesn't have anything going for them anymore. Not even price, which is saying something considering how Intel prices their chips.

K10 is just a refined K8... and that design launched in 2003. AMD needs to get with the new decade and come up with a substantially new architecture. Bulldozer was supposed to be it, but the repeated delays and information I've heard so far suggest it isn't going to surpass Sandy Bridge, if we're lucky just equal it. Which immediately leaves them behind again when Ivy Bridge arrives a few months later.

It may come across as harsh, but if the 980X clocks 3.7GHz and gets smoked, offering the X6 1100T hexcore chip @ 3.3Ghz for the same price won't help. So regardless of whatever clockspeed they plan to offer the eight-core chip at, it'll be even lower and therefore have even worse performance for what most desktop users do, including gaming.

 

[Optix]

I'm not debating that Intel is still king of the hill when it comes to performance but for me it all comes down to price vs performance. If the BE's drop low enough for me to afford they'll become a viable upgrade option and will easily tromp my little i3 530 (which I still think is the greatest thing since the invention of the stripper pole) even at 4.2Ghz.

It's still a pretty capable little chip though but we'll see just how much it affects performance when Battlefield 3 drops.

Either way, I needs an upgrade! Well, let me rephrase that. I wants an upgrade!

 

[Kougar]

If they drop low enough? AMD would have to start selling them at $150 or even less before they began winning any price/performance battles again, and there's no way AMD can afford to sell its BEST, highest clocked silicon at <$150 and still make a buck off it. It's honestly amazing they can afford to sell them for $189 as it is.

 

[TheCrimsonStar]

I don't think these will be "replacing the Black Edition" as you said might be happening in your article. Look at this, AMD's page about the FX processor:

http://sites.amd.com/us/promo/processors/Pages/fx-processor.aspx

It's an eight-core FX Black Edition processor. Look's like they're keeping the BE name

One thing I do wonder, are they bringing a whole new socket into play here or will it be AM3?

 

[Optix]

If the launch a new socket, they should change their name to Intel2.

 

[Kougar]

I can guarantee without even looking that it would be a new socket. Adding cores that the current socket wasn't designed for requires modified pinouts or additional pins for the extra cores to function... Especially if these new eight-core chips are something other than a cobbled-together pile of K10's, then they would still need to change the pinouts.