Home / Hardware / Headline

Bulldozer Arrives: AMD FX-8150 Assessment

Michael - Penulis Berita

Jumat, 29 November 2024 - 01:09

URL berhasil dicopy

AMD is kick beginning the brand new FX lineup with seven processors, together with 8-, 6- and 4-core fashions. The flagship processor is the FX-8150, which includes a base frequency of three.6GHz with a Turbo Core clock of three.9GHz and a Max Turbo pace of four.2GHz. Prior to delving any deeper, allow us to give an explanation for what the Turbo Core and Max Turbo frequencies imply.

AMD’s Turbo Core era has been enhanced for FX processors to incorporate a brand new mode that enhances

Cores when there’s sufficient thermal headroom. This permits new extremely threaded situations to profit from the additional frequency. AMD Energy Supervisor throughout the CPU displays the processor states as observed underneath.

The Max Turbo mode is activated on calmly threaded packages by way of expanding frequency on part the cores.

AMD has enhanced the easiest clock stage of its Turbo Core Era to stay in a better frequency state than in preceding AMD Phenom II Processors. The result’s higher functionality in unmarried and calmly threaded packages.

Turbo Core and Max Turbo are provide on all core configurations (once more, the FX collection is constituted of 8-, 6- and 4-core chips). The three.6GHz FX-8150 carries 8-cores, has a 125-watt TDP, and an 8MB L2 + 8MB L3 cache, which is usual throughout all 8-core FX portions.

The flagship octo-core processor is accompanied by way of the three.1GHz FX-8120 and a pair of.8GHz FX-8100.

AMD has set the FX-8150’s MSRP at $245, which is simplest moderately greater than the Core i5-2500K’s asking value, whilst it’s significantly not up to the Core i7-2600K.

The FX-8120 is much more reasonably priced than the i5-2500K at $205.

At the side of the 3 8-core processors, AMD has introduced a unmarried 6-core chip referred to as the FX-6100, which comes clocked at 3.3GHz with a Turbo Core frequency of three.6GHz and a Max Turbo of three.9GHz. Whilst the L3 cache stays the similar at 8MB, the L2 cache has been decreased to 6MB, as 1MB is allotted in line with core. The FX-6100 is simplest $175, which turns out like an improbable cut price taking into consideration the Phenom II X6 1100T is these days $190.

Finally, there are 3 4-core fashions: the FX-4170, FX-B4150 and FX-4100. All the quad-core CPUs have 4MB L2 cache with 8MB L3 cache. The FX-4170 is the easiest clocked Bulldozer chip with a normal frequency of four.2GHz, alternatively, Turbo Core is disabled and the Max Turbo frequency is solely 100MHz above the bottom clock.

AMD’s new microarchitecture is designed to give you the best stability between functionality, price and tool intake for multithreaded packages. It specializes in excessive frequencies and useful resource sharing to reach optimum throughput. As discussed in the past, the AMD FX processors be offering as much as 8 power-efficient cores. Those constitute the primary era of a brand new execution-core circle of relatives (15h) from AMD.

The Bulldozer thought is in keeping with a 2-core design that stocks latency-tolerant capability, smoothes bursty/inefficient utilization and gives dynamic useful resource allocation between threads. Each and every core has its personal 16KB L1 cache with a 1MB L2 cache, whilst the L3 cache is shared. The opposite gadgets are actually successfully shared between two cores and come with: Fetch, Decode, Floating-point pipelines, and the L2 cache.

This design permits two Cores to make use of a bigger, higher-performance serve as unit (ex: floating-point unit) as they want it with much less general die space than having separate, smaller serve as gadgets for every Core. It additionally implies that there shouldn’t be Bulldozer-based CPUs with an asymmetric choice of cores just like the Phenom X3 collection.

The Zambezi Bulldozer-based processors have a die measurement of 315mm², which is smaller than the Phenom II x6’s 346mm² die, whilst it’s larger than the Phenom II X4’s 258mm² die. The 6-core “Gulftown” Intel Core i7 processors also are smaller at 240mm2, and the advanced Sandy Bridge chips such because the i7-2600K are 216 mm².

A big 32nm die way numerous resistors and AMD tells us that the Zambezi structure has kind of two billion of them. That’s beautiful unbelievable given the Intel Core i7-990X Gulftown (32nm) options 1.17 billion whilst the Core i7-2600K has simply 995 million. The older Phenom II X6 processors have 904 million and the Phenom II X4 chips simply 758 million. The ones numbers lend a hand put across simply how advanced those Bulldozer CPUs in point of fact are.

The floating-point unit has additionally passed through a whole redesign. It’s been advanced to improve many new directions and it now permits useful resource sharing between cores. There are two 128-bit FMACs shared in line with module, taking into account two 128-bit directions in line with core or one 256-bit instruction in line with dual-core module.

AMD has additionally designed a shared front-end which is accountable for riding the processing pipeline and can make sure that the cores are repeatedly fed with knowledge. It’s been designed to paintings with every dual-core unit and allocate threads to particular person cores themselves. AMD has made heavy adjustments that come with decoupled expect and fetch pipelines in addition to prediction-directed instruction prefetchers.

A Prediction Queue can arrange direct and oblique branches that are actually fed with a L1 and L2 Department Goal Buffer, which retail outlets vacation spot addresses. The Bulldozer modules can decode as much as 4 directions in line with cycle, which is yet another than the Phenom II processors. The prediction pipeline produces a series of fetch addresses. The Fetch pipeline plays a glance up within the instruction cache and pulls 32 bytes in line with cycle into the fetch queue to feed the decoders.

AMD has additionally constructed new directions into the Bulldozer structure. Whilst AMD and Intel proportion SSE3, SSE4.1/4.2, AES, and AVX, there are two new instruction units referred to as FMA4 and XOP that are actually distinctive to AMD. The previous is designed for HPC packages whilst the latter is used for numeric and multimedia packages in addition to algorithms used for audio and radio.

Not like Sandy Bridge, which options an on-die GPU with the Device Agent (aka northbridge), AMD has taken a extra conventional way with the Bulldozer structure. The corporate is averting an IGP (Built-in Graphics Platform) all in conjunction with AM3+, leaving that capability for its 32nm Llano processors, which function a rapid Radeon core.

The northbridge could also be break away the processor. Even if AMD claims to incorporate an built-in northbridge, it’s in point of fact only a reminiscence controller. In reality, AMD pioneered this era again within the Athlon64 days. Bulldozer’s northbridge options two 72-bit extensive DDR3 reminiscence channels and 4 16-bit obtain/16-bit transmit HyperTransport hyperlinks.

As discussed at the preceding web page, AMD is sticking with a north and southbridge chipset design for the AM3+ platform and this is sensible in our opinion, in particular for this kind of high-end platform. By means of together with separate chips to maintain PCI Specific lanes and connectivity, AMD has now not simplest been ready to simplify the processor design, permitting it to concentrate on functionality, but it surely additionally grants the corporate an excessive amount of flexibility.

The AM3+ platform is supported by way of the 9-series chipsets, which these days come with the 990FX, 990X and 970 northbridge with the SB950 southbridge. This chipset collection options the similar 65nm silicon utilized by AMD’s previous-generation 8-series chipsets.

In reality, the SB950 and SB850 are the similar chip and due to this fact be offering the very same options. The cause of the identify trade is just to lend a hand the person establish that one is designed for the AM3+ platform whilst the opposite helps AM3 processors.

The SB950 southbridge helps six SATA 6Gb/s ports with AHCI 1.2 in addition to RAID 0, 1, 5 and 10. Moreover there’s improve for 14 USB 2.0 ports at the side of two USB 1.1 ports and gigabit Ethernet. When in comparison to the Intel Z68 PCH (Platform Controller Hub), there’s not anything lacking from the SB950 southbridge.

In the meantime, the 990FX (codenamed RD990) is basically the similar chip because the 890FX, regardless that there’s one minor trade. The 990FX has been up to date with HyperTransport 3.1 to improve as much as 51.2GB/s bandwidth between it and the CPU. The 890FX is supplied with HT 3.0 which includes a bandwidth of 41.6GB/s.

The 990X is a lower down model of the 990FX, because it reduces Crossfire improve from twin x16 or quad x8 lanes to a couple of x8 lanes without a quad-fire improve. Proceeding with the theme, AMD’s 970 chipset is mainly a rebadged 870 with HT 3.1 improve added. It lacks Crossfire improve because it simplest features a unmarried PCIe 2.0 x16 lane.

AMD 990FX forums were at the unfastened for a while now — we’ve had the Asrock Fatal1ty 990FX Skilled for roughly two months. At the side of its Fatal1ty- branded board, Asrock gives two different 990FX-based motherboards: the 990FX Extreme4 and 990FX Extreme3. The corporate additionally has a few AMD 970 motherboards to be had.

The Fatal1ty 990FX Skilled is these days retailing for $190, which could be very reasonably priced for a high-end motherboard. The cost is particularly spectacular taking into consideration the integrated options, similar to USB 3.0, SATA 6Gb/s, 8-channel audio, twin Gigabit LAN with Teaming serve as, 12 + 2 continual segment design in addition to Quad Crossfire and SLI improve.

Regardless of being a Fatal1ty-branded product, we adore the glance and design of Asrock’s top class board. It has a very good structure and UEFI BIOS interface.

We additionally integrated the Asus Crosshair V Formulation in our overview equipment. This board prices significantly extra at $230, however doesn’t appear to justify that top class.

Options similar to USB 3.0 stay the similar, whilst the Crosshair V Formulation drops one of the vital two gigabit Ethernet jacks and eSATA ports. The audio has been upgraded to the SupremeFX X-Fi 2 codec, whilst the board additionally options an additional full-length PCIe 2.0 x16 slot. General, we want Asus’ aesthetics, however its board about equivalent on the subject of practical design.

Asus additionally has the Sabertooth 990FX to be had, in addition to more than a few 990X and 970 motherboards. The Sabertooth 990FX is a inexpensive selection to the Crosshair V Formulation, because it prices simply $190 but it’s nonetheless really well provided.

Even if we’ve simplest gained forums from Asrock and Asus to this point, different producers similar to MSI and Gigabyte have already got their flagship 990FX forums in retail outlets, together with the $145 MSI 990FXA-GD65 and $250 Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD7.

How We Examined & Bandwidth

AMD has provided us with its top-end FX-8150 processor for trying out. Fortunately, the FX vary is unlocked and the Asrock Fatal1ty 990FX motherboard allowed us to allow simply six, 4 or two cores. This board additionally permits customization of the Turbo Core and Max Core multiplier. This allowed us to imitate the functionality from the lesser 3 FX processors launching as of late: the FX-8120, FX-6100 and FX-4170.AMD AM3+ Check Device Specifications
– AMD Phenom II X6 1100T (3.30GHz)
– AMD Phenom II X4 980 (3.70GHz)
– AMD FX-8150 (3.60GHz)
– AMD FX-8120 (3.10GHz)
– AMD FX-6100 (3.30GHz)
– AMD FX-4170 (4.20GHz)
– x2 4GB G.Ability DDR3 PC3-12800 (CAS 8-8-8-20)
– Asrock Fatal1ty 990FX Skilled (AMD 990FX)
– OCZ ZX Collection 1250w
– An important m4 256GB (SATA 6Gb/s)
– Gigabyte GeForce GTX 580 SOC (1536MB)
Instrument
– Microsoft Home windows 7 Final SP1 64-bit
– Nvidia Forceware 285.38Intel LGA1155 Check Device Specifications
– Intel Core i7-2600K
– Intel Core i5-2500K
– x2 4GB G.Ability DDR3 PC3-12800 (CAS 8-8-8-20)
– Gigabyte G1.Sniper2 (Intel Z68)
– OCZ ZX Collection 1250w
– An important m4 256GB (SATA 6Gb/s)
– Gigabyte GeForce GTX 580 SOC (1536MB)
– Microsoft Home windows 7 Final SP1 64-bit
– Nvidia Forceware 285.38Intel LGA1366 Check Device Specifications
– Intel Core i7-975 Excessive Version (3.33GHz)
– Intel Core i7-920 (2.66GHz)
– x3 2GB G.Ability DDR3 PC3-12800 (CAS 8-8-8-20)
– Gigabyte G1.Sniper (Intel X58)
– OCZ ZX Collection 1250w
– An important m4 256GB (SATA 6Gb/s)
– Gigabyte GeForce GTX 580 SOC (1536MB)
Instrument
– Microsoft Home windows 7 Final SP1 64-bit
– Nvidia Forceware 285.38Intel LGA1156 Check Device Specifications
– Intel Core i5-750
– x2 4GB G.Ability DDR3 PC3-12800 (CAS 8-8-8-20)
– Gigabyte P55A-UD7 (Intel P55)
– OCZ ZX Collection 1250w
– An important m4 256GB (SATA 6Gb/s)
– Gigabyte GeForce GTX 580 SOC (1536MB)
– Microsoft Home windows 7 Final SP1 64-bit
– Nvidia Forceware 285.38

In comparison to the Phenom II, AMD’s FX processors supply considerably extra reminiscence bandwidth. Learn throughput has been larger by way of kind of 60%, whilst write functionality is sort of 40% higher. Even if the bandwidth functionality has been advanced a great deal, it’s nonetheless significantly slower than Intel’s Sandy Bridge processors.

The L2 cache functionality has additionally been advanced — a minimum of when taking a look on the Phenom II vary. The FX-8150 delivered 30% extra learn throughput than the Phenom II X6 1100T, regardless that the write functionality used to be moderately slower. As with the former chart, Bulldozer simply can’t fit Sandy Bridge’s L2 cache functionality.

SPECviewperf v11 is obviously now not optimized for processors with greater than 4 cores, because the extremely clocked 4.2GHz AMD FX-4170 got here away with the win. Rendering a median of 10.56fps within the SolidWorks take a look at, it used to be moderately sooner than the FX-8120 and FX-8150 processors. The FX-8150 nonetheless controlled to outpace the Phenom II X6 1100T by way of 39% and it held a 17% margin over the Core i7-2600K.

The Maya benchmark published a identical development. AMD’s FX-4170 seized the throne, whilst the FX-8150 trailed with a 55% lead at the Phenom II X6 110T and a 7% bounce at the Core i7-2600K.

CINEBENCH R11.5 broke Bulldozer’s momentum because the FX-8150 rendered a median of 48.96fps, which used to be 9% slower than the i5-2500K and i7-2600K. However, it used to be 4% sooner than the Phenom II X4 980 and six% sooner than the Phenom II X6 1100T.

The FX-8150 carried out exceptionally within the WinRAR benchmark, handing over a multithreading results of 4287KB/s — 18% sooner than the i7-2600K and 32% sooner than the i5-2500K. Additionally, it landed 52% forward of the Phenom II X6 1100T and 66% larger than the Phenom II X4 980.

AMD’s flagship Bulldozer processor delivered kind of the similar functionality because the Core i5-2500K and Core i7-920 in Excel 2010, which is a huge jump ahead in comparison to the Phenom II. AMD’s chips hardly do smartly in Excel in comparison to Intel’s. For instance, the Phenom II X6 1100T used to be 30% slower than the FX-8150.

WinRAR’s integrated benchmark pegged the FX-8150 because the quickest processor by way of a ways, however the effects are fairly other in our personal customized WinRAR compression take a look at. The FX-8150 took 118 seconds to finish the 700MB record compression take a look at, which used to be on par with the dated Core i7-920, however 17% slower than the i5-2500K and 22% in the back of the i7-2600K.

In comparison to AMD’s last-gen hexa-core processor, the FX-8150 gives a hefty 26% spice up in Adobe Photoshop CS5, putting it within the league of Intel’s i5-2500K — regardless that the i7-2600K used to be nonetheless 32% sooner.

The FX-8120 used to be just a fraction of a 2d slower than its snappier sibling, and even though the FX-6100 noticed a noticeable functionality drop, it used to be nonetheless 8% sooner than the Phenom II X6 1100T. Oddly. the FX-4170 used to be 4% slower than the Phenom II X4 980, which is unexpected taking into consideration they’re each quad-core processors and the FX-4170 has an important clock merit.

When trying out with Fritz Chess 12’s integrated benchmark, the FX-8150 delivered 11682 kilo nodes in line with 2d, which used to be just one% sooner than the Phenom II X6 1100T and 10% sooner than the i5-2500K, whilst being 12% slower than the i7-2600K.

Clock for clock, the FX processors are most probably no sooner than the Phenom II on this take a look at, because the FX-8120 used to be 6% slower than the Phenom II X6 1100T. Additionally, the FX-4170 used to be 24% slower than the Phenom II X4 980 regardless of having a 14% larger frequency.

The FX-8150 used to be 15% sooner than the X6 1100T with 113.8fps in HandBrake, whilst scoring simplest 2% not up to the i5-2500K and 5% in the back of the i7-2600K.The lesser-clocked FX-8120 carried out in addition to the Core i7-975 Excessive Version, whilst the FX-6100 used to be 3% slower than the X6 1100T. Clock for clock, AMD’s dated processor gained the hexa-core struggle. Likewise, the X4 980 used to be a lot sooner than the FX-4170.

The x264 HD Benchmark 4.0 produced some other fascinating consequence. Within the Go 1 take a look at, the FX-8150’s 121.3fps appearing used to be 2% slower than the X6 1100T, 15% slower than the i5-2500K, and 17% slower than the i7-2600K. On the similar time, the dated X4 980 used to be just one% slower than the FX-8210 and it fared 11% higher than the FX-4170.

Issues have been fairly other within the Go 2 take a look at, because the FX-8150 scored the most efficient with 37.1fps, beating the i7-2600K by way of part a %. The FX-6100 and FX-4170 nonetheless lagged in the back of their Phenom II opposite numbers.

The final encoding benchmark makes use of TMPGEnc 4.0 Xpress to measure the AVI to MPG conversion time. AMD’s newest providing slipped in the back of Sandy Bridge once more because the i5-2500K and i7-2600K outmatched the FX-8150 by way of 27% and 31%. The FX-8150, FX-8120 and FX-6100 all delivered kind of the similar functionality. The FX-4170 fell to the ground of the chart, sitting 2% not up to the X6 1100T and 5% in the back of the X4 980.

Dust 3’s effects seem to be ruled by way of Intel as AMD occupies the ground six slots. Alternatively, when you glance nearer there’s a distinction between 1680×1050 and 1920×1200 functionality. Intel obviously managed the 1680×1050 effects (the place it’s worthwhile to say there used to be much less of a GPU bottleneck) the AMD processors carried out higher at 1920×1200.At 1920×1200, the FX-8150 matched the i7-2600K and narrowly defeated the i5-2500K. The FX-8120 used to be consistent with the i7-975 EE, whilst the FX-6100 stored tempo with the i7-920. Regardless of its 4.2GHz clock fee, the FX-4170 used to be the slowest processor examined.

But even so the Phenom II X4 980, AMD once more stuffed the ground of our graph when measuring 1680×1050 functionality. Alternatively, at 1920×1200 the FX-4170 used to be in reality the quickest processor examined, handing over 88fps. The remainder of the FX lineup rendered between 82 and 84fps, letting them ship identical effects to the Core i5 and Core i7 merchandise.

We noticed combined leads to The Witcher 2 additionally. At 1680×1050 the FX processors carried out poorly, apart from the FX-8150 which controlled 77.6fps, putting it within the i7-920’s territory.

The FX-8150 delivered kind of 1fps greater than the FX-8120 and FX-6100 when trying out at 1920×1200, and even though that’s consistent with the i7-975 EE and 920, it used to be slower than the Phenom II X4 980 and X6 1100T.

Crysis 2’s functionality used to be additionally disappointing for the FX processors because it doesn’t take pleasure in having greater than 4 threads to be had. This allowed the FX-4170 to dominate at 1680×1050, whilst the FX-8150, FX-8120 and FX-6100 have been all slower than the Phenom II X4 980.

Energy intake remains to be a topic for AMD, as we discovered the FX-8150 chugged 252 watts underneath complete load. Even if that’s 5% lower than the i7-920, it used to be 52% (86 watts) greater than the i7-2600K. Idle intake wasn’t a lot better. At 100 watts, the FX-8150 wolfed 32% extra continual (24 watts) than Intel’s fanatic chip.The FX-6100 used to be moderately higher than the Phenom II X6 1100T with intake, regardless that we must rigidity simplest moderately. It’s a identical scenario when evaluating the FX-4170 and Phenom II X4 980, however there’s an growth however.

Overclocking the FX-8150 from its base 3.6GHz clock to 4.4GHz boosted Dust 3’s functionality at 1680×1050 by way of 4%. The 1920×1200 functionality didn’t budge a unmarried body.

The 4.4GHz overclock delivered just below 3% extra functionality within the Go 1 take a look at and 12% extra in Go 2. This allowed the FX-8150 to overhaul the Phenom II X6 1100T, but it surely used to be nonetheless a lot slower than the i5-2500K and i7-2600K.

CINEBENCH R11.5 OpenGL noticed no functionality acquire when overclocking the FX-8150, regardless that the CPU ranking larger 17%.

Breaking down our benchmark effects we discover that the AMD FX-8150 gives massive functionality enhancements over the Phenom II vary when trying out with Excel 2010, whilst it matched the Core i5-2500K and Core i7 920 processors. Our customized WinRAR benchmark additionally closely preferred the FX-8150 over the Phenom II, matched the Core i7 920 and trailed in the back of Sandy Bridge processors on this take a look at.

The Adobe Photoshop CS5 benchmark additionally noticed the FX processors supply first rate functionality positive factors over the Phenom II. Even if the six-core FX-6100 used to be simplest moderately sooner than the Phenom II X6 1100T, the 8 core FX-8150 and FX-8120 processors supplied vital positive factors and have been ready to compare the Core i5-2500K.

The encoding functionality used to be a ways much less spectacular as we discovered that clock for clock the FX processors have been slower than the present Phenom II processors. The FX-6100 for instance used to be slower than the Phenom II X6 1100T in our HandBrake and x264 HD Benchmark 4.0 exams. The FX-6100 did pull forward by way of a good margin when trying out with TMPGEnc 4.0 XPress alternatively. For probably the most section the FX-8150 used to be nonetheless significantly slower than the Core i5-2500K in our encoding benchmarks.

In any case, when it got here time to play video games the FX vary used to be in point of fact no higher than the Phenom II. To be totally truthful, gaming on those high-end processors is so identical it’s hardly ever value being worried about. The FX-8150 used to be by no means various frames in line with 2d slower than the Core i7-2600K at 1920×1200.

For the reason that as of late’s newest recreation releases are simplest beginning to undertake quad-core processors, having six and even 8 threads to be had is of little result.

As for functionality vs. continual potency, the AMD FX processors are in point of fact now not a lot better than the Phenom II vary both, which is disappointing. When in comparison to Sandy Bridge CPUs, such because the Core i7-2600K and Core i5-2500K, the brand new FX processors stack up very poorly.

Regardless of the unlocked nature of the FX processors, overclocking isn’t implausible. We have been ready to push the FX-8150 to only 4.4GHz on air (from the inventory 3.6GHz). In comparison to the 4.1GHz of our Phenom II X6 1100T it’s now not unhealthy, however when you believe the 5.2GHz imaginable with a Core i5-2500K or Core i7-2600K it’s no doubt now not nice. Granted we have been simplest ready to reach this excessive overclock the use of the Asus Maximus IV Excessive-Z, however all different P67 and Z68 motherboards succeed in a minimum of 4.7 – 4.8GHz.

Then there’s the query of price. At $245 the FX-8150 is beautiful just right, as is the FX-8120 at $205, and the FX-6100 at $165. The FX-8150 is 22% inexpensive than the Core i7-2600K and this works to AMD’s choose because the FX-8150 used to be frequently lower than 20% slower.

Alternatively, is the FX-8150 a greater purchase than the Core i5-2500K? In relation to functionality the AMD CPU used to be extra frequently than now not slower, if simplest by way of a small margin, whilst it does eat significantly extra continual and won’t give you the similar overclocking effects. It’s no secret who wins this spherical.

Bearing in mind that the FX-8120 is basically the similar processor because the FX-8150, we will be able to glance to it for the FX vs. Core i5 comparability. The FX-8120 prices $205 and it’s unlocked — all FX processors are — so it may be simply changed to compare or exceed the working specs of the FX-8150. Due to this fact we really feel the inexpensive FX-8120 provides the Core i5-2500K a major run for its cash and it’s a worthy selection. In the meantime the FX-6100 could also be nice price at $165, because it undercuts each the Phenom II X6s but it surely wasn’t at all times sooner.

We gained’t deny it, we in point of fact have been hoping for lots extra from Bulldozer and AMD’s eight-core processors. It’s disappointing to search out those newly introduced processors do little to reinforce AMD’s scenario. The FX processors come in need of competing hand at hand with the now 9-months outdated Sandy Bridge processors, and in sure cases surpass their very own Phenom II vary. Nonetheless, that is only the start for Bulldozer, and there’s a lot more to be observed from the FX vary, or so AMD says.

Taken From http://www.techspot.com/overview/452-amd-bulldozer-fx-cpus

Facebook Comments Box