AMD FX

AMD FXare a series of high-endAMD microprocessorsforpersonal computerswhich debuted in 2011, claimed as AMD's first native 8-core desktop processor.The line was introduced with theBulldozermicroarchitecture at launch (codenamed "Zambezi" ), and was then succeeded by its derivativePiledriverin 2012 (codenamed "Vishera" ).

AMD FX

An AMD FX 8310
General information
Launched	March 2011
Marketed by	AMD
Designed by	AMD
Common manufacturer	GlobalFoundries
Performance
Max.CPUclock rate	2.1 GHz to 5.0 GHz
Architecture and classification
Technology node	32 nm to 28 nm
Microarchitecture	Bulldozer,Piledriver
Instruction set	AMD64/x86-64,MMX(+),SSE1,2,3,3s,4.1,4.2,4a,AES,CLMUL,AVX,XOP,FMA3,FMA4,CVT16/F16C,BMI1,ABM,TBM,AMD-V
Physical specifications
Cores	4, 6, 8
Socket	AM3+
Products, models, variants
Core names	Zambezi Vishera
History
Predecessor	Phenom II
Successor	Ryzen

The line aimed at competing with theIntel Coreline of desktop processors, in particular processors based onSandy BridgeandIvy Bridgearchitectures.

FX has been succeeded by theRyzenbrand of CPUs, based on theZenarchitecture, which initially launched in 2017 to compete with Intel's later generation processors such asSkylake.

History

Prior to FX Launch

In the years prior to the AMD FX range of processors, the AMDPhenom IIandAthlon IIlineup of processors, while not beating Intel'sCore lineupin raw performance, were generally competitive when their price was taken into account.By the end of Phenom's lifespan, however, Intel'sSandy Bridge-based Core processors 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 on the upcoming Bulldozer architecture that AMD FX was based on.

FX Launch

See also:List of AMD FX processors

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 $205and 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.

Features

One notable feature of the AMD FX microprocessors is that they were all unlocked andoverclockable,a feature usually reserved for the high-endKsuffixSKUsfrom Intel. This allowed users to gain extra performance by raising theclock speedof their CPU.The personalworld recordfor highest overclock was achieved on an FX-8350, which was clocked up to 8794.33 MHz.

• 4× dual-core "modules"within FX-8 series, 3× in FX-6 series, and 2× in FX-4 series, with two integer clusters (seen as logical cores from OS) and a shared floating-point unit in each" module ".
• All models manufactured from 8 logical cores with simple Orochi die production, in 938 pins μPGA packageAM3+socket.
• All models support up to 4DIMMsofDDR3memory.

Unlike the majority of their Intel counterparts, FX chips offered nointegrated graphics,a feature reserved for AMD'sAPUline of processors. Both Zambezi and Vishera used a module design containing two cores on one module.

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 still worse than what Intel was providing at the time.The Piledriver-based FX refresh in 2012 generally improved performance across the board by increasingclock speedsat similar power consumption levels,but Intel'sIvy Bridgearchitecture 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.

Performance

The AMD FX line-up generally performed worse than its Intel competitors during its lifespan. The floating-point performance was relatively poor due to a single shared FPU per module. Most games also could not take advantage of the high core counts that the series provided. In applications that benefitted from more threads, AMD SKUs typically pulled ahead. This came at a great cost, however, asthermal efficiencywas often worse than the previous generation of processors.Updates to the architecture that came with the Piledriver revision allowed for higherclock speeds.This led to better performance, but that came with the cost of even higher thermal output on the high end, which can be seen with the FX-9590, with itsTDPrating of 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 settled out-of-court and decided to voluntarily pay out $12.1 million to California residents who bought a high-end FX chip.

Notes

• AMD later re-used the FX designation for some processors in its socket FM2/FM2+APU lineup.

See also

• List of AMD FX microprocessors
• AMD Accelerated Processing Unit
• Bulldozer Architecture
• Piledriver Architecture
• AMD Ryzen
• AMD Phenom II
• AMD Athlon II