Jump to content

Talk:List of AMD FX processors

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article has a merge template but there is no merge discussion on the target talk page. IMO a merge wouldn't make sense either since they're two separate product lines. Remove the merge template?--88.73.39.49 (talk) 10:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it should be done. The merge was proposed in March and there isn't even a merge discussion available, which I believe clearly shows that no one is interested. -XJDHDR (talk) 04:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cores/Clusters vs Modules/Cores Terminology

[edit]

The terminology used to describe Cores (Clusters) and Modules (Cores) is wrong. [AMD lists Bulldozer/FX series as|http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/processors/amdfx/Pages/amdfx-key-architectural-features.aspx] having 2 Cores per Modules, so they come in 8 Core/4 More 6/3 4/2 configurations. WinampLlama (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TDP of FX-8120

[edit]

AMD claims TDP of FX-8120 is 125W not 95W... or I'm missing something? http://www.amd.com/uk/products/desktop/processors/amdfx/Pages/amdfx-model-number-comparison.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.254.154.251 (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. There is both a 95 W and a 125 W FX-8120. See source cited in 95W 8120. SVMLegacy (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are the yet to be released Zambezi models cancelled?

[edit]

Leaked reports having them coming out in the first part of 2012 but that never happened. I cannot find any other information about these unreleased models. I purpose we remove them from the list since it is rumored info now pushing a year old. Castaa (talk) 7 Oct 2012 (UTC)

FX-9590 & FX-9370

[edit]

These were announced 6/11/13, not released. I don't think there is any release date set. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.250.141.172 (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Listing place

[edit]

"All AMD FX microprocessors are unlocked and overclockable." is placed under the category of "Zambezi" processors, making it unclear whether it refers to just the "Zambezi" processors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.17.12 (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FX APUs

[edit]

The FX APUs aren't listed here, and they are FX microprocessors as well as AMD APUs. They're the FX-7500 and the FX-7600p. Onstrike (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The FX APU aren't true "AMD FX microprocessors". The FX APU lacks L3 cache, has a iGPU and are Steamroller-based. These are the spec of the AMD APU (A6, A8, A10). B.bellec (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Older FX

[edit]

Athlon FX and Phenom FX not included?

For the "Athlon FX", because these are not "AMD FX microprocessors" but "AMD Athlon 64 FX microprocessors" and thus are listed with the others Athlon 64 processors series: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_Athlon_64_microprocessors#Athlon_64_FX
And for the "Phenom FX", they simply doesn't exist. B.bellec (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voltage values

[edit]

Why is it necessary to include voltage levels for the clock values? I say it is unnecessary, and makes reading the tables more difficult. Opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csdani84 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the above. The table has turned into pure gibberish, is nearly unreadable, and the information included is completely pointless. We should only be including the base speed and the turbo speed -- the numbers provided by AMD. The Bulldozer/Zambezi section looks fine, but the Piledriver/Vishera section sorely needs revising. - Extec286 (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of AMD FX microprocessors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Structure presentation

[edit]

There was a redundant and confusing threads/cores/modules presentation.

The number of modules alone does not tell anything.

What is important to note is that the number of modules is equal to the number of FPUs.

It is also relevant to show that the number of cores is equal to the number of threads. 217.162.74.13 (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform structure presentation:
* Simple: Cores/threads/FPUs -> Example: 4
* Bulldozer: [Modules/FPUs] Cores/threads -> Example: [2] 4
* Zen: Cores/FPUs (threads) -> Example: 4 (8)

217.162.74.13 (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

release dates

[edit]

Why are there no release dates posted for each CPU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.117.125.159 (talk) 07:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_AMD_FX_processors&oldid=1203620147"