AMD cpu naming scheme

[Theo_C]

I'm trying to understand the FX naming scheme and I'm completely lost.  As far as I understand, the first number indicates the number of cores, second indicates architecture and the remaining two indicate model number.

 

So say we have an FX 4350.  4 cores, 3 indicates piledriver architecture (or is this generation?) and 50 would be the model number.  It seems simple enough.

 

But how do you explain the FX 9590???  It does not have 9 cores.  As far as I know it is a piledriver chip (so 3 right..?) and sure model number is 90.

 

Thanks

[Aniallation]

I'm trying to understand the FX naming scheme and I'm completely lost.  As far as I understand, the first number indicates the number of cores, second indicates architecture and the remaining two indicate model number.

 

So say we have an FX 4350.  4 cores, 3 indicates piledriver architecture (or is this generation?) and 50 would be the model number.  It seems simple enough.

 

But how do you explain the FX 9590???  It does not have 9 cores.  As far as I know it is a piledriver chip (so 3 right..?) and sure model number is 90.

 

Thanks

 

they need to use the 9's before 7 eats them

[Enderman]

They just name it whatever they want and think looks cool. No logic behind it.

[D3MON]

I'm trying to understand the FX naming scheme and I'm completely lost.  As far as I understand, the first number indicates the number of cores, second indicates architecture and the remaining two indicate model number.

 

So say we have an FX 4350.  4 cores, 3 indicates piledriver architecture (or is this generation?) and 50 would be the model number.  It seems simple enough.

 

But how do you explain the FX 9590???  It does not have 9 cores.  As far as I know it is a piledriver chip (so 3 right..?) and sure model number is 90.

 

Thanks

they do it because it doesn't matter what its called, rest is correct.

its like changing 3570k to 4670k...

[Sauron]

I'm trying to understand the FX naming scheme and I'm completely lost.  As far as I understand, the first number indicates the number of cores, second indicates architecture and the remaining two indicate model number.

 

So say we have an FX 4350.  4 cores, 3 indicates piledriver architecture (or is this generation?) and 50 would be the model number.  It seems simple enough.

 

But how do you explain the FX 9590???  It does not have 9 cores.  As far as I know it is a piledriver chip (so 3 right..?) and sure model number is 90.

 

Thanks

 

Well you got the first part right, the 9370 and 9590 are exceptions. It's a bit like when Intel names their extreme lineup with the first number of the following architecture (sandy bridge -e was 3xxx for instance wheras standard sandy was 2xxx).

[notkip]

i don't think they have a naming scheme they just throw numbers on it and call it a day

[Ren]

they do it because it doesn't matter what its called, rest is correct.

its like changing 3570k to 4670k...

I had always thought 3570k to 4670k was because they were trying to imply performance growth and the next generation/architecture? (Ivy > Haswell tick)? I.E. 3>4 for generation of CPU, X5XX to X6XX for the +10% (or w/e) from that jump. 2550k > 3570k? 2XXX Sandy > 3XXX Ivy tock, XX5X to XX7X for the minor increases within that architecture.

Correct me if anything I'm stating as fact, like architecture/generation stuff, is wrong here. I think the above is a very logical system, but I've not analyzed it further than i5. i3 could be completely different, I'd have to look at numbers/whatever else and I know 3770k/4770k is the same thing. That's likely to do with HT stuff and Enterprise/eXtreme Intel CPUs, however, and that's not a mess I wanna think about right this second.

Sorry for the long post, I just think product naming is important and I thought Intel has done a very good job at it even if it means little. AMD's on the other hand, is quite confusing and that's coming from someone who's always preferred them (and still recognizes when someone has the better product).

[Ren]

For FX, it made sense up until Vishera (slightly, anyway). They kept throwing BE/Black Edition on everything as if it were special for a while. I still don't know if it has any meaning behind it, at first I assumed it meant it was OEM/no stock heatsink included so you'd save some money to spend on a proper one seeing as all FX are unlocked.

FX-4100/6100/8100 were the very first generation of FX I think. Then came the 2nd batch a little while after (AMD's been sporadic with FX, sometimes weeks apart and other times months/years?). Can't quite remember it all perfectly right now, I'd have to do some digging to find all of the release dates.

Did a little bit of that "digging", it went something like 4100/4170 first batch (late '11/early '12), 4130/4300 2nd batch (late '12), 4150/4200/4350 3rd batch (early '13+).
My proof (image from AMD's product comparison page):

They list them in this order (I only chose the first 4 4-core FX CPUs) and the others may be discontinued/were OEM to begin with.
You can go thru the list of CPUs with CTRL+F, searching for "FX-4", on cpubenchmark.net to find the release dates of all these CPUs.

 

As for the actual usage of their names, you could believe it's a binning format more than anything else. Obviously there's a trend with each "batch" (word used by wikipedia/maybe AMD themselves), and I'm not bothered enough to check all 7 of the processors' architectures right now. I just know that they made em up to Vishera/Piledriver.

 

This applies to all FX CPUs except it makes less sense with the 8-cores. I think they just put the title of 9XXX on those to try and help them sell seeing as they are, as everyone always says, just massively overclocked FX-8000s that are at the top of the silicon pile. They were binned and AMD tried to turn a profit by selling them as server-grade HW since modules suck ass and their ST rating is limited by architecture. Too power-hungry for servers, so they dropped em to consumers but realized that Intel shits all over them. Thus, we have lowered prices on these 140/220W TDP 8-cores.

 

And that's what I think about it all.. Again, sorry for the long posts..