AMD FX-8XXX series are not real 8 cores?

People who post that are just making up remours like the 4100. People say its 2 cores, yet its a quadcore.

I understand it have 4 cores splited in 8, so it's basically 8, but each core is not very much powerful as on Intel's, their power is in quantity, but is still a very good processor, by price-performance, you only need to install 2 hot fixes to have all working properly. They also have more CPUs, for maximum to 12 cores, but they're very expensive.

Even an FX4100 still plays everygame on good settings. (Newest med for instance) with good card. Offcourse, AMD boards usually work better with AMD Ati card.

4 cores 4 modules

I imagine that this 8/4 system works the same way dual GPU video cards work, yet I don't hear anyone wondering how these cards can be called dual GPU if they only have one PCB.

I read somewhere that Intel's 8-core CPUs are done in this 4-module method as well. If my memory is reliable, and it often isn't so double-check this for yourselves, then all arguments against AMD for going with this method must apply to Intel as well.

4 and 4

Amazing how you can start a "amd cpu's are better than intel cpu's" topic, and then come and ask this question.

It's a matter of how you want to define it. Top AMD CPU's have four modules. Each such module has two integer "engines" but only one instruction decode pipeline and one floating point engine. It's possible to look at this as 8 integer cores, because it pretty much allows executing 8 times as many instructions as a single core would. But it's also easy to look at this as 4 cores. It's mainly an issue for fanboys to argue about.

The AMD FX-8XXX issue is like the Intel Core 2 Quad series which do not have 4 individual cores but 2 dual cores on 1 die, however it performs similar to a quad ccre. The AMD FX-8XXX series do not have 8 individual cores but 4 modules on 1 die, however it performs similar to an octa core.

cores sharing bus between 2 cores. So its not physicaly 8 but 4

Yes they do

It's not 8 complete cores. There are 4 modules in the CPU and 2 "cores" per module. However, not all ressources are duplicated. It's more akin to Intel's Hyper-Threading althoug it does duplicate more of the resources. (HT still beats FX though)

They are (almost )8 core cpus. I think the modules thing is better than hyper threading (in concept, at least).

8 threads spread among 4 physical cores. It can get tricky for the layman to decide when a processor is truly 8 cores due to shared resources between cores.

Here is TekSyndicate's explanation of the FX-8000 series.

CPU Cache : L1 : 4 x 64 / 8 x 16 KB - L2 : 4 x 2048 KB
CPU Cache : L3 : 8192 KB

people love to hate amd or follow what others say.. dunno which

http://www.futurelooks.com/amds-new-vishera-fx-8350-am3-cpu-reviewed/
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/3

It's still an 1st Generation CPU so has bottle neck issues - 4 physical cores - 2 threads per core = 8 threads total (they just call it 8 core, but it's not). Each physical core runs quite slowly and therefore is rubbish for gaming purposes as most games won't make the full usage of all 8 threads. It would be ideal for graphical applications and multi-tasking, which would actual make use of those threads.

Intel has 2nd and 3rd Generation CPUs now. The i7 CPUS are also quad core (standard) or hex core (expensive and still not worth it), with multiple hyper threading. The CPU is at the point where it's as fast as it can go, it simply is bottlenecked at other areas. So they redesigned the motherboard + cpu to work together as one, direct access to graphic processing and memory = less bottlenecks = overall 60-80% better performance than a 1st Generation. Of course this would however require also upgrading your motherboard to support, but well worth it for gaming purposes.

Almost everyone in this thread is completely incorrect.

AMD's Bulldozer and Pileddriver CPUs are separated into "modules."

One module has two integer "cores" and one floating point* "core". The best FX CPUs feature 4 modules. Depending on the workload, mostly the integer cores could be used. If the workload supports many threads, then it's as if there are 8 cores. But mostly the floating point cores could be used. If the workload supports many threads, then it's as if there are only 4 cores.

So how do you know if your workload is made up of integer or floating point math? You can't. It's best to just look at some benchmarks and see what's going on. Check out some benchmarks in this review: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested

*Floating point numbers can be thought of as decimals while integers can be thought of as "whole" numbers without any decimal portion. It's computationally harder to do math with decimal numbers than whole numbers.

1 physical core, 4 modules containing 2 logical cores each with there own cache supply

First we have to come to grips with what is real, reality is based on our perception which might be off when compared to other people or even animals/bugs. This is a very philosophical question. Does real even exist? What is real? So many questions...

I will have to get back to you.

Basically, it has something similar to 8 logical cores, except only 4 cores are normally working. But AMD wants to beat Intel at the i7 Quad-Core processors, they labeled it as 8 cores but it doesn't work like one.

Are 8 core, but Windows don't recognizes all cores. The games yes. I've Six Core and my Windows recognizes all. Basically, I have 6 cores and 6 threads.