AMD FX

One notable feature of the AMD FX microprocessors is that they were all unlocked and overclockable, a feature usually reserved for the high-end K suffix SKUs from Intel. This allowed users to gain extra performance by raising the clock speed of their CPU.[15] The personal world record for highest overclock was achieved on an FX-8350, which was clocked up to 8794.33 MHz.[16]

• 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 package AM3+ socket.
• All models support up to 4 DIMMs of DDR3 memory.

Unlike the majority of their Intel counterparts, FX chips offered no integrated graphics, a feature reserved for AMD's APU line of processors. Both Zambezi and Vishera used a module design containing two cores on one module.

Upon launch, the FX series was met with criticism from reviewers.[17] 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.[17] 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.[17] The Piledriver-based FX refresh in 2012 generally improved performance across the board by increasing clock speeds at similar power consumption levels,[18] but Intel's Ivy Bridge architecture was available and provided much better performance per watt and total performance to consumers.[19] With AMD only being responsible for 20% of consumer CPU sales in 2016,[20] Intel continued to gain market share in the industry during the lifespan of the FX series.[21]

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, as thermal efficiency was often worse than the previous generation of processors.[22] Updates to the architecture that came with the Piledriver revision allowed for higher clock 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 its TDP rating of 220 watts.[23]

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.[24] The company had to pay out $12.1 million to California residents who bought a high-end FX chip.[25]

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

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