bit-tech.net

AMD launches Piledriver-powered FX processors

AMD launches Piledriver-powered FX processors

AMD's latest FX processors, based on the Piledriver microarchitecture, boast a 15 per cent performance improvement over Bulldozer.

AMD has formally launched its AM3+ Piledriver-based 'Vishera' FX-series processors, aimed at the enthusiast market that its Trinity-based A-series APUs simply cannot reach.

The top-end FX-8350 is AMD's highlight: an eight-core chip, designed to go head-to-head with Intel's i5-3570K, the FX-8350 boasts a 4GHz clockspeed boosting to 4.2GHz under Turbo Core conditions. Each core has 1MB of L2 cache arranged in shared 2MB chunks across paired cores, while the chip boasts a total of 8MB of L3 cache. As is common with AMD's high-end parts, the new FX processors are fully multiplier unlocked for overclocking purposes.

For buyers on a budget, AMD's answer to Intel's i5-3450 is the FX-8320: again an eight-core part, the FX-8320 is clocked down to 3.5GHz with 4GHz available under Turbo Core conditions. Otherwise, it shares the same 8MB of L3 cache and fully unlocked clock multiplier.

From there, it's time to get into the lower end of the spectrum. The FX-6300 is a six-core part running at 3.5GHz and boosting to 4.1GHz under Turbo Core, but retains the same 1MB of L2 cache per core and 8MB L3 total and is designed to compete with Intel's i5-2300. The FX-4300, meanwhile, drops the core count to four but increases clock speed to 3.8GHz - 4GHz under Turbo Core - with 1MB of L2 cache per core and 4MB L3 cache total. Both models are, again, unlocked.

With Piledriver, AMD claims to have addressed many of the concerns with its Bulldozer architecture. Performance has been boosted by around 15 per cent for the same clockspeed, but the chips share the same 32nm process as their predecessors. It's clear from AMD's positioning of the chips against the Core i5 and i3 series, however, that the performance tweaks to the microarchitecture still aren't enough to give Intel's top-end Core i7 family a run for its money.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, mind: AMD is putting each of the parts onto the market at a significantly reduced price compared to the target Intel chips, giving cost-conscious consumers a reason to defect to the red camp. As programmers start developing natively for multi-core processors, the benefits of AMD's eight-core chips over Intel's rival four-core parts should become apparent - but, for now, AMD will remain lagging behind its giant rival in raw performance stakes.

Full UK pricing has yet to be confirmed, with initial indications being that AMD will price the top-end FX-8350 below the £150 mark.

73 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Lenderz 23rd October 2012, 10:19 Quote
Whilst its not giving Ivy Bridge a run for its money I think its pretty decent bang for buck for the average consumer. Which can't be a bad thing, perhaps AMD can start to compete in that niche again.
Snips 23rd October 2012, 10:26 Quote
I don't think you can start using the ever present myth tag in an AMD topic of "best bang per buck" until the reviews and performance comparisons are out.
SpAceman 23rd October 2012, 10:27 Quote
I had a bit of a chuckle thinking about how AMD need a 4GHz octo-core to compete with a 3.4GHz quad from Intel.

Sad times.
MrJay 23rd October 2012, 10:30 Quote
i5-3570K = 77w TDP

FX-8350 = 125w TDP

Ouch.
The_Crapman 23rd October 2012, 10:31 Quote
I hope to god these have more than a 15% increase over bulldozer.

Going on the gaming results for Arma 2 from the fx8120 review:
FX-8150@4.818GHz gets an fps of 70min, 82avg.
15% increase on these would be 80.5min, 94.3avg.
the i5-3570K clocked in at 92min, 104avg AT STOCK SPEED.

You need more than 15% and a spare £30 AMD. you really do.
tonyd223 23rd October 2012, 10:42 Quote
Not sure why Bit-Tech doesn't have a review?
rollo 23rd October 2012, 10:42 Quote
More AMD power sucking 4ghz + chips, if intel one day releases an 8 core consumer CPU and it runs at 4ghz you can be pretty certain it will compete with just itself for performance.

Technically speaking this is still just 4 cores 4 threads in windows is it not?

If you built a system using only AMD parts you would require some decent sized psu vs a competing intel nvidia build.

Would also wonder about heat and noise produced by said AMD system
GuilleAcoustic 23rd October 2012, 10:51 Quote
The frequency is a thing, the architecture is another. What I care about it the performance / price ratio, not the perf / freq ratio. Go on AMD, I'm with you. I'm curious to see multi-threaded performances.

Oh ... and while you are all throwing rocks at AMDs face ... aren't you forgeting the IB internal temp issue ? The TDP is maybe low with IB, but the core temperature is rather high. We need competition, Intel is leading the bal right now (with high pricing politic). You should encourage AMD instead of spitting your venom in their face.

Oh .... and gaming is not the only thing a computer can do.
The_Crapman 23rd October 2012, 11:06 Quote
according to this AMD press release (http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/new-amd-fx-line-2012oct23.aspx) the 8350 will retail at $195. add VAT and you're looking at about 145 of the queens pounds.
rollo 23rd October 2012, 11:09 Quote
anandtech have ran the numbers

AMD claims some wins in multi thread where it can use its 8 cores, Loses every single single threaded performance benchmark, Lost on every game as well in the tests where they had a old i7920 visiable it was still kicking it to amd in games and that chip is 4 years old.

Power consumption test is the kicker for me, both AMD chips were above 200 watt system usage when under full load the intel chips were below 90watts. Thats a huge saving on power and heat in the long run for business system builders who are going smaller cases more performance.

They overclock pretty well 5ghz they hit on a 4300 and 4.8ghz on the top end chip, Problem was power consumption went insane,

The top end chip consumed virtually 300 watts of power all by itself (http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/8) thats more than a top end nvidia gpu consumes lol.

The problem for AMD at there 15% performance increase per generation they will never catch Intel ever again at the mid end and maybe even the low end in games.

No 6 core intel cpu was tested by anandtech just the 4 core ones.
Hustler 23rd October 2012, 11:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpAceman
I had a bit of a chuckle thinking about how AMD need a 4GHz octo-core to compete with a 3.4GHz quad from Intel.

Sad times.

It is if you buy into the idea that these are genuine 8 core CPU's...to me there nothing more than quads with a fancy form of hyperthreading.
GuilleAcoustic 23rd October 2012, 11:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
anandtech have ran the numbers

AMD claims some wins in multi thread where it can use its 8 cores, Loses every single single threaded performance benchmark, Lost on every game as well in the tests where they had a old i7920 visiable it was still kicking it to amd in games and that chip is 4 years old.

Power consumption test is the kicker for me, both AMD chips were above 200 watt system usage when under full load the intel chips were below 90watts. Thats a huge saving on power and heat in the long run for business system builders who are going smaller cases more performance.

They overclock pretty well 5ghz they hit on a 4300 and 4.8ghz on the top end chip, Problem was power consumption went insane,

The top end chip consumed virtually 300 watts of power all by itself (http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/8) thats more than a top end nvidia gpu consumes lol.

The problem for AMD at there 15% performance increase per generation they will never catch Intel ever again at the mid end and maybe even the low end in games.

No 6 core intel cpu was tested by anandtech just the 4 core ones.

Given the price it's a very nice chip. If you need multi-threaded perf and can't afford an overpriced i7, then it's a very nice chip. And even an i7 can't compete in multi-core optimized softwares.

6 cores Intel cpu ... trololol ... look at the price :(. Gaming performance is not everything there is about CPU ... if you're mainly gaming, go buy an i3, it's more than enough.

NVidia ... they trully suck at openCL, the openGL performances are software locked to sell more arm-costing quadro GPU ... AMD is not a looser. They offer good bang for bucks.

Ok their CPUs consume more than Intel ones, but aren't bad given the price. They just aren't aimed at doing the same thing. In multi-threaded scenario, the FX8350 did beat even an i7-3770K, which is far more expensive.
rollo 23rd October 2012, 11:22 Quote
Never said it was not a nice chip ( was just given a brief outline of its wins and loses for those that dont have access to the artical at work for whatever reason), For most peoples purposes they will look at 2 Pages Gaming results and power consumption and not see AMD top, thats the way it goes sadly.
Lenderz 23rd October 2012, 11:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
I don't think you can start using the ever present myth tag in an AMD topic of "best bang per buck" until the reviews and performance comparisons are out.

Sorry, perhaps I should have mentioned expecting your ever present AMD trolling. But I had looking at reviews and benches all morning. I think they offer a decent bang for buck. Especially in heavily multi-threaded tests. For the average consumer they're not bad chips.
GuilleAcoustic 23rd October 2012, 11:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
Never said it was not a nice chip ( was just given a brief outline of its wins and loses for those that dont have access to the artical at work for whatever reason), For most peoples purposes they will look at 2 Pages Gaming results and power consumption and not see AMD top, thats the way it goes sadly.

Same people as those I know, personnaly, who bought an i7 and OCed it to hell just to play a game that was already running @ 60+ fps at stock .... no comment.
Adnoctum 23rd October 2012, 12:04 Quote
It's a straight server chip. It was designed as a server chip. It was optimised as a server chip. It is a server chip.
That means that its focus was on multi-threaded performance.

Those who magically were expecting stellar single-threaded performance for their gaming pleasure have either indigo-tinted glasses (I'm looking at you Snips) and have been waiting their chance to troll every forum, or have been living in a cave and missed the last year of Bulldozer.

You know who I think would be thrilled with this release? Workstation users.
$200 for this kind of performance, coupled with affordable 970/990 motherboards, ECC support and fully featured from top to bottom of the range.
To go Intel you'd have to bend over and take it from Intel for Xeon and workstation-class motherboards, and of course you'd have to navigate the Intel feature game to make sure the CPU has all the features you need.
Marvin-HHGTTG 23rd October 2012, 12:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
anandtech have ran the numbers

AMD claims some wins in multi thread where it can use its 8 cores, Loses every single single threaded performance benchmark, Lost on every game as well in the tests where they had a old i7920 visiable it was still kicking it to amd in games and that chip is 4 years old.

Power consumption test is the kicker for me, both AMD chips were above 200 watt system usage when under full load the intel chips were below 90watts. Thats a huge saving on power and heat in the long run for business system builders who are going smaller cases more performance.

They overclock pretty well 5ghz they hit on a 4300 and 4.8ghz on the top end chip, Problem was power consumption went insane,

The top end chip consumed virtually 300 watts of power all by itself (http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/8) thats more than a top end nvidia gpu consumes lol.

The problem for AMD at there 15% performance increase per generation they will never catch Intel ever again at the mid end and maybe even the low end in games.

No 6 core intel cpu was tested by anandtech just the 4 core ones.

The word "system" clearly escaped your notice entirely...

Also the 920 was slower in every game test versus the 8350. It is close though. It is great however to see AMD beating even the 3770K in multi-threaded applications, while costing about £100 less (before getting to the cheaper platform cost).

It might not be AMD's saviour (single thread performance is poor, but then again there aren't many performance led non-threaded applications so somewhat less important, except to a gamer), but it's compelling enough to have a good look...
Valinor 23rd October 2012, 12:18 Quote
Yeah, at the very least (looking at some reviews) it's more a case of "What am I mainly going to be using this CPU for?", instead of "What's the best Intel chip for this price?". Depending on the workload the FX-8350 makes a lot of sense over everything up to an i7-3770.
Harlequin 23rd October 2012, 12:20 Quote
hmmmm anandtechs review seems somewhat intel flavoured compared to alot of the others ; the ikes of cinebench , most have AMD leading the way especially when overlcocked - and also most have this amd chip quite evenly matched to the i5.

wouldnt have expected for anand to be paid off like this but nothing suprises me now
Baz 23rd October 2012, 12:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyd223
Not sure why Bit-Tech doesn't have a review?

Only got our chip yesterday; we'll have a review up soon.
Snips 23rd October 2012, 12:22 Quote
You can look at me all you like Adnoctum, it still doesn't change the fact that this release "yet again" is not a very good one. Just like last years disappointing Bulldozer release.

Let's wait for next years "insert tough name here" release with another 15% increase in performance but will cost you at least 4 times as much to run your "workstation" on your business rate energy tarrif.

Keep that myth going boys!
Chicken76 23rd October 2012, 12:31 Quote
I hope you guys will compare it to both Zambezi and Thuban, stock and overclocked.
GuilleAcoustic 23rd October 2012, 12:32 Quote
.... and not only gaming. Please use rendering, golding, etc. on your review.
Snips 23rd October 2012, 12:38 Quote
.... and the overall cost of running such a system and temperatures on your review.
GuilleAcoustic 23rd October 2012, 12:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
You can look at me all you like Adnoctum, it still doesn't change the fact that this release "yet again" is not a very good one. Just like last years disappointing Bulldozer release.

Let's wait for next years "insert tough name here" release with another 15% increase in performance but will cost you at least 4 times as much to run your "workstation" on your business rate energy tarrif.

Keep that myth going boys!

.... cluster of 36K opterons here .... Sparc got dumped and Xeon got disqualified .... better price / perf with opterons. AMDs consume more than Intels, but the platform overall cost is inferior.

Just look at TDP and clock speed of SB / IB Xeon .... look at the price .... then do the same with opteron (bulldozer based, waiting for piledriver ones). TDP are practically the same, but the cost is not the same (or the clock speed has been halved compared to the intel desktop cpu).
Snips 23rd October 2012, 12:59 Quote
Where exactly? What's the better/price/ perf with opterons?
Snips 23rd October 2012, 13:05 Quote
Let's not detract from the notion that this is supposed to be another "Gamer and PC enthusiast" component that appears to not be either.

"Gamers and PC enthusiasts who buy AMD FX processors have even more to cheer about with the increased speeds and value we are delivering starting today," said Leslie Sobon, vice president of Desktop and Component Products, AMD. "After introducing the industry's first and only eight-core desktop processor last year, we now have even faster stock frequencies and an all-new, high-performance x86 core architecture to satisfy power-users."

I'm sorry gents but this release lives up to neither a gamers or PC enthusiast product.
Hustler 23rd October 2012, 13:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz

Only got our chip yesterday; we'll have a review up soon.

Supplied by AMD.?

Generous of them, after your 'It's a stinker' verdict on the Bulldozer...:))
GuilleAcoustic 23rd October 2012, 13:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
Let's not detract from the notion that this is supposed to be another "Gamer and PC enthusiast" component that appears to not be either.

"Gamers and PC enthusiasts who buy AMD FX processors have even more to cheer about with the increased speeds and value we are delivering starting today," said Leslie Sobon, vice president of Desktop and Component Products, AMD. "After introducing the industry's first and only eight-core desktop processor last year, we now have even faster stock frequencies and an all-new, high-performance x86 core architecture to satisfy power-users."

I'm sorry gents but this release lives up to neither a gamers or PC enthusiast product.

I'm sorry, but only ignorants will take marketing people words as real world facts. Your "so called gamers" are supposed to be a minimum informed and capable or reading tech reviews. And for the 100th time, COMPUTING IS NOT ONLY ABOUT GAMING !! If your sole interest in a computer is gaming .... then go buy a console. It'll cost you less and last longer.
Snips 23rd October 2012, 13:33 Quote
No need to get upset. The quote was from the VP of Desktop and Component products.

This is neither a gamer or PC Enthusiast product. FACT!
GeorgeStorm 23rd October 2012, 13:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
No need to get upset. The quote was from the VP of Desktop and Component products.

This is neither a gamer or PC Enthusiast product. FACT!

Wouldn't agree with that, gamer isn't a technical term that you can quantify, so this will be completely useable for some gamers for instance.
Hustler 23rd October 2012, 13:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips

This is neither a gamer or PC Enthusiast product. FACT!

Whilst i think the chip sucks, I wouldn't say it cant be a decent chip for gaming, combined with a mid to high end GPU, were only talking about the difference between 80fps with AMD or 100fps with Intel, so its a moot point as long as you get a solid 60fps, and 99% of the time when you dont, it's down to the GPU running out of steam, not the CPU these days.

If you need a CPU for running single core, IPC hogging things like emulators, then you wouldn't go near these CPU's...Intel all the way.
GuilleAcoustic 23rd October 2012, 13:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
No need to get upset. The quote was from the VP of Desktop and Component products.

This is neither a gamer or PC Enthusiast product. FACT!

an i3-3220 would be more than enough for almost all gamer, but they all keep buy i7, that's a FACT ! People do not buy what they need, but only the biggest available. It's all about pride nowaday. Keep wasting you money is unecessary thing and feed the Intel banking account by buying their overpriced cpu ... I'll keep choosing the best I can have for my money that suites my need. For what I do (rendering and highly threaded crunching, with little gaming) AMDs offering is more consistent than Intel ones. I do not have 300+ € to throw into a CPU for a quad + HT crap.

EDIT : And keep in mind that the only unlocked IB i5 is 15% more expensive than the most expensive FX piledriver. May you like AMD cpu or not, at least to not say it's crap. Without them Intel could charge you as much as they want. The time where computer were a luxury product is not that far away.

EDIT² : And YES I am upset when people are throwing such narrow-minded and crappy comment on something they didn't even used. You can't have everything, it's like cars, the fastest one do not have the best acceleration or torque or lacks 2 back seats or is not available in pink or consumes too much, is too low, do not fit inside the garage, cost too much, etc etc etc .... people are never happy.

Those AMD chips are nice for what they are designed for : MULTI-THREADING. But they are more than capable for gaming purpose, since it's more GPU dependant than CPU. You'll have less fps, just look at reviews, but it will always be far more than enough.
Lenderz 23rd October 2012, 13:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
No need to get upset. The quote was from the VP of Desktop and Component products.

This is neither a gamer or PC Enthusiast product. FACT!

And the VP of Desktop and Component Products is a great source of information because he doesn't have a vested interest right?

My point was it seems a pretty solid chip for the price for the majority of end users, I don't have enough experience in server rooms to make a decision there but I believe what GuilleAcoustic states.

Yes Intel chips are better all round, especially in the high end, but piledriver seems to address much of the issues with BD, and is a step in the right direction and provides decent bang/buck (look around at all the reviews up on the web, they all pretty much conclude on the same thing)....

The majority of people don't need the power that the latest i7 provides, and this is a cheaper solution, which from an end user perspective, when paired with a decent GPU they won't be able to notice the difference in real world gaming, as you're looking at 5-10 FPS difference max.

But yet again, another AMD story, more Snips trolling. Happens every time, never change Snips it amuses me no end. :)
Digi 23rd October 2012, 14:45 Quote
I find it a little sad that in years gone by AMD was branding it's processors as 2800+ etc to show that despite being clocked slower, they were equivalent to faster Intel chips. Now it's the other way around. They actually have to boost things to ridiculous levels to even compete.

It's a sad state of affairs that there's no competitor for Intels stuff, especially bitter considering Intel stifled AMD and will continue to reap the benefits of this, probably, forever more.

I'm not stupid, I bought a i5-3570K as it was the best in that price range and I simply couldn't justify trying to support the underdog again.. :(
.//TuNdRa 23rd October 2012, 14:45 Quote
I'm mildly pleased by this. It's a bigger performance jump than I'd expected, but much less than needed.

Seems they still didn't manage to fix the power-leakage issue when overclocking. At the moment; My FX 8120 can draw close to 400 watts all for its' own consumption if I push it all the way to 4.8Ghz, stable. That said; a 15% generalized jump in IPC would really make an impact in some scenarios with my machine. Renders can take ages and I still find that, even at such insane clocks, it'll run out of puff on single/lowly threaded tasks.

Despite that; Even at 4.5ghz, on Air cooling; It'll only just nudge 71 degrees. Well over AMD's rated thermal limit for overclocking, but for a 125W chip at the start; that's pretty damn impressive.

Oh: Bit: Smack the HyperTransport as high as it'll go when you Overclock. That really opens up more Memory Bandwidth, you have to get a little nutty with the voltages through the Northbridge to push it much beyond 2600mhz on the NB, but it does have a profound impact in tests that are generally memory limited.
Adnoctum 23rd October 2012, 15:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
You can look at me all you like Adnoctum, it still doesn't change the fact that this release "yet again" is not a very good one. Just like last years disappointing Bulldozer release.

Let's wait for next years "insert tough name here" release with another 15% increase in performance but will cost you at least 4 times as much to run your "workstation" on your business rate energy tarrif.

Keep that myth going boys!

I don't hate you or your trolling Snips, because you are just so terrible at it. The best trolls are informed trolls, because they always know just the weakest point to do their griefing, while most trolls are merely annoying with their personal abuse. You are ignorant so you aren't a good troll, and you aren't abusive so you aren't annoying.

To say that the Vishera release "isn't a very good one" is massively ignorant, if only because you don't state by what measure. If all you are interested is in gaming or single-threaded performance, then that is fine, FOR YOU Vishera isn't of much interest. Although, Vishera isn't a terrible gaming CPU, it just isn't as fast as Intel.
If you are interested in multi-threaded performance, then the matter is very different. Vishera performs almost as good, as good or better than the Intel equivalent (depending on the program), but it is cheaper, the platform is cheaper and as I said Piledriver is fully featured and unlocked from top to bottom.

Point me to a desktop Ivy Bridge solution with ECC support, without paying the Xeon/workstation premium? Does it support Hyper-Threading or not? Does it support VT-d or not? Does it support TXT or not? Does it support vPro or not?
Is it overclockable or not? So the CPU will OC, but will the chipset let you (that's "No" unless you have a Z77 board)? You have those legacy PCI cards at work, which chipset will give you PCI? Does it support SRT caching or not? Does it have more than two 6Gbit/s SATA ports?
You gotta love Intel's segmenting strategy, it makes your purchasing decision as clear as mud.

Power costs may be important in a home gaming/HTPC machine, it is less important in a workstation/server where the system is not being used for entertainment but to generate revenue.
Businesses care more about TCO of a system/platform than a single measurement. Power use is only one metric by which TCO is evaluated, and although the difference between Piledriver and Ivy Bridge looks big on a benchmarked graph, it wouldn't be significant when viewed alongside other costs associated with running servers.

You are disappointed with the 15% improvement from Bulldozer to Piledriver? That must make it a massive failure, right?
So where were you when Ivy Bridge outperformed Sandy Bridge by a massive 5%? And Intel did this with a die shrink from 32nm to 22nm.
AMD improved performance over Bulldozer while still being stuck on the 32nm SOI process and also keeping the same uncore. The 5-15% performance increase comes from core improvements alone, which is pretty good going. It may not beat Intel, but it isn't a failure.

As I said, Vishera is a server chip first and last, and that shows in the benchmarks. AMD has said that they can't compete with Intel on the high-end desktop, so they aren't going to devote precious engineering resources to a competition they have little hope of winning. Some people want AMD desktop chips like Vishera, so AMD is willing to sell them chips but they aren't going to go out of their way to develop a high-end desktop variant.
Where AMD is competitive is on low-power and mainstream platforms, graphics and in server applications. On the server side, AMD also cannot compete where Intel is strong, so the Bulldozer architecture is designed to gradually move to a place where AMD is strong: Parallelism. It is an architecture in transition.

Shock revelation/spoiler alert: This move to Parallelism isn't going to make AMD any better at single-threaded performance! So if your only metric of CPU success/failure is in gaming/single-threaded benchmarks, then you will never be happy with AMD for the near future. Given your history of shallow AMD trolling, I don't imagine that would ever have been a problem.
.//TuNdRa 23rd October 2012, 15:11 Quote
One thing that caught my eye in that Aandtech article is just how lazily they overclocked: Raw speed didn't help Bulldozer in the slightest when I was working on getting just about as much speed as possible out of the chip, I could achieve much better overall performance at 4.6ghz with a higher HT than I could at just forcing the chip all the way up to 4.9Ghz.

I'm hoping Bit-tech test this, I think it was touched on in the last review, but i've yet to see anyone really look at how it impacts performance.

I've been wondering if some of the issues with framerates are the extra processing, how much latency did Intel remove from their boards when they moved the NB into the CPU? Sure, your CPU is more complex, but it means everything is so much more tightly knit, AMD need to come up with something similar. As it is: It doesn't look like Vishera's Memory Controller had anywhere near the upgrade it needed, and the 990FX Northbridge still bottlenecks the memory to an extent.

Doesn't help that most motherboard manufacturers run the NB at 2200 mhz out of the box, where AMD states that "Up to" 2600mhz is within specification, that extra 400mhz and the extra 0.4GT/s that adds to the HT link can add almost 2GB/s to memory bandwidth. That's a hell of a difference for a few seconds twiddling settings in the BIOS.
Jipa 23rd October 2012, 15:11 Quote
Sigh the exact same comments once again. Why did I bother.
rollo 23rd October 2012, 15:12 Quote
People arguing over silly things lol

But the real thing that will show if this is a success or not is sales, AMD needs a good quater or its stock price could see a 1 dollar a share which would not be good.

For everyones sake AMD needs to be at least semi competitive with Intel, It will never hold the out and out performance crown ever again anyone expecting as much is in LALA land.

Intels true high end the 6 core series of cpus has never been matched by a single AMD product for there purposes ( High end video work, CAD work to name 2 things ) AMD admited themselves they are not competing for this market no more.

This is a good CPU with poor power usage and some people will pay the £20-£30 for better power usage on a chip that will last you 3-4 years minimum. Unless your on the bleeding edge of required performance in which case you wouldnt be buying amd in the first place, CPU performance comes down to 2-3 things.

Power usage + Thermals
overclocking ability
Single threaded performance ( Where 80% of most peoples needs are )
Basic video and photo editing work
Gaming.

CPU hits 3 of the 5 above thats not bad at all in my book.
sandys 23rd October 2012, 15:17 Quote
Does it finally better an X6 in gaming etc. guess that's the only thing most upgraders will care about, if you already have a decent system.
Spreadie 23rd October 2012, 15:53 Quote
Their focus certainly appears to be the server market, with spin-offs offered to consumers.

The sad thing is, it's taken AMD four years to produce a CPU that comprehensively beats an i7 920. Just going by Geekbench, their IMCs seem particularly weak, and not just on CPUs; their GPUs need more memory and massive bandwidth to compete with nvidia's offerings - although, to be fair, they compete very well.

I think we may have to wait for their next 'entirely new' architecture before we have any hope of real competition.

Before anyone starts, I'm not trolling/baiting. I just think AMD have a long way to go before the enthusiast will consider their flagship CPUs as viable alternatives to Intel's.
.//TuNdRa 23rd October 2012, 16:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spreadie
Their focus certainly appears to be the server market, with spin-offs offered to consumers.

The sad thing is, it's taken AMD four years to produce a CPU that comprehensively beats an i7 920. Just going by Geekbench, their IMCs seem particularly weak, and not just on CPUs; their GPUs need more memory and massive bandwidth to compete with nvidia's offerings - although, to be fair, they compete very well.

I think we may have to wait for their next 'entirely new' architecture before we have any hope of real competition.

Before anyone starts, I'm not trolling/baiting. I just think AMD have a long way to go before the enthusiast will consider their flagship CPUs as viable alternatives to Intel's.

Hear hear. As the absolute only person on here with an FX processor (At least; As far as I know.) I can safely vouch for the fact that it, at least, needs to get off the 990FX chip. The hideous bottleneck caused by the NB doesn't help matters.

Really what's needed, at bare minimum, is a wholly new Memory Controller design inside of the chip. The current one is a bodged up DDR3 version of the Phenom II DDR3/2 controller, which is, in and of itself, just a sped up version of the Athlon64's original design. Those two changes, coupled with a few improvements besides, would dramatically improve memory throughput, at least. Which is an area where AMD severely lags behind Intel, regardless of their best efforts.

Everything benefits from more bandwidth, as it would help keep the cores Saturated, rather than waiting for information to arrive.
Harlequin 23rd October 2012, 16:08 Quote
if BT will oc the chips , can you also oc the board settings as well? by stock settings they are quite slack and slow - just tweaking settings get an increase at stock!
Chicken76 23rd October 2012, 16:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by .//TuNdRa
Seems they still didn't manage to fix the power-leakage issue when overclocking. At the moment; My FX 8120 can draw close to 400 watts all for its' own consumption if I push it all the way to 4.8Ghz, stable.
At 4.8 GHz, Anand's 8350 drew 300W (with mobo and everything). If your Bulldozer at the same frequency draws 400W, then I would say that that's a pretty significant improvement.
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6396/51144.png
azazel1024 23rd October 2012, 16:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrJay
i5-3570K = 77w TDP

FX-8350 = 125w TDP

Ouch.

Keep in mind for the Intel part, that 77w TDP INCLUDES the HD4000 graphics. If you aren't running the iGPU and are running a discrete GPU, the actual TDP of just the x86 and uncore parts with the GPU left out is more in the realm of 45-50w on the 3570k (the HD4000 can consume up around 20W). I'd bet that the FX-8350 is actually pulling down close to its rated TDP of 125w...so actual CPU power dissipation performance the Intel part likely has a 2:1 lead (the i7 3670k pulls more like 55w or so, plus GPU gets it right up on the 77w TDP rating limit, the 3670k pulls roughly 10w more from the wall at full load than the 3570k because of the slightly higher clock and hyperthreading).

Performance wise, I bet it is a repeat of the Bulldozer versus Sandybridge scenario. Single threaded and low threaded results are going to heavily favor Intel Ivy Bridge chips. Highly threaded, FP heavy workloads the Intel stuff is probably going to edge out the Piledriver parts by a modest about and only heavily threaded integer heavy works loads will result in a Piledriver win.

All at the cost of siginificantly more heat and power draw.
GuilleAcoustic 23rd October 2012, 16:54 Quote
also keep in mind that Vishera doesn't have an IGP and that they tested the power consumption with an GTX680 (adding 100W to the system wattage, even @ iddle or desktop display). A radeon HD7000 would have been a better choice with the zero core technology.
Snips 23rd October 2012, 17:13 Quote
So due to the fact that I don't agree with your AMD dryleghumping it's called trolling is it? Nice one, I'll remember that. So when Bit-tech's figures come in with it being an excellent Gaming and PC Enthusiast product, I'll happily take it on the chin.

Finding an excuse to where this product actually sits has become quite the usual thing. It's not accomplished at what it's been designed and marketed to do but we'll take it anyway and find a use for it elsewhere.

Good luck with that while the companies share price is the lowest it has ever been and in no sign of recovering. Come on Nvidia, make your move now.
GeorgeStorm 23rd October 2012, 17:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
So due to the fact that I don't agree with your AMD dryleghumping it's called trolling is it? Nice one, I'll remember that. So when Bit-tech's figures come in with it being an excellent Gaming and PC Enthusiast product, I'll happily take it on the chin.

Finding an excuse to where this product actually sits has become quite the usual thing. It's not accomplished at what it's been designed and marketed to do but we'll take it anyway and find a use for it elsewhere.

Good luck with that while the companies share price is the lowest it has ever been and in no sign of recovering. Come on Nvidia, make your move now.

Just because it's not top of the line doesn't mean it wouldn't make a good gaming cpu?
greigaitken 23rd October 2012, 17:19 Quote
i want a quad where 1st two cores run @ 50% faster than 2nd two.

2 x 5ghz + 2 x 3.3 > 4 x 4.2
Farfalho 23rd October 2012, 17:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyd223
Not sure why Bit-Tech doesn't have a review?

Only got our chip yesterday; we'll have a review up soon.

Do not rush it but do not take too long :P
Snips 23rd October 2012, 17:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeStorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
So due to the fact that I don't agree with your AMD dryleghumping it's called trolling is it? Nice one, I'll remember that. So when Bit-tech's figures come in with it being an excellent Gaming and PC Enthusiast product, I'll happily take it on the chin.

Finding an excuse to where this product actually sits has become quite the usual thing. It's not accomplished at what it's been designed and marketed to do but we'll take it anyway and find a use for it elsewhere.

Good luck with that while the companies share price is the lowest it has ever been and in no sign of recovering. Come on Nvidia, make your move now.

Just because it's not top of the line doesn't mean it wouldn't make a good gaming cpu?

But could you build a better one without using it? I'll wait for Bit-tech to tell us
SAimNE 23rd October 2012, 17:54 Quote
actually this thing has been stacking up quite well with the i5 even now. better frame rates on some of the dx11 games it was tested on, and faster in a few other areas as well. overall the i5 still has the edge, but with a 40$ difference, and with the gap not being anywhere near as far.... its actually worth buying now.
SAimNE 23rd October 2012, 18:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
anandtech have ran the numbers

AMD claims some wins in multi thread where it can use its 8 cores, Loses every single single threaded performance benchmark, Lost on every game as well in the tests where they had a old i7920 visiable it was still kicking it to amd in games and that chip is 4 years old.

Power consumption test is the kicker for me, both AMD chips were above 200 watt system usage when under full load the intel chips were below 90watts. Thats a huge saving on power and heat in the long run for business system builders who are going smaller cases more performance.

They overclock pretty well 5ghz they hit on a 4300 and 4.8ghz on the top end chip, Problem was power consumption went insane,

The top end chip consumed virtually 300 watts of power all by itself (http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/8) thats more than a top end nvidia gpu consumes lol.

The problem for AMD at there 15% performance increase per generation they will never catch Intel ever again at the mid end and maybe even the low end in games.

No 6 core intel cpu was tested by anandtech just the 4 core ones.

ive seen 3 games tested with both using the same hardware. the steamroller lost on skyrim(dx9), but actually outperformed the i5 on the 2 dx11 games... both chips at stock speed... my guess is that every one of anandtechs games were run at dx9 instead of 11, or something else was faulty in the amd build. i find it suspicious that the results ended up so different from http://hitechlegion.com/reviews/processors/31312-amd-fx8350, but only in the gaming department...

its a possibility that the steamroller architecture plays nice with radeon products then it does nvidia... but that possibility needs to be addressed in any testing done.

and btw number b is increasing by 15%, number a by 5%.... why wouldnt number b catch up??? pls revisit basic math.
jimmyjj 23rd October 2012, 19:42 Quote
Wow, obviously a lot of feeling on this topic.

I think the problem is that all of us are disappointed that AMD is effectively out of the race for high end enthusiast CPUs.

Every new release we cross our fingers and hope for the best, but we know in our hearts it is not going to happen.

Some of us take our disappointment and look for nice things to say about the chips, other channel that disappointment in to disparagement.

Ultimately we all want the same thing... true competition in the CPU market to push the envelope of innovation and price.

You can talk about bang for buck, bang for power and whether the chip is "good enough" or good for certain things. But come on, honestly, who here would seriously put this in their next main rig?
The_Crapman 23rd October 2012, 19:55 Quote
I looked through at least a dozen reviews, looking specifically at their gaming benchmarks. There's a whole heap of oddities on the bench marks; non of the reviews going above 1080p (apart from tomshardware, but, you know..), a lot using old games, but consistantly through all the variables, the fx8350 didn't fair all that bad, only a few frames off an i5, some tests even showing it equal.

So yes, if you're building a gaming system on a budget, it will do you just fine.
SAimNE 23rd October 2012, 20:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyjj
Wow, obviously a lot of feeling on this topic.

I think the problem is that all of us are disappointed that AMD is effectively out of the race for high end enthusiast CPUs.

Every new release we cross our fingers and hope for the best, but we know in our hearts it is not going to happen.

Some of us take our disappointment and look for nice things to say about the chips, other channel that disappointment in to disparagement.

Ultimately we all want the same thing... true competition in the CPU market to push the envelope of innovation and price.

You can talk about bang for buck, bang for power and whether the chip is "good enough" or good for certain things. But come on, honestly, who here would seriously put this in their next main rig?

i would consider it... i dont have the cash for a 1k processor, and the standard i7 series doesnt offer much to any increase in gaming specs in comparison to the i5. so for gaming, amd is a pliable option for the mid-high area... its now a viable option for gaming... i think.

unfortunately it's a bit of a grey area because all the tests show weird results... i want a full range of tests done with both nvidia and radeon on REAL gaming performance. benchmarks often show performance differences that dont carry over... anyway as far as i can tell it will play games around the same level as the i5 at resolutions other than 1050p. so i would definitely put it with a pair of 7970s if so.
meandmymouth 23rd October 2012, 21:48 Quote
I'm still hoping for a miracle from AMD and that they pull something amazing out in 2013 or 2014. They are still getting killed in single thread performance and power consumption.

Moving down to 28nm or 22nm will help a little with the power consumption, but nowhere near enough. Maybe steamroller will get a die shrink and we can get an 8-core chip with a TDP under 100W. Optimistic I know but I can dream.

At least the new Piledriver CPUs are more competitive and make a hand decent upgrade if you are already on the AMD platform.

Maybe AMD can start a kickstarter... "Help us compete with Intel, you know you want to!"
rollo 23rd October 2012, 21:49 Quote
Prob close to 0 jimmy and thats AMDs problem, Most people dont need an upgrade, Im still rocking an i7 950 ( in gaming rig ) and still see no reason to upgrade that gaming rig, Just replace gpus every year and your sorted till more games require more cpu power then the need to upgrade has died for many. most games still dont even use more than 2 cores.

And if true performance is your priority for work you get what goes fastest ignoring cost, intels 6 core cpus are just so fast they are insane in multithreaded applications. In the end of the day if you can encode something 4 times faster than the nearest chip using an 3960k then your going to buy that if your business is dependent on it.

AMD need to get the likes of Dell Lenova HP buying there cpus again and building systems making them thats how they will get out of there mess.

At the true high end AMD Will never compete again so expect intels prices to still be priced highly as they have no reason to drop the prices. Thats painful to write i tell you.

They have made some nice chips will anyone in tech land buy one i have my douts, any £100 cpu is good enough for gamers in the geek land, If gaming is not your priority then you likely already own a high end intel chip for your video photo work, Anyone here thinking of selling there ivy bridge, sandy bridge cpus for these chips by AMD i have my douts.
fluxtatic 24th October 2012, 07:14 Quote
As someone who got an AM3+ board shortly before BD dropped, only to be colossally disappointed, Vishera doesn't look so bad.

Competing against IB at price points, (4300 vs i3-3220, 6300 vs i5-3470, etc) it stacks up fairly well in everything but strict single-threaded applications.

I think it is partly that AMD tried to develop a server chip and go down from there (and apparently didn't do too badly adapting it to mobile considering its roots) and so, in a way, is ahead of its time. If the pace of software had kept up, AMD would be sitting a lot prettier. Given what a pain in the ass it apparently is to redevelop applications as multi-threaded, AMD got sort of stiffed.

Not that I'm laying it on the doors of software developers, though - AMD should damn well have known software wouldn't be ready by the time the BD architecture was. They've been poorly managed for quite a few years now. Hopefully they let Jim Keller do his thing and stay out of his way.
GuilleAcoustic 24th October 2012, 09:13 Quote
I'm in the process to replace my ageing Q6600 w/ 4GB DDR2-800 .... either that or an IB would give a huge perf improvement. The Q6600 is not really an efficient cpu when you look at the wattage / freq / #cores / heat / perf ratio.

Those vishera will give me a +100% perf for less than I paid for my current C2Q. I do not care to have 120 fps in games, I'm more looking at improved multi-threaded perf (rendering). I play D3 and Minecraft / Terraria .... so even an i3 would be overkill, but lacks cores when it comes to rendering.

For people like me who play occasionnaly but like to launch sof that load all cores @ 100% simultanously, this chip is a bargain for its price, and you have to sell your organs to have something similar on Intel side. As mentioned, Intel has segmented its offering so much that it's a real nightmare when trying to have mobo + ram + cpu that have all features you need (VT-pro, ECC, etc.)
littlepuppi 24th October 2012, 09:39 Quote
Glad to see AMD have something reasonable to offer here.. Not mind blowing but not rubbish... 8350 looks to be a cracking chip for 150 quid all said and done, and if you have AM3+ you are laughing.
The_Crapman 24th October 2012, 16:09 Quote
Dear BT

Even though you've probably finished your tests and are currently writing it all up, I have a suggestion for a test on the review to better show 'gaming performance'. Currently you only test using one top end graphics card like the GTX 590, probably so you can take the affect the GPU would have out of the equation. But the majority of us don't have that luxury, especially in cases like this where the CPU is aimed at the budget conscious.

So, my proposed test (something I'll dub CPU-GPU Scalability) would work like this:

-Take one gaming benchmark, e.g. BF3, 1,920 x 1,080 4xAA 16x AF, ultra detail settings, DirectX 11
-Run that benchmark against a range of GPU's for each CPU
-Plot a graph of the results with FPS on the Y-axis and GPU name on the X-axis

You should end up with something like this which people could then compare the performance of the CPU against their likely GPU of choice:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8047/8119283332_a1c4326dc2_b.jpg
(note that these figure are complete BS that i just made up as an example)
joco2_uk 25th October 2012, 09:49 Quote
Does anyone know when the review will be up?
Chicken76 25th October 2012, 11:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Crapman
Dear BT

Even though you've probably finished your tests and are currently writing it all up, I have a suggestion for a test on the review to better show 'gaming performance'. Currently you only test using one top end graphics card like the GTX 590, probably so you can take the affect the GPU would have out of the equation. But the majority of us don't have that luxury, especially in cases like this where the CPU is aimed at the budget conscious.

So, my proposed test (something I'll dub CPU-GPU Scalability) would work like this:

-Take one gaming benchmark, e.g. BF3, 1,920 x 1,080 4xAA 16x AF, ultra detail settings, DirectX 11
-Run that benchmark against a range of GPU's for each CPU
-Plot a graph of the results with FPS on the Y-axis and GPU name on the X-axis
Very good idea. I think people will be surprised to realize that with a mid-range GPU, the increase in fps from going from a Vishera CPU to an IVB i5 or i7 is going to be really small.
Snips 25th October 2012, 15:10 Quote
Why change the benchmark components? So it could potentially by in favour of this product?

AMD doesn't host the party, Bit-tech does!
GuilleAcoustic 25th October 2012, 15:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
Why change the benchmark components? So it could potentially by in favour of this product?

AMD doesn't host the party, Bit-tech does!

I think it could be nice to see the CPU impact depending on GPU category (entry, mid and high end). As mentioned, not everyone can afford a GPU over 200€, so I'm not even mentioning 300, 400, and outrageously priced GPU (like the GTX590).

Such an high end GPU needs an ultra beefy CPU .... leading to wide gap between CPUs feeding it. But with, lets say, an HD7850 or a GTX 560Ti which is more likely the case of many readers (and even that is probably too high) ... the GAP between AMD and Intel will be narrower, if not negligible.

The question is not to favorise this CPU, but to show the difference in a REAL WORLD use (and a GTX590 is not showing what users have). Would a 300€ cpu be 50% better than a 200€ cpu if I use a mid range card ? I'm not so sure of it.

EDIT : Sorry, but when I read a review, I'm searching for one that show the perf I'll have. I do not have and will never have a dual chip GPU ... so I do not read BT reviews. It's not representative of what I'll have at home. If I want to buy a new CPU, I read review using other components similar to the ones I have.

and let's be honest .. ok the stock FX-8150 gave 61 fps min while a stock i7-2600k gives 92 .... but 61 fps is still more than you need .... but it is 177€ vs 314€ ... the choice is easily made for me.
The_Crapman 25th October 2012, 15:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
Why change the benchmark components? So it could potentially by in favour of this product?

AMD doesn't host the party, Bit-tech does!
Not at all. It would just give a wider view of their comparative performance across the different graphics cards that people use. If you look at the results for steams hardware survey, the 560Ti is the most popular discrete graphics card followed by the 550Ti then the 460.

The test I proposed would be of more use to the majority of people. Although yes i know those on these forums are much more likely to have a higher end card than all the users on steam, which includes my mum.
SAimNE 25th October 2012, 15:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
Why change the benchmark components? So it could potentially by in favour of this product?

AMD doesn't host the party, Bit-tech does!
actually doesnt it make sense to change the benchmark components if it results in different results???

your view really is that because my favorite is in the lead, showing a wide range of components would be then unfair . even though it would just be a slightly wider view of the truth? if people had the time/money there would be absolutely no reason that every mid-high gpu, cpu, chipset, and ram shouldnt be tested against each other. knowing only part of the truth sucks, but unfortunately there is no real way around having just that... but at the very least people could try to show as much information as possible when reviewing products that are competing for the same range.
Snips 26th October 2012, 08:33 Quote
Bit-tech does all the work for you anyway. Not on every benchmark review but they collate the data and compile the Buyers Guide. Not every month but if a component or a number of new components have impacts on one or more builds with different budgets, they do a new one.

I'd wait for their full review of this cpu series and then see their expert knowledge and years of experience get to the conclusion you will either want or don't want to hear.
GuilleAcoustic 26th October 2012, 09:17 Quote
It's not an high end gaming CPU so it shouldn't be tested as an high end one ! The Raspberry pi is a computer ... so following your RULES it should be tested like the others .... OMG it can't run Crisis, IT'S A TRASH !!

Yes BT does the job for us, but rules are made to be adapted. If people were all thinking like you we would all wear the same clothes, listen to the same song at the same time, drive the same car available in a single color. If you want fixed rules, go buy apple products.

Don't be so narrow minded. Yes CPU should be tested in extrem conditions to show their limit / potential .... but it should ALSO be tested in real life condition, because not eveyone can throw 2 / 3K f***ing quid in a computer. I'm often asked to build computer for family or friend and the price tag is more 300/400€ .... up to an absolute maximum of 800€ (whole case) for GAMING and DEVELOPPMENT rig.

Instead of testint it with 10 games, it should be doable to use only 5 (well selected) and swap for a mid range card. Same amount of time spent testing, but morei nteresting results.

I'm more than opened to dialogue and others idea ... but I trully hate closed and narrow minded peoples. That said, I think my time in this forum as come to an end ... no dialogue possible nothing interesting coming out from threads. Bye all
The_Crapman 26th October 2012, 10:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
Bit-tech does all the work for you anyway. Not on every benchmark review but they collate the data and compile the Buyers Guide. Not every month but if a component or a number of new components have impacts on one or more builds with different budgets, they do a new one.

I'd wait for their full review of this cpu series and then see their expert knowledge and years of experience get to the conclusion you will either want or don't want to hear.
Maybe this will satisfy your hunger
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/Hausziege_04.jpg/256px-Hausziege_04.jpg
Shirty 2nd November 2012, 11:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz
Only got our chip yesterday; we'll have a review up soon.

How soon is soon?
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums