Monday, August 27th 2012

AMD "Vishera" FX-Series CPU Specifications Confirmed

A leaked AMD document for retail partners spelled out specifications of the first three FX "Vishera" processors by AMD. The new CPUs incorporate AMD's "Piledriver" architecture, and much like the first-generation "Zambezi" chips, will launch as one each of eight-core, six-core, and four-core chips. The eight-core FX-8350 is confirmed to ship with 4.00 GHz nominal clock speed, with 4.20 GHz TurboCore speed. The six-core FX-6300 ships with 3.50 GHz nominal, and 4.10 GHz TurboCore speed. The quad-core FX-4320, on the other hand, ships with the same clock speeds as the FX-8350. In addition, the document confirmed clock speeds of several socket FM2 A-series APUs, such as the A10-5700 and the A8-5500.

Source: Expreview
Add your own comment

493 Comments on AMD "Vishera" FX-Series CPU Specifications Confirmed

#1
eidairaman1
by: slybunda
looks like another fail from amd. 4.2ghz clock speed and will probably be on par with a 3ghz ivybridge using half the number of cores.
move along folks nothing to see here.
so wheres your system specs?
Posted on Reply
#2
Lionheart
by: slybunda
looks like another fail from amd. 4.2ghz clock speed and will probably be on par with a 3ghz ivybridge using half the number of cores.
move along folks nothing to see here.
All I see is a troll :wtf:
Posted on Reply
#3
eidairaman1
by: Lionheart
All I see is a troll :wtf:
yup i noticed this, Anything that relates to AMD and CPU all the fucktard thread crappers come out.

The 2 that posted recently amount to nothing honestly- they havent helped any users out solving problems or nothing
Posted on Reply
#6
Super XP
Can't wait for some Benchmarks.
Posted on Reply
#7
Vinska
IDK, in the news post that came right before this one, the very first sentence reads:
by: btarunr
It has been known since Computex that AMD plans to synchronize launch of its second-generation "Trinity" desktop APUs and second-generation "Vishera" desktop CPUs, in late-Q3 or early-Q4, 2012.
In other words - according to that post, they are planning to launch 'em all Pretty Soon Now™.
Posted on Reply
#8
Melvis
by: eidairaman1
not really actually- You can only hope the PD is better than BD clock for clock. After BD being a disappointment in gaming Im not holding my breath. Ill take this with a grain of salt till the chips are tested here at TPU.

http://www.techspot.com/review/452-amd-bulldozer-fx-cpus/page10.html
Thats what i mean, i sure do hope there better then BD and PII, if not ill just get a better Phenom II and call it a yr.
Posted on Reply
#9
eidairaman1
by: Melvis
Thats what i mean, i sure do hope there better then BD and PII, if not ill just get a better Phenom II and call it a yr.
you really dont need a better Phenom II, if You can get the 965 BE to 3.7 GHz or higher youre pretty much golden already.
Posted on Reply
#10
theoneandonlymrk
by: eidairaman1
you really dont need a better Phenom II, if You can get the 965 BE to 3.7 GHz or higher youre pretty much golden already.
aww dont say that, Golden shmolden i need moar cpus, imho Vishera will be out partying with me this christmass, im lead to believe this by the start up of PR leaks and the price cuts across the board, a typical Amd tactic 2-3 months prior to release to clear stocks, also with vishera already taped out and the fx4130 out in the wild it is perfectly reasonable to assume they are on course to have enough 6-8 cores binned by xmass all imho, admittedly a very eager dude tho.
Posted on Reply
#11
eidairaman1
by: theoneandonlymrk
aww dont say that, Golden shmolden i need moar cpus, imho Vishera will be out partying with me this christmass, im lead to believe this by the start up of PR leaks and the price cuts across the board, a typical Amd tactic 2-3 months prior to release to clear stocks, also with vishera already taped out and the fx4130 out in the wild it is perfectly reasonable to assume they are on course to have enough 6-8 cores binned by xmass all imho, admittedly a very eager dude tho.
He was talking about if Vishera isnt any better than BD.
Posted on Reply
#12
Vinska
Based on my experience with BD, I would choose 8 PD "cores" for compiling over a supercharged PII or Intel's [lol]HyperThreading[/lol].
Posted on Reply
#13
eidairaman1
Ya but you have to realize it may not be for gaming. Plus when you look at a Quad Core (Phenom II X4) vs a Dual Module 2 thread CPU (FX 41**) Gaming Performance is what the PHII has over it. Only time a Quad core gets bested is by the 81** series which then the PH II X6 bests the 81** series. Also not everyone can afford to get an "8 Core" CPU

If the Single/dual thread performance is much higher than BD ever was and higher than Phenom II it will sell better than BD ever did. Most who already had a PHII didnt upgrade to BD after seeing performance numbers, either they stuck with their PHII, overclocked it or switched to Intel
Posted on Reply
#14
repman244
I hope PD is at least 10% faster than BD and that they also lowered the power consumption.
Posted on Reply
#15
Vinska
@eidairaman1 last time I checked, compiling wasn't a form of gaming :D
*sigh* I do a lot more of it than gaming these days...
P.S. I have noticed that "using" HT "cores" for compiling is worse than *not* using it. It just makes things choke up. :shadedshu
Posted on Reply
#16
eidairaman1
by: Vinska
@eidairaman1 last time I checked, compiling wasn't a form of gaming :D
*sigh* I do a lot more of it than gaming these days...
P.S. I have noticed that "using" HT "cores" for compiling is worse than *not* using it. It just makes things choke up. :shadedshu
for most consumers here they game more, Im sure the BD shines in stuff other than gaming but If AMD is to acutally do well they need to fix that minor flaw. This same stuff happened during the Pentium 4 era, except AMD actually gained the upper hand with both the Athlon XP and then Athlon 64.
Posted on Reply
#17
ryanmartin
by: TheLostSwede
E2-1800 @ 65W TDP :eek:
I've heard its only 18W. Maybe its a spec sheet error.
Posted on Reply
#18
xenocide
by: Vinska
Based on my experience with BD, I would choose 8 PD "cores" for compiling over a supercharged PII or Intel's [lol]HyperThreading[/lol].
HyperThreading may seem "lol" but the fact is Intel's CPU's are powerful enough that even with it being a kind of hacked on feature they shine. The numbers don't lie; http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=287

by: eidairaman1
Ya but you have to realize it may not be for gaming. Plus when you look at a Quad Core (Phenom II X4) vs a Dual Module 2 thread CPU (FX 41**) Gaming Performance is what the PHII has over it. Only time a Quad core gets bested is by the 81** series which then the PH II X6 bests the 81** series. Also not everyone can afford to get an "8 Core" CPU

If the Single/dual thread performance is much higher than BD ever was and higher than Phenom II it will sell better than BD ever did. Most who already had a PHII didnt upgrade to BD after seeing performance numbers, either they stuck with their PHII, overclocked it or switched to Intel
Basically the new design caused a hit on per thread performance but you now could run 8 threads so it was supposed to be an even trade off. The downside was they didn't consider that most applications (if someone brings up compiling or video-editing I will choke them, you are incredibly niche and make up less of the market than gamers even) do not use more than 2-4 threads, so Intel's offerings and even AMD's older offerings were better. Not sure why but Tom's Hardware also noticed the FX series bottlenecked GPU's like crazy.

I hope Vishera is a marked improvement at least for AMD's sake. I honestly am pretty pleased with having gone for SB instead of waiting for BD :x

by: eidairaman1
for most consumers here they game more, Im sure the BD shines in stuff other than gaming but If AMD is to acutally do well they need to fix that minor flaw. This same stuff happened during the Pentium 4 era, except AMD actually gained the upper hand with both the Athlon XP and then Athlon 64.
Role-reversal is fun like that. I wouldn't say BD "shines" in anything. I'm sure I'll get crucified for that, but everything I've seen indicates that in an optimal environment (basically one that heavily favors AMD) it is at least on par for SBIB chips, but the remaining 90%+ of the time Intel edges them out. I would say this is kind of more troubling for AMD than Netburst was for Intel. Intel had tons of capital and a massive market share, so gambling on a new architecture was acceptable. AMD really has neither of those, so BD being released in the condition it was in was a huge risk. Luckily their GPU and APU sales are doing great.
Posted on Reply
#19
iO
Sweet. My brother gets a FX-8350 and i´ll get his 8150:D
Posted on Reply
#20
AvonX
I think AMD fans should buy vishera to support them if they want to see another performance desktop cpu from AMD. Because the word on the street says that they wont be doing performance desktop cpus after vishera piledriver is released.
Posted on Reply
#21
theoneandonlymrk
by: AvonX
I think AMD fans should buy vishera to support them if they want to see another performance desktop cpu from AMD. Because the word on the street says that they wont be doing performance desktop cpus after vishera piledriver is released.
Cant see that being the case, imho vishera May be the last desktop cpu persay, as what follows will allways be an APU from there on, this would fit in with their HSA push and does not mean there wont be a high performance part, just it will be different from its prior gen.
Posted on Reply
#22
TheLaughingMan
by: AvonX
I think AMD fans should buy vishera to support them if they want to see another performance desktop cpu from AMD. Because the word on the street says that they wont be doing performance desktop cpus after vishera piledriver is released.
That is not true. They current don't plan to release another dedicated CPU. The next generation is suppose to be improvements in the core design, drop to smaller fab, and addition of a on-die GPU. This would bring their top end CPU's in line with Intel current model of including a on-die GPU on every chip.

The question there would be will it be wasted space or will AMD be smart enough to leverage that extra GPU to its advantage on a software side. Example: While NOT gaming, AMD ZeroCore can turn your dedicated GPU completely off and handle day to day tasks with the on-die GPU. OpenCL and Direct Compute used to run physics calculations on the on-die while dedicated card renders game. etc.
Posted on Reply
#23
pantherx12
AMD need to hurry up and release high end cpus with GPU cores built in, if they push open cl hard that will solve the weak points of the CPU, I think that's what they are aiming anyway.
Posted on Reply
#24
theoneandonlymrk
by: TheLaughingMan
That is not true. They current don't plan to release another dedicated CPU. The next generation is suppose to be improvements in the core design, drop to smaller fab, and addition of a on-die GPU. This would bring their top end CPU's in line with Intel current model of including a on-die GPU on every chip.

The question there would be will it be wasted space or will AMD be smart enough to leverage that extra GPU to its advantage on a software side. Example: While NOT gaming, AMD ZeroCore can turn your dedicated GPU completely off and handle day to day tasks with the on-die GPU. OpenCL and Direct Compute used to run physics calculations on the on-die while dedicated card renders game. etc.
:toast:so pretty much what i said with more words, ill bloat my waffle next time:D
Posted on Reply
#25
NHKS
by: AvonX
I think AMD fans should buy vishera to support them if they want to see another performance desktop cpu from AMD. Because the word on the street says that they wont be doing performance desktop cpus after vishera piledriver is released.
that 'word on the street'(abt AMD's high end cpus) may have spread faster than BD's gaming capabilities, but apparently AMD has denied it according to this info and quoting AMD's reply:
AMD remains committed to the performance processor market
A high end desktop-CPU market with just Intel as player would be just boring..
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment