Tuesday, September 18th 2012

AMD Shows Off A10-5800K and FX-8350 Near IDF

It's traditional for AMD to camp outside an ongoing IDF event (at a nearby hotel suite), siphoning off a small portion of its visitors. In the backdrop of this year's IDF event in San Francisco, AMD showed off two of its upcoming flagship client processors, the socket FM2 A10-5800K "Trinity" APU, and socket AM3+ FX-8350 "Vishera" CPU. The two chips were shown running fully-loaded gaming PCs.

The FX-8350 was shown installed on a machine with ASUS Crosshair V Formula (-Z?) motherboard, liquid cooling, and Radeon HD 7970 graphics card. The chip was clocked at 5.00 GHz (4.80 GHz when the picture was taken), and running popular CPU-intensive benchmarks such as WPrime and Cinebench. The A10-5800K was shown running application demos, including a widget that displays real-time boost states of the processor and GPU cores.

Source: Hardware.fr
Add your own comment

80 Comments on AMD Shows Off A10-5800K and FX-8350 Near IDF

#1
THE_EGG
Just me or does the voltage seem a bit high ? :/
Posted on Reply
#2
eidairaman1
by: THE_EGG
Just me or does the voltage seem a bit high ? :/
it still says Zambezi. I thought the PD core was going to have a different code.
Posted on Reply
#3
NC37
by: THE_EGG
Just me or does the voltage seem a bit high ? :/
Well it is a bit overclocked.
Posted on Reply
#4
Atom_Anti
by: THE_EGG
Just me or does the voltage seem a bit high ? :/
Voltage ain't matters so much in desktop systems, there is plenty of room to attach bigger and bigger heat-sinks. I just wonder what do they want with Chinebench and Wprime? A 3DMark11 P score could be much more welcome.
Posted on Reply
#5
HumanSmoke
by: eidairaman1
it still says Zambezi. I thought the PD core was going to have a different code.
What? Like Vishera ?
I think you'll find that the FX-8350 is seen as more a revision of Bulldozer (C0 as opposed to the earlier B2 rev. FX-4/6/8100's) - by AMD, since it's the processors CPUID string that CPU-Z is reading- than some wholly new ground up redesign. Benchmarks on the net (noteably Coolaler's) would tend to point to an incremental improvement rather than a leap in performance.
Posted on Reply
#6
eidairaman1
by: HumanSmoke
What? Like Vishera ?
I think you'll find that the FX-8350 is seen as more a revision of Bulldozer (C0 as opposed to the earlier B2 rev. FX-4/6/8100's) - by AMD, since it's the processors CPUID string that CPU-Z is reading- than some wholly new ground up redesign. Benchmarks on the net (noteably Coolaler's) would tend to point to an incremental improvement rather than a leap in performance.
ya reading the road map awhile ago it was to tweak the internals a lil more, dunno if it was a manufacturing redesign or what, i guess we shall see. Honestly id like to see how the initial and this compare clock for clock...

Course I recall this being mainly a stop gap anyway. Hopefully they are looking at a total change in Steam Roller Design since BD proved to be slower than Phenom II Clock for clock.
Posted on Reply
#7
Dent1
by: eidairaman1
since BD proved to be slower than Phenom II Clock for clock.
Be careful what you type. That is the type of quote that guys like AvonX and Trickson love to hear and take it as 100% truth.

Yes there are a few benchmarks where Phenom II proved slightly faster, but overal BD is more consistantly clock for clock faster.

BTW: AvonX is banned. Moderators, please unban him after Piledriver is released. I want to hear his take on the processor.


by: eidairaman1

I just want to see if there is an improvement clock for clock and then compared to Phenom II
Me too.
Posted on Reply
#8
eidairaman1
by: Dent1
Be careful what you type. That is the type of quote that guys like AvonX and Trickson love to hear and take it as 100% truth.

Yes there are a few benchmarks where Phenom II proved slightly faster, but overal BD is more consistantly clock for clock faster.
Honestly I dont care what they think and Besides AvonX has been banned for violating multiple FUPs here (broken record/beating deadhorse lmao).

I just want to see if there is an improvement clock for clock and then compared to Phenom II
Posted on Reply
#9
YautjaLord
These are the news i was looking for. Thanx. That & i don't see FX-8350 wPrime & Cinebench records; wtf is Devastator platform? Also didn't saw the CPU-Z version; 1.61.3 x64? Let the good news roll. Thanx alot. :toast:
Posted on Reply
#10
Andy77
by: eidairaman1
Honestly I dont care what they think and Besides AvonX has been banned for violating multiple FUPs here (broken record/beating deadhorse lmao).

I just want to see if there is an improvement clock for clock and then compared to Phenom II
And why would clock-for-clock matter?... do they handle the same load of threads per core the same way to actually make a ck4ck comparison?
Posted on Reply
#11
Lucifer666
Fx-8350

it should say code name piledriver and not zambezi its a different core!!!
Posted on Reply
#12
YautjaLord
Saw the wPrime version 2 slightly; what do these numbers mean? The [FX-8350] setup looks awesome. :) :toast:
Posted on Reply
#13
eidairaman1
by: Andy77
And why would clock-for-clock matter?... do they handle the same load of threads per core the same way to actually make a ck4ck comparison?
Parts that are clocked slower but perform better mean they have architecture advantage/IPC is higher. Parts that require higher clocks to perform the same are at a draw back IPC is lower.

Intel has the current advantage in IPC though, where as back during AMD K7 and K8, AMD had a big advantage in IPC vs P4 Netburst (Hottest Chip was Prescott)

Higher clocks normally mean higher voltages and thus heat produced making an inefficient chip in todays market. It very well dont mean too much in a desktop but in a laptop the design of a CPU does make a big determination.

The Clock for clock compare is to determine if AMD has actually improved the IPC over the 1st Bulldozer parts (by tweaking internals to get a IPC increase without requiring a clock speed hike- which increases heat and voltage further), this is following their road map.

CPUs have to be fast in todays apps and tomorrows.
Posted on Reply
#14
Absolution
by: Lucifer666
it should say code name piledriver and not zambezi its a different core!!!
CPU-Z prolly needs an update for that.
Posted on Reply
#15
Hustler
by: THE_EGG
Just me or does the voltage seem a bit high ? :/
Lol...1.45vlts for 5Ghz is high?


I'm having to put 1.47vlts through my Phenom II @ 3.8Ghz..:p
Posted on Reply
#16
eidairaman1
by: Hustler
Lol...1.45vlts for 5Ghz is high?


I'm having to put 1.47vlts through my Phenom II @ 3.8Ghz..:p
SOI can handle higher volts
Posted on Reply
#17
HTC
by: Absolution
CPU-Z prolly needs an update for that.
I think so too.
Posted on Reply
#18
Konceptz
CPU-Z has no idea CPU it is being ran on, so its assuming its the most recent known ID..Zambezi...as long as this thing outperforms the 8150 and the 1100T i'm sold. I'm tired of my core 2 quad and Ivy Bridge is too expensive for my tastes.
Posted on Reply
#19
repman244
by: Dent1
Be careful what you type. That is the type of quote that guys like AvonX and Trickson love to hear and take it as 100% truth.

Yes there are a few benchmarks where Phenom II proved slightly faster, but overal BD is more consistantly clock for clock faster.
Just a heads up, he said clock for clock and that is true. BD needs higher clock to match PH II (I know it's irrelevant if it's designed that way, but it's a fact). If BD had the same performance per clock as Phenom II but clocked at 4GHz it would be a really great CPU and an upgrade from a Thuban.

BD does however have a better IMC and also enables AMD to improve upon it's design (They couldn't improve the Ph II any further, a good example is Llano).
Posted on Reply
#20
eidairaman1
by: repman244
Just a heads up, he said clock for clock and that is true. BD needs higher clock to match PH II (I know it's irrelevant if it's designed that way, but it's a fact). If BD had the same performance per clock as Phenom II but clocked at 4GHz it would be a really great CPU and an upgrade from a Thuban.

BD does however have a better IMC and also enables AMD to improve upon it's design (They couldn't improve the Ph II any further, a good example is Llano).
if the performance numbers of phenom 2 and BD were the same clock for clock, then a Phenom II at 4.0GHz would be equal to a FX 4*** at 4GHz.
Posted on Reply
#21
repman244
by: eidairaman1
if the performance numbers of phenom 2 and BD were the same clock for clock, then a Phenom II at 4.0GHz would be equal to a FX 4*** at 4GHz.
Yeah but getting the Phenom II to 4GHz is not granted (and there is no Phenom II at 4GHz stock). BD and especially PD (thanks to resonant clock mesh for providing a base clock of 4GHz) have no problem going up to 4,5GHz (OC).
Posted on Reply
#22
eidairaman1
by: repman244
Yeah but getting the Phenom II to 4GHz is not granted (and there is no Phenom II at 4GHz stock). BD and especially PD (thanks to resonant clock mesh for providing a base clock of 4GHz) have no problem going up to 4,5GHz (OC).
ya and it requires a FX to be at such clocks just to match the Phenom II at lower clocks.

Man I really Hope PD fixed alot.
Posted on Reply
#23
repman244
by: eidairaman1
Man I really Hope PD fixed alot.
I would say that you should not expect miracles from minor (and they are minor) tweaks. The most "performance" gain that you will see is from the clock increase due to the resonant clock mesh (Steamroller should be much more "redesigned" than PD), and maybe like 5% IPC increase vs BD.

But that is just my guess ;)
Posted on Reply
#24
eidairaman1
by: repman244
I would say that you should not expect miracles from minor (and they are minor) tweaks. The most "performance" gain that you will see is from the clock increase due to the resonant clock mesh (Steamroller should be much more "redesigned" than PD), and maybe like 5% IPC increase vs BD.

But that is just my guess ;)
im not expecting any miracles, i just want to see what PD has to bring to the table.
Posted on Reply
#25
micropage7
tdp 125 watts? i expect lower than that
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment