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
nt300
by: micropage7
tdp 125 watts? i expect lower than that
Yes there is also a 95W too.
by: eidairaman1
im not expecting any miracles, i just want to see what PD has to bring to the table.
Yes me too. With enough tweaking it should be more than enough to put Bulldozer behind us.
Posted on Reply
#2
eidairaman1
by: nt300
Yes there is also a 95W too.

Yes me too. With enough tweaking it should be more than enough to put Bulldozer behind us.
Hopefully, Steam Roller should literally make it disappear.
Posted on Reply
#3
TheGuruStud
I'm in. I can run it at this speed on air. Like its purpose, it'll be stop gap till steamroller, for me.

At this clock is where the limitations in BD start to break down. It scales better than 100%.
With the fixes in steam roller and even higher clocks, it should do well.
Posted on Reply
#4
2wicked
I'm just hoping the fx-8350 is faster than my x6 so I can finally upgrade my cpu...now just waiting for reviews.

by: btarunr
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.
If some guy at an event asked me to go to his hotel room to look at his new cpu I would run the other way.:shadedshu
Posted on Reply
#5
Casecutter
My thinking is AMD "Vishera" will supply more of an overall gain than Intel provided with Ivy Bridge. So they will gain some ground.

Where Intel got better with Ivy Bridge is they appear to have afforded slightly more aggressive price points. If AMD can/will come in at even better pricing (is yet to be seen) it would have merit. What is apparent they can't come with the obstinate pricing levels they thought they could run with at Bulldozers' release... it won’t fly.
Posted on Reply
#6
Dent1
by: repman244
I and maybe like 5% IPC increase vs BD.
It will be faster than that. Look at the Trinity Mobile APU reviews, It's more than 5% faster than BD already. Desktop Piledriver will have more cache than Trinity and is an enthusiast chip so it goes without saying that it'll be even faster. But I agree Steamroller is where AMD should gain it's biggest momentum.


http://www.techpowerup.com/163887/Trinity-(Piledriver)-Integer-FP-Performance-Higher-Than-Bulldozer-Clock-for-Clock.html
Posted on Reply
#7
nt300
by: Dent1
It will be faster than that. Look at the Trinity Mobile APU reviews, It's more than 5% faster than BD already. Desktop Piledriver will have more cache than Trinity and is an enthusiast chip so it goes without saying that it'll be even faster. But I agree Steamroller is where AMD should gain it's biggest momentum.


http://www.techpowerup.com/163887/Trinity-(Piledriver)-Integer-FP-Performance-Higher-Than-Bulldozer-Clock-for-Clock.html
That was back in April of 2012. It very clear that the desktop Piledriver are going to be beasts in performance and priced very well. In this respect, AMD really has no choice but to offer better price/performance vs anything Intel has out. AMD need to sell and keep selling real bad.

Some crazy rumour about Piledriver is really a Bulldozer but higher clocked is garbage talk. Dont remember where I read this, but this will not be the case, we r talking about the same design but greatly tweaked with added MMX instructions for Piledriver.

Piledriver IMO will not be a slouch, it's should perform very well and finally outperform any Phenom II's out.
Posted on Reply
#8
HumanSmoke
by: Casecutter
My thinking is AMD "Vishera" will supply more of an overall gain than Intel provided with Ivy Bridge. So they will gain some ground.
Well, you'd hope so...but AMD have spent more time and resources telling the world+dog about Steamroller than Piledriver. In fact, AMD have been downright reticent regarding Piledriver publicity....no bombast and WR's under LN2/LHe...no new AMD chipset boards announced - even AMD's technology seems to have bypassed Piledriver desktop
Cyclos is the only supplier of resonant clock mesh IP, which AMD has licensed and implemented into its x86 Piledriver core for Opteron server processors and Accelerated Processing Units (APUs).
[Source]

Intel's 3770K represents a ~11% raw performance (CPU only) lift over the 2700K -i.e. clock-for-clock, without power saving taken into account. The FX-8350 would need to beat that if your view is correct
Posted on Reply
#9
Casecutter
by: HumanSmoke
AMD have been downright reticent regarding Piledriver publicity
That's fine there's a ton of time, they can lay low it's more rousing that way when it does hit. All that irresponsible crap builds expectancy and stupid gossip. AMD on the graphic side has work with "the fly low and avoid the radar", that approach concisely provides one little thing here, a good tid-bit a few weeks later. The less boisterous the better. All that stuff was what I thought hurt the Bulldozer release more than disappointing performance. And we wonder why folks where let go and Rory can to town.
Posted on Reply
#10
Steevo
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.

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




Me too.
My Phenom II is faster at cine bench and most applications that Bulldozer is clock for clock.



I have proven it with scores. Should I be banned?
Posted on Reply
#11
Super XP
by: Steevo
My Phenom II is faster at cine bench and most applications that Bulldozer is clock for clock.

I have proven it with scores. Should I be banned?
Lol, they are both based on different micro architectures. Clock for clock comparisons are 1000% completely pointless. You should know this, but I understand you were making a point.

Now comparing Piledriver to Bulldozer is a different story. Both must be benched Clock for Clock regardless of price so long as they are based on a similar design.
Posted on Reply
#12
Steevo
by: Super XP
Lol, they are both based on different micro architectures. Clock for clock comparisons are 1000% completely pointless. You should know this, but I understand you were making a point.

Now comparing Piledriver to Bulldozer is a different story. Both must be benched Clock for Clock regardless of price so long as they are based on a similar design.
Clock for clock is a well known comparison that has been used for as long as processors have been around. How else are you supposed to compare performance?
Posted on Reply
#13
OneMoar
by: Atom_Anti
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.
probly because it won't pass a 3DMark11 run =/
so it runs at 5Ghz and still gets beat by a core i3 running at 3.5
AMD is Disappoint
perhaps they will learn and throw bulldozer in the trash and hire some fresh talent and start over sad to see AMD like this
they need to realise that clock speed is no longer relevant
Posted on Reply
#14
Super XP
by: Steevo
Clock for clock is a well known comparison that has been used for as long as processors have been around. How else are you supposed to compare performance?
The same thing with the Pentium 4 vs. Athlon 64. The 64 blew away the P4 clock for clock. But they were both different designs. Not a fair comparison. The P4 relied on higher clocks, just like today's Bulldozer.
by: OneMoar
perhaps they will learn and throw bulldozer in the trash and hire some fresh talent and start over sad to see AMD like this
they need to realise that clock speed is no longer relevant
Nonsense lol, Excavator will resolve the current Bulldozer issues. I can see AMD revising the pipes and shortening them.
Posted on Reply
#15
eidairaman1
by: Super XP
The same thing with the Pentium 4 vs. Athlon 64. The 64 blew away the P4 clock for clock. But they were both different designs. Not a fair comparison. The P4 relied on higher clocks, just like today's Bulldozer.

Nonsense lol, Excavator will resolve the current Bulldozer issues. I can see AMD revising the pipes and shortening them.
Intel didnt realize their problem till they launched preshott. Hopefully AMD realized that with BD
Posted on Reply
#16
TRWOV
by: Steevo
Clock for clock is a well known comparison that has been used for as long as processors have been around. How else are you supposed to compare performance?
I would say that's is a measurement of architecture efficiency rather than a meaningful comparison between CPUs. If a CPU with 12IPC @ 2.4Ghz goes agaisnt an 8IPC CPU @ 4Ghz it's going to lose anyway.
Posted on Reply
#17
eidairaman1
by: TRWOV
I would say that's is a measurement of architecture efficiency rather than a meaningful comparison between CPUs. If a CPU with 12IPC @ 2.4Ghz goes agaisnt an 8IPC CPU @ 4Ghz it's going to lose anyway.
heat/voltage and power draw are the biggest issues of chips running at higher clocks, everyone else the chip has to be as efficient as it can be to meet space requirements
Posted on Reply
#18
Covert_Death
the only comparison im interested in is:

Maximum Daily clock (PD on Water) vs. Maximum Daily clock (PII on Water)

i've got my PII @ 4.0Ghz with water cooling because that is about as high as i can go as a daily clock. when i upgrade i will do the same thing, i will clock it as high as i can for a dailey on water and see how it compares... clock to clock makes no difference to me if one clocks way past the other on the same cooling system
Posted on Reply
#19
OneMoar
by: Covert_Death
the only comparison im interested in is:

Maximum Daily clock (PD on Water) vs. Maximum Daily clock (PII on Water)

i've got my PII @ 4.0Ghz with water cooling because that is about as high as i can go as a daily clock. when i upgrade i will do the same thing, i will clock it as high as i can for a dailey on water and see how it compares... clock to clock makes no difference to me if one clocks way past the other on the same cooling system
clock speed != performance
it no longer matters how fast the core is clocking the only thing that _matters_ is how fast it can process data how many frames it can render how many numbers it can crunch the rest is just marketing Bullshit
if CPU A: clocks @2.66Ghz and scores 226000
and CPU:B clocks 3.8Ghz and scores 128000
Cpu A: is still faster period end of discussion gameover
overclocking is no longer a marketable thing it won't be long before they toss the "rated speed" right out the window and simply let the cpu decide what frequency it can/needs to run at and I wish they would
ill add a Prime example a Athlon II X4 gets beat across the board by a i3(YES even in apps that can use the 2extra cores the i3 is still faster by a margin) thats how much better intels tech is sorry but the benchmarks don't lie and in some cases it even bests a Phenom II x4 I am not even gonna mention the slower but newer FX chips
*selling a inferior product at a lower price != good way to stay competitive
Posted on Reply
#20
eidairaman1
Running a CPU in Async Mode doesnt help it because at one moment it can be at its best performance then at another moment it can be at its worst and it wouldnt even care what data there is, it be worst when you have a large amt when it needs to be at its best. Troubleshooting issues is unpredictable too

So if OCing wasnt marketable why does both Intel and AMD have Unlocked Multiplier CPUs then? Intel part a K Model runs for several bux more (I recall seeing them be 100 dollars more than non K parts)

by: OneMoar
clock speed != performance
it no longer matters how fast the core is clocking the only thing that _matters_ is how fast it can process data how many frames it can render how many numbers it can crunch the rest is just marketing Bullshit
if CPU A: clocks @2.66Ghz and scores 226000
and CPU:B clocks 3.8Ghz and scores 128000
Cpu A: is still faster period end of discussion gameover
overclocking is no longer a marketable thing it won't be long before they toss the "rated speed" right out the window and simply let the cpu decide what frequency it can/needs to run at and I wish they would
ill add a Prime example a Athlon II X4 gets beat across the board by a i3(YES even in apps that can use the 2extra cores the i3 is still faster by a margin) thats how much better intels tech is sorry but the benchmarks don't lie and in some cases it even bests a Phenom II x4 I am not even gonna mention the slower but newer FX chips
*selling a inferior product at a lower price != good way to stay competitive
Posted on Reply
#21
Melvis
by: OneMoar
ill add a Prime example a Athlon II X4 gets beat across the board by a i3(YES even in apps that can use the 2extra cores the i3 is still faster by a margin) thats how much better intels tech is sorry but the benchmarks don't lie and in some cases it even bests a Phenom II x4 I am not even gonna mention the slower but newer FX chips
*selling a inferior product at a lower price != good way to stay competitive
Let me guess Anandtech?

Because this review here shows the Athlon II X4 beating the i3 in most benchmarks at a lower clock speed.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/core_i3_530_processor_review,1.html
Posted on Reply
#22
OneMoar
by: Melvis
Let me guess Anandtech?

Because this review here shows the Athlon II X4 beating the i3 in most benchmarks at a lower clock speed.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/core_i3_530_processor_review,1.html
you question Anandtech and then quote guru3d lol funny Guy.
Hilbert is a idiot and his methods are questionable at best. why do you think the vendors almost completely ignore him.and his site. hes has burned to many bridges made to many bad calls and thanks to all his politics has the creditably of a Nigerian scammer

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Athlon-II-X4-640-vs-Core-i3-530-CPU-Review/1041/5
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Athlon-II-X4-640-vs-Core-i3-530-CPU-Review/1041/6
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Athlon-II-X4-640-vs-Core-i3-530-CPU-Review/1041/7
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Athlon-II-X4-640-vs-Core-i3-530-CPU-Review/1041/10
O yea here a page from TPU's review http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i3_540_530/10.html
*notice that it performs within 1FPS of the faster clocked + extra core'd Phenom II (1FPS = within the error margin)
need I continue ?
at this point I am just bashing AMD because they need a wakeup call ... or intel is gonna take the market and run
Posted on Reply
#23
Melvis
by: OneMoar
you question Anandtech and then quote guru3d lol funny Guy.
Hilbert is a idiot and his methods are questionable at best. why do you think the vendors almost completely ignore him.and his site. hes has burned to many bridges made to many bad calls and thanks to all his politics has the creditably of a Nigerian scammer

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Athlon-II-X4-640-vs-Core-i3-530-CPU-Review/1041/5
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Athlon-II-X4-640-vs-Core-i3-530-CPU-Review/1041/6
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Athlon-II-X4-640-vs-Core-i3-530-CPU-Review/1041/7
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Athlon-II-X4-640-vs-Core-i3-530-CPU-Review/1041/10
O yea here a page from TPU's review http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i3_540_530/10.html
*notice that it performs within 1FPS of the faster clocked + extra core'd Phenom II (1FPS = within the error margin)
need I continue ?
at this point I am just bashing AMD because they need a wakeup call ... or intel is gonna take the market and run
Same can be said about anandtech your point is?

And all you have posted to me are gaming FPS :roll: yea great way to show off how much more powerful a CPU is then the other :shadedshu
Posted on Reply
#24
xenocide
They need quite a sizeable (10%+) performance gain with PD to remain competitive. I want AMD to be good, but I cannot justify getting a new CPU every year or so and still being behind Intel's curve. I can buy an Intel CPU like the Q6600 (which I did) and have it for 3 years (which I did) and it was still running fine, then upgrade to a new Intel CPU like the i5-2500k (did that too) and I guarantee it will be good for another 2 years at least. In that same time frame I would have had to upgrade my AMD CPU like 3 times and would still be behind in performance (would have had to go Phenom I->Phenom II->FX and probably gotten new motherboards). I'll take 2 purchases over 5-6.
Posted on Reply
#25
Andy77
by: eidairaman1
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.
Recognize rhetoric when you see it...


Higher IPC parts can't really clock high, which high clocking parts like BD can make up in performance just because of that. Add to it the capabilities, it's not just a clocking chip for benchers.

The intel vs AMD is outdated thinking, and past arguments and uArchs have no value here. Sure, intel beats AMD in optimized compiled code and low task count while AMD has good grips in parallel jobs and high task count. i for one won't upgrade to run a few apps at a time to get full performance.

Higher clock "normally" needs higher voltages, but that's not the norm and this is pretty much dependent on the process than on the uArch.

For low power usage in notebooks, it's nice to have tons of cash, your own fab and make several architectures in parallel, picking from each the winning one when it's done. When GloFo surpasses intel in fabbing we'll see AMD's use less power than intel.

You're probably stuck with in the thinking that today's processing power still relies heavily on IPC alone. That may be for low task devices, where Celerons are great for, but today I want to run more on one machine, not just a game and that's it.

BD's longer inst pipeline was a step in concurrent processing which is a "cure" for the limitation Si bring. Maybe when Graphene will become a standard then you can revisit the IPC idea at 100GHz CPU's. But for now, we don't need a faster pipeline as bad as we need a better instruction management and more core integration per module for better concurrent processing. A lot of the hours-long-work is done in concurrent tasks these days, and not in one uber-fast task using only a quarter of the CPU because hey, it' doesn't know how to else with a short pipeline. This is the important aspect of AMD's module "invention". If you look at intel you'll have some improvements, but they are still limited to single core processing with some optimization like HT unless the programmer invests in multi-core processing and not all invest as much as it is needed to produce the best results. Some, not at all, beside Valve and one other did anyone else look at parallel game engine?

We don't need that anymore. Unless we're talking about competitions, but for actual work this is old tech and AMD's "module" will bring the needed push forward. I'm still eager to hear some 4 core per module announcement.

by: Steevo
Clock for clock is a well known comparison that has been used for as long as processors have been around. How else are you supposed to compare performance?
Time / completed task.

Unless you care about pointless or little-to-no-value data, what a non-tech person is interested in, you know the guys with the money that push the world forward, including governments of the big nations, are not interested in the inside workings, but how much output will I get from this much input and is it faster than its competitor or older version.

Damn, car analogy :laugh:
Old vw scirocco, vs new vw scirocco, not much of a difference performance wise, some like the old one because it feels like a real machine, others the new one because of the comfort. Outside people are interested in these things, not ps-for-ps.

BTW, are all aspects of the compared CPU's the same to decide how much IPC is responsible for the performance? AFAIK, CPU's aren't the only ones t get upgraded, the rest of the platform does as well and this will eat the findings, resulting in higher error margins.

Maybe for an engineer it has some meaning, but how many of you actually make CPU's for a living. /s
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment