Monday, September 24th 2012

AMD FX "Vishera" Processor Pricing Revealed

AMD's upcoming second-generation FX "Vishera" multi-core CPUs are likely to appeal to a variety of budget-conscious buyers, if a price-list leaked from US retailer BLT is accurate. The list includes pricing of the first four models AMD will launch some time in October, including the flagship FX-8350. The FX-8350 leads the pack with eight cores, 4.00 GHz clock speed, and 16 MB of total cache. It is priced at US $253.06. The FX-8350 is followed by another eight-core chip, the FX-8320, clocked at 3.50 GHz, and priced at $242.05.

Trailing the two eight-core chips is the FX-6300, carrying six cores, 3.50 GHz clock speed, 14 MB total cache, and a price-tag of $175.77. The most affordable chip of the lot, the FX-4350 packs four cores, 4.00 GHz clock speed, and 8 MB of total cache (likely by halving even the L3 cache). The FX-4350 is expected to go for $131.42. In all, the new lineup draws several parallels with the first-generation FX lineup, with FX-8150, FX-8120, FX-6100, and FX-4150.

Source: HotHardware
Add your own comment

221 Comments on AMD FX "Vishera" Processor Pricing Revealed

#1
micropage7
and im waiting for better performance/watt ratio, many cores doesnt mean it would be better on processing
but i guess we need some benchmark then
Posted on Reply
#2
Hustler
Lol..they're still going to market these as 8,6,4 core CPU's...

4,3,2 is more accurate.
Posted on Reply
#3
badtaylorx
IF,,, and i stress IF, AMD learned any lessons with bulldozer, this pricing would seem to suggest performance on par with an Ivy i5....

who knows tho..........
Posted on Reply
#4
_JP_
by: Hustler
Lol..they're still going to market these as 8,6,4 core CPU's...

4,3,2 is more accurate.
Cores =/= Modules.
Posted on Reply
#5
EpicShweetness
by: badtaylorx
IF,,, and i stress IF, AMD learned any lessons with bulldozer, this pricing would seem to suggest performance on par with an Ivy i5....

who knows tho..........
Early trinity benchmark's and the fact that clock speed has gone up suggest otherwise, which is unfortunate. Mostly unfortunate that I have almost no expectation's despite me owning a GPU of there's.
Posted on Reply
#6
Yellow&Nerdy?
I don't think this will make much difference... Hopefully AMD has at least fixed the horridly large power consumption, and maybe closed the performance gap in a bit. Honestly my expectations are pretty low considering how much of a big fat fail Bulldozer was...
Posted on Reply
#7
DaJMasta
It'll be an incremental improvement over bulldozer, so it probably won't compete clock for clock, core for core with ivy bridge.

The thing that really caught my eye is... why would anyone buy an 8320? It's $11 cheaper and runs half a GHz slower. That doesn't sound right...
Posted on Reply
#8
faramir
by: EpicShweetness
Early trinity benchmark's and the fact that clock speed has gone up suggest otherwise, which is unfortunate.
Um, Trinity benchmarks suggest 10-15 improvement in IPC. L3 cache performance might increase as well (Bulldozer was pretty bad in this regard) but since Trinity doesn't contain any, we cannot tell how much of an impact (if any) this is going to have. Add the ~10% frequency increase on top of that and the improvement should be around 25% at same power consumption, which isn't all that bad ...

Nowhere near Sandy Bridge (let alone Ivy Bridge) when it comes to performance per watt but at least it looks more competitive as Intel hasn't been able to make such a big step from Sandy to Ivy Bridge.
Posted on Reply
#9
swaaye
Outside of the corner cases where Bulldozer was decent too, I think at best it will be competitive with the Nehalem-based CPUs in more common usage scenarios.
Posted on Reply
#10
nt300
by: Yellow&Nerdy?
I don't think this will make much difference... Hopefully AMD has at least fixed the horridly large power consumption, and maybe closed the performance gap in a bit. Honestly my expectations are pretty low considering how much of a big fat fail Bulldozer was...
AMD won't make mistake twice in a row. This FX series is going to perform beyond our expectations of 15%. The interesting thing about this enhanced Bulldozer is for instance benchmark FX-8150 at 3.6GHz versus FX-8350 at 3.6GHz and you may find the Piledriver to gain a little, maybe about 1% to 5%. But bench a higher clock say at 4.6GHz for each and the Piledriver pulls ahead by as much 15% to 20%.

Why is it that the Piledriver runs better than Bulldozer clock for clock but with higher clocks :confused:
Posted on Reply
#11
Covert_Death
by: nt300
AMD won't make mistake twice in a row. This FX series is going to perform beyond our expectations of 15%. The interesting thing about this enhanced Bulldozer is for instance benchmark FX-8150 at 3.6GHz versus FX-8350 at 3.6GHz and you may find the Piledriver to gain a little, maybe about 1% to 5%. But bench a higher clock say at 4.6GHz for each and the Piledriver pulls ahead by as much 15% to 20%.

Why is it that the Piledriver runs better than Bulldozer clock for clock but with higher clocks :confused:
well if your asking why i think its because none of those comparisons have been done yet and your making things up lol....
Posted on Reply
#12
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
As long as the 8350 can clock for clock beat thuban overall I will be happy. Seeing how it is clocked at 4ghz I doubt it will beat it IPC, but I can hope.
Posted on Reply
#13
erocker
by: Covert_Death
well if your asking why i think its because none of those comparisons have been done yet and your making things up lol....
Quite possibly.

by: cdawall
As long as the 8350 can clock for clock beat thuban overall I will be happy. Seeing how it is clocked at 4ghz I doubt it will beat it IPC, but I can hope.
I hope not. Prices just don't line up if it doesn't even match Sandy Bridge.
Posted on Reply
#14
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: erocker
I hope not. Prices just don't line up if it doesn't even match Sandy Bridge.
From the Chinese rumors I have heard they still can't beat Phenom II in single core, but multicore has gained some percents similar to Phenom I vs Phenom II. Biggest gain being clockspeed. I have heard 5ghz on air, but cannot confirm.
Posted on Reply
#15
Konceptz
$253??? that 8350 better perform otherwise for that price you might as well go intel :mad:
Posted on Reply
#16
ironwolf
The actual info on the hothardware site has been updated with correct model # info on at least one CPU, can the OP maybe update it?
Posted on Reply
#17
erocker
by: cdawall
From the Chinese rumors I have heard they still can't beat Phenom II in single core, but multicore has gained some percents similar to Phenom I vs Phenom II. Biggest gain being clockspeed. I have heard 5ghz on air, but cannot confirm.
If that's true, bummer. I heard 5ghz on air before Bulldozer was released too. Sounds like the same thing all over again.
Posted on Reply
#18
theoneandonlymrk
I have to agree , deffinately waiting on reviews as i could probably just stick with this cpu and get some new gfx's instead, i hope they(Amd) twist my arm on this matter.:)
Posted on Reply
#19
NC37
Little disappointed in the price. But I'm sure these will sell like BD did. Amazing how well that went after how heavily downed it was in reviews. Guess people only saw that FX name and went nuts.
Posted on Reply
#20
Steevo
I think people were expecting a miracle driver, or a patch or something. But that never happened, and it still won't, and it is still a mediocre performance part at mediocre performance part pricing, not that it is bad, but it isn't great.


I still plan on using one for a server just so I can play around with it.
Posted on Reply
#21
Super XP
by: Covert_Death
well if your asking why i think its because none of those comparisons have been done yet and your making things up lol....
I read about this too, but they compared a supposing FX 8350 engineering sample (OC'ed Bulldozer IMO) that seemed to have done a lot better at higher frequencies. Remember your not only OC'ing the CPU, you are also OC'ing the HT and IMC unless you manually set them via bios. Anyhow this is all speculation, give me legitimate benchmarks then I will deside whether I will replace my FX 8120 w/ FX 8320 or for a few dollars more the FX 8350 :D
Posted on Reply
#22
brian111
I suspect these prices will start to decline after it's been out a few weeks. I wish it were that way with Intel, but there in a position where they don't have to. Even the previous generation has only come down slightly.
Posted on Reply
#25
HumanSmoke
by: Super XP
I read about this too, but they compared a supposing FX 8350 engineering sample (OC'ed Bulldozer IMO)
I honestly don't think there's any difference. Vishera seems to be a C0 revision Bulldozer. As with any new process node, you'll get refinement in design and better execution in silicon as the process matures.
Piledriver = Bulldozer C0 = Bulldozer revision 2.
I doubt you'll see anything that hasn't been documented in other CPU designs tbh (i.e. performance bumps between D0 ES Sandy Bridge and late D2 revision), and I'm pretty sure all new stuff they were supposed to be packing into Vishera, e.g. - the resonant clock mesh tech isn't included.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment