techPowerUp! Forums

Go Back   techPowerUp! Forums > www.techpowerup.com > News

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old Nov 6, 2012, 06:12 AM   #1
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
 
btarunr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hyderabad, India
Posts: 14,983 (7.30/day)
Thanks: 788
Thanked 12,900 Times in 5,651 Posts
Send a message via AIM to btarunr Send a message via MSN to btarunr

System Specs

AMD Working on Cost-Effective FX-8300 Eight-Core Processor with 95W TDP

It looks like the flagship FX-8350 and next-best FX-8320 won't be the only FX "Vishera" eight-core chips from AMD, despite the fact that the two occupy low price points of US $194 and $164, respectively. A new model called the FX-8300 surfaced on CPU support lists of a certain motherboard vendor, which reveals quite a bit about it. To begin with, the FX-8300 (model: FD8300WMW8KHK) features nominal core clock speed of 3.20 GHz, with TurboCore frequency of around 3.60 GHz. Its clock speed may be the lowest among its peers, but that results in a significant drop in rated TDP. The new eight-core chip has a rated TDP of 95W, down from 125W of the FX-8320 and FX-8350. It is based on the same C0-stepping silicon as the other models. Socket AM3+ motherboards with AGESA micro-code 1.5 should be able to support it. As for pricing, we expect its 95W TDP to serve as a selling point, and don't expect it to be much cheaper than the 125W FX-8320.

btarunr is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 06:15 AM   #2
NC37
1000 Posts
 
NC37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The armpit of California
Posts: 1,060 (0.64/day)
Thanks: 156
Thanked 237 Times in 141 Posts

System Specs

Hopefully clocks as well as it's bigger 125w brothers. Will be neat to see once this launches.
__________________
"We tried to help Intel, but they don’t listen much. We’ve been telling them for years that their graphics suck…" -Steve Jobs
NC37 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 06:16 AM   #3
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
 
btarunr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hyderabad, India
Posts: 14,983 (7.30/day)
Thanks: 788
Thanked 12,900 Times in 5,651 Posts
Send a message via AIM to btarunr Send a message via MSN to btarunr

System Specs

It features unlocked multiplier. For $160-ish, you can unlock it to match the performance of a Core i7-2600K.
__________________

Gadgets, Phones, Tablets, Cameras, TVs, HiFi...NextPowerUp
btarunr is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 06:20 AM   #4
Wile E
Power User
 
Wile E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Western PA (Pittsburgh suburbs)
Posts: 18,129 (7.47/day)
Thanks: 450
Thanked 3,826 Times in 3,124 Posts
Send a message via AIM to Wile E Send a message via Yahoo to Wile E

System Specs

AMD definitely has some nice budget oriented offerings.
__________________

Visit Ashentech
“What the hell did you expect? Leave Vista under the pillow and the OS fairy would make it Win7?” -El Fiendo
“And Bring Mailman back god damnit, he is the Eric Cartman of TPU” -MRCL
Wile E is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 07:47 AM   #5
Prima.Vera
1000 Posts
 
Prima.Vera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Antagonia
Posts: 1,362 (2.21/day)
Thanks: 224
Thanked 179 Times in 120 Posts

System Specs

8 core from AMD working as fast as an i3 from Intel....hmmm

Edit:

This was meant as a funny comment, but everybody took it so seriously, so personally. I have nothing against AMD or like Intel (on the contrary). But if you check some reviews, mostly for games, the performance is a little better, or on pair with an i3, but definitely bellow any i5. That's it.
__________________
The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least.

Last edited by Prima.Vera; Nov 6, 2012 at 01:42 PM.
Prima.Vera is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Prima.Vera For This Useful Post:
Old Nov 6, 2012, 07:51 AM   #6
MxPhenom 216
Knowledgeable Posting Whore
 
MxPhenom 216's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 5,765 (5.79/day)
Thanks: 1,281
Thanked 1,080 Times in 833 Posts

System Specs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prima.Vera View Post
8 core from AMD working as fast as an i3 from Intel....hmmm
uh what, its definitely faster then a Intel i3 lol!
__________________
Motocross is not just a sport, it's a lifestyle.

File Server: Intel Pentium G630, 8GB PNY 1600, AsRock H77M Micro, Corsair CX430M, Vertex 2 90GB (OS), 2x WD Red 2TB in RAID1
“We will never know our full potential, unless we push ourselves to find it. -Travis Rice”
MxPhenom 216 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 08:03 AM   #7
Capitan Harlock
200 Posts
 
Capitan Harlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: near Milan
Posts: 328 (0.66/day)
Thanks: 355
Thanked 41 Times in 36 Posts

System Specs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prima.Vera View Post
8 core from AMD working as fast as an i3 from Intel....hmmm
Make a workstation with a 8 core vs 2 core and see who win? dont troll allover only why intel is faster ,you have to see first the budget than one people have and what you can get for the price.
Spend money for looks cool and follow what the benchmarks show when you can save money for other things is nonsense than spend for the same thing and obtain a good working machine.
If you put amd vs intel in single thread programs intel works better but after you in a game have 60 + fps where you have to go? make the cool guy in front of the world?
Capitan Harlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Capitan Harlock For This Useful Post:
Old Nov 6, 2012, 08:10 AM   #8
HammerON
The Watchful Moderator
 
HammerON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Cold North
Posts: 4,351 (2.82/day)
Thanks: 3,982
Thanked 2,876 Times in 1,541 Posts

System Specs

Interesting CPU for the price...
Haven't had a AMD CPU since my Athlon 64 FX-55.
HammerON is offline  
Crunching for Team TPU
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 08:19 AM   #9
SIGSEGV
200 Posts
 
SIGSEGV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Bandung, Indonesia
Posts: 363 (0.87/day)
Thanks: 103
Thanked 73 Times in 45 Posts

System Specs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prima.Vera View Post
8 core from AMD working as fast as an i3 from Intel....hmmm
omg, this is so lol statement, epic win dude

--
i haven't seen any newest amd's vishera in my local electronic retail shop since its released
__________________


And if you hear me talking on the wind
You've got to understand
We must remain perfect strangers
[Deep Purple - Perfect Strangers]
SIGSEGV is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 08:33 AM   #10
Dent1
2000 Posts
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,353 (2.14/day)
Thanks: 738
Thanked 683 Times in 582 Posts

System Specs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prima.Vera View Post
8 core from AMD working as fast as an i3 from Intel....hmmm
Why are you being so patronising. Have you read the reviews?

The 4 core piledriver pisses on the i3 in 90% of benchmarks and when it doesn't piss ontop of it, it performs about the same!

The 6 core and 8 core are in a different league.
Dent1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 09:13 AM   #11
Aquinus
3500 Posts
 
Aquinus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Dover, New Hampshire, USA
Posts: 4,257 (8.85/day)
Thanks: 1,274
Thanked 1,326 Times in 984 Posts

System Specs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prima.Vera View Post
8 core from AMD working as fast as an i3 from Intel....hmmm
Troll alert!

Maybe on single-threaded tasks at stock speeds in 10% of those cases. Oh wait, the i3 doesn't overclock worth crap.
__________________
MyHeat
Aquinus is offline  
Crunching for Team TPU
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 09:27 AM   #12
[H]@RD5TUFF
Eligible for custom title
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 5,589 (4.34/day)
Thanks: 1,825
Thanked 1,710 Times in 1,431 Posts

System Specs

Hopefully it's less power hungry at higher clocks than the current pile driver chips!
__________________
Stuff 4 Sale!
Heat Ware
ebay



[H]@RD5TUFF is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to [H]@RD5TUFF For This Useful Post:
Old Nov 6, 2012, 09:33 AM   #13
Prima.Vera
1000 Posts
 
Prima.Vera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Antagonia
Posts: 1,362 (2.21/day)
Thanks: 224
Thanked 179 Times in 120 Posts

System Specs

Enjoying yourself??


ok, ok, but still no faster than the latest i5. This can be easily checked by "googleing ...
__________________
The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least.
Prima.Vera is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 10:03 AM   #14
blibba
500 Posts
 
blibba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 777 (0.59/day)
Thanks: 109
Thanked 167 Times in 113 Posts

System Specs

In fairness, while FX8>i3 overall, I think games will be unplayable on this chip before they're unplayable on an IB i3.

Support for SMP in games is just advancing too slowly.

And the power efficiency advantage will still be way in Intel's favour, given that their 95W platforms use a lot more power than Intel's 95W platforms do, and the i5-3550P is 69W iirc.
__________________
Heatware.
eBay feedback.
blibba is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 10:03 AM   #15
Dent1
2000 Posts
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,353 (2.14/day)
Thanks: 738
Thanked 683 Times in 582 Posts

System Specs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prima.Vera View Post


ok, ok, but still no faster than the latest i5. This can be easily checked by "googleing ...
What are you talking about?

With the exception of a few single threaded games the Piledriver 8-core is consistantly as fast or faster than the i5 3xxx the majority of tasks.

In some tasks it wipes the floor with the i7 3xxx.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blibba View Post
In fairness, I think games will be unplayable on this chip before they're unplayable on an IB i3.

Support for SMP in games is just advancing too slowly.
Doubt it. Although Piledriver is weakest in gaming, the FX 8350 is consistantly performing about the same as the i3 (not i5 or i7) in single threading gaming already. So even if SMP is moving slowly the i3 is already at a disadvantage as it's losing or performing about the same in games.

Last edited by Dent1; Nov 6, 2012 at 10:12 AM.
Dent1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 10:17 AM   #16
blibba
500 Posts
 
blibba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 777 (0.59/day)
Thanks: 109
Thanked 167 Times in 113 Posts

System Specs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dent1 View Post
the FX 8350 is consistantly performing about the same as the i3 (not i5 or i7) in single threading gaming already.
__________________
Heatware.
eBay feedback.
blibba is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 10:21 AM   #17
hardcore_gamer
200 Posts
 
hardcore_gamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Fabry Perot cavity,AlGaAs-GaAs Heterojunction
Posts: 279 (0.33/day)
Thanks: 96
Thanked 119 Times in 58 Posts

System Specs

Single core performance is what matters. Multi-core is so 90s. It doesn't matter even if you put 1000 in a cores because software never catches up. Fast single cores are the future.
hardcore_gamer is online now  
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to hardcore_gamer For This Useful Post:
Old Nov 6, 2012, 10:21 AM   #18
Dent1
2000 Posts
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,353 (2.14/day)
Thanks: 738
Thanked 683 Times in 582 Posts

System Specs

Quote:
Originally Posted by blibba View Post
Ok I'm wrong. One benchmark from one website is the determining factor.

Win Skyrim and its a open and shut case.

Look at a wide spectrum of games and you'll see what I say is true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hardcore_gamer View Post
Single core performance is what matters. Multi-core is so 90s. It doesn't matter even if you put 1000 in a cores because software never catches up. Fast single cores are the future.
Then if multi core performance doesnt matter why does the Piledriver FX own the i5 4 core in encoding and rendering

It's ok hardcore_gamer, I know you won't answer.

Last edited by Dent1; Nov 6, 2012 at 10:35 AM.
Dent1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dent1 For This Useful Post:
Old Nov 6, 2012, 10:43 AM   #19
Aquinus
3500 Posts
 
Aquinus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Dover, New Hampshire, USA
Posts: 4,257 (8.85/day)
Thanks: 1,274
Thanked 1,326 Times in 984 Posts

System Specs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dent1 View Post
It's ok hardcore_gamer, I know you won't answer.
Let me help you with that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hardcore_gamer View Post
Fast single cores are the future.
Actually fast single cores were the past, which is why processors are cropping up with 4+ cores now, Intel, AMD, and hell, even cell phones. The software industry needs to start optimizing for multi-core because there is a point where the CPU core can't get smaller and can't get faster. There are a lot of tasks that can benefit from having multiple cores and as a programmer I can tell you that it's not easy. It takes time to develop this stuff because there are a lot of things you have to consider when you have multiple CPU cores working with shared memory. Optimizing for multiple threads is significantly more difficult and time consuming than optimizing for one thread.
__________________
MyHeat
Aquinus is offline  
Crunching for Team TPU
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Aquinus For This Useful Post:
Old Nov 6, 2012, 10:56 AM   #20
blibba
500 Posts
 
blibba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 777 (0.59/day)
Thanks: 109
Thanked 167 Times in 113 Posts

System Specs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dent1 View Post
Ok I'm wrong. One benchmark from one website is the determining factor.
Well there aren't any other sites I know that test gaming performance in such a credible way.









Minor win in BF3, but I feel like you're looking at a margins-of-error victory there, given the clear GPU bottleneck.
__________________
Heatware.
eBay feedback.
blibba is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 11:02 AM   #21
Dent1
2000 Posts
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,353 (2.14/day)
Thanks: 738
Thanked 683 Times in 582 Posts

System Specs

^ blibba, nothing can be concluded on that site,

Skyrim favours i3,
Batman favours i3
BF3 favours FX 8 core
Crysis 2 - virtually the same. No contest.

Isn't enough to make an argument for either side.

Also it really comes down to the test rig and configuration.

Because Anandtech shows the i3 getting owned in Skyrim, which is contradicted with your chart above. Strange.


Last edited by Dent1; Nov 6, 2012 at 11:10 AM.
Dent1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 11:13 AM   #22
Aquinus
3500 Posts
 
Aquinus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Dover, New Hampshire, USA
Posts: 4,257 (8.85/day)
Thanks: 1,274
Thanked 1,326 Times in 984 Posts

System Specs

Gaming isn't the only that that computers do and I'm willing to bet that AMD will show a little more ability with some other non-gaming tasks.
__________________
MyHeat
Aquinus is offline  
Crunching for Team TPU
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 11:24 AM   #23
jigar2speed
75 Posts
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 78 (0.18/day)
Thanks: 18
Thanked 19 Times in 12 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prima.Vera View Post
8 core from AMD working as fast as an i3 from Intel....hmmm
Yeah it almost matches i3 in gaming. Well ofcourse when we start talking about real productive applications which use 4+ Core it can start trading punches with i7 top dogs. I hope you are keeping up with the news and reviews lately.
__________________
Intel Q6600 @ 3.5GHZ @ 1.4V |ATI Radeon HD 7970 GHZ Edition| 6 GB RAM| Xtreme Music with G500 5.1 | Philips E-line, 27".
jigar2speed is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 11:27 AM   #24
blibba
500 Posts
 
blibba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 777 (0.59/day)
Thanks: 109
Thanked 167 Times in 113 Posts

System Specs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dent1 View Post
^ blibba, nothing can be concluded on that site,

Skyrim favours i3,
Batman favours i3
BF3 favours FX 8 core
Crysis 2 - virtually the same. No contest.

Isn't enough to make an argument for either side.
Skyrim shows a major i3 victory (285%)
Batman shows a major i3 victory (226%)
BF3 narrow FX victory (20%)
Crysis within margin of error (7%)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dent1 View Post
Also it really comes down to the test rig and configuration.
Only to a certain extent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dent1 View Post
Because Anandtech shows the i3 getting owned in Skyrim, which is contradicted with your chart above. Strange.

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6396/51123.png
Like I said, I can't find any other websites testing gaming performance credibly. FPS is not a good measure of gaming performance.

Example:
  • in a given second, a system A renders 60 frames, and system B renders 40 frames.
  • System A took half a second on one frame, and roughly one 118th of a second to render each of the other frames.
  • System B took one 40th of a second to render each frame.
  • System A has won by a country mile on FPS, but system B is more fluid to play.

Of course this is an exaggerated example, but I just want to point out how flawed FPS testing is. This is why you get microstutter etc. on multi-GPU systems pulling 100 FPS, and why consoles are playable at 30FPS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquinus View Post
Gaming isn't the only that that computers do and I'm willing to bet that AMD will show a little more ability with some other non-gaming tasks.
Absolutely agreed. If my system was destroyed in a fire tomorrow, I'd probably go for an FX4300.
__________________
Heatware.
eBay feedback.
blibba is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to blibba For This Useful Post:
Old Nov 6, 2012, 11:28 AM   #25
Dent1
2000 Posts
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,353 (2.14/day)
Thanks: 738
Thanked 683 Times in 582 Posts

System Specs

Lets put the FX 8-core to the side for 5mins.

I'm looking at Tomshardware. They did a review on the 4-core FX vs the i3 3220. (ignore the i5 3350)

The FX 4 core crushes the i3 in almost everything or performs virtually the same.

Even in gaming aside aside (skyrim) the performance was virtually the same.

Anyone whom has to make a choice between the two.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...arks,3314.html


Quote:
Originally Posted by dude12564 View Post
Not if they need low power draw.
Perhaps. But some eco hippies will always argue the power front. But you can always lower the volts on these chips. Remember its still a four core so power draw will always be worst.

Last edited by Dent1; Nov 6, 2012 at 11:34 AM.
Dent1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Dent1 For This Useful Post:
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Core i7-3770K Retail Boxes Pictured, TDP 95W, Overclocks Worse Than Sandy Bridge? btarunr News 80 Apr 24, 2012 04:45 AM
Eurocom Adds Eight-Core Intel Xeon Processor E5-2690 to Panther 4.0 btarunr News 6 Apr 5, 2012 01:48 AM
Yeston AMD Branded Cost-Effective Tahiti PCB Pictured with Components Placed btarunr News 19 Jan 17, 2012 01:53 AM
AMD Barcelona/Agena FX' TDP is 95W Bastieeeh News 32 Apr 13, 2007 01:08 PM
Biostar Launches Cost-effective Intel Core 2 Duo Motherboard malware News 6 Sep 30, 2006 03:31 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
no new posts