AMD FX-8300 Starts Selling, Lower TDP Comes at a Price

[btarunr]

AMD started selling its FX-8300 eight-core processor, which has been in the news since early-November. The new chip comes with a relatively low TDP of 95W, compared to other eight-core FX "Vishera" processors, which ship with 125W TDP. Despite being slower than the other FX "Vishera" chips, the FX-8320 and FX-8350, its low-TDP appears to have given AMD a big enough selling point, to price the chip around $190. Based on the 32 nm "Vishera" micro-architecture, the AMD FX-8300 ships with a clock speed of 3.30 GHz, 3.60 GHz of TurboCore speed, eight cores spread across four modules, 2 MB L2 cache per module (8 MB total), and 8 MB shared L3 cache.



Source: Expreview

[DarkOCean]

95w tdp is low nowadays ...eh AMD?

[de.das.dude]

Originally Posted by DarkOCean

95w tdp is low nowadays ...eh AMD?

"relatively low"

[mypg0306]

Still 32nm? You need to catch up.

[Zubasa]

Originally Posted by mypg0306

Still 32nm? You need to catch up.

Maybe you should invest a few hundred million for the cause

[Inceptor]

I don't see why someone would pay $190 for it. If it was bundled in an OEM build, OK, I see it being purchased. As a standalone? Why? Save a few dollars and buy an 8320, downclock it, and voila, same power envelope, and greater efficiency at higher clocks.
Unless, of course, if it has greater availability than the 8320...

[anubis44]

Originally Posted by Zubasa

Maybe you should invest a few hundred million for the cause

My sentiments exactly.

[Fx]

Originally Posted by zubasa

maybe you should invest a few hundred million for the cause

+1

[DarkOCean]

Originally Posted by de.das.dude

"relatively low"

not even "relatively".

[HossHuge]

Originally Posted by DarkOCean

95w tdp is low nowadays ...eh AMD?

True or False

Did btarunr say it was low or did AMD?

[Frick]

Originally Posted by DarkOCean

not even "relatively".

Compared to the other 8xxx CPU's it's pretty low.

[btarunr]

Originally Posted by HossHuge

Did btarunr say it was low or did AMD?

Irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the TDP is lower compared to other FX-83xx series parts, and AMD is monetizing it.

[sergionography]

Originally Posted by Inceptor

I don't see why someone would pay $190 for it. If it was bundled in an OEM build, OK, I see it being purchased. As a standalone? Why? Save a few dollars and buy an 8320, downclock it, and voila, same power envelope, and greater efficiency at higher clocks.
Unless, of course, if it has greater availability than the 8320...

not really true, the 8320 has the same tdp as 8350 but with lower clocks, that means amd will prioritize the better bins for the 8350, and with the 8300 being a 95watt tdp it will probably be the same good bins as the 8350
so if you get a 8300 you are probably more likely to get a good clocker than a 8320

[Lionheart]

Originally Posted by DarkOCean

not even "relatively".

8 cores running at 3.30ghz on 32nm & the TDP is 95W...I find that relatively low

[Prima.Vera]

Originally Posted by Lionheart

8 cores running at 3.30ghz on 32nm & the TDP is 95W...I find that relatively low

Actually there are only 4 REAL cores...

[NC37]

Originally Posted by sergionography

not really true, the 8320 has the same tdp as 8350 but with lower clocks, that means amd will prioritize the better bins for the 8350, and with the 8300 being a 95watt tdp it will probably be the same good bins as the 8350
so if you get a 8300 you are probably more likely to get a good clocker than a 8320

4.5Ghz 8320 here...If that is a bad bin 8350 then I can only imagine what the 8350s do. But in all honesty, any higher than this and you'd want water cooling. Maybe 4.6-4.7Ghz tops on air.

So if you are running an air system then you might as well save the money.

[sergionography]

Originally Posted by NC37

4.5Ghz 8320 here...If that is a bad bin 8350 then I can only imagine what the 8350s do. But in all honesty, any higher than this and you'd want water cooling. Maybe 4.6-4.7Ghz tops on air.

So if you are running an air system then you might as well save the money.

well yeah the good bins on water cooling ive heard about people reaching 5.2 stable and some even all the way to 5.5ghz but fails when stressed all the way, still runs windows and all tho

the lower bins top out at 4.8-4.9ghz even with water cooling

i know a friend who had a 8120 with water cooling and it can barely hit over 4.4ghz-4.5ghz stable and when you increase voltage things went gaga, but from the people i know who had an 8150 they easily got 4.8ghz with a bit voltage increase, so definitely when buying the top clocked cpu you are more likely to get the better bins

[ZeroFM]

Originally Posted by DarkOCean

95w tdp is low nowadays ...eh AMD?

Intel Core i7-3970X 6 core TDP 150W, add 2core = 200W SHAME

[HossHuge]

Originally Posted by btarunr

Irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the TDP is lower compared to other FX-83xx series parts, and AMD is monetizing it.

I was simply responding to his lack of reading comprehension.......

[Dent1]

Originally Posted by Prima.Vera

Actually there are only 4 REAL cores...

Well those additional "fake" cores produce heat and use die space. Thus 32nm at 95W is considered relatively low.

[Prima.Vera]

Originally Posted by Dent1

Well those additional "fake" cores produce heat and use die space. Thus 32nm at 95W is considered relatively low.

Well, Intel also have 4 fake cores and it goes to 77W...

[Supercrit]

Originally Posted by Prima.Vera

Well, Intel also have 4 fake cores and it goes to 77W...

AMD didn't learn to 22nm

[Prima.Vera]

yep...

[Frick]

Originally Posted by Prima.Vera

Actually there are only 4 REAL cores...

No, that would be four modules. Dont start this BS again.

[Aquinus]

Originally Posted by Prima.Vera

Well, Intel also have 4 fake cores and it goes to 77W...

Originally Posted by Prima.Vera

Actually there are only 4 REAL cores...

At least AMD has dedicated components for these said "4 fake cores". A module is a whole lot closer to two cores than Intel is, and AMD's performance on those 4 fake cores scales a whole lot better than hyper-threading does. Just keep that in mind. Also keep in mind that they're still on 32nm and they're trying to keep up with 22nm chips. That's not too bad. I suspect when AMD starts producing CPUs on a smaller process that we'll see a lot more than what we're seeing now. Consider the size reduction from 32nm to 22nm. It's very significant, as in, it's almost 50% smaller, so consider for a moment what AMD could do if they had 50% more die space to work with.

So give a break with this "real cores, fake cores" crap. AMD produces a decent CPU and the only difference is Intel makes a better one... and we're not talking about stomping over AMD like its night and day.

So yeah, AMD isn't as fast, but the architecture will scale better for multi-core systems long term. The only part of AMD's CPU that you could call 4 "fake cores" is the fact that each module has one FPU (but if software is compiled correctly with FMA3, that can even be a non-issue for floating point heavy applications). Keep in mind that most of the time a CPU is doing integer math, and there are two integer cores per module. So these "4 fake cores" you speak of are a lot more like real cores than you think.

So instead of trolling and spitting out this crap, look at the CPU for what it is rather than what you think it is because AMD certainly doesn't produce a bad chip despite what you think.

Originally Posted by Frick

No, that would be four modules. Dont start this BS again.

+1: Looks like I'm not the only person who knows how to spot a troll.