1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

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

Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Nov 6, 2012.

  1. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,959 (11.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,757
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    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.

    [​IMG]
     
  2. NC37

    NC37

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,205 (0.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    270
    Hopefully clocks as well as it's bigger 125w brothers. Will be neat to see once this launches.
     
  3. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,959 (11.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,757
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    It features unlocked multiplier. For $160-ish, you can unlock it to match the performance of a Core i7-2600K.
     
  4. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    AMD definitely has some nice budget oriented offerings.
     
  5. Prima.Vera

    Prima.Vera

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    2,284 (1.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    299
    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2012
    a111087 says thanks.
  6. MxPhenom 216

    MxPhenom 216 Corsair Fanboy

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    10,210 (6.49/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,383
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    uh what, its definitely faster then a Intel i3 lol!
     
  7. Capitan Harlock

    Capitan Harlock

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2012
    Messages:
    487 (0.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    77
    Location:
    Arcadia
    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?
     
    TheLaughingMan says thanks.
  8. HammerON

    HammerON The Watchful Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Messages:
    6,566 (3.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,677
    Interesting CPU for the price...
    Haven't had a AMD CPU since my Athlon 64 FX-55.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  9. SIGSEGV

    SIGSEGV

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2012
    Messages:
    510 (0.51/day)
    Thanks Received:
    107
    omg, this is so lol statement, epic win dude :rockout:

    --
    i haven't seen any newest amd's vishera in my local electronic retail shop since its released :banghead:
     
  10. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,212 (1.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    949
    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.
     
  11. Aquinus

    Aquinus Resident Wat-man

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,852 (6.48/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,460
    Location:
    Concord, NH
    Troll alert!

    Maybe on single-threaded tasks at stock speeds in 10% of those cases. Oh wait, the i3 doesn't overclock worth crap. :slap:
     
  12. [H]@RD5TUFF

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2009
    Messages:
    5,615 (3.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,707
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Hopefully it's less power hungry at higher clocks than the current pile driver chips!:shadedshu
     
    NeoXF says thanks.
  13. Prima.Vera

    Prima.Vera

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    2,284 (1.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    299
  14. blibba

    blibba

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    831 (0.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    184
    Location:
    Oxford, UK
    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.
     
  15. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,212 (1.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    949
    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.

    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: Nov 6, 2012
  16. blibba

    blibba

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    831 (0.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    184
    Location:
    Oxford, UK
    [​IMG]
     
  17. hardcore_gamer

    hardcore_gamer

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    388 (0.27/day)
    Thanks Received:
    174
    Location:
    Fabry Perot cavity,AlGaAs-GaAs Heterojunction
    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.:rolleyes:
     
    cdawall and Frick say thanks.
  18. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,212 (1.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    949
    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.

    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: Nov 6, 2012
    WaroDaBeast and Aquinus say thanks.
  19. Aquinus

    Aquinus Resident Wat-man

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,852 (6.48/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,460
    Location:
    Concord, NH
    Let me help you with that.

    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.
     
    Dent1 says thanks.
  20. blibba

    blibba

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    831 (0.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    184
    Location:
    Oxford, UK
    Well there aren't any other sites I know that test gaming performance in such a credible way.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Minor win in BF3, but I feel like you're looking at a margins-of-error victory there, given the clear GPU bottleneck.
     
  21. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,212 (1.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    949
    ^ 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.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2012
  22. Aquinus

    Aquinus Resident Wat-man

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,852 (6.48/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,460
    Location:
    Concord, NH
    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.
     
  23. jigar2speed

    jigar2speed

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2012
    Messages:
    194 (0.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    30
    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.
     
  24. blibba

    blibba

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    831 (0.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    184
    Location:
    Oxford, UK
    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%)

    Only to a certain extent.

    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.

    Absolutely agreed. If my system was destroyed in a fire tomorrow, I'd probably go for an FX4300.
     
    HTC and Dent1 say thanks.
  25. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,212 (1.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    949
    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/fx-4170-core-i3-3220-benchmarks,3314.html


    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: Nov 6, 2012
    Super XP says thanks.

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

Share This Page