Monday, August 27th 2012

AMD "Vishera" FX-Series CPU Specifications Confirmed

A leaked AMD document for retail partners spelled out specifications of the first three FX "Vishera" processors by AMD. The new CPUs incorporate AMD's "Piledriver" architecture, and much like the first-generation "Zambezi" chips, will launch as one each of eight-core, six-core, and four-core chips. The eight-core FX-8350 is confirmed to ship with 4.00 GHz nominal clock speed, with 4.20 GHz TurboCore speed. The six-core FX-6300 ships with 3.50 GHz nominal, and 4.10 GHz TurboCore speed. The quad-core FX-4320, on the other hand, ships with the same clock speeds as the FX-8350. In addition, the document confirmed clock speeds of several socket FM2 A-series APUs, such as the A10-5700 and the A8-5500.
Source: Expreview
Add your own comment

493 Comments on AMD "Vishera" FX-Series CPU Specifications Confirmed

#76
AvonX
cdawall, post: 2707367"
Hence why I have not bothered to buy anything that wasn't Phenom II based. I think everyone should remember the huge performance jump from Phenom I to Phenom II.



When you use the correct programs to render BD does quite well. Weird how an Intel based rendering program favors well Intel. There is a reason AMD added certain things to its technology and it wasn't to continue using Intel styled shit.


Now personally I don't understand why everyone is against AMD improving products and releasing new chips. You do understand that if it was an Intel only market we would not see improvements like we do now, prices would skyrocket etc...Just remember on release the Athlon X2 4200+ was $537 Intel was the same pricing. I am all for a "crappy" Piledriver chip for $200. Intel can keep its $500+ chips.
AMD's Improving products???
You know why bulldozer sucks so hard? Because they decided to go cheap and they were using lots of automation tools, synthesis tools, automatic place and route tools, etc which resulted somewhere about 25% slower and 25% less efficient. Now if AMD still has that cheap style mindset, don't expect much from them.
Posted on Reply
#77
erocker
*
AvonX, post: 2707401"
AMD's Improving products???
You know why bulldozer sucks so hard? Because they decided to go cheap and they were using lots of automation tools, synthesis tools, automatic place and route tools, etc which resulted somewhere about 25% slower and 25% less efficient. Now if AMD still has that cheap style mindset, don't expect much from them.
From what information I have read, Piledriver is refined from Bulldozer meaning "hand engineered" like a good CPU should be. That being said I'm not expecting any miracles, just a chip that is a bit more competitive with the competition. I'm expecting something similar from Phenom I to Phenom II.
Posted on Reply
#78
Vinska
techtard, post: 2707317"
Also, it doesn't matter how improved Piledriver may be if the Intel compiler still forces all non genuine-intel CPUs to run non-optimal codepaths.
This.

(I personally see no reason to use that intel compiler for anything whatsoever. *shrug* why does it even exist, anyway? :wtf:)
Posted on Reply
#79
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
cdawall, post: 2707367"
When you use the correct programs to render BD does quite well. Weird how an Intel based rendering program favors well Intel. There is a reason AMD added certain things to its technology and it wasn't to continue using Intel styled shit.
They say this in the conclusion:
On the other side of the coin, it is clear that some of the excellent features of the new Opteron are not leveraged by the current software base.
So it is what it always is, needs and moneys.
Posted on Reply
#80
erocker
*
Frick, post: 2707434"
On the other side of the coin, it is clear that some of the excellent features of the new Opteron are not leveraged by the current software base.
Meh... Our cars have some excellent features and performance, unfortunately there are very few roads our car can actually drive on.

I don't like that excuse.
Posted on Reply
#81
techtard
erocker, post: 2707407"
From what information I have read, Piledriver is refined from Bulldozer meaning "hand engineered" like a good CPU should be. That being said I'm not expecting any miracles, just a chip that is a bit more competitive with the competition. I'm expecting something similar from Phenom I to Phenom II.
That was a welcome improvement. I went from Phenom I to II, it was a pleasant surprise.
Better performance, and higher overclocking too. Plus no more TLB error bug.

If they can achieve that, it will be a solid chip. There's no need for them to have the same performance as Ivy or even Sandybridge, though it would be nice.
Posted on Reply
#82
camoxiong
Pretty nice for AMD to clock their CPUs at and over 4.0ghz at stock.
Posted on Reply
#83
Norton
Moderator & WCG-TPU Captain
erocker, post: 2707407"
From what information I have read, Piledriver is refined from Bulldozer meaning "hand engineered" like a good CPU should be. That being said I'm not expecting any miracles, just a chip that is a bit more competitive with the competition. I'm expecting something similar from Phenom I to Phenom II.
That should work out fine. FX suits my needs now so a PI to PII bump would be ideal.

They shouldn't even call it Piledriver... FX II would be an ideal name :)

Got a couple of sockets waiting so bring em on! :toast:
Posted on Reply
#84
cadaveca
My name is Dave
erocker, post: 2707407"
From what information I have read, Piledriver is refined from Bulldozer meaning "hand engineered" like a good CPU should be. That being said I'm not expecting any miracles, just a chip that is a bit more competitive with the competition. I'm expecting something similar from Phenom I to Phenom II.
Hmmm.


So, would you then say, that current FM1 APUs, that use Phenom II cores + IGP with almsot no cache, compared to the next-gen FM2 APU with PileDriver cores and IGP, would correctly relate what AMD intended with Bulldozer?



Because, you know, I've bad PD-based APU for over a month now, right? And I have no NDA either?



Do you think we should post a review? APU, vs APU? Just screw launch dates, get the info out now?


OH yeah, my chip:




Oh, and so that socket change, from FM1 to FM2, is kinda like the Phenom to FX AM3 to AM3+ or 890FX to 990FX change? A thing about better power delivery?


I mean, I know nothing, just got a chip here, and I kinda like to speculate myself....what is it really, and how fast is it?




I DO NOT KNOW!!! :p
Posted on Reply
#85
AvonX
cadaveca, post: 2707473"
Hmmm.


So, would you then say, that current FM1 APUs, that use Phenom II cores + IGP with almsot no cache, compared to the next-gen FM2 APU with PileDriver cores and IGP, would correctly relate what AMD intended with Bulldozer?



Because, you know, I've bad PD-based APU for over a month now, right? And I have no NDA either?



Do you think we should post a review? APU, vs APU? Just screw launch dates, get the info out now?


OH yeah, my chip:

http://img.techpowerup.org/120727/008995.jpg


Oh, and so that socket change, from FM1 to FM2, is kinda like the Phenom to FX AM3 to AM3+ or 890FX to 990FX change? A thing about better power delivery?


I mean, I know nothing, just got a chip here, and I kinda like to speculate myself....what is it really, and how fast is it?




I DO NOT KNOW!!! :p
Nice photoshopping. LoL
Posted on Reply
#86
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
erocker, post: 2707436"
Meh... Our cars have some excellent features and performance, unfortunately there are very few roads our car can actually drive on.

I don't like that excuse.
which is the point. different scenarios, different resources, different applications. Its why we have to research beforw buying.
Posted on Reply
#87
cadaveca
My name is Dave
AvonX, post: 2707475"
Nice photoshopping. LoL
MSPaint, actually. :p


:roll:
Posted on Reply
#88
tacosRcool
I would like a nice performance increase please!
Posted on Reply
#89
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
tacosRcool, post: 2707594"
I would like a nice performance increase please!
Wouldnt we all
Posted on Reply
#90
Vinska
eidairaman1, post: 2707597"
Wouldnt we all
Intel fanboys wouldn't =]
Posted on Reply
#91
cadaveca
My name is Dave
Vinska, post: 2707614"
Intel fanboys wouldn't =]
I feel such comments are almost like racism. Anti-Intel Racism.




:shadedshu
Posted on Reply
#92
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
cadaveca, post: 2707626"
I feel such comments are almost like racism. Anti-Intel Racism.




:shadedshu
theres more Racism towards AMD here honestly.
Posted on Reply
#93
xorbe
Oberon, post: 2707269"
So, can anyone explain the presence of APU-specific features (AVC, "dual-graphics" [distinct from CF for AMD], eyefinity, etc.) for the FX CPUs that don't have a GPU on-board? Smells fishy to me.
This.
Posted on Reply
#94
Lionheart
erocker, post: 2707407"
From what information I have read, Piledriver is refined from Bulldozer meaning "hand engineered" like a good CPU should be. That being said I'm not expecting any miracles, just a chip that is a bit more competitive with the competition. I'm expecting something similar from Phenom I to Phenom II.
You read my mind :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#95
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
xorbe, post: 2707632"
This.
Re-Read the Chart, in Post Number 1 :slap:
Posted on Reply
#96
Covert_Death
well... sitting on a PII x4 955 @ 4.0Ghz with a 990FX MoBo. the 8350 should be an upgrade... i never expect the first generation of a brand new design to go "as intended" but now they have had a year to look at it and IMPROVE what exists. I DO expect PD to be an upgrade because of this fact...

need this upgrade soooon
Posted on Reply
#97
Rauelius
AMD should aim these at the Celeron, Pentium and i3. The FX 4xxx could compare favorable to the SB Celerons, the 6xxx compares favorably to the SB Pentiums and the FX 8xxx compares to the i3. AMD's big issue is pricing...because despite the high possibility that the 8350 will likely Game slower than an IB based i3, AMD will launch this as a $300+ processor. First they have to get away from using "cores" they are not full cores. If AMD launched the FX series in respect to a Quad-Module and priced them like their old dual cores reviewers would have been much kinder and AMD would have looked better when considering the 8150 is really an upgrade from the 965 and NOT the x6 series.
Posted on Reply
#98
AvonX
Lionheart, post: 2707633"
You read my mind :rolleyes:
Wait until the benchmarks. Remember what happened with bulldozer?
I was one of those who was clever enough to wait until it was benched.
Too much reading minds and wild guesses is useless don't you think?
Damn my 1090T smokes these bulldozers. :roll:
Posted on Reply
#99
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
AvonX, post: 2707651"
Wait until the benchmarks. Remember what happened with bulldozer?
I was one of those who was clever enough to wait until it was benched.
Too much reading minds and wild guesses is useless don't you think?
Damn my 1090T smokes these bulldozers. :roll:
its already been proven with Charts, a FX 41** is no where near equivalent to a X4 9**
Posted on Reply
#100
Melvis
eidairaman1, post: 2707021"
you really dont need a better Phenom II, if You can get the 965 BE to 3.7 GHz or higher youre pretty much golden already.
This is true, and if these new CPU's dont cut it either than that's what ill be doing and leaving it for many many yrs to come.

I cant be beeped to spend much more money on computer stuff these days, gotta focus on fixing up my lawn and house now, yes im getting old.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment