Tuesday, November 6th 2012

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.
Add your own comment

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

#1
dude12564
Dent1 said:
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 choise between the 4 core and i3, its an easy one.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4170-core-i3-3220-benchmarks,3314.html
Not if they need low power draw.
Posted on Reply
#2
Dent1
blibba said:
but then it's also stronger than the FX8 in highly threaded tasks.
I haven't seen many (if any) solid examples of that.


dude12564 said:
Not if they need low power draw.
blibba said:
Also, to some extent one should care about power consumption.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/P/R/356031/original/Power.png
It's a four core so it will always high higher power consumption than a two core. This is a given. Whenever Intel people are losing they change the subject.

But lets not get sidetracked, we are talking about performance here.



Ignoring the i5 3550.

About 3.7% separates the overall gaming experience in i3s favour.

About 7.6% separates general application experience in the 4 cores FX Piledriver's favour.

For games 3.7% is a small gap, they are virtually the same speed in gaming already. Most people would give up less than 4% gaming for a bigger leap over a few years.

Considering the FX 4 core is almost 8% faster in general application performance, which is also going to be significantly bigger in a few years, the FX 4-core is a better purchase especially when you factor in that its £20 cheaper in the UK too.

In fact the 6 core Piledriver costs the same as the i3. Which makes me wonder why anyone would consider the i3.


hardcore_gamer said:
I was being sarcastic mate.
I'm sorry. Just with all the AMD hate sometimes it's hard to tell when people are serious and joking.
Posted on Reply
#3
Fourstaff
dude12564 said:
Not if they need low power draw.
This, a small difference of 10w in combined cycle (load/idle over an average day) can easily mean £15 or more in terms of power bill over a year in UK, massively tilting the balance to Intel if everything performs the same. My profile favours low power draw coupled with good single/dual thread performance, so Intel for me.

On top of all those you have to consider AMD's generally cheaper motherboard, but much thirstier chipsets.
Posted on Reply
#4
hardcore_gamer
Dent1 said:
Then if multi core performance doesnt matter why does the Piledriver FX own the i5 4 core in encoding and rendering
I was being sarcastic mate.
Posted on Reply
#6
Fourstaff
NeoXF said:
Oh WOW! AMD FX-8350 is 9.8ms slower than i7-3770K in feeding frames in Skyrim, IT MUST BE TOTAL CRAP.

/fail


Also, do you guys really not get "hardcore_gamer" is trolling?
Hard to tell if someone is trolling or just plain stupid online.
Posted on Reply
#7
UbErN00b
Seriously people quit the Intel V AMD bitching, this is not the thread for it. I get sick of reading this same shit in EVERY single NVIDIA/AMD/Intel thread, your spoiling it for the rest of us. If you all want to do is flame then piss off to GN and start your own Intel Vs AMD topic there and bitch piss and moan until your hearts are content.
Posted on Reply
#8
xenocide
NeoXF said:
Oh WOW! AMD FX-8350 is 9.8ms slower than i7-3770K in feeding frames in Skyrim, IT MUST BE TOTAL CRAP.

/fail


Also, do you guys really not get "hardcore_gamer" is trolling?
Do you realize how big 10ms is when it comes to computers?

The bottom line is FX CPU's are good if you can utilize the threads, the same way they were with Bulldozer cores. Not sure why people are still bitching and moaning about which one is better. It's pretty simple--generally Intel CPU's are better where IPC is important, simply put, low thread counts, generally FX CPU's are better where the workload is spread across 4-8 threads. That means in most situations Intel will be better for gaming which utilizes 1-4 threads usually, and AMD CPU's will [b]usually[b] be better at applications which utilize a lot of threads like rendering and videoaudio conversion.
Posted on Reply
#9
Dent1
xenocide said:
Do you realize how big 10ms is when it comes to computers
In encoding 10ms quicker per 10MB file is huge. 10ms quicker in gaming :wtf:
xenocide said:

The bottom line is FX CPU's are good if you can utilize the threads, the same way they were with Bulldozer cores. Not sure why people are still bitching and moaning about which one is better. It's pretty simple--generally Intel CPU's are better where IPC is important, simply put, low thread counts, generally FX CPU's are better where the workload is spread across 4-8 threads. That means in most situations Intel will be better for gaming which utilizes 1-4 threads usually, and AMD CPU's will [b]usually[b] be better at applications which utilize a lot of threads like rendering and videoaudio conversion.
But we are talking about the i3 and 4 core Piledriver FX here, IPC is proven not to be a factor when compared these to specific CPUs, as the overall singe threaded performance appear to be virtually the same.

Again we are talking about two specific CPUs. Not Intel vs. AMD in a broader debate in which case you'd be 100% correct.

But yes, we've had our fun. Let's stick to the main topic. I can't wait for the new 95W TDP 8 cores.
Posted on Reply
#10
blibba
UbErN00b said:
Seriously people quit the Intel V AMD bitching, this is not the thread for it. I get sick of reading this same shit in EVERY single NVIDIA/AMD/Intel thread, your spoiling it for the rest of us. If you all want to do is flame then piss off to GN and start your own Intel Vs AMD topic there and bitch piss and moan until your hearts are content.
This is hardly fanboy flaming. I've been arguing against the merits of the FX8 in my last few posts, and both my systems are AMD, and if I had to replace them, I'd buy AMD. This is a discussion about the merits and demerits of the CPU which this thread is about. I can hardly think of a more relevant topic. If you don't want to read it, unsubscribe.

NeoXF said:
Oh WOW! AMD FX-8350 is 9.8ms slower than i7-3770K in feeding frames in Skyrim, IT MUST BE TOTAL CRAP.
10ms longer to render frames can be a pretty big deal. And nobody accused anything of being total crap.
Posted on Reply
#11
de.das.dude
Pro Indian Modder
Prima.Vera said:
8 core from AMD working as fast as an i3 from Intel....hmmm
i would report your post for trolling but i think its already been done..
Posted on Reply
#12
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
de.das.dude said:
i would report your post for trolling but i think its already been done..
The mods should have you on ignore
Posted on Reply
#13
omagic
haters gonna hate

I dont know what is this war about... Some poor blind fanboy wrote some stupid thing about FX he didnt even use for a minute and all of You started to punch each other :)

I have 2 PCs right now(one mine one my nephew's)

All I can say is theres totaly no way anyone who saw FX working would write such bull****
I use FX-8320@4,3 and i5-2500K@4 and theres no game i saw FX would be worse in everyday gaming... really

Its fast enough, so is i5 thats all.

I cant understand one thing, for all these years we were told that better hardware in games is the one that can produce higher FPS and now some site that try to be different than others write some funny things about 3-5-10ms? Hey, i can see when game lags.. under 30 fps is visible but I really dont see any 10ms in Skyrim or BF3 or MoH:W or CoD:BO or CIV5 etc so whats the use of placing such benchmarks?

bull****


PS: Im not a fanboy, like i wrote I use both AMD and Intel but when I see some sites placing reviews of Visheras i wonder if they are corrupted or just too stupid to make a benchmark or buildset system right... I get better scores in 8 of 10 test than some sites...
Posted on Reply
#14
de.das.dude
Pro Indian Modder
Frick said:
The mods should have you on ignore
:laugh:
Posted on Reply
#15
TheLaughingMan
I wonder if it will drop the power consumption significantly? This could be a interesting little chip if you could clock it up to the FX-8350 speed while maintaining lower power use.

Has anyone ever tried to just OC the Turbo clock speed? set it to 3.2 GHz (3.8 GHz Turbo, 4.2 GHz max turbo) cause I think that would be something interesting to try.
Posted on Reply
#16
blibba
omagic said:

I cant understand one thing, for all these years we were told that better hardware in games is the one that can produce higher FPS and now some site that try to be different than others write some funny things about 3-5-10ms? Hey, i can see when game lags.. under 30 fps is visible but I really dont see any 10ms in Skyrim or BF3 or MoH:W or CoD:BO or CIV5 etc so whats the use of placing such benchmarks?
Exactly, you see when the game lags. But a game can "lag" at 60FPS if one of those frames takes 100ms to render (ever heard of microstutter?). Consoles often spend the whole time at 30FPS or so, but rarely if ever feel laggy. It is absolutely the rendering times that is visible, and not the FPS. Measuring minimum FPS picks up some of the same effects, but still is not as useful. I feel like you didn't make any attempt to understand this before posting about it.

Just because something is what you are familiar with does not mean it is best. Average FPS benchmarking is generally correlated with smoothness of gameplay, but it is not the same thing.
Posted on Reply
#17
omagic
Fx

blibba said:

Just because something is what you are familiar with does not mean it is best. Average FPS benchmarking is generally correlated with smoothness of gameplay, but it is not the same thing.
For me important is everyday use, and in that FX-8320 or i5-2500K makes no difference...

Used them, saw that
Posted on Reply
#18
UbErN00b
blibba said:
This is hardly fanboy flaming. I've been arguing against the merits of the FX8 in my last few posts, and both my systems are AMD, and if I had to replace them, I'd buy AMD. This is a discussion about the merits and demerits of the CPU which this thread is about. I can hardly think of a more relevant topic. If you don't want to read it, unsubscribe.



10ms longer to render frames can be a pretty big deal. And nobody accused anything of being total crap.
Discussing i3 vs fx 4100 has absolutely NOTHING to do with this thread, I suggest if you want to carry on discussing it start a new one that's on topic.
Posted on Reply
#19
blibba
omagic said:
For me important is everyday use, and in that FX-8320 or i5-2500K makes no difference...

Used them, saw that
Well that's different, and fair enough. Could just be a GPU bottleneck in both cases, but you could be perfectly justified in not caring at all in that case.

UbErN00b said:
Discussing i3 vs fx 4100 has absolutely NOTHING to do with this thread, I suggest if you want to carry on discussing it start a new one that's on topic.
a) I didn't bring up i3 vs 4100, I've just responded to other posts, that's how discussion works
b) I don't think it's totally irrelevant
c) Why are you still subscribed if you hate where this thread has gone so much
d) Your most recent posts have hardly brought discussion back on track
Posted on Reply
#20
UbErN00b
blibba said:
a) I didn't bring up i3 vs 4100, I've just responded to other posts, that's how discussion works
I never said you did however it has nothing to do with the thread at hand and I for one am sick of seeing the same posts in any AMD/Intel news posts, ot's not relevant.

blibba said:
b) I don't think it's totally irrelevant
see a)

blibba said:
c) Why are you still subscribed if you hate where this thread has gone so much
Again it's not just this thread a multitude of them, and seeing the same posts repeated in all of them constantly I don't need to subscribe cause they are always at the top of new posts.

blibba said:
d) Your most recent posts have hardly brought discussion back on track
Nice little insightful comment to end your defence of yet another thread being completely derailed by fan boy shouts or nothing related to the op in question, as an FYI you might think I have done nothing to bring the thread back on track, completely disregarding my first post, as well as that a number of posts have been reported for either being off topic or blatant troll posts like the one who mentioned the whole AMD vs Intel debacle in the first instance.

We all know what the core strengths and arguments are for each manufacturer why we have to make the same points in every thread by either of them is beyond me.
Posted on Reply
#21
blibba
Basically, I just respond as I see fit to the posts that are made. If people don't ask the same old questions, I won't suggest the same old answers to them. I have not attempted to shape the thread, or introduce any new topic. I feel like your rage might be misplaced, and that a constructive contribution might do more to solve the problem you seem to be so bothered by.
Posted on Reply
#22
Casecutter
I hope they sell this Bulk OEM on the cheap! Would be a good move from the 965 BE in the main computer, and relinquish that Phenom II to one of the boys gaming machine’s. Just wonder how BOIS support on the ASRock 870 EXTREME3 will be. Save a little power on the home use machine and give shot in the arm to one of the boy’s. I can probably sell the old Athlon II X4 640 for $30-40, which is like 15-20% less than I got it.
Posted on Reply
#23
Covert_Death
so gaming asside.... im REALLLLLLY looking forward to slapping my FX-8350 into my rig to use for SolidWorks... anyone who uses big boy apps and software should look at a FX series chip
Posted on Reply
#24
omagic
gaming

blibba said:
Well that's different, and fair enough. Could just be a GPU bottleneck in both cases, but you could be perfectly justified in not caring at all in that case.
right... i bet You play games @800x600 LOW just to see the power of Intel CPU...

Its easy to see they are simply enough for gaming, no need for 250fps :)
Posted on Reply
#25
Super XP
AMD should flood the market with these new CPU's. :D
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment