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
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
Well the good news is this thread got out of hand. Since we are on the subject of silliness

Did anyone else see AMD perform well in an actually multithreaded game?



or any of these?


























Since everyone loves to throw skyrim in. Take any BD or PD chip disable it down to 1 module with a single core and clock the holy heck out of it. Post back if it outperforms an i3.
Posted on Reply
#2
Dent1
^ Iam sure the Intel fanboys will not respond.

I recommend keeping the forum code saved for when another thread like this pops up.
Posted on Reply
#3
Super XP
Dent1 said:
^ Iam sure the Intel fanboys will not respond.

I recommend keeping the forum code saved for when another thread like this pops up.
Be careful they might post benchmarks specifically written for Intel based CPU's, where it cripples AMD CPU's from properly performing. :D
Posted on Reply
#4
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
Super XP said:
Better careful they might post benchmarks specifically written for Intel based CPU's, where it disables and/or cripples AMD CPU's from properly performing. :D
or claim how they are better since superpi says so.
Posted on Reply
#5
Super XP
cdawall said:
or claim how they are better since superpi says so.
Agreed.


Posted on Reply
#6
suraswami
All I know is 8350 + mid range mobo + 2 x 2GB 7850 + 120GB SSD = 3770K + mid range mobo + 2 x 2GB 7850.

Its ok if my eyes cannot see 5 to 10 fps that I7 churns extra.

No Ocing, put it in, finish setup, have a drink, start to fire bullets.

:toast:
Posted on Reply
#7
Prima.Vera
LOL AMD fanboys vs Intel fanboys! :))) And all started with an innocent remark, haha. 1 stone in the lake created a big tsunami. Seriously guys, you need to take a break. :)))
Posted on Reply
#8
xenocide
Dent1 said:
^ Iam sure the Intel fanboys will not respond.
Not an Intel fanboy, but it fits perfectly into what I said. In heavily threaded applications the AMD CPU's are great. Every single one of those benchmarks proves it considering even the BD CPU did well in most of them.
Posted on Reply
#9
blibba
omagic said:
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 :)
Er... it appears you agree with the post you quoted, so why the aggression?

Regarding FX performance in multithreaded apps, nobody's disputing it, least of all "Intel fanboys" (am I an Intel fanboy? With both of my rigs running AMD CPUs?). Trouble is, some of the most demanding applications that a lot of people run aren't well threaded (yet).
Posted on Reply
#10
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
blibba said:
Er... it appears you agree with the post you quoted, so why the aggression?

Regarding FX performance in multithreaded apps, nobody's disputing it, least of all "Intel fanboys" (am I an Intel fanboy? With both of my rigs running AMD CPUs?). Trouble is, some of the most demanding applications that a lot of people run aren't well threaded (yet).
Such as what? Skyrim? Some games that are still pushing over 60fps? Because it sure isn't rendering, sure isn't compiling so there isn't exactly much left that's demanding.
Posted on Reply
#11
blibba
cdawall said:
Such as what? Skyrim? Some games that are still pushing over 60fps? Because it sure isn't rendering, sure isn't compiling so there isn't exactly much left that's demanding.
Even if it was the case that FX CPUs were pushing a solid 60FPS in every poorly threaded game, that wouldn't be an argument for buying an FX-8350 - it would be argument for buying the cheapest CPU possible with respectable single-threaded performance. Which is probably an eBay Phenom II X2, E8400 or socket 1156 i3. Unless you do a lot rendering, compiling or other demanding tasks, of course, but many people don't. The most demanding things that my PC does aren't very demanding.
Posted on Reply
#12
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
blibba said:
Even if it was the case that FX CPUs were pushing a solid 60FPS in every poorly threaded game, that wouldn't be an argument for buying an FX-8350 - it would be argument for buying the cheapest CPU possible with respectable single-threaded performance. Which is probably an eBay Phenom II X2, E8400 or socket 1156 i3. Unless you do a lot rendering, compiling or other demanding tasks, of course, but many people don't. The most demanding things that my PC does aren't very demanding.
So why are yup bothering to comment in a thread about a high end AMD? I personally fail to see what any of this has to do with yet another low cost good overclocking chip from AMD.

But hey if skyrim bad superpi are your thing I highly suggest a heavily overclocked I3.
Posted on Reply
#13
blibba
cdawall said:
So why are yup bothering to comment in a thread about a high end AMD? I personally fail to see what any of this has to do with yet another low cost good overclocking chip from AMD.
I've just responded to other posts. Follow my comments back and you'll find that I've never pushed this thread off-topic. I've merely corrected or answered posts by others that have done so.

cdawall said:
But hey if skyrim bad superpi are your thing I highly suggest a heavily overclocked I3.
SuperPi isn't my thing, this very post is the first time I've ever mentioned it on this forum. But I'm perfectly fine with my Phenom II, thanks. If I was building a new PC tomorrow, I'd buy an FX-4300. It has a better blend of single-threaded performance and "future-proofing" than a dual-core from 2008 could ever provide.
Posted on Reply
#14
Dent1
blibba said:
I'd buy an FX-4300. It has a better blend of single-threaded performance and "future-proofing" than a dual-core from 2008 could ever provide.
Although what you said was 100% true. Lets be honest, the FX-4300 also has a better blend of single threaded and "future proofing" than a dual core i3 from 2012 too.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment