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.
64 Comments on AMD Working on Cost-Effective FX-8300 Eight-Core Processor with 95W TDP
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.
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?
Haven't had a AMD CPU since my Athlon 64 FX-55.
--
i haven't seen any newest amd's vishera in my local electronic retail shop since its released :banghead:
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.
Maybe on single-threaded tasks at stock speeds in 10% of those cases. Oh wait, the i3 doesn't overclock worth crap. :slap:
ok, ok, but still no faster than the latest i5. This can be easily checked by "googleing ... :)
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.
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.
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.
Minor win in BF3, but I feel like you're looking at a margins-of-error victory there, given the clear GPU bottleneck.
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.
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.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.
www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4170-core-i3-3220-benchmarks,3314.htmlPerhaps. 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.