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

[btarunr]

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.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[NC37]

Hopefully clocks as well as it's bigger 125w brothers. Will be neat to see once this launches.

 

[btarunr]

It features unlocked multiplier. For $160-ish, you can unlock it to match the performance of a Core i7-2600K.

 

[Wile E]

AMD definitely has some nice budget oriented offerings.

 

[Prima.Vera]

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.

 

[MxPhenom 216]

8 core from AMD working as fast as an i3 from Intel....hmmm

uh what, its definitely faster then a Intel i3 lol!

 

[Capitan Harlock]

8 core from AMD working as fast as an i3 from Intel....hmmm

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?

 

[HammerON]

Interesting CPU for the price...
Haven't had a AMD CPU since my Athlon 64 FX-55.

 

[SIGSEGV]

8 core from AMD working as fast as an i3 from Intel....hmmm

omg, this is so lol statement, epic win dude

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

 

[Dent1]

8 core from AMD working as fast as an i3 from Intel....hmmm

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.

 

[Aquinus]

8 core from AMD working as fast as an i3 from Intel....hmmm

Troll alert!

Maybe on single-threaded tasks at stock speeds in 10% of those cases. Oh wait, the i3 doesn't overclock worth crap.

 

[[H]@RD5TUFF]

Hopefully it's less power hungry at higher clocks than the current pile driver chips!:shadedshu

 

[Prima.Vera]

http://www.globalmotorbikes.com/forums/image.php?u=4633&dateline=1343429863

http://i.qkme.me/367ke7.jpg

http://data.whicdn.com/images/29645533/4335526_460s_large.jpg

http://us11.memecdn.com/trololol_o_450581.jpg

Enjoying yourself??


ok, ok, but still no faster than the latest i5. This can be easily checked by "googleing ...

 

[blibba]

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.

 

[Dent1]

ok, ok, but still no faster than the latest i5. This can be easily checked by "googleing ...

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.

In fairness, 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.

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.

 

[blibba]

the FX 8350 is consistantly performing about the same as the i3 (not i5 or i7) in single threading gaming already.

 

[hardcore_gamer]

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.

 

[Dent1]

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e316/blibba/skyrim-99th.gif

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.

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.

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.

 

[Aquinus]

It's ok hardcore_gamer, I know you won't answer.

Let me help you with that.

Fast single cores are the future.

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.

 

[blibba]

Ok I'm wrong. One benchmark from one website is the determining factor.

Well there aren't any other sites I know that test gaming performance in such a credible way.

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

 

[Dent1]

^ 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.

 

[Aquinus]

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.

 

[jigar2speed]

8 core from AMD working as fast as an i3 from Intel....hmmm

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.

 

[blibba]

^ 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.

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%)

Also it really comes down to the test rig and configuration.

Only to a certain extent.

Because Anandtech shows the i3 getting owned in Skyrim, which is contradicted with your chart above. Strange.

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6396/51123.png

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.

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.

Absolutely agreed. If my system was destroyed in a fire tomorrow, I'd probably go for an FX4300.

 

[Dent1]

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

Not if they need low power draw.

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.