• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD FX-8300 Starts Selling, Lower TDP Comes at a Price

btarunr

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
47,668 (7.43/day)
Location
Dublin, Ireland
System Specs
System Name RBMK-1000
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5700G
Motherboard Gigabyte B550 AORUS Elite V2
Cooling DeepCool Gammax L240 V2
Memory 2x 16GB DDR4-3200
Video Card(s) Galax RTX 4070 Ti EX
Storage Samsung 990 1TB
Display(s) BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) ASUS SupremeFX S1220A
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard Gamdias Hermes E2
Software Windows 11 Pro
AMD started selling its FX-8300 eight-core processor, which has been in the news since early-November. The new chip comes with a relatively low TDP of 95W, compared to other eight-core FX "Vishera" processors, which ship with 125W TDP. Despite being slower than the other FX "Vishera" chips, the FX-8320 and FX-8350, its low-TDP appears to have given AMD a big enough selling point, to price the chip around $190. Based on the 32 nm "Vishera" micro-architecture, the AMD FX-8300 ships with a clock speed of 3.30 GHz, 3.60 GHz of TurboCore speed, eight cores spread across four modules, 2 MB L2 cache per module (8 MB total), and 8 MB shared L3 cache.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site
 
Still 32nm? You need to catch up.
 
I don't see why someone would pay $190 for it. If it was bundled in an OEM build, OK, I see it being purchased. As a standalone? Why? Save a few dollars and buy an 8320, downclock it, and voila, same power envelope, and greater efficiency at higher clocks.
Unless, of course, if it has greater availability than the 8320...
 
HossHuge said:
Did btarunr say it was low or did AMD?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the TDP is lower compared to other FX-83xx series parts, and AMD is monetizing it.
 
Inceptor said:
I don't see why someone would pay $190 for it. If it was bundled in an OEM build, OK, I see it being purchased. As a standalone? Why? Save a few dollars and buy an 8320, downclock it, and voila, same power envelope, and greater efficiency at higher clocks.
Unless, of course, if it has greater availability than the 8320...
Click to expand...

not really true, the 8320 has the same tdp as 8350 but with lower clocks, that means amd will prioritize the better bins for the 8350, and with the 8300 being a 95watt tdp it will probably be the same good bins as the 8350
so if you get a 8300 you are probably more likely to get a good clocker than a 8320
 
sergionography said:
not really true, the 8320 has the same tdp as 8350 but with lower clocks, that means amd will prioritize the better bins for the 8350, and with the 8300 being a 95watt tdp it will probably be the same good bins as the 8350
so if you get a 8300 you are probably more likely to get a good clocker than a 8320
Click to expand...

4.5Ghz 8320 here...If that is a bad bin 8350 then I can only imagine what the 8350s do. But in all honesty, any higher than this and you'd want water cooling. Maybe 4.6-4.7Ghz tops on air.

So if you are running an air system then you might as well save the money.
 
NC37 said:
4.5Ghz 8320 here...If that is a bad bin 8350 then I can only imagine what the 8350s do. But in all honesty, any higher than this and you'd want water cooling. Maybe 4.6-4.7Ghz tops on air.

So if you are running an air system then you might as well save the money.
Click to expand...

well yeah the good bins on water cooling ive heard about people reaching 5.2 stable and some even all the way to 5.5ghz but fails when stressed all the way, still runs windows and all tho

the lower bins top out at 4.8-4.9ghz even with water cooling

i know a friend who had a 8120 with water cooling and it can barely hit over 4.4ghz-4.5ghz stable and when you increase voltage things went gaga, but from the people i know who had an 8150 they easily got 4.8ghz with a bit voltage increase, so definitely when buying the top clocked cpu you are more likely to get the better bins
 
btarunr said:
Irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the TDP is lower compared to other FX-83xx series parts, and AMD is monetizing it.
Click to expand...

I was simply responding to his lack of reading comprehension.......:D
 
Prima.Vera said:
Actually there are only 4 REAL cores...;)
Click to expand...

Well those additional "fake" cores produce heat and use die space. Thus 32nm at 95W is considered relatively low.
 
Dent1 said:
Well those additional "fake" cores produce heat and use die space. Thus 32nm at 95W is considered relatively low.
Click to expand...

Well, Intel also have 4 fake cores and it goes to 77W...;)
 
yep...
 
Prima.Vera said:
Well, Intel also have 4 fake cores and it goes to 77W...;)
Click to expand...

Prima.Vera said:
Actually there are only 4 REAL cores...;)
Click to expand...

At least AMD has dedicated components for these said "4 fake cores". A module is a whole lot closer to two cores than Intel is, and AMD's performance on those 4 fake cores scales a whole lot better than hyper-threading does. Just keep that in mind. Also keep in mind that they're still on 32nm and they're trying to keep up with 22nm chips. That's not too bad. I suspect when AMD starts producing CPUs on a smaller process that we'll see a lot more than what we're seeing now. Consider the size reduction from 32nm to 22nm. It's very significant, as in, it's almost 50% smaller, so consider for a moment what AMD could do if they had 50% more die space to work with.

So give a break with this "real cores, fake cores" crap. AMD produces a decent CPU and the only difference is Intel makes a better one... and we're not talking about stomping over AMD like its night and day.

So yeah, AMD isn't as fast, but the architecture will scale better for multi-core systems long term. The only part of AMD's CPU that you could call 4 "fake cores" is the fact that each module has one FPU (but if software is compiled correctly with FMA3, that can even be a non-issue for floating point heavy applications). Keep in mind that most of the time a CPU is doing integer math, and there are two integer cores per module. So these "4 fake cores" you speak of are a lot more like real cores than you think.

So instead of trolling and spitting out this crap, look at the CPU for what it is rather than what you think it is because AMD certainly doesn't produce a bad chip despite what you think.

Frick said:
No, that would be four modules. Dont start this BS again.
Click to expand...
+1: Looks like I'm not the only person who knows how to spot a troll. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top