News
 

Bookmark and Share

(41) 

As reported, Advanced Micro Devices plans to unveil its first power-efficient eight-core AMD FX-8300 central processing unit on December 29, 2012. The eight-core offering with 95W thermal design power will likely become a chip of choice for those, who prefer quiet systems as well as those looking forward overclocking potential. Unfortunately, the CPU will not be truly affordable.

The third eight-core AMD FX chip based on Piledriver micro-architecture will operate at 3.30GHz default frequency and will be able to dynamically overclock themselves to 4.20GHz clock-speed, which is also the maximum speed of AMD’s top-of-the-range FX-8350 product. Quite naturally, the chip will feature 8MB L2 cache (2MB per dual-core Piledriver module) and 8MB of L3 cache. The chip is drop-in compatible with AM3+ mainboard infrastructure currently widely available.

The first eight-core 95W chip with Piledriver cores will be cost ¥16980 in Japan, reports PC Watch web-site. It is likely that the U.S. price of the product will be around $199, which is higher than the price of both FX-8320 ($169) and FX-8350 ($195) models with 125W thermal design power.

It is unclear why AMD decided to release a pricey version of its eight-core chips. Performance enthusiasts know that AMD’s FX products cannot keep up with Intel Corp.’s Core i5 and Core i7 “Ivy Bridge” offerings and avoid them, very few people will likely grab the FX-8300 just because of reduced power consumption. There are mainstream consumers, for whom eight cores may be a fine selling point and exact performance may not be the priority, but who would like to buy at more or less discounted prices of around $150.

AMD did not comment on the news-story.

Tags: AMD, FX, Piledriver, Vishera, Viperfish, 32nm, Bulldozer, Zambezi

Discussion

Comments currently: 41
Discussion started: 12/27/12 03:57:39 AM
Latest comment: 11/10/13 11:23:31 PM
Expand all threads | Collapse all threads

[1-10]

1. 
show the post
2 10 [Posted by: TAViX  | Date: 12/27/12 03:57:39 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
TAViX stop lying people ... It's nothing like Hyperthreading except similarity with marketing branding of technology. First learn something about microprocessors before you post.
CMT vs. SMT has TWO or MORE parallel pipelines, while SMT try to fill inefficiency gaps in ONLY ONE PIPELINE. SO with everything we used to call core current Bulldozer module is really "dual-core" and FX-8100/FX-8300 series features FOUR of these modules totalling up to eight-cores.

Only BS here is lazy M$ developement and refurbishing of an old failure Vista product with a new polish wax and it's third incarnation is now called Windows 8.
9 7 [Posted by: OmegaHuman  | Date: 12/27/12 04:32:17 AM]
Reply
 
show the post
2 5 [Posted by: TAViX  | Date: 12/28/12 07:49:01 AM]
Reply
 
All intel cores share their caches as well in some degree. None of the chips amd or intel alike do not bottleneck themselves on cpu cycle wait any more because it was deemed inefficient. I am positve regardless of the chip architecuture both companies design their chips with the ability to have each core work independently in mind.
0 0 [Posted by: veli05  | Date: 01/30/13 09:12:54 AM]
Reply
 
It contains 8 cores with shared resources. There are 8 integer cores. They share the fetcher, decoder, and L3 cache in pairs. The cores work very closely with each other, but they are indeed 8 true cores.
5 3 [Posted by: Flexxar  | Date: 12/27/12 11:55:37 AM]
Reply
 
There are however 4 FPU cores. One per module that contains each also 2 integer cores. If a one execution unit is utilized by more than one thread at the same time, then this is a hyperthreading.

P.S.
I do not rate a comments I'm replying to.
2 2 [Posted by: KonradK  | Date: 12/27/12 11:43:17 PM]
Reply
 
But it is not hyperthreading because that would be patent infringment on AMD's part and this chip design would have never made it to market. 2 integer cores can work on two separate threads because they a two physically separate cores. For conformity this would be AMD's rendition of "hyperthreading" but they can't call it that.
0 0 [Posted by: veli05  | Date: 01/30/13 09:23:11 AM]
Reply
 
Exactly. If you had two employees sharing a telephone, would you call them one employee? Obviously not. The fact that they have to share a telephone might imply that they could be half as productive as a single employee with their own telephone, but in the world of microprocessors, it doesn't work like that. Most of the time, there will not be any significant contention. Yes, you can construct a scenario where the contention will be higher (both employees are telemarketers), but the actual scenario in daily computing is more like two employees who only occasionally want to use the phone at the same time.

So here's the simplest explanation of what's going on. CPUs only really do one thing: add. They add 1s and 0s VERY, VERY, VERY quickly. Every mathematical operation ever performed in CPU (addition, subtraction, multiplication and division) is performed by adding. OK, got your mind around that? Great. Next, CPUs can add integer numbers (those without decimals) and floating point numbers (those with numbers after the decimal point). If you ask a CPU to add integers, the 'integer' unit(s) do it, and if you ask a CPU to add floating-point numbers, several possible things can happen. In the past (like 15 years ago), a floating-point calculation would be done by the x87 floating point unit inside the CPU. However, CPU engineers came up with all kinds of different ways to speed up floating-point calculations, depending on what kind of sequence of calculations you were wanting to perform. AMD came up with 3DNow! and Intel came up with SSE to supplement the old x87 unit. Nowadays, programs can be designed to package floating-point calculations as SSE/AVX/FMA or even GPU-coded (Direct Compute, PhysX) operations, completely bypassing the x87 unit. At first, this was done for games, heavy math and scientific computing programmes, but now, with tools like OpenCL, etc. just about any floating-point can be directed to the fastest hardware available on a given computer. The programme detects OpenCL-compatible hardware, and installs the OpenCL version of the code. In short, only older programmes rely solely on the legacy x87 unit, and that's why AMD decided to cut down the number of x87 units to 4 in an 8 integer core CPU so they could add more integer cores - cores that are still the best way to add integers! Any decent programmer worth his salt writing fresh code today that's performance-sensitive will be coding the floating-point to execute as AVX/FMA or GPU-accelerated code, unless they absolutely can't (very rare). Period.

I know it's hard because AMD's module design doesn't cleanly fall into a single or dual core classic case design scenario, but really, we've got to learn to accept a little bit of complexity and stop trying to over-simplify everything, even when it means we end up being highly inaccurate. Simple bottom line, AMD's 8 integer core CPUs, based on contemporary, multi-core optimzed code, is much more like an 8 core CPU than a 4 core CPU, most of the time, in most use cases. End of story.
9 2 [Posted by: anubis44  | Date: 12/28/12 08:00:41 AM]
Reply
 
Exactly. If you had two employees sharing a telephone, would you call them one employee? Obviously not.


Did you ever seen a two or more processes running at the same time on single core CPU?
And multiple core of CPUs still share caches and/or memory and bus, even if they are not hyperthreaded and even if they are inserted in separate sockets.
Otherwise they would be just a separate computers.

P.S.
I do not rate a comments I'm replying to.
1 3 [Posted by: KonradK  | Date: 12/28/12 12:00:55 PM]
Reply
 
How is this comparison relevant? Of course a strictly single core can't run more than one thread at a time. this is the only instance where cpu cycle wait came into play and cpu process scheduling was at its simplest. Since everyone now agrees that is incredibly efficient they movedinto multi core chip designs for the soel reason to process multiple threads at the same time because it is infintely more efficient. Single core thread designs are thing of the past.

Take your cherry picking and be on your way KonradK, you lost this argument.
0 0 [Posted by: veli05  | Date: 01/30/13 09:29:04 AM]
Reply

2. 
Core I5 is not better than FX 8350,CoreI5 is FX 6300 class.
4 4 [Posted by: Blackcode  | Date: 12/27/12 12:47:08 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Nope. The FX-6300 is really i3 class. The FX-8350 is i5 class, but just barely. There is not any processor from AMD able to compete against i7. This is my look as an overall performance perspective. However, the FX processors works well with heavily multi-threaded applications.
4 5 [Posted by: tecknurd  | Date: 12/27/12 01:59:05 PM]
Reply
 
Look at tomshardware top charts 2012 and everything will be clear to you.FX6300 is in a middle between I5 and I3 and FX8350 is in middle between I5 and I7 Ivy ,so yes I am agree with you about I7.
3 3 [Posted by: Blackcode  | Date: 12/28/12 10:48:11 AM]
Reply

3. 
Not to rain on your parade Tecknurd, but it all depends on your usage. If your focus is on Single threaded benchmarks your comparision is valid.

If its 50/50 single and multi threaded the FX-6300 is really competing with the low range i5 and the FX-8350 is edging out the top i5 models and the FX-4300 is trading blows with i3 (as seen f.ex. in the review by techreport).

Heavy emphasis on multithreading plays to the advantage of the Piledriver and in speciffic cases it can even match the all powerful i7.

Of course the power consumption remains a thorn in it's side but let's not compound it vby destorting reality.
3 1 [Posted by: wICE_man  | Date: 12/27/12 06:18:55 PM]
Reply

4. 
wonderful time to release another 8 cores just right after i bought that 8350 so i can use all 8 cores for my little virtualbox server. when will INTEL or AMD release the 12 or 16 cores. i´m one of the customer in waiting mode.
2 2 [Posted by: idonotknow  | Date: 12/28/12 04:16:15 AM]
Reply

5. 
it's an 8 core processor end of story, just because the 4 hallways that link the rooms will only allow for one person at a time does not mean that their aren't 8 rooms..... to any who think otherwise get over it.... 8 cores.
6 2 [Posted by: clone  | Date: 12/28/12 01:43:26 PM]
Reply

6. 
AMD processors should be made at 20nm node for a proper matchup with Intel processors. Likewise AMD APU's and a minimum 7770 class GPU perhaps that could have its own memory slot(would put a 4GB stick in it DDR3 2133 or 2400)and possible crossfire too. Would make a great HTPC.
3 0 [Posted by: raypozas  | Date: 12/29/12 12:26:35 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Ya, that's a good point. People keep focusing on this 4 vs. 8 core debate but one major reason AMD is not competitive in performance/watt and overall performance above $225 level is because they are stuck on 32nm, going against chips on 22nm. Intel even considers its class leading manufacturing node advantage as a major key competitive advantage against its competitors. Intel even goes out of its way to keep its fabs idle rather than allow competitor to fab chips there:
http://www.anandtech.com/...to-idle-some-fab-capacity

Just imagine if GTX680 was made on 40nm, how much worse it would have been. The problem is AMD has no $ to build its own fabs. Its node tech is tied to the pace of 3rd party fabs like TSMC or Global Foundries.

The 95W reduction seems to be coming from low base clocks. I don't think this chip will consume less power than FX8350 at full load when all the cores are loaded / Turboed. Sounds like this is catering the OEM market's desire for a 95W model.
3 1 [Posted by: BestJinjo  | Date: 12/30/12 12:01:06 PM]
Reply

7. 
vanakkuty, I ask you to BAN Avon4Balls,TAViX, and all those troll accounts that seem to hate on AMD for some unknowable reason. They're psychologically deranged, and need immediate medical attention. Now, for something more on-topic, this lower TDP CPU seems to be an excellent upgrade for those who want to have a sub 100 W AMD CPU, but don't want an IGP.
6 2 [Posted by: K1107  | Date: 12/29/12 02:18:57 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Avon4balls, Avon3balls (or how many balls he imagines he has) are all banned, so are Jml, Jx7, 123, 456, 789 the whole lot of them.

TAViX hasn't posted anything that goes to the levels of AvonX so far I can see. He hasn't derailed a thread like the other two used to do. He can dislike AMD's products, that is freedom of choice.

We are not a tyrannical site are we?

Rest assured anyone or anyspammer who hijacks the thread I will clean them out. I check all the threads as to best of my abilities on a daily basis.
7 2 [Posted by: vanakkuty  | Date: 12/29/12 08:29:46 AM]
Reply
 
I'll back vanakkuty on that. TAViX is not a troll to my mind. This forum is looking healthier by the day thanks to the sheriff. I'm enjoying the technical input of the excellent contributors.
6 4 [Posted by: linuxlowdown  | Date: 12/30/12 02:33:18 AM]
Reply
 
Vini, puts the Thor hammer down! I like.
5 4 [Posted by: BestJinjo  | Date: 12/30/12 12:09:24 PM]
Reply

8. 
i was wondering why avon 123 789 haven't commented on this post saying how bad amd sucks and stuff. Well now i know. Waiting on 101112 to show up next. lol
6 0 [Posted by: SteelCity1981  | Date: 12/30/12 12:32:42 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
@SteelCity - you know yourself, they're trolling on Fudzilla now. Good riddance to them!
5 5 [Posted by: linuxlowdown  | Date: 12/30/12 02:35:46 AM]
Reply
 
They cant troll there either. They are getting banned pretty fast. They got nowhere to go apart from some obscure sites where they cant get much reactions to provocations. They were banned from techpowerup as well.
6 1 [Posted by: vanakkuty  | Date: 12/30/12 02:39:50 AM]
Reply
 
That is because there is allot of AMD fagboys there at techpowerup. I have seen the site.
3 4 [Posted by: jks  | Date: 01/02/13 02:52:24 PM]
Reply
 
I was waiting on this AvonX, no one uses the word fa*boy now comes your ban.
1 1 [Posted by: vanakkuty  | Date: 01/02/13 07:56:38 PM]
Reply

9. 
This is another bad move again from AMD.
Nobody who still is with a Phenom II will buy this thing since its a downgrade and won't perform at the levels of the fx-8350.
This is just a down clocked version to fit the 95W TDP power envelope.
The rest of them has already switched to Intel.
2 3 [Posted by: jks  | Date: 12/31/12 10:26:42 AM]
Reply

10. 
I will await how the chip comes out of the test, and then decide if I'ld go for this one instead of a 8350.
0 0 [Posted by: einheriar  | Date: 01/06/13 02:01:42 AM]
Reply

[1-10]

Add your Comment




Related news

Latest News

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

8:52 pm | Lisa Su Appointed as New CEO of Advanced Micro Devices. Rory Read Steps Down, Lisa Su Becomes New CEO of AMD

Thursday, August 28, 2014

12:22 pm | AMD Has No Plans to Reconsider Recommended Prices of Radeon R9 Graphics Cards. AMD Will Not Lower Recommended Prices of Radeon R9 Graphics Solutions

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

9:09 pm | Samsung Begins to Produce 2.13GHz 64GB DDR4 Memory Modules. Samsung Uses TSV DRAMs for 64GB DDR4 RDIMMs

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

6:41 pm | AMD Quietly Reveals Third Iteration of GCN Architecture with Tonga GPU. AMD Unleashes Radeon R9 285 Graphics Cards, Tonga GPU, GCN 1.2 Architecture

Monday, August 25, 2014

6:05 pm | Chinese Inspur to Sell Mission-Critical Servers with AMD Software, Power 8 Processors. IBM to Enter Chinese Big Data Market with the Help from Inspur