AMD FX-8350 Piledriver CPU Expected to Launch Mid-Q3

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]agawtrip[/nom]yeah price will play a big rolebut lower clock = lower tdp = lower temp (usually) = good overclocki remember intel pentium e21xx series overclocks up to 100%[/citation]

No, higher frequency processors do not necessarily use more power than a lower frequency processor of a different architecture and design. I guarantee that a 3GHz Nehalem i3 uses less power than a 2.6-3GHz Core 2 Duo on the same process size. Processors from different anything are not directly comparable and should not be directly compared like you tried to.
 
[citation][nom]iam2thecrowe[/nom]10-15% is not enough to close the gap right now. Especially since that percentage is likely to be in threaded, integer intensive apps. FP performance the only thing that needs the improvement, and it needs to be more like 25% increase to come close to an intel quad core.[/citation]

Considering that if we go by current prices, the FX eight core CPUs are what fight with the Intel quad core CPUs, that's not as big of a problem as you claim and AMD did improve FP performance. That 10-15% improvement is in per-core performance, not merely highly threaded performance, so that sentiment of yours is moot anyway.

[citation][nom]belardo[/nom]I know what he said. AM3 is at a dead end, no native USB3 or PCIe3.0 support. There is no AM4.FM2 replaces everything. FM1 is also a dead end. No more FM1 CPUs. What you see on newegg is whats left. Yeah, its shocking that FM1 is about a year old (AMD did this before with Socket 940>939). The kicker is... FM2 uses the same chipset as FM1. FM1 is completely incompatible with FM2 (you cannot mix CPU/mobo) - even thou its the same number of pins, same socket design, etc.Like intel, even if you buy an FM2 CPU, you don't have to use the APU part of the chip. Again, the APU can be used as a co-processor. So its better to have it than not. Hence, intel i5-CPUs since Sandy Bridge get a performance boost with the "GPU" built in. Supporting 2 mainstream sockets is bad business. Imagine someone with an FM1 X2 core system who wants a "8 core" FX-like CPU... nope, gotta throw the whole system out.Read this: http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 833-5.html Thats a huge performance increase. But the problem with QuickSync is that it appears to be disabled when a gaming card is installed... even with IVB.http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 181-7.html[/citation]

FM2 is actually somewhat different from FM1 because it had to be in order to support new features on the APUs that are unrelated to the chipset. For example, more pins needed to be allocated to the third display output lane on the APU for true triple display Eyefinity support in Trinity or else Trinity would have been limited to the same two display max that Llano has. Theoretically, AMD could have made FM2 an extension of FM1 so it could at least support FM1 processors (like AM3+ versus AM3, AM3+ is needed for BD/PD to support their full feature list, but still supports the older AM3 CPUs) and even better, AMD could have made the FM2 processors work in FM1 but only with features supported by FM1. However, FM2 was needed for Trinity's full feature list to be supported and it's existence is justified, although I disagree with how AMD is doing this because of the two above examples.
 
[citation][nom]triny[/nom]I believe 8350 Piledriver will be the last of it's kindAmd will most likely start producing 2 - 10 core apus' with eye popping igpu by 2014 the age of the super computer[/citation]

Well, 8 cores are next to useless compared to four cores except for the single core per module mod for most consumers, so 10 core APUs are already not going to happen, period. Even going beyond four cores is unlikely in an APU simply because the die size would need to be very large unless it was done on a die shrink compared to the previous APUs and full CPUs.

It would also need some L3 cache to keep scaling between cores up properly, so die size is really getting large again, especially going beyond 6 cores (three modules). If anything, three modules with a total of six cores is the practical limit with current software, especially considering the turn towards GPGPU accelerated performance to replace integer performance.

For the IGP, AMD would need to at least get a Cape Verde like IGP for me to cal it eye-popping. Maybe AMD will take GCN and make some improvements and Cape Verde's replacement could go into the next APUs. That would be skipping a generation, but the results would be worth it considering the rate of improvement that Intel intends to keep with their IGPs. AMD needs a more than 10-15% CPU improvement on Piledriver's replacement or else their generational improvements won't be able to do anything more than just keep up with Intel's generational improvements, albeit AMD would improve a little every generation whereas Intel improves a lot every other generation.

Basically, AMD has a lot of ground to cover, although at least on the CPU side, the huge room for improvement means that success there is at least reasonable. For GCN, I'm not so sure about what they can do on the same process node.
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]The FX-8150 is $199.99...http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] pk=FX-8150[/citation]
He meant the original MSRP... which was $280~300, up there with the i7-2600K quad that the 8150 couldn't touch. Even today thou at $199.99, its too much. It should be $140. I just picked up an i5-3570K for $190 + $80 for a Gigabyte Z77 board = $270. That is less than the cost of the 8150 + 970 series board that is pretty much ZERO difference from the 880 boards.

AMD looked stupid calling their 4-core CPUs "8 core" CPUs. ITs a problem when your NEW 8 CORE CPU isn't much faster and sometimes slower than your own 2 year old 4 and 6 core CPUs. Nevermind the competitions (INTEL) 4-Core CPUs that are (A) running 300mhz lower with a far less TDP (2500k) with half as meany threads. (which is what AMD counts as cores).

Bulldozer performance was half of what was expected for the amount of cores they counted. And not only that, the AMD CPUs have bigger dies and don't even include the GPU that intel has. This is like AMD's 4800 series vs Nvidia's GTX200 series.

For the $10 savings, you get a faster CPU, lower heat, better quality cooler that is silent and PCIe3.0 support.

* I am aware that newegg sells the 3570K for $220. Locally in Dallas - its $190. Or check out the microcenter website yourself. And they sell the 2500K for $170.
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Considering that if we go by current prices, the FX eight core CPUs are what fight with the Intel quad core CPUs[/citation] But it LOOKS so bad to have an "8-core" $200 CPU get its ass kicked by a cheaper 4-core CPU at a lower clock rate. So no, the 8150 and down are NOT competitive against any i5-2xxx/3xxx CPU. The 8150 should be $140 - THEN it's worth buying. Its easily cheaper than the i5-3570 and its performance matches its price value. Come'on - even the A10-5whatever quad-core competes against a dual-core i3! The i3-2100 wins in CPU, loses in GPU.

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]
FM2 is actually somewhat different from FM1 because it had to be in order to support new features on the APUs that are unrelated to the chipset. For example, more pins needed to be allocated to the third display output lane on the APU for true triple display Eyefinity support ~~ However, FM2 was needed for Trinity's full feature list to be supported and it's existence is justified, although I disagree with how AMD is doing this because of the two above examples.[/citation]
Your end part, I agree with... and AMD didn't do that. But....
RE-read what I wrote. Have you seen an FM2 socket? There are NO additional pins on it. Same pin, same style socket. Its only keyed differently. Same North-bridge, with is not much. Its a screw over for no good reason. For a basic motherboard (FM1 / Fm2) dual output is enough. A person WHO needs 3+ displays are not going to blink about buying a $75~150 video card to drive 3~6 monitors.

Going from Socket AM2 > AM2+ > AM3 makes sense. Changes in memory. But by golly, you can put an AM3 CPU in an AM2 board.
 
[citation][nom]belardo[/nom]He meant the original MSRP... which was $280~300, up there with the i7-2600K quad that the 8150 couldn't touch. Even today thou at $199.99, its too much. It should be $140. I just picked up an i5-3570K for $190 + $80 for a Gigabyte Z77 board = $270. That is less than the cost of the 8150 + 970 series board that is pretty much ZERO difference from the 880 boards.AMD looked stupid calling their 4-core CPUs "8 core" CPUs. ITs a problem when your NEW 8 CORE CPU isn't much faster and sometimes slower than your own 2 year old 4 and 6 core CPUs. Nevermind the competitions (INTEL) 4-Core CPUs that are (A) running 300mhz lower with a far less TDP (2500k) with half as meany threads. (which is what AMD counts as cores).Bulldozer performance was half of what was expected for the amount of cores they counted. And not only that, the AMD CPUs have bigger dies and don't even include the GPU that intel has. This is like AMD's 4800 series vs Nvidia's GTX200 series.For the $10 savings, you get a faster CPU, lower heat, better quality cooler that is silent and PCIe3.0 support. * I am aware that newegg sells the 3570K for $220. Locally in Dallas - its $190. Or check out the microcenter website yourself. And they sell the 2500K for $170.[/citation]

What AMD called cores are true cores, not logical threads like Hyper-Threading Technology. There are truly eight integer cores in the FX-8150, not four cores that get specially modified for splitting workloads between threads in complex ways. For highly threaded performance, the 8150 can and does compete with the i7s, so at ~$200, it is priced very well for it's performance. The 8120 at $170 gives you a free $30 if you overclock because it has identical binning to the 8150. Furthermore, core count, like clock frequency, does not define performance. There's nothing wrong with having inferior performance per core and in turn competing with lower core count CPUs, especially when they are Hyper-Threaded, so the total threads are the same. For highly threaded workloads, the 8150 soars past the i5s. Microcenter's prices are for local purchases only and thus don't matter for most people because most people can't access them. For the USA, Newegg's prices are really the main prices to look at. Amazon, Ebay, Tiger direct, and the others are also important too, but still, online.

Also, neither GTX 200 nor Radeon 4800 cards were PCIe 3.0 compatible... Both supported at least PCIe 2.0, so that's not a good argument there either. Also, people can mean whatever they want about MSRP, that's not what he/she said and saying that it is what was meant changes nothing. I'm not trying to be rude about it, but you could at least acknowledge this.
 
[citation][nom]belardo[/nom]But it LOOKS so bad to have an "8-core" $200 CPU get its ass kicked by a cheaper 4-core CPU at a lower clock rate. So no, the 8150 and down are NOT competitive against any i5-2xxx/3xxx CPU. The 8150 should be $140 - THEN it's worth buying. Its easily cheaper than the i5-3570 and its performance matches its price value. Come'on - even the A10-5whatever quad-core competes against a dual-core i3! The i3-2100 wins in CPU, loses in GPU.Your end part, I agree with... and AMD didn't do that. But....RE-read what I wrote. Have you seen an FM2 socket? There are NO additional pins on it. Same pin, same style socket. Its only keyed differently. Same North-bridge, with is not much. Its a screw over for no good reason. For a basic motherboard (FM1 / Fm2) dual output is enough. A person WHO needs 3+ displays are not going to blink about buying a $75~150 video card to drive 3~6 monitors.Going from Socket AM2 > AM2+ > AM3 makes sense. Changes in memory. But by golly, you can put an AM3 CPU in an AM2 board.[/citation]

The 8 core CPU loses in single threaded work and wins in highly threaded work against the quad core i5s. How many cores it has makes no difference, so this sentiment is ridiculous. The FX-4100 performs almost identically to the 8150 for such workloads and the 4170 beats the 8150, so AMD's cheaper, higher clocked quad core beats the more expensive, parallel oriented 8150 in such workloads. The highly threaded value of the 8150 and the 8120 is staggering compared to Intel despite the staggering loss in lightly threaded performance value for the 8150.

However, AMD already has $140 CPUs, the 4170 and the 6100, so why the hell should they drop prices on the 8150 that is obviously not even intended for the same workloads? Your argument makes no sense. Using your argument, the i7s should be the same prices as the i5s because they have nearly identical performance for lightly threaded workloads too.

About the video card argument, that's ridiculous. Why should people pay more for what they should already have when they buy an APU system?
 
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]Is it just me or is everyone just over it and not really interested in any of these future AMD cpu's and there promise on more performance?Gone are the days of intense competition and exciting new hardware releases, amazing performance and change (new revolutionary things) etc.Not really interested any more.....[/citation]

Somewhat agree to what u said but dont loose hope yet as AMD has done this before and would do it again....
 
Well, if they don't fix their issues. I'm looking at Intel for my next build. I've gone with AMD since Thunderbird, but the failboat is burning, and AMD hasn't even been able to clear it from the drydock. Yes they have great ideas, but their implementation in their proc's after AMD64 has been abysmal. Basically FX is a turd (nothing new there, should have branded it XF, or Xtreme Fail), but the horizon looks grim. FX came out with a whimper, and dies without a sound (nothing missed). Yes my present build is an FX8120, but AMD is pulling an Intel (P4 anyone). They've come out with failure after failure, expecting buyers to basically "test" their procs. I for one have gotten sick of that. TLB, Eratta, Polling, memory interface issues, and playing 5th string to Intel (behind Core2 even). Their aquisition of ATI was good and bad, as at least ATI is graphically competitive (expensive buy tho). Their Trinity chips are good (low power/decent GFX), but all AMD's other CPU's are pretty much a flop.
 
[citation][nom]IH8U[/nom]Well, if they don't fix their issues. I'm looking at Intel for my next build. I've gone with AMD since Thunderbird, but the failboat is burning, and AMD hasn't even been able to clear it from the drydock. Yes they have great ideas, but their implementation in their proc's after AMD64 has been abysmal. Basically FX is a turd (nothing new there, should have branded it XF, or Xtreme Fail), but the horizon looks grim. FX came out with a whimper, and dies without a sound (nothing missed). Yes my present build is an FX8120, but AMD is pulling an Intel (P4 anyone). They've come out with failure after failure, expecting buyers to basically "test" their procs. I for one have gotten sick of that. TLB, Eratta, Polling, memory interface issues, and playing 5th string to Intel (behind Core2 even). Their aquisition of ATI was good and bad, as at least ATI is graphically competitive (expensive buy tho). Their Trinity chips are good (low power/decent GFX), but all AMD's other CPU's are pretty much a flop.[/citation]

Phenom II wasn't a flop. Also, try disabling one core per module if you don't use highly parallel software that can utilize eight cores. It improves single through quad threaded performance significantly and increases power efficiency, meaning more thermal headroom for overclocking for even more performance. That 8120 has pretty good potential, but you have to jump through hoops such as this to make it a truly competitive processor.
 
GPU-less CPU are not dead. Some of us need them for HPC - e.g. Ivy Bridge Xeons.
 
[citation][nom]dansgas1000[/nom]This will be the first chip faster than a single-core celron. Bitch please! never gonna happen.[/citation]

Do you mean the first AMD CPU faster than a single core Celeron? Well if that's what you mean, then you're quite the fail troll.
 
funny as i found a website comparing a i5 to a fx 8150 ,---- Besides the frame rate consistency, the AMD FX-8150 @ 4.6GHz is lagging behind the Intel 2500K @ 4.8GHz quite a bit. The Intel CPU carries a large 73% performance advantage over the AMD CPU. In a game like this, that is a massive difference that you instantly see when you play the game. Performance at this setting was playable on both systems, but it was more fluid with the Intel CPU. .. just thought i would share as it made me laugh , it made me laugh because i know people who have a fx 8150 and can play this game and run many other programs in the background without any performance loss within the game or run at the same performance at stated in those test ....
 
yes your right but now i am getting to understand more and more why this is the case , and it's because instruction set used and proposed by intel and amd over the years , like when intel failed with net burst this is when athlon had the upper hand and intel followed suit with what amd had to offer within instruction sets . amd proposed sse5 and intel said no because that would have to change there chip design , intel now uses avx and amd xop , although i don't really understand all of this in detail , i now understand why the fx chip is as slow as it is ... but i am going to say the fx chip has great potential , would be really interesting if some type of sub instruction set was built into the arm chip within a cpu to control how the core where used , like scheduling , but maybe this is way in the future .....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom