AMD to Launch 95 Watt FX-8300 CPU

[demonhorde665]

[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]you obviously don't pay much attention to benchmarks , the pile driver 8 cores , perform at near the the same level of an i7 - sandy bridge in most regular applications so NO the old i5 (ivy bridge) does not "eat the AMD's alive' , in fact it beats out the sandy bridge i5's in nearly ever application , except for ones that are obviously optimized for intel cpu's. do some researh before spewing fanboy nonsense.[/citation]


correction sandy bridge and ivy bridge should be reversed here .. lol always getting the two confused , sandy is older chip ivy is newer ..

 

[technoholic]

This is better news even than the release of piledriver itself. Now i can call this competitive

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]correction sandy bridge and ivy bridge should be reversed here .. lol always getting the two confused , sandy is older chip ivy is newer ..[/citation]

If you want to, you can edit your previous post to fix that by clicking the "Read the comments on the forums" link between the comments section and the article.

 

[knowom]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]amd only lags behind the intel because on single core applications, intel owns it.however sooner or later, we will go into the world of threaded applications, and that is where amd has a damn good chance to shine. me personally, i would probably go amd over intel, but nothing under a pile driver with 8 "cores"i would bank on future applications, and what i have heard, and that is that when using allot of crap at once, amd feels better than intel.more or less, the new 8350 and 8300 should be better than my phenom II 955 at stock for many things, and i dont have a need to push games to their limits either, so the bottlenecks there dont bother me to much.[/citation] More then a few programs gain little or no benefit from multiple threads and most of the ones that can take advantage of it well all ready do by now so keep drinking the kool aid.

 

[jin_mtvt]

Always find it funny when the INTEL/NVIDIA fanboys chime in on every AMD news ...

" I want best performance possible !! "

yeah sure...i also like to spend 500$ more on a 1000$ computer to get 5-10% performance increase!
super smart customer !!!!

AMD and ATI has been the best bang for bucks since Athlon 1

and u can't argue with that ..and it's all that matters

ah and also, never read only 1 benchmark from a single website because it might be biased or badly done .. i make sure i compare 4-5 different site benchmark ( different situtations, different builds, different drivers ) to make sure i get a real picture

like that Trinity bm on anandtech ...that doesn't compare performance of integrated graphics in gaming situation ..what a pile of S ...why would anyone purchase an A amd cpu if it wasn't for using in a "low budget" system that could be used on some graphical situations !! neway

if it wasn't for AMD ..we would still be runing pentium 2-3 2.0ghz pos cpus @ 400$/unit
on 300$ intel authorized m0b0 chipsets

respect!

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]gaborbarla[/nom]I would love to see it sooner, but knowing a bit about programming myself I know how difficult it is to implement most algorithms on multiple threads so I think it will be later.[/citation]

i wont pretend to know what it takes to make an application multicore, but from what i was told and with many multicore processors, its not so much difficult to implement, the hard part is changing your way of thinking about the problem.

some processes i dont want multicore, like the internet. i want a base level browser, i want flash and other flash like processes off to the side and i want to be able to kill each tab individually. i have been to sites where they kill a whole browser because of flash, once firefox made flash separate, i can kill it and continue on my way.

but other things, like lets say, encodeing a file, i sure as hell demand multicore rendering, if not gpu assisted rendering. and im talking about itunes there, because every renderer worth mentioning has multicpu at least and if not a gpu assist too.

 

[technoholic]

Well, we may as well be seeing that AMD at last putting their shit together now. And if this isn't promising news giving a clue of how well they are working on the new steamroller, i don't know shit about computers

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]knowom[/nom]More then a few programs gain little or no benefit from multiple threads and most of the ones that can take advantage of it well all ready do by now so keep drinking the kool aid.[/citation]
itunes, till recently winzip, and i'm sure there are other things that could easily work better with multicore support.

and its not just multicore, from my understanding, threading needs a bit more to get that to work well with it too.

lets take an internet browser as they stand right now without multimedia
they can easily be handeled with 1 core.
chrome actually brings in instability because of the way it has multicore implemented (new process for every page)
what i would love to see it one core per window, not per page, like many currently operate with just one or the other. .

 

[andover]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Why are so many people mentioning TDP? TDP doesn't matter except for cooling and even then, it's just a synthetic number. It isn't synonymous with power consumption, so please stop pretending that it is.As much as I like to focus on power consumption as well, most people on this site simply don't have a power bill where the small power consumption differences matter. How many of you realize that the power consumption differences are much smaller than that of most light bulbs used in houses? A few bucks a year shouldn't be ignored, but it shouldn't be used as a noose for AMD either, especially for the situations where AMD has a pricing advantage to start with.As for graphics, AMD most certainly does offer things that Nvidia doesn't just like Nvidia offers things that AMD doesn't. For example, AMD has far greater performance with MSAA, something that is far superior to FXAA in graphics quality. AMD has far greater performance with Direct Compute and OpenCL accelerated features which have been getting more and more support (several games support features based on these technologies such as advanced lighting features that can be said to compete with PhysX and unlike PhysX, you can't just throw in a low end card from the other team or use the CPU for them).There's more to be said on it, but I think that the point is made well enough.[/citation]

Could you please link us with a link or font from your statment that TDP is just synthetic numbers?
This seems wrong saying that high power consumption doesnt matter over low power comsumption.

 

[technoholic]

[citation][nom]andover[/nom]Could you please link us with a link or font from your statment that TDP is just synthetic numbers?This seems wrong saying that high power consumption doesnt matter over low power comsumption.[/citation]
He means TDP doesn't necessarily refer to the real energy usage

 

[garrick]

AMD really needs to go to a smaller die to reduce power draw, I don't care too much about performance but I do care about power consumption as I live in a country where power is quite expensive.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]andover[/nom]Could you please link us with a link or font from your statment that TDP is just synthetic numbers?This seems wrong saying that high power consumption doesnt matter over low power comsumption.[/citation]

Radeon 7970 TDP is 250W. Radeon 7970 real power consumption is generally around 200W, aka slightly over the GTX 680 which has a TDP of 195W IIRC.

GTX 480 has a TDP of 250W. GTX 580 has a TDP of 244W. Radeon 6970 has TDP of 250W. GTX 580 uses significantly more power than the Radeon 6970 and the GTX 480 uses significantly more power than the GTX 580. TDP does not mean power consumption. In fact, it refers to maximum heat generation IIRC and it hardly ever is comparable to power consumption.

Like technoholic said, I never said that power consumption doesn't matter; I was saying that TDP is not directly related to power consumption. An even more extreme example is how AMD's 100W TDP Trinity APUs tend to use considerably less power than Intel's 65W/55W TDP Ivy Bridge dual core CPUs at idle.

TDP=Thermal Design Power

Even better, different companies disagree on how to measure it, so it's extremely relative. It's further complicated by how different CPU families, even from within the same company, can have their power consumption further from TDP than other CPU families. Basically, TDP is completely useless in comparing power consumption because it is extremely relative and even subjective.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]2500k overclocks further and is more efficient, and of course the K edition cost more because its unlocked[/citation]

All FX CPUs are unlocked and furthermore, even have other settings for overclocking. Intel most certainly does not overclock farther.

[citation][nom]garrick[/nom]AMD really needs to go to a smaller die to reduce power draw, I don't care too much about performance but I do care about power consumption as I live in a country where power is quite expensive.[/citation]

If you don't care about performance, then you probably aren't doing anything that would stress even AMD's Trinity APUs, all of which consume less power than Intel's competition when it comes to idling from low utilization despite having much larger dies due to more cores and much more powerful GPUs.

 

[Duckhunt]

again AMD needs to out do intel in the ways. AMD design make an attachment to use the case as a heat sink. Come on. Lets make the motherboard better then intel specification.

The motherboard manufacturers will flock to you. Lets see the motherboard design to hot swap. No more waiting to turn the power off and on.

The most important try to get fanless designs. Come on AMD. Lets give intel a shock when this works.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]garrick[/nom]AMD really needs to go to a smaller die to reduce power draw, I don't care too much about performance but I do care about power consumption as I live in a country where power is quite expensive.[/citation]

AMD's Radeon 7970 doesn't use much more power than the GTX 680. The Radeon 7950 is even closer in power consumption to the 670 than the 7970 is to the 680. Nvidia's GK104 is only about 20% smaller than AMD's Tahiti and AMD's higher power consumption is actually probably more from the higher number of memory ICs than it is from the GPU size difference anyway, especially since AMD's GCN GPUs, although a little larger than Nvidia's competing Kepler GPUs, are also mostly running at lower frequencies than their competitors in performance and power consumption.

[citation][nom]Duckhunt[/nom]again AMD needs to out do intel in the ways. AMD design make an attachment to use the case as a heat sink. Come on. Lets make the motherboard better then intel specification.The motherboard manufacturers will flock to you. Lets see the motherboard design to hot swap. No more waiting to turn the power off and on. The most important try to get fanless designs. Come on AMD. Lets give intel a shock when this works.[/citation]

Like I said in another reply to you in another thread, making a case an extended heat sink would require heat sink designs and heat sink designs being made together. AMD doesn't control them and furthermore, for this addition to have a relation to the motherboard, the motherboard companies would have to work it out. AMD could suggest it or maybe even bring up some preliminary designs, but ultimately, it is out of their control.

Also, if you are referring to native hot swap as in with SATA, then that is also out of AMD's control because that relies on the PSU companies and/or case companies. The SATA ports already support it and it is up to the PSU companies to support it in their PSUs. Case companies can also/instead make hot-swap bays that handle this properly (some already have consumer cases with this functionality), but again, the most that AMD can do is suggest this and bring up some examples of how to do it if they want to. It is out of their control.

Fanless coolers are also reliant on the cooler designing companies. AMD doesn't make them default on most of their graphics cards because that would be more expensive for AMD. Using a fan instead of extending the heat sink is very much more cost-effective for a given level of cooling when it comes to cooling dozens to hundreds of watts of heat. Some companies make cards with fanless non-reference coolers anyway. They tend to get pretty hot unless a decent case fan keeps them cool and they take up much larger amounts of space than a good fan-based cooler needs for the same level of cooling. This usually makes them much more expensive than reference models and many non-reference models that have fans.