AMD ''Vishera'' FX-Series CPU Pricing Leaked

[ashinms]

Do[citation][nom]antilycus[/nom]to recap. the FX series isn't mean for desktop computing. Now everyone only cares about games. Most game programmers rely on the kernel (and windows kernels suck at this) to manage their thread management. I run windows on top of Linux kerenel (which ends up managing the windows kernel) and I see a boot up and shutdown time of under 20 seconds. If you want thread management, ditch windows (yes even 8 and 7). As soon as Linux gets a driver to get direct access to the GPU, MS is in a for a nightmare. They can't write thread managment and either can game developres. No...they really cant. Stop trying to say otherwise, they really cant.[/citation]

Are coming to Linux will be the best thing to happen to gaming for years to come.

 

[razor512]

I wish we could finally get 6 or 8 full cores and not simple a 4 core CPU with a few processing components doubled while most others are shared, then calling it an 8 core CPU, if you look at the current fx 8 core chips and do a bit of trial, and error benchmarking with changing which cores are used, you eventually end up with a mp ratio that shows nearly a full cores worth of performance added, then when you go past 4 threads, the mp ratio takes a nose dive

until AMD can give us multiple true cores they will not be successful

 

[luciferano]

[citation][nom]razor512[/nom]I wish we could finally get 6 or 8 full cores and not simple a 4 core CPU with a few processing components doubled while most others are shared, then calling it an 8 core CPU, if you look at the current fx 8 core chips and do a bit of trial, and error benchmarking with changing which cores are used, you eventually end up with a mp ratio that shows nearly a full cores worth of performance added, then when you go past 4 threads, the mp ratio takes a nose diveuntil AMD can give us multiple true cores they will not be successful[/citation]

There are two cores per module. Each module only has one FPU, so if you do intensive FPU tests, then it wouldn't scale beyond four threads, but that's not merely doubling some components, that's cutting one out after merging two distinct cores. It's still an 8 core CPU, just not with eight FPUs.

 

[silverblue]

Piledriver will easily beat Bulldozer, but not significantly so. The 8350 enjoys an 11% base clock advantage over the 8150 and is far more likely to hit 4.2GHz. Additionally, the few existing benchmarks comparing an A10-5800K to a two-module Bulldozer shows, even without L3 cache, a 15% performance increase clock-for-clock, though admittedly, two benchmarks cannot truly predict performance. The reviews will tell all, and we haven't long to wait for those, lukewarm as the current level of enthusiasm may be (Steamroller has spoilt us a bit in this respect).

 

[luciferano]

[citation][nom]liciferano[/nom]There are two cores per module. Each module only has one FPU, so if you do intensive FPU tests, then it wouldn't scale beyond four threads, but that's not merely doubling some components, that's cutting one out after merging two distinct cores. It's still an 8 core CPU, just not with eight FPUs.[/citation]

Also, Bulldozer has a front-end bottle-neck on the integer cores, so performance per core within each module drops when you stress both cores and that might be the cause of any integer performance scaling that you have. This is not the result of a non-true 8 core CPU, it's the result of not designing the CPU to be able to handle both cores at load without a front-end bottle-neck. Basically, the front-end is not sufficient for two cores, but there really are two cores and they don't perform ideally when both are used because of the front-end issue. Even then, it still scales around two or three times better than Hyper-Threading, so it's most certainly not a failure.

 

[azraa]

I really hope AMD can match a 2500k at stock settings.
From the tweaking made to a bulldozer cpu, here at Tom's and on other forums, we have already seen its potential, and that it is possible to match a 2500k at lightly threaded apps (because on other, multicore programs, bulldozer is already a beast for the money).

I hope this because, the 2500k and 3570k are the flagship of Intel monopoly. Most gamers I know, nowadays ask me 'what intel cpu do you use for gaming on your rig bro?' and I am like... 'what?'. Being able to break through this haze of prejudice and ignorance would be a huge win for the red team, not for the profit from high end cpu sales (which are veeery little compared to the entry level sales), no, would be a win because of their reputation and the consequent rise in stock value, which is what gives money to companies to work with. If AMD manages to be known within the popular media again for their high performance CPUs, just like old times, then we should expect better times for IT develepments and further breakthroughs.

Cheers!

 

[computertech82]

Sorry, but the faildozer will be similar to the original one. For those with a unix based os, and programs that can actually use all cores (includes servers), there is no use from them in any other field.
As a gamer, i want performance, there is ZERO from amd that comes even close to the OLD intel 2400 cpu, much less the higher end cpus. Pretty sad, but amd did admit they will NOT compete (aka try) to get to intel's performance levels.
Still think it's a bad idea not to even try to compete. When amd had the faster cpu, their sales went up, NOT including the high-ends, simply because they had the fastest cpu. A perception that their cpus are better (true or not). The market always sways to the company that has the fastest product.

 

[luciferano]

[citation][nom]computertech82[/nom]Sorry, but the faildozer will be similar to the original one. For those with a unix based os, and programs that can actually use all cores (includes servers), there is no use from them in any other field.As a gamer, i want performance, there is ZERO from amd that comes even close to the OLD intel 2400 cpu, much less the higher end cpus. Pretty sad, but amd did admit they will NOT compete (aka try) to get to intel's performance levels.Still think it's a bad idea not to even try to compete. When amd had the faster cpu, their sales went up, NOT including the high-ends, simply because they had the fastest cpu. A perception that their cpus are better (true or not). The market always sways to the company that has the fastest product.[/citation]

Even when AMD was beating Intel with Athlon 64/FX and the dual-core variants of them versus Pentium 4 and Pentium D, Intel still outsold them almost as much as they do now. As has been said above, AMD can compete greatly outside of stock performance anyway, so unless you're just an average computer user, this shouldn't be a problem for you.

 

[chulex67]

I hope they Succeed this Time, I hope its not only a rebranding, and that they actually boosted up their cpu line to compete against Intel. Just my Whisful Thinking.

 

[manicmike]

TOMS, when I click SUBMIT it takes me CARS.com and never posts my comment. FIX IT NOW

Sounds liek you have a case of DNS poisoning, friend. I recommed a full Virus Scan (avast! works great and it's free). Seems to be a bit of that going around, I've serviced 6 machines in the past month with that problem. My favorite was "www.google.com" took him to "apple.com" (can anyone say Corporate Warfare gone overboard?)

 

[antilycus]

I dont think so as I use COMODO SECURE DNS. It only happened once, but it was after I typed a huge long multi paragraph reply. I know all about hostfiles and secure DNS / non-secure DNS. I appreciate the concern but I am also on Linux, where virus's don't happen I can't stand avast, I prefer SuperAntiSpyware.com free version. It did fix itself I was just mad that I lost all my input. I should've known after all these years to copy my post to the clipboard before hitting post...I usually do, just didn't on that one.
[citation][nom]manicmike[/nom]Sounds liek you have a case of DNS poisoning, friend. I recommed a full Virus Scan (avast! works great and it's free). Seems to be a bit of that going around, I've serviced 6 machines in the past month with that problem. My favorite was "www.google.com" took him to "apple.com" (can anyone say Corporate Warfare gone overboard?)[/citation]

 

[luciferano]

[citation][nom]antilycus[/nom]I dont think so as I use COMODO SECURE DNS. It only happened once, but it was after I typed a huge long multi paragraph reply. I know all about hostfiles and secure DNS / non-secure DNS. I appreciate the concern but I am also on Linux, where virus's don't happen I can't stand avast, I prefer SuperAntiSpyware.com free version. It did fix itself I was just mad that I lost all my input. I should've known after all these years to copy my post to the clipboard before hitting post...I usually do, just didn't on that one.[/citation]

There is malware for Linux, although it's much more rare than Windows and might even be less common than Mac malware.

 

[razor512]

[citation][nom]Davemaster84[/nom]They are 8 core processors, maybe in the design there are only 4 cores but it has eight integer cores, the 8150 was most of the time even with the x6 1100t , only a few times behind and also way better in some other things. I think there's no way your x6 will be keeping up with the 8350[/citation]

that is what really pissed me off with AMD, when I was planning to get a CPU upgrade, I was hindering between a FX CPU and the Phenom II x6 CPU and the day the benchmarks of the FX chips came out, the prices of the Phenom II x6 chips, jumped up by about $20-30

With the Phenom II's almost all types of processing (except memory bandwidth intensive processing) you will get 95-100% of a full core's performance increase. eg if in a benchmark a single core will give a score of 2000, then 2 cores will give 4000, and 3 will give 6000, but with the FX chips, 1 core may give 2000 points, then the next core If it is using shared resources from the first core, the second threat will probably bring the score up to like 2700-3000 rather than 4000.

Unless AMD can offer 6 or 8 real cores in their new CPU's, I cant see myself buying one. Imagine if a company put 2 houses up for sale but in reality it was just 1 house with an extra bathroom tacked onto the side, how happy will the customers be when both houses are sold and they both families walk into the same house?

Or imagine heading to the store and you buy a product advertised as a 2 pack of toothpaste but when you open it, it is just 1 tube with a a cap on both ends. (in AMD's world, this would be 2 tubes of tooth paste)


[citation][nom]luciferano[/nom]There are two cores per module. Each module only has one FPU, so if you do intensive FPU tests, then it wouldn't scale beyond four threads, but that's not merely doubling some components, that's cutting one out after merging two distinct cores. It's still an 8 core CPU, just not with eight FPUs.[/citation]


Then how can you call it 2 cores when it is really just 1.x cores. If toyota sells you 2 cars and the and when you go to pick the cars up, you see some Frankenstein where both cars are stuck together side by side and they are sharing 2 of the wheels (2 wheels at each side and 2 in the center) Would you call that 2 cars?

They are not giving you separate cores because certain parts required for processing data are being shared between the cores thus you do not get a the full performance of each core.

 

[TechnoD]

Although i can't say much on these CPU's, I can say this. I just bought a trinity based laptop with the a8 - 4500M APU (HP dv6 - 7010us). Wow AMD has stepped it up. When i first bought this laptop, i had an AMD phenom 2 6 core desktop and my laptop absolutely blew away my desktop in respect to overall responsiveness (i bought an ivybridge i3 a little while ago - its a lot faster and uses less power than my old 6 core, making it about equal to my laptop). These trinity cores are just boss. i use my laptop for graphic design, playing BF3 full resolution plugged into my 1080p gaming monitor. I expect both the new vishera and trinity apus and cpus will be epic, seeing how desktop models are much faster than laptop models. But this is only speculation......

 

[luciferano]

[citation][nom]razor512[/nom]that is what really pissed me off with AMD, when I was planning to get a CPU upgrade, I was hindering between a FX CPU and the Phenom II x6 CPU and the day the benchmarks of the FX chips came out, the prices of the Phenom II x6 chips, jumped up by about $20-30With the Phenom II's almost all types of processing (except memory bandwidth intensive processing) you will get 95-100% of a full core's performance increase. eg if in a benchmark a single core will give a score of 2000, then 2 cores will give 4000, and 3 will give 6000, but with the FX chips, 1 core may give 2000 points, then the next core If it is using shared resources from the first core, the second threat will probably bring the score up to like 2700-3000 rather than 4000.Unless AMD can offer 6 or 8 real cores in their new CPU's, I cant see myself buying one. Imagine if a company put 2 houses up for sale but in reality it was just 1 house with an extra bathroom tacked onto the side, how happy will the customers be when both houses are sold and they both families walk into the same house?Or imagine heating to the store and you buy a product advertised as a 2 pack of toothpaste but when you open it, it is just 1 tube with a a cap on both ends. (in AMD's world, this would be 2 tubes of tooth paste)[/citation]

There really are that many real cores. A better analogy would be two full houses, but they share an entryway, so even if you have two houses, you can't fit many more people through the one entryway when you're trying to march a line of people into both houses than when you're marching a line of people into one of the houses. Piledriver doesn't fix this, but it makes a verity of other important improvements. Steamroller, Piledriver's successor, is supposed to fix this.

 

[razor512]

the doorway example more applies to multiple cores sharing a single channel of memory or sharing the L3 cache (where 2 different processes that stress the L3 cache but use different cores will cause 1 core to slow down the performance of another core)

with the FX chips, components that are actually responsible for processing data and not just transferring data are being shared, because of this, complex processes that are not bandwidth intensive are the most impacted because you are not dealing with a cache or RAM bottleneck or even a bus bottleneck you are dealing with slowdowns happening internally within the CPU.

This is more like 2 families trying to share a single kitchen (or a multi family home with a single kitchen, or any other function that are regularly used.

 

[noob2222]

I really wish people would stop advertising for this BLT website, they are price gouging for pre-orders. they pre-sold the 8150s for $300, now they are doing it again.

QUIT GIVING FREE ADVERTISING FOR THESE IDIOTS AT BLT

 

[luciferano]

[citation][nom]Razor512[/nom]the doorway example more applies to multiple cores sharing a single channel of memory or sharing the L3 cache (where 2 different processes that stress the L3 cache but use different cores will cause 1 core to slow down the performance of another core)with the FX chips, components that are actually responsible for processing data and not just transferring data are being shared, because of this, complex processes that are not bandwidth intensive are the most impacted because you are not dealing with a cache or RAM bottleneck or even a bus bottleneck you are dealing with slowdowns happening internally within the CPU.This is more like 2 families trying to share a single kitchen (or a multi family home with a single kitchen, or any other function that are regularly used.[/citation]

The problem is mostly caused by a lack of x86 decoders (four per module compared to three per core in *K10* and four per core in every high-end Intel arch since Core 2 AFAIK) in each module, so I think that my analogy is accurate. The houses could be said to be conjoined, but the processing isn't the issue which is what I think that your analogy would imply, the decoders feeding the cores are insufficient, so the cores simply can't be *fed* as AMD would put it quickly enough. Consider this:
Two people have 8 hot dogs total to eat. This is not a problem when they can both use one hand each to eat, but if they had to eat with only one hand between both of them, although they'd probably eat faster than one core, they'd have a bottle-neck. The hot dogs would all be able to get to the hand quickly enough, but the hand simply can't do the work of two hands and it can't feed both persons as quickly as two hands could although it can feed one person without any issues at all.

Steamroller intends to fix this by giving each core four decoders instead of sharing four decoders between each core of a module.

 

[halcyon]

[citation][nom]luciferano[/nom]The problem is mostly caused by a lack of x86 decoders (four per module compared to three per core in *K10* and four per core in every high-end Intel arch since Core 2 AFAIK) in each module, so I think that my analogy is accurate. The houses could be said to be conjoined, but the processing isn't the issue which is what I think that your analogy would imply, the decoders feeding the cores are insufficient, so the cores simply can't be *fed* as AMD would put it quickly enough. Consider this:Two people have 8 hot dogs total to eat. This is not a problem when they can both use one hand each to eat, but if they had to eat with only one hand between both of them, although they'd probably eat faster than one core, they'd have a bottle-neck. The hot dogs would all be able to get to the hand quickly enough, but the hand simply can't do the work of two hands and it can't feed both persons as quickly as two hands could although it can feed one person without any issues at all.Steamroller intends to fix this by giving each core four decoders instead of sharing four decoders between each core of a module.[/citation]
Thanks for the informative posts. However, from a customer's standpoint it seems like Intel's offerings are just plain better. The layman doesn't need or want to worry about what you've so informatively described. They can just get an Intel CPU and know its not going to have any (or none worth noting) bottlenecks. Saving a few pennies doesn't make it worth it to me. The only reason I have a 965BE is because I wanted to see how it felt, subjectively, in use...and its fine...but I'm sort of an enthusiast. I'm not pro AMD or pro Intel (I just don't care enough)...I'm pro-performance.

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]belardo[/nom]But Win8 metro interface/retarded charms makes Windows8 a worthless OS.[/citation]


I'm starting to question the average user's age here.

 

[luciferano]

[citation][nom]halcyon[/nom]Thanks for the informative posts. However, from a customer's standpoint it seems like Intel's offerings are just plain better. The layman doesn't need or want to worry about what you've so informatively described. They can just get an Intel CPU and know its not going to have any (or none worth noting) bottlenecks. Saving a few pennies doesn't make it worth it to me. The only reason I have a 965BE is because I wanted to see how it felt, subjectively, in use...and its fine...but I'm sort of an enthusiast. I'm not pro AMD or pro Intel (I just don't care enough)...I'm pro-performance.[/citation]

I like to consider myself an enthusiast. I have no problem with spending a few minutes of my time to use an AMD CPU properly rather than go for Intel. That the average user doesn't really have this option without outside help is a great obstacle in the way of this for the average user, so Intel can make more sense. However, if any enthusiast can take an FX-81xx CPU and make it perform more like an i7 K edition in overclocking performance at comparable power consumption, then I can save a lot of money by going with it and that's money that can be focused on other aspects of the computer. If it's a gaming build, then that's a good amount of money sent towards the graphics and/or other components. A professional build could get a better SSD and such.

 

[halcyon]

[citation][nom]luciferano[/nom]I like to consider myself an enthusiast. I have no problem with spending a few minutes of my time to use an AMD CPU properly rather than go for Intel. That the average user doesn't really have this option without outside help is a great obstacle in the way of this for the average user, so Intel can make more sense. However, if any enthusiast can take an FX-81xx CPU and make it perform more like an i7 K edition in overclocking performance at comparable power consumption, then I can save a lot of money by going with it and that's money that can be focused on other aspects of the computer. If it's a gaming build, then that's a good amount of money sent towards the graphics and/or other components. A professional build could get a better SSD and such.[/citation]
I've been fortunate enough not to have to have to work under such constraints...and I don't take it for granted. Any component that I'd get with an AMD cpu I'd get with an Intel part. I no longer build systems for consulting purposes, but when I did it was Intel all the way (it was that long ago) so I'm only working with my budget.

 

[proffet]

[citation][nom]cats_paw[/nom]125W? if true we got a monstrosity there... Dont even want to start thinking how much will it draw when overclocked.[/citation]
[citation][nom]schmich[/nom]125W has been the norm for AMD's highest end for a while. Intel has had 130W for its extreme processors. Sandy Bridge had 95W and Ivy Bridge 77W so. It's quite the difference between the two manufactures.[/citation]
[citation][nom]belardo[/nom]When Intel's Haswell comes out, it will still be 77w while gaining 10% more performance.The FX 8350 will need to equal the i7-3770 for anyone to take notice... At $250, to only equal the $215~230 i5-3570/K CPUs ($190 locally) with a hotter CPU without PCIe 3.0 or native USB3.0 support just won't impress anyone.Actually, PCIe 3.0 missing will always be a major hit on AMD. I'm not sure why they are even bothering with this?[/citation]
[citation][nom]Avro Arrow[/nom]What, 125W is abnormal? Both of my Phenom II X4's are 125W. It's not like this is anything new, but it seems that you probably are...lolBesides that, I am really hoping that AMD gets it right this time. I bought my 990FX AM3+ motherboard specifically for bulldozer and because of the last debacle, I ended up just getting a Phenom II X4 965 because my Phenom II X4 940 doesn't support AM3. Come on AMD! Get it right this time! Give me a reason to buy a new CPU![/citation]
[citation][nom]southernshark[/nom]I still feel like these are not really 8 core processor, but more like 4 core + processors. I am still not trading in my Phenom II 6 core for one of these........ which is sad.[/citation]
[citation][nom]jtt283[/nom]The great majority of consumers do not overclock. Releasing a CPU that performs poorly at stock [vs. Intel] makes the CPU irrelevant to the mass market, no matter how well it overclocks. AMD's stock performance needs to be worth the price.[/citation]
[citation][nom]master_chen[/nom]Even after this is released, I'll still recommend Phenom II to any of my clients that would wish for a trully high-quality AMD-based build.I'll easily recommend Phenom II to anyone anytime, instead of a lame fail that is the entire FX line.P.S. Faildozer's inept fanboys butthurt incoming!...in 3...2...1...[/citation]

^THESE...

 

[master_chen]

^THESE...

^ THAT...

 

[luciferano]

[citation][nom]proffet[/nom]^THESE...[/citation]

About half of those contradict each other on multiple points and the other half are fanboy ramblings.