AMD FX-8350 Vishera 8-Core CPU Review - HotHardware

AMD FX-8350 Vishera 8-Core CPU Review

51 thumbs up

Like the recently released A-Series Trinity-based APUs that came before it, the new Vishera-based FX-Series processors leverage AMD's Piledriver microarchotecture. As we've noted before, AMD has either tweaked or revamped many of the primary functional blocks with the Piledriver microarchitecture versus the original Bulldozer which debuted last year.


The AMD Vishera Die

Although much has been changed, Piledriver is essentially an optimization of AMD's Bulldozer core. It shares the same high-level architecture as Bulldozer, but with a number of major enhancements. The same shared fetch, decode, floating point and L2 cache resources per pair of integer units is present in Vishera, however, AMD has improved their branch prediction and L2 efficiency and improved hardware prefetch as well. Piledriver cores also have a larger L1 TLB or Translation Look-aside Buffer.


AMD Made a Number of Enhancements to the Piledriver Microarchitecture

All told, AMD is claiming a combined performance increase of ~14% on the desktop versus their Bulldozer architecture. However, factor in higher Turbo Core 3.0 speed boosts and AMD is claiming larger aggregate performance gains.

The new AMD FX-Series processors is manufactured using Global Foundries' 32nm process node and consists of roughly 1.2B transistors. Although 8, 6, and 4-core variants will be available, all of the initial chips are built around the same die, which is approximately 315mm2. If you're keeping track, that makes the chip virtually identical in size to the previous-gen, Bulldozer-based FX-series.


AMD FX-Series Overview

With Vishera, AMD's Turbo Core technology offers more aggressive clock gating and overclocking. Specifically, the FX-8350 that we'll be showing you here can scale up to 4.2GHz, in single-threaded applications, but has a base clock of 4GHz with dynamic scaling as needed in single or multithreaded workloads.

The degree by which each new member of the FX series is able to Turbo varies from model to model. The 200MHz boost available on the flagship FX-8350 is actually the smallest of the initial line-up--there are other models which run at lower base clocks, but boost upwards of 600MHz.
 

Article Index:

1 2 3 Next
0
+ -

results are weird. I5 doing just as well as the i7s in some cases. Are these software tests suitable?

0
+ -

Results are not weird at all. The tests are a combination of single and multi-threaded workloads, and we've got three families / generations of Intel processors represented. In single threaded workloads, the newer Ivy Bridge-based Core i5's are sometimes able to outperform older Sandy Bridge-based chips due to architectural enhancements and higher Turbo speeds. Also note that additional cores and support for HT won't benefit a test that's single or dual-threaded at most.

0
+ -

I just had to make this decision for a client who was having difficulties with her Phenom II 965 system which I recognized because we have the same issues on my system with the same processor and MB and frequent lock ups. This is a different architecture all together from CPU to board to memory bus I know but the price difference for an i7-3820 relative to the productivity it produces for her applications as a professional architect are to good to not go with them. This processor is also a couple weeks to late for the necessity we had at then, either way the price VS the performance makes it irrelevant either way.

0
+ -

rapid1:
either way the price VS the performance makes it irrelevant either way.

Irrelevant?,......I don't think so.

When you consider that most of Intel's latest CPUs require you to buy a new motherboard to go with your shiny new chip, the AM3+ board's ability to run the latest FX processors gains a new clarity.

Even though I already have an FX-4170, I can just buy a FX-8350 CPU and install it and I'm upgraded. I might need a BIOS update, but that's no big deal. The performance isn't what my i7-2600K gets, but it's completely acceptable for my needs.

________________________________

Marco, I have a question,............I've heard it said that Windows eight has optimizations built-in that take advantage of AMD Vishera's newer design. Is this true, or is it just so much BS?

Did you test this CPU with Win-8 to see if it performs better in Win-8 as opposed to Win-7? Are there any plans to do so?

0
+ -

@Realneil - Windows 8 does have updates to the scheduler that should increase performance and efficiency slightly with Bulldozer and Piledriver, but the I haven't done any official testing. Don't expect much of a boost though--a couple of percentage points here and there, tops.

0
+ -

Marco C:
Don't expect much of a boost though--a couple of percentage points here and there, tops.

Thanks for the answer Marco.

I may get one of these FX-8350 CPUs once the prices calm down a little.

0
+ -

Me too, the performance looks good enough for me, but Newegg has them listed for $30 over msrp. Maybe next month will be the time to buy.

0
+ -

CDeeter:

Me too, the performance looks good enough for me, but Newegg has them listed for $30 over msrp. Maybe next month will be the time to buy.

That's why I'm waiting. I don't like the 'brand new' tax either.

 

0
+ -

Ok, so I am in the middle of deciding between this Amd fx 8350 processor and the Intel® Core™ i7 3970X Six-core 3.5GHz/4.0GHz Turbo 15MB L3 Cache w/ HyperThreading. I have been asking a lot of people for their opinion and really want to know, which processor will preform better? Can someone please tell me which processor has better performance? Thanks.

+1
+ -

They both will perform well, but the Intel part is certainly faster.

You already know that you'll pay a hefty price premium for the extra performance though. The motherboard will be more expensive too.

The bottom line is that the AMD setup is plenty good enough for most uses, but the Uber Expensive Intel part that you're comparing it to is the performance king.

1 2 3 Next
Login or Register to Comment
Post a Comment
Username:   Password: