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:

Prev 1 2 3 Next
0
+ -

So since I stopped using AMD in 2009, I haven't looked back. I was out of the country when the core 2 duo made its appearance, otherwise I would have jumped ship sooner. The reason I feel the need to make a comment on this one, is because I feel the fx-8350 isn't getting the praise it deserves here. Sure, intel's are faster, they've been faster for a long while now, but AMD hasn't always been about speed, especially over the past few years.

  AMD is more about the price per performance ratio, at least it's always felt that way.  Yet most of us with the funds available still prefer to take the faste, more expensive route, but in reality how many of us even have any sort of bottle necking issue related to our CPU anymore?  Why over pay for minor gains, that aren't even required for todays game when AMD has given us a solid lower power CPU that delivers quite a punch considering it's under $200.

Neil makes a great point here too, with AMD you can swap out chips and you're up and running. With intel we're looking at least $40-$50 for the locked equivalent to the 8350, and then we're dumping more into the motherboard.  I hadn't even thought of this.

AMD may not be the fastest here, but they are back on the path that once put them on top. Let's just hope they finish ironing out the problems bulldozer brought along and give us a product that puts intel back in the rear view.

0
+ -

I don't have the 8350 myself,.....not yet anyways.

But I realize that these new AMD chips are plenty good enough to give ~good~ game. (you just need a good video card)

As for AMD, I guess that the best complement that I can give them is to buy from them.

I have a Phenom-II 980 Black, and a FX-4170 Quad core and they are both great gamers. Before too long, I'll have the FX-8350 too.

AMD really doesn't have to beat Intel as to performance. All they have to do is to keep producing viable products for less money.

0
+ -

@RepoTactics You make a decent troll here. It's the difference between decently good for $200 or TOTL for $1000. 500% of the price for maybe 40-60% increase in performance doesn't quite add up for me. If you have the money, feel free to spend it, but there really is no comparison if you do.

As for this review of the 8350, I'm still happy with mine. Running mine at 4.3GHz on air completely stable on my Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 with 32GB of Corsair XMS ram @1600MHz. Kind of tiffed that my CPU doesn't quite match up to Intel, but for $200, who can complain?

0
+ -

So if this processor had to be matched up with an equivalent from Intel's Ivy-bridge series what would it be?

It's one thing to simply say its outperformed by this, but outperforms this but I think it's much more informative to see a direct comparison to it's equivalent from the other side.

It's easier to compare Intel to Intel and AMD to AMD cpu's so finding the CPU that matches one from one brand to another serves as sort of the translator for comparison

0
+ -

The closest comparison is the i5-3470

0
+ -

Thanks man!

0
+ -

Clearly AMD is way behind, they have to use more cores and overclock their processors to have a chance against Intel cpus. Amd is still using the 32 nm process and Intel is on the 22nm and moving on to 14nm process in about a year or so. Similar AMD processors are going into the new consoles and being well underclocked. Can you say "severe bottleneck"?

0
+ -

MichaelHenry:

Clearly AMD is way behind, they have to use more cores and overclock their processors to have a chance against Intel cpus. Amd is still using the 32 nm process and Intel is on the 22nm and moving on to 14nm process in about a year or so. Similar AMD processors are going into the new consoles and being well underclocked. Can you say "severe bottleneck"?

Gaming benchmarks say otherwise.  Often times AMD CPU's paired with any GPU outperforms intel CPU's with the same GPU's.

0
+ -

MichaelHenry:

Clearly AMD is way behind, they have to use more cores and overclock their processors to have a chance against Intel cpus. Amd is still using the 32 nm process and Intel is on the 22nm and moving on to 14nm process in about a year or so. Similar AMD processors are going into the new consoles and being well underclocked. Can you say "severe bottleneck"?

While I do think AMD is still behind Intel for performance, I think they have steadily been catching up. Ive seen alot of benches where Intel and AMD are neck in neck or one is slightly better than the other for gaming but its never by to much when they are using the same GPU like Dorkstar said.

Honestly I think the only thing Intel still has on AMD is manufacturing process and they will throw out that $1000 chip for the guys that have cash to burn. I know AMD is the budget conscious build but in terms of performance on their flagship chips you really cant complain and they all still come with good headroom for overclocking.

0
+ -

I recently picked this chip up and I am nothing but impressed with it. I also have a ASUS Sabertooth 990fx r2.0, 32gbs Patriot Viper 3 1866, 2x OCZ Vertex 3 Max IOP 120's on RAID - 0 and a HD 7950 and I am not only running every game, including Crysis 3, maxed out, but when I want to do something, it's there. It overclocks very gracefully. I used ASUS's AI Suite II and MSI Afterburner to O.C. my components and have it stable and air cooled in my Azza Gensis 9000 @50c cpu and 54c GPU temps. CPU is 4.59ghz and gpu is 1.1ghz Core, 1575mhz x 4 RAM clock.

Over clock results, base is almost stock with a very slight o.c.

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f399/CyLMischief/FinalOC-1.png

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