• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Some news on Piledriver

What I want to see from Piledriver to make me switch from Intel.

  • At least a 1GHz increase in clock speed when Turbo Core is enabled.
  • A price point of £179.99 for the FX-8350.
  • Better performance for single-threaded applications.
 
Number_25 said:
What I want to see from Piledriver to make me switch from Intel.

  • At least a 1GHz increase in clock speed when Turbo Core is enabled.
  • A price point of £179.99 for the FX-8350.
  • Better performance for single-threaded applications.
Click to expand...

I'd say getting power consumption under control is a biggie too....
 
Shaboom!

AMD-Piledriver-FX-8300.jpg


The guys at Coolaler forums have got themselves an Engineering Sample of AMD’s Upcoming Piledriver FX-8300 series processor which features 8 Cores.

Still in ES phase, The FX-8300 series processor come within a boxed AMD packaging. The 2nd generation FX Vishera processors feature the Piledriver 32nm Architecture which delivers upto 10-15% IPC improvement over FX-Bulldozer.

AMD-Piledriver-ES.jpg


AMD-Piledriver-CPUz.jpg


The FX-Piledriver processor tested featured 124W TDP, 8MB of L3 Cache and core clock of 3.3-3.9GHz (Stock/Turbo Core). The processor was tested on an AM3+ socket motherboard (ASUS Crosshair V Formula) since Piledriver is compatible with 990FX chipset.
Benchmark results are posted below:
3DMark Vantage (CPU-Only):

  • FX-8300 Piledriver @Stock – 18705 CPU Marks
3DMark 06 (CPU-Only):

  • FX-8300 Piledriver @Stock – 4986 CPU Marks
AIDA64 Cache and Memory Benchmark:

  • FX-8300 Piledriver @4.8GHz – 17410/11769/21472 MB/s (Read/Write/Copy)
Winrar Compression:

  • FX-8300 Piledriver @Stock – 5946 KB/s
CineBench R11.5:

  • FX-8300 Piledriver @Stock – 5.73
Expect the launch of Piledriver in Q4 2012. For more details, Go here.

Piledriver-3DMark-06-635x396.jpg


Piledriver-3DMark-Vantage-635x396.jpg


Piledriver-Cinebench.jpg

Piledriver-Aida644.jpg
Click to expand...

From

http://wccftech.com/amd-fx8300-vishera-x86-piledriver-8-core-cpu-pictured-benchmarked/
 
Did some comparisons for you.

3DMark Vantage (CPU-Only):

  • FX-8300 Piledriver @stock – 18705 CPU Marks
  • FX-8150 Bulldozer @stock - 18045 CPU Marks
3DMark 06 (CPU-Only):


  • FX-8300 Piledriver @stock – 4986 CPU Marks
  • FX-8150 Bulldozer @stock - 5900 CPU Marks
AIDA64 Cache and Memory Benchmark:

  • FX-8300 Piledriver @4.8GHz – 17410/11769/21472 MB/s (Read/Write/Copy)
  • FX-8150 Bulldozer @4.2GHz - 14721/1026718501 MB/s (Read/Write/Copy)
Winrar Compression:

  • FX-8300 Piledriver @stock – 5946 KB/s
  • FX-8150 Bulldozer @stock - 4984 KB/s
CineBench R11.5:

  • FX-8300 Piledriver @stock – 5.73
  • FX-8150 Buldozer @ Stock - 6.01
 
One factor to consider is whether Turbo Core is functioning properly in the review system. IIRC,Toms Hardware had that issue with their Trinity A10 review.

The CB 11.5 score is 5.73 for the FX8300- the FX8120 which runs at 3.1GHZ with a Turbo Core clockspeed of 4GHZ scores 5.01 to 5.04:

http://www.kitguru.net/components/c...k-edition-cpu-review-with-asus-m5a99x-evo/12/

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2012/07/27/amd-fx-8120-review/3

The FX8350 is meant to have a 4GHZ base clockspeed:

http://www.legitreviews.com/news/13814/
 
Last edited:
The performance increase isn't so bad if they managed to get the power consumption down. That's really what killed BD in the first place. Not that I'm holding my breath. I'll consider buying one if and when they are shown to be better than my 955BE @ 3.7GHz.
 
Still the memory controller looks to be broken write speeds are still very low compared to the read. But then theres some funky timings and memory speeds going on too!
I heard that Amd have too much old Llano which they want to sell off first, which is delaying trinity and vishera. It will be interesting to when they release trinity to the market and how long the products lifetime will be with intels offerings and steamroller development. Would be funny as f..ck if the igp in haswell brings more to the table than amds !
 
JonSmith said:
The performance increase isn't so bad if they managed to get the power consumption down. That's really what killed BD in the first place. Not that I'm holding my breath. I'll consider buying one if and when they are shown to be better than my 955BE @ 3.7GHz.
Click to expand...

I havent had experience in using one but I thought that the consumption was only bad when you clock them.

Like for example the deneb c2/c3 at 3.4ghz could really be downvolted from the average 1.35-1.40v to 1.15- 1.25v
 
I remember the days when Intel were implying that you don't need a decent graphics chip in a laptop, therefore we won't sell one.

Of course if you give people the hardware, they will use it. And with the release of APUs, people have been playing even modern games on them. It's going to be a while before Intel plays catchup. What will hamstring them is their current tendency to put the worse IGPs on the slowest chips, which are actually the ones that need them most. Compare the A10-4600m to the IGP in similarly priced Intel chips, it completely stomps them.
 
JonSmith said:
It's going to be a while before Intel plays catchup.
Click to expand...

They have been doing it for a few years and in the past couple they have come along leaps and bounds, the HD P4000 on my IB CPU is better than a 6800 Ultra which admittedly is a card from half a decade ago however it was the most once powerful GPU money could buy so to think the are now Intel GPU's built into processors with more power than it just shows how quickly their coming along, especially when you think that only a few years ago we were comparing their stuff to the Voodoo II from 1998.
 
ubersonic said:
the HD P4000 on my IB CPU is better than a 6800 Ultra which admittedly is a card from half a decade ago
Click to expand...


8+ years old ;)
Though saying that Intel claim they are only aiming to be ~4 years behind AMD/Nvidia. But considering the increase in use of applications making use of gpu power and cpu power has reached a point were it has little impact in day to day duty's (beyond gaming). This will seriously hurt them.

For all AMD's floundering in the cpu market, the AMD's apu's are a master stroke!
 
Last edited:
If you read the translated Chinese forum that post is from, its actually an engineering sample of the latest (or test?) Bulldozer stepping - the hardcoded registers in the chip report as such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom