vacancies advertise contact news tip The Vault
EPIC Competition in the run up to 2015 - win something everyday! [x]
facebook rss twitter

AMD FX-8350 Piledriver-based CPU to land mid-Q3

by Alistair Lowe on 2 July 2012, 09:52

Tags: AMD (NYSE:AMD)

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qabi2j

Add to My Vault: x

Towards the end of Q3, it will have been a year since the release of the first AMD Bulldozer-based CPUs, however, with the design producing poor real-world desktop benchmarks, it could be said that AMD has effectively been at a performance standstill since the release of the Phenom II X6, over two years ago.

AMD Piledriver

It's good news then, perhaps, that the latest rumours are reporting AMD is to launch its Zambezi line-up sometime around August this year, based on its updated Piledriver core design. The firm has already shown us just what Piledriver is capable of through the release of its new Trinity APU line-up, which has generally been capable of offering improved performance at a lower power consumption, despite remaining on a 32nm production node.

The Zambezi range will remain socket AM3+ compatible, with the head of the pack expected to be the FX-8350, which will feature eight cores with a 4 x 2MB L2 and 8MB L3 cache configuration. As it's likely to feature a 125 watt TDP, we expect the FX-8350 to be clocked 10 per cent faster than its FX-8150 predecessor and, with tweaks to the Piledriver design offering around a six per cent performance boost over Bulldozer at the same clock, according to early benchmarks of Trinity, the FX-8350 may just have enough *umph* to successfully break AMD out of its performance slump.

AMD Performance Roadmap

AMD's high-performance roadmap dictates that it expects performance gains of 10 to 15 per cent each year from now on, with processors based on the firm's 'Steamroller' design to follow this year's Piledriver and, whilst Zambezi is long awaited and most welcome, we can't help but wonder what AMD may do with steamroller and heterogeneous computing in 2013. Until then, however, we'll be sure to enjoy AMD's latest performance line-up.



HEXUS Forums :: 42 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
Clocked 10% faster, 6% faster at same clock speed - sounds pretty humdrum to me. A 3GHz Piledriver should be equivalent of a 3.4-3.5GHz 'dozer? And still burning 125W on the high end... still doesn't sound competitive without slashing margins pretty thin.
kingpotnoodle
... A 3GHz Piledriver should be equivalent of a 3.4-3.5GHz 'dozer? And still burning 125W on the high end...

Erm, no. A 3GHz Piledriver is the equivalent of ~ a 3.2GHz 'dozer.

The high end Piledriver chips (125W TDP) will be clocked at 4GHz or higher, and be the performance equivalent of a 4.2GHz (or higher) 'dozer (i.e. ~ 14% performance enhancement).

If you want to consider lower down the scale, the 95W FX-8100 has a 2.8GHz base speed - an equivalent 95W Piledriver will be clocked at 3.1GHz (like the 125W FX-8120) but perform like a 3.3GHz 'dozer, with a 30W lower TDP.

Besides, within the same power envelopeactual silicon power draw can vary significantly - the TDP is only there as a cooling guide for quick ratification of existing third-party coolers. Trinity seems to have much better power characteristics than Llano, which bodes well for desktop Piledriver...
A 10% increase in power is nothing when Intel is beasting AMD in benchmarks by a significant margin. This means the CPU performance gap for AMD will only grow wider.
billybear
A 10% increase in power is nothing when Intel is beasting AMD in benchmarks by a significant margin. This means the CPU performance gap for AMD will only grow wider.


Not interested in AMD beating Intel in the performance stakes - and I don't think AMD care either. What we want is a competitive CPU that can do everything fast. The fact Intel CPU's might be faster on benchmarks doesn't mean they are any faster in real world applications.

100 Frames per second or 150 FPS, who cares....
Brewster0101
billybear
A 10% increase in power is nothing when Intel is beasting AMD in benchmarks by a significant margin. This means the CPU performance gap for AMD will only grow wider.
Not interested in AMD beating Intel in the performance stakes - and I don't think AMD care either. What we want is a competitive CPU that can do everything fast. The fact Intel CPU's might be faster on benchmarks doesn't mean they are any faster in real world applications.

100 Frames per second or 150 FPS, who cares....


I have to agree, bought an FX-8120, clocked it @ 4Ghz and I have never seen it hit 100% could probably left it stock speeds and still been happy!