Vishera Review Up - Anandtech

[SlowSpyder]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested

"Vishera is a step in the right direction for AMD, it manages to deliver tangibly better performance than last year's disappointing FX processor without increasing power consumption. Thanks to architectural and frequency improvements, AMD delivers up to 20% better performance than last year's FX-8150 for a lower launch price, while remaining within the same thermal envelope."

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/10/22/amd_fx8350_piledriver_processor_ipc_overclocking

"Is Vishera a better part than Intel's Ivy Bridge or previous Sandy Bridge processors? No it is not, not even close. Intel still has a healthy lead in both Performance per Watt, and Instructions per Clock. AMD cannot best or match Intel on the desktop and keep in mind that AMD brings 4 more processing cores to the table than the Intel processors compared here today."

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328.html

"I’m going to have to resign myself to forgetting what the FX brand once meant, though. Almost a decade ago, an FX was something that made Intel scramble to respond. It represented cutting-edge. And it set you back more than $700 bucks. Today, we have to ooh and aah over performance victories against the middle of Intel’s desktop line-up—its Core i5-3470 and -3570K—all the while shrugging off fairly severe discrepancies in energy efficiency. There. I’m done. Back to 2012."

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FX-8350_Piledriver_Review/7.html <-- Overclocking page... they got it to 5GHz. Not bad!

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...x-8350-cpu-review-amds-vishera-arrives-6.html <-- Single threaded comparrison, not a bad improvement. Nothing major, but certainly a bump in single threaded performance.


http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/vishera_review


http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_fx8350/12.htm <-- 5.2GHz review, nice!

Not sure if this should be its own thread, so feel free to merge it.

Chip is a definite improvement, I would have liked to see power a bit better, but a step in the right direction.

 

[crazymonkeyzero]

Thanks for the headsup!


Looks like at the price point of less than $200, the FX 8350 is at least a feasible alternative to intel's offerings and will be a worthy upgrade for AMD fans still holding on to their hexcore phenom II. I was pretty surprised that it actually beat the 3770k in some tests (tbh my expectations were not high at all~can you blame me?), but still single threaded performance is pretty mediocre, loosing to the i3 in many cases.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Thanks for the headsup!


Looks like at the price point of less than $200, the FX 8350 is at least a feasible alternative to intel's offerings and will be a worthy upgrade for AMD fans still holding on to their hexcore phenom II. I was pretty surprised that it actually beat the 3770k in some tests, but still single threaded performance is pretty mediocre.

I'm looking for a review that tests it against PhII. Looks like reviewers are getting 4.6-5.0GHz out of it overclocked. The minor fanboy of old wants to go AMD for a new build, but Sandy Bridge is just soooo good.

 

[crazymonkeyzero]

Haha, I'm thinking of biting the bullet too. I've actually never made an AMD system (intel conroe,and sandy were my first 2 builds), and now is looking a good a time as ever, especially for any multi-threaded application gains.

 

[beginner99]

Better than expected. Problem is obviously power consumption. I don't get AMD. The only segment they can actually get away with this is in consumer desktop market. Most people would not know the difference and if you don't run it 24/7 the additional amount of money you spent on power isn't that big.

However they plan to move to tablet/laptop and servers. Both areas where performance/watt is just very important and due to intels process tech lead I doubt they will ever have a chance there.

Also slow-many-core strategy isn't really that great in servers. Fast cores IMHO are better. lower response times. And software licensing...

 

[Greenlepricon]

Better than expected. Problem is obviously power consumption. I don't get AMD. The only segment they can actually get away with this is in consumer desktop market. Most people would not know the difference and if you don't run it 24/7 the additional amount of money you spent on power isn't that big.

However they plan to move to tablet/laptop and servers. Both areas where performance/watt is just very important and due to intels process tech lead I doubt they will ever have a chance there.

Also slow-many-core strategy isn't really that great in servers. Fast cores IMHO are better. lower response times. And software licensing...

Power consumption was driven up by the clock speed. If it's clocked to a quarter of that speed at much lower voltage, it will do pretty well. They're doing alright so far but I wish they didn't have to sacrifice power efficiency for this level of performance. I think more cores does help in the server department to better divide workloads, but that's highly dependent on what's going on in the server as well. Fast cores help, but more don't necessarily hurt.

 

[Bryf50]

Copying what I said from the other thread, it seems to overclock pretty damn good. Provided you are willing to give it a healthy oc I can somewhat see making the case for an fx-83x0 depending on the intended workload.

 

[Greenlepricon]

Copying what I said from the other thread, it seems to overclock pretty damn good. Provided you are willing to give it a healthy oc I can somewhat see making the case for an fx-83x0 depending on the intended workload.

Definitely. That's a really impressive overclock but that power consumption really makes it not worth getting for me personally. It's a very specialized cpu for sure, so I hope that there are a good number of buyers to keep AMD in business.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Definitely. That's a really impressive overclock but that power consumption really makes it not worth getting for me personally. It's a very specialized cpu for sure, so I hope that there are a good number of buyers to keep AMD in business.

When I stress my current build I hit 500+ watts on the Kill-a-Watt... so my guess is an 8350 build would probably be an improvement. An Ivy build would be like the CCFL bulb of desktop computers for me, compared to what I have now.

 

[Abwx]

Dont forget :
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/880-1/amd-fx-8350-retour-amd.html

An excellent review , as usual at HFR.

The summary of old vs new BD :

 

[SlowSpyder]

I was just about to post that from your link.

Some minor gains that don't add to much in real world in some apps, but in other apps really solid gains. Overall I think AMD improved the part a lot, I think it competes well at its price point.

 

[georgec84]

Very good news. Glad the reviews are more or less positive.

 

[SPBHM]

Dont forget :
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/880-1/amd-fx-8350-retour-amd.html

An excellent review , as usual at HFR.

The summary of old vs new BD :

 

[Xpage]

AMD improved hwat they had. Still not enough to beat intel but it closed the gap a bit. I have high hopes for steamroller to jack up IPC, as long as they don't have an unforseen bottleneck.

 

[Abwx]

I was just about to post that from your link.

Some minor gains that don't add to much in real world in some apps, but in other apps really solid gains. Overall I think AMD improved the part a lot, I think it competes well at its price point.

It does better than only competing on price point...

AMD was right , BD has more processing power than 4C/8T SB,
this latter still hold because few softs can use all 8 cores efficently,
particularly games.
But where will be thoses i3/i5 that allegedly do so
well in games in a year or so since they are already maxed out.?...

Will the people that once dubbed them best for gaming still
think that their choice was a good one.?...

HFR summary for applications and games :

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/880-17/moyennes.html

 

[georgec84]

Great overview, benchmarks, and comparisons to IB at MaxPC

What do we recommend? If your chores are mostly limited to gaming and tasks that can&#8217;t exploit all eight cores, the Intel part has the advantage. If, however, you are rendering 3D, transcoding or rendering video (except in Adobe&#8217;s Premiere Pro CS6), the new FX-8350 should be your pick. It offers a longer socket roadmap and gives you better performance in multi-threaded apps. We do have to add though, that the performance gap probably isn&#8217;t as good as AMD fans would have hoped for considering the clock and core count difference between the FX-8350 and Core i5-3570K. Still, these days for AMD, a tie is probably good news considering its up against Intel&#8217;s best cores to date.

 

[Eeqmcsq]

Looking at Tom's review, Piledriver/Vishera finally did something that Bulldozer/Zambezi couldn't do - not lose to their previous flagship, the 1100T. It looks like single threaded performance (not IPC) pulls up about even with the Thuban/Deneb generation, and all other benchmarks are a little to a lot faster than the 1100T. It's a step in the right direction, and it gives me hope that Steamroller will bring even more improvements, and will really be a worthy upgrade if you're already have an 1100T.

 

[MisterMac]

They're going about this the wrong way.

Ill hand it to them the effectiveness of CMT they've nailed down.
(To lets say HT).
But once intel decides the envelope can push 6 or 8 - then what?


Still some impressive gains - bar power consumption it looks pretty decent for a video \ gaming station.

Wonder if this will make em bet more on Desktop?

 

[Rifter]

They are still priced to high, same as BD. You are better off with a i5 for the same price. These should be in the sub $150 price point not trying to directly compete with the i5 at $200.

 

[Schmide]

From Tech Power Up it seems the clock for clock improvement ranges from 3% 3dMark 11, to 15% Cinebench, to 25% WinRaR.

 

[Centauri]

I think a lot of the good sentiment in these reviews is from AMD having learned a very important lesson with Bulldozer; don't hype pre-launch, particularly when you're the little guy.

 

[DeeDot78]

Worse review i've ever seen. Talk about biased(not to mention, recent rumbling about pay for good reviews...... cough cough...)

http://www.pcgamer.com/review/amd-fx-8350-review/

 

[PhoenixEnigma]

Overall, better than I'd hoped for. Not staggeringly good, but a solid step forward, and enough to claim a solid niche. The projections are interesting, too, even if I don't trust either figure a lot.

The price is pretty good as well - I might seriously look at an 8350 to replace my X6 as a fairly cost effective upgrade.

 

[DeeDot78]

OC has good review up.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_fx8350/12.htm

 

[boxleitnerb]

OC has good review up.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_fx8350/12.htm

Terrible review. Every time I accidentally land on their page, my eyes bleed. Their diagrams are a confusing mess.

So basically 10% better performance, in games rather 15% on average with exceptions above and below that. Consumption ranges from slightly more to approx. 15W less depending on the load. Good step forward.