AMD readies trio of new eight-core FX desktop processors for October release

AMD readies trio of new eight-core FX desktop processors for October release

Summary: Three new "Vishera" chips could be available this fall, based on Piledriver cores that look to improve upon the Bulldozer design.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Processors, PCs
9
amd-fx-desktop-cpu-piledriver-vishera-processor

It's been several months since AMD released its first eight-core "Bulldozer" desktop processors, and the company appears to be rolling out successors in time for their one-year anniversary. Three new "Vishera" chips could be available this October, based on Piledriver cores that look to improve upon the Bulldozer design.

The top-performing chip will be the FX-8350, which will feature 16MB of cache, 4GHz default clock speed for its eight cores, and 4.2GHz turbo speed. It will also include an unlocked multiplier, so expert overclockers could hit 5GHz speeds with their tweaks. It should replace the FX-8150 as the top desktop processor available from AMD.

For a little less, you should be able to obtain the FX-8320, which also comes with 16MB of cache but its default clock speed is 3.5GHz (jumping to 4GHz in turbo mode). While the FX-8350 and FX-8320 both have a TDP of 125W, the FX-8300 will be 95W. Not surprisingly, its default clock speed will be 3.3GHz, but it still boasts 16MB of cache.

All three FX-8300 series processors are based on a 32nm manufacturing process and will be compatible with AM3+ motherboards. They'll also support DDR3 1866 memory.

Pricing, of course, will be key, as the new chips will compete with Intel's Ivy Bridge desktop processors, which bottom out at $199 for Core i5 CPUs. Considering that the top Bulldozer launched at around $245, would $199 be a reasonable starting price for the FX-8350? At what price point would you build a system around these new processors instead of Ivy Bridge?

[Via Fudzilla]

Topics: Processors, PCs

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

9 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Why I choose AMD

    time after time for computers that I build is the savings. Yes, Intel offers more power, but traditionally AMD offers a better price tag. Unless you're just building a machine to run benchmarks, most people I know can't notice much of a difference between say the third best AMD chip and the third best Intel chip (in stock conditions).
    ikissfutebol
    • Chips and Speed.

      Intel chips will check less speed than they are advertised, AMD chips will check more speed than they are advertised, so they both run about the same speed. so go with the best price for the job. GSW Tech. & computer builder.
      gswardlow
    • re: Why I choose AMD

      i would notice cause i have 2 7970s crossfired... want to even trifire... need a pretty big cpu for that. hopefully these new 8 cores will be all i need. cross fingers.
      campcreekdude
  • Athlon 64 gave us memory > 4G

    Even those who favor Intel owe AMD a debt of gratitude for kicking Intel in the butt and making them build 64-bit x86 chips at a time when Intel's grand plan was to have everyone move to Itanium. I laughed out loud when, at the press conference where Intel announced they would make a 64-bit x86, a reporter asked "whether it would be AMD compatible."
    Robert Hahn
    • Thank Microsoft for once

      Microsoft forced Intel's hands. Intel was considering doing an incompatible x86-64 design; MS told them they were only going to support one 64 bit architecture and they had already chosen it.
      mark@...
    • RE:Athlon 64 gave us memory > 4G

      If I recall x86-64 is licensed to Intel by AMD. X86 is licensed to AMD by Intel.
      Shawn Brady
  • At what price point would you build a system around these new processors...

    ...instead of Ivy Bridge?"

    Most any time the prices are near parity...
    fairportfan
  • AMD FX series.

    Two months ago I built a box using an MSI 760GM P23 mobo, AMD FX 8120 processor, Nvidia one gig video board, 8 gig DDR3, 128 gig Samsung SSD. Installed Linux Mint 12, and win 7. Mint boots up in 9 seconds, win7 takes about 22 seconds. The rel speed shows up when installing software. Planning on building one more 8 core, and will probably go with the 8350. AMD is AWESOME!
    ator1940
    • Look at the benches..

      And sadly you'll see the FX 8s are even with or even getting spanked by the thuban X6s which are much cheaper, why? Sadly its not the chip, its AMD.

      All the BD/PD/SR chips use a "half core" design where FP is shared between cores but AMD didn't bother to tell Microsoft what they were doing. If they would have MS could have treated those modules as hyperthreaded, which would have then scheduled heavy loads onto separate modules, thus giving you good performance. Instead the chips lie to Windows and says "all cores are equal" which means Windows schedules heavy loads without thought to the module design, thus causing stalls where there shouldn't be any.

      So if you want to run an FX I'd suggest you learn to like Win 8 Metro, because MS has stated they will NOT fix the bug on any previous OS. For those of us that don't want the cell phone UI its Thuban or Intel, unless we want to lose performance.
      PC builder