AMD
AMD's FX family is in the process of shifting from its Bulldozer architecture to the Piledriver refresh (though Bulldozer-based FX chips are still widely available. The result is a package called Vishera, which succeeds Zambezi. Mmm, alphabet soup. We love it.
Top-end Vishera-based processors have the same thermal ceiling as the older models. But they operate more efficiently, allowing AMD to coax more performance from the design. The new FX-4300, -6300, and -8300 CPUs are closer to what Bulldozer should have been, though they still find themselves going up against Ivy Bridge-based Core i5s, for the most part. Complicating the issue is Intel's comparatively low power consumption, which translates into significantly better performance per watt.
The saving grace for Vishera is that it boosts performance anywhere from 10 to 15% next to a comparable Zambezi-based chip. The shift from Sandy to Ivy Bridge was only good for somewhere in the three to five percent range. So, AMD does make up some of the difference that was hurting it before.
Unfortunately for gamers, the new FX chips are at their best in well-threaded applications, and games generally don't fall into that category. Vishera is better than what came before. However, it's not good enough to steal any wins from Intel in this one use case. Even so, let's consider the new models: FX-4300, -6300, -8320, and -8350.
FX-4300 features two Piledriver modules, adding up to what AMD calls four cores.It features a base clock rate of 3.8 GHz and benefits from Turbo Core technology that takes it up to 4 GHz under thermally-favorable conditions. That's a couple hundred megahertz faster than the FX-4100 and 200 MHz slower than the FX-4170's base frequency. Of course, the -4100 is a 95 W part, like the -4300, while AMD's FX-4170 needs a 125 W rating to sustain its higher clock rates. Priced at $130, we don't think this particular option is very attractive, since the FX-4170 sells for $10 less anyway.
Next up is the FX-6300, armed with three active Piledriver modules. A 3.5 GHz base frequency ramps up to 4.1 GHz under the influence of Turbo Core in lightly-threaded applications. Selling for the same $140 as the FX-6200, it's probably a smarter buy thanks to an updated architecture and more modest 95 W TDP.
Finally, the quad-module FX-8320 and -8350. Both are 125 W chips like the -8120 and -8350 that came before. Sporting a 3.5 GHz base clock rate and 4 GHz maximum Turbo Core frequency, the $180 FX-8320 is only a little slower than AMD's former flagship. Consequently, its more efficient architecture fares well against the FX-8150. The new top-end part, FX-8350, boasts the same 4.2 GHz ceiling as the FX-8150. However, it enjoys a 4 GHz base clock, which is 400 MHz higher.
AMD claimed that the FX-8350 should sell for less than $200 at launch. But it's currently going for $220, or $30 more than the FX-8150. At that price, you have access to more attractive gaming processors from Intel. Hopefully, the flagship FX is pushed down to where we expected it to be soon, since that's where it actually becomes an attractive option. And, if you want to know more, check out
We haven’t yet had a chance to perform in-depth gaming performance analysis of all FX and Trinity processors from AMD. We'll put together a sub-$200 gaming CPU comparison in the near future, the results of which may have an effect on our recommendations.
Intel
The only new processor we've seen from Intel is the low-power Core i5-3470S. This 2.9 GHz CPU doesn't include Turbo Boost technology, it bears a 65 W thermal ceiling, and it comes equipped with HD Graphics 2500. Selling for more than $200, it's not a good option for a gaming build.
Intel's Ivy Bridge-based Pentium G2120 drops $5 to $95 (not a particularly significant reduction, but perhaps an indication of competition from AMD's sub-$100 APUs). The Core i7-2600K went up $30 to $320, and the Core i7-2700K increased $20 to $330. We're not particularly worried, since the Ivy Bridge-based models are going to be more popular anyway. In fact, the Core i7-3770 and -3770K both dropped $10 to $300 and $320, respectively.don woligroski
AMD's FX family is in the process of shifting from its Bulldozer architecture to the Piledriver refresh (though Bulldozer-based FX chips are still widely available. The result is a package called Vishera, which succeeds Zambezi. Mmm, alphabet soup. We love it.
Top-end Vishera-based processors have the same thermal ceiling as the older models. But they operate more efficiently, allowing AMD to coax more performance from the design. The new FX-4300, -6300, and -8300 CPUs are closer to what Bulldozer should have been, though they still find themselves going up against Ivy Bridge-based Core i5s, for the most part. Complicating the issue is Intel's comparatively low power consumption, which translates into significantly better performance per watt.
The saving grace for Vishera is that it boosts performance anywhere from 10 to 15% next to a comparable Zambezi-based chip. The shift from Sandy to Ivy Bridge was only good for somewhere in the three to five percent range. So, AMD does make up some of the difference that was hurting it before.
Unfortunately for gamers, the new FX chips are at their best in well-threaded applications, and games generally don't fall into that category. Vishera is better than what came before. However, it's not good enough to steal any wins from Intel in this one use case. Even so, let's consider the new models: FX-4300, -6300, -8320, and -8350.
FX-4300 features two Piledriver modules, adding up to what AMD calls four cores.It features a base clock rate of 3.8 GHz and benefits from Turbo Core technology that takes it up to 4 GHz under thermally-favorable conditions. That's a couple hundred megahertz faster than the FX-4100 and 200 MHz slower than the FX-4170's base frequency. Of course, the -4100 is a 95 W part, like the -4300, while AMD's FX-4170 needs a 125 W rating to sustain its higher clock rates. Priced at $130, we don't think this particular option is very attractive, since the FX-4170 sells for $10 less anyway.
Next up is the FX-6300, armed with three active Piledriver modules. A 3.5 GHz base frequency ramps up to 4.1 GHz under the influence of Turbo Core in lightly-threaded applications. Selling for the same $140 as the FX-6200, it's probably a smarter buy thanks to an updated architecture and more modest 95 W TDP.
Finally, the quad-module FX-8320 and -8350. Both are 125 W chips like the -8120 and -8350 that came before. Sporting a 3.5 GHz base clock rate and 4 GHz maximum Turbo Core frequency, the $180 FX-8320 is only a little slower than AMD's former flagship. Consequently, its more efficient architecture fares well against the FX-8150. The new top-end part, FX-8350, boasts the same 4.2 GHz ceiling as the FX-8150. However, it enjoys a 4 GHz base clock, which is 400 MHz higher.
AMD claimed that the FX-8350 should sell for less than $200 at launch. But it's currently going for $220, or $30 more than the FX-8150. At that price, you have access to more attractive gaming processors from Intel. Hopefully, the flagship FX is pushed down to where we expected it to be soon, since that's where it actually becomes an attractive option. And, if you want to know more, check out
We haven’t yet had a chance to perform in-depth gaming performance analysis of all FX and Trinity processors from AMD. We'll put together a sub-$200 gaming CPU comparison in the near future, the results of which may have an effect on our recommendations.
Intel
The only new processor we've seen from Intel is the low-power Core i5-3470S. This 2.9 GHz CPU doesn't include Turbo Boost technology, it bears a 65 W thermal ceiling, and it comes equipped with HD Graphics 2500. Selling for more than $200, it's not a good option for a gaming build.
Intel's Ivy Bridge-based Pentium G2120 drops $5 to $95 (not a particularly significant reduction, but perhaps an indication of competition from AMD's sub-$100 APUs). The Core i7-2600K went up $30 to $320, and the Core i7-2700K increased $20 to $330. We're not particularly worried, since the Ivy Bridge-based models are going to be more popular anyway. In fact, the Core i7-3770 and -3770K both dropped $10 to $300 and $320, respectively.don woligroski
No comments:
Post a Comment