Curious about the new fx cpus....

[TheScarecrow97]

What makes them different/better than the old fx series? How much of an improvement are they and how do they compare to the older Phenom II series in tasks like gaming?

 

[excella1221]

It's a good improvement. I would give what I know so far, but I think you're better off reading the review yourself.

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

 

[edgewood112358]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328.html In short Piledriver is better than Bulldozer in every way possible. This is combination of tweaking of the core and uncore to increase the amount of instructions per second, and this new technology called integrated clock mesh, which sort of recycles wasted power on each clock, reducing the TDP and allowing you to clock the CPU much higher. The IPC is still worse than the old Phenom II's, but Piledriver can clock so much higher it manages to compensate for that... In general it seems to be inline with an ivy bridge i5 (slightly better for threaded programs, such as media encoders, slightly worse for games, which are generally not well threaded). You have to remeber, this CPu is not intended to compete with the i7-3770K. It's priced to compete with the i5's, and it does that quite well.... on the downside, it does use a lot more power though.

 

[sam_p_lay]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328.html In short Piledriver is better than Bulldozer in every way possible. This is combination of tweaking of the core and uncore to increase the amount of instructions per second, and this new technology called integrated clock mesh, which sort of recycles wasted power on each clock, reducing the TDP and allowing you to clock the CPU much higher. The IPC is still worse than the old Phenom II's, but Piledriver can clock so much higher it manages to compensate for that... In general it seems to be inline with an ivy bridge i5 (slightly better for threaded programs, such as media encoders, slightly worse for games, which are generally not well threaded). You have to remeber, this CPu is not intended to compete with the i7-3770K. It's priced to compete with the i5's, and it does that quite well.... on the downside, it does use a lot more power though.

What he said If you can't be bothered to read the article and want some figures, they're ~10% faster than i5 in non-gaming applications and ~20% slower than i5 in CPU-intensive games at 1080p. Priced right alongside i5s, so for people more interested in non-gaming applications, a good choice. If you want fast non-gaming performance like the new FX and fast gaming performance too, i7 would be the way to go, though it's probably not worth it for the added cost.

 

[TheScarecrow97]

Thanks for all the replies! What do you think about the mid-range 6300? It seems like people mostly only consider the fx 8320/8350 when talking about the new fx cpus. Pricewise, the 6300 stands between a phenom ii x4 965 and the fx 8320, making it optimal for someone who can't afford the 8320 or an i5. But is it worth spending 40 dollars more to get the 6300 over the phenom 965?

 

[BuddiLuva]

Thanks for all the replies! What do you think about the mid-range 6300? It seems like people mostly only consider the fx 8320/8350 when talking about the new fx cpus. Pricewise, the 6300 stands between a phenom ii x4 965 and the fx 8320, making it optimal for someone who can't afford the 8320 or an i5. But is it worth spending 40 dollars more to get the 6300 over the phenom 965?

From reviews and benchmarks what I understood was, that the 965 even beat the old 6100 bulldozer models in most things.

However since they're claiming that there is a 5-15% increase in performance over their old Bulldozer models then I'd say the FX will be better, not to mention it has 2 extra cores at 6 core where as the 965 has 4 cores.

In non gaming applications that'll be much more useful, however for gaming I can't really say.

 

[BuddiLuva]

Thanks for all the replies! What do you think about the mid-range 6300? It seems like people mostly only consider the fx 8320/8350 when talking about the new fx cpus. Pricewise, the 6300 stands between a phenom ii x4 965 and the fx 8320, making it optimal for someone who can't afford the 8320 or an i5. But is it worth spending 40 dollars more to get the 6300 over the phenom 965?

From reviews and benchmarks what I understood was, that the 965 even beat the old 6100 bulldozer models in most things.

However since they're claiming that there is a 5-15% increase in performance over their old Bulldozer models then I'd say the FX will be better, not to mention it has 2 extra cores at 6 core where as the 965 has 4 cores.

In non gaming applications that'll be much more useful, however for gaming I can't really say.