Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

AMD FX-8350 Piledriver CPU Expected to Launch Mid-Q3

By - Source: Hexus | B 91 comments

There are high hopes for AMD's Piledriver FX CPUs, but Steamroller may be more interesting.

As Zambezi launches, anticipated to happen in mid-Q3, there is growing speculation surrounding AMD's high-performance FX processors. Piledriver cores will be an upgrade from Bulldozer and enable AMD to take another, more effective shot at the enthusiast market.

The eight-core FX-8350 will still use socket AM3+ and will be manufactured using a 32 nm process, but it carries the hope that AMD will deliver on its promise to achieve a 10 to 15 percent performance increase over the previous Bulldozer design. Expect a TDP that remains at 125 watts, but clock speeds that are inching closer to 4 GHz, as the Piledriver design is more efficient than Bulldozer. The current FX-8150 runs at 3.6/4.2 GHz at 125 watts TDP.

However, even if the basic specs and plain benchmark performances of the new FX chips turn out to be more compelling for AMD, the more interesting processors will be Steamroller in 2013 and Excavator in 2014 - especially in the light of the change of ranks inside AMD. There is a decidedly stronger mainstream focus in the company, but there is also talk of the company embracing web-technologies that are directly supported and accelerated via its hardware -- especially taking browser-based gaming into the enthusiast range.

Piledriver is too early to show any of these efforts, but Steamroller could be the very first cloud-gaming optimized CPU design coming out of AMD.

Display 91 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 26 Hide
    Onus , July 3, 2012 10:16 AM
    Enough with the "cloud" already. Two good synonyms for "cloud" are "vapor" and "fumes."
  • 21 Hide
    The_Trutherizer , July 3, 2012 11:02 AM
    apache_livesIs it just me or is everyone just over it and not really interested in any of these future AMD cpu's and there promise on more performance?Gone are the days of intense competition and exciting new hardware releases, amazing performance and change (new revolutionary things) etc.Not really interested any more.....


    Just you ;D
  • 21 Hide
    olafmetal , July 3, 2012 12:45 PM
    Quote:
    No, just no. A CPU running at or above 4GHz is known to be bad for your health and is an unnecessarily high clock rate besides.


    Good thing I have my tinfoild hat to protect me from those high Ghz
Other Comments
  • 20 Hide
    Memnarchon , July 3, 2012 9:12 AM
    Yeah, but in 2013 and 2014, Haswell and Broadwell will be out... AMD has a huge gap to cover and for the sake of competition (and low prices for us), lets hope this will not be just talking like buldozer architecture.
  • 20 Hide
    Regor245 , July 3, 2012 9:52 AM
    I wanna see some benchmarks ASAP.
  • 14 Hide
    Anonymous , July 3, 2012 9:56 AM
    Quote:
    if they could do 1GHz 8core cpu with 8150 level of performance....


    The absolute clock rates are irrelevant as long as they reach clock rates high enough to deliver the necessary performance.
    I don't care if Intels CPU give the same performance at 3 GHz as AMDs CPU at 4,5 GHz, as long as AMD is reaching 4,5 GH. - especially if they got the pricing right.
  • 2 Hide
    agawtrip , July 3, 2012 10:16 AM
    ZoidoThe absolute clock rates are irrelevant as long as they reach clock rates high enough to deliver the necessary performance.I don't care if Intels CPU give the same performance at 3 GHz as AMDs CPU at 4,5 GHz, as long as AMD is reaching 4,5 GH. - especially if they got the pricing right.

    yeah price will play a big role

    but lower clock = lower tdp = lower temp (usually) = good overclock
    i remember intel pentium e21xx series overclocks up to 100%
  • 26 Hide
    Onus , July 3, 2012 10:16 AM
    Enough with the "cloud" already. Two good synonyms for "cloud" are "vapor" and "fumes."
  • 13 Hide
    SirRaulo , July 3, 2012 10:18 AM
    If the price is right, i'll probably stay w/ AMD for my next upgrade. Im not really a hardcore gamer, so price/performance matters most to me..
  • -7 Hide
    amigafan , July 3, 2012 10:19 AM
    Zoidoespecially if they got the pricing right.

    They might have their pricing right but they surely will not have their TDP right...
  • 15 Hide
    bustapr , July 3, 2012 10:44 AM
    well, piledriver showed great potential in the trinity CPUs. Im interested in this next gen of AMD cpus.
  • 3 Hide
    agawtrip , July 3, 2012 10:51 AM
    bustaprwell, piledriver showed great potential in the trinity CPUs. Im interested in this next gen of AMD cpus.

    what to buy if it came out - FM2 or AM3+ ??
  • 21 Hide
    The_Trutherizer , July 3, 2012 11:02 AM
    apache_livesIs it just me or is everyone just over it and not really interested in any of these future AMD cpu's and there promise on more performance?Gone are the days of intense competition and exciting new hardware releases, amazing performance and change (new revolutionary things) etc.Not really interested any more.....


    Just you ;D
  • 10 Hide
    belardo , July 3, 2012 11:21 AM
    ZoidoI don't care if Intels CPU give the same performance at 3 GHz as AMDs CPU at 4,5 GHz, as long as AMD is reaching 4,5 GH. - especially if they got the pricing right.

    I care as well as most others in the biz.
    Its a problem with a 4.5ghz CPU that is runnin 150watts is equal to an 80watt 3ghz from another company. Hence the disapointment of the FX series... There is a PROBLEM when the spanking *new* "8core" CPU has trouble competing against its older sisters with 4 or 6 real cores or intel's 4-core CPU that also costs less money.

    I've built nothing but AMD mostly in the past 10 years since the P4 days. Now I'm building mostly intel i5 systems. I can pick up an i5-3570K for $190 and it'll smack down any AMD CPU.

    So on these intel systems (I'm getting Gigabyte Z77 boards for $80~110), the cooler is better than AMD's, they are quiter and smaller. The systems run quite cool. AMD cooler fans have gone low-quality in the past year or so. :( 

    An AMD friend bought an FX-3core CPU... I showed him what he could have bought for $40 more. He was able to get his money back and went i5-2500K and noticed a HUGE difference in performance.

    I want AMD to do better. I'm will to use AMD if the price is right... and that is with low-cost systems... and at those prices, I can't compete with HP/Dell, etc. I just have such clients buy thoses (I do offer to build but I have to give them options).

    So as of today, an AMD FX-8150 has to be OC to 4~5Ghz to beat an i5 class CPU that is cheaper running at stock 3.3~3.4Ghz. What do you think happens when the i5 is overclocked?
  • -5 Hide
    belardo , July 3, 2012 11:35 AM
    regor245I wanna see some benchmarks ASAP.

    Look at an overclocked fx-8150 running at 4.6~4.8Ghz, apply that performance to a 4.0Ghz FX-8350 (if it is running 4 Ghz) and if its prices over $200, it'll be too much.

    Thing is: AM3+ is a dead end... maybe 2 or 3 more upgrade CPUs come out.

    FM2 replaces AM3 and FM1. Intel i5s with the onboard GPU uses the GPU to help render video and 3D graphics. Something the A-series Llano/Piledrivers can do and FX cannot. Thats another reason to buy an i5 over an FX CPU. Really, I wish AMD was doing better. Intel screwed AMD out of market share which is $$$ they could have used for better R&D.

    When AMD decided to go down the Netburst path, it was a screw up from the start. (didn't they learn anything about how they kicked Pentium4 butt? P4s ran HIGH clock rates with high heat and low performance)
  • 16 Hide
    Anonymous , July 3, 2012 12:06 PM
    "Yeah, but in 2013 and 2014, Haswell and Broadwell will be out..."

    Yes, because every Intel CPU generation and process node is guaranteed to give stunning gains, just like Ivy... Oh wait...
  • -9 Hide
    erunion , July 3, 2012 12:14 PM
    00wait"Yeah, but in 2013 and 2014, Haswell and Broadwell will be out..."Yes, because every Intel CPU generation and process node is guaranteed to give stunning gains, just like Ivy... Oh wait...


    /shrug.

    Maybe you missed the mobile benchmarks.
  • 21 Hide
    olafmetal , July 3, 2012 12:45 PM
    Quote:
    No, just no. A CPU running at or above 4GHz is known to be bad for your health and is an unnecessarily high clock rate besides.


    Good thing I have my tinfoild hat to protect me from those high Ghz
Display more comments