The Vishera Review: AMD FX-8350, FX-8320, FX-6300 and FX-4300 Tested
by Anand Lal Shimpi on October 23, 2012 12:00 AM ESTFinal Words
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.
AMD does manage to pull away with some very specific wins when compared to similarly priced Intel parts. Performance in the latest x264 benchmark as well as heavily threaded POV-Ray and Cinebench tests show AMD with the clear multithreaded performance advantage. Other heavily threaded integer workloads also do quite well on Vishera. The only part that didn't readily beat its Intel alternative was AMD's six-core FX-6300, the rest did extremely well in our heavily threaded tests. Look beyond those specific applications however and Intel can pull away with a significant lead. Lightly threaded applications or those whose performance depends on a mixture of single and multithreaded workloads are typically wins for Intel. The story hasn't really changed in that regard. For AMD to become competitive across the board it needs significant changes to the underlying architecture, some of which I don't know that we'll see until the 2013 - 2014 timeframe. Even then, Intel's progress isn't showing any signs of slowing.
Power consumption is also a big negative for Vishera. The CPU draws considerably more power under load compared to Ivy Bridge, or even Sandy Bridge for that matter.
Ultimately Vishera is an easier AMD product to recommend than Zambezi before it. However the areas in which we'd recommend it are limited to those heavily threaded applications that show very little serialization. As our compiler benchmark shows, a good balance of single and multithreaded workloads within a single application can dramatically change the standings between AMD and Intel. You have to understand your workload very well to know whether or not Vishera is the right platform for it. Even if the fit is right, you have to be ok with the increased power consumption over Intel as well.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
250 Comments
View All Comments
CeriseCogburn - Tuesday, October 30, 2012 - link
You simpletons all have the same hate filled idiot theory - so let me ask you - since amd has competition, WHY DO THEY SUCK SO BADLY ?Somehow you idiots claim, that if amd wasn't around, intel would suck. "Amd has made intel great"
Well, wait a minute - Intel is around, it's great, AND AMD SUCKS.
Take a moment, look in the mirror, think about it.... then let me know how red you turned... if not at all, contraception from here on out is a must.
How are you people so stupid ? How is it possible ?
Ukdude21 - Thursday, August 15, 2013 - link
You the biggest idiot on this website. I have read many comments on this website but yours are the most idiotic intel fanboy stained comments ever.halbhh2 - Thursday, October 25, 2012 - link
If power use is important to you, you should know that different reviews give different results for the power use vs competing intel chips.A couple of sites even have equal or lower idle power draw for the 8350 vs i7 3770.
Trying to figure out why, one variable is the motherboard. Is the Crosshair V a power hog?
I also looked at yearly cost in electrical use for my own useage.
The only thing I do that pegs multiple cores at 100% is chess analysis. In Deep Fritz the 8350 is close in performance to the i7 3770.
I do chess analysis about 1-5 hours a week on average, perhaps 200 hours per year.
The math is very simple. Power costs 16 cents per kilowatt hour. Peak power useage would cost an extra $3/year roughly vs an intel rig for me. Since I'd use a more power efficient motherboard than the Asus Crosshair, idle power is reasonable. I standby a lot when not using also.
An 8350 would cost me in the range of $4-$8 more per year in power bills vs an i7 3770 (it's competitor for chess analysis).
CeriseCogburn - Tuesday, October 30, 2012 - link
So go ahead and destroy the earth, see if any humans care.Ukdude21 - Thursday, August 15, 2013 - link
If you are the worried about the earth why don't you give your pc away. Least then we would not have to read your shit comments lol.taltamir - Thursday, October 25, 2012 - link
Starting the power cosumption graphs at 50 watt instead of 0 watt is GROSSLY MISLEADING! and very unfair to AMD.Lack of performance per watt comparison is unfair to Intel. Yea, AMD finally is able to, at stock, beat intel on some benchmarks... But they consume significantly more power to do so (intel could easily start selling higher clocked parts too)
pcfxer - Thursday, October 25, 2012 - link
If I ever build a new machine...it looks like I'll swing towards my first ever Intel box...hrmmm the anticipation may make me do it just for fun even though my Phenom II X555BE Unlocked and OC'd to 3.5GHz serves me just fine.OCedHrt - Friday, October 26, 2012 - link
it would be nice if they were normalized to idle power usage since we are comparing CPU power usage.halbhh2 - Friday, October 26, 2012 - link
I got curious about the idle power and visited 7 sites to look at reviews. No 2 sites had the same idle power difference between the 8350 vs the i7 3770. Values ranged from 9 watts AMD *lower* (lower! than intel) to 22 watts higher. The higher readings seemed to all be with the Asus Crosshair V, which logically must be a power hog.You should consider the idle power numbers *not* representative. Unreliable.
danrien - Monday, October 29, 2012 - link
Seems like its server opteron cousin would be kick-ass.