Dirk Broer
10-24-2012, 11:03 AM
Piledriver, the improved Bulldozer, has arrived and has met with mixed reviews.
While traditionally somewhat pro Intel-biased sites as AnandTech "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" (http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/9)
and Tom's hardware "More speed, significantly improved efficiency, and a sensible price tag" (http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/fx-8350-vishera-review,review-32550-18.html) had mild verdicts, Dutch enthusiasts site Tweakers was much harsher and trashes the energy consumption of the new CPU (http://tweakers.net/reviews/2796/7/amd-fx-8350-hoop-aan-de-horizon-opgenomen-vermogen.html) -even though you can see it to be lower than Bulldozer even in their graphs. Frankly, I'm not that surprized to see an octacore consume more than a quad, but the Dutch editor refuses to compare Piledriver with the i7 line -which consumes at the level of FX-8350! They also included the A10-5800 in those graphs and that gives an interesting picture when compared to the graphs from AnandTech. Overall it seems the A10-5800K is the more interesting quad if you have to choose between the A10-5800K and the FX-4300 (let alone the A10-5700!).
Taking into account the costs for a new motherboard -or not, if you already have a Bulldozer blazing- and the price of electricity one can ask oneselve whether Trinity might not be the better choice for the 24/7/365 cruncher as both purchase and running costs will be lower. In all honesty, one should measure the wattage per core though to judge the various FX CPUs rightly.
While traditionally somewhat pro Intel-biased sites as AnandTech "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" (http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/9)
and Tom's hardware "More speed, significantly improved efficiency, and a sensible price tag" (http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/fx-8350-vishera-review,review-32550-18.html) had mild verdicts, Dutch enthusiasts site Tweakers was much harsher and trashes the energy consumption of the new CPU (http://tweakers.net/reviews/2796/7/amd-fx-8350-hoop-aan-de-horizon-opgenomen-vermogen.html) -even though you can see it to be lower than Bulldozer even in their graphs. Frankly, I'm not that surprized to see an octacore consume more than a quad, but the Dutch editor refuses to compare Piledriver with the i7 line -which consumes at the level of FX-8350! They also included the A10-5800 in those graphs and that gives an interesting picture when compared to the graphs from AnandTech. Overall it seems the A10-5800K is the more interesting quad if you have to choose between the A10-5800K and the FX-4300 (let alone the A10-5700!).
Taking into account the costs for a new motherboard -or not, if you already have a Bulldozer blazing- and the price of electricity one can ask oneselve whether Trinity might not be the better choice for the 24/7/365 cruncher as both purchase and running costs will be lower. In all honesty, one should measure the wattage per core though to judge the various FX CPUs rightly.