AMD FX "Vishera" reviews info (again, after mod mistake)

[FlanK3r]

This original thread was deleted in mistake, so I create new one again (and FlanK3r AMD never gives up )

LINUX system
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...rabdver2&num=1 Linux

Windows system reviews
http://www.cowcotland.com/articles/1...d-fx-8350.html
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/hardware/pr...x-8350-v-testu
http://extrahardware.cnews.cz/recenz...ghz-amd-do-hry
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/2055/1/ better SPC about 20W than fx-8150, OC 4916 MHz
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/p...-8350-vishera/ +7% performance gain clock to clock in gaming at 1920x1080 and 8% in aplications, OC 5017 MHz
http://www.playwares.com/xe/cpu_mobo/25148406 10x FX-8350 in test OC, power consumption, temperatures, but very old BIOS not good working.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/A...driver_Review/ 8-pin load -35W against FX-8150! Full load -36W, not bad! OC 5017 MHz
-
-
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.ph...=962&Itemid=63 +7.86% IPC in Cinebench single thread, OC 5017 MHz for benchmarks
http://www.eteknix.com/reviews/proce...cessor-review/ OC 5118 MHz! after oc more less power than FX-8150.
-
http://www.hardcoreware.net/amd-pile...-vishera-8350/ interesting review, gaming graphs, FX-8320 is better than FX-8150, FX-6300 in test, OC 4600 MHz (but shi*y board)
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/review...roduction.html max OC 5.2 GHz (without test stability)
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/46...iledriver-cpu/ OC 4615 MHz
http://www.hitechlegion.com/reviews/...312-amd-fx8350 oC 5.1 GHz, but mobo+CPU throttling (see Cinebench score, it could be about 8.6, not 8.2...)
http://www.planet3dnow.de/vbulletin/...d.php?t=408737 some clock to clock benchmarks, some testing in Windows8, OC 4515 MHz with default voltage
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
http://hothardware.com/Reviews/AMD-F...re-CPU-Review/ OC 4.7 GHz with 1.42V
http://www.techspot.com/review/586-amd-fx-8350-fx-6300/
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/artic...PU-Review/1657 OC 4792 MHz with 1.4V (CPU VDDA 2.8V)
http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-fx-8...red/17484.html
http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-fx-8...nce/17494.html multi-GPU test
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...view,3328.html max OC 5125 MHz, tested with 4800 MHz, clock for clock tetsing at 4 GHz
- [img]http://media.bestofmicro.com/Z/8/357668/original/throttle.jpg important info about max temp before throtling, test in photoshop CS6, 3Ds2012, Solidworks, visual studio
-
-
-
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/t...-fx4300-tested FX-8350, 8320, 6300 and FX-4300 review, windows8 testing, simulation next gen AMD vs next Intel CPUs, 4.8GHz
-
-
http://techreport.com/review/23750/a...essor-reviewed OC 4.5/4.8GHz turbo
-
-
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...a-arrives.html comparison clock to clock, 3D11 performance win!, 1280x1024 and 1920x1080 gaming graphs, FH performance, OC 4916 MHz
-
-
-
-
-
-
http://www.technic3d.com/review/cpu-...ra/1.htm#start clock to clock 2cu/4c 4GHz/4.2GHz turbo Zambezi, Trinity and Piledriver in software and games, OC 5GHz (example Cinebench r11.5=8.61, r10=30 000)
http://www.overclockersclub.com/revi...d_fx8350/2.htm, OC 5200 MHz! 9 points in R11.5 after OC.Gold award.
http://www.bitsandchips.it/9-hardwar...s-2012-vishera OC 4515 MHz, unstable up to 5100 MHz
-
http://www.bjorn3d.com/2012/10/amd-f.../#.UIeW8ob6nAE 4415MHz OC with 1.4V
-
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages..._review,1.html OC 4716 MHz,
-
http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/3314...ly-good-enough nice gaming comparison low resolution and high resolution, -16W in idle and -35W in practice load againts Fx-8150, OC 4662 MHz 1.5V
http://www.overclockers.com/amd-fx-8...?utm_source=pr 4.9 GHz stable, LN2 part of overclocking 6800 MHz PiFast, 7080 superpi 1M, 7300Hz validation
http://www.pureoverclock.com/Review-...formula-z-rog/ FX+Asus Crosshair Formula-Z review, 5018 MHz OC
http://extrahardware.cnews.cz/testy/...-na-takt-4-ghz clock to clock comparison
http://www.rage3d.com/reviews/cpu/am...launch_review/ OC 4716MHz
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/880-...etour-amd.html 4500 MHz OC with 1.4V, clock to clock comparison at 4GHz, hardwarefr make only practice test-rendering, visual studio, miniGW, practice encoding, compressing in practice
-
-http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0039226.png
-http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0039193.png
-http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0039206.png
-http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0039209.png
-http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0039218.png average aplications performance (higher is better)
-http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0039220.png average games performance (higher is better)
-http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0039194.png
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/...c_overclocking 4GHz clock to clock, only 4615 MHz OC
-
-
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Process...a-Breaks-Cover OC 4600MHz 8350 and 4400 MHz for fx-6300
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...d-fx-8350.html OC 4715 MHz
http://prohardver.hu/teszt/amd_fx-83...zatekinto.html clock to clock comparison, 3Ds2012, Adobe programs, Indigo, Cyberlink, Sony Vegas, Sorenson Squeeze, DivX, XviD, os, AVG...4815MHz OC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/FX-835...river-1031473/ few games test
http://www.techwarelabs.com/amd-fx-8...r-review/all/1 OC 4635 MHz with 1.4V
http://www.overclockers.ru/lab/50228...0_Vishera.html 4715MHz OC. clock for clock at 4700 MHz
http://lab501.ro/procesoare-chipsetu...ldozer-a-sosit they forgot down AMP settings (or board has not this settings)=>bad score in R11.5, this is score for 4.75 GHz, not for 5Ghz
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages..._review,1.html
http://bozzabench.com/Tests/TestView...D-FX-8350.aspx testing on Sabertooth R2.0
http://www.svethardware.cz/art_doc-5...F002599F9.html
http://vr-zone.com/articles/asus-rog...nge/17574.html Phase cooling method at Crosshair V Formula-Z
http://www.vortez.net/articles_pages..._review,1.html 5040 MHz "stable" in review at M5A99X Evo
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...00-review.html FX-6300 and 4300 in review, some comparsion with others CPUs clock to clock
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...here..../page3 Flanker minireview with undervolting and interesting power consumption
-
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/hardware/pr...e-slusny-vykon PCtuning review, comparsion Zambezi vs Volan(Vishera) clock to clock, games, win7 and win8 performance

[kromosto]

actually never thought amd can pull out a cpu like this. they are on the right way. maybe will not be an option for high end market for a while too but mid range competition is better for them.

[PedantOne]

where are posts?

[M.Beier]

where are posts?

Thread was deleted by a mistake.

FUGGER might recreate it tonight.

[cobra_kai]

This original thread was deleted in mistake, so I create new one again (and FlanK3r AMD never gives up )

Thanks!

Hopefully you had that post saved somewhere and didn't have to recreate the whole thing.

[Tomasis]

probably instead of deleting greg post, he deleted whole thread, lol!

[Buckeye]

Sorry guys that was my mistake

I was trying to BAN Marc and hit the delete thread button by mistake

[behrouz]

omg 200 Posts deleted and now new Thread?

Sorry guys that was my mistake

I was trying to BAN Marc and hit the delete thread button by mistake

Lol!!

[kromosto]

Sorry guys that was my mistake

I was trying to BAN Marc and hit the delete thread button by mistake

you just not ban marc but wiped him totally

a clean start is always good

[M.Beier]

With exception of this post i wont post more untill the other thread is recovered, or a clean debate about the product is ongoing in this thread, it is news section after all.

Sorry guys that was my mistake

I was trying to BAN Marc and hit the delete thread button by mistake

One does not simply ban Marc











.
Especially not when he knows how to find your daughter and wife on facebook

[Tomasis]

buckeye, can you move the thread to AMD section in order to prevent Mr Beier from the discussion

[Greg83]

With exception of this post i wont post more untill the other thread is recovered, or a clean debate about the product is ongoing in this thread, it is news section after all.


One does not simply ban Marc











.
Especially not when he knows how to find your daughter and wife on facebook

eh, enough with your
"Under section 474.17 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act, it is an offence to use "a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence", punishable by three years in jail."

[Buckeye]

buckeye, can you move the thread to AMD section in order to prevent Mr Beier from the discussion

Ok let me try... crosses fingers I get it right this time

Yeah it worked !

[Avidgamer]

Anyone have a reason why AMD chips are consistently faster on AvP? I see it in lots of reviews and it seems a bit odd that even low clocked PII x4s are faster than IB core i7s

[Plywood99]

Anyone have a reason why AMD chips are consistently faster on AvP? I see it in lots of reviews and it seems a bit odd that even low clocked PII x4s are faster than IB core i7s

They are programmed correctly.

[god_43]

who's marc? wtf happend (yes i understand buck made a boo boo), why was someone getting banned?

[Tomasis]

it was a joke Bieierrrrrr

[informal]

I was wondering who is Marc also . He is to blame for all this I say!

Anyway the thread is back,kinda .Good job!

[FlanK3r]

if someone want, I have simillar links for FX-8150 reviews, Llano reviews, Trinity reviews, Ivy Bridge reviews and SB-E reviews :-D

[leo5111]

if someone want, I have simillar links for FX-8150 reviews, Llano reviews, Trinity reviews, Ivy Bridge reviews and SB-E reviews :-D

i have fx8120 at 4.4 on air is it worth goin to 8350?

[charged3800z24]

I also have a 8120. It does 4.4 on stock cooler and 4.8 better cooling. I just sold it and ordered the 8320. Can't say it is entirely worth it as it isn't going to make a hudge noticable difference. Just depends on what you do. I like to tweak and bench and the new chip has improvements enough for me to warrant buying an upgrade.

[leo5111]

I also have a 8120. It does 4.4 on stock cooler and 4.8 better cooling. I just sold it and ordered the 8320. Can't say it is entirely worth it as it isn't going to make a hudge noticable difference. Just depends on what you do. I like to tweak and bench and the new chip has improvements enough for me to warrant buying an upgrade.

well for me its encodeing videos and stuff like that

[charged3800z24]

Well, then you will get gains with the new chip. If you are not planning on stock clocks, based on what you have I'd veture a guess at no, then the 8320 might be a better choice for cost.

[leo5111]

my take is they should have taken a phenom x6 die shrunk it added 3 more megs of cache and given it 6 modules

[BeepBeep2]

Just my 2c:

I like Vishera a lot They made considerable improvements and now it beats Phenom II almost all the time in all scenarios both stock and overclocked, minus x87 and SOME single thread, but that doesn't matter anyway with the extra clock headroom now. It almost always makes up the difference for single thread and that makes me happy

Still wonder a little teeny bit what a "Llano" based X6 with more L3 (equal to 45nm PII X4 per core), and BD's IMC would have been, but that's something to ...dream of in dreams and it may not have done nearly as well I think it would have. If they had followed a "tick/tock" type method, that would have been the first 32nm product followed by...hopefully it would have been what Piledriver is currently which is an improvement for sure.

I find the difference between Trinity and Vishera interesting, seems Vishera clocks a bit better than Trinity, like I thought it would. Trinity and Llano were both made to be power efficient at stock, they weren't supposed to clock extremely high I think, and maybe that is related to Llano clocking bad too, I don't think it correctly represented a performance part's OC ability.

The discussion in the original review thread was all over the place anyway. Many people were attacking many people - it was just AMD fanboy vs intel fanboy vs both fanboys vs people trying to be neutral and people trying to be neutral looking like fanboys too when arguing with AMD/intel fanboys... ...Quite a mess!

I wish we could keep all the charts out of the posts and stop trying to prove X better than Y though or prove X bad and prove Z good or etc...
I'm guilty of that too in the past...so is flanker, even in this thread...and informal in a few past threads...personally I'm guilty because I was so disappointed with AMD FX-8100 series...at launch because they spent more time hyping it than any other past CPU, and it flopped really hard. Since then, I've tried not to prove really hard to people why it was so bad...I feel others that try to prove it good should do the same. Shouldn't ignore the shortcomings, shouldn't ignore the good either. For someone like me, the only good, was over MT performance at launch over 2500/2600Ks, but unfortunately the power consumption was so large over 2600K (200-300w difference @ 4.6-4.8 GHz) that nothing mattered...I know for others, they didn't care about power consumption nor did they care about gaming performance or single thread performance. And in reality, the difference was at most 5-10FPS at ~60-120FPS behind Sandy Bridge, and that was huge for someone like me. Some AMD fanboys, and I know informal said this, they talk as if the gaming difference only existed when running high end GPU and low detail and resolution of 800x600, they could at least be real about it. Nobody was upset about something like that.... It's just, that crossfire scaling decreased compared to better ST CPUs, same with Eyefinity scaling...on top of already losing that 0-10 FPS. Simply not a CPU good for gaming...nobody said the games don't run.

If we're gonna link reviews I think the thread should just link reviews and let people read them, to make up their own ideas...
Not to try and shove 60% of a review in someones face to skew their opinion or to force an opinion on them, while also talking about how worthless the other 40% of the review was, because what is useless to some is not useless to others. I know in my cases, I try to acknowledge the strengths too, but I look at overall performance while some write off single thread completely...gotta acknowledge that we are discussing an enthusiast class desktop CPU too and not a workstation CPU, those are called "Opteron" and "Xeon"...that if someone like me is disappointed, it is because when it comes to most desktop workloads it doesn't keep up with the competing offer. That at all mean it's unusable, like I know I read out of informal's fingertips, when he was talking about the "haters" ...it is quite useable...but if the competing desktop option that does leaps and bounds better in that 40%, is equal in another 30% with lower power consumption, and 10-15% worse performance in the last 30%, I'm not going to be happy with the product for several reasons...Fanboys probably should not have argued that I was dumb for saying so, because the architecture is designed for servers or parallel workloads or whatever, which I already knew, because we're discussing a desktop product, it's as simple as that...AMD produced these models for desktop and we were discussing common desktop workloads, not server/workstation workloads.

Wow, I really ranted a lot here.

Anyway I'm glad PD is doing so much better, I wish PD was released a year ago, but it's a great improvement hands down over where they were a year ago and I'm happy that I can start recommending AMD CPUs again.