Vishera Review Up - Anandtech

[Kalessian]

I'd like to see a gaming comparison of OC'ed FX-4300 vs Core i3

 

[OBLAMA2009]

it looks pretty decent but priced a little too high

 

[Centauri]

it looks pretty decent but priced a little too high

Compared to what?!

 

[DeeDot78]

Terrible review. Every time I accidentally land on their page, my eyes bleed. Their diagrams are a confusing mess.

So basically 10% better performance, in games rather 15% on average with exceptions above and below that. Consumption ranges from slightly more to approx. 15W less depending on the load. Good step forward.

I was referring to the impression of CPU. I cant stand the color scheme as well.

 

[9enesis]

Compared to what?!

to his wallet i guess. the pricing is just fine imo.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

Compared to what?!

it looks like the best vishera is comparable on average to the i5 2500 which is 150 at microcenter (so im guessing 180 other places)

 

[Dark Shroud]

it looks like the best vishera is comparable on average to the i5 2500 which is 150 at microcenter (so im guessing 180 other places)

In the US both of the SandyBridge Core i5 2500 & 2500k are still over $200.

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-cpu-bx80623i52500

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-cpu-bx80623i52550k

Sorry to Intel but I'll be building my nephew a budget gaming box using Vishera with a mild OC. Now I just have to decide, 4300 or 6300.

Edit, ok after seeing the pricing it would be foolish not to just get the 6300.

 

[Abwx]

it looks like the best vishera is comparable on average to the i5 2500 which is 150 at microcenter (so im guessing 180 other places)

Need some glasses to look closer ?.....:biggrin:

2500 is largely inferior , currently and even more as times goes by...

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/880-17/moyennes.html

 

[Agent11]

This is great news, exactly what AMD needed.

 

[inf64]

Hardware.fr review is great as always . Some amazing gains at the same clock(4Ghz), like they said most of the time it looks more like a "tock" than a "tick". Very well done "hatchet" job ,as some have called it here . Priced very aggressively at 195$ ,especially when combo deals arrive it will go from the shelves like crazy.

 

[Soulkeeper]

I see this as a good step for AMD, it seems they've arguably delivered on their promises.

Too bad this is the last hurrah for AM3+ and the power usage still has a good deal to be desired.
I'm starting to think steam roller coupled with a solid platform upgrade pcie 3.0, lower power usage, etc. will put them in a good position.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

Impressive!

 

[grimpr]

Anands reviews have gradually become cold, soulless, indifferent and elitist towards AMD.

 

[know of fence]

AT power consumption testing results are inconsequential as always. I'm not sure if admitting this makes it better or worse.
Regardless, in an apples to apples comparison of Asus to Asus: idle consumption of both platforms is pretty much equal (courtesy of Xbitlabs).

Whereas the ASUS (Crosshair V Formula) vs MSI (MSI Z77A-GD65) board comparison - an enthusiast board against the most power efficient MB on the market - shows a ~22W difference! (TechReport)

 

[beginner99]

The Problem I see is that the advantages that AMD has in multi-threaded apps is less beneficial. I think we can agree that encoding can take some time. So I personally would schedule that for the night or during the day when I'm at work. That easily adds up to 16 hours per day. Meaning if you encode takes 5h or 6h in most cases won't matter at all.
However less fps in gaming as example will matter always.

The money argument is also problematic as ivy bridge 3570k uses almost 100W less. That is just a very huge difference. if you actually make use of those 8 cores you will end up paying more than for ivy bridge in the long run (1-2 years). The worse the longer you intend to keep it.

And if you actually need fast encoding and so on (eg. you make money from it), getting a 6 core with HT cpu from intel for > 1000$ will be the most profitable in the long run.

 

[inf64]

The gaming argument fails since nobody games in low resolution(unless he has to due to poor GPU). Once you get to 1080p, almost all titles will show no difference since gaming at 100fps and 130fps is basically the same. There are those few titles like Civ and Skyrim that for some reason take a performance hit with FX but they are still more than playable in 1080p. Those who want the absolute highest FPS in their games will buy intel for sure.

Those who want relatively cheap system to do everything one can think of (game also) may pick up 8350 or even 8320(and OC it).

 

[Rifter]

almost all titles will show no difference since gaming at 100fps and 130fps is basically the same

Agree if you have a 60hz screen, but alot of gamers are moving to 120hz panels and then that 100 v 130 fps is a massive difference.

Like i said above i still think they should be priced against i3's not i5's, for $200 going i5 is the better choice. Sure in terms of pure performance the 8350 and i5 trade blows and could be considered equal with AMD winning some benchs and intel winning some, but intel does it with 100w less power, making the intel chip alot better buy that keeps getting better the longer you own it, while the AMD chip becomes worse and worse the longer you own it.

 

[meloz]

I wish Anandtech would include some form of value scatter graphs like Techreport does in its reviews. The graphs do not have to be an exact imitation of what Techreport does, and the benchmark(s) used to determine the 'overall performance' can be different. Perhaps we could even get performance per watt per dollar graphs.

Graphs like these make the whole exercise of comparing competing products so much more relevant to users, because most of us will buy the most performant processor per dollar.

As example:

Vishera is a decent upgrade to absymal Bulldozer without any attention to performance/watt, but that might be acceptable since most consumers buy performance/$ anyway. If you include power consumption in the calculations at all, Intel is an easy choice.

Difficult to see how AMD will cope with Haswell, even if they get another 15% performance boost next year. The gap in performance / watt only seems to be diverging, Intel taking a commanding lead.

 

[Olikan]

I'd like to see a gaming comparison of OC'ed FX-4300 vs Core i3

me too, the power consumption of the 4300 is good, the performance at gaming is similar to a 8350....is dirt cheap and might overclock like a beast :biggrin:

 

[The Alias]

the fx 4300/6300 seem like better choices all around compared to the ivy bridge i3s even in gaming

just look at the gaming benchmarks here : http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/331...6300-getest-benchmarks-cpu-tom-clancys-hawx-2

http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/331...-fx-8320-fx-6300-getest-benchmarks-cpu-dirt-3

http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/331...x-8320-fx-6300-getest-benchmarks-cpu-crysis-2

in regards to the general cpu performance single threaded apps go to intel and multithreaded apps go to amd the thing is more aps are being written for multithreaded cpus so it works out in amd's favor as seen here

note : it finished 12 seconds ahead of the 3570k

I think Josh Walrath summed it up nicely in regards to general performance

Josh Walrath @ pcper : So what do we actually get with this release? Well, it is a bittersweet release for AMD. The pricing on these parts is not only competitive, it undercuts Intel by a significant amount across the board. The 8350 is very competitive with the 3570K, and it can be had for $30 less. The 6300 will walk all over the Intel products that exist at the $132 price point, and in fact is more competitive in terms of performance with the $185 Intel products. Again, we get a nice $50 discount for essentially the same performance. In these cases though, expect the AMD CPU to consume more power. Would it be enough to make one nervous about energy bills? Not really

 

[Shakabutt]

Some reviews are so weird , i mean nl.hardware.info shows that the fx 6100 does 4.8 in Cinebench 11.5 yet my fx 6100 does 4.01 at stock and 4.8 when oced to 4ghz, seems weird.
And the techspot review is the same, and legionhardware, no way a fx6100 does 4.8 at stock .

 

[sontin]

12 seconds is nothing when the CPU used nearly twice the power for the other 2h.

 

[inf64]

Nice charts from here:




Basically all around 8350 is better chip(on average,games included) than 3.3/3.7Ghz QC IB i5 3550. It's faster by 4.3% so essentially it's also faster than 3570K by ~2% (overall). Price wise it's cheaper than both locked 3550(209$ at newegg now) and unlocked 3570K (215$).

On to the 6300 vs i3 3220:


Massive performance difference in favor of 6300: 31.6%. Even in games it defeats the i3. Price wise it's 140E for 6300 vs 120e for i3 3220,a 16% difference for 31.6% more performance (and unlocked vs locked multiplier). Even the top i3 wouldn't even come close to competing with 6300 I'm afraid.

 

[Shakabutt]

Nice charts from here:




Basically all around 8350 is better chip(on average,games included) than 3.3/3.7Ghz QC IB i5 3550. It's faster by 4.3% so essentially it's also faster than 3570K by ~2% (overall). Price wise it's cheaper than both locked 3550(209$ at newegg now) and unlocked 3570K (215$).

On to the 6300 vs i3 3220:


Massive performance difference in favor of 6300: 31.6%. Even in games it defeats the i3. Price wise it's 140E for 6300 vs 120e for i3 3220,a 16% difference for 31.6% more performance (and unlocked vs locked multiplier). Even the top i3 wouldn't even come close to competing with 6300 I'm afraid.

Why does the fx 6300 score 5.3 in Cinebench there,and only 4.5 on Anand ?

Hell i call bullshit on that whole review, they say my fx 6100 does 4.8 on stock lol

 

[know of fence]

The Problem I see is that the advantages that AMD has in multi-threaded apps is less beneficial. I think we can agree that encoding can take some time. So I personally would schedule that for the night or during the day when I'm at work. That easily adds up to 16 hours per day. Meaning if you encode takes 5h or 6h in most cases won't matter at all.
However less fps in gaming as example will matter always.

The money argument is also problematic as ivy bridge 3570k uses almost 100W less. That is just a very huge difference.

Actually if you are on a deadline or a schedule with encoding every minutes may count, whereas FPS differences are not really important, and the CPU may never become a bottleneck here, provided you chose video card+display resolution wisely. With AA and high resolutions video memory bandwidth becomes the bottleneck, and on low resolutions games are plenty fast already. People claiming to see a difference past 100 FPS like Rifter, probably see CrossfireX/SLi micro stuttering, which is known to be perceivable without mutant powers.

Also in single thread performance (games) FX 8350 only consumes 27W more than the core i5-K, to reach 100W difference you would have to play to the strength of the architecture where it's arguably worth it.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8350_8.html#sect0

Let's not forget the bad Ivy Bridge thermals, useless yet mandatory IGP graphics, OC restrictions, Intel's mainboard chipset (and RAM support) policies, and the heat density wall that CPUs hit on 22nm.