TDPs haven't changed, cache sizes haven't changed and neither have core counts. The new lineup is in the table below: CPU Specification Comparison Piledriver is a bit more power efficient than Bulldozer, which enables AMD to drive Vishera's frequency up while remaining in the same thermal envelope as Zambezi.
Amd fx6300 full#
These chips are obviously much larger than Intel's 22nm Ivy Bridge parts, but Intel has a full node advantage there which enables that. Cache sizes remain the same as well, which keeps everything roughly the same.
Piledriver is a light evolution over Bulldozer, so there's actually no substantial increase in die area compared to the previous generation. As a fabless semiconductor manufacturer, AMD is now at GF's mercy when it comes to moving process technology forward. Vishera is still built on the same 32nm GlobalFoundries SOI process as Zambezi, which means there isn't much room for additional architectural complexity without ballooning die area, and not a whole lot of hope for significantly decreasing power consumption. Clock speeds and TDPs are also up compared to Trinity. While Trinity had to worry about working nicely in a laptop, Vishera is strictly a high-end desktop/workstation part. This is the same CPU core that is used in Trinity, but it's optimized for a very different purpose here in Vishera. Brazos had a mild update, Llano paved the way for Trinity which is now shipping, and around a year after Zambezi's launch we have Vishera: the Piledriver based AMD FX successor.Īt a high level, Vishera swaps out the Bulldozer cores from Zambezi and replaces them with Piledriver. As promised we've now had multiple generations of each platform ship from AMD. It's been a rough road for AMD over these past few years, but you have to give credit where it's due: we haven't seen AMD executing this consistently in quite a while. To make matters worse, before AMD could rev Bulldozer, Intel already began shipping Ivy Bridge - a part that not only increased performance but decreased power consumption as well. The performance advantage that Intel enjoyed at the time was beyond what could be erased by a single generation. My hope is that future derivatives of the FX processor (perhaps based on Piledriver) will boast much more aggressive Turbo Core frequencies, which would do wonders at eating into that advantage." "Single threaded performance is my biggest concern, and compared to Sandy Bridge there's a good 40-50% advantage the i5 2500K enjoys over the FX-8150. In our conclusion to last year's FX-8150 review I wrote the following: Look beyond the direct AMD comparison and the situation looked even worse. The Bulldozer CPU cores that were bundled into each Zambezi chip were hardly power efficient and in many areas couldn't significantly outperform AMD's previous generation platform. Last year's launch of AMD's FX processors was honestly disappointing.
0 kommentar(er)
