Like the four-module parts, FX-6300 exposes 2 MB of shared L2 per module (totaling 6 MB in this case) and a shared 8 MB L3 cache.

When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission.

Today, we get an FX processor based on the Piledriver update.

Upon discussing this in greater depth with the company, however, the timing of the products and the implementation of resonant clock mesh caused the technology to not be productized with Piledriver based processors.

As someone who reviews computer hardware, the challenges facing a business matter a lot less to me than the products it sells.

We can all agree that the last year was pretty awful for AMDs processor team, beginning with the power-hungry Bulldozer-based FX CPUs that slowly slid down in price over 12 months in response to a more compelling family of third-gen Core processors from Intel.

But every delivery to my SoCal lab represents an opportunity.

Chatter about mismanagement, layoffs, and a troubled past matter little in the evaluation of a new CPU.

Had AMD shipped an FX-8170 running 200 MHz faster than its former flagship, I would have guessed that itd exhibit the same issues with lightly-threaded workloads, it would probably outperform a Core i5-2500K in more intensive tasks, but its power consumption would probably look pretty nasty compared to modern 77 W Ivy Bridge-based chips.

Instead, we have an FX-8350, which centers on the same Piledriver architecture as the Trinity-based APUs introduced less than one month ago.

Experience tells us that, per core and per cycle, Piledriver can be as much as 15 faster than a Bulldozer-based design.

Add to that the fact that FX-8350 operates at least 400 MHz faster than FX-8150.

Oh, yeah. And Ivy Bridge only gave Intels line-up single-digit gains.

Theres every chance that todays performance comparison is going to be a lot more interesting than the overwhelmingly negative judgment passed on FX-8150 one year ago.

Meet The Piledriver-Based FX Family In a faithful return to its Bulldozer approach, AMD sent out the fastest model in its new line-up for review, but is actually introducing eight-, six-, and four-core configurations.

Of course, we know they all center on the Piledriver architecture, but the SoC itself is referred to as Vishera, and its still branded as FX.

Those are the exact same figures given for Zambezi, the previous-generation SoC based on AMDs Bulldozer architecture.

Whatever alterations the architects madefrom ISA extensions to a larger L1 DTLBsurface area and transistor count dont change enough to move the dial on those contextually-irrelevant but interesting-to-know-anyway specifications.

Turbo NB Clock TDP Price OPN FX-8350 8C 8T 4.0 GHz 4.2 GHz 2200 MHz 125 W 195 FD8350FRW8KHK FX-8320 8C 8T 3.5 GHz 4.0 GHz 2200 MHz 125 W 169 FD8320FRW8KHK FX-6300 6C 6T 3.5 GHz 4.1 GHz 2000 MHz 95 W 132 FD6300WMW6KHK FX-4300 4C 4T 3.8 GHz 4.0 GHz 2000 MHz 95 W 122 FD4300WMW4MHK.

Turbo Core technology is able to push that to 4.2 GHz in lightly-threaded workloads, though most of the chips speed-up undoubtedly comes from its default state.

In iTunes, our single-threaded benchmark finishes three seconds faster with the feature on.

An FX-8320 drops the base clock rate to 3.5 GHz, though Turbo Core pushes that to 4 GHz under defined thermal limits (a 500 MHz speed-up is likely more meaningful to FX-8320).

Both eight-core models include 8 MB of L2 cache (split into one shared 2 MB slice per module) and 8 MB of L3 cache (shared between all four of the SoCs modules).

AMD is suggesting a 195 price tag on FX-8350 and a 169 price on FX-8320.

FX-6300 comes equipped with three active modules (six cores) and drops pricing all the way to 132.

A 3.5 GHz base clock rate helps take advantage of the architectures strengths in threaded apps, while a 4.1 GHz peak Turbo Core setting tries to compensate for lackluster single-threaded speed.

Amd Fx 8350