Gaming Performance

Our latest discrete GPU gaming tests use a GeForce GTX 680, while the older tests use the Radeon HD 5870. We're focused on looking at differences between CPUs here so most of the numbers you see are CPU bound rather than pushing the GPU to the limits. As most games are at best a mixture of single and lightly multithreaded workloads, AMD's FX platform doesn't do well here at all. If you're looking to build a high end gaming machine and want the best CPU for the job, Vishera isn't it.

Windows 8 - Skyrim - 1680 x 1050

Windows 8 - Diablo 3 - 1680 x 1050

Dragon Age Origins - 1680 x 1050 - Max Settings (no AA/Vsync)

Dawn of War II - 1680 x 1050 - Ultra Settings

World of Warcraft

Starcraft 2

Photoshop & 3D Rendering Performance Power Consumption


View All Comments

  • klatscho - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    but at least priced decently. Reply
  • leexgx - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    still like how AMD think they have 8 full cores in there (some sites list the Modules not FP cores in their lists)

    8x is 4 Modules (4M/8T)
    6x is 3 Modules (3M/6T)
    4x is 2 Modules (2M/4T)

    they hardly outperform stock clocked matched cpus (that they listed)
  • leexgx - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    also to add if you own an Bulldozer (or Vishera) type of cpu you should all ready have these patches installed
  • Penti - Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - link

    There are 8 fully pipelined integer cores in there, they are just very weak. Some of it is the shared frontend/decoder some of it is the integer execution units themselves. Weak SIMD/FPU-performance isn't the only thing it got. It just does so much less. You don't have two pipelines with separate resources to achieve SMT/HT. They need wider execution here. Preferably dropping the shared front end thing too. Makes no point of having it around, focus on making it faster and dump all that cache which does no good. Mobile/Notebook chips can't really have 16MB of cache any way. Just a few MB. Reply
  • DDR4 - Wednesday, November 07, 2012 - link

    It's just a marketing thing, the cores don't have that much power, AMD's just looking to do better than Intel in one area. Reply
  • P39Airacobra - Wednesday, May 14, 2014 - link

    And you base this on the first that came to your mind to make you feel better about you over paying for your wimpy little 4 core Intel CPU with half the power of a FX-8320. LOL Reply
  • P39Airacobra - Wednesday, May 14, 2014 - link

    Just kidding I have a i5 myself, But guys you really should stop being such fanboys. AMD has a great Chip here with the FX-8320 and FX-8350. They are priced much lower than the top i5 CPU, And they will perform just as well in gaming if not better. And who cares about it using 125 watts? 125 watts is a bit more than what Intel's i5's use , But it can still be ran more than fine with a High end GPU with just a decent 600watt mainstream PSU like a CX600. Reply
  • spooky2th - Tuesday, June 03, 2014 - link

    Intel i5's can handle faster memory than any amp chip. They have a stronger MC plus they OC very well too. With the 1155 socket the amd chips were barely keeping up. Since haswell the speed champs are intel cpu's hands down and with the z97 boards and the new processors that will only work with the 97 boards, look out amd! Better OC'ing and handling faster memory than before! Reply
  • DesiredUser - Friday, February 12, 2016 - link

    Currently, FX-8350 costs over $200.
    Used Xeon 5647 costs just $50 and beats a crap out of it.
    Both support ECC. Go figure.
  • Homeles - Sunday, October 28, 2012 - link

    Because performance = core count. Brilliant. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now