AMD FX-8350 Review: Does Piledriver Fix Bulldozer's Flaws?

Status
Not open for further replies.

kracker

Honorable
Jun 22, 2012
227
0
10,690
3
Interesting, nice improvement over BD, it spars very closely or beats the i5-3570K sometimes, It really can't compete with intel's high end, but nevertheless good job AMD!
 
G

Guest

Guest
Nice job AMD. It just kept itself afloat! Not performance killer, but good enough to get a chunk of desktop sales just in time for the holiday season. Probably wouldn't buy it over an Intel system because most apps are still quite single threaded, but I would certainly consider it. Welcome back to the race AMD. Keep up the good work!
 

najirion

Distinguished
Feb 11, 2012
183
0
18,710
9
so... amd will still keep my local electric provider happy. Good job AMD but I think FM2 APUs are more promising. The fact that APUs alone can win against intel processors if discrete graphics is not involved. Perhaps AMD should focus in their APU line like integrating better gpus in those apus that will allow dual 7xxx graphics and not just dual 6xxx hybrid graphics. The entire FX architecture seems to have the issue with its high power consumption and poor single-thread performance. Better move on AMD...
 

dscudella

Honorable
Sep 10, 2012
892
0
11,060
36
I would have liked to see more Intel offerings in the Benchmarks. Say an i3-2120 & i3-3220 for comparisons sake as they'll be cheaper than the new Piledrivers.

If more games / daily use apps start using more cores these new AMD's could really take off.
 

EzioAs

Distinguished
Dec 6, 2011
2,306
0
20,160
135
Interesting. Probably not a gamers first choice but for users who regularly use multi-threaded programs, the 8350 should be very compelling. About $30 cheaper than a 3570K and can be overclock as well, video/photo editors should really consider this. It doesn't beat current Intel CPUs in power efficiency but at least it's significantly more efficient than Bulldozer.

Thanks for the review.
Btw Chris, how many cups of joe did you had to take for the overclocking testing? ;)
 
G

Guest

Guest
sorry just not overly impressed.
5-12% performance increase 12% less power - sound familiar?
the only difference this time was less hype before the release. (lesson well learned AMD!)
 

gorz

Honorable
Jun 28, 2012
112
0
10,710
7
I think the fx-4300 is going to be the new recommended budget gaming processor. Good price that is only going to get lower, and it has overclocking.
 
[citation][nom]looniam[/nom]sorry just not overly impressed.5-12% performance increase 12% less power - sound familiar?the only difference this time was less hype before the release. (lesson well learned AMD!)[/citation]

You seem to forget that unlike Intel's Ivy compared to Sandy, Vishera versus Zambezi leaves Vishera the superior overclocker as well as cooler-running and with superior overclocking price/performance ratios. There's also the fact that AMD did this on the same process node, not that that matters as anything other than a foot note.
 

m32

Honorable
Apr 15, 2012
387
0
10,810
16
Just imagine if this would have been BD? Less people issed off'ed and us AMD/competition fans would have been happy with AMD's offering.
 
Honestly, I'm disappointed in Vishera. Comparing it to Trinity, it seems that the L3 cache doesn't actually make a difference in performance for these chips. Maybe its L3 cache's latency is simply too high for it to do much of anything other than suck power. Some CPU/NB frequency overclocking tests might be able to confirm this and if so, solve the problem and let Vishera really pull ahead of Zambezi and Trinity.
 

cangelini

Contributing Editor
Editor
Jul 4, 2008
1,877
6
19,795
4
[citation][nom]EzioAs[/nom]Interesting. Probably not a gamers first choice but for users who regularly use multi-threaded programs, the 8350 should be very compelling. About $30 cheaper than a 3570K and can be overclock as well, video/photo editors should really consider this. It doesn't beat current Intel CPUs in power efficiency but at least it's significantly more efficient than Bulldozer.Thanks for the review. Btw Chris, how many cups of joe did you had to take for the overclocking testing?[/citation]
One really big one. Kept me up till 5AM this morning ;-)
 

rdc85

Honorable
Apr 29, 2012
2,943
0
13,460
218
So AMD FX-83xx will direct compete with I5-35xx........ (both in term of price and performance)...

Anyway it good upgrade for owner with am3+ board... (including me :D, add another item in wish list)
 

Onikage

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2010
28
0
18,530
0
i realy wish to know how 8350 compete against my 2700K, to bad they had only 3700 series in there....
But wow! at only 195$ this 8350 looks like a clear winner! Nice Comeback AMD !
 

EzioAs

Distinguished
Dec 6, 2011
2,306
0
20,160
135


It really isn't a cut & dry black & white situation. Depends on the workloads and purpose...
 
G

Guest

Guest
too bad they didn't open up with a lower price as the article hinted at.

for now i'll pass. if it was truely under $200 i would consider it for my next low end system, but so far the price is well over $200 and not worth it.

amd fx-8350 for $219.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113284&name=Processors-Desktops

intel i5-3470 for $199.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115234

intel i5-3570 for $214.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115233

intel i7-3770 for $299.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116502
 
I think what I took from this was that while they improved on the per core performance, it still pales in comparison to Intel's per core performance. When thread count mattered, it's 8 cores allowed it to beat all the 4 Core chips without hyperthreading, but still lost to hyperthreading, which shouldn't happen so easily.
 

esrever

Splendid
[citation][nom]bystander[/nom]I think what I took from this was that while they still improved on the per core performance, it still pales in comparison to Intel's per core performance. When thread count mattered, it's 8 cores allowed it to beat all the 4 Core chips without hyperthreading, but still lost to hyperthreading, which shouldn't happen so easily.[/citation]They do make up a lot of ground when there is 8 threads but I think AMD might take the lead in a few tests with windows 8. Still unconfirmed if windows 8 scheduling will help bulldozer chips.
 

EzioAs

Distinguished
Dec 6, 2011
2,306
0
20,160
135


To compare directly a CPU with a $200 MSRP with a $300 CPU isn't really fair imo (though I do get your point). And for multi-threaded workload, the 8350 isn't really far off from the 3770K. It usually came very close (7-15% slower) but for the price, it really is the better price to performance CPU (compared to the 3770K that is)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY