Asustor Lockerstor 4 (AS6604T) NAS Review
Hitman III: PC graphics perf benchmark review
TeamGroup CX2 1TB SATA3 SSD review
EVGA GeForce RTX 3070 FTW3 Ultra review
Corsair 5000D PC Chassis Review
NZXT Kraken X63 RGB Review
ASUS Radeon RX 6900 XT STRIX OC LC Review
TerraMaster F5-221 NAS Review
MSI Radeon RX 6800 XT Gaming X TRIO Review
Sapphire Radeon RX 6800 NITRO+ review
AMD FX 8320E processor review
Posted by: on: 12/23/2014 09:19 AM [
40 comment(s) ]
We review the AMD FX 8320E processor today. It's Vishera time again, and yeah that is the codename for the Piledriver core based FX series processors from AMD. The very affordable (125 EURO / 139 USD) CPU tested today has eight physical CPU cores, it will have a base clock of 3200 MHz, and can Turbo towards 4000. And that makes the FX series a tiny multi-threaded beast. You can read our review right here at Guru3D of course.
Read article
Advertisement
pages 1 2 3 4 > »
waltc3
Senior Member
Posts: 1176
Senior Member
Posts: 1176
Posted on: 12/23/2014 01:29 PM
Very nice review...and just one more that illustrates the real luster of the current AMD FX series--its price moves it into direct competition with Intel's i5's, and the FX cpus walk all over the i5's in performance for the same money--more or less. It's simple: if you're on an i5-sized cpu budget you cannot do better than an AMD FX cpu at this point in time. (If the i7's had all been stripped out of these tables--which price pretty much dictates be done, anyway--the FX cpus would have dominated the performance results & the i5 would have looked very weak.)
AMD needs to step up its FX game, however, as--even as good as the FX cpus are--they're getting very long in the tooth. The 9000-FX series I can't recommend to anyone because of the ridiculous voltages they require, the *required* water-cooling, etc. Even with all of that they are scarcely faster than the FX-8000 series which are much more sensible and a far, far better buy. Anyone looking for an i5-priced cpu for his gaming rig need look no further than FX 8000 series (and below.) My FX-6300, for instance, more than two years old, runs all six cores @ an air-cooled ~4.5GHz at stock voltage and stock fan. > two years ago when I bought it it cost me $133 shipped to my door--it's the best AMD cpu I've ever had and I've owned nothing but AMD (at home) since 1999. The MSI board is great because it is socket AM3+ (and therefore amazingly compatible with a wide range of AMD cpus) & it's also afull UEFI board (as is the new 970 Gaming version of the G46-970a.)
AMD, though, drastically needs to "modernize" the FX line:
1) Use the Steam-roller (Vishera's too old!) core at a smaller FAB process! ASAP.
2) Market a new core-logic chipset with USB 3.x capability & supporting PCIe 3.x (My MSI G46-970a board at home, while excellent and 99.9% trouble free, supports only two 3rd-party USB 3.x ports and only PCIex2.x and lower PCIe bus support. (That's not bad at all, actually--but it hurts AMD on the marketing side of the fence--bunches of people buy nothing except numbers...
)
AMD is already making Steamroller-core cpus in its APU products; and already supports
USB 3.x/PCIex3 in them, too--so it's difficult to imagine what the problem is in shipping these products. AMD has got to get back to basics in understanding that if you want to sell a thing to the public you have to sell them what they want to buy as opposed to what is more convenient to you. I hope AMD will make all the right moves in the coming year.
Very nice review...and just one more that illustrates the real luster of the current AMD FX series--its price moves it into direct competition with Intel's i5's, and the FX cpus walk all over the i5's in performance for the same money--more or less. It's simple: if you're on an i5-sized cpu budget you cannot do better than an AMD FX cpu at this point in time. (If the i7's had all been stripped out of these tables--which price pretty much dictates be done, anyway--the FX cpus would have dominated the performance results & the i5 would have looked very weak.)
AMD needs to step up its FX game, however, as--even as good as the FX cpus are--they're getting very long in the tooth. The 9000-FX series I can't recommend to anyone because of the ridiculous voltages they require, the *required* water-cooling, etc. Even with all of that they are scarcely faster than the FX-8000 series which are much more sensible and a far, far better buy. Anyone looking for an i5-priced cpu for his gaming rig need look no further than FX 8000 series (and below.) My FX-6300, for instance, more than two years old, runs all six cores @ an air-cooled ~4.5GHz at stock voltage and stock fan. > two years ago when I bought it it cost me $133 shipped to my door--it's the best AMD cpu I've ever had and I've owned nothing but AMD (at home) since 1999. The MSI board is great because it is socket AM3+ (and therefore amazingly compatible with a wide range of AMD cpus) & it's also afull UEFI board (as is the new 970 Gaming version of the G46-970a.)
AMD, though, drastically needs to "modernize" the FX line:
1) Use the Steam-roller (Vishera's too old!) core at a smaller FAB process! ASAP.
2) Market a new core-logic chipset with USB 3.x capability & supporting PCIe 3.x (My MSI G46-970a board at home, while excellent and 99.9% trouble free, supports only two 3rd-party USB 3.x ports and only PCIex2.x and lower PCIe bus support. (That's not bad at all, actually--but it hurts AMD on the marketing side of the fence--bunches of people buy nothing except numbers...
)
AMD is already making Steamroller-core cpus in its APU products; and already supports
USB 3.x/PCIex3 in them, too--so it's difficult to imagine what the problem is in shipping these products. AMD has got to get back to basics in understanding that if you want to sell a thing to the public you have to sell them what they want to buy as opposed to what is more convenient to you. I hope AMD will make all the right moves in the coming year.
Aoyagi
Member
Posts: 79
Member
Posts: 79
Posted on: 12/23/2014 02:11 PM
Vishera's successor when? If they really keep working on that until 2016 even or later, I'll
......well, I'll be waiting for longer than I'd like :/
Vishera's successor when? If they really keep working on that until 2016 even or later, I'll
......well, I'll be waiting for longer than I'd like :/
V3RT3X79
Member
Posts: 44
Member
Posts: 44
Posted on: 12/23/2014 02:16 PM
amd is already a low budget choice for low budget customer ... every fx processor need 4.6ghz+ to beat a stock clock i7 4770k
amd is already a low budget choice for low budget customer ... every fx processor need 4.6ghz+ to beat a stock clock i7 4770k
Undying
Senior Member
Posts: 14605
Senior Member
Posts: 14605
Posted on: 12/23/2014 02:38 PM
Nah, even then i5/i7 will be faster. Its sad.
amd is already a low budget choice for low budget customer ... every fx processor need 4.6ghz+ to beat a stock clock i7 4770k
Nah, even then i5/i7 will be faster. Its sad.
pages 1 2 3 4 > »
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Posts: 25216
Nice review, but why are you using P95 to measure power draw?