Review: AMD FX 8350 - 8320 - 6300 and 4300 processor performance

#4438925 Posted on: 10/25/2012 08:22 AM

---

Thanks for the review.
It appears that among them FX-8350 looks the most interesting for general (Guru3D-like) usage, and FX-6300 for the more budget oriented rigs as the price is virtually the same as FX-4300.

Is there any chance you could add Borderlands 2 benchmark in the future? It's very CPU-limited.

#4439096 Posted on: 10/25/2012 01:52 PM

---

More second rate processors by AMD. They still can't catch the aging 2500K, a quad core chip. Meh.

#4439149 Posted on: 10/25/2012 02:42 PM

---

TBH I'd still consider the FX-8350 to be a quad core, with hardware hyperthreading. For the money it's a decent CPU.

#4439249 Posted on: 10/25/2012 04:25 PM

---

Ahh, very nice and thank you. It appears the FX-6300 is a strong performer but that the 6100 could easily match it with a decent overclock. The 6300, while better, didn't seem to be too far ahead of its older brother in most cases.

#4439309 Posted on: 10/25/2012 05:35 PM

---

That's because AMD is not competing with Intel in the high end market. This is a mid range cpu. And comparing it to a high end cpu is a bit silly don't you think?



That's exactly what it is. It's still a decent step up for anyone who has an older AMD cpu and is looking to upgrade.

#4439318 Posted on: 10/25/2012 05:41 PM

---

lol, I just noticed this bonehead comment. Have you seen the cost of these new Vishera chips? Do you think they're trying to top Intel's high end? You're delusional. The 2500K costs $220. The competing FX-6300 costs $139. Do the math

#4439441 Posted on: 10/25/2012 07:45 PM

---

They are second rate processors. The comment isn't bone headed at all maybe blunt. The parts AMD are putting out are not competitive for AMD themselves and in order to even dream of selling they have to price them really low.

This little table featured here tells us everything

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested

AMD's chips have massive die sizes even compared to sandy bridge parts (that's a nearly 2 year old processor). This has a number of hidden implications; First the parts cost more in absolute terms than an Intel processor from 2 years ago, second its a very good indicator at just how inefficient the design is (with the power consumption numbers to boot).

So basically AMD is selling CPUs with razor thin margins, against mid to low level Intel parts (with massive margins), with okayish performance and abyssal power envelopes.

All this in an industry which in order to survive must be able to compete with ARM. The Anandtech review does an interesting bit of work where he extrapolates the promised performance gains into the future, we see AMD could potentially catch up performance wise, AMD however can only dream of sub 10w parts like Haswel is going to bring.

#4439492 Posted on: 10/25/2012 08:46 PM

---

^ Its easy to make "massive margins" when your processors are as batsh!t expensive as Intel's are. Anyway, I think its pretty clear that at its price point, Piledriver is a solid chip and its hard to argue its performance value. I think the majority of people on this site would agree. Yourself probably not included.

#4439519 Posted on: 10/25/2012 09:12 PM

---

Id agree that the FX 8320 seems great for the money, can overclock well past the standard 8350 so would be my choice, AMD lost the high end along time ago, thats not the market there competing for.

#4439526 Posted on: 10/25/2012 09:15 PM

---

I gave an in-depth explanation which obviously didn't convince you, you gave a 5 line answer with zero technical merit.

Lemme illustrate so that there is little confusion.

FACT 1. AMDs die sizes are massive compared to Intel
FACT 2. AMDs power envelopes are terrible compared to Intel
FACT 3. AMDs flagship processors compete with Intels low end offerings and EOL products

From a consumer point of view the price is enticing and the performance ok to better then ok for certain workloads.

From a technology/analysis point of view AMD is struggling big time. The prices AMD has to sell at are horrifying for the amount of silicon used, ever since the manufacturing has spun off to GF they have been slower to move to smaller nodes, they have no conceivable time table (nor plan) to produce a x86 chip to compete with ARM or Intel on the power envelope side.


Please tell me what parts are not true, I am very interested in you're reply

As regards to the general opinion of other gurus I wouldn't speculate like that.

#4439534 Posted on: 10/25/2012 09:22 PM

---

^ sigh, here we go again. I don't care about your "technical merit" analysis, and whether its true or not. It has virtually nothing to do with my point. I care about performance/price point for the consumer and thats what I spoke on and have based my opinion on. Don't manufacture "confusion" where there is none, I simply stated its a good value. Whats technical about that? good lord



this.

#4439536 Posted on: 10/25/2012 09:23 PM

---

those chips do not impress me 1 bit, they do well in a couple multi threaded benches. single thread is still poo, gaming too. multi gpu gaming even worse. power hungry inefficient, large die size. and the most expensive 8 core is about the same as a 3570k or a cheaper 2500k, memory bandwidth is low compared to intel. too many negatives to even consider opening up my wallet.

#4439574 Posted on: 10/25/2012 09:54 PM

---

^ sigh, here we go again. I don't care about your "technical merit" analysis, and whether its true or not. It has virtually nothing to do with my point. I care about performance/price point for the consumer and thats what I spoke on and have based my opinion on. Don't manufacture "confusion" where there is none, I simply stated its a good value. Whats technical about that? good lord



this.


Fair enough I can respect your opinion.

There is no need to be sarcastic, I thought I was talking to enthusiasts here who would take other aspects of the CPU to heart.

If you are happy with OK performance and great prices then yeah its a great chip.

I wouldn't buy it because for me its a disappointing piece of tech, I remember the same argument of "great value for money" for the dual core p4 "pressler" back in 05 because Intel could get aggressive on the price. Pressler was a second rate chip for the exact same reason why Vishera is.

#4439576 Posted on: 10/25/2012 10:02 PM

---

The only thing that seems to suffer is gaming performance, nothin else is that bad really, new games are much heavier on GPU than CPU and once you go to certain resolutions the benefit a silly fast CPU becomes irrelevent (and the gain becomes smaller) to a point as a mid range will churn out near enough the same frame rate.

Everyone who knows anything about computers will know that if you want the best gaming PC there is then Intel has to be the choice, but AMD doesnt really do that bad at anything else really. If your like me these days and go for just something thats good for the money then I dont see anything wrong with a 8350 or whatever.

I like competition as it keeps the market healthy but the high end has been lost for a while as far as AMD are concerned, but thats not what there aiming for.

The only issue i have with it is the power consumptions under load which i agree is high but then that wouldnt really put me off, if i can afford the processor itself then a extra few pounds of electiricity wont kill me.

Ow and nice review Hilbert, been waiting for this one.

#4439664 Posted on: 10/25/2012 11:26 PM

---

Great comparison, you should start doing a CPU chart alike the VGA charts you have! Very usefull