Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600 XT OC review
ASUS STRIX Radeon RX 5600 XT TOP review
Gigabyte Radeon RX 5600 XT Gaming OC review
Arctic Liquid Freezer II 280 liquid cooler review
Promo: Windows 10 Pro licenses for under 10 USD
Team Group MP33 NVMe 512 GB SSD Review
ADATA SE800 1TB Portable SSD review
Promo: Microsoft Office 2016 for $29.82
Corsair H100i RGB Pro XT liquid cooler review
Corsair K95 RGB PLATINUM XT review
Review: AMD FX 8350 processor
In this article we test and review the new AMD FX 8350 processor. AMD unleashes PileDriver cores on the new Vishera a codenamed architecture. The CPU tested today has eight physical CPU cores, it will have a base clock of 4000 MHz, and can Turbo towards 4200 MHz. And that makes the FX series a multi-threaded high frequency monster.
You can read our the Guru3D review right here of course.
Tagged as:
AMD
Review: MSI GeForce GTX 660 HAWK Edition - 10/22/2012 10:42 AM
We review the MSI GeForce GTX 660 HAWK graphics card in this article. The all customiuzed MSI HAWK is released in the mid-range segment, yet received a high-end treatment from MSI.
Review: Gigabyte GA-F2A85X UP4 motherboard - 10/08/2012 05:36 AM
In this review slash article we test Gigabyte's GA-F2A85X UP4 motherboard. A motherboard that is intended for the Trinity APU architecture processors from AMD will offer tremendous value for money wh...
Review: Gigabyte GV-R485OC-1GI Radeon HD 4850 1GB [Guru3D] - 09/18/2008 08:59 AM
We test the Gigabyte GV-R485OC-1GI Radeon HD 4850 equipped with 1GB of DDR3 memory. It has a custom PCB (printed circuit board), comes with no less than 1 Gigabyte of GDDR3 framebuffer (memory), the m...
review: Passively cooled Sparkle GeForce 9600 GT - 08/07/2008 07:57 AM
I had a peek around for an exotic model GeForce 9600 GT. I ended up with Sparkle .. get this .. 99 EUR for their passively cooled product with 512MB GDDR3 memory. I'm sorry but that's just a heck of ...
review: Radeon HD 4850 and 4870 CrossfireX performance test - 07/03/2008 09:47 AM
Radeon HD 4850 and 4870 CrossfireX performance test Guru3D posted a Radeon 4850 and 4870 Crossfire review. Since Radeon series 4800 cards offer so much value, it might even be interesting to pair them...
glutto
Senior Member
Posts: 582
Joined: 2002-12-05
Senior Member
Posts: 582
Joined: 2002-12-05
#4436886 Posted on: 10/23/2012 05:34 AM
This might be a decent and cheap upgrade from my Q6600.
A few weeks ago I was tempted with the 8120 and 8150, but I remembered Piledriver was right around the corner.
This might be a decent and cheap upgrade from my Q6600.
A few weeks ago I was tempted with the 8120 and 8150, but I remembered Piledriver was right around the corner.
red6joker
Senior Member
Posts: 572
Joined: 2010-12-16
Senior Member
Posts: 572
Joined: 2010-12-16
#4436899 Posted on: 10/23/2012 05:59 AM
AMD said it would only be a 10% increase performance wise in a statement awhile back. So not really surprising i guess, it is looking pretty tempting for an upgrade from my 1055t though.
AMD said it would only be a 10% increase performance wise in a statement awhile back. So not really surprising i guess, it is looking pretty tempting for an upgrade from my 1055t though.
Penal Stingray
Senior Member
Posts: 957
Joined: 2010-12-17
Senior Member
Posts: 957
Joined: 2010-12-17
#4436902 Posted on: 10/23/2012 06:10 AM
This is why amd cpu deparment is loosing money the performance is just not there even the old i7 980x beats it on most benches. their gpu on the other hand are sweet. but their gpu was ATI so lmao!
This is why amd cpu deparment is loosing money the performance is just not there even the old i7 980x beats it on most benches. their gpu on the other hand are sweet. but their gpu was ATI so lmao!
IcE
Moderator
Posts: 10693
Joined: 2008-11-01
Moderator
Posts: 10693
Joined: 2008-11-01
#4436927 Posted on: 10/23/2012 07:10 AM
The 980X is a six core (and also dusts the sandy bridge mainstream chips in almost every case, and costs like $1000) so it's not really surprising. At the end of the day, these Bulldozer/Piledriver chips are still four core CPU's when it comes to floating point.
I'm somewhat impressed with this small bump in performance, actually. For $195, it competes very, very well with the Intel offerings at that price range. Sure, the Far Cry 2 test makes it look bad (like every AMD CPU since that game was released), but other than that, bravo. I actually won't feel bad recommending this to people as an actual upgrade.
This is why amd cpu deparment is loosing money the performance is just not there even the old i7 980x beats it on most benches. their gpu on the other hand are sweet. but their gpu was ATI so lmao!
The 980X is a six core (and also dusts the sandy bridge mainstream chips in almost every case, and costs like $1000) so it's not really surprising. At the end of the day, these Bulldozer/Piledriver chips are still four core CPU's when it comes to floating point.
I'm somewhat impressed with this small bump in performance, actually. For $195, it competes very, very well with the Intel offerings at that price range. Sure, the Far Cry 2 test makes it look bad (like every AMD CPU since that game was released), but other than that, bravo. I actually won't feel bad recommending this to people as an actual upgrade.
bucknuts21
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: 2011-09-22
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: 2011-09-22
#4436932 Posted on: 10/23/2012 07:35 AM
Not a great CPU, but for $200 I think it's good enough to replace my 1090T unlike the AMD FX 1850 was.
Not a great CPU, but for $200 I think it's good enough to replace my 1090T unlike the AMD FX 1850 was.
Kohlendioxidus
Senior Member
Posts: 1398
Joined: 2007-08-31
Senior Member
Posts: 1398
Joined: 2007-08-31
#4436935 Posted on: 10/23/2012 07:40 AM
well firstly thanks for review Hilbert and it's time for me to upgrade but before doin' this I have some things to say.
I would really like to see some overclock without voltage increase and undervolt under stock setting but you can't have it all.
1) I really cannot understand WHY the heck they still test CPU's in games at 1024 resolution with lowest details possible? THIS IS STUPID
and not realistic as I cannot see somebody buying a high end Intel/AMD and an GTX680/7970 and play at that resolution. Really cannot get that and it makes me SICK 
.
2) I play in Eyefinity and having already a CHV it the best upgrade way for me. @ 5760x1080 also 2x3770K makes no difference.
3) I do Bluray transcoding and looks like 8350 really kicks here:
4) Clock/Clock is better than Thuban and really kicks well in a lot of benchies:
source
well firstly thanks for review Hilbert and it's time for me to upgrade but before doin' this I have some things to say.
I would really like to see some overclock without voltage increase and undervolt under stock setting but you can't have it all.
1) I really cannot understand WHY the heck they still test CPU's in games at 1024 resolution with lowest details possible? THIS IS STUPID
and not realistic as I cannot see somebody buying a high end Intel/AMD and an GTX680/7970 and play at that resolution. Really cannot get that and it makes me SICK .
2) I play in Eyefinity and having already a CHV it the best upgrade way for me. @ 5760x1080 also 2x3770K makes no difference.
3) I do Bluray transcoding and looks like 8350 really kicks here:
4) Clock/Clock is better than Thuban and really kicks well in a lot of benchies:
source
mypc
Senior Member
Posts: 198
Joined: 2010-06-22
Senior Member
Posts: 198
Joined: 2010-06-22
#4436939 Posted on: 10/23/2012 07:43 AM
well its nice to see its beating sandy bridge in some benchmarks can not wait for the steamroller
well its nice to see its beating sandy bridge in some benchmarks can not wait for the steamroller
Ven0m
Senior Member
Posts: 1764
Joined: 2005-08-12
Senior Member
Posts: 1764
Joined: 2005-08-12
#4436953 Posted on: 10/23/2012 08:11 AM
Thanks for the review.
It appears, it's a nice CPU for video transcoding, rendering and other heavy-multi-threaded apps. For games - 3-4-year old Intel CPU is faster (965) which is kinda sad. However...
If you pay $195 for the CPU, also get cheaper AMD mobo, and use the saved $$$ on better graphics card, you'll get yourself a nice gaming rig, which at the same time can manage CPU-heavy tasks in really good fashion.
Thanks for the review.
It appears, it's a nice CPU for video transcoding, rendering and other heavy-multi-threaded apps. For games - 3-4-year old Intel CPU is faster (965) which is kinda sad. However...
If you pay $195 for the CPU, also get cheaper AMD mobo, and use the saved $$$ on better graphics card, you'll get yourself a nice gaming rig, which at the same time can manage CPU-heavy tasks in really good fashion.
Bradders684
Senior Member
Posts: 1007
Joined: 2010-01-13
Senior Member
Posts: 1007
Joined: 2010-01-13
#4436963 Posted on: 10/23/2012 08:23 AM
well firstly thanks for review Hilbert and it's time for me to upgrade but before doin' this I have some things to say.
I would really like to see some overclock without voltage increase and undervolt under stock setting but you can't have it all.
1) I really cannot understand WHY the heck they still test CPU's in games at 1024 resolution with lowest details possible? THIS IS STUPID and not realistic as I cannot see somebody buying a high end Intel/AMD and an GTX680/7970 and play at that resolution. Really cannot get that and it makes me SICK .
It is a CPU review, they are done at low resolutions and low graphical settings so they are more CPU dependent. What would be the point of a CPU review if the GPU was doing most of the work, If it was a GPU review everything would be at maximum detail with the highest resolution.
well firstly thanks for review Hilbert and it's time for me to upgrade but before doin' this I have some things to say.
I would really like to see some overclock without voltage increase and undervolt under stock setting but you can't have it all.
1) I really cannot understand WHY the heck they still test CPU's in games at 1024 resolution with lowest details possible? THIS IS STUPID
and not realistic as I cannot see somebody buying a high end Intel/AMD and an GTX680/7970 and play at that resolution. Really cannot get that and it makes me SICK .
It is a CPU review, they are done at low resolutions and low graphical settings so they are more CPU dependent. What would be the point of a CPU review if the GPU was doing most of the work, If it was a GPU review everything would be at maximum detail with the highest resolution.
thatguy91
Senior Member
Posts: 6648
Joined: 2010-08-27
Senior Member
Posts: 6648
Joined: 2010-08-27
#4436982 Posted on: 10/23/2012 08:41 AM
I guess a standard resolution (such as 1920x1080, 16AF, some antialiasing) would be beneficial for a comparison though as it tests other limitations of the platform (such as the integrated PCI-E controller vs chip based etc).
I guess a standard resolution (such as 1920x1080, 16AF, some antialiasing) would be beneficial for a comparison though as it tests other limitations of the platform (such as the integrated PCI-E controller vs chip based etc).
Kohlendioxidus
Senior Member
Posts: 1398
Joined: 2007-08-31
Senior Member
Posts: 1398
Joined: 2007-08-31
#4437002 Posted on: 10/23/2012 09:23 AM
agree here. They should use standard res. To really test CPU power you have another set of benchies to do that.
Other review sites go much further as they actually search for single core Intel optimised 5 to 10 years old games just to show how bad a AMD cpu is. It just makes me .
I guess a standard resolution (such as 1920x1080, 16AF, some antialiasing) would be beneficial for a comparison though as it tests other limitations of the platform (such as the integrated PCI-E controller vs chip based etc).
agree here. They should use standard res. To really test CPU power you have another set of benchies to do that.
Other review sites go much further as they actually search for single core Intel optimised 5 to 10 years old games just to show how bad a AMD cpu is. It just makes me
.
BlackZero
Senior Member
Posts: 8880
Joined: 2007-06-17
Senior Member
Posts: 8880
Joined: 2007-06-17
#4437004 Posted on: 10/23/2012 09:28 AM
Performance seems to be good but power usage is still a little high, nothing unexpected though. A good step forward overall.
That would be 318watts on the CPU rails, which is a lot of power! but going by the almost 100w increase at a 500Mhz overclock it could prove significant. Though, most boards should allow you to disable OCP, but at those power levels (and heat) it's going to be tough on the circuitry so I would not expect many of these going over 5GHz anyway.
Overclocking aside, I would be more interested in seeing if there has been any improvements with frame latency times for 3D.
Performance seems to be good but power usage is still a little high, nothing unexpected though. A good step forward overall.
If, during this overclock, your system shuts down, that's a new protection from AMD. You've reached either the heat, TDP or OCP limit (this seems to happen once the CPU pulls more than 26.5A from the 12V CPU rails (8pin and 4pin connectors). If that happens decrease the voltage a bit.
That would be 318watts on the CPU rails, which is a lot of power! but going by the almost 100w increase at a 500Mhz overclock it could prove significant. Though, most boards should allow you to disable OCP, but at those power levels (and heat) it's going to be tough on the circuitry so I would not expect many of these going over 5GHz anyway.
Overclocking aside, I would be more interested in seeing if there has been any improvements with frame latency times for 3D.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36791
Joined: 2000-02-22
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36791
Joined: 2000-02-22
#4437009 Posted on: 10/23/2012 09:37 AM
1) I really cannot understand WHY the heck they still test CPU's in games at 1024 resolution with lowest details possible? THIS IS STUPID and
Perhaps open your eyes and actually look at the tests ? You'll notice results for 1024x768 - 1280x1024 - 1600x1200 and 1920x1200
Lower resolution scores however are included to show you the effect of CPU performance, as higher resolutions are GPU bound.
Lowest details possible ? FC2 is in DX10 mode with high quality settings and 4xAA - Crysis 2 uses DX11 with the HR texturepack in Extreme quality settings at 4xAA
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8350_processor_review,18.html
1) I really cannot understand WHY the heck they still test CPU's in games at 1024 resolution with lowest details possible? THIS IS STUPID
and
Perhaps open your eyes and actually look at the tests ? You'll notice results for 1024x768 - 1280x1024 - 1600x1200 and 1920x1200
Lower resolution scores however are included to show you the effect of CPU performance, as higher resolutions are GPU bound.
Lowest details possible ? FC2 is in DX10 mode with high quality settings and 4xAA - Crysis 2 uses DX11 with the HR texturepack in Extreme quality settings at 4xAA
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8350_processor_review,18.html
Texter
Senior Member
Posts: 3022
Joined: 2008-11-03
Senior Member
Posts: 3022
Joined: 2008-11-03
#4437011 Posted on: 10/23/2012 09:39 AM
A single Tenerife or GK110 will shed some more light on Vishera performance soon enough.
A single Tenerife or GK110 will shed some more light on Vishera performance soon enough.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Posts: 21149
Joined: 2008-07-14
Nice to see AMD make some gains, though not quite as far as I was hoping for. Now to wait for Steamroller....