AMD FX 8350 - 8320 - 6300 and 4300 CPU performance review
Click here to post a comment for AMD FX 8350 - 8320 - 6300 and 4300 CPU performance review on our message forum
Ven0m
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.
sdamaged99
More second rate processors by AMD. They still can't catch the aging 2500K, a quad core chip. Meh.
BLEH!
TBH I'd still consider the FX-8350 to be a quad core, with hardware hyperthreading. For the money it's a decent CPU.
DSparil
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.
PhazeDelta1
DSparil
JohnMaclane
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.
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
DSparil
^ 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.
Copey
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.
JohnMaclane
DSparil
^ 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.
---TK---
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.
JohnMaclane
Copey
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.
Leviathan-
Great comparison, you should start doing a CPU chart alike the VGA charts you have! Very usefull 🙂
Pill Monster
JohnMaclane
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/9
You kinda cherry picked Anands conclusion which isn't honest.
You quoted the first two lines and missed the whole other 2 paragraphs which basically say that for him to recommend it you must have high multithreaded needs. He also says how otherwise it does badly and at the last line reminds us about the terrible power performance you get for the good multithreaded performance.
Anyways full conclusion here
Pill Monster
^OK, but regardless they did have good things to say about PD, and overall impression was favorable.
I was trying to point out that PD is not a train wreck in the way BD was... contrary to what some people (in this forum) would have us believe.
But here's the whole conclusion...
.....
Leviathan-
It is a step forward in my opinion from AMD, but it is still far from Intel. Hopefully this will be the beginning of a new era for AMD and bring some competition to Intel.
Pill Monster
Cache latencey is quite high which makes me wonder how an increased CPU/NB would improve performance.
I asked Hilbert already if he would test NB scaling but he wasn't really interested. I'll do it myself though when/if upgrading to Vishera becomes an option.....