AMD FX 8350 processor review

sykozis · 2012-10-23 06:31

Nice to see AMD make some gains, though not quite as far as I was hoping for. Now to wait for Steamroller....

glutto · 2012-10-23 06:34

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 · 2012-10-23 06:59

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 · 2012-10-23 07:10

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 · 2012-10-23 08:10

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 · 2012-10-23 08:35

Not a great CPU, but for $200 I think it's good enough to replace my 1090T unlike the AMD FX 1850 was.

Kohlendioxidus · 2012-10-23 08:40

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 :stewpid: 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:puke2:. 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: http://www.planet3dnow.de/photoplog/images/6838/1_8350-max17.png http://www.planet3dnow.de/photoplog/images/6838/1_win8-max-04.png 4) Clock/Clock is better than Thuban and really kicks well in a lot of benchies: http://www.planet3dnow.de/photoplog/images/6838/1_win7-36-24.png http://www.planet3dnow.de/photoplog/images/6838/1_win7-36-33.png http://www.planet3dnow.de/photoplog/images/6838/1_win7-36-35.png source

Ven0m · 2012-10-23 09:11

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 · 2012-10-23 09:23

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 :stewpid: 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:puke2:.

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.

Kohlendioxidus · 2012-10-23 10:23

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 😛uke2: 😛uke2: 😛uke2:.

Hilbert Hagedoorn · 2012-10-23 10:37

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 :stewpid: 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 · 2012-10-23 10:39

A single Tenerife or GK110 will shed some more light on Vishera performance soon enough.

Kohlendioxidus · 2012-10-23 10:52

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 :stewpid: 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

Hilbert I have my eyes open and have seen that. I did not express mentioned your review here but other where ONLY 1024 res. is used. There are other ways to test a CPU performance and you know them, as there are already included in your review. Again: This was not with reference to your review!!

Hilbert Hagedoorn · 2012-10-23 10:56

Hilbert I have my eyes open and have seen that. I did not express mentioned your review here but other where ONLY 1024 res. is used. There are other ways to test a CPU performance and you know them, as there are already included in your review. Again: This was not with reference to your review!!

And as you can see from the reactions in this thread, everybody interpreted it that way. Okay, that's cleared up then. Thanks.

Kohlendioxidus · 2012-10-23 11:01

damn, I wanted to order one over mindfactory and cannot do it anymore. They had at 8:00 in the morning more than 5 on stock, and now at 11:00 (after I have checked all available reviews:)) they are out of stock (more than 10 sold)!! They should expect a new delivery after 31.10.2012....too long to wait!

Taint3dBulge · 2012-10-23 11:17

Id like to see how this stacks up with crossfire and sli. and if it might be better with mulit gpu's over just one. any way we could see bf3 and crysis with 2 or 3 gpu's the 3770k and 2600k versus this?

Kohlendioxidus · 2012-10-23 11:23

Id like to see how this stacks up with crossfire and sli. and if it might be better with mulit gpu's over just one. any way we could see bf3 and crysis with 2 or 3 gpu's the 3770k and 2600k versus this?

I found some but they are both overclocked. It is for SLI/CFX not ideal CPU that's clear. http://limages.vr-zone.net/body/17494/sniper.jpg.jpeg http://limages.vr-zone.net/body/17494/csgo.jpg.jpeg http://limages.vr-zone.net/body/17494/avp.jpg.jpeg http://limages.vr-zone.net/body/17494/batman.jpg.jpeg http://limages.vr-zone.net/body/17494/lp2.jpg.jpeg source

BLEH! · 2012-10-23 11:50

For the money, that's a pretty decent chip. Combined with a 990FX board, good for some multi-GPU lovin'.

Texter · 2012-10-23 11:59

It is for SLI/CFX not ideal CPU that's clear.

Those graphs look like crossfire scaling between one and two GPUs, yet it's between two different CPUs with the same clocks running two GPUs.

Black_ice_Spain · 2012-10-23 12:10

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 😛uke2: 😛uke2: 😛uke2:.

yeah, do that and people will start with "AMD has the same performance than Intel in gaming" instead of "No game/GPU will push intel to the max yet". When phenom II released, MAAAAAAAAAANY people told that they had the same gaming performance than i7s/i5s. I was not fooled, i knew what i bought (bought it when it was 115€ at launch, they are still 90€ here), but many people probably did... Check today, i7s and i5s (1st gen) will blow phenom 2 to dust. I'm glad i went for the phenom, today i have to build a new PC bcs of moving to another city (so my dad uses the phenom), but if not, the i7 would still have more power for the next years.