AMD FX-8350 - "Piledriver" for AMD Socket AM3+

[Melvis]

2600K is old news and going buh bye.

Who cares if its old news or not, the point is that its as good as a 2600K which Bulldozer was meant to be last yr and the 2600K is not a slow CPU either, am i right?

 

[Bjorn_Of_Iceland]

Too late. I got a 2500k for cheaps instead.

 

[NC37]

Kinda wish you would have included some Phenom comparisons. Specially since the BD couldn't even beat Phenoms in many benches.

 

[cadaveca]

Kinda wish you would have included some Phenom comparisons. Specially since the BD couldn't even beat Phenoms in many benches.

No chip, sorry. If I had one...would have only added several hours of testing...on a BIOS that is only a week old...but I woulda done it.

 

[cdawall]

No chip, sorry. If I had one...would have only added several hours of testing...on a BIOS that is only a week old...but I woulda done it.

Send me that 8350 and you can have my B97 for testing

 

[HumanSmoke]

Sure, but if all you are doing is swapping the CPU...

That was also my thought. Any other parameter is bound by the different system setups. All I was really interested in was the relative gain over the FX-8150 (stock vs stock and clock vs clock)

interesing, to say teh least.. I wonder how people are doing OC-wise and such too...

5GHz with the AMD AIO "watercooler" 5.1-5.2GHz if you like your CPU's crispy (1.5+V)

THe difference is probably in how those numbers were TESTED, not the CONFIGURATIONS.

There is a variance in what constitutes "power consumption-load", but that's to be expected. Most seemed to use some common sense- x264, multi-tasking, multithreaded gaming...but of course there are always going to some that view anything short of LinX as a cheat- probably the same kind of people that think transient peak load under OCCT represents "real world" testing.
My point was that if the system was the same, the cooling was equal and adequate (to take throtting out of the equation) , and the test between the two CPU's from the same review on any given site, then the only other parameters of contention are methodology in measuring power draw, and variation in CPU -which I tried to eliminate by using a larger pool of reviews. An outlier would probably be an early ES vs late stepping- but that would likely show up in comparitive testing in earlier reviews.

 

[[H]@RD5TUFF]

Who cares if its old news or not, the point is that its as good as a 2600K which Bulldozer was meant to be last yr and the 2600K is not a slow CPU either, am i right?

It completely matters, comparing a brand new chip to one that's over a year old and not even sold anymore, is hardly a fair comparison again, all comparisons of the 8350 should be done against the 3570K !

 

[cadaveca]

An outlier would probably be an early ES vs late stepping- but that would likely show up in comparitive testing in earlier reviews.

Yeah, I'm kinda lost here why my numbers are so far out of the mix...but oh well. Either I got a really good 8350...or perhaps 8150? I am not sure....

A quick look at chip pics seems we all got the same batch? I wonder who gets the highest clocks...Imma gonna have to have another go at it when i get some time.

 

[Melvis]

It completely matters, comparing a brand new chip to one that's over a year old and not even sold anymore, is hardly a fair comparison again, all comparisons of the 8350 should be done against the 3570K !

Not to me it doesn't, in my eyes a 2600K is a very fast CPU (regardless if its new or not) and in fact still faster then the 3570K is it not? so im quite happy to compare the 3570K to the FX-8350, doesn't worry me in the least

 

[Absolution]

Its good that the 8350 finally manages to beat the Intel 2500k and in most cases is similar to the 2600k. (not in gaming though )

But those processors are really old. Is there any advantage (feature wise / besides 8 cores) to AMD's alternative now? (being it a bit late but finally overcoming those intels)

Also sad to see that memory performance is still lower than the 2500/2600.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8350_processor_review,17.html

Can someone explain whyyyyy

 

[eidairaman1]

Great review cadaveca

Looks like the major improvements were in power consumption idle, Pricing is pretty good actually.

Now we wait for SteamRoller.


btw FYI

Computer Hardware, AMD, Processors - Desktops, So...

(Thank OneMoar for the Link above)

220 for the 8350

 

[HumanSmoke]

195 for the 8350

$220

 

[eidairaman1]

$220

oops ya i misread lmao, (must of looked at the 8320)

 

[NeoXF]

Colour me impressed... almost thinking of switching from a i7-3770...

BTW... I've been reading tons of news and stuff about AMD's plans in the past weeks (maybe not so much in the past days tho), but I don't remember anything about Vishera 2.0 or Trinity 2.0, Orochi die and so on... can someone get me up to speed? A link maybe too.

 

[gourygabriev]

I am planning to build a new rig to replace my aging c2quad and my only problem from jumping into buying this chip is the power consumption needed to use it. I found out that my power consumption should be less than 500KW if I want to stay at my 13 cent per Kilowatt billing tier. If I go over, my rate will change to 18 cent a Kilowatt. I could stomach the added cost if they'll charge me 18 cents/KW if it will only go towards the excess... but it won't. It will be the new rate for my whole monthly energy consumption. They say it's to give incentive to people who save power but since I am already about 490KW a month average, I don't want the added cost since between my younger sister and my gaming habits account to about 6-7 hours a day of usage, I might end up getting the i7 since the difference in power consumption will most likely cover the price difference between the 2 processors in about 4 months of usage.

 

[Hustler]

9 out 10...you've got to be fucking joking,right?

"Low" but adequate single-threaded performance will not appeal to some.

You said it...in this regard the chip is still a dog...utterly useless for emulation.



From a reviewer who knows what their talking about...

"If you are looking to upgrade a full system then it's impossible to recommend. It's too slow, it draws too much power, it's too hot. It's just not worth it."

"We so wanted this to be a return to form for AMD. This is the best they have to offer, and they are still a mile behind the competition."

"For AMD, start with a fresh sheet of paper."

 

[blibba]

For me, the only demanding thing my computer does is games. And I'm not sure I can get over this:

 

[tacosRcool]

A much better CPU for the price!

 

[DaC]

well, it's good cpu IMO.
It's certainly not enough to compete with intel to us avarge gammers / users, but it sure has it uses for a different type of user, whom work with applications that will benefit a lot from the 8 core advantage from AMD.

As for me, I'll just look for a 2600k to upgrade from my G620

 

[Super XP]

This is a step in the right direction. Good work AMD.
I am now itching to buy one

 

[Melvis]

"If you are looking to upgrade a full system then it's impossible to recommend. It's too slow, it draws too much power, it's too hot. It's just not worth it.""

Yea of course its slow, a 2600K is one mega slow CPU hey? power draw is down a good margin from BD so yea totally terrible, shit yes 53c is smoking hot omg under $200 yea spot on man WAY over priced, what where they thinking? :shadedshu

 

[blibba]

Yea of course its slow, a 2600K is one mega slow CPU hey? power draw is down a good margin from BD so yea totally terrible, shit yes 53c is smoking hot omg under $200 yea spot on man WAY over priced, what where they thinking? :shadedshu

What kind of response is this?

The 8350 is slower than much cheaper Intel chips in a lot of the benchmarks that some people actually care about - see the 99th percentile Skyrim graph above. In addition, it uses far more power than any recent competitive Intel offering of similar performance. Particularly when overclocked, using more power translates to getting hotter.

I happen to agree that the 8350 is not impossible to recommend, but instead is only recommendable to a certain type of buyer (one who does not prioritise games, who does prioritise certain highly threaded tasks, who does not stress the CPU enough for the electricity bill to eliminate the savings). But when you put forward an argument like that, you destroy any chance of persuading anybody of its merits.

 

[NC37]

Still waiting for that "under $200" price. Guess maybe after launch week that price might finally get to places.

Is there going to be a 8320 review too? Curious about the clocking potential what with the 500Mhz stock clock difference.

 

[blibba]

Still waiting for that "under $200" price. Guess maybe after launch week that price might finally get to places.

Is there going to be a 8320 review too? Curious about the clocking potential what with the 500Mhz stock clock difference.

See Anandtech/Techreport.

 

[hardcore_gamer]

How about a 6300 review ? I think it is a good budget gaming CPU.