AMD FX-8350 and FX-6300 Review: Desktop Flagship Series Refresh

[Jos]

Read the full article at:
[newwindow=https://www.techspot.com/review/586-amd-fx-8350-fx-6300/]https://www.techspot.com/review/586-amd-fx-8350-fx-6300/[/newwindow]

Please leave your feedback here.

 

[oldikes]

It's irritating that the performance increase is minimal, but at least the pricing is more aggressive this time around. For 220, I can't justify NOT buying Intel, but when it sells like crap, it'll go down in a few months... gotta wait till then I guess.

 

[dividebyzero]

Thanks for the article Steve. Interesting (but totally expected results) read

 

[stan4]

It's a shame AMD can't keep up... if this keeps going on we will start getting less bang for our buck.

 

[Guest]

The worst part was the last paragraph: for those with a high end Phenom II quad core (that's what, 2 years old now.) AMD still doesn't have a viable upgrade for you.

I want to make an AMD build next time I upgrade, I really do. But they really need to get a decent CPU out.

 

[MrBungle]

The worst part was the last paragraph: for those with a high end Phenom II quad core (that's what, 2 years old now.) AMD still doesn't have a viable upgrade for you.

I want to make an AMD build next time I upgrade, I really do. But they really need to get a decent CPU out.

I guess it depends on what you use your computer for but if you're a gamer, there really isn't much in the way of tangible benefits for anything faster than a mid-range CPU these days. All you get is varying levels of frame rates beyond the refresh rate of your monitor.

As much as I'd love to see AMD come out with something that would make Intel spit their proverbial coffee all over their desk, I think I'd much rather see the software guys do something interesting so that we could actually push the systems we have now.

 

[Guest]

I fail to see how a 8350 isn't a great cpu, it is almost equal to the 2600k in performance, lower price and 8 cores (if that works for something), and with oc it would be better than a 2600. The bad thing is the ohmy power consumption.

 

[Guest]

[LEFT]It's time for AMD to sell its CPU business to Apple.[/LEFT]
[LEFT] [/LEFT]
[LEFT]With AMD fanboism rivaling isheepism, Apple can turn the tide.[/LEFT]

 

[dividebyzero]

I fail to see how a 8350 isn't a great cpu.

It's great for the vast majority of computer users. The only ones it isn't great for (in comparison with Intel's comparitive offerings) is the majority of benchmarks (which tend to be 1-2 threaded), OC'ing with limited cooling budget, and multi-GPU benchmarking/gaming (in comparison to Intel's offerings) - none of which really describes the majority of computer users. The main problem is, that for that same majority of people a cheaper CPU wouldn't lessen their experience- a $140 FX-6300 would likely make for just a strong performer for most peoples workloads.
In the end, AMD is fighting against their own products/customer base. If you aim at the budget end of the market, you get budget minded people buying...and budget minded people don't upgrade very often. The fact that Intel has a similarly priced and performing part in the 3570K just adds to the problem.

AMD's saving grace isn't the CPU, but the chipset. ECC memory support for the workstation minded, and triple/quad native GPU support makes more appeal than the CPU's.

 

[Guest]

This review seems to stand alone in not showing a meaningful performance increase over Bulldozer. I suspect the chip in question may have a fault - or BIOS support is problematic... performance here doesn't even scale with the clock speed, indicating a LOSS in IPC - which no other review has found.

Anandtech even witnessed a reduction (however slight) in power draw with the 8350 - while performing better across the board - clock per clock = and then having a faster clock to help spread the distance in multi-threading tasks (single threading difference is minimal as the 8150 and 8350 will be clocked similarly - and IPC gains don't effect all work loads identically).

I'd suggest disabling turbo on the 8350 and 8150 used in the review and do a clock-per-clock mini-comparison to see if perhaps you either have a sub-par chip or BIOS... or just a missed configuration issue. (no one's perfect).

 

[Guest]

Indeed, results seem very fishy (not suggestion it was done on purpose!). Looks like there was some HW/software issue since all other reviews show 8350 significantly (10-20%) outperforming older 8150. Hardware.fr chart even shows the 4Ghz performance comparison between PD and BD and it's 7.7% in applications and 13.55(!) in games. AT has similar results, too.

 

[Lionvibez]

I fail to see how a 8350 isn't a great cpu, it is almost equal to the 2600k in performance, lower price and 8 cores (if that works for something), and with oc it would be better than a 2600. The bad thing is the ohmy power consumption.

Sorry but I disagree.

If you are comparing an OC 8350 to a stock 2600k maybe but when you overclock the intel chip it still has better performance and lower power consumption.

 

[Guest]

Disappointing, but not unexpected. From what I've read, Piledriver was never going to be a massive improvement over Bulldozer, Steamroller will fill that gap next year (hopefully), but even so, there doesn't really seem to be any compelling reason to buy AMD over intel at the moment. Even if the FX8350 can outperform a similarly priced Core i5, the power consumption is still more, which makes Intel the cheaper option longer-term, while being about as good on the price/performance scale.

I hope AMD can pick up the pace again, I really do. I've got good hopes for Steamroller, since I'm going to be looking for a new build around then, but I hope that they can compete with Haswell.

 

[Guest]

So on single-threaded performance they still lag far behind Intel, but on multi-threaded performance they're competitive. Who wants a CPU that's only competitive in heavily multi-threaded scenarios? Single-threaded performance is still what matter most of the time. And as Anandtech pointed out, it doesn't look like AMD will ever catch up on Intel on that level, at least if current trends continue.

I don't know how AMD put themselves in this hole, after dominating Intel for such a long time (Athlon 64 vs P4 era), but they need to step up their game big time.

 

[oldikes]

I just read toms hardware review and it does seem they get some better numbers. Still not great, but better. idk though, I dont know much about benchmarks (most they seem quite flawed to me, as alot of people do benches with different specs, like different kids of ram or brands of video card...Not SUPPOSED to cause a difference, but if you are comparing the two CPUs alone, then you want everything else to be the same...)

 

[veLa]

AMD has been nothing but a let down since AM2. I really preferred them over Intel as well, I was hoping my future systems would run AMD processors, but I'm sticking with the Core i7

 

[VitalyT]

Another Power Hog from AMD, just as slow... No aggressive pricing is gonna help the buyer who will have to pay a higher electrical bill for AMD system.

 

[dividebyzero]

Steamroller will fill that gap next year (hopefully),...I hope AMD can pick up the pace again, I really do. I've got good hopes for Steamroller, since I'm going to be looking for a new build around then, but I hope that they can compete with Haswell.

There's gathering evidence that Steamroller has been put back until 2014. Globalfoundries 28nm bulk process is tasked with delivering...and GloFo's own roadmap makes interesting reading:

Just for the record, GloFo are only just now sampling low power 28nm
Steamroller could well be going up against Intel's Broadwell as well as Haswell.

 

[Guest]

I call bull on this article - I get 7000kbps with Winrars internal benchmark on my FX-8120 @ 4ghz with windows 8.

 

[WaveZero]

True, but for mainstream market unfortunately they use Windows and Intel is still the best performer for them. I personally wouldn't mind an Octacore PC. For encoding, I heard it's perfect if you do it correctly with all the cores.

 

[Guest]

I can only assume it was not a deliberate hatchet job and the lack of knowledge is the reason for their test configuration. very poor article
i5 3570k user btw and hot a fanboy of either supplier

 

[Guest]

$200+ chips:
Only unit I see worth testing is the 3570k from Intel for experimenting. But I would still not upgrade my 1100t for it, nor would I swap out my 2500k for it.

The fx-8350 isn't bad but for $10 more you could upgrade to the i5-3570k, which I feel outclasses the fx-8350. Wait for the price to drop, or no go. If you did get it, it's not bad, since it could do possibly anything you want and more, but me, being a mutual user of both, I would rather get the 3570k. If the pile driver dips to $179, I'll buy. Anything more and its back to the fx-6300 @$139 or APUs.

The i7-3770k is simply over price for its performance boost. Rather save my money and get a better GPU or SSD.

$100-$200 chips:
This range actually has a lot more options.

i3-3220 is a duo core and locked processor that originally competed with fx-4170.
fx-4170 was favorable till fx-4300 came out. But now fx-6300 is only $10 more than fx-4300..
If you don't know how strong the fx-6300 is, look at the chart and remember its a $139 cpu.
Also google "4170 vs 3220" and you'll see that the two are rivals.

i5-3450 just simply costs too much for its performance difference; $199 is simply too much for its performance, compared to its competitors. $30 more and you get the i5-3570k unlock-able with already super performance.
$60 behind is the fx-6300, but sadly the gap is too large for teh performance difference.
.
I would honestly pick the fx-6300. It just simply out-values anything around its market.

Bad Year for upgrade. Good year for new builders. Strong and more affordable; just not enough improvements for people already using workable units.

 

[Guest]

Well said ! Although, everyday software seems more Intel friendly. I am still using my Athlon 64 with an EVGA 6800 I bought from ABSPC. It has never broken. If a mid grade CPU is faster than your high end GPU, whats the point in being state of the art ?

 

[Guest]

BF3 FTW

It's above 80 fps on ultra; non OC!!

Online Gaming with WOW is decent as well: 1680x1050 @ 86.7 fps
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-15.html


Tips:
CPU/GPU games like Skyrim and most Blizzard games are always going to tilt in Intels favor.
According to techspot, "Skyrim isn't optimized to take advantage of extra threads" and "The problem lies in that StarCraft II will only utilize two cores".
https://www.techspot.com/review/467-skyrim-performance/page8.html
https://www.techspot.com/review/305-starcraft2-performance/page14.html
Skyrim @ 68 fps
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-14.html
SC2 @ 51 fps
http://www.ultimatehardware.net/amd/amd_fx_8350_vs_amd_fx_8150_page4.htm

Making me feel that BF3 and Crysis 2 are "better written" games...
Nonetheless SC2 and Skyrim are still fun.

Some people insist that PD cannot game...
I don't see the problem.

 

[06yfz450ridr]

$200+ chips:
Only unit I see worth testing is the 3570k from Intel for experimenting. But I would still not upgrade my 1100t for it, nor would I swap out my 2500k for it.

The fx-8350 isn't bad but for $10 more you could upgrade to the i5-3570k, which I feel outclasses the fx-8350. Wait for the price to drop, or no go. If you did get it, it's not bad, since it could do possibly anything you want and more, but me, being a mutual user of both, I would rather get the 3570k. If the pile driver dips to $179, I'll buy. Anything more and its back to the fx-6300 @$139 or APUs.

The i7-3770k is simply over price for its performance boost. Rather save my money and get a better GPU or SSD.

$100-$200 chips:
This range actually has a lot more options.

i3-3220 is a duo core and locked processor that originally competed with fx-4170.
fx-4170 was favorable till fx-4300 came out. But now fx-6300 is only $10 more than fx-4300..
If you don't know how strong the fx-6300 is, look at the chart and remember its a $139 cpu.
Also google "4170 vs 3220" and you'll see that the two are rivals.

i5-3450 just simply costs too much for its performance difference; $199 is simply too much for its performance, compared to its competitors. $30 more and you get the i5-3570k unlock-able with already super performance.
$60 behind is the fx-6300, but sadly the gap is too large for teh performance difference.
.
I would honestly pick the fx-6300. It just simply out-values anything around its market.

Bad Year for upgrade. Good year for new builders. Strong and more affordable; just not enough improvements for people already using workable units.

I recently built a new pc on a strict budget basically for a whole computer minus a 250gb 7200rpm drive and opted for the 6300 since it was a steal as well as a 550 ti fpb for 89 bucks and 8gb of 1866. honestly for what I use it for its great, I can easily play bf3 on high and some ultra and wm3 maxed out. the 6300 runs really cool even with the stock cooler but stress testing it does to about 56c. with my water cooler I bought for $25( san ace mc liquid cooler for a lga775 with a mod amd bracket) maxed it doesnt go above 35c idle is @ 14c OC. I still dont know if id go intel if I had the money, I can play all my games and multi task with the rest of them while spending way less than a i7 etc