Review: AMD FX 8350 - 8320 - 6300 and 4300 processor performance

Ven0m

2012-10-25 09:22

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.

#4439149

BLEH!

2012-10-25 15:42

TBH I'd still consider the FX-8350 to be a quad core, with hardware hyperthreading. For the money it's a decent CPU.

#4439249

DSparil

2012-10-25 17:25

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.

#4439318

DSparil

2012-10-25 18:41

More second rate processors by AMD. They still can't catch the aging 2500K, a quad core chip. Meh.

lol, I just noticed this bonehead comment. Have you seen the cost of these new Vishera chips? Do you think they're trying to top Intel's high end? You're delusional. The 2500K costs $220. The competing FX-6300 costs $139. Do the math 🙄

#4439492

DSparil

2012-10-25 21:46

^ 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.

#4439534

DSparil

2012-10-25 22:22

^ 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

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.

this.

#4442232

Neo Cyrus

2012-10-29 14:01

For the money it's a decent CPU.

Please stop, the 2600K might die from laughing. $210 (best price I can find here) and it can't even match an ancient CPU in artificial benchmarks that favour multithreading. In reality (single and dual threaded programs) it would be destroyed by that fossil of a CPU. We can only hope Steamroller will actually be worth buying at a certain price range.

#4442236

Ven0m

2012-10-29 14:06

Please stop, the 2600K might die from laughing. $210 (best price I can find here) and it can't even match an ancient CPU in artificial benchmarks that favour multithreading. In reality (single and dual threaded programs) it would be destroyed by that fossil of a CPU. We can only hope Steamroller will actually be worth buying at a certain price range.

2600K is faster, but here, it costs $400 + the mobos cost more.

#4442239

Neo Cyrus

2012-10-29 14:10

2600K is faster, but here, it costs $400 + the mobos cost more.

Well the 2600K is obviously cheaper here, but the point is that the 8350 can't compare to really old hardware. The 3570K is the same $210 here, let's say the 8350 wins in artificial multithreaded benchmarks compared to that since it has no Hyper Threading... who's actually going to take an 8350 over a 3570K?

I don't know where you're getting your info from mate but that couldn't be further from the truth.

I was going by this article that was just posted, unless I'm going crazy and saw the wrong numbers, the 8350 lost in multithreaded artificial benchmarks. On that topic, how many programs these days use 8 threads? If I had the option of switching this rig I built in 2010 for an FX rig (assuming I can't sell it), I wouldn't accept. It doesn't matter how much I OC an FX chip, it can't match this thing in single and dual threaded programs, which is 95%+ of what I have. Not to mention I have even more headroom on this thing if I really wanted to squeeze every drop out of it.

#4442244

sunnyp_343

2012-10-29 14:13

LoL still AMD's high end 8350-8120 cant match 2500k after 2 years.but one thing is similar that is Price..lol

#4442252

Neo Cyrus

2012-10-29 14:18

You need to chill buddy, I'm not some child, I admit when I'm wrong... but from what I saw I'm not, I'll look again. Edit: The more I look around the worse it looks for FX, especially in real world performance, such as gaming at 1080p: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-14.html I was going to say at least it's good for media encoding for its price range: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-12.html That's something of a win, but that goes out the window if OC's are taken into consideration, it would lose to the equally priced 3570K.

#4442263

Ven0m

2012-10-29 14:30

(...) I was going to say at least it's good for media encoding for its price range: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-12.html That's something of a win, but that goes out the window if OC's are taken into consideration, it would lose to the equally priced 3570K.

Yeah, if you OC the sh#t out of 3570K, it should be still at good power level, while wiping the floor with the competitor.

#4442265

vbetts

Moderator

2012-10-29 14:33

Biggest issue with these bd based CPUs is that the os and the software can't correctly use the actual CPU on how it's intended. Now having the correct software probably wouldn't give it the biggest increase in performance in the world, but it would help. Correct me if I'm wrong too, but isn't windows 8 suppose to have a better CPU scheduler?

#4442267

Ven0m

2012-10-29 14:35

Biggest issue with these bd based CPUs is that the os and the software can't correctly use the actual CPU on how it's intended. Now having the correct software probably wouldn't give it the biggest increase in performance in the world, but it would help. Correct me if I'm wrong too, but isn't windows 8 suppose to have a better CPU scheduler?

Win8 has significantly improved CPU scheduler, but it won't do much if the software is not optimized enough.

#4442334

Neo Cyrus

2012-10-29 15:42

Here's a great idea: How about you two just don't respond to each other anymore. So... when's Steamroller due?

#4442339

DSparil

2012-10-29 15:46

oops. disregard

#4442361

DSparil

2012-10-29 16:14

Wow, it appears I missed out on a lot going in this thread. Its all been covered but I will just say this. Those of you here that continue to bash Piledriver fail to realize its everyday desktop performance potential. Gaming isn't the end all, be all. For an overall fast end-user experience, Piledriver is a win and especially at its price. I mean $139.99 for the FX-6300? That is a steal for what you get. Its a solid improvement over Bulldozer and AMD delivered on their promise of the overall performance increase. Even Hilbert said it was a great overall experience and it offered a quick and snappy overall performance. What more do you non believers need? The Intel crowd will never be convinced of anything.

Well why dont u buy one then if u can afford it? or ur just talk? ur the one who stupid defending a fail processor whos company laying thousand of people off cuz they not making enough sales wonder why? cuz their cpu deparment sucks! lmao! hey pal u still rocking a 4 core processor! its 2012 gotta have 8 core or u cant afford one?

and this guy is a bonehead. Get a grip and post when you have something worthwhile to contribute.

#4442364