Even before AMD officially released its Bulldozer-based FX-Series of desktop processors last year, the company was already talking about the follow-on microarchitecture codenamed “Piledriver”. In fact, in the conclusion of our launch article featuring the AMD FX-8150, we posted an AMD-provided slide that showed Piledriver was already on-deck and that it would offer IPC and power improvements over existing architectures, which would result in roughly a 10% to 15% uplift in performance. We have already shown you what Piledriver could do in mainstream APUs in our coverage of the desktop AMD A10 and A8-Series of products here and the mobile A10-4600M here, but today AMD is finally refreshing its higher-end desktop CPU line-up, which hasn’t seen a new product launch for just over a year. The updated AMD FX-Series of desktop processors featuring the Piledriver microarchitecture was codenamed “Vishera” and we’ve had the flagship variant, the new FX-8350, in the lab for a couple of weeks now... AMD FX-8350 Vishera 8-Core CPU Review
Wanna join the discussion?! Login to your HotHardware Forums forum account, or Register a new forum account.
results are weird. I5 doing just as well as the i7s in some cases. Are these software tests suitable?
Results are not weird at all. The tests are a combination of single and multi-threaded workloads, and we've got three families / generations of Intel processors represented. In single threaded workloads, the newer Ivy Bridge-based Core i5's are sometimes able to outperform older Sandy Bridge-based chips due to architectural enhancements and higher Turbo speeds. Also note that additional cores and support for HT won't benefit a test that's single or dual-threaded at most.
I just had to make this decision for a client who was having difficulties with her Phenom II 965 system which I recognized because we have the same issues on my system with the same processor and MB and frequent lock ups. This is a different architecture all together from CPU to board to memory bus I know but the price difference for an i7-3820 relative to the productivity it produces for her applications as a professional architect are to good to not go with them. This processor is also a couple weeks to late for the necessity we had at then, either way the price VS the performance makes it irrelevant either way.
Irrelevant?,......I don't think so.
When you consider that most of Intel's latest CPUs require you to buy a new motherboard to go with your shiny new chip, the AM3+ board's ability to run the latest FX processors gains a new clarity.
Even though I already have an FX-4170, I can just buy a FX-8350 CPU and install it and I'm upgraded. I might need a BIOS update, but that's no big deal. The performance isn't what my i7-2600K gets, but it's completely acceptable for my needs.
Marco, I have a question,............I've heard it said that Windows eight has optimizations built-in that take advantage of AMD Vishera's newer design. Is this true, or is it just so much BS?
Did you test this CPU with Win-8 to see if it performs better in Win-8 as opposed to Win-7? Are there any plans to do so?
@Realneil - Windows 8 does have updates to the scheduler that should increase performance and efficiency slightly with Bulldozer and Piledriver, but the I haven't done any official testing. Don't expect much of a boost though--a couple of percentage points here and there, tops.
Thanks for the answer Marco.
I may get one of these FX-8350 CPUs once the prices calm down a little.
Me too, the performance looks good enough for me, but Newegg has them listed for $30 over msrp. Maybe next month will be the time to buy.
That's why I'm waiting. I don't like the 'brand new' tax either.
Ok, so I am in the middle of deciding between this Amd fx 8350 processor and the Intel® Core™ i7 3970X Six-core 3.5GHz/4.0GHz Turbo 15MB L3 Cache w/ HyperThreading. I have been asking a lot of people for their opinion and really want to know, which processor will preform better? Can someone please tell me which processor has better performance? Thanks.
They both will perform well, but the Intel part is certainly faster.
You already know that you'll pay a hefty price premium for the extra performance though. The motherboard will be more expensive too.
The bottom line is that the AMD setup is plenty good enough for most uses, but the Uber Expensive Intel part that you're comparing it to is the performance king.
So since I stopped using AMD in 2009, I haven't looked back. I was out of the country when the core 2 duo made its appearance, otherwise I would have jumped ship sooner. The reason I feel the need to make a comment on this one, is because I feel the fx-8350 isn't getting the praise it deserves here. Sure, intel's are faster, they've been faster for a long while now, but AMD hasn't always been about speed, especially over the past few years.
AMD is more about the price per performance ratio, at least it's always felt that way. Yet most of us with the funds available still prefer to take the faste, more expensive route, but in reality how many of us even have any sort of bottle necking issue related to our CPU anymore? Why over pay for minor gains, that aren't even required for todays game when AMD has given us a solid lower power CPU that delivers quite a punch considering it's under $200.
Neil makes a great point here too, with AMD you can swap out chips and you're up and running. With intel we're looking at least $40-$50 for the locked equivalent to the 8350, and then we're dumping more into the motherboard. I hadn't even thought of this.
AMD may not be the fastest here, but they are back on the path that once put them on top. Let's just hope they finish ironing out the problems bulldozer brought along and give us a product that puts intel back in the rear view.
I don't have the 8350 myself,.....not yet anyways.
But I realize that these new AMD chips are plenty good enough to give ~good~ game. (you just need a good video card)
As for AMD, I guess that the best complement that I can give them is to buy from them.
I have a Phenom-II 980 Black, and a FX-4170 Quad core and they are both great gamers. Before too long, I'll have the FX-8350 too.
AMD really doesn't have to beat Intel as to performance. All they have to do is to keep producing viable products for less money.
So if this processor had to be matched up with an equivalent from Intel's Ivy-bridge series what would it be?
It's one thing to simply say its outperformed by this, but outperforms this but I think it's much more informative to see a direct comparison to it's equivalent from the other side.
It's easier to compare Intel to Intel and AMD to AMD cpu's so finding the CPU that matches one from one brand to another serves as sort of the translator for comparison
The closest comparison is the i5-3470