AMD FX-8350 review | bit-tech.net
Written by
Harry Butler
November 6, 2012 | 11:03
Tags: #piledriver
Companies: #amd
1 — AMD FX-8350 Review2 — Test Setup3 — AMD FX-8350 Cinebench and WPrime Performance4 — AMD FX-8350 Image Editing and Video Encoding Performance5 — AMD FX-8350 Multi-tasking and Overall Performance6 — AMD FX-8350 — Gaming Performance7 — AMD FX-8350 — Power Consumption8 — AMD FX-8350 Performance Analysis, Overclocking and Conclusion
AMD FX-8350 Review
Manufacturer:AMD
UK price (as reviewed):£149.98 (inc VAT)
US price (as reviewed):$219.00 (ex TAX)
After the crushing disappointment that was the Bulldozer architecture and its line of FX-CPUs last year, AMD’s new CPUs now face an even sterner test. Since the release of the FX-8150 and the subsequent line of FX-branded CPUs, Intel has compounded its woes with its Ivy Bridge architecture’s 22nm die-shrink, increasing performance while dropping power consumption.
AMD’s FX-line of CPUs is back
AMD’s response is its new line of FX-CPUs (codenamed Vishera), led by the flagship chip, the FX-8350 and based on its new Piledriver architecture. Those hoping for a completely new architecture from AMD to readdress the balance of CPU power will be disappointed though, as Piledriver is an optimised version of Bulldozer and not a ground-up redesign. However, AMD claims up to 15 per cent performance improvements in some circumstances, so clearly there’s been a great deal of fine-tuning.
Unlike Intel’s ‘Tock’ and ‘Tick’ roadmaps which typically see ‘Tock’ architecture benefiting from a die-shrink, Piledriver is still made on the same 32nm process as its predecessor, and even matches Bulldozer in die-size (315mm²) transistor count (1.
2 billion) and peak TDP (125W). So just what has AMD changed?
The chip design in mostly unchanged from Bulldozer, with the same layout and cache structure
Piledriver is still based on the same basic design as Bulldozer, with the ‘8-core’ chip containing four Piledriver modules, each of which contains a pair of integer cores. While AMD markets these as individual CPU cores, each module’s pair of integer cores shares a number of resources, including the fetch and decode units, a Floating Point scheduler (FPU) and 2MB of L2 cache. This is part of AMD’s design philosophy of focusing on multi-threaded performance, with each module able to process two threads simultaneously. As we found last year though, this comes at the cost of single-threaded performance and with the down-side that relatively few applications are able to make use of four cores in multi-threaded workloads, let alone eight.
With the same basic layout, AMD’s improvements have focused on the Piledriver module while leaving the CPU’s layout untouched, with many small tweaks adding up to an overall improvement in performance.
Improved scheduling for the floating point unit and integer cores, an improved hardware prefetcher, L2 cache efficiency improvements and faster instruction execution all contribute to the increase in performance over last year’s chips, an impressive feat considering the physical limitations. AMD has also added support for the FMA3 and F16C instruction sets.
Improvements have been made however throughout the Piledriver module
The FX-8350 is also a healthy step up the MHz ladder from its predecessor. With a core frequency of 4GHz (20 x 200MHz) and the ability to Turbo Core (AMD’s version of Turbo Boost) upto 4.2GHz, it’s clocked 11 per cent higher than its predecessor despite the same 125W TDP. It’s priced far more competitively than the FX-8150 too; while last year’s top Bulldozer chip went on sale for around £200, the FX-8350 is a far more wallet friendly £150, seeing it go head-to-head with Intel’s Core i5-3570K. The FX-8350 still uses the AM3+ socket design too, so those who grabbed a 990FX chipset motherboard can simply update the BIOS and swap out the CPU.
Overclocking
As with all of AMD’s FX chips (as well as, confusingly, ‘K’ and Black Edition brands too), the FX-8350 possesses an unlocked CPU multiplier, allowing for straight forward overclocking. Unlike our exploits with the FX-8150, which required voltage increases to the North Bridge and HTT, with the FX-8350 we only needed to increase the core voltage from its default of 1.4V to 1.5V. We also disabled the usual array of c-states and AMD’s Cool’n’Quiet, and increased load line calibration to its ‘Ultra’ setting. Following these fairly minor adjustments, we were able to reach a core frequency of 4.8GHz (24 x 200) in an overclocking process that rivals the ease of Intel’s Ivy Bridge CPUs. However, any further increases to the core frequency, regardless of core voltage, led to core failures in prime95 for this sample at least, 4.8GHz looked to be the limit with consumer cooling.
AMD FX-8350 Specifications
- Frequency 4GHz
- Turbo Frequency up to 4.
2GHz - Core Piledriver
- Manufacturing process 32nm
- Number of cores eight physical
- Memory controller Dual-channel DDR3
- Cache 8 x 16KB L1 data, 4 x 64KB L1 instruction, 4 x 2MB L2, 4 x 2MB L3
- Packaging Socket AM3+
- Thermal Design Power (TDP 125W
- Features SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, SSE 4.1, SSE 4.2, 256-bit AVX, AESNI, PCLMULQDQ, AMD64, Cool’n’Quiet 3.0, AMD-V, MMX, FMA4, FM3, F16C, XOP
1 — AMD FX-8350 Review2 — Test Setup3 — AMD FX-8350 Cinebench and WPrime Performance4 — AMD FX-8350 Image Editing and Video Encoding Performance5 — AMD FX-8350 Multi-tasking and Overall Performance6 — AMD FX-8350 — Gaming Performance7 — AMD FX-8350 — Power Consumption8 — AMD FX-8350 Performance Analysis, Overclocking and Conclusion
AMD FX-8350 processor review: CPU specs, performance benchmarks
Buy on Amazon
FX-8350 processor released by AMD; release date: 23 October 2012.
The processor is designed for desktop-computers and based on Vishera microarchitecture.
CPU is unlocked for overclocking. Total number of cores — 8, threads — 8. Maximum CPU clock speed — 4.2 GHz. Maximum operating temperature — 61°C. Manufacturing process technology — 32 nm SOI. Cache size: L1 — 384 KB, L2 — 8 MB, L3 — 8 MB.
Supported memory types: DDR3.
Supported socket types: AM3+. Maximum number of processors in a configuration — 1. Power consumption (TDP): 125 Watt.
Benchmarks
| PassMark Single thread mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark CPU mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench 4 Single Core |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench 4 Multi-Core |
|
|
||||
| 3DMark Fire Strike Physics Score |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1. 5 DesktopFace Detection |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop Ocean Surface Simulation |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop T-Rex |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop Video Composition |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop Bitcoin Mining |
|
|
237 Frames/s
137 mHash/s| Name | Value |
|---|---|
| PassMark — Single thread mark | 1577 |
| PassMark — CPU mark | 6004 |
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 566 |
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 2751 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score | 3146 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection | 9.886 mPixels/s |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation | 21. 912 Frames/s |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex | 0.424 Frames/s |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition | 1.199 Frames/s |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining | 7.137 mHash/s |
Specifications (specs)
| Architecture codename | Vishera |
| Family | AMD FX-Series Processors |
| Launch date | 23 October 2012 |
| OPN PIB | FD8350FRHKBOX |
| OPN Tray | FD8350FRW8KHK |
| Place in performance rating | 1721 |
| Price now | $79. 99 |
| Series | AMD FX 8-Core Black Edition Processors |
| Value for money (0-100) | 32.95 |
| Vertical segment | Desktop |
| 64 bit support | |
| Base frequency | 4 GHz |
| Die size | 315 mm |
| L1 cache | 384 KB |
| L2 cache | 8 MB |
| L3 cache | 8 MB |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm SOI |
| Maximum core temperature | 61°C |
| Maximum frequency | 4. 2 GHz |
| Number of cores | 8 |
| Number of threads | 8 |
| P0 Vcore voltage | Min: 1.2 V — Max: 1.4 V |
| Transistor count | 1200 Million |
| Unlocked | |
|
|
|
| Supported memory frequency | 1866 MHz |
| Supported memory types | DDR3 |
| Max number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 |
| Sockets supported | AM3+ |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 125 Watt |
| PCI Express revision | n / a |
| Fused Multiply-Add (FMA) | |
| Intel® Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX) | |
| Intel® AES New Instructions | |
| AMD Virtualization (AMD-V™) | |
Navigation
Choose a CPU
Compare processors
Compare AMD FX-8350 with others
AMD
FX-8350
vs
AMD
Athlon 64 X2 3600+
AMD
FX-8350
vs
AMD
Athlon II X4 600e
AMD
FX-8350
vs
Intel
Celeron G1101
AMD
FX-8350
vs
Intel
Core i5-2500K
AMD
FX-8350
vs
AMD
A6-3670K
AMD
FX-8350
vs
Intel
Core i5-3470S
AMD FX-8350 processor based on Piledriver
microarchitecture
Bulldozer 2.
0 or 1.5 yet?
A year ago, we studied the firstborn of the new AMD architecture, and until recently, the FX-8150 remained the company’s top solution. Despite some ambiguity, despite the expansion of the range of cheaper devices, the FX-8170, which was once actively discussed by many in the first quarter of this year (as well as in the second and third), did not come out, and talk about it subsided. The reasons are clear: last year it was not possible to release it, and this no longer made sense, as the company worked on architectural improvements in the new generation of processors. The Piledriver microarchitecture, which replaced the Bulldozer, debuted on the market in the first half of this year. At first, however, only as part of mobile APUs, but from the very beginning it was obvious that its expansion into the desktop segment (both in the form of APUs and as the basis of high-performance «classic» processors) was only a matter of time. And not so big. Accordingly, the release of a new FX on the old architecture did not make sense, because it could not improve anything radically, but it was quite possible to spoil mass for a more modern competitor: it is obvious that the superiority of the already planned FX-8350 over the FX-8150 is greater than it would be over FX-8170.
And at the beginning of October we waited for desktop Trinity. In principle, Vishera could have been announced even then — in fact, we (like, apparently, most of the test labs) received samples of the A10-5800K and FX-8350 at the same time. However, to enhance the intrigue, the company decided not to share, but to present to the public APU and multi-module solutions separately — in order to finally spend October “under its own sign”. However, today all the veils of secrecy have fallen, so that we can not only evaluate the pros and cons of the new flagship of the line, but also introduce them to all readers. What are we going to do now.
The two protagonists of the article are obvious — FX-8150 and FX-8350.
As you can see, the old and new processors are very similar in terms of performance characteristics: four modules equipped with a large amount of third-level cache memory, manufactured using the same 32 nm process technology. They also have similar TDP and frequencies. More precisely, the frequency of the cache memory and the maximum frequency of the cores in Turbo mode are generally the same, but the starting one for a beginner has increased by more than 10%. Accordingly, with multi-threaded loading, the new processor has a significant advantage over the old one, even without taking into account intensive innovations. But single-threaded performance will increase only due to the architecture.
Therefore, after some deliberation, we decided to add the A10-5800K to the list of test subjects. Yes, of course, these are processors of completely different classes — here there are half as many modules, and there is no cache. But the architecture is the same, the frequencies are close — in general, it will be interesting to compare processors in a low-threaded software environment.
And for someone — not only in it: it may turn out that many consider the A10-5800K performance level sufficient for themselves, which, coupled with good video, lower power consumption and a much lower price, will easily outweigh the difference in performance 🙂
Another competitor taken directly from last year’s article is the Phenom II X6 1100T. It is interesting to us because the FX-8150 sometimes overtook the old flagship slightly, and there were also tests in which it completely lagged behind it, which made a number of fans of AMD products discouraged. Now there is no direct competition between FX and the older Phenom II, because, formally continuing their supplies (and even lowering prices), the company has reduced the shipment of top Phenom II to a minimum, but there are a lot of them on hand, so compare the performance with the new top solution interesting and helpful.
here and there sometimes some retailers will sell the FX-8350 at prices very close to those of the Core i7.
| System board | RAM | |
| AM3+ | ASUS CROSSHAIR V FORMULA (990FX) | G.Skill [ripjawsx] F3-149DOCL9D -8; 28) |
| AM3 | ASUS M4A78T-E (790GX) | Corsair Vengeance CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9B (2×1333; 9-9-9-24-2T, Unganged Mode) |
| FM2 | MSI FM2-A85XA-G65 (A85) | G.Skill [Ripjawsx] F3-14900CL9D-8GBXL (2 × 1866; 9-10-28) | LGAA1155 TH67XE (H67) | Corsair Vengeance CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9B (2×1333/1066; 9-9-9-24 / 8-8-8-20) |
Testing
we present in the diagrams the average result for a group of tests/applications (details on the testing methodology can be found in a separate article). The results on the diagrams are given in points, the performance of the iXBT.com reference test system of the 2011 sample is taken as 100 points. It is based on the AMD Athlon II X4 620 processor, but the amount of memory (8 GB) and the video card (NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 1280 MB by Palit) are standard for all tests of the «main line» and can only be changed as part of special studies.
Those who are interested in more detailed information are again traditionally invited to download a table in Microsoft Excel format, in which all the results are shown both in converted points and in «natural» form.
Interactive work in 3D packages
A traditionally low-threaded group of applications, which also gravitates towards Intel products, so there was no talk of intercompany competition initially, and even now it is not particularly observed. Something else is more interesting: three out of four AMD processors demonstrate the same level of performance, but the FX-8350 noticeably breaks away from them. We recall that in this mode, the clock frequencies of the other trio (when the new flagship enters) are approximately the same, and we conclude that some of the Bulldozer bottlenecks in the Piledriver really managed to be “expanded”: the FX-8150 slightly outperforms the A10-5800K only due to the presence cache memory of the third level, but it fails to fight on equal terms with the FX-8350, where there is a cache and a new architecture.
Final rendering of 3D scenes
Also a very interesting picture. Such a load was previously devastating for Bulldozer: only four vector units did not allow competing not only with the Core i5 (there are also four of them, but faster), but also with the Phenom II X6. And Piledriver has been improved internally. Plus, we managed to raise the frequencies at full load, so that the FX-8350 is no longer inferior to the above-mentioned processors, noticeably outperforming its predecessor. It is clear that this is still not enough to compete with the eight-thread Core i7 of the second and third generations (the first one also works at the level of the new Core i5), but the performance of the Core i5-3450 in such an inconvenient group of tests is very OK.
Packing and unpacking
It is noteworthy that the once top Phenom II X6 1100T, despite the large number of cores (one test out of four can use them) and the presence of L3 (which is important for all four), is only 5% ahead of the A10-5800K , where both computational threads and cache memory are smaller.
A good answer to those who are still sure of the wrong choice of path — they say, it was not necessary to develop a new architecture, but it was worth simply transferring Phenom II to a new technical process. Well, they would do it — so what? As you can see, there are tasks that are “convenient” for construction equipment. Actually, the FX-8150 also looked good in archiving tests, having performance at the level of the second generation Core i5 and some Core i7 of the first. And the FX-8350 added 10%, which already allows it to overtake all the third generation Core i5 and get closer to the second generation Core i7.
Audio encoding
And an even more convenient load for the FX line, under which the FX-8150 easily outperforms any Core i5. But it did not claim to be equal to the Core i7, and the FX-8350 is capable of this. The reason is clear: a 10% increase in performance per thread with the full utilization of all eight “half-cores” adds up to a 10% increase in clock frequency, which in the end gives already 20%.
Compilation
The situation is similar here. But the performance gain is somewhat less — cache memory is important for these applications, and the L3 characteristics in the new microarchitecture have not changed much (if only due to internal optimizations, both the volume and the frequency have remained the same). But even about 15% is also very good, since it allowed us to break away far from the Phenom II X6 1100T (the progress compared to which the FX-8150 was, to put it mildly, not impressive), and even with modern Core i7 «wrestle» almost by equal.
Mathematical and engineering calculations
Again we return to the low-threaded (for the most part) group of tests, in which so far there are no hints of direct competition with Intel products. But, which is also important, the FX-8350 in it is the fastest of the AMD processors, and earlier all FX were inferior to the older Phenom II. In general, let the victory over yourself, but not unimportant.
Raster graphics
This group occupies a neutral position: on the one hand, there is an increase over its predecessors, and a considerable one; on the other hand, the lag behind the older Intel processors was only reduced, and not completely overcome.
However, the FX-8150 overtook the only Core i3-2100, and all the Core i3s (including the latest ones), and even the Core i5-2400 (and slower ones, respectively), are already behind the FX-8350, so not everything is like that. simply.
Vector graphics
This group of programs does not like new modules — and that’s putting it mildly. In general, as before, the Phenom II is still faster in them. But at least not by 20%, as it was last year, so the effect of the architecture update should not be underestimated.
Video encoding
But here the effect is extremely small, since the video encoding programs treated the FX-8150 very well. On the other hand, higher frequencies still have an effect, so if earlier the Core i5-2400 was faster than all AMD processors, then the FX-8350 is on average faster than even the i5-2500/2500K.
Office software
It is not the first time that we are not up to the competitors of “other colors”, but we managed to break away from the “compatriots”.
There is still a lot in common between such diametrically opposed classes of software as “office” programs and 3D modeling packages;) In the latter, perhaps the gap from Core is smaller, but the principles are often similar. Although, it would seem, where is Maya — and where is Word!
Java
Another example of a “favorable” load for “building modules”, which the FX-8150 still could not manage in full, only slightly outperforming the Phenom II X6 1100T. As for the victory over the Core i5, firstly, it was predictable (eight threads against four), and secondly, it did not last long: the appearance of the third-generation Core i5 “overthrew” Bulldozer from not the first, but the prize. But the FX-8350 managed not only to restore the status quo, but also to get as close as possible to the Core i7 for LGA1155. Albeit only to the «old man» Core i7-2600 — but this is also the result.
Games
As we (and not only us) have said more than once, for any video card there is a certain level of processor performance, after which the latter ceases to be significant.
However, as we can see, AMD processors have not yet reached the level corresponding to the GTX 570, so they have room to grow. And the new architecture is better than the old one in this regard. Although, due to the peculiarities of the F1 2010 operation on six computing threads, the Phenom II X6 1100T is not the best representative of the old one here, yielding to the Phenom II X4 980, but the latter in terms of performance is between the A10-5800K and FX-8150, i.e. between Piledriver without L3 and Bulldozer with L3. And Piledriver with L3 (i.e. FX-8350) is over 5% faster! But eight threads of computing are not very relevant for the time being, so gamers may very well like the new dual-module FX-4300 the most: with comparable performance, but significantly cheaper.
Multitasking environment
During the operation, this experimental test showed good predictability and repeatability, so it did not present any revelations this time either: everything is similar to multi-threaded «individual» applications.
Well, since the bottleneck in the form of cache memory performance of the third level has not disappeared, the situation is closest to compilers — the FX-8150 was already able to bypass both the Phenom II X6 1100T and any Core i5, and the FX-8350 by another 10% faster, allowing it to get as close as possible to the Core i7. And just such types of loads show why four “dual-core” modules are needed. How, however, and why do Intel processors need Hyper-Threading technology.
Total
Starting from the very first test results, we had a vague regret about the unfulfilled: how simple everything would be if this processor was called FX-8150 and came out a year ago! Indeed: the superiority over the best Phenom II X6 1100T is noticeable, not nominal; despite the large number of single- and dual-threaded applications in the testing methodology (and in real life), the final result is at the level of older second-generation Core i5s, with the latter often noticeably ahead of the latter — such a representative of the new architecture would look extremely convincing.
But history (including computer history) does not tolerate the subjunctive mood. Therefore, we have what we have — it is already October 2012, and not 2011. It only helped that Intel also did not speed up the third generation of Core too much relative to the second, and 10% “on average” is one and a half times less than the 15% achieved by the new generation of AMD.
If you look not only at the average, then there are 17-20%. However, Intel also has more than “its own” 10%. Moreover, if you look closely, the most significant increase in performance in multi-threaded groups of tests. Which is connected not only and not so much with the architecture, but with the fact that both companies increased the frequencies in this mode. Intel (formally) to a lesser extent, but in the third-generation Core, Turbo Boost was also “turned up”. But AMD had to sharply increase the starting frequency, which can serve as an indirect confirmation that the Turbo Core (albeit 3.0) is still less efficient than the competing earlier development.
However, indirect confirmation is not needed here — a direct one is enough: the TS only works when some of the modules (or at least their halves) are turned off, and the TV increases the frequencies even at full load.
In addition, it becomes clear why the FX-8170 did not come out: the superiority over it would be less. Here, Intel somewhat blurred the triumph of Ivy Bridge, first increasing the starting frequencies of the second generation (in the i5-2550K and i7-2700K models) and only then releasing their successors, while AMD could not do this, if only for reasons of prestige. Therefore (in fact) the increase in performance between 2011 and 2012 for companies differs by about a factor of two. Fans of conspiracy theories may see this as collusion and / or Intel’s desire to support a competitor a little. Although, in fact, the company went a little differently: yes, top models accelerated slightly, but energy-efficient ones grew significantly. In particular, we managed to release the Core i7-3770T (the first desktop Core i7 with a 45W TDP) and the i7-3612QM (the first eight-threaded notebook processor with a TDP of 35W — previously only dual-core Core i7s were capable of this).
And in the 65 W region, the frequencies have grown a lot: the Core i7-3770S has replaced the Core i7-2600S with frequencies of 2.8-3.8 GHz and the HDG 2000 video core — 3.1-3.9GHz (i.e. + 10% frequency at full load) and HDG 4000. And now remember that at a constant frequency of 3.2 GHz, Ivy Bridge scored 195 points — the real i7-3770S should be slightly better (if only because of active «boost» in low-threaded applications). Maybe a little worse, but it doesn’t matter: as we saw today, the FX-8350 is capable of only 186 points — without any video core (except with the Radeon HD 4290 chipset, which is comparable to the second generation HDG at best) and at 125 W against a faster processor part with video and 65 watts.
On the other hand, it’s not that scary. The older multi-module FX still do not pretend to be used in laptops or monoblocks — there is Trinity for this. Which are quite out of place there — even from a comparison of the A10-5800K and FX-8350, we can conclude that, on average, the second one is “only” one and a half times faster, and in programs for domestic purposes (and close to them in terms of the logic of work) due to the traditional low-flow of the latter, the difference is reduced to 10-15%.
Plus the most powerful integrated video core. The A10-5800K, of course, is also not suitable for compact systems, but even in the desktop line, AMD has the A10-5700 with a TDP of 65 W with exactly the same video part and slightly lower processor performance. And the destiny of FX in such conditions is systems with a deliberately “heavy” load and a considerable number of other energy-consuming peripherals. First of all, powerful discrete video cards come to mind that can “gobble up” 200-300 W, against which the difference in TDP between different processors quickly fades and evaporates. It is clear that competition in this segment is not easy, however … However, under a multi-threaded load, the new FX are already unconditionally inferior to at least Core i5, and often reach the level of Core i7. Plus, the complete freedom of overclocking, coveted by a considerable number of potential buyers. Which, by the way, generally makes (at least for them) a conversation about power consumption not very relevant, but it is aggravated by the fact that (as we already wrote) some FX disadvantages become advantages — it is easier to “remove” the necessary amount of heat from a large crystal than with small.
Ultimately, the following general picture emerges. The second generation of FX did not become a radical breakthrough (just as the first did not) — the revolution is once again postponed, already before the Steamroller. However, the company managed to improve the performance of end devices and prove the viability of the new architecture in practice. Of course, the fact that the proof turned out to be two-stage is somewhat disappointing, but the main thing is that it did turn out. Moreover, such situations happened in the past — what was the first Phenom worth (and the first FX were definitely not such a failure). This is not enough for competition in the top segment, but in the mass (and so) it is quite possible — in any case, the FX-8000 are and will continue to be the cheapest processors that support eight computation threads in the foreseeable future (along with some younger Xeon models). , of course, but these are very specific products, and still somewhat more expensive). Thus, for those who demand it, they can be a very good choice.
Moreover, the new generation does this with much fewer reservations than the previous one.
We thank the company Corsair , Palit , “ F-Center ” and “ Yulmart ”
for help in the set of test stands
FX-8350 processor [in 17 benchmans] 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000
AMD
FX-8350
- Interface
- Core frequency
- Video memory size
- Memory type
- Memory frequency
- Maximum resolution
Description
AMD started AMD FX-8350 sales 23 October 2012. This is Vishera architecture desktop processor primarily aimed at office systems. It has 8 cores and 8 threads and is manufactured in 32nm SOI technology, the maximum frequency is 4200 MHz, the multiplier is locked.
In terms of compatibility, this is an AM3+ processor with a TDP of 125W. It supports DDR3 memory.
It provides poor benchmark performance at
5.
89%
from the leader, which is AMD EPYC 7h22.
FX
8350
vs
EPYC
7h22
General information
Information about the type (desktop or laptop) and architecture of the FX-8350, as well as when sales started and cost at that time. 91
Features
FX-8350 quantitative parameters: number of cores and threads, clock speeds, manufacturing process, cache size and multiplier lock state. They indirectly speak about the performance of the processor, but for an accurate assessment, you need to consider the results of the tests.
| cores |
Virtualization technologiesThe technologies supported by the FX-8350 that accelerate the performance of virtual machines are listed.
Memory supportTypes, maximum size and number of channels of RAM supported by the FX-8350. Higher memory frequency may be supported depending on the motherboard.
tests
|
1 
Also includes a separate single-threaded test. 
The Single-Core version uses a single CPU thread to render a futuristic motorcycle model. 
It has been superseded by later versions of Cinebench which use more modern variants of the Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads one CPU thread with ray tracing, rendering a glossy room full of crystal spheres and lights. 
68
4% 