Amd fx 8350 vs 8370: AMD FX-8350 vs AMD FX-8370: What is the difference?

AMD FX-8350 vs AMD FX-8370: What is the difference?

35points

AMD FX-8350

33points

AMD FX-8370

64 facts in comparison

AMD FX-8350

AMD FX-8370

Why is AMD FX-8350 better than AMD FX-8370?

Has an unlocked multiplier?
32GB larger maximum memory amount?
64GBvs32GB

Why is AMD FX-8370 better than AMD FX-8350?

1.53x higher PassMark result?
9049vs5926
1.52x higher PassMark result (overclocked)?
9952vs6542
66.0 more performance per watt?
88.0vs22.0
1 higher Turbo Core version?
3vs2

Which are the most popular comparisons?

AMD FX-8350

AMD Ryzen 5 3600

AMD FX-8370

AMD FX-6300

AMD FX-8350

Intel Core i7-4770K

AMD FX-8370

Intel Core i7-7700

AMD FX-8350

AMD Ryzen 5 5600G

AMD FX-8370

Intel Core i5-7400

AMD FX-8350

AMD FX-6300

AMD FX-8370

AMD FX-9370

AMD FX-8350

AMD Phenom II X4 965

AMD FX-8370

AMD Ryzen 5 5500U

AMD FX-8350

AMD Ryzen 5 5500U

AMD FX-8370

AMD Ryzen 3 3200G

AMD FX-8350

AMD FX-8320

AMD FX-8370

AMD Phenom II X4 955

AMD FX-8350

Intel Core i7-3770

AMD FX-8370

AMD Ryzen 5 2600

AMD FX-8350

Intel Core i7-4770

AMD FX-8370

AMD Ryzen 5 3600

AMD FX-8350

AMD Ryzen 3 3200G

Price comparison

User reviews

Overall Rating

AMD FX-8350

5 User reviews

AMD FX-8350

9. 8/10

5 User reviews

AMD FX-8370

0 User reviews

AMD FX-8370

0.0/10

0 User reviews

Features

Value for money

9.6/10

5 votes

No reviews yet

Gaming

9.6/10

5 votes

No reviews yet

Performance

9.2/10

5 votes

No reviews yet

Reliability

9.6/10

5 votes

No reviews yet

Energy efficiency

8.6/10

5 votes

No reviews yet

Performance

1.CPU speed

8 x 4GHz

The CPU speed indicates how many processing cycles per second can be executed by a CPU, considering all of its cores (processing units). It is calculated by adding the clock rates of each core or, in the case of multi-core processors employing different microarchitectures, of each group of cores.

2.CPU threads

More threads result in faster performance and better multitasking.

3.turbo clock speed

4.2GHz

4.3GHz

When the CPU is running below its limitations, it can boost to a higher clock speed in order to give increased performance.

4.Has an unlocked multiplier

✔AMD FX-8350

✖AMD FX-8370

Some processors come with an unlocked multiplier which makes them easy to overclock, allowing you to gain increased performance in games and other apps.

5.L2 cache

A larger L2 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.

6.L3 cache

A larger L3 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.

7.L1 cache

A larger L1 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.

8.L2 core

1MB/core

More data can be stored in the L2 cache for access by each core of the CPU.

9.L3 core

1MB/core

More data can be stored in the L3 cache for access by each core of the CPU.

Memory

1.RAM speed

1866MHz

It can support faster memory, which will give quicker system performance.

2.maximum memory bandwidth

21GB/s

This is the maximum rate that data can be read from or stored into memory.

3.DDR memory version

DDR (Double Data Rate) memory is the most common type of RAM. Newer versions of DDR memory support higher maximum speeds and are more energy-efficient.

4.memory channels

More memory channels increases the speed of data transfer between the memory and the CPU.

5.maximum memory amount

The maximum amount of memory (RAM) supported.

6. bus transfer rate

5.4GT/s

The bus is responsible for transferring data between different components of a computer or device.

7.Supports ECC memory

✖AMD FX-8350

✖AMD FX-8370

Error-correcting code memory can detect and correct data corruption. It is used when is it essential to avoid corruption, such as scientific computing or when running a server.

8.eMMC version

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-8350)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-8370)

A higher version of eMMC allows faster memory interfaces, having a positive effect on the performance of a device. For example, when transferring files from your computer to the internal storage over USB.

9.bus speed

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-8350)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-8370)

The bus is responsible for transferring data between different components of a computer or device.

Benchmarks

1.PassMark result

This benchmark measures the performance of the CPU using multiple threads.

2.PassMark result (single)

This benchmark measures the performance of the CPU using a single thread.

3.Geekbench 5 result (multi)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-8370)

Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures a processor’s multi-core performance. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)

4.Cinebench R20 (multi) result

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-8370)

Cinebench R20 is a benchmark tool that measures a CPU’s multi-core performance by rendering a 3D scene.

5.Cinebench R20 (single) result

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-8370)

Cinebench R20 is a benchmark tool that measures a CPU’s single-core performance by rendering a 3D scene.

6.Geekbench 5 result (single)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-8370)

Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures a processor’s single-core performance. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)

7.Blender (bmw27) result

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-8350)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-8370)

The Blender (bmw27) benchmark measures the performance of a processor by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render the scene in less time.

8.Blender (classroom) result

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-8350)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-8370)

The Blender (classroom) benchmark measures the performance of a processor by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render the scene in less time.

9.performance per watt

This means the CPU is more efficient, giving a greater amount of performance for each watt of power used.

Features

1.uses multithreading

✖AMD FX-8350

✖AMD FX-8370

Multithreading technology (such as Intel’s Hyperthreading or AMD’s Simultaneous Multithreading) provides increased performance by splitting each of the processor’s physical cores into virtual cores, also known as threads. This way, each core can run two instruction streams at once.

2.Has AES

✔AMD FX-8350

✔AMD FX-8370

AES is used to speed up encryption and decryption.

3.Has AVX

✔AMD FX-8350

✔AMD FX-8370

AVX is used to help speed up calculations in multimedia, scientific and financial apps, as well as improving Linux RAID software performance.

4.SSE version

SSE is used to speed up multimedia tasks such as editing an image or adjusting audio volume. Each new version contains new instructions and improvements.

5. Has F16C

✔AMD FX-8350

✔AMD FX-8370

F16C is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting the contrast of an image or adjusting volume.

6.bits executed at a time

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-8350)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-8370)

NEON provides acceleration for media processing, such as listening to MP3s.

7.Has MMX

✔AMD FX-8350

✔AMD FX-8370

MMX is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting the contrast of an image or adjusting volume.

8.Has TrustZone

✖AMD FX-8350

✖AMD FX-8370

A technology integrated into the processor to secure the device for use with features such as mobile payments and streaming video using digital rights management (DRM).

9.front-end width

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-8350)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-8370)

The CPU can decode more instructions per clock (IPC), meaning that the CPU performs better

Price comparison

Cancel

Which are the best CPUs?

AMD FX-8350 vs AMD FX-8370

Summary

AMD FX-8350

100%
AMD FX-8370

102%

Relative performance

AMD FX-8350

100%
AMD FX-8370

103%

Relative performance

AMD FX-8350

100%
AMD FX-8370

101%

Relative performance

Reasons to consider AMD FX-8350

None

Reasons to consider AMD FX-8370

This is a newer product, it might have better application compatibility/performance (check features chart below).

Gaming

No clear winner declared

Productivity

No clear winner declared

Features

AMD FX-8350			AMD FX-8370
MMX
SSE
SSE2
SSE3
SSSE3
SSE4. 1
SSE4.2
SSE4a
AMD64
AMD-V
AES
AVX
CLMUL
CVT16
EVP
FMA4
XOP
Turbo Core
HT3.1

Architecture

	AMD FX-8350		AMD FX-8370
Architecture	AMD Piledriver	vs	AMD Piledriver
Market	Desktop	vs	Desktop
Memory Support	DDR3	vs	DDR3
Codename	Vishera	vs	Vishera
Release Date	Oct 2012	vs	Sep 2014

Cores

	AMD FX-8350		AMD FX-8370
Cores	8	vs	8
Threads	8	vs	8
SMPs	1	vs	1
Integrated Graphics	No	vs	No

Cache

	AMD FX-8350		AMD FX-8370
L1 Cache	384 KB	vs	384 KB
L2 Cache	8192 KB	vs	8192 KB
L3 Cache	8192 KB (shared)	vs	8192 KB (shared)

Physical

	AMD FX-8350		AMD FX-8370
Socket	AMD Socket AM3+	vs	AMD Socket AM3+
Max Case Temp	unknown	vs	unknown
Package	uPGA	vs	uPGA
Die Size	315mmÂ²	vs	315mmÂ²
Process	32 nm	vs	32 nm

Performance

	AMD FX-8350		AMD FX-8370
Cpu Frequency	4000 MHz	vs	4000 MHz
Turbo Clock	4200 MHz	vs	4300 MHz
Base Clock	200 MHz	vs	200 MHz
Voltage	1. 45 V	vs	1.45 V
TDP	125 W	vs	125 W

AMD FX-8350

2562 points
AMD FX-8370

2623 points

Points — higher is better

AMD FX-8350

16006 points
AMD FX-8370

16006 points

Points — higher is better

AMD FX-8350

10913
AMD FX-8370

10991

points — higher is better

AMD FX-8350

2425
AMD FX-8370

2540

points — higher is better

AMD FX-8350

12225
AMD FX-8370

12941

points — higher is better

AMD FX-8350

2121
AMD FX-8370

2167

points — higher is better

AMD FX-8350

1497
AMD FX-8370

1506

points per second — higher is better

AMD FX-8350

22898
AMD FX-8370

22994

MIPS — higher is better

AMD FX-8350

73. 52
AMD FX-8370

76.24

points — higher is better

AMD FX-8350

400.75
AMD FX-8370

410.3

points — higher is better

AMD FX-8350

97
AMD FX-8370

102

points — higher is better

AMD FX-8350

633
AMD FX-8370

635

points — higher is better

	VS
AMD FX-8350	VS	Intel Pentium Gold G6600

	VS
AMD FX-8350	VS	Intel Core i7-1068G7

	VS
AMD FX-8370	VS	Intel Pentium Gold G6600

	VS
AMD FX-8370	VS	Intel Core i7-1068G7

	VS
AMD Athlon Gold 3150GE	VS	AMD Athlon Gold PRO 3150GE

	VS
AMD Athlon Gold PRO 3150GE	VS	AMD Athlon Gold 3150G

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

AMD FX-8370 vs. AMD FX-8350

AMD FX-8370

The AMD FX-8370 operates with 8 cores and 8 CPU threads. It run at 4.30 GHz base 4.15 GHz all cores while the TDP is set at 125 W.The processor is attached to the AM3+ CPU socket. This version includes 8.00 MB of L3 cache on one chip, supports 2 memory channels to support DDR3-1866 RAM and features PCIe Gen lanes. Tjunction keeps below — degrees C. In particular, Vishera (Bulldozer) Architecture is enhanced with 32 nm technology and supports AMD-V. The product was launched on Q3/2014

AMD FX-8350

The AMD FX-8350 operates with 8 cores and 8 CPU threads. It run at 4.20 GHz base 4.10 GHz all cores while the TDP is set at 125 W.The processor is attached to the AM3+ CPU socket. This version includes 8.00 MB of L3 cache on one chip, supports 2 memory channels to support RAM and features PCIe Gen lanes. Tjunction keeps below — degrees C. In particular, Vishera (Bulldozer) Architecture is enhanced with 32 nm technology and supports AMD-V. The product was launched on Q4/2012

AMD FX-8370

AMD FX-8350

Compare Detail

4.00 GHz	Frequency	4.00 GHz
8	Cores	8
4.30 GHz	Turbo (1 Core)	4.20 GHz
4.15 GHz	Turbo (All Cores)	4.10 GHz
No	Hyperthreading	No
Yes	Overclocking	Yes
normal	Core Architecture	normal
no iGPU	GPU	no iGPU
No turbo	GPU (Turbo)	No turbo
32 nm	Technology	32 nm
No turbo	GPU (Turbo)	No turbo
	DirectX Version
	Max. displays
DDR3-1866	Memory
2	Memory channels	2
	Max memory
Yes	ECC	Yes
—	L2 Cache	—
8. 00 MB	L3 Cache	8.00 MB
	PCIe version
	PCIe lanes
32 nm	Technology	32 nm
AM3+	Socket	AM3+
125 W	TDP	125 W
AMD-V	Virtualization	AMD-V
Q3/2014	Release date	Q4/2012
Show more data		Show more data

Cinebench R23 (Single-Core)

Cinebench R23 is the successor of Cinebench R20 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.

Cinebench R23 (Multi-Core)

Cinebench R23 is the successor of Cinebench R20 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.

Cinebench R20 (Single-Core)

Cinebench R20 is the successor of Cinebench R15 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.

Cinebench R20 (Multi-Core)

Cinebench R20 is the successor of Cinebench R15 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.

Cinebench R15 (Single-Core)

Cinebench R15 is the successor of Cinebench 11.5 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.

Cinebench R15 (Multi-Core)

Cinebench R15 is the successor of Cinebench 11. 5 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.

Geekbench 5, 64bit (Single-Core)

Geekbench 5 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.

Geekbench 5, 64bit (Multi-Core)

Geekbench 5 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.

Blender 2.81 (bmw27)

Blender is a free 3D graphics software for rendering (creating) 3D bodies, which can also be textured and animated in the software. The Blender benchmark creates predefined scenes and measures the time (s) required for the entire scene. The shorter the time required, the better. We selected bmw27 as the benchmark scene.

Geekbench 3, 64bit (Single-Core)

Geekbench 3 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.

Geekbench 3, 64bit (Multi-Core)

Geekbench 3 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.

Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Single-Core)

Cinebench 11.5 is based on the Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular to generate forms and other stuff in 3D. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.

Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Multi-Core)

Cinebench 11.5 is based on the Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular to generate forms and other stuff in 3D. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.

Estimated results for PassMark CPU Mark

Some of the CPUs listed below have been benchmarked by CPU-Comparison. However the majority of CPUs have not been tested and the results have been estimated by a CPU-Comparison’s secret proprietary formula. As such they do not accurately reflect the actual Passmark CPU mark values and are not endorsed by PassMark Software Pty Ltd.

Electric Usage Estimate

Average hours of use per day

Average CPU Utilization (0-100%)

Power cost, dollar per kWh

Electric Usage Estimate

Average hours of use per day

Average CPU Utilization (0-100%)

Power cost, dollar per kWh

AMD FX-8370		AMD FX-8350
125 W	Max TDP	125 W
NA	Power consumption per day (kWh)	NA
NA	Running cost per day	NA
NA	Power consumption per year (kWh)	NA
NA	Running cost per year	NA

Popular Comparision

Comments

AMD FX-8370 vs AMD FX-8350

Análisis comparativo de los procesadores AMD FX-8370 y AMD FX-8350 para todas las características en las siguientes categorías: Esenciales, Desempeño, Memoria, Compatibilidad, Periféricos, Tecnologías avanzadas, Virtualización.
Análisis de desempeño comparativo de procesadores: PassMark — Single thread mark, PassMark — CPU mark, Geekbench 4 — Single Core, Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core, 3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s).

AMD FX-8370

Comprar en Amazon

AMD FX-8350

Comprar en Amazon

Diferencias

Razones para considerar el AMD FX-8370

El CPU es más nuevo: fue lanzado al mercado 1 año(s) 10 mes(es) después
Una velocidad de reloj alrededor de 2% más alta: 4.3 GHz vs 4.2 GHz
Una temperatura de núcleo máxima 0% mayor: 61.10°C vs 61°C
Alrededor de 3% mejor desempeño en PassMark — Single thread mark: 1629 vs 1578
Alrededor de 2% mejor desempeño en PassMark — CPU mark: 6148 vs 6001
Alrededor de 2% mejor desempeño en Geekbench 4 — Single Core: 576 vs 566
Alrededor de 2% mejor desempeño en Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core: 2794 vs 2751
Alrededor de 1% mejor desempeño en CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s): 9.994 vs 9.886
Alrededor de 1% mejor desempeño en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 7.236 vs 7.137

Fecha de lanzamiento	September 2014 vs 23 October 2012
Frecuencia máxima	4.3 GHz vs 4.2 GHz
Temperatura máxima del núcleo	61.10°C vs 61°C
PassMark — Single thread mark	1629 vs 1578
PassMark — CPU mark	6148 vs 6001
Geekbench 4 — Single Core	576 vs 566
Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core	2794 vs 2751
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s)	9.994 vs 9.886
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	21.936 vs 21.912
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	7.236 vs 7.137

Razones para considerar el AMD FX-8350

Alrededor de 3% mejor desempeño en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.424 vs 0.413
Alrededor de 17% mejor desempeño en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s): 1.199 vs 1.025

3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score	3132 vs 3124
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s)	0.424 vs 0.413
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s)	1.199 vs 1.025

Comparar referencias

CPU 1: AMD FX-8370
CPU 2: AMD FX-8350

PassMark — Single thread mark

CPU 1

CPU 2

PassMark — CPU mark

CPU 1

CPU 2

Geekbench 4 — Single Core

CPU 1

CPU 2

Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core

CPU 1

CPU 2

3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score

CPU 1

CPU 2

CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s)

CPU 1

CPU 2

CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)

CPU 1

CPU 2

21.936

21.912

CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s)

CPU 1

CPU 2

CompuBench 1.

5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s)

CPU 1

CPU 2

CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)

CPU 1

CPU 2

Nombre	AMD FX-8370	AMD FX-8350
PassMark — Single thread mark	1629	1578
PassMark — CPU mark	6148	6001
Geekbench 4 — Single Core	576	566
Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core	2794	2751
3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score	3124	3132
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s)	9.994	9.886
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	21.936	21.912
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s)	0.413	0.424
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s)	1.025	1.199
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	7.236	7.137

Comparar especificaciones

	AMD FX-8370	AMD FX-8350
Nombre clave de la arquitectura	Vishera	Vishera
Family	AMD FX-Series Processors	AMD FX-Series Processors
Fecha de lanzamiento	September 2014	23 October 2012
OPN PIB	FD8370FRHKHBX	FD8350FRHKBOX
Lugar en calificación por desempeño	1714	1723
Precio ahora	$129. 99	$79.99
Series	AMD FX 8-Core Black Edition Processors	AMD FX 8-Core Black Edition Processors
Valor/costo (0-100)	20.46	32.95
Segmento vertical	Desktop	Desktop
OPN Tray		FD8350FRW8KHK
Soporte de 64 bits
Base frequency	4 GHz	4 GHz
Troquel	315 mm	315 mm
Caché L1	384 KB	384 KB
Caché L2	8 MB	8 MB
Caché L3	8 MB	8 MB
Tecnología de proceso de manufactura	32 nm SOI	32 nm SOI
Temperatura máxima del núcleo	61. 10°C	61°C
Frecuencia máxima	4.3 GHz	4.2 GHz
Número de núcleos	8	8
Número de subprocesos	8	8
Voltaje Vcore P0	Min: 1.2 V — Max: 1.4 V	Min: 1.2 V — Max: 1.4 V
Número de transistores	1200 million	1200 Million
Desbloqueado
Canales máximos de memoria	2
Supported memory frequency	1866 MHz	1866 MHz
Tipos de memorias soportadas	DDR3	DDR3
Número máximo de CPUs en la configuración	1	1
Zócalos soportados	AM3+	AM3+
Diseño energético térmico (TDP)	125 Watt	125 Watt
Thermal Solution	Wraith cooler
Clasificación PCI Express	n / a	n / a
Fused Multiply-Add (FMA)
Fused Multiply-Add 4 (FMA4)
Intel® Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX)
Intel® AES New Instructions
AMD Virtualization (AMD-V™)

AMD’s FX-8370E processor reviewed — The Tech Report

In many ways, AMD’s FX processor series seems to have fallen by the wayside lately. While A-series APUs were refreshed with new Kaveri silicon this past January, the FX family has been trucking along with the same Vishera silicon since 2012. The accompanying 990FX chipset is a year older and begging for a replacement. At this point, one might have expected AMD to let the FX family die a dignified death—then fill in the gaps with high-octane Kaveri APUs.

But that’s not what the company did.

Instead, AMD has just shaken up the FX series with a trio of new models. The additions are based on the same Vishera silicon as before, but the magic of binning has yielded a faster 125W top-of-the-line part as well as two eight-core offerings with 95W thermal envelopes. One of them, the FX-8370E, will be the subject of our review this morning.

Today’s shakeup also involves a round of price cuts, the biggest one of which will send the family’s 220W flagship, the FX-9590, into the same waters as Intel’s Core i5-4690K. Other price cuts apply to the FX-9370 and FX-8320, which are both getting a tad cheaper.

Put together, these are without a doubt the biggest changes AMD’s FX line has seen in well over a year. Let’s look at them one by one before we fire off our benchmarks.

When it came out in June 2013, the FX-9590 could be found only inside select pre-built PCs from system integrators. It took a couple of months for the chip to hit e-tail listings, where it initially sold for a daunting $880. By October 2013, the FX-9590 had fallen to $350; and just prior to today’s price cut, Newegg had it on sale for $299.99.

As of today, the FX-9590 should be available at e-tail for only $229.99. This price pits the FX flagship against Intel’s cheapest Devil’s Canyon processor, the Core i5-4690K, which is available for $239.99. The Core i5 admittedly consumes a fraction of the power, at 88W, and comes with a bundled heatsink and fan, which the FX-9590 does not. (AMD offers a version of the FX-9590 with a liquid cooler in the box, but that kit will set you back $290 after these cuts come into effect. ) Still, the FX-9590 is in a more competitive position now than ever.

For users intimidated by the FX-9590’s 220W power envelope, AMD has introduced the FX-8370, its fastest 125W processor yet. Aside from a 100MHz increase in peak Turbo headroom, the FX-8370 has basically the same specs as the FX-8350. Since the new model is $20 more expensive, some may be tempted simply to buy the slower, cheaper chip and overclock it. All members of the FX series, past and present, still have fully unlocked upper multipliers. The FX-8370 is AMD’s first new top-of-the-line FX-8000-series processor since October 2012, though, which has got to count for something.

The most interesting additions to the lineup are these FX “E” chips. They offer up the same eight-core recipe as the aforementioned 125W parts, but in a more reasonable 95W power envelope.

95W FX processors with eight cores have been available before, but these days, the only ones still around are four- and six-core parts. AMD says it intends the “E” chips to serve as upgrades to those models inside systems that “don’t really have the infrastructure” to support a 125W CPU. Simply put, someone with a quad-core FX chip could replace it with an FX-8370E and enjoy a sizeable performance boost without needing a new motherboard, cooler, or power supply. Not even a BIOS update would be necessary, apparently. AMD says “lots” of its users have requested an upgrade path like this, and it was happy to oblige.

In new builds, the “E” chips will vie for supremacy with Core i3 and i5 processors from Intel’s Haswell Refresh series. AMD mentioned the Core i5-4430 and i5-4460 as likely competitors, but the FX-8370E’s most direct opponent will probably be the i5-4590, which carries the same $199.99 asking price at e-tail.

Model	Modules/ threads	Base clock (GHz)	Max Turbo clock (GHz)	Max DDR3 speed (MT/s)	L3 cache (MB)	TDP (W)	Old price (Newegg)	New price (SEP)
FX-9590	4/8	4. 7	5.0	2133	8	220	$299.99	$229.99
FX-9370	4/8	4.4	4.7	2133	8	220	$219.99	$210.99
FX-8370	4/8	4.0	4.3	1866	8	125	–	$199.99
FX-8350	4/8	4.0	4.2	1866	8	125	$179.99	$179.99
FX-8320	4/8	3.5	4.0	1866	8	125	$159.99	$146.99
FX-8370E	4/8	3.3	4.3	1866	8	95	–	$199.99
FX-8320E	4/8	3.2	4.0	1866	8	95	–	$146.99

Here’s a full list of specs and prices for the updated FX lineup. “Old” prices were grabbed from Newegg this past weekend, while new prices are the suggested e-tail figures given to us by AMD.

As you can see, AMD has reduced base clock speeds quite a bit to give the “E” chips their lower TDPs. The Turbo Core peaks are the same as for the non-E models, however.

The FX-8370E, for example, can clock itself as high as the FX-8370 via Turbo. That means it has the potential to be a very strong performer in the lightly threaded workloads that dominate day-to-day PC use—all the while sipping less power than a 125W CPU. The FX-8370E’s lower base speed will probably hinder it in heavily multithreaded tasks, but thanks to its eight hardware threads, it may still put up a decent fight against Intel’s quad-core offerings.

That’s the theory, anyhow. AMD sent us an FX-8370E to test, and we put it through our suite to see if the theory matches the reality. Keep reading for the results.

Our testing methods

As usual, we ran each test at least three times and have reported the median result. Our test systems were configured like so:

Processor	AMD FX-8350 AMD FX-8370	AMD A6-7400K	Pentium G3258
Processor	AMD FX-8350 AMD FX-8370	AMD A10-7800	Core i3-4360 Core i5-4590 Core i7-4790K
Motherboard	Asus Crosshair V Formula	Asus A88X-PRO	Asus Z97-A
North bridge	990FX	A88X FCH	Z97 Express
South bridge	SB950	A88X FCH	Z97 Express
Memory size	16 GB (2 DIMMs)	16 GB (4 DIMMs)	16 GB (2 DIMMs)
Memory type	AMD Performance Series DDR3 SDRAM	AMD Radeon Memory Gamer Series DDR3 SDRAM	Corsair Vengeance Pro DDR3 SDRAM
Memory speed	1866 MT/s	1866 MT/s	1333 MT/s
Memory speed	1866 MT/s	2133 MT/s	1600 MT/s
Memory timings	9-10-9-27 1T	10-11-11-30 1T	8-8-8-20 1T
Memory timings	9-10-9-27 1T	10-11-11-30 1T	9-9-9-24 1T
Chipset drivers	AMD chipset 13. 12	AMD chipset 13.12	INF update 10.0.14 iRST 13.0.3.1001
Audio	Integrated SB950/ALC889 with Realtek 6.0.1.7233 drivers	Integrated A85/ALC892 with Realtek 6.0.1.7233 drivers	Integrated Z97/ALC892 with Realtek 6.0.1.7233 drivers
OpenCL ICD	AMD APP 1526.3	AMD APP 1526.3	AMD APP 1526.3
IGP drivers	–	Catalyst 14. 6 beta	10.18.10.3652

Processor	Core i5-2500K	Core i7-4960X	Core i7-5960X
Motherboard	Asus P8Z77-V Pro	Asus P9X79 Deluxe	Asus X99 Deluxe
North bridge	Z77 Express	X79 Express	X99
South bridge	Z77 Express	X79 Express	X99
Memory size	16 GB (2 DIMMs)	16 GB (4 DIMMs)	16 GB (4 DIMMs)
Memory type	Corsair Vengeance Pro DDR3 SDRAM	Corsair Vengeance DDR3 SDRAM	Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 SDRAM
Memory speed	1333 MT/s	1866 MT/s	2133 MT/s
Memory timings	8-8-8-20 1T	9-10-9-27 1T	15-15-15-36 1T
Chipset drivers	INF update 10. 0.14 iRST 13.0.3.1001	INF update 10.0.14 iRST 13.0.3.1001	INF update 10.0.17 iRST 13.1.0.1058
Audio	Integrated Z77/ALC892 with Realtek 6.0.1.7233 drivers	Integrated X79/ALC898 with Realtek 6.0.1.7233 drivers	Integrated X99/ALC1150 with Realtek 6.0.1.7233 drivers
OpenCL ICD	AMD APP 1526.3	AMD APP 1526.3	AMD APP 1526.3
IGP drivers	–	–	–

They all shared the following common elements:

Hard drive	Kingston HyperX Sh203S3 240GB SSD
Discrete graphics	XFX Radeon HD 7950 Double Dissipation 3GB with Catalyst 14. 6 beta drivers
OS	Windows 8.1 Pro
Power supply	Corsair AX650

Thanks to Corsair, XFX, Kingston, MSI, Asus, Gigabyte, Cooler Master, Intel, and AMD for helping to outfit our test rigs with some of the finest hardware available. Thanks to Intel and AMD for providing the processors, as well, of course.

Some further notes on our testing methods:

The test systems’ Windows desktops were set at 1920×1080 in 32-bit color. Vertical refresh sync (vsync) was disabled in the graphics driver control panel.
We used a Yokogawa WT210 digital power meter to capture power use over a span of time. The meter reads power use at the wall socket, so it incorporates power use from the entire system—the CPU, motherboard, memory, graphics solution, hard drives, and anything else plugged into the power supply unit. (The monitor was plugged into a separate outlet.) We measured how each of our test systems used power across a set time period, during which time we encoded a video with x264.
After consulting with our readers, we’ve decided to enable Windows’ “Balanced” power profile for the bulk of our desktop processor tests, which means power-saving features like SpeedStep and Cool’n’Quiet are operating. (In the past, we only enabled these features for power consumption testing.) Our spot checks demonstrated to us that, typically, there’s no performance penalty for enabling these features on today’s CPUs. If there is a real-world penalty to enabling these features, well, we think that’s worthy of inclusion in our measurements, since the vast majority of desktop processors these days will spend their lives with these features enabled.

The tests and methods we employ are usually publicly available and reproducible. If you have questions about our methods, hit our forums to talk with us about them.

Power consumption and efficiency

The workload for this test is encoding a video with x264, based on a command ripped straight from the x264 benchmark you’ll see later.

Lower TDP or not, the FX-8370E doesn’t draw any less power than its 125W cousins at idle. The Core i5-4590 consumes 19W less here.

Fire up a video-encoding workload, and the FX-8370E shines compared to its relatives. While its TDP is only 30W lower than the FX-8370’s on paper, the FX-8370E actually draws almost 50W less in this test. Too bad that difference isn’t enough to close the gap with the Core i5-4590.

We can quantify efficiency by looking at the amount of power used, in kilojoules, during the entirety of our test period, when the chips are busy and at idle.

Perhaps our best measure of CPU power efficiency is task energy: the amount of energy used while encoding our video. This measure rewards CPUs for finishing the job sooner, but it doesn’t account for power draw at idle.

As we’ll see in our performance section, the FX chips chew through this x264 test quite a bit slower than the Intel ones. That means the AMD CPUs spend more time at peak power draw, which compounds the effect of their already-high power consumption. No wonder they’re stuck at the bottom of the graph. The FX-8370E isn’t the worst of the bunch, but it’s still much less efficient than the Core i5-4590.

Discrete GPU gaming

The FX-8370 is absent from these performance tests, since we didn’t have time to benchmark it fully. Sorry about that. We’ve been exceptionally busy around here these past few days, as you’ve probably noticed.

Anyhow, in Thief with the Direct3D renderer enabled, the FX-8370E trails the FX-8350 by a small margin—and the Intel pack by a larger one. This game suffers more from the FX-8370E’s lower base clock than it benefits from the chip’s higher Turbo peak, apparently.

AMD’s Mantle API does a pretty solid job of cutting CPU overhead. Enable it in Thief, and the margin between the FX-8370E and the other contenders shrinks to almost nothing. Results like these may become the norm after DirectX 12 arrives late next year. For now, though, they’re the exception.

(If you’re wondering why the dual-core CPU results are missing from the graph above, it’s because the game wouldn’t start in Mantle mode with those chips. Weird.)

Productivity

Let’s run through a quick sampling of some desktop-style applications that rely on the CPU cores to do their work.

In these apps, which all put multiple threads to work, the FX-8370E is slower than the FX-8350 across the board. That’s pretty much what we expected, since the FX-8370E has a lower base speed, and it probably doesn’t hit its Turbo peak with all eight cores sweating away.

Still, the FX-8370E’s multithreaded performance is enough to close the gap with the Core i5-4590 in a couple of tests. The two chips are closely matched in Handbrake and GCC, and the Core i5 actually falls behind in 7-Zip.

LuxMark OpenCL rendering

LuxMark is a nice example of GPU-accelerated computing. Because it uses the OpenCL interface to access computing power, it can take advantage of graphics processors, CPU cores, and the latest instruction set extensions for both. Let’s see how quickly this application can render a scene using a host of different computing resources.

Here, LuxMark is running on the CPU alone, unaided by discrete or integrated graphics. The FX-8370E falls behind the FX-8350 again, but it edges out the i5-4590.

This is what happens when we run LuxMark on just our discrete GPU. Unsurprisingly, a faster processor doesn’t make much of a difference. The FX processors hold back the discrete Radeon a tad more than the rest, but only just a tad.

In this last test, the CPU and discrete GPU team up to do the work as quickly as the system can manage. The FX-8370E outruns the i5-4590 by just a hair here, and it’s nearly as fast as the FX-8350.

Cinebench rendering

Cinebench also renders a 3D scene, but it uses only CPU power to do so.

The FX-8370 returns for a brief encore here, since Cinebench gives us an important look at single-threaded vs. multithreaded performance.

Cinebench confirms the hypothesis we outlined earlier: in a single-threaded workload, the FX-8370E’s high Turbo speed allows it to perform just as well as its 125W counterpart—and better than the FX-8350. Is that enough to catch up with Intel? Well, no. Even the $70 Pentium G3258 has better single-threaded performance than the FX-8370E.

In our multithreaded test, however, the FX-8370E’s extra threads allow it to edge out the Core i5-4590—despite falling behind the FX-8370 and FX-8350 because of its lower base speed.

Conclusions

Let’s wrap things up with one of our famous price vs. performance scatter plots.

We used AMD’s suggested e-tail prices for the FX series and Newegg prices for the rest. On the performance front, we used geometric mean of results from our full test suite—the same one featured in our review of Intel’s Core i7-5960X processor. We presented an abridged version of that suite on the previous pages of this article, but we used our full slate of numbers for our value calculation.

The FX-8370E caught up with the Core i5-4590 in a handful of our tests, but it doesn’t quite measure up overall. In pure performance terms, the $180 FX-8350 is more of a match for Intel’s $200 quad-core CPU.

Now, the figures above don’t account for power efficiency. The FX-8370E is a better buy than the FX-8350 if you’re all about staving off arctic thawing, or if you’re upgrading a system that’s not equipped to handle a 125W processor. As we saw on page three, however, the reduction from 125W to 95W isn’t enough to close the gap with Intel. The Core i5-4590 is much more power-efficient than the FX-8370E across the board.

That makes the FX-8370E a tough sell for a new PC build. This chip does have an unlocked upper multiplier, which gives it an advantage of sorts over the Core i5. However, overclocking will only worsen the already poor power-efficiency picture—and folks who don’t care about power efficiency should be buying the FX-8350.

Then there’s the accompanying platform. AMD’s 990FX chipset, which still powers high-end Socket AM3+ motherboards, came out in May 2011. It lacks native support for PCI Express 3.0, SATA Express, M.2, and even USB 3.0. ASRock managed to jerry-rig an M.2 slot onto its Fatal1ty 990FX Killer mobo, but that slot is limited to PCIe Gen2 speeds, and the board itself costs a hefty $169.99. Over in the Intel aisle, you can find an Asus board based on Intel’s brand-new Z97 chipset with a Gen3 M.2 slot for 40 bucks less.

So, yeah. If AMD really wants to shake up the FX series, it ought to introduce new silicon based on the Steamroller cores that drive Kaveri, and it ought to offer a new chipset worthy of the FX’s enthusiast aspirations. Price cuts and variations on old themes are all well and good, but they’re not enough if AMD wants to keep up with the blue team.

CPU — Prozessor Vergleich und Benchmarks


AMD FX-8370		AMD FX-8350
4.00 GHz	Taktfrequenz	4.00 GHz
4.30 GHz	Turbo (1 Kern)	4.20 GHz
4.15 GHz	Turbo (alle Kerne)	4.10 GHz
8	Kerne	8
Nein	Hyperthreading	Nein
Ja	Übertaktbar ?	Ja
8 MB	Cache	8 MB

	Grafik
	Grafiktakt
Kein Turbo	Grafiktakt (Turbo)	Kein Turbo
	Generation
	DirectX Version
0	Max. Bildschirme	0
	Einheiten

Nein	Codec h364	Nein
Nein	Codec JPEG	Nein
Nein	Codec h365 8bit	Nein
Nein	Codec h365 10bit	Nein
Nein	Codec VP8	Nein
Nein	Codec VP9	Nein
Nein	Codec VC-1	Nein
Nein	Codec AVC	Nein

DDR3-1866	Arbeitsspeicher	DDR3-1866
2	Speicherkanäle	2
Ja	ECC	Ja
	PCIe Version
0	PCIe Leitungen	0

Vishera	Architektur	Vishera
32nm	Fertigung	32nm
AM3+	Sockel	AM3+
125W	TDP	125W

Ja	AES-NI	Ja
AMD-V	Virtualisierung	AMD-V

Q3/2014	Erscheinungsdatum	Q4/2012
ca. 170 Euro	Preis	ca. 170 Euro

Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Single-Core)

Cinebench R11.5 ist ein Benchmark zur Leistungsmessung des Prozessors. Er basiert auf der Cinema 4D Suite, einem weltweit eingesetzten Programm, das benutzt wird um 3D-Inhalte und Formen zu generieren. Der Single-Core Test nutzt nur einen CPU-Kern, die Anzahl der Kerne sowie Hyperthreading beeinflussen das Ergebnis nicht.

8x 4 GHz (4.3 GHz)

8x 4 GHz (4.2 GHz)

Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Multi-Core)

Cinebench R11.5 ist ein Benchmark zur Leistungsmessung des Prozessors. Er basiert auf der Cinema 4D Suite, einem weltweit eingesetzten Programm, das benutzt wird um 3D-Inhalte und Formen zu generieren. Der Multi-Core Test bezieht alle CPU-Kerne mit ein und zieht einen großen Nutzen aus Hyperthreading.

8x 4 GHz (4.3 GHz)

8x 4 GHz (4.2 GHz)

Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (iGPU)

Beim iGPU-Test wird die Prozessoreigene Grafikeinheit benutzt um per OpenGL Berechnungen durchzuführen.

8x 4 GHz (4.3 GHz)

8x 4 GHz (4.2 GHz)

Cinebench R15 (Single-Core)

Cinebench R15 ist die Weiterentwicklung von Cinebench 11.5 und basiert ebenso auf der Cinema 4D Suite, einem weltweit eingesetzten Programm, das benutzt wird um 3D-Inhalte und Formen zu generieren. Der Single-Core Test nutzt nur einen CPU-Kern, die Anzahl der Kerne sowie Hyperthreading beeinflussen das Ergebnis nicht.

8x 4 GHz (4.3 GHz)

8x 4 GHz (4.2 GHz)

Cinebench R15 (Multi-Core)

Cinebench R15 ist die Weiterentwicklung von Cinebench 11.5 und basiert ebenso auf der Cinema 4D Suite, einem weltweit eingesetzten Programm, das benutzt wird um 3D-Inhalte und Formen zu generieren. Der Multi-Core Test bezieht alle CPU-Kerne mit ein und zieht einen großen Nutzen aus Hyperthreading.

8x 4 GHz (4.3 GHz)

8x 4 GHz (4.2 GHz)

Passmark CPU Mark

Beim PassMark CPU Mark werden unter anderem Primzahlberechnungen durchgeführt um die Leistung des Prozessors zu bestimmen. Es werden alle CPU-Kerne sowie Hyperthreading benutzt.

8x 4 GHz (4.3 GHz)

8x 4 GHz (4.2 GHz)

Geekbench 3, 64bit (Single-Core)

Der Geekbench 3 Benchmark misst die Leistung des Prozessors und bezieht dabei auch den Arbeitsspeicher mit ein. Ein schnellerer Arbeitsspeicher kann das Ergebnis stark verbessern. Der Single-Core Test nutzt nur einen CPU-Kern, die Anzahl der Kerne sowie Hyperthreading beeinflussen das Ergebnis nicht.

8x 4 GHz (4.3 GHz)

8x 4 GHz (4.2 GHz)

Geekbench 3, 64bit (Multi-Core)

Der Geekbench 3 Benchmark misst die Leistung des Prozessors und bezieht dabei auch den Arbeitsspeicher mit ein. Ein schnellerer Arbeitsspeicher kann das Ergebnis stark verbessern. Der Multi-Core Test bezieht alle CPU-Kerne mit ein und zieht einen großen Nutzen aus Hyperthreading.

8x 4 GHz (4.3 GHz)

8x 4 GHz (4.2 GHz)

Die häufigsten Vergleiche mit diesen Prozessoren

Zurück zum CPU-Vergleich

Hinweis: Wir übernehmen keine Gewähr für die Richtigkeit der hier angezeigten Informationen.

0028

Why is AMD FX-8370 better than AMD FX-8350?

1.53x higher PassMark score?
9049 vs 5926
1.52x higher PassMark result (overclocked)?
9952 vs 6542
66.0 higher performance per watt?
88.0 vs 22.0
1 newer version of Turbo Core?
3 vs 2

Which comparisons are the most popular?

AMD RYZEN 5 5500U

Intel Core i5-1135g7

AMD Ryzen 3 3250U

Intel Core i3-1115G4

AMD Ryzen 3 5300U

VS 9000. S. 9000.S. Ryzen 7 3700u

Intel Core i5-10210U

AMD RYZEN 7 3700U

Intel Core i5-1135g7

AMD Ryzen 5 4600h

9000 VS

Intel Core I5-1 -1115G4

Intel Core i5-10210u 9000u

AMD Ryzen 5 3500U

Intel Core i5-10210u 9000u

AMD Ryzen 5 5500U

Intel Core i3-1115g 9000 Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amd Amden vs

Intel Core i7-11800h

Complexation prices

Users reviews

General rating

AMD FX-8350

5 Reviews of users

AMD FX-8350

/10 9 9 9

5 reviews of users

AMD FX-8370

0 Reviews of users

AMD FX-8370

0.0 /10

0 Reviews of users

Functions

5 Votes

reviews yet there is no

Games

9.2 /10

5 Votes

Reviews yet not

Reliability

/10

5 Votes

Reviews yet not

9000 9000 9000

5 votes

No reviews yet

Performance

1. CPU speed

8 x 4GHz

8 x 4GHz processors). It is calculated by adding the clock speeds of each core or, in the case of multi-core processors, each group of cores.

2nd processor thread

More threads result in better performance and better multitasking.

3.speed turbo clock

4.2GHz

4.3GHz

When the processor is running below its limits, it can jump to a higher clock speed to increase performance.

4. Has unlocked multiplier

✔AMD FX-8350

✖AMD FX-8370

Some processors come with an unlocked multiplier and are easier to overclock, allowing for better performance in games and other applications.

5.L2 Cache

More L2 scratchpad memory results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.

6.L3 cache

More L3 scratchpad memory results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.

7.L1 cache

More L1 cache results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.

8.core L2

1MB/core

More data can be stored in L2 scratchpad for access by each processor core.

9.core L3

1MB/core

More data can be stored in L3 scratchpad for access by each processor core.

Memory

1.RAM speed

1866MHz

Can support faster memory which speeds up system performance.

2.max memory bandwidth

21GB/s

This is the maximum rate at which data can be read from or stored in memory.

3.DDR version

DDR (Double Data Rate Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory) is the most common type of RAM. New versions of DDR memory support higher maximum speeds and are more energy efficient.

4.Memory channels

More memory channels increase the speed of data transfer between memory and processor.

5.Maximum memory

Maximum memory (RAM).

6.baud rate bus

5.4GT/s

The bus is responsible for transferring data between different components of a computer or device.

7.Supports memory error recovery code

✖AMD FX-8350

✖AMD FX-8370

Memory error recovery code can detect and repair data corruption. It is used when necessary to avoid distortion, such as in scientific computing or when starting a server.

8.eMMC version

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-8350)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-8370)

A newer version of eMMC — built-in flash memory card — speeds up the memory interface, has a positive effect on device performance, for example, when transferring files from a computer to internal memory via USB.

9.bus frequency

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-8350)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-8370)

The bus is responsible for transferring data between various components of a computer or device

Geotagging

1. PassMark result

This test measures processor performance using multi-threading.

2. PassMark result (single)

This test measures processor performance using a thread of execution.

3.Geekbench 5 result (multi-core)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-8370)

Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures multi-core processor performance. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)

4. Cinebench R20 result (multi-core)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-8370)

Cinebench R20 is a benchmark that measures the performance of a multi-core processor by rendering a 3D scene.

5.Cinebench R20 result (single core)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-8370)

Cinebench R20 is a test to evaluate the performance of a single core processor when rendering a 3D scene.

6.Geekbench 5 result (single core)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-8370)

Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures the single-core performance of a processor. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)

7. Blender test result (bmw27)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-8350)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-8370)

The Blender benchmark (bmw27) measures CPU performance by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render a scene in a shorter time.

8.Blender result (classroom)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-8350)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-8370)

The Blender (classroom) benchmark measures CPU performance by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render a scene in a shorter time.

9.performance per watt

This means that the processor is more efficient, giving more performance per watt of power used.

Functions

1.uses multithreading

✖AMD FX-8350

✖AMD FX-8370

Multi-threading technology (such as Intel’s Hyperthreading or AMD’s Simultaneous Multithreading) provides better performance by dividing each physical processor core into logical cores, also known as threads. Thus, each core can run two instruction streams at the same time.

2. Has AES

✔AMD FX-8350

✔AMD FX-8370

AES is used to speed up encryption and decryption.

3. Has AVX

✔AMD FX-8350

✔AMD FX-8370

AVX is used to help speed up calculations in multimedia, scientific and financial applications, and to improve the performance of the Linux RAID program.

4.Version SSE

SSE is used to speed up multimedia tasks such as editing images or adjusting audio volume. Each new version contains new instructions and improvements.

5. Has F16C

✔AMD FX-8350

✔AMD FX-8370

F16C is used to speed up tasks such as image contrast adjustment or volume control.

6.bits transmitted at the same time

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-8350)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-8370)

NEON provides faster media processing such as MP3 listening.

7. Has MMX

✔AMD FX-8350

✔AMD FX-8370

MMX is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting image contrast or adjusting volume.

8. TrustZone enabled

✖AMD FX-8350

✖AMD FX-8370

Technology is integrated into the processor to ensure device security when using features such as mobile payments and digital rights management (DRM) video streaming .

9.interface width

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-8350)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-8370)

The processor can decode more instructions per clock (IPC), which means the processor performs better

Price comparison

Cancel

Which CPUs are better?

This page is currently only available in English.

AMD FX-8350 or AMD FX-8370

Home

Speed in office use

FX-8350

58.6

FX-8370

59.5 (+1.5%)

Performance in everyday work such as browsers and office programs.

The performance of 1 core has the greatest impact on the result, since most of these applications use only one, ignoring the rest.

Similarly, many professional applications such as various CADs ignore multi-threaded performance.

Speed in heavy applications

FX-8350

35.1

FX-8370

35.7 (+1.7%)

Performance in resource-intensive tasks loading a maximum of 8 cores.

The performance of all cores and their number have the greatest impact on the result, since most of these applications willingly use all the cores and increase the speed accordingly.

At the same time, certain periods of work can be demanding on the performance of one or two cores, for example, applying filters in the editor.

Data obtained from tests by users who tested their systems with and without overclocking. Thus, you see the average values corresponding to the processor.

Speed of numerical operations

Simple household tasks

FX-8350

50.2

FX-8370

50.8 (+1.2%)

Demanding games and tasks

FX-8350

31. 3

FX-8370

31.5 (+0.6%)

Extreme

FX-8350

8.4

FX-8370

8.4

Different tasks require different CPU strengths. A system with few fast cores and low memory latency will be fine for the vast majority of games, but will be inferior to a system with a lot of slow cores in a rendering scenario.

We believe that a minimum of 4/4 (4 physical cores and 4 threads) processor is suitable for a budget gaming PC. At the same time, some games can load it at 100%, slow down and freeze, and performing any tasks in the background will lead to a drop in FPS.

Ideally, the budget shopper should aim for a minimum of 4/8 and 6/6. A gamer with a big budget can choose between 6/12, 8/8 and 8/16. Processors with 10 and 12 cores can perform well in games with high frequency and fast memory, but are overkill for such tasks. Also, buying for the future is a dubious undertaking, since in a few years many slow cores may not provide sufficient gaming performance.

When choosing a processor for your work, consider how many cores your programs use. For example, photo and video editors can use 1-2 cores when working with filtering, and rendering or converting in the same editors already uses all threads.

Data obtained from tests by users who tested their systems both with overclocking (maximum value in the table) and without (minimum). A typical result is shown in the middle, the more filled in the color bar, the better the average result among all tested systems.

Benchmarks

Benchmarks were run on stock hardware, that is, without overclocking and with factory settings. Therefore, on overclocked systems, the points can noticeably differ upwards. Also, small performance changes may be due to the BIOS version.

Cinebench R20 Single Core

AMD FX-8350

209 (+2. 4%)

AMD FX-8370

204

Cinebench R20 Multi Core

9000 AMD FX-8350

298 (+1.3,000)

AMD FX-8370

1281

Cinebench R15 Multi Core

AMD FX-8350

665

AMD FX-8370

673

Geekbench 3 multi 3 multi core 9000.

11164

AMD FX-8370

11300 (+1.2%)

Cinebench R11.5

AMD FX-8350

1.11

AMD FX-8370

1.14 (+2.6%)

Cinebench R111.5

9000 AMD FX-8350 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 6.94

AMD FX-8370

7.02 (+1.1%)

Specifications

Data is not yet complete, so tables may be missing information or existing features.

Basic

Manufacturer	AMD	AMD
DescriptionInformation about the processor, taken from the official website of the manufacturer.
ArchitectureCode name for the microarchitecture generation.
Process The manufacturing process, measured in nanometers. The smaller the technical process, the more perfect the technology, the lower the heat dissipation and power consumption.	No data	No data
Release dateMonth and year of the processor’s availability.	09-2015	09-2017
Model Official name.
Cores The number of physical cores.	8	8
ThreadsNumber of threads. The number of logical processor cores that the operating system sees.	8	8
Multi-Threading Technology With Intel’s Hyper-threading and AMD’s SMT technology, one physical core is recognized as two logical cores by the operating system, thereby increasing processor performance in multi-threaded applications.	Missing	Missing
Base frequencyGuaranteed frequency of all processor cores at maximum load. Performance in single-threaded and multi-threaded applications and games depends on it. It is important to remember that speed and frequency are not directly related. For example, a new processor at a lower frequency may be faster than an old one at a higher one.	4 GHz	4 GHz
Turbo FrequencyThe maximum frequency of a single processor core in turbo mode. Manufacturers allow modern processors to independently increase the frequency of one or more cores under heavy load, due to which performance is noticeably increased. It may depend on the nature of the load, the number of loaded cores, temperature and the specified limits. Significantly affects the speed in games and applications that are demanding on the frequency of the CPU.	No data	No data
L3 cache size The third level cache acts as a buffer between the computer’s RAM and the processor’s level 2 cache. Used by all cores, the speed of information processing depends on the volume.	No data	No data
Instructions
Extended instruction set Allows you to speed up calculations, processing and execution of certain operations. Also, some games require instruction support.
Embedded Options Available Two enclosure versions. Standard and designed for mobile devices. In the second version, the processor can be soldered on the motherboard.	No	No
Bus frequency The speed of communication with the system.
Number of QPI links
TDPThermal Design Power is an indicator that determines heat dissipation in standard operation. The cooler or water cooling system must be rated for a larger value. Remember that with a factory bus or manual overclocking, TDP increases significantly.	No data	No data
Cooling system specifications

Video core

Integrated graphics core Allows you to use your computer without a discrete graphics card. The monitor is connected to the video output on the motherboard. If earlier integrated graphics made it possible to simply work at a computer, today it can replace budget video accelerators and makes it possible to play most games at low settings.
GPU base clockFrequency in 2D and idle.	No data	No data
Max GPU ClockMaximum 3D clock.	No data	No data
Intel® Wireless Display (Intel® WiDi) Supports Wireless Display technology using the Wi-Fi 802.11n standard. Thanks to it, a monitor or TV equipped with the same technology does not require a cable to connect.
Supported monitorsThe maximum number of monitors that can be connected to the integrated video core at the same time.

RAM

Maximum amount of RAMThe amount of RAM that can be installed on the motherboard with this processor.	No data	No data
Supported type of RAM The type of RAM depends on its frequency and timings (speed), availability, price.
RAM Channels The multi-channel memory architecture increases data transfer speed. On desktop platforms, two-channel, three-channel and four-channel modes are available.
RAM bandwidth
ECC Memory Support for error-correcting memory that is used in servers. Usually more expensive than usual and requires more expensive server components. However, second-hand server processors, Chinese motherboards and ECC memory sticks, which are sold relatively cheaply in China, have become widespread.	No data	No data

PCI

configuration options

PCI-E Computer bus version of PCI Express. The bandwidth and power limit depend on the version. There is backward compatibility.	No data	No data
PCI
Number of PCI lanes	No data

Data security

AES-NI The AES command set extension speeds up applications that use appropriate encryption.	No data	No data
Intel® Secure Key An RDRAND instruction that allows you to create a high performance random number generator.	No data	No data

Decoration

Dimensions	No data	No data
Supported sockets	No data	No data
Maximum processors per motherboard	No data	No data

Which one is better

AMD FX-8370

1% faster in office applications and browsers.

Similarities

Game performance is about the same.
In complex multi-threaded applications, they are approximately equal.
Prices for new processors are approximately equal.
The number of physical cores is equal.
The number of threads is equal.
The base frequency is equal.

Compare AMD FX-8370 and AMD FX-8350

Comparative analysis of AMD FX-8370 and AMD FX-8350 processors by all known characteristics in the categories: General information, Performance, Memory, Compatibility, Peripherals, Technologies, Virtualization.
Analysis of processor performance by benchmarks: PassMark — Single thread mark, PassMark — CPU mark, Geekbench 4 — Single Core, Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core, 3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s).

AMD FX-8370

versus

AMD FX-8350

Benefits

Reasons to choose AMD FX-8370

4. 3 GHz vs 4.2 GHz
About 0% more maximum core temperature: 61.10°C vs 61°C
Performance in PassMark — Single thread mark about 3% more: 1629vs 1578
Approximately 2% increase in PassMark — CPU mark performance: 6148 vs 6001
Approximately 2% increase in Geekbench 4 — Single Core performance: 576 vs 566
Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core performance about 2% more: 2794 vs 2751
Performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) about 1% more: 9.994 vs 9.886
Performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) about 1% more: 7.236 vs 7.137

Issue date	September 2014 vs 23 October 2012
Maximum frequency	4.3 GHz vs 4.2 GHz
Maximum core temperature	61.10°C vs 61°C
PassMark — Single thread mark	1629 vs 1578
PassMark — CPU mark	6148 vs 6001
Geekbench 4 — Single Core	576 vs 566
Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core	2794 vs 2751
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s)	9.994 vs 9.886
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	21.936 vs 21.912
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	7.236 vs 7.137

Reasons to choose AMD FX-8350

Performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) is about 3% higher: 0.424 vs 0.413
Performance in CompuBench 1.5 Composition 1.5 VideoBench 1. /s) about 17% more: 1.199 vs 1.025

3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score	3132 vs 3124
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s)	0.424 vs 0.413
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s)	1.199 vs 1.025

Benchmark comparison

CPU 1: AMD FX-8370
CPU 2: AMD FX-8350

PassMark — Single thread mark

CPU 1

CPU 2

PassMark — CPU mark

CPU 1

CPU 2

Geekbench 4 — Single Core

CPU 1

CPU 2

Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core

CPU 1

CPU 2

3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score

CPU 1

CPU 2

CompuBench 1.

5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s)

CPU 1

CPU 2

CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)

CPU 1

CPU 2

21.936

21.912

CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s)

CPU 1

CPU 2

CompuBench 1.

5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s)

CPU 1

CPU 2

CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)

CPU 1

CPU 2

Name	AMD FX-8370	AMD FX-8350
PassMark — Single thread mark	1629	1578
PassMark — CPU mark	6148	6001
Geekbench 4 — Single Core	576	566
Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core	2794	2751
3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score	3124	3132
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s)	9.994	9.886
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	21.936	21.912
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s)	0.413	0.424
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s)	1.025	1.199
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	7.236	7.137

Feature comparison

configuration

	AMD FX-8370	AMD FX-8350
Architecture name	Vishera	Vishera
Family	AMD FX-Series Processors	AMD FX-Series Processors
Issue date	September 2014	October 23, 2012
OPN PIB	FD8370FRHKHBX	FD8350FRHKBOX
Place in the rating	1714	1723
Price now	$129. 99	$79.99
Series	AMD FX 8-Core Black Edition Processors	AMD FX 8-Core Black Edition Processors
Price/performance ratio (0-100)	20.46	32.95
Applicability	Desktop	Desktop
OPN Tray		FD8350FRW8KHK
Support 64 bit
Base frequency	4GHz	4 GHz
Crystal area	315 mm	315 mm
Level 1 cache	384KB	384KB
Level 2 cache	8MB	8MB
Level 3 cache	8MB	8MB
Process	32nm SOI	32nm SOI
Maximum core temperature	61. 10°C	61°C
Maximum frequency	4.3 GHz	4.2 GHz
Number of cores	8	8
Number of threads	8	8
Voltage P0 Vcore	Min: 1.2V — Max: 1.4V	Min: 1.2V — Max: 1.4V
Number of transistors	1200 million	1200 Million
Unlocked
Maximum number of memory channels	2
Supported memory frequency	1866 MHz	1866 MHz
Supported memory types	DDR3	DDR3
Maximum number of processors in	1	1
Supported sockets	AM3+	AM3+
Power consumption (TDP)	125 Watt	125 Watt
Thermal Solution	Wraith cooler
PCI Express revision	n/a	n/a
Fused Multiply-Add (FMA)
Fused Multiply-Add 4 (FMA4)
Intel® Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX)
Intel® AES New Instructions
AMD Virtualization (AMD-V™)

AMD FX-8350 vs AMD FX-8370 — comparative characteristics and benchmarks of processors

AMD FX-8350

AMD FX-8370

Which one to choose?

It’s time to choose the winner. What is the difference and which is better in AMD FX-8350 vs AMD FX-8370 comparison? Which processor is more powerful and faster? It is quite simple to determine — look at the comparative table of all characteristics. A processor with more cores/threads, as well as a higher frequency and large L2-L3 is the absolute winner!

Cores, base and turbo frequency of the processor

Who will win in the comparison of AMD FX-8350 and AMD FX-8370. The overall performance of a processor can be easily determined based on the number of cores, threads, base and turbo clock speed + L2-L3 volume. The more cores, L3, and clock speed, the more efficient the processor. Please note that high specifications require the use of a powerful cooling system.

4.00 GHz

Clock frequency

4.00 GHz

Number

4.20 GHZ

turbo (1 core)

4.30 GHZ

Number

YES

4.10 GHZ

Turbo (8 Cores)

4. 15 GHZ

Family and generation of the processor

Graphic

It is difficult to compare AMD FXD FX-8370, when the video card is function and characteristics meaning exclusively in laptops. In workstations, this is not an advantage, due to the installation of an additional graphics accelerator.

No turbo

GPU (Turbo)

No turbo

—

Maximum memory

—

Hardware codec support

Here we are dealing with some processor manufacturer specifications that are used. These figures are mostly technical and can be disregarded for comparative purposes.

h364

JPEG

H365 8BIT

H365 10BIT

VP8

No.

VP9

No.

VC-1 9000 NO000.

AVC

RAM and PCIe

These are the memory standards supported by processors. The processor can support multi-channel RAM with a high clock speed, this directly affects its speed and performance.

DDR3-1866

Type of memory

DDR3-1866

Memory channels

YES

ECC

YES

Support for data encryption

YES

AES-NI 9000 AES-NI 9000 AES-NIS

Yes

Memory & AMP; PCIe

Thermal management and TDP

Today’s systems are loaded with demanding games and workloads, which consequently unleash the full potential of the processor. When choosing between AMD FX-8350 and AMD FX-8370, it is better to choose the option with less heat dissipation (TDP).

125 W

TDP

125 W

—

Maximum temperature

—

Maximum TDP

—

TDP Down

—

Technical details

8.00 MB

L3-Cache

8.00 MB

32 32 NM

Technology

32 32 NM

Vishera

Architecture

Vishera

9000 AMD-V

9000 9000 9000

002 Virtualization

AMD-V

AM3+

Socket

AM3+

Q4/2012

Release date

170 $

Price

ca. 170 $

Devices compatible with this processor

You probably already know which devices use processors. It can be a desktop computer or a laptop.

Unknown

Used in

Unknown

Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Single-Core)

This synthetic benchmark will help you determine the actual processing power of a single CPU core. Cinebench R11.5 is based on MAXON CINEMA 4D and uses various test scenarios

AMD FX-8350
8x 4.00 GHz (4.20 GHz)

111 (97%)

AMD FX-8370
8x 4.00 GHz (4.30 GHz)

114 (100%)

Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Multi-Core)

Cinebench R11. 5 performs simultaneous cross-platform tests on all processor cores. Running realistic 3D scenes, this benchmark will unleash the full potential of your single-core Intel or AMD 9 processor0003

AMD FX-8350
8x 4.00 GHz (4.20 GHz)

694 (98%)

AMD FX-8370
8x 4.00 GHz (4.30 GHz)

702 (100%)

Cinebench R15 (Single-Core)

The latter is used to create 3D models and shapes. Cinebench R15 is used to benchmark the performance of single core processors. Hyperthreading capability is not taken into account. It is an updated version of Cinebench 11.5. Like all new versions, the updated benchmark is based on Cinema 4 Suite 9 software0003

AMD FX-8350
8x 4. 00 GHz (4.20 GHz)

96 (97%)

AMD FX-8370
8x 4.00 GHz (4.30 GHz)

98 (100%)

Cinebench R15 (Multi-Core)

Cinebench R15 can be used to test the performance of multi-core processors. The test produces accurate and reliable results. This benchmark is an updated version of Cinebench 11.5, which is based on Cinema 4 Suite soft.

AMD FX-8350
8x 4.00 GHz (4.20 GHz)

665 (98%)

AMD FX-8370
8x 4.00 GHz (4.30 GHz)

673 (100%)

Cinebench R20 (Single-Core)

Cinebench R20 is based on Cinema 4 Suite. This is software used to create 3D shapes. The benchmark runs in single-core mode without considering the possibility of hyper-threading.

AMD FX-8350
8x 4.00 GHz (4.20 GHz)

209 (100%)

AMD FX-8370
8x 4.00 GHz (4.30 GHz)

204 (97%)

Cinebench R20 (Multi-Core)

This is a new version of the benchmark based on Cinebench R15 (both versions are based on Cinema 4, the most popular 3D modeling software). Cinebench R20 is used for benchmark tests of multi-core processor performance and hyper-threading capabilities.

AMD FX-8350
8x 4. 00 GHz (4.20 GHz)

1298 (100%)

AMD FX-8370
8x 4.00 GHz (4.30 GHz)

1281 (98%)

Geekbench 3, 64bit (Single-Core)

Geekbench 3 is a benchmark for 64-bit Intel and AMD processors. It uses a new power rating system for a single processor core. This software simulates real scenarios for accurate results

AMD FX-8350
8x 4.00 GHz (4.20 GHz)

2144 (97%)

AMD FX-8370
8x 4.00 GHz (4.30 GHz)

2195 (100%)

Geekbench 3, 64bit (Multi-Core)

Geekbench 3 supports multi-core AMD and Intel processors. Being based on MAXON CINEMA 4D, it allows you to get the real comparative potential of the processor

AMD FX-8350
8x 4.00 GHz (4.20 GHz)

11164 (98%)

AMD FX-8370
8x 4.00 GHz (4.30 GHz)

11300 (100%)

Geekbench 5, 64bit (Single-Core)

Geekbench 5 is the latest software. Completely new algorithms provide fairly accurate test results for single-core processors.

AMD FX-8350
8x 4.00 GHz (4.20 GHz)

573 (97%)

AMD FX-8370
8x 4. 00 GHz (4.30 GHz)

585 (100%)

Geekbench 5, 64bit (Multi-Core)

Geekbench 5 software package shows benchmark results for memory performance and multi-core processor speed. This takes into account the ability to hyperthreading.

AMD FX-8350
8x 4.00 GHz (4.20 GHz)

2777 (97%)

AMD FX-8370
8x 4.00 GHz (4.30 GHz)

2836 (100%)

Blender 2.81 (bmw27)

We use the Blender benchmark to monitor CPU performance. Test results show how fast the device performs when performing multi-processor tasks

AMD FX-8350
8x 4. 00 GHz (4.20 GHz)

6913 (100%)

AMD FX-8370
8x 4.00 GHz (4.30 GHz)

Estimated results for PassMark CPU Mark

It tests all and general CPU performance (math calculations, compression and decompression speed, 2D&3D graphics tests). Please note that data may differ from actual situations.

AMD FX-8350
8x 4.00 GHz (4.20 GHz)

9068 (98%)

AMD FX-8370
8x 4.00 GHz (4.30 GHz)

9176 (100%)

Popular processor comparisons

one.		AMD Ryzen 7 4800U vs. AMD FX-8350
2.		AMD FX-8350 vs. Intel Core i9-10900KF
3.		AMD Epyc 7262 vs. AMD FX-8370
four.		AMD FX-8350 vs. Intel Celeron 1000M
5.		AMD FX-8350 vs. AMD FX-8300
6.		AMD FX-8350 vs. AMD A8-7650K
7.		Intel Core i3-8109U vs. AMD FX-8350
eight.		AMD A10-4655M vs. AMD FX-8350
9.		Intel Core i7-8500Y AMD FX-8370
ten.		AMD A10-5700 vs. AMD FX-8350
eleven.		AMD FX-8370 vs. Intel Core i5-2405S
12.		AMD FX-8370 vs. AMD C-30
13.		AMD FX-8370 vs. Intel Core i9-10900KF
fourteen.		AMD Phenom II X3 B75 vs. AMD FX-8370
fifteen.		Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 vs. AMD FX-8370

Test Intel Core i5-2500K vs AMD FX-8370 — i2HARD

Evgeny Serov

July 21, 2021

How did it end?

It would seem that not so long ago there were disputes about what is better: high performance per core or the number of cores? High FPS now or later? i5-8600K or R7 1700? However, this came to naught. That the 11th series of intels, that the 5000 line of ryzens already has 6 cores and 12 threads in the youngest model. However, we would like to take stock of such controversy, which escalated during the release of a new line of AMD processors.

Tell me, do you believe in ficuses?

A big wave of controversy surged in 2012. And now, after 9 years, it’s time to take stock. Let’s head-to-head the FX-8370 and the i5-2500K!

Test Bench

Processor #1: Intel Core i5-2500K
Processor #2: AMD FX-8370
Motherboard #1: ASUS SABERTOOTH P67
Motherboard #2: ASUS 970 PRO GAMING/AURA
Video card: Palit GeForce RTX 3090 GameRock OC
RAM: Crucial Ballistix Elite 2×8 Gb
Cooling: DeepCool AS500
Drive: Silicon Power Ace A58 1TB
Power supply: Deepcool DQ850-M-V2L
Body: Open Stand

Stock tests

We start from the drain, and if for the ficus it is not a problem to enable XMP, since any motherboard suitable for it has overclocking, then in the case of the i5, the usual motherboards of the H- and B-chipset had a limit of 1333 MHz. However, we are talking about 2011-2012, when these motherboards cost about 1.5 thousand, and for a simple fee on the z chipset for the sake of XMP, you could pay only 500 rubles. And someone managed to take it for the same penny. So turning on XMP at 2500K will not be shameful.

With regards to Aida, these platforms are too different to try to compare their performance with each other, but the owners of these systems can compare the results with their own.

Continuing to study synthetic tests, we turn to the bluebench, and here 8 threads of ficus were able to cover a strong lag in performance per core. It is also worth considering that the 8370 has a much higher boost both for one core and for all.

In the gigbench, the i5’s single-thread advantage has dwindled slightly, as has the multi-thread lag.

and CPU-Z preferred the Intel processor. The 8370 is a whopping 29% weaker in the single-core test and only 19% faster in the all-core test. You won’t be full of synthetics alone — let’s move on to games.

We start with Warzone. Settings — eSports. The recording was made by a capture card from another computer. At first glance, the FPS is very close with a slight advantage to the red side, but if you pay attention to the frametime, it immediately becomes clear which processor is more pleasant to play on. Running in a cold at 2500K, you involuntarily notice the low performance of the system, which clearly does not benefit the young esportsman. It is also worth noting that although the 2500K is not bought for use in stock, according to many, you can imagine the usual 2500 in its place, their boost table is completely the same. If desired, the stock test can even be regarded as an approximate confrontation between the younger i5-2400 and FX-8350. The former has a core clock 200 MHz lower than the one on the screen, and the 8350 boost is 100 MHz lower than the 8370.

Next is Cyberpunk. The graphics preset is minimal, the crowd density too. In fact, if you have a good graphics card, you can increase the graphics preset to the maximum without ray tracing, but leave the shadows at a minimum, and then the amount of work for the processor will practically not change, and the picture will become better. As in the case of modern processors, and with older ones, the CD Project neglects the potential of reds, preferring blues, which is why 2500K is on par with ficus.

Lara. The graphics preset is the highest. Here it is worth starting by downloading the benchmark. The fact is that the problem of weak four cores in games is not only in FPS or frametime, but also in the speed of various downloads. For example, the ficus loaded the third part of the benchmark in 6 seconds, while it took the i5 50 seconds, and the mountain did not load immediately. And in modern games, this is not uncommon, whether it’s Assassin, Watchdogs or any other game. In this benchmark, the average FPS is indicative. 2500K not only managed to fill it at the beginning of the scene, where single-threaded performance is more important, but also did it due to the mountain that did not immediately appear. The present state of affairs is visible now. While at 2500K FPS it drops to 36 frames per second, on the ficus counter it does not fall below 44, which is a whopping 22% increase!

Watchdogs Legion, graphics preset is low. Both processors are on par and both do not cope. Of course, there will be 30 frames with a lock on the console, but for a PC boyar I would like more than 2 times. FX had a more negative impact. For example, low performance per core or RAM speed, inferior to i5 in two out of three indicators, according to Aida.

Star Craft II, medium graphics preset. It would seem that this game belongs to the period of youth of our processors, but since then it has undergone many changes, which is clearly observed in the monitoring. None of the stones can cope with kneading even on the medium graphics preset. However, i5 makes it clear whose per-core performance is way above the bottom. His FPS is a third higher than that of FX. The 3090 became so relaxed when paired with it that it even began to reset the memory frequency as unnecessary, due to which its power consumption dropped to 50 watts!

Flipping a coin and watching from the other side of Total War Troy, ultra preset graphics, and with them a strong loyalty to multithreading. Now 2500K looks backward. If in StarCraft it was a third faster, then here the FX-8370 is 73% more productive in terms of average FPS. I remember that in a similar simulator (mount & blade 2) there was a similar situation when simple hyper-threading gave a quad-core i7 a one and a half times performance increase. So fans of large-scale strategies clearly did not fail, preferring the pseudo-eight-core stone from AMD.

At the end of CS:GO, as a reminder that the classic never gets old. Graphics preset is minimal, anti-aliasing is eightfold. This shooter is also low-threaded, like Starcraft, but here the advantage of the i5 is not so great. Ficus is the weakest by 15% in terms of average FPS. On high-frequency monitors, this can still be seen, but it is unlikely that the owner of the bundle is cheaper than such a monitor, he is. So, in view of the low requirements of the counter to the hardware, the performance of both processors in stock is in excess for an undemanding gamer, but this is only in the counter.

If you recall the previous 6 games, then not everything is so rosy.

In Troy and Lara, you could still lower the graphics settings to get 60 FPS, but in Warzone, Cyberpunk and Dogs they were already at a minimum. Even though the ficus has a great performance in games in the overall standings, we can say that both stones no longer meet the level of a comfortable game.

Acceleration

However, as the sweets are left in the end, so the overclocking test comes after the stock test. Follow us to the bios.

For 2500K everything is simple. 4.7 GHz for cores, 2133 MHz for memory, with the first timing of 8. Secondary and tertiary are also configured, nothing is missed.

Ficus has more settings. Despite the fact that it was released in 2019, it was not even close to reach 5 GHz. A funny coincidence, but the frequencies of the cores and memory came out identical to the intel. Is there a difference in the timings? In addition to the fact that their set is different, you can pay attention that with the same primary timings, the command rate allowed itself to be lowered to one, but the important tFAW timing is missing in the secondary ones.

And the frequencies of NB and HT reached 2600 and 2400 MHz in overclocking, respectively.

Now that the 2500K has caught up with the 8370 in terms of core frequency, the balance should tip in its favor. And so it happened.

In the bluebench, the ficus is only 14% faster in the multi-thread test, the performance of one core did not even reach the stock level of 2500K, let alone overclocked.

In the geekbench, the i5 took the first place in both disciplines, leaving the efix no opportunity to boast of the number of threads.

As in CPU-Z, a one percent advantage can hardly be called such, while in the single-core test, the 2500K tends to double the advantage.

In Hades, the latency of both processors dropped to a value of about 10 nanoseconds, cache speeds increased, and the like. It’s funny that they had the same reading speed of the first level cache, but keep in mind that Aida considers it in her own way and we go to Warzone.

Now 2500K has pulled over the championship blanket. But again, this is only at first glance. If in terms of average FPS it is ahead of FX, then by 0.1% they are on the same level. This means that the 2500K has a more jagged frametime. And in theory, the gameplay on it should feel less pleasant. In fact, there is not much difference.

By the way, we changed the RendererWorkerCount parameter from the very beginning to 2 and 4, respectively, for i5 and 8370, as the best options in terms of performance. By default, the game set not the most appropriate values with much worse overall performance.

In Cyberpunk, even the stock i5 was ahead, and now it’s even more off the charts. Bursts on frametime have become much lower, while on ficus they are still very noticeable. It is not surprising. The most influencing parameter is performance per core. And in i5 with overclocking, the frequency increased by 1200 MHz, while on 8370 it was only 600-700 MHz. And in percentage terms, this increase varies even more.

In Lara, overclocking the memory allowed the i5 to not only load the scene much faster, but also draw the mountain, so it no longer fills the average FPS due to its absence. The minimum FPS gap has also narrowed. While on the i5 there are 47 FPS, on the FX there are 53 of them. That is, the eight-thread is faster in complex scenes not by 22%, but by 13.

In Watch Dogs, the overclocked gameplay has become much more pleasant, but you still can’t reach 60 fps. It is not surprising, even 2600K sank below this indicator. However, throughout the entire segment, the i5 was a little faster and more stable, which allows us to add one more point to its piggy bank.

One name of the game already determines the winner. In Starcraft, there is no question of who is faster. One can only ask how much. One and a half times.

Troy is similar. The loser is obvious. And if the overclocked ficus almost caught up with the stock i5 in StarCraft, then here, even in overclocking 2500K, the stock ficus is no match for the stock ficus, what can we say about the overclocked one.

In contrast, everything is clear too. In it, the already leading i5 received the highest increase in overclocking. As much as 47%! And this is taking into account that in the drain the memory was in XMP. 8370, in turn, received only a 20% increase. Even in StarCraft there were much more — 29%. And so usually the ficus received from 20 to 24% of additional frames from overclocking. For 2500K, this range was from 35 to 40%.

Terminals

In the end, what do we have? With overclocking, processors are more or less alive. But who is alive? 2500K at one time was more expensive, no doubt, but by modern standards, paying extra for it instead of the FX-8370 or 8350 could cost a penny. Moreover, the ficus came out almost 2 years later. It was just right for him to compete with the more technologically advanced i5-3570K, which had a thinner process technology, improved microarchitecture, and a newer version of PCI Express, which was not available for ficuses on the vast majority of motherboards.

With regards to performance in games, even after so many years, the efficiency of using multithreading leaves much to be desired.

Of all the games, only Troy had a really tangible advantage.

Watchdogs and Cyberpunk, able to easily use 12 threads, still preferred the overclocked i5.

And if you quickly supplement the comparison with recent projects that deserve attention, then this will only confirm the voiced opinion.

For example, in Days Gone at the minimum graphics preset, both processors have identical drawdowns, which for i5 should feel more critical, again, in theory, but in reality you get much higher FPS most of the time, which clearly inclines to prefer the Intel processor.

And in one of the best platformers for two, it takes two is one of the worst optimizations among modern games, which is why ficus threads are idle and i5 has a colossal superiority. That is, even in 2021, it cannot be said that the i5 lost.

All these years ficus owners have been mocking the bleak future of four threads, and these stupid developers are still making good games with the wrong optimization. Not under 8 weak threads.

At the same time, what were people playing in 2012? If the video card allowed, then in Crysis 2, for example. In it i5 was faster,

and in another shooter — battlefield 4, the advantage was also behind fast 4 cores, and only some games could use the potential of 8 threads of ficus,

For example, Assassins Creed 3. CPU load immediately makes it clear why it is ahead.

However, if you take another, no less iconic game from Ubisoft, Far Cry 3, then the 8370 lags behind again. While fans waited for their stones to unleash their potential, i5 owners enjoyed the higher performance.

Add to that the complexity of overclocking. If at 2500K there was only confusion with the maximum temperature on the processor cover and its cores, then for the ficus the problem was not only this. The core temperature sensor is clearly far from them. At times, the AS500’s heatsink was hotter than it was. And the power consumption sensor on most motherboards only works in stock, and even there it shows rubbish. Well, do not forget about overheating and dumps of the north bridge.

Naturally, supporters of the red camp will give their arguments in favor of the eight-stream in comments like: “But with ficus you can stream without friezes!”, “Frametime in some games is smoother” or something like that. There is only one request to you: do it culturally.

Let’s see how the i5-9400 versus Ryzen 2600 or 8600K versus 1700 ends up in the future. In the meantime, you can subscribe to the channel if you haven’t already to follow our other content!

For those who have read up to this point, as a bonus, we will answer the most important question. Will the FX-8370 open the rtx 3090? Spit once. We increase the resolution in Cyberpunk to Quad HD, we don’t even need 4K, we unscrew the graphics preset to the maximum and step into the underground parking lot.

While you are here, ficus can handle any modern card with such settings. On this humorous note, we come to an end.

immortal FX?! GECID.com. Page 1

::>Processors
>2019
> AMD FX-8350 Gameplay Test: Immortal FX?!

29-04-2019

Page 1
Page 2
One page

In October 2012, the second generation of AMD FX processors entered the market. They are based on the 32nm Piledriver microarchitecture. This is a slightly improved version of the original Bulldozer — you can draw an analogy with Zen + and Zen. She did not bring anything radically new, but she optimized the work of schedulers, increased clock frequencies, added new instructions and made a number of other useful changes.

The first flagship of the new generation was the 8-core AMD FX-8350. Later, FX-8370 and even FX-9590 came out on the same microarchitecture, but now we are not talking about them. Our hero received 8 cores with a base frequency of 4 GHz and dynamic overclocking to 4.2 GHz. The L3 cache is 8MB and the TDP is 125W.

It does not have a video core, so a discrete video card is required. In turn, the RAM controller is guaranteed to support the operation of DDR3-1866 MHz modules in dual-channel mode. It is not recommended to dwell on this indicator, because overclocking is very important for all FX, but more on that later.

For now, let’s take a look at the rest of the test stand components. The Noctua NH-U12P cooler with 4 heat pipes and a 120mm fan was responsible for cooling the processor.

The assembly is based on the ASRock Fatal1ty 990FX Killer motherboard with fast memory support, enhanced power supply and efficient cooling.

RAM plays a significant role in system performance with AMD FX, so we initially took the fast G.Skill TridentX 16GB DDR3-2400 kit to better unlock the potential of the processor. A double-sided heatsink guarantees stable operation at higher frequencies.

Since the main purpose of the material is to evaluate the capabilities of the CPU, the video card was taken with a margin so as not to rest against it when starting any games. We are talking about the Palit GeForce RTX 2080 GamingPro OC model with a slight factory overclocking of the GPU and a 2-fan cooler. In games, the GPU warmed up to 85°C.

The operating system and the most demanding games were installed on a 240 GB Apacer AST280 M.2 SSD. It uses the SATA interface, so the sequential read and write speed is in the region of 500MB/s.

Other games were run from a terabyte HDD of the Seagate Barracuda series.

We didn’t think about the choice of power supply for a long time — Vinga VPS-650G with 80 PLUS Gold certificate was at hand — and they installed it. Yes, it was possible to take something more modest, but our goal is not to build the optimal config, but to ensure stable operation of the system.

All this goodness was collected in an inexpensive Vinga Vision I case. The metal mesh on the front panel contributes to good ventilation of internal components. But it doesn’t come with fans. For such a hot assembly, this is fraught with overheating and performance degradation.

Therefore, to improve the temperature inside, we took a set of three 120mm Frime IRIS SPACE KIT turntables. They are based on a hydrodynamic bearing and rotate at speeds from 700 to 1200 rpm, creating an air flow of 54 m ³ / h with a noise of 22.5 dB. In addition, they will please with RGB LED-backlighting and an internal controller for connecting additional fans. You can control them with the included remote control.

A 28-inch monitor from AOC was used to display the image. The gameplay was recorded in Full HD resolution using an external system with AVerMedia Live Gamer 4K, that is, without loss of performance. And the FPS Monitor utility helped us with monitoring.

Now a little about overclocking. The AMD FX-8350 performs well in stock, but its Achilles heel is the memory subsystem, which should be accelerated first if possible. To do this, we took a fast set of RAM and simultaneously overclocked the cache, RAM controller, and even the Hyper-Transport bus to 2600 MHz. I also had to slightly increase the voltage on these nodes.

The frequency of the cores was not raised much — only up to 4.2 GHz. This made it possible to reduce the voltage on them, making the processor a little colder, because the cooler is not the most powerful. In this mode, the system worked stably, and the CPU itself did not boil. In games, the temperature rose to 65 ° C, without drawdowns and throttling.

If your system uses a better cooler and a roomier case, then the AMD FX-8350 can be overclocked even more. By the way, newer revisions of this processor lend themselves better to overclocking. We still have a sample of 2012 with a moderate overclocking potential. On the other hand, it is doubly interesting to look at its capabilities after a long downtime.

To check the effectiveness of overclocking, we conducted a small test in the benchmark Metro Exodus with an average graphics preset. In stock, we get an average of 69 FPS. After activating only the XMP profile of the RAM, the indicators rose by 9-11%. And after all the optimizations described above, the results increased by another 3-5%. In general, the bonus from the final overclocking compared to the stock system was 13-17%. Therefore, overclocking the AMD FX-8350 is a useful and necessary thing.

The main gameplay test will start with World of Tanks , whose engine has recently learned to better interact with multi-core processors. Therefore, owners of 8-core FX can expect to average over 160 FPS with fully predictable control. That is, the processor pulls the game without problems — it remains only to add a good video card.

First problems with ARK: Survival Evolved . Ditched a lot of time to pick up more or less playable settings. We settled on a high preset with a completely twisted density and range of detail on the ground, as well as a low quality of the sky. The average speed exceeded 40 FPS, but there were some lags. This is clearly seen in the statistics of 1 and 0.1% Low.

We tried to go down just to a low profile, but this does not help the situation. The speed indicators are at the same level and the friezes do not disappear anywhere, but the picture becomes eye-catching. That is, the engine for the processor is very heavy, and the level of settings does not play a special role.

RUST didn’t surprise with almost maximum parameters: if you run headlong in an unknown direction, it will freeze. If you run a little around the location, collecting useful items and gradually moving to new lands, then there will be no particular discomfort.

Even at ultra settings Quake Champions remains completely comfortable, although the video card is frankly cool. With a more powerful processor, speed performance would be higher. But on regular 60 Hz monitors, this is not very important, because the average speed already exceeds 90 fps.

To begin with, in PUBG decided to run around with ultra settings in order to load the system to the maximum. Although this did not frighten the video card — its load was in the range of 40-60%. The average speed was more than comfortable, but microfreezes slipped in places, which is clearly seen from the statistics of very rare events.

Switching to a folky mixture of low and ultra settings only improves the rare events indicator, while the average frame rate and 0.1% Low stats do not change. Everything indicates that the engine is limited by the capabilities of the processor, although this is not visible from the monitoring.