Legit Reviews

AMD FX-8350 8-Core Black Edition Processor Review

The new AMD FX processors improve upon AMD's first 8-core desktop solution thanks to a next generation core architecture developed from the ground up to deliver an entirely new level of performance. The AMD FX-8350 8-Core Black Edition Processor comes unlocked and offers PC enthusiasts the ability to easily overclock the CPU. The AMD FX-8350 Black Edition comes with a 4.0 GHz base clock, but can reach 4.2 GHz thanks to Turbo mode. Read on to see how this new processor performs!

The AMD FX-8350 was a breeze to overclock, granted it has become a whole different beast over the years. Simply add a little voltage here and there, increase either the Bclk or the multiplier and see how far it can go. Today we stuck to increasing the multiplier and left the Bclk alone, we were able to bring the FX-8350 to a rock solid...

Article Title: AMD FX-8350 8-Core Black Edition Processor Review
Article URL: http://legitreviews.com/article/2055/1/

Quite good, though the Pi numbers got me thinking ... how does the FX-8350 do worse than a stars quad core 3GHz A8 at hyper PI?
Something's fishy

I thought the new Piledriver CPU were going to be Quad Channel DDR? Is this going to be something that is still down the road?

It looks like there is finally a feasible upgrade path from the 1100T, I didn't feel that the FX-8150 was enough of an improvement to pay for. Since my ASUS 890 board supports the FX-8150 in the latest bios I can only hope that they will add the necessary code to the bios to let me try this one out. I won't buy a new board just for this one, but would consider saving up for it if I can use my ASUS 890.

Oh boy. Who do I see buying this? Well I would think it would be people who remember the good ole Athlon XP and Athlon 64 days. These people would probably buy it just to "support" AMD but still use an Intel rig as their main system. I can only hope that AMD sticks around and makes CPUs for the foreseeable future. It would really stink for us if Intel was the only game in town.

Nice Review, But I hope you included the other versions of this line (FX-8320, FX-6300 and FX-4300), Other intel Processors (i5-3570k, i5-3450 and i3-3220), also you should add older AMD processors (Old gen Bulldozers, FX-8120, FX-6200 and FX-4170) and also the Phenom II lines of processors (1100T, 980, 965). Also, you don't have to add the A8-5600k and A8-3870k in it. I think you should do this in the next review.

Also, I think you should go onto dropping your HyperPi/SuperPi Tests, it's a bit inaccurate. Something like Adobe CS6, Handbrake or PCMark7 would be lovely. You could even do Compression Benchmark such as 7-Zip.

Major_A wrote:Oh boy. Who do I see buying this? Well I would think it would be people who remember the good ole Athlon XP and Athlon 64 days. These people would probably buy it just to "support" AMD but still use an Intel rig as their main system. I can only hope that AMD sticks around and makes CPUs for the foreseeable future. It would really stink for us if Intel was the only game in town.

This processor could get some buyers. Most of them are, People who want to render as fast as 3770k but has only $200 to spend on the CPU, People that has AM3 boards and looking to upgrade their processors or People that are Noobs on tech that think more cores and more GHz are better. It's not that terrible as Bulldozer actually.

Always hope the best for LegitReviews' Reviews .

People that are Noobs on tech that think more cores and more GHz are better.

Good point. That didn't cross my mind. Kind of like buying a cheap video card because it has 2GB RAM!!!!! when the better card has half that.

Yeah, 2GB on a laptop GPU is total overkill, as what i've seen recently from all these "MORE IS BETTER!" mentality people
Hell i can't even get DiRT3 on high and 4X AA to max out 1GB

INeedAFnSuffix wrote:Yeah, 2GB on a laptop GPU is total overkill, as what i've seen recently from all these "MORE IS BETTER!" mentality people
Hell i can't even get DiRT3 on high and 4X AA to max out 1GB

some games like BF3 do use a bit of memory... I see about 1.45GB of VRAM being used at 1920x1080 on Ultra settings.

Update:

Just fired up BF3 and played a couple maps... Seeing 1.7GB used at 1920x1600 on Ultra settings.

Heaven 3.0 with everything maxed out was also under 1.7GB:

But we're talking 2GB on a GT620M

oh I know.... just saying I can't hit it on a high-end card at 2560x1600

The test system in this review is flawed using 1600Mhz memory instead of 1866mhz (NO overclocking), the core I7 (1155) supports only 1600mhz (no overclocking). A fair test would be AMD FX with 1866 memory against Intel I7 with 1600Mhz memory.
Since 90% of all pc builds will have no overclocking applied, this would be a fair test. The AMD should perform way better and be much closer to perfermance of the Intel I7.
Rod

But it's only fair with 1600MHz RAM, because 1866 costs a bit more it's ... not really fair to pair up a 1866 with AMD and 1600 with the IVB, just goes to show how memory bandwidth limited bulldozer/piledriver is

should pumped up the HT/NB speeds to 2600MHz or 2800MHz both run real stable without anymore voltage than stock and will increase memory and data throughput alot