FX4320,FX6300 and FX8350 review thread

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

FX4300,FX6300 and FX8350

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/t...-fx4300-tested
http://www.techspot.com/review/586-amd-fx-8350-fx-6300/
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Process...a-Breaks-Cover
http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/3314...ly-good-enough
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages..._review,1.html
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...00-review.html
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Core-i...shera-1032556/
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...6300-4300.html


FX8350

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/fx-835...iew-32550.html
http://techreport.com/review/23750/a...essor-reviewed
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/A...driver_Review/
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...a-arrives.html
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/880-...etour-amd.html
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/46...iledriver-cpu/
http://www.planet3dnow.de/vbulletin/...d.php?t=408737
http://www.hothardware.com/Reviews/A...re-CPU-Review/
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_fx8350/
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/review...roduction.html
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.ph...=962&Itemid=63
http://www.eteknix.com/reviews/proce...cessor-review/
http://www.hardcoreware.net/amd-pile...-vishera-8350/
http://www.hitechlegion.com/reviews/...312-amd-fx8350
http://www.overclock 3d.net/reviews/...river_review/1
http://www.kitguru.net/components/gr...0fx-r2-review/
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/PC-Gam...PCGHX-1029887/
http://www.hitechlegion.com/reviews/...312-amd-fx8350
http://www.hardcoreware.net/amd-pile...-vishera-8350/
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/2055/1/
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/artic...PU-Review/1657
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...d-fx-8350.html
http://www.extremetech.com/computing...zer-fell-short
http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/proce...98/amd-fx-8350
http://semiaccurate.com/2012/10/22/a...essor-vishera/
http://www.pureoverclock.com/Review-...formula-z-rog/
http://www.bitsandchips.it/9-hardwar...s-2012-vishera
http://www.rage3d.com/reviews/cpu/am...launch_review/
http://www.bjorn3d.com/2012/10/amd-f.../#.UIfFa4Zvpe8
http://www.technic3d.com/review/cpu-...-vishera/1.htm
http://www.overclockers.com/amd-fx-8...?utm_source=pr
http://www.eteknix.com/reviews/proce...cessor-review/


Linux

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...rabdver2&num=1

[agello24]

ill still buy an old AMD 6 or 8 core just cause i know its 6 and 8 cores. the average person cant tell the difference between intel and AMD in a blind test. To add, the average person does no were near what a benchmark can do.

[KeyboardDemon]

That's a lot of reviews Cat. Thanks.

Which are your favourites?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

That's a lot of reviews Cat. Thanks.

Which are your favourites?

The ones which use up to date software. Toms Hardware and Hardware.fr tend to use newish test suites. The Tech Report does latency testing which is good. HT4U tends to take some time for reviews,but they tend to be quite detailed.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Added some reviews - the FX6300 looks good.

[DDY]

Are there any folding benches in those reviews?

[watercooled]

Yeah I've been wondering what's happened to all the folding benchmarks lately.

[DDY]

Ah, found one: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...rrives-19.html

So quite close to a stock 2600k

[watercooled]

Well spotted. Seems about right, even fairly impressive, considering F@H uses almost exclusively FP ops AFAIK.

[DDY]

Now to find F@H stats on an overclocked chip!

A bit of geekery on the side, assuming the FX system consumes an extra 40W more than its close performing rival, that's about £35 a year more in electricity. Meaning, if you intend to buy a dedicated system to fold for a minimum of one year, the FX system would be better value than the competitors similarly performing system if the latter costs at least £35 more.

So, buying an AMD FX dedicated folder isn't bad value, relatively... I say that because nothing can complete in terms raw crunching power, ppd/£ and ppd/Watt with multi-CPU systems that have a silly amount of threads.

... Now to find Opteron folding reviews!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Now to find F@H stats on an overclocked chip!

A bit of geekery on the side, assuming the FX system consumes an extra 40W more than its close performing rival, that's about £35 a year more in electricity. Meaning, if you intend to buy a dedicated system to fold for a minimum of one year, the FX system would be better value than the competitors similarly performing system if the latter costs at least £35 more.

So, buying an AMD FX dedicated folder isn't bad value, relatively... I say that because nothing can complete in terms raw crunching power, ppd/£ and ppd/Watt with multi-CPU systems that have a silly amount of threads.

... Now to find Opteron folding reviews!

You might want to consider this:

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldo...20FX-8300.html

Also,remember Intel CPUs have more functionality on the CPU itself unlike an FX CPU. Hence,I expect motherboard choice might make more of a difference than with an Intel system.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Another review which has the FX6300 and FX4300 has been added!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Another FX4300 and FX6300 review added!! So it appears even in the worst case scenario,the FX6300 is only slightly slower than a Core i3 3225 in games but extends decent lead in multi-threaded games,and the overclocking results look promising!!

[scaryjim]

Is it just me, or is it a little suspect that Intel's x87 performance is better than its SSE3 performance? I thought the idea of new instructions was to improve performance...

It's almost as if Intel looked at which benchmarks people were using in processor reviews, and worked out that by boosting x87 performance they could give themselves a significant benchmark advantage, even if it wouldn't pan out that significant in the real world ... or am I being too cynical?

[watercooled]

Which benchmarks do you mean?

Intel's still have an inherited hardware x87 unit, AMD Bulldozer onwards don't AFAIK, which explains the performance gap, but as you say it's completely irrelevant to most any modern software. It seems like a strange thing to spend money on, but when you have reviewers still comparing CPUs with SuperPi...

[scaryjim]

It appears to be a bit of a hyperthreading thing, actually. The hardware canucks review for 6300/4300 has a synthetic FPU test - VP8/SinJulia. The VP8 test uses SSE3, whilst SinJulia uses pure x87. All the processors except the i3s have higher scores for SSE3 than x87, but by varying degrees: the quad core AMD K10 and Piledriver parts have the biggest difference, with the K10 X6 and i5s having a fairly small difference - then there's the i3s, which are FASTER at multithreaded x87 than multithreaded SSE3

SuperPi is the classic example, but I suspect there are others out there we don't know about. It'd be an interesting bit of research. I could quite fancy taking a variety of common benchmarking tasks, and re-writing/compiling them with different level of feature support...