The Vishera Review: AMD FX-8350, FX-8320, FX-6300 and FX-4300 Tested
by Anand Lal Shimpi on October 23, 2012 12:00 AM ESTPhotoshop Performance
Adobe Photoshop CS4
To measure performance under Photoshop CS4 we turn to the Retouch Artists’ Speed Test. The test does basic photo editing; there are a couple of color space conversions, many layer creations, color curve adjustment, image and canvas size adjustment, unsharp mask, and finally a gaussian blur performed on the entire image.
The whole process is timed and thanks to the use of Intel's X25-M SSD as our test bed hard drive, performance is far more predictable than back when we used to test on mechanical disks.
Time is reported in seconds and the lower numbers mean better performance. The test is multithreaded and can hit all four cores in a quad-core machine.
We see similar results in our Photoshop benchmark, Vishera falls behind a bit as this test isn't threaded enough to showcase the platform's advantages.
3D Rendering Performance
Our new POV-Ray benchmark uses the latest beta binary (3.7RC6) and runs through both single and multithreaded versions of the popular raytracing benchmark.
The latest POV-Ray test gives us a good look at single threaded performance. Here AMD was able to increase performance over the FX-8150 by 11%, however Intel's Core i5 3570K still manages to hold on to a 20% performance lead over the FX-8350.
Running the same benchmark but multithreaded puts AMD at the top. With the exception of the FX-6300, all of the AMD parts beat out their Intel counterparts.
Cinebench 11.5
Created by the Cinema 4D folks we have Cinebench, a popular 3D rendering benchmark that gives us both single and multi-threaded 3D rendering results.
Cinebench 11.5 paints an even more dire picture for AMD's single threaded performance - Intel manages a 40% advantage over the FX-8350.
Multithreaded performance however continues to be great.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
250 Comments
View All Comments
CeriseCogburn - Tuesday, October 30, 2012 - link
You simpletons all have the same hate filled idiot theory - so let me ask you - since amd has competition, WHY DO THEY SUCK SO BADLY ?Somehow you idiots claim, that if amd wasn't around, intel would suck. "Amd has made intel great"
Well, wait a minute - Intel is around, it's great, AND AMD SUCKS.
Take a moment, look in the mirror, think about it.... then let me know how red you turned... if not at all, contraception from here on out is a must.
How are you people so stupid ? How is it possible ?
Ukdude21 - Thursday, August 15, 2013 - link
You the biggest idiot on this website. I have read many comments on this website but yours are the most idiotic intel fanboy stained comments ever.halbhh2 - Thursday, October 25, 2012 - link
If power use is important to you, you should know that different reviews give different results for the power use vs competing intel chips.A couple of sites even have equal or lower idle power draw for the 8350 vs i7 3770.
Trying to figure out why, one variable is the motherboard. Is the Crosshair V a power hog?
I also looked at yearly cost in electrical use for my own useage.
The only thing I do that pegs multiple cores at 100% is chess analysis. In Deep Fritz the 8350 is close in performance to the i7 3770.
I do chess analysis about 1-5 hours a week on average, perhaps 200 hours per year.
The math is very simple. Power costs 16 cents per kilowatt hour. Peak power useage would cost an extra $3/year roughly vs an intel rig for me. Since I'd use a more power efficient motherboard than the Asus Crosshair, idle power is reasonable. I standby a lot when not using also.
An 8350 would cost me in the range of $4-$8 more per year in power bills vs an i7 3770 (it's competitor for chess analysis).
CeriseCogburn - Tuesday, October 30, 2012 - link
So go ahead and destroy the earth, see if any humans care.Ukdude21 - Thursday, August 15, 2013 - link
If you are the worried about the earth why don't you give your pc away. Least then we would not have to read your shit comments lol.taltamir - Thursday, October 25, 2012 - link
Starting the power cosumption graphs at 50 watt instead of 0 watt is GROSSLY MISLEADING! and very unfair to AMD.Lack of performance per watt comparison is unfair to Intel. Yea, AMD finally is able to, at stock, beat intel on some benchmarks... But they consume significantly more power to do so (intel could easily start selling higher clocked parts too)
pcfxer - Thursday, October 25, 2012 - link
If I ever build a new machine...it looks like I'll swing towards my first ever Intel box...hrmmm the anticipation may make me do it just for fun even though my Phenom II X555BE Unlocked and OC'd to 3.5GHz serves me just fine.OCedHrt - Friday, October 26, 2012 - link
it would be nice if they were normalized to idle power usage since we are comparing CPU power usage.halbhh2 - Friday, October 26, 2012 - link
I got curious about the idle power and visited 7 sites to look at reviews. No 2 sites had the same idle power difference between the 8350 vs the i7 3770. Values ranged from 9 watts AMD *lower* (lower! than intel) to 22 watts higher. The higher readings seemed to all be with the Asus Crosshair V, which logically must be a power hog.You should consider the idle power numbers *not* representative. Unreliable.
danrien - Monday, October 29, 2012 - link
Seems like its server opteron cousin would be kick-ass.