AMD FX-8370E CPU Review: Vishera Down to 95W, Price Cuts for FX
by Ian Cutress on September 2, 2014 8:00 AM ESTAMD FX-8370E Conclusion
Since the bygone days of the GHz wars, energy efficiency is now a key part in any x86 CPU manufacturer handbook. When designing a CPU, parts can be engineered to either be all-out guns blazing on performance, or it can strike a balance between performance and power. When AMD first announced the FX-9590, it was presumed that the Vishera architecture was the former, given the large power increase to get to 5 GHz with turbo. That same principle comes across in these new energy efficient processors, especially when the FX-8370E is 700 MHz less than the FX-8370 it tries to emulate for a 30W decrease.
Trying to have an energy efficient part of an architecture that loves high frequency at the expense of power is an odd scenario, one borne from the initial production of motherboards that supported these processors. When there were only 95W and 125W CPUs to worry about, motherboards were made to only cope with this setting, until 220W CPUs hit the ecosystem. These 95W parts allow AMD to offer an upgrade path to an 8-thread machine without replacing the motherboard. The fact that AMD is going this far might suggest they have some strong data that a user would more likely replace a CPU than a motherboard. Admittedly replacing a CPU usually requires a BIOS update or less, whereas upgrading a motherboard is a bigger ordeal.
In terms of absolute performance, the FX-8370E sits somewhere between the FX-6350, FX-8150 and FX-8350. The multi-core performance puts it ahead of the FX-6350 CPU, but the single core performance can juggle around with all three, sometimes between the FX-8150 and FX-8350 due to the generational gap but often on par with the FX-8150. The same goes with gaming, where it competed with the FX-8150 near the bottom of our charts. The new FX-8370, the non-E part, should come out a clear winner over the FX-8350, so it stands to reason that the FX-8370E sits below them both due to the base frequency difference.
For competition against Intel, the nearest sets of numbers we have are the i3-4330, i3-4360 and the i5-4690, positioned well below and above the price point respectively. Intel wins hands down on the single threaded performance, even against the FX-9590, although having access to 8 threads on the FX-8000/9000 series is becoming more important for tasks like compression, multi-threaded web browsing and media creation.
AMD’s ideal scenario is a gamer using a combination of an FX-8370E ($200) with, for example, an MSI 970 Gaming motherboard ($90) and an R9 285 GPU ($250). Altogether this would cost around $540 for the start of an 8-thread system. This will do fine in gaming at 1080p, and the parallel to draw is that this performs the same as an FX-8150, but at lower power. It is a shame that the FX-8150 came out in October 2011, and nearly three years later we are saving only 30 watts of TDP (24%) and $45 on release price difference (18%) for the same performance on what should be the flagship line for a major x86 manufacturer.
At the end of the day, AMD needs to upgrade the architecture (and the chipset). At some point the architectures of the FX and APU line either need to diverge their separate ways, or there needs to be a hard earned reconciliation attempt to find a node and a manufacturing process suitable for both low power graphics cores and high frequency processor cores. We know about AMD's plans for 2016, dealing with ARM and x86, and the announcements on K12 so far point to AMD targeting servers, embedded markets and ultra low power client devices. Here's hoping desktop side gets a good boost.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
107 Comments
View All Comments
Atakelane - Wednesday, September 3, 2014 - link
A M ... what? I think this will be the reaction of the next gen of gamers to the once legendary AMD name. What has gotten into them ? I am an Intel and Nvidia fanboy but the problem is, the lack of competition from AMD (with their much hyped but pseudo multi core processors) to Intel has made sure Intel can trump them with just dual core fixed clock CPUs. I think Intel would have been forced to bring unlocked quad cores to the lowest end processors with proper competition.East17 - Wednesday, September 3, 2014 - link
One thing that has become obvious during the past 14 years or so is that EVERY TIME a new benchmark is introduced, AMD processors are ALWAYS competitive, just like the new x265 4K benchmark. Even the APUs are competitive.Then Intel updates its free compiler too and while its CPUs maintain their performance, the AMD chips are suddenly less capable in the new version of the program.
Intel is free to do whatever it want with its compiler and the software is actually good and useful, BUT the developers using Intel's compiler should respect AMD users and patch their software accordingly.
It is publicly known that if you use Intel's compiler on your software, it will identify the CPU and if it's an Intel one, it will run the most efficient routine, but if it's an AMD chip, it will run the "most compatible" routine that's considerably slower.
If the developer respects his customers and wants to offer a correctly and completely optimized piece of software, he should patch his product to run the most efficient routine on AMD CPUs too.
HisDivineOrder - Wednesday, September 3, 2014 - link
The reason AMD is making this part has less to do with data showing users who want to upgrade and more to do with users who are looking for new upgrades. They go and they can either buy CPU's that show as released over two years ago or they can buy new ones with new names that show newer releases dates. Even if the reviews state these CPU's are essentially the same as the older parts, there is a large group of users who won't care so long as the CPU's are "new."This is the same reason you saw the R9 280/280X, etc, get their flashy new name last year in spite of the cards being the exact same design as the older one.
Rebadges are more about perception than reality.
Ehetlaios - Thursday, September 4, 2014 - link
GUYS ENOUGH WITH SUPERBENCHMARKING AND SUPER INTEL TECHNOLOGY. THIS TIME WE DONT NEED THE EXTRA PERFORMANCE. INTEL DID THE SAME THING -PUMB THE SPEED AND VOUALA YOUR I7 4790K. THEY HAVE PROBLEMS WITH 14NM PROCESS. SO WHEN THE SANDY BECOMES THE REAL WALL POINT AND THE 22NM DIDNOT OFFER A PUMP OF 35% REAL PUMB ON PERFORMANCE IS LOGICAL TO SEE TINY AMD STAYS AT 32NM WITH LOW PRICES. AS FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCE ARE JUST BUBU 40$ OR 50$ LESS WITH INTEL IN 5 YEARS. ITS SAD THAT SANDY AND PILLDRIVER IS STILL HERE IN PERFORMANCE WAY. THE OLD DAYS OF 50% PUMB FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION ARE OVER. AS FOR INTEL WILL GIVE YOU 6 CORES WITH 12 THREADS I7 5790K BROADWELL AND I5 4 CORES WITH 8 THREADS I7 5820K SHOWED THAT< IF THE 14NM WILL SCALE GOOD ENOUGH IN EARLY 2015 OR SUMMER. SO AMD WITH 14NM OR 16NM WILL STRIKE WITH NEW DESIGNED 8C0RES WITH 16 THREADS IN 2015 Q4 OR 2016 Q1 IF THIS WILL BE FAILDOZER OR BRUTAL ATHLON WE WILL SEE THAT. SORRY FOR MY BAD ENGLISH.BiggieShady - Thursday, September 4, 2014 - link
How come we have AMD processors with lower TDP and no thermal tests?GrigioR - Thursday, September 4, 2014 - link
So... That's for people that are still using Phenon ll's /Athlon ll's (maybe even low end fx's) Those low TDP chips are for people that have 95w max power boards. Simple as that.Yes, they do quite fine but i would NOT recommend them to any new builders. They are 'viable' upgrade options for AMD users.
That said, USD 200.00 on that chip? No, and no. Buy an I5, period. If you have a AM3 board and you fit in that description (Phenonll/Athlonll)... go ahead, better performance with less power/heat.
darknite414 - Tuesday, September 16, 2014 - link
I wonder how many times I have to hear the FX series isn't as good as the i5 or i7. I think I get it, most didn't plan on buying just wanted to sound cool! News flash....you don't.