AMD FX-8370E CPU Review: Vishera Down to 95W, Price Cuts for FX
by Ian Cutress on September 2, 2014 8:00 AM ESTGaming Benchmarks
F1 2013
First up is F1 2013 by Codemasters. I am a big Formula 1 fan in my spare time, and nothing makes me happier than carving up the field in a Caterham, waving to the Red Bulls as I drive by (because I play on easy and take shortcuts). F1 2013 uses the EGO Engine, and like other Codemasters games ends up being very playable on old hardware quite easily. In order to beef up the benchmark a bit, we devised the following scenario for the benchmark mode: one lap of Spa-Francorchamps in the heavy wet, the benchmark follows Jenson Button in the McLaren who starts on the grid in 22nd place, with the field made up of 11 Williams cars, 5 Marussia and 5 Caterham in that order. This puts emphasis on the CPU to handle the AI in the wet, and allows for a good amount of overtaking during the automated benchmark. We test at 1920x1080 on Ultra graphical settings.
In all combinations, the 8370E and the 8150 duke it out. F1 2013 seems to be an Intel dominated title, given the i3 and outperform the FX-9590.
Bioshock Infinite
Bioshock Infinite was Zero Punctuation’s Game of the Year for 2013, uses the Unreal Engine 3, and is designed to scale with both cores and graphical prowess. We test the benchmark using the Adrenaline benchmark tool and the Xtreme (1920x1080, Maximum) performance setting, noting down the average frame rates and the minimum frame rates.
The FX-8350 again fits in just beneath the FX-8150, but for a lower power consumption.
Tomb Raider
The next benchmark in our test is Tomb Raider. Tomb Raider is an AMD optimized game, lauded for its use of TressFX creating dynamic hair to increase the immersion in game. Tomb Raider uses a modified version of the Crystal Engine, and enjoys raw horsepower. We test the benchmark using the Adrenaline benchmark tool and the Xtreme (1920x1080, Maximum) performance setting, noting down the average frame rates and the minimum frame rates.
Tomb Raider continues to be CPU agnostic, even around the FX quad thread CPUs.
Sleeping Dogs
Sleeping Dogs is a benchmarking wet dream – a highly complex benchmark that can bring the toughest setup and high resolutions down into single figures. Having an extreme SSAO setting can do that, but at the right settings Sleeping Dogs is highly playable and enjoyable. We run the basic benchmark program laid out in the Adrenaline benchmark tool, and the Xtreme (1920x1080, Maximum) performance setting, noting down the average frame rates and the minimum frame rates.
The eight threads offers some advantage in minimum frame rates, but average frame rates are still around the FX-8150.
Battlefield 4
The EA/DICE series that has taken countless hours of my life away is back for another iteration, using the Frostbite 3 engine. AMD is also piling its resources into BF4 with the new Mantle API for developers, designed to cut the time required for the CPU to dispatch commands to the graphical sub-system. For our test we use the in-game benchmarking tools and record the frame time for the first ~70 seconds of the Tashgar single player mission, which is an on-rails generation of and rendering of objects and textures. We test at 1920x1080 at Ultra settings.
The FX-8370E stretches its legs a little in terms of minimum frame rates, particularly in SLI, however it is handily beaten by the i3-4330.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
107 Comments
View All Comments
zero2dash - Tuesday, September 2, 2014 - link
Purposeful apples to oranges comparison on that chart.If they put the same GPU with the Intel CPU, the Intel CPU price drops $50 and is flat out in the middle between the 8370e and 8320e.
What a joke. I know they're trying to drum up hype for their product, but FFS at least do an even comparison when possible.
And for the comment about how AMD is 1/10th the size of Intel, give me a break.
AMD's CPU division is floundering, but they've been flat out abusing NVIDIA on price/performance for the last several years now - another company that is probably larger than AMD. The inferred excuse that "they can't compete because they're smaller" is a joke.
I love my R9's but I happily put them in an i7 setup because AMD CPU's are still not up to snuff and are still too power hungry (by comparison).
just4U - Tuesday, September 2, 2014 - link
Multi threaded performance is decent.. single is meh.. price $200 putting it in i5 category.. it needs to be sitting around $150 to be competitive... than it becomes a interesting buy. People worried about the numbers I am on a 4790K and also have systems based around the new Pentium and Amd's A10 and Vishera 6300.. I am on and off those systems quite extensively and you know what?I don't go why so slow.. omg ... similarly configured their all pretty fast.
Germanicus - Tuesday, September 2, 2014 - link
Exactly. Thank you for your refreshing dose of reality.just4U - Tuesday, September 2, 2014 - link
You want to know the really nice thing about AMD's AM3+ I can replace aging motherboards that have died and still keep the cpu. It's a good platform overall just people want a real update I guess. I build/upgrade 20+ systems a year and do use the AM3+ platform when the right deals come along. I am fine with the update... although I do think the price on that cpu should be around $160 to make it viable.dj christian - Wednesday, September 3, 2014 - link
"I don't go why so slow.. omg ..."What?
just4U - Tuesday, September 2, 2014 - link
Ian,I'd really like to see an article (blog whatever..) about a baseline system. What you feel is still viable for todays computing needs. Occasionally I still have to do work on X2's and P4's and have come to the conclusion that they should have been retired long ago.. but Phenom 2 setups and Core2's (8x series not 6..) still seem to be trucking along perfectly fine with new hardware surrounding them (SSD's video etc.)
Basically something you could refresh once a year or so.. you know? be real cool to see that and since it would be going thru the battery of tests put thru on new setups it can be included in new cpu reviews as well as part of the comparisons.
Hrel - Tuesday, September 2, 2014 - link
So AMD's 6 core CPU is MARGINALLY faster than Intel's quad core i5 on a test written specifically to maximize the advantage of many threads and HALF as fast in the single threaded test? Come on...You're better off with a Sandy Bridge chip from 3-4 years ago than you are with a brand new AMD CPU. This is sad indeed.
I feel like Intel, at this point, might have the next breakthrough, like Conroe or Sandy Bridge, but they have no reason to release it because they've essentially stood still for 4 years and AMD still can't do more than "achieve" HALF the performance of an Intel counterpart.
Come on AMD, introduce some damn competition!
TauxiC - Tuesday, September 2, 2014 - link
The fact that Amazon had the FX-8350 on sale several weeks ago for a mere $159 and that I was able to throw that CPU into an Asus Crosshair IV Formula from 2010 (while selling my X6 1090T for $175 on eBay), and overclock that baby to 4.7GHz, and OUTPERFORM a $350 Intel i7-3770K AND an i7-4770K in Passmark, scoring 10,700 points proves that AMD's chips are extremely competitive. Made mincemeat of Intel's lineup. LOLtechguyz - Thursday, September 4, 2014 - link
so you're comparing an overclocked AMD chip to a stock Intel chip. Doesn't seem fair.with the 6 cores out for just $60 more than a quad core, that price to performance ratio rises dramatically.
a 4790k+mobo is cheaper and faster in the long run than an FX 8 core. The power costs alone will make up the price difference over a few years. Then there's the undeniable single threaded performance, which means 4 threaded applications get 100% of the cpu, while in AMD lesser than 8 threads means all that horsepower is under utilized.
You just don't realize the performance you're missing.
And don't get me started on things like min fps in gaming, which AMD can't match even with all cores in use.
royalcrown - Tuesday, September 16, 2014 - link
It's a good upgrade deal for sure; kind of dumb to tout the "thrashing" when I can simply go into the bios on my Asus Maximus Formula and simply click on a single button to OC to at least 4.2.I'll run Passmark OC'd and see what I get on my 3770k. I bet it's not taking such a bad thrashing then.