AMD FX-8320E CPU Review: The Other 95W Vishera
by Ian Cutress on January 13, 2015 10:00 AM ESTAMD FX-8320E Conclusion
Anyone building a new performance system today is not exactly spoiled for choice. On the super extreme end, native octo-core processors with threading are in the market. AMD’s high end FX models start by comparison to the Core i5 line but boasts double the threads, albeit at almost double the power consumption. Without looking at the reasons for AMD’s E-series launch, it can be easy to scoff and write these processors off.
AMD’s aim with the FX-8370, FX-8370E and FX-8320E was in part to generate new customers at a lower price portfolio and for those wanting to upgrade their AMD CPU from something lower down the stack. Users who purchased an FX-4100 or FX-6300 can happy get more performance by swapping in a CPU, rather than replacing the motherboard and potentially the DRAM to fit. The 95W power point for the E series allows 8-threads for almost all AM3+ motherboards ever made.
That being said, performance of the CPU is still reminiscent of 2012 when the first FX-8000 CPUs were launched and the 32nm process node on which it is formed. Back in our review of the FX-8370E, our conclusion was that it performed much like the FX-8150 except in power consumption, and it was perhaps a foregone conclusion that the FX-8320E was not going to be any better given the statistics on paper.
A plus point worth noting is that the turbo mode seemed a lot more aggressive than our FX-8150 and FX-8370E numbers. This allowed for higher frequencies in some of our variable threaded benchmarks, and gave some better results which is rather odd. However, it was only for a few select benchmarks in the end, with the pure single threaded ones and the fully multithreaded results still grasping at the FX-8150 numbers. The plus side in all this is that our FX-8150 power consumption measured significantly higher than the TDP (156W vs 125W TDP) and the FX-8320E gave a lower result (86W vs 95W TDP), essentially handing any performance/watt trophy to the FX-8320E.
The big number from our review however was the overclocking potential of our sample. Our FX-8320E overclocked like a beast (yes AMD, you can quote me on that), although your mileage may vary (as long as you quote this bit too). Our single data point gave 4.8 GHz at 1.550 volts for a 50% raise in both frequency and POV-Ray results, although the power consumption was over 3x the stock value (262W vs 86W). Most AMD users would also state that 1.550 volts was a bit high, so at 1.375 volts the CPU still gave 4.5 GHz which is still a good end.
The end result of the FX-8320E will be similar to that of the FX-8370E. Users will have to look at their use case and decide if an iterative CPU upgrade, from one of the earlier FX models or the Phenom II range, makes sense in their future computing. Putting down $150 on a CPU is reasonable enough if you have everything around it, although one might argue that if we add in the MSI 970 Gaming ($100), some memory ($50), some storage ($100) and a mid-range GPU ($150), then gaming at around $650 when you factor in the case and PSU is more than possible, especially when a similarly performing Intel system might cost more. AMD's key metric in this instance is pricing.
The end here will be the same as the FX-8370E review:
At the end of the day, most users feel that AMD needs to upgrade the architecture (and the chipset) to potentially increase performance or reduce power. 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 as well.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
92 Comments
View All Comments
jabber - Friday, January 16, 2015 - link
And with the labour charges etc. all included you could well have just bought a job lot of new Dell Dimensions.Plus decent AM3 chips are tres expensive now.
phoenix_rizzen - Friday, January 16, 2015 - link
Actually, our hardware costs are decreasing slightly each year while the hardware it buys is increasing. Our current desktops are around $150 CDN including motherboard with Radeon graphics onboard, Athlon-II x4 CPU, 2 GB of RAM. We run diskless Linux, so no harddrive, no floppy drive, no optical drive; the only moving parts are the CPU, PSU, and case fans (and sometimes we even remove the case fan).Our original build with nVidia 6100 graphics onboard, 512 MB of RAM, and a Sempron CPU was over $200 CDN 7-odd years ago.
Buying the CPUs in bulk for upgrades was less than half the cost of a new system. Buying RAM upgrades was much less than half the cost of a new system. And a single tech working for a full day could upgrade an entire lab of 30 stations with some time to spare for testing ... for less than the cost of a single new system.
We've been doing this for just over 12 years now. We know which is less expensive for us, and it's not buying name brand computers with Intel CPUs and chipsets. Everytime we put a bid out for systems, the Intel systems are more expensive without being a whole lot more powerful, and they require discrete GPUs, whereas the AMD systems include graphics support on the motherboard (Intel 3D has improved over the years, but still doesn't hold a candle to nVidia or AMD).
ddriver - Wednesday, January 14, 2015 - link
Why would you go for an AMD build? I am not a big fan of Intel's past practices, and as much as I sympathize with AMD their products are simply way too weak, their performance per watt ratio is so low the lower hardware price doesn't really matter, you still end up paying more for it when you account for the electricity bills.Besides, for an office machine, a 5W ARM board costing 35$ suffices.
The only reason I can think of buying AMD is in case you want to burn some money to keep AMD afloat for the sake of not leaving intel without competition, not that AMD is much of a competitor anyway... More like a perpetually crippled "competitor" existing solely for the purpose of not running unopposed.
phoenix_rizzen - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
See my post just above yours (posted after yours in time).ddriver - Saturday, January 17, 2015 - link
So the people who benefit from AMD are those who don't have enough money, so they can end up spending more for less over time? Doesn't sound like a good deal...phoenix_rizzen - Monday, January 19, 2015 - link
And I guess black is white and down is up in your world?Jinx50 - Sunday, January 25, 2015 - link
Ironically in contrast to all the misinformation spewed "above and below" I still play Crysis 3 on ultra with a overclocked 1090T @ 3.8GHz and a HD 6970.I'm still waiting for the unplayable game to arrive "to give me a reason to upgrade" meanwhile I have to ask, how many Intel chips and boards have you all burned cash on in the last 5 years?
I'm not hating on Intel just stating facts "in my instance in regards of the bang for the buck factor", and I will probably snag an FX 8xxxx when this rig finally hits the medium settings wall.
AMD is not a processor for those who don't have the money "on the contrary". It's the processor for those who want to KEEP THEIR MONEY. ROFL I could dump money on an Intel but do I want to ride that roller coaster NOPE..
Oxford Guy - Thursday, April 2, 2015 - link
The minimum frame rates in that Bioshock Infinite chart are worrisome.stefstef - Wednesday, January 21, 2015 - link
nope. intel just has the better processor portfolio. this is not because amd cpus are so bad, but intel has the advantage of a much lower production process (22nm instead of 32nm). they are technically ahead in every sector: design, process and manufacturing. nonetheless amd makes sense as intel charges for the premium quite some good money. the usual jobs might be done by a amd as well as an intel.TheinsanegamerN - Wednesday, January 14, 2015 - link
I wouldnt go so far as to say that AMD wont give you a good experience. I traded, on a bet, my motherboard and cpu with my other pc gaming friend, and went from an i5 3570k to aq fx 6300. know how much of a difference there is? nothing. both get 60fps in everything at 1200p with my 770. i will say, if i have multiple game servers running in the background, the fx does not slow down nearly as much as the i5 ever did, even though hypothetically the i5 was more powerful, it couldnt multitask as well.and with the new consoles both coming with 8 core cpus, i think AMD chips will still work well, at least for the forseeable future.