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
LeptonX - Tuesday, January 13, 2015 - link
How long do you test with OCCT and what data size? I ask because I often have crashes after 3-6 hours and if I want total stability that lowers my OC by as much as 200MHz.Oxford Guy - Sunday, April 19, 2015 - link
If the chip even lasts that long at an 1.550 volts and what is most likely a temperature well above the rated maximum.bsim500 - Wednesday, January 14, 2015 - link
"Idle to Delta Power Consumption":-"95w" FX-8320E = 86w
"95w" FX-8370E = 127w
"125w" FX-8350 = 163w
"220w" FX-9590 = 272w
And this is precisely why people want the actual idle & load figures not worthless "delta" scores that still do not reflect if, eg, one platform is idling 20w higher than another, etc. It doesn't involve any extra work since you need to acquire both anyway to calculate the delta!
yannigr2 - Wednesday, January 14, 2015 - link
Every time I see charts like these in the article, I am hitting my head on the wall shouting"32nm Thuban. 32nm Thuban you morons!".
Cryio - Wednesday, January 14, 2015 - link
Anandtech guys, please, sometime in 2015 please update the charts with some newer games, that are also CPU dependent.• Tomb Raider is exclusively GPU dependent.
• F1 2013 is old, 2014 was released some time ago. You should still probably benchmark GRID: AutoSport, since it's the newer game with the better optimized engine. F1 games always done poorly with AMD CPUs, for whatever reason.
• Battlefield 4 should be test only on MP. And if you really want to enphasize that CPUs can do in that game, get a HD 7000/R 200 series AMD GPU and run the game on Mantle to see what the CPU can do.
• Get an RTS game on that list.
• Get Far Cry 4, Watch_Dogs, Crysis 3 or Metro Last Light Redux on this list. These are properly CPU hungy games.
Paddockrj - Wednesday, January 14, 2015 - link
Dear members of this channel. You are eating a bull but a fly make you all bleed! AMD created those processors because a lot of people that has Am3+ 95w mobo's need it! If you have a 8120...8150...8320...8350...8370 or FX6xxx, you dont need 8320E or 8370E! AMD created those processor for a good upgrade ONLY.In gaming, FX8320E with a gtx770 or r9 280x gets the same fps that any Intel Core i. Some fps more, some fps less, but the same level. The diference happens when we try to play a Intel optmized game or a game that uses 2 or 4 cores better... MUCH BETTER. 1 core of Intel is better than 1 core of AMD, but we must see that in multicore, FX is excellent. Only i7 2nd or better can face a FX8350 per example in multicore.
But now, the most important perfomance is single core. And this way, Core i3 and i5 4th perform better. However it is not the FX end. I think within two or less years, when 4k be a truth here in Brasil, who have a FX6xxx or better will give thanks God for that. Because 4K uses multicore too much and, I told you all, FX is excellent this track.
We dont need be fanboys, we are getting nothing. I like AMD cause my Phenom 2 x6 + r9 270 run games like an i5 and I pay R$ 1200,00 less at least... More or less = U$ 500,00. That mean, I pay less and I do the same thing. Sure, i5 can convert a film in 30s, my old X6 can do it in 45s, but when I try to convert 2...3...4 films at the same time, X6 can do it in 3minutes, i5 = 5minutes. I lost in single, but in multicore I win. That is matter to me.
All processors has you reason to exist! When people ask me: Ok, multicore is very good, but for gaming? AMD? Why?
I can answer using this example. A lot of people say: I will buy an i5 4430 and a gtx750... or r7 250 or 7750... or 7730... MAN! Why? Oh God! Why?
You must see that NOTHING... Read it well: NO-THING is more important than graphics card in gaming. If you will use a 7870 or r9 270 or gtx760 and want use this build over and over and over and over... Why dont you buy an FX6300 + mobo withi usb3, 1600mhz memory support? = R$650... But no! Intel is VERY VERY VERY HIGH MUCH ULTRA MAXED MAJOR... They think this way. Thinking this way, they buy an i3 4150 + mobo B85 = R$707...
Ok... "tell me the diferences, man!"
i3 will win fx6300 in single core test...
i3 will convert film faster if the program use 2 cores (rare!)
i3 will have 5fps more in some cases
i3 will lose in multicore test
i3 will suffer in 4K
i3 will cost more
And now I ask you: Why pay R$60 plus to do the same thing? With the same quality?
I cant find a usual answer...
JumpingJack - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
So what you are saying is that AMD's higher end desktop processors are essentially competitive with Intel low end desktop processors. No wonder they are cheaper.BrokenCrayons - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
I consulted my fortune cookie and zodiac to find out that delta charts for power are still pointlessly useless.corsa - Friday, January 16, 2015 - link
PCMark8 v2 OpenCLThe only Benchmark that has no scores for the Blue Team, were they to embarrassing to publish Ian?
Oscarcharliezulu - Sunday, January 18, 2015 - link
What's up with agisoft? Your link http://www.agisoft.ru shows an info box page saying they haven't plaid their hosting bills.