AMD FX-8370E CPU Review: Vishera Down to 95W, Price Cuts for FX
by Ian Cutress on September 2, 2014 8:00 AM ESTCPU Benchmarks
The dynamics of CPU Turbo modes, with both Intel and AMD, can cause concern during environments with a variable threaded workload. There is also an added issue of the motherboard remaining consistent, depending on how the motherboard manufacturer wants to add in their own boosting technologies over the ones that Intel would prefer they used. In order to remain consistent, we implement an OS-level unique high performance mode on all the CPUs we test which should override any motherboard manufacturer performance mode.
HandBrake v0.9.9: link
For HandBrake, we take two videos (a 2h20 640x266 DVD rip and a 10min double UHD 3840x4320 animation short) and convert them to x264 format in an MP4 container. Results are given in terms of the frames per second processed, and HandBrake uses as many threads as possible.
Handbrake balances cores and frequency, with the LQ film test often condensing CPUs based on frequency and the double UHD test expanding by cores. The double UHD test puts the 8370E at the bottom of the AMD 8-thread CPUs as expected.
Agisoft Photoscan – 2D to 3D Image Manipulation: link
Agisoft Photoscan creates 3D models from 2D images, a process which is very computationally expensive. The algorithm is split into four distinct phases, and different phases of the model reconstruction require either fast memory, fast IPC, more cores, or even OpenCL compute devices to hand. Agisoft supplied us with a special version of the software to script the process, where we take 50 images of a stately home and convert it into a medium quality model. This benchmark typically takes around 15-20 minutes on a high end PC on the CPU alone, with GPUs reducing the time.
Photoscan results seem to take the following order: i7, i5, FX (8), FX (6), i3, FX (4), A10, A8. The 8370E sits at the bottom of the FX 8-thread section as before.
WinRAR 5.0.1: link
WinRAR takes advantage of all the AMD threads due to its integer workloads.
PCMark8 v2 OpenCL
A new addition to our CPU testing suite is PCMark8 v2, where we test the Work 2.0 and Creative 3.0 suites in OpenCL mode. As this test is new, we have not run it on many AMD systems yet and will do so as soon as we can.
The PCMark8 tests both seem to favor frequency at this point, with the FX-9590 taking the lead.
Hybrid x265
Hybrid is a new benchmark, where we take a 4K 1500 frame video and convert it into an x265 format without audio. Results are given in frames per second.
Again, more threads gives an intesting workload. The FX-8370E beats out the i5-4690K as well.
Cinebench R15
Unfortunately the Achilles heel strikes again in single threaded performance. Multithreaded puts it just behind the FX-8150.
3D Particle Movement
3DPM is a self-penned benchmark, taking basic 3D movement algorithms used in Brownian Motion simulations and testing them for speed. High floating point performance, MHz and IPC wins in the single thread version, whereas the multithread version has to handle the threads and loves more cores.
FastStone Image Viewer 4.9
FastStone is the program I use to perform quick or bulk actions on images, such as resizing, adjusting for color and cropping. In our test we take a series of 170 images in various sizes and formats and convert them all into 640x480 .gif files, maintaining the aspect ratio. FastStone does not use multithreading for this test, and results are given in seconds.
Web Benchmarks
On the lower end processors, general usability is a big factor of experience, especially as we move into the HTML5 era of web browsing. For our web benchmarks, we take four well known tests with Chrome 35 as a consistent browser.
Sunspider 1.0.2
Mozilla Kraken 1.1
WebXPRT
Google Octane v2
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.