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
Kjella - Tuesday, September 2, 2014 - link
"Personally, I'd much rather see AMD make a comprehensive and honest effort to open up about their future products and roadmaps"AMD has been fairly clear on where they're going in their investor briefs, but it's probably not what you want to hear. They're executing a "transformation strategy" to get 50% of their revenue from the "Enterprise, Embedded and Semi-Custom segment" as opposed to the "Computing and Graphics segment" which is the traditional AMD/ATI business.
Where do you think this funding comes from? The CPU/APU/GPU research and development they're not doing, like a FX successor. And with that no new chipset, no new socket, no new motherboard validation. If you haven't noticed, they've been on a skeleton crew for some time now. All they're hyping is HSA which is semi-custom tech because normal apps have to serve the 80%+ not running AMD APUs.
For us, the mass market consumers of retail CPUs and GPUs I can give you a pretty accurate but grim forecast, AMD will continue to dodge direct competition. They can't compete with Intel on performance or power efficiency and with Intel so far ahead in processing technology they can't afford to undercut them on price either. Whatever their dual ARM/x86 processor ends up being, I'm pretty sure it's not primarily for us regular consumers.
haukionkannel - Tuesday, September 2, 2014 - link
Did you read the ansver from AMD about future FX prosessors. It seems that power efficiency is the way they are going next. Guite sensible because FX prosessor are fast enough all normal people, and they have no chance against Intel in the high end. They just not have enough money to compete properly.Maybe we see in the future a little bit faster Jaguar mini cores in FX line and normal Jaguar editions in mainstream APU machines. In that segment they have some possibilities to fight ARM and Intel processors.
Spoony - Tuesday, September 2, 2014 - link
I so much want to be able to shop between Intel and AMD when I purchase a CPU. Make it happen for me, AMD!zmeul - Tuesday, September 2, 2014 - link
when your FX CPU performs worse than an i3 CPU (in quite a lot of tests), it's time to change or get out of the businessKevin G - Tuesday, September 2, 2014 - link
This is a case of AMD kicking the can down the road. This release is meant to keep socket AM3+ limping along for a little while longer. Without a design refresh (Steamroller) and a new chipset, there hasn't been a reason to recommend the socket AM3+ platform for over year. Sure, it is nice that current owners have an upgrade path to faster parts. Considering the time it has taken to get these faster or more energy efficient parts to market one has to question if the wait has been worth it? Especially when compared to the evolving platforms on the Intel side.landerf - Tuesday, September 2, 2014 - link
Jesus those charts were brutaltexasti89 - Tuesday, September 2, 2014 - link
I don't see any substantial improvement in the per/watt ratio for these new SKUs. The performance data still look dismal against Intel's low end chips. As much as I want AMD to compete on the intended space for these chips, but these Bulldozer-based cups are truly pathetic. I'm really fed with these CPUs coming out in reviews for year by now.Germanicus - Tuesday, September 2, 2014 - link
So the comments, as predicted, are full of AMD-bashing. But lets think about his a second: do you really expect a company with 1/10th the resources of Intel to even come close to match it in performance and efficiency? Not only that, but AMD has multiple product types to juggle it's resources on (CPU/GPU/APU) whereas Intel has only a single focus.Not only that, but at least when buying AMD you don't get that dirty feeling you experience when you buy from a company like Intel, with it's lengthy history of anti-competitive business practices.
AMD is working on a new architecture, but it takes time. Patience, grasshopper!
mrdude - Tuesday, September 2, 2014 - link
Oh, are they? What TDP? What platform? Desktop/notebook/server? All 3? Socket? Target market segment? What about performance? Will it be better performing or equivalent but lower power? Neither? Does the x86 version outperform the ARM? Or is it vice versa? Is it going to be the same general architecture or are we talking two completely different architectures with different features? SoC or chipset? SoC + chipset? Is it BGA only or are we going to be able to buy socketed versions? Is AMD even going to release another chip for DIY'ers and enthusiasts post-Carrizo at all?All of the those are unanswered. Every single one. Think about that for a second and digest it. You're asking for patience when there isn't even a general direction or roadmap. So patient for what exactly?
The comments above aren't AMD bashing, but rather product bashing. AMD hasn't been competitive for a long while now and rehashing the same wasn't-competitive-even-then product doesn't help matters any.
So don't mistake peoples' frustrations with AMD as AMD-hating or AMD-bashing, but AMD-disappointment. There's a huge portion of the population that wants to buy an AMD CPU/APU but has been waiting since the Bulldozer debacle to find something even remotely interesting -- and I'm most certainly in that camp.
Germanicus - Tuesday, September 2, 2014 - link
They've already answered some of your questions, but I'm not going to Google for you.