AMD FX-8320E CPU Review: The Other 95W Vishera
by Ian Cutress on January 13, 2015 10:00 AM ESTF1 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 both single and dual GPU cases, the stock performance of the FX-8320E falls behind the i3 CPUs by a 10-20 FPS margin, perhaps being noticeable on 120 Hz monitors. The minimum FPS on a single GPU still retains above 60 FPS, which is a plus.
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.
While average frame rates almost appear to be CPU agnostic, there is a clear AMD/Intel split here. More interesting is the minimum FPS results which seem to rely on IPC.
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 still comes across as purely CPU agnostic.
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.
Single GPU usage puts the 8320E in the ballpark, but moving to dual GPUs sees an uplift in terms of the i5 CPUs for high refresh rate screens, albeit with the extra cost associated.
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.
Single GPU shows little difference (despite a clear AMD/Intel separation line), but in dual GPU mode an i3 will make a 17 FPS rise, moving to 27 FPS with the i5 and more relevant to high refresh displays.
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.