FX 8370 Review

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

It rolls back to base clock to stay withing 95W TDP. I would disable TDP limit so it can oparate at turbo speed (+ OC) on all threads and let the motherboard decide if when it needs a break. Iwould disable motherboard VRM protection aswell, just like I have on my fx6300 system

But in that case, the identically priced 8370 might make more sense, than the 8370E. Unless you want to SOMETIMES operate at 95W TDP (websurfing etc), and at other times go high speed, at greater TDPs (e.g. gaming), in which case the scenario you described above, makes more sense.

But I see what you mean. Overall you would probably be better getting an 8370 (non-E), as it might overclock better (I DON'T know, depends on binning strategy of AMD) and at lower clocks, it should still meet the 95 W, or be near it (in theory).

 

[TreVader]

I wish they would just start fresh or work with the cat cores instead of continuing with vishera. It's 3 years of 32nm now. Where is 20nm? Where is 14nm?


There is no excuse for this.

 

[Abwx]

Things should look like this in respect of ST and MT compared to the 8350 for exemple.

http://techreport.com/review/26996/amd-fx-8370e-processor-reviewed/6

But curiously Anandtech got this with the same bench :

Edit :

The MT scores are the same in both reviews while the ST score imply a CPU that is running at 3.75-3.85Ghz on ST in AT review wich has about 4-5% lower overall ST scores than Tech Report review for the FXs.

 

[sm625]

Techreport doesnt specify which version of Cinebench they are running. But still something does seem very fishy. It's hard to make direct comparisons because most of the processors are different. But if you look at the 4590 vs 4690 scores, they do seem to line up as you would expect. Clearly there is a detail being overlooked.

 

[Abwx]

Techreport doesnt specify which version of Cinebench they are running.

If you had looked at the graph you would had knwon that it s the same, the MT score is the same with, well, 0.15% difference.

Edit : Thee other scores are consistent with TR using R15,
CB 11.5 is the previous version and the scoring scheme is
on single digits with decimals, quite different from this one.

 

[BigDaveX]

Looks like AT's 8370E sample isn't turboing up properly in the single-thread tests; it's posting pretty much the same score as the old 8150, which had much slower base clocks than the current Piledrivers.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Actually, the 8150 had a higher base clock than the 8370e, 3.6 vs 3.3.

 

[Phynaz]

The MT scores are the same in both reviews while the ST score imply a CPU that is running at 3.75-3.85Ghz on ST in AT review wich has about 4-5% lower overall ST scores than Tech Report review for the FXs.

You don't think 4 - 5% is within margin of error in non-standardized testing?? :\

 

[Abwx]

Seems that silicon is somewhat refined compared to even previous supposedly higher clocking parts :

http://www.computerbase.de/2014-09/amd-fx-8370e-im-test/

 

[Rvenger]

Sounds to me that the BIOS wasn't updated on the AT benches for the 8370E.

 

[BigDaveX]

Actually, the 8150 had a higher base clock than the 8370e, 3.6 vs 3.3.

Possibly the chip's only turboing up by 200-300MHz (if even that) instead of the full GHz it's supposed to, then. It's also slower than the 8150 in the single-threaded part of the 3D Particle Movement benchmark as well.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Seems that silicon is somewhat refined compared to even previous supposedly higher clocking parts :

http://www.computerbase.de/2014-09/amd-fx-8370e-im-test/

I wonder what cooler they are using?

My FX can undervolt pretty well. Overclocking above ~5GHz, the voltage and power use ramp up pretty quick, though.

http://www.srcconsulting.net/CPU/FX/Update/Cinebenchr15_4.4GHz_1.2250v.jpg

 

[ElFenix]

something is off with the bioshock single 770 minimum FPS bench. i3 4330 is 18 fps while i3 4360 is 28 fps.

 

[AtenRa]

AMD CPU/APU AT reviews are going the downhill every time,

Win 7 SP1 ??? we almost at win 9
Memory at 1866MHz for every CPU at default ??? Are Intel CPUs running out of official supported settings ???
Delta power consumption ??? and you dont even include both idle and peak ???

I would really like to see the FX8320E against Core i3 4360. Both have the same MSRP of $147 but the FX8320E can also OC to FX8370E settings or higher. In CPU benchmarks the FX8370E was faster in the majority of the tests in the AT review. Also worth mentioning, the FX6350 was faster in the majority of the CPU tests against the more expensive Core i3 4330.

 

[Enigmoid]

AMD CPU/APU AT reviews are going the downhill every time,

Win 7 SP1 ??? we almost at win 9
Memory at 1866MHz for every CPU at default ??? Are Intel CPUs running out of official supported settings ???
Delta power consumption ??? and you dont even include both idle and peak ???

I would really like to see the FX8320E against Core i3 4360. Both have the same MSRP of $147 but the FX8320E can also OC to FX8370E settings or higher. In CPU benchmarks the FX8370E was faster in the majority of the tests in the AT review. Also worth mentioning, the FX6350 was faster in the majority of the CPU tests against the more expensive Core i3 4330.

Agree. Win 8, delta is pretty useless if your CPU idles high.

Though memory speeds should be consistent as many can and do run out of spec.

 

[AtenRa]

Though memory speeds should be consistent as many can and do run out of spec.

When you run one CPU out of specs, you should do the same for the rest. Intel CPUs only officially support 1600MHz memory, i dont mind testing at 1866Mhz after you run at 1600MHz for default settings.

 

[Enigmoid]

When you run one CPU out of specs, you should do the same for the rest. Intel CPUs only officially support 1600MHz memory, i dont mind testing at 1866Mhz after you run at 1600MHz for default settings.

I see your point. I think that for APUs though, especially igp benchmarks a common RAM is needed (To see the actual performance changes). Tests using different RAM speeds are definitely welcome though.

IMO I see no reason for intel to continue to only officially support 1600 Mhz RAM. The IMC can easily do more.

 

[Lyfer]

And needs to price these chips at least $50-$70 lower. They're asking too much.

 

[Abwx]

I wonder what cooler they are using?

Noctua NH-U12P mit Lüfter NF-P12

http://www.computerbase.de/2014-09/amd-fx-8370e-im-test/6/

 

[wilds]

This must be the final batch of 4 module Vishera, right?

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

AMD CPU/APU AT reviews are going the downhill every time,

Win 7 SP1 ??? we almost at win 9
Memory at 1866MHz for every CPU at default ??? Are Intel CPUs running out of official supported settings ???
Delta power consumption ??? and you dont even include both idle and peak ???

I would really like to see the FX8320E against Core i3 4360. Both have the same MSRP of $147 but the FX8320E can also OC to FX8370E settings or higher. In CPU benchmarks the FX8370E was faster in the majority of the tests in the AT review. Also worth mentioning, the FX6350 was faster in the majority of the CPU tests against the more expensive Core i3 4330.

It does seem like Anand is stacking the deck. Windows 7 runs awful on FX processors even after the Bulldozer patches. I suspect the results would be different under Windows 8 which is better optimized for AMD architecture.

 

[Enigmoid]

It does seem like Anand is stacking the deck. Windows 7 runs awful on FX processors even after the Bulldozer patches. I suspect the results would be different under Windows 8 which is better optimized for AMD architecture.

By awful you mean 1-5% worse?

Its hard to find reviews using final builds of win 8 but outside a few fringe cases either way that the average.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

By awful you mean 1-5% worse?

Its hard to find reviews using final builds of win 8 but outside a few fringe cases either way that the average.

Well, it's hard to say because no one has done the benchmarks..... But I suspect it's a much larger margin.

The difference was pretty dramatic for AMD APU's for Windows 8 (I don't know if the FX Processors will be as dramatic). Usually 10 - 20% improvements for the APU's. I really wish some sites would test the difference between Windows 7 and 8 on AMD CPU's. From my personal experience, going from Windows 7 to Linux was good for roughly a 25% performance improvement on my FX-8320. I don't know about Windows 8 (I don't own it). Windows 7 is probably the worst OS you could run on an AMD FX from a performance perspective.

 

[frozentundra123456]

By awful you mean 1-5% worse?

Its hard to find reviews using final builds of win 8 but outside a few fringe cases either way that the average.

Exactly Bulldozer Win 8 vs Win 7.

People keep trying to perpetuate this unsubstantiated claim that Windows 8 will somehow magically cure FX performance problems. This is the best test that I could find. If anyone can find benchmarks from a reputable site showing a larger improvement, I would be glad to see them. Until then, the magical improvement from Win 8 just seems like wishful thinking.

 

[Subyman]

Performs worse than the ancient FX8150 in several benchmarks. For some reason Ian included a 4-year old i7 990X in the charts while 4GHz i7 4790K is missing, fun results though, it's amazing how Gulftown can still keep up with newer chips.

Amazing or sad?