FX 8370 Review

[USER8000]

And I pay $.17. If you pay a lot for electric, then the power saving matters more. I get that and am not arguing anything contrary to that. But I think most people here pay quite a bit less than you. And I also am willing to bet most people don't game five hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.

And as I've brought up before, depending on where you live that extra heat energy isn't completely wasted.

So to me the energy use thing, for most people, is an issue only on computer forums. But in a practical real world way it is meaningless.

It does mean that the same cooler would have to work harder at times to keep temps down, so it could be noisier depending on your set up. My CPU fans aren't temp controlled, they are on a fan controller at a constant speed, so it doesn't matter what I have under the CPU block, it won't get louder.

That would be an interesting test to me, to see the same cooler put on an Intel and AMD FX CPU to see what the noise difference is due to the extra power on a given heatsink/fan combo. My guess is as long as the cooler has enough capacity, it will be another 'issue only on computer forums'.

Well I live in the UK and where electricity is around 30 cents(US) per kWh. Even then I am yet to hear anyone of my mates(including those who run simulations and bioinformatics stuff) complain about electricity costs of their desktops and they are running a mixture of Core i7s,Core i5s,Phenom II X6 and some FX based rigs. However,most of them don't overclock either.

In fact things like heating,cooking and hot water generation take up the Lion's share of energy costs.

I also know a few people from France,Denmark and Holland too. I actually not heard much complaining from them either when it comes to running their desktops but they all seem to be doing decent jobs though.

If anything if people are panicking about power consumption they should not overclock and in fact just get a gaming laptop,as these tend to be more efficient as a whole system IMHO.

Also dropping settings on games helps too,since needing higher end parts is only really needed when pushing up settings which most enthusiasts like doing.

Plus the parts should last longer too which is better for the environment.

 

[Yuriman]

I recently replaced a Q6600 system with a Haswell i3, and was shocked by how much cooler my bedroom became. We're now able to be comfortably in the room with the computers on with the air conditioner set about 4°F higher, which results in a very significant reduction in our power bill, much more than the computer alone would draw.

I know this is a rather niche case, but there are plenty of scenarios where inefficient chips just don't fit the bill.

 

[USER8000]

I recently replaced a Q6600 system with a Haswell i3, and was shocked by how much cooler my bedroom became. We're now able to be comfortably in the room with the computers on with the air conditioner set about 4°F higher, which results in a very significant reduction in our power bill, much more than the computer alone would draw.

I know this is a rather niche case, but there are plenty of scenarios where inefficient chips just don't fit the bill.

My mate lives in the middle of a major city in England where leccy costs are very high(its one of the most expensive parts of the country he lives in). He has both Core i7 and Phenom II X6 rigs which run bioinformatics stuff for months at a time. His energy bills are not mahoosive or unaffordable(unlike people make out on forums) and during winter he does not need to actually use that much heating anyway and during summer he just opens the window.

Everything is electric there BTW,no gas. So that means cooking,water heating,etc too.

If you really cared about energy consumption you would be not using air conditioning but opening the windows and using fans. I actually lived in a hot and very humid country in South East Asia for a while BTW.

Also having owned a Q6600 SFF rig,the main issue with it,especially overclocked was that low load and idle power consumption was quite high and especially some of the chipsets like the 975X were not very efficient.

 

[Yuriman]

My mate lives in the middle of a major city in England where leccy costs are very high(its one of the most expensive parts of the country he lives in). He has both Core i7 and Phenom II X6 rigs which run bioinformatics stuff for months at a time. His energy bills are not mahoosive or unaffordable(unlike people make out on forums) and during winter he does not need to actually use that much heating anyway and during summer he just opens the window.

Everything is electric there BTW,no gas. So that means cooking,water heating,etc too.

If you really cared about energy consumption you would be not using air conditioning but opening the windows and using fans. I actually lived in a hot and very humid country in South East Asia for a while BTW.

Also having owned a Q6600 SFF rig,the main issue with it,especially overclocked was that low load and idle power consumption was quite high and especially some of the chipsets like the 975X were not very efficient.

It's currently 103°F (39.5C) with high humidity here. Was it that hot in southeast Asia?

 

[USER8000]

It's currently 103°F with high humidity here. Was it that hot in southeast Asia?

I lived near the equator. During summer it could get close to 100 F and up to 95% humidity.

BTW I had a SB Core i3 before the Xeon E3 and it replaced the Q6600 rig was dying. The SB Core i3 was much better at idle and so was an AMD A8 APU in a relative's rig and so was an Phenom II X4 in another mates rig.

My Q6600 and 975X was not so good at idle,but TBH my leccy costs were fine. It only was on when I needed it to be and I was happy using my laptop at other times.

OTH,the place where I lived for a time,was a building from the 1880s(back to the UK now!). Single brick wall,single glazed windows and older style boiler(not a much more efficient combi type). You should have seen the energy bills during a bad winter. Moved to somewhere more modern and it was amazing how much lower energy costs were.

Edit to the post!

Not saying using AC is wrong but it does suck up power even when compared to fans.

Having said that had to survive one very hot summer with power and water cuts once(was a bad drought and it meant power cuts).

Bloody gordon is all I can say about that!

 

[AtenRa]

There is no magic fix waiting for the FX, just like there was no magic fix for the P4.

Already here,

 

[Ramses]

If 50.00 per year in power savings is inconsequential, then the extra 50.00 or even 100.0 extra for the initial purchase of an i5 should be considered inconsequential as well. So then you might as well get the overall faster processor, which is the i5.

It's a practicality/financial thing. An initial $50-$100 more for a CPU and an initial $50-$100 more for a board in a build is a lot harder to swallow all at once than an extra $5 a month. This is why people finance things and have credit cards, it's a huge industry, but I don't subscribe to it(and have no debt).

I get the argument that in the long run with the longer expected life(that I question) and the lower power consumption and such, intel is better, it's a valid argument. But if there were not other circumstances and conditions, nobody would buy these things. And we do.
Often times in at least American society one chooses something inferior to one degree or another due to that initial cost. As an example, I would buy a $1500 car or TV or something that I could pay cash for and own even if it was slower/smaller before I would finance a $2500 faster/larger/better one. Even if the latter would last longer and be more enjoyable longer and cost less. I consistently prefer to spend moderately and take good care of things. I consider this responsibility. And I still can't find a reason to upgrade.
Thing's really just aren't that bad in FX land on a daily basis.

 

[USER8000]

Interestingly the FX8320E has popped up on the OcUK website for the same price as the bog standard FX8320. I wonder what The Stilt said is true though??

The FX8370 and FX8370E prices in the UK are a bit too close to the Core i5 4670K IMHO.

 

[Ramses]

Already here,

Niiiice.


I'm also secretly banking on threaded workloads getting smarter over time
to equal out the aging of this CPU.

 

[BigDaveX]

Already here,

<snip>

Um, if the best the FX-8350 can do even with Mantle is to just barely match a mid-range i3, that kind of confirms that there's just too much of a gap between Piledriver and Haswell for any software solution to deal with.

Really, Mantle seems more useful with AMD's APU range, where it actually seems to do a pretty nice job compensating for the lack of CPU horsepower if early tests are anything to go by.

 

[USER8000]

Um, if the best the FX-8350 can do even with Mantle is to just barely match a mid-range i3, that kind of confirms that there's just too much of a gap between Piledriver and Haswell for any software solution to deal with.

Really, Mantle seems more useful with AMD's APU range, where it actually seems to do a pretty nice job compensating for the lack of CPU horsepower if early tests are anything to go by.

Thief is using UT3 which is quite old and threads more lightly,so Mantle has actually helped in a lightly thread situation quite a lot,and more than what I expected it to do!!

Edit to post!!

BTW,the Core i7 3770K results are close to the Core i3 too with Mantle.

I want to see what it does with the next Civ game and Star Citizen,although I am firmly in the NV camp currently.

 

[AtenRa]

Um, if the best the FX-8350 can do even with Mantle is to just barely match a mid-range i3, that kind of confirms that there's just too much of a gap between Piledriver and Haswell for any software solution to deal with.

Really, Mantle seems more useful with AMD's APU range, where it actually seems to do a pretty nice job compensating for the lack of CPU horsepower if early tests are anything to go by.

Thief uses Unreal Engine 3, it doesnt scale well with the FX architecture. Mantle on new Game Engines like Frostbite 3 and CryEngine 3 scales very nicely with the FX CPUs. Also Unreal Engine 4 is more optimized for multithread and DX-12 will also help.
We will be here two years from now and see how things have developed and how those CPUs will mature

 

[PPB]

The concrete walls got nothing to do with it. It was simply a demonstration of the wall buildup. Bricks are on the outside. The reinforced concrete is simply factory produced elements for cheap and fast construction that is maintenaince free. They are hard to drill in when you wish to mount stuff on the walls. On the other hand they are not fragile like drywall. And they are inorganic so mold cant live there. And they cant burn.

But they are heavy as hell ( Reinforced concrete weights 2,4 tons per m3), thus poor insulators and load the foundations (you know, the stuff where reinforced concrete actually is useful). Their porosity is so low that if you have that kind of material as your interior wall it will cause superficial condensation (it will help you as a vapor barrier so there is no chance the insulator gets wet and thus loses its insulating capabilities, I give you that, but that can be done with films as thin as 200 micron for 0.0001% the price).

If you use them behind the bricks (which by now i will assume are for showing in your facade) but before the insulator it can make some sense, but then, for structural purposes you can do as thin as 5cm concrete walls that also need zero maintenance, have very good finishings, weight way less (66% less actually) and can be executed fairly quickly if finishing your proyect before winter comes (no GoT references, I swear) is a top priority on northern climates.

Seriously, anyone that think that can argue about having 55mm+280mm+150mm= 485mm (almost 50cm!) thick walls these days to have good thermal response deserves to pay every penny for their ignorance. For half that thickness you can have almost the same insulation, 20% the total weight and just as fast execution for your proyect. All that paying half the price. My OT ends with this assertion: you walls probably weight (2400x0.15+50x0.28+1500x0.055*2.8m) around 450KG per linear meter, considering 1 floor and 2.8m of height. You can obviously can make a foundation to hold that weight (plus the roof, plus the floors, plus furniture/people/accidental weights like snow/etc), but you need to throw a lot more concrete at the problem. Unless by reinforced concrete you meant cellular concrete just like this kind of concrete bricks (which are really light, have good insulation capabilities and are easy to handle and cut in-situ), I'm sorry but the constructive choice made was really bad. No way to spin around this one I'm afraid.



ONT: To put matters in perspective, $50 is my complete annual electricity bill, and 8x people live in my country compared with Denmark. Just to show how obtuse but unrepresentative at the same time can be some opinions in this forum. For the majority of the people worldwide, the impact in your power bill caused by the difference in power consumption between an FX and a i5/i7, considering a balance of both idle and stress scenarios, is bogus, at best. So lets try to put that mantra to rest for a while, shall we?

PS: And that $50 annual bill is made with one of those terribad FX's, I made the math back then and I needed 5 years of power usage to reach the price delta between a 8320 and a 4670K, and 10 for the i7.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Linhx does, or does a different workload choice?

Same application -- World Community Grid..... running on Windows 7 and then Ubuntu. Maybe the application is better written for Linux, but it was a huge performance jump.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

You dont keep the same hardware for 5 years, why use that example ??

Not to mention that i can play exactly the same games at the exactly the same settings on both of them. So no, the FX will not last less even than more expensive Intel CPUs.

100% agree with you -- not only that. But the way developers are scaling upwards for more threads (many games are using 8 now), I think the slower 8 core will have a longer useful life than the faster Intel quad. I won't be surprised if apps start to trickle out within the next few years that are optimized for 12 or 16 threads.

 

[Ramses]

Those of you that have been jerking around with this stuff long enough will remember when SMP wasn't well supported, and HT came out(and kinda sucked initially) but became common and software started being threaded. It'll happen, just takes time.
A single core CPU is at a serious disadvantage in even menial tasks these days, but an older one that can crunch at least two threads is still useable in my experience. Barely in the case of the early HT chips, but still. If they keep building chips with 6+ cores or threads or whatever, developers will eventually start using them. Linux is generally a good snapshot of future utilization(when it's not broke).

 

[Gikaseixas]

Damn i might aswell get rid of my 3 desktops and replace them with laptops in the interest of saving a few bucks here and there. .
This is for those who complain only to turn and jack up mhz's and volts... stop buying high end if you really care that much about consumption.

This is Cpus and Overclocking

 

[frozentundra123456]

It's a practicality/financial thing. An initial $50-$100 more for a CPU and an initial $50-$100 more for a board in a build is a lot harder to swallow all at once than an extra $5 a month. This is why people finance things and have credit cards, it's a huge industry, but I don't subscribe to it(and have no debt).

I get the argument that in the long run with the longer expected life(that I question) and the lower power consumption and such, intel is better, it's a valid argument. But if there were not other circumstances and conditions, nobody would buy these things. And we do.
Often times in at least American society one chooses something inferior to one degree or another due to that initial cost. As an example, I would buy a $1500 car or TV or something that I could pay cash for and own even if it was slower/smaller before I would finance a $2500 faster/larger/better one. Even if the latter would last longer and be more enjoyable longer and cost less. I consistently prefer to spend moderately and take good care of things. I consider this responsibility. And I still can't find a reason to upgrade.
Thing's really just aren't that bad in FX land on a daily basis.

I agree with most of what you say. I would question your specific dollar figures, or at least say the differences are toward the lower end of your price range, especially if you buy a non-overclocking Intel board. All I am trying to say is that all factors must be considered, but logically one cannot just say to ignore power consumption because it is a relatively minor expense. The extra cost of power consumption can only be considered relative to the price difference of the cpus and to the total cost of the system. It is a complete non-sequitor to compare it to some other expense like air conditioning in order to try to justify it. And I mean this in response to the general tone the thread has taken, not specifically toward you.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Already here,

So under Dx an i3 is faster, and even with mantle the i3 is as fast as the 8350 while using 100 watts less power. Doesnt seem like a very good example to justify the 8350.

 

[AtenRa]

So under Dx an i3 is faster, and even with mantle the i3 is as fast as the 8350 while using 100 watts less power. Doesnt seem like a very good example to justify the 8350.

The example of Thief and Mantle was not to justify the FX8350 against Core i3 in Thief but to show that the FX8350 can play the same games as Core i7 3770K at the same settings.

 

[Gikaseixas]

So under Dx an i3 is faster, and even with mantle the i3 is as fast as the 8350 while using 100 watts less power. Doesnt seem like a very good example to justify the 8350.

And for someone who's gaming is not the primary goal???? Why talk about gaming only? If gaming is all you do then yes don't pick FX, but if you need your PC for other stuff that might benefit from several threads too, FX is a very compelling option.

 

[skipsneeky2]

I have a first generation phenom 9150E 65w energy efficient quad still in my spare parts bin, this recent review reminds me just how much that 9150e stinked.

That 9150e couldn't do much for gaming these days or back then but damn the one game it did ok in was BF2 and well my backup tower a prescott based 3Ghz p4 just delivered a similar fps experience.:awe:

Seems relevant that the 8370e was gonna be a stinker, my 9150e was a big stinker, such a stinker i swear my old e6750 was miles faster despite having two less cores. Amazing how much hasn't changed.

 

[Ramses]

I agree with most of what you say. I would question your specific dollar figures, or at least say the differences are toward the lower end of your price range, especially if you buy a non-overclocking Intel board. All I am trying to say is that all factors must be considered, but logically one cannot just say to ignore power consumption because it is a relatively minor expense. The extra cost of power consumption can only be considered relative to the price difference of the cpus and to the total cost of the system. It is a complete non-sequitor to compare it to some other expense like air conditioning in order to try to justify it. And I mean this in response to the general tone the thread has taken, not specifically toward you.

I don't deny a bit that intel stuff is faster, cooler and more efficient, but my recent personal experience says an FX based system is a pleasure to purchase, own and operate too. And you can't benchmark it but the "cool" factor is pretty darn high and that counts, AMD is actively courting gamers and overclockers and such which I appreciate and influenced my buying decision as well. I could have bought a low end i5 and a cheap motherboard, but I wasn't building a cheap boring computer even if it would have been faster at it's core, so for the money I bought a high end AMD board and CPU. My ego is such that I'm alright with it being slower. It's proven to have been in the very least not a bad choice is what I'm getting at. To read these threads you'd think an FX system is not capable of being useful and pleasant and that it costs a fortune to run and is constantly boiling hot. That just is not the case. My 955BE was half the cpu this 8350 is, and it still did everything I do now, which is the same stuff pretty much everyone does. We are enthusiasts and such and picking apart and optimizing and all that is what we do, I don't expect anyone to quietly ignore the obvious deficiencies in the FX chip, but personally I get a kick out of the direction they went and the chips heritage. I like an underdog, especially an un-apologetically different one. Hell if it's cheaper and slower/lesser and less popular, I'll almost always go that route unless the experience of using the thing is downright bad somehow. I'm just that way, I ran ATI video cards rather than Nvidia years ago when they weren't nearly as fast either, and I got along just fine.
Same difference. I ran Cyrix CPU's long ago too, same bit. Same conversations too matter of fact.

I'm completely onboard with looking hard at Intel stuff again if I suddenly had to build another system from scratch, but when I was upgrading in August of last year from a 955BE on a 970 board that was still was plenty fast, AMD was the way to go again for me.
Nothing has presented itself to make me regret it.

Anand said in his initial review, and I took this to heart and tried to read up on what my workload actually was. "You have to understand your workload very well to know whether or not Vishera is the right platform for it. Even if the fit is right, you have to be ok with the increased power consumption over Intel as well."

 

[frozentundra123456]

I agree if you have a motherboard that will accept the FX, an 8350 is the obvious choice. I never said it was a terrible processor or wouldn't do the job. To be fair I dont think anyone has said an FX is not useful or pleasant, or that it runs boiling hot, only that there are more well rounded and efficient offerings at very similar price points.

As far as cool or helping the underdog, that is more of a personal feeling/decision which is perfectly fine, but which I dont share.

 

[skipsneeky2]

I do admire that they brought 8 cores to 95w, means that you get to pick between the fx6300 and the 8370e as your best 95w options.