So I've read through some of the FX 8350 reviews, and it would seem that AMD addressed some of the problems and gave it a decent boost over the FX 8150 but it isn't a day and night overhaul.
It shows that in applications that readily use multiple threads for processing, like productivity based programs such as Photoshop and 3DSMax, the new FX chip beats out all previous AMD chips as well as Intel's i5 offerings and lower, only losing out to the i7 Ivy/Sandy bridge chips.
Unfortunately, it's weak single threaded performance, while addressed to some degree, is still present. Which naturally means that it's performance in games will still lag behind that of it's Intel competitors, perhaps just not as much. The less than stunning single core performance will also lead to unbalanced use of some applications, going back to photoshop for an example, while many of the effects and processes are well threaded and perform better on the FX8350 than Intel's i5 offers, there are some processes that are not so well threaded and subsequently run slower on AMD's chip, so its hard to draw a line on an application like that.
With that said, I think the price point is important to consider. Especially the quad core and six core CPUs for gaming. There is a fairly notable price void in the gaming market right now, between the i3 ($120) and the i5($220). But with the introduction of the Piledriver chips, the FX-4300 has overtaken the i3 as the gaming chip of choice for the $120 price point (this is based upon only a handful of gaming benchmarks I could dig up for the FX 4300), which is a big deal. They seem to perform at stock better than the i3 at stock in games, then you consider the fact the the FX 4300 is unlocked and very OC capable, I think you have a clear winner in that regard. With the FX 6300 only being a few $ more, though it really doesn't improve gaming performance much over the FX 4300, the extra 2 cores do prove to be handy in productivity applications and heavy processing.
When it comes to gaming, if your prepared to drop $200+ on a CPU for a gaming rig, the release of these new chips changes nothing for you, the FX 8350 does not outperform the i5 2500k or 3750k in games. But if your in the market for a slightly cheaper option, this new chips might just be the way to go.
Personally, looking at what info I've seen. If you've got a current AMD FX system and your looking for a bit of a performance boost. (Or a Fan Boy)The New Piledrivers are worth looking at. But overall if your building a new system, go for Intel. Your money will be better spent.
It's a real shame tbh. As it feels like AMD aren't even trying anymore. :(
Ps. Yes I am running the currently using an AMD system.
Really? What reviews were you reading? and I mean that non-sarcastically, I've started to notice a strange inconsistancy amoung benchmarks from site to site, some sites have the FX destroy the i5 in a certain test, but in another site, the very same test shows the reverse... Not sure how to feel about these inconsistancies, not trying to be bias but I'm sticking with the sites I usually trust for their benchmarks, and they happen to have come out more favourably for the FX chips.
I have got ONLY one thing to say. Clock for Clock. If you compare it with the 8320, which is clocked @ 3,5 GHz, then it get´s beaten in quite some tests. To be more specific, in 10 out of 29 tests. Now imagine the results with a clockspeed of only 3,3 GHz on that "Octa"-Core Piledriver.
Just get over the fact that this architecture is one major FAIL. AMD said that with Steamroller they´ll stop producing for the enthusiast market. Well, those FX CPU aren´t good for that market either. So why waste DIE space for lvl 3 Cache then? Why add unnecessary TDP with this lvl 3 Cache if it´s no good for gamers etc. anyways? They should´ve rather used all of those little, neat improvements, like resonant clock mesh, power gating etc. to work on a Phenom III @ 32, or even better, 28 nm. Now that would be good.
Just look at the comparison between the 1100T and the 8320 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/698?vs=203
You gotta make sure you look at the stat polarity, most of the ones you think the PII wins on state "Lower is better". In actuality, the chip loses only 5 of the tests, and almost all of them are single thread tests. If your going to discount the higher clock rates acheived by these chips, well I don't know, its a strange world you live in then. Not to mention the OC overhead of the FX chips is far greater than that of the PII chips, you'd likely be able to get the FX 8320 to 4.7GHz, and you'd be pushing it to get the PII up for 4.1GHz.
Still, when you look by how much it beats the Phenom II X6 1100T in each test it´s not outstanding most of the time. Also, one thing both of us have forgotten is that the 8350, or 8320 for that matter, has got 2 additional cores. They might not be full cores but if AMD advertizes them as such I am going to take their word for it.
So in fact, this would be the fairest comparison http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/699?vs=203
Still you´d need to underclock that 6300 to 3,3 GHz in order to see how good it really stacks up against it´s predecessor.
Now, since even some of AMD`s engineers have stated that those CPUs are more like Dual, Tripple, and Quad-Cores with SMT, we should give them names according to their module count. The correct name for those modules is computing unit, btw. Computing unit sounds like another term for core if you ask me.
Now if AMD would market them as Dual, Tripple and Quad-Cores I would call those CPUs a great success, if it wasn´t for the applications that lagg behind. They don´t recognize this type of SMT unlike Windows 8 does.
With the two hotfixes for Windows 7 the FX CPUs are being recognized as what they appearantly were supposed to be. Problem is that you´d require such a hotfix / update for each application in order to unleash the full potential of those CPUs.
Like I said, the architecture is a major fail and AMD made it worse by advertising them as something they´re not.
We will have one here in a couple days. I'll let you know what I think. I am going to test it with fraps, xplit, etc. I want to stress the hell out of it. Are there any other test that you want to see?
It'd be nice to see a maximum overclock. Super Pi and Cinebench would be nice to see too. Not to mention a few of the more demanding games just to see how the frame rate compares to Intel CPUs. 3DMark11 would be cool too.
One thing I am very interested in is the power consumption of the 8350 including the current transformer or whatever it´s called in English.
I´ve read that the FX-8150 consumes 140 Watt on full load including the current transformer. That´s just unacceptable. The question is how much the 8350 will suck out of the wall and the 8320 because it´s clocked @ 3,5 GHz which is even less than the 8150.
Power consumption is, imo, important because the more power a CPU requires, the faster it "wears" out.
There´s a thing called electromigration. Now I am no elictrician but I´ve read about it. Basically what happens is that after some time, 5-10 years of regular usage, a CPU won´t work stable at it´s base clockspeed because of said electromigration. The only option would be to underclock and undervolt it.
After a great many years with AMD (K6II) I jumped ship a few months back after trying to live with an FX8150. Granted my Intel cost a whole heap more than any AMD has ever cost me (over double) but I can't complain. I have gotten what I paid for, top performance that no AMD can touch. Not even get close without multi socket Server gear. Cinebench cpu score 12.88 points, Heaven benchmark 3.0v (Open run) score 5318 average fps 211.1 @1920x1080
I fear AMD will leave the enthusiast sector and Intel will have no competition. This is not good because if Intel is not being pushed it has no reason to work on faster CPU's for us to play with.
I would like to see benchmarks of games that benefit highly from multithreading (Games that can utilize four or more threads), like crysis and battlefield 3.