Conclusion: FX-8350 shows a significant increase in score and manages to beat all our Core i3s and even Core i5-2400 (according to our previous tests), not to mention other AMD processors. This group of tests doesn't favor the new module architecture, so Phenom II X6 1100T is still the fastest AMD CPU in the testbed. However, the gap has narrowed noticeably. The progress is minor here, because video encoding software favors the previous AMD FX-8150 as well.
AMD FX-8350 Overclocking + Liquid Cooling System Review
30 December 2012
Excerpt: Closed loop water cooling is not new, but it certainly is a pretty hot topic now. Some of the first units out there had some interesting issues (like internal corrosion clogging everything up), but once those teething problems were solved the closed loop systems turned out to be pretty effective and easy to install. Initially these units had the performance of a top end air cooler, but with a lot lower noise.
Summary: The FX-8350 is faster across the board than the FX-8150 but like its predecessor, it's hampered by uninspiring single-threaded performance and crummy energy efficiency. In both regards, there's a lot of ground to make up if AMD want to catch Intel. Sandy Bridge chips , which are approaching their second anniversary, hold a noticeable lead in all areas except for price.
Excerpt: For those of you not aware, the new “Piledriver” based processors are the next evolution of the FX-series from the previous “Bulldozer” based processors. Unfortunately, the “Bulldozer” release was met with quite a bit of constructive criticism, as the hype and pre-release detail left a lot of folks underwhelmed. So, the immediate upside for AMD this go around is many people will be going into this release with more realistic expectations.
Conclusion: Benchmark tests should always be taken with a grain of salt. It's difficult to try and isolate the performance difference a single component in a computer system makes, especially when it's necessary to compare across different manufacturers and platforms. Complicating the matter is the fact that benchmarks change, a manufacturer may change the technical details of a product, and the retail price may change as well.
Pros: Eight cores and 5GHz on your desktop computer, Officially supports DDR3-1866 memory, Better performance than Intel on multithreaded tasks, An FX system has 38 usable PCI-E lanes as opposed to the 24 lanes of a Sandy Bridge system, Excellent price/performance ratio, finally competitive with Intel in the $200 CPU range
Conclusion: Vishera is exactly what AMD promised it would be: a 10-15% performance increase over the previous generation by almost every measure (except the all-important price!). It’s better than Bulldozer in every way, and it’s cheaper. The price is really what makes Vishera compelling. Even the top-end 8350 is affordable at $195, and two hundred bucks for an eight-core chip is a hard thing to argue with.
Excerpt: Introduction AMD is adopting a yearly(ish) cadence for product cycle refreshes, and as such we now have a new line of AMD FX processors. The new processors are codenamed Vishera and feature four Piledriver architecture modules; no graphics cores found here - this is a CPU, not an APU. The Piledriver revision of Bulldozer architecture, Bulldozer version '1.5', aims to address three areas from the first product: single thread performance, performance per watt, and floating...
Conclusion: Performance Summary: The FX-8350 is the most powerful desktop processor released by AMD to date. The improvements afforded by its updated Piledriver microarchitecture, in addition to significantly increased frequencies, have resulted in a processor that clearly outperforms its Bulldozer-based predecessors across the board. And it does so while consuming less power, which hints at its improved efficiency as well.
Pros: Good Performance, Decent Overclocker, Improved Efficiency, Easy Upgrade For Existing AMD Owners
Cons: Dated Platform, Intel CPUs Still Clearly Faster
AMD FX-8350 Unlocked "Vishera" Octal Core CPU Review
Hi Tech Legion
23 October 2012
Summary: System Benchmarks -
Architectural differences are very noticeable across the different platforms. Not surprisingly the i5 3570K leads the pack, which it should, since it is $235 compared to the $195 FX-8350. The FX-8350 takes the lead in Cinebench 11.5 however, getting 6.92 in the CPU score, due to eight strong cores, while the FX-8150 and i5 3570K ties for second place at 5.99.
Cons: Excellent Price, Improved "Piledriver" Cores, AMD Turbo Core 3.0, Improved latencies compared to FX-8150, 4GHz out of the box (4.2GHz with Turbo Core), Unlocked, 5+GHz Overclockable