FX 8370 FX8320E

R3MF said:

AMD's future is HSA, so yes, dedicated CPU's are not part of their mainstream future.

imho, everything will be an APU in the consumer market by the end of 2015, which is not to say:
1. that there will not be products that greatly favour the CPU over the GPU
2. that there will not be CPU sku's created from an APU with a defective/disabled GPU

Click to expand...

That's not what basically confirmed rumors say though. The K12 architecture is coming.

Anyways I'm not sure it matters. Intel doesn't create any chips without a IGP (that I know of) why should AMD? Although if AMD chooses too, it should enable them to gain a performance advantage over Intel in theory by dedicating all die to CPU rather than giving up some to GPU (not true now because Bulldozer was so bad).

Shark974 said:

That's not what basically confirmed rumors say though. The K12 architecture is coming.

Anyways I'm not sure it matters. Intel doesn't create any chips without a IGP (that I know of) why should AMD? Although if AMD chooses too, it should enable them to gain a performance advantage over Intel in theory by dedicating all die to CPU rather than giving up some to GPU (not true now because Bulldozer was so bad).

Click to expand...

A whole bunch of Xeon processors don't come with IGPs. The new 5820K, 5930K, and 5960X don't have IGPs.

czerro said:

It's a good chip, it's just late to the party. On the one hand, it's cool that AMD is still refreshing AM3, but one has to question what market that chip exists in. It's possible that they are gearing into an AM3+ BE refresh. Die shrink still seems a way off, so that seems highly possible. Updated AM3 boards with some BE chips with a little more overhead and the latest mobo features. Could be a good price/performance buy. Again, this is predicated on there being faster clocked AM3 FX BE chips and a refreshed chipset.

Click to expand...

why, when they have FM2+?

it already has the new platform features...

Shark974 said:

That's not what basically confirmed rumors say though. The K12 architecture is coming.

Anyways I'm not sure it matters. Intel doesn't create any chips without a IGP (that I know of) why should AMD? Although if AMD chooses too, it should enable them to gain a performance advantage over Intel in theory by dedicating all die to CPU rather than giving up some to GPU (not true now because Bulldozer was so bad).

Click to expand...

It depends maybe not as early as 2015 , but in general GPU outperform the CPU by a good margin. For computing power you only need to have well written software.Where a CPU has problems with getting to a gigaflop performance GPU already past it.

AMD business is already APU for the most part that is what they are selling, that is why the CPU side of things still stuck with AM3+ and since the AM3+ FM2 already had an upgrade.

Shark974 said:

That's not what basically confirmed rumors say though. The K12 architecture is coming.

Click to expand...

k12 is an architecture, not a SKU.

just like piledriver was an architecture used in both Vishera CPU's and Trinity APU's.

HSA is their future.

I disagree.

They will continue to make high end FX CPU's, in my opinion.

The future of desktop FX processors will still be APU's. Just much more advanced APU's than what we have now. They will arrive along with the new K12 sister x86-64 core architecture in Q4 2015/~2016.

I remember reading that AMD got one of there lead guys back and his first job was to take a look at the current and fix the current FX cpu's as to make them stronger in IPC before moving on the the next architecture .. maybe these new cpu's could be his work but I don't know..

Ok, well how about this. 8320/8350 are good chips at an amazing price point. The only sleight people realistically had was TDP. Again, a 'slight' cause we are all enthusiasts and can competently cool our systems. AMD LISTENED to you ranting and raving about the TDP of 8series and refreshed it and knocked off more watts than anyone could anticipate...and they are still somehow jerks?! Yeah, it would have been awesome if those chips released at that wattage, but it wouldn't change anything: original TDP not really scary to be honest, price/performance super awesome. Everyone keeps trying to convince everyone that AMD is trying to knuckle-and-knuckle Intel...with their MOST EXPENSIVE chip, which is really a price/performance chip and compare it to something 3-4 times as expensive from Intel. Fail, right?

BTW, Haswell update 145w...NOBODY cares...

To be honest, those chips are awesome, and priced leagues better than Intel normally does. But if it was an AMD chip, they would be crucified on that point alone. People might be scared that AMD has another Phenom up it's sleeve...or APU really taking off...or something

Board manufacturers have noticed it. Every board this year has custom integrated third party parts. You absolutely don't want that all-in-one: Our motherboard has 12 integrated 3rd party peripherals! That sounds awful!

Edit: The fanboys don't really matter at this point. AMD would have to do 45w (for whatever conceivable reason), 6GHZ, 8 cores, at 180 dollars, before anyone would give them the time of day. That's why Intel makes so much money. AMD might not be the tier, but they are definitely more than competitive in the market they have situated themselves...and everyone still hates them.

Vicious and unrealistic is Intels fanbase.

Edit 2: It might be nothing more than a stone across the bow. AMD rereleased one of their best performing chips...at a significantly lower wattage...at a lower price point...with a bigger ceiling. It's pretty huge. Some might say, a 'call-out': "Yeah, we can do that now <smirk>". Positioned or forcing the Haswell update that seemed it would never arrive. At the same time just pushing TDP/wattage and a competitive price point. AMD has something big.

Shark974 said:

I disagree.

They will continue to make high end FX CPU's, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

who are you disagreeing with?

czerro said:

BTW, Haswell update 145w...NOBODY cares...

Click to expand...

Yes it is nothing spectacular AMD has 220 Watt cpu already , big deal
"true 8 core" is also something hear floating around , which is pretty amazing, but at least you now know what we already know that there is a bias and this just confirmed it.

I find it absolutely HILARIOUS how people constantly shit on AMD for their 9590 part due to it's 220W TDP. Do you know how much Intel's 8-core part consumes?






And yes, those are all real. So it really mystifies the shit out of me why I see people laughing at the highest-end FX part in regards to power consumption, when the Intel top-end is literally over double the power consumption in some cases. Talk about double standards, right? Yeah, the Intel part would outperform the FX part with ease, there's no contesting that. But you're also forced to pay an extortionate amount of coin for that performance as well, over $1000 for the processor itself, then a new X99 board, followed by overpriced DDR4 memory, and so on...

Fanboys will be fanboys, I guess. I just never understood the mindset, and never will.

I think you answered your own question. Intel's stock clocked 5960x consumes around 200 watts. Even with a lower clocked part, the Intel beasts a typical stock high end FX part. Plus most people agree that FXs compete in the mainstream market (I5 I7 LGA1150) where Intel still rocks out a 4 core 8 thread part.

AMD is value and they rock at that. But they have yet to launch anything that remotely is in the same league as Intel, as they know it wont be profitable (you don`t see many people buy LGA2011 parts in the droves through its lifecycle versus a LGA1150).

Indeed. My point was mainly that people talking about power consumption on the desktop is an incredibly silly thing.

If the next big Opterons (as in, whatever succeeds Warsaw, which is presumably the upcoming K12/sister core stuff) can offer competitive perf/watt, then AMD will be able to compete in that LGA-2011-style arena.

Review up on http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-fx-8370-and-8370e-processor-review,1.html

Overall the AMD FX 8370 or 8370E is a processor we can recommend in the mid-range PC gaming and desktop space. The FX 8370 with eight CPU cores is hip in a PC desktop environment with the many threads you can fire off at it, and if you love to compress, transcode or use your PC as a workstation then it will bring heaps of performance and fantastic value. I think that the 95 Watt E model has to forfeit a bit too much in performance, but the regular FX 8370 at its current price level will be a steal. And if you want to go even cheaper, just pick up the cheapest unlocked 8-core FX model you can find like thje 8150. They start around 170 bucks already. You can easily tweak them to the performance levels shown today. Even though today's release is merely a step forward we do say the FX processors deserve a lot more credit then they have gotten thus far. At a price of 199 USD the AMD FX 8370 is a really fun 8-core mainstream segment processor to work with.

Click to expand...

NaroonGTX said:

I find it absolutely HILARIOUS how people constantly shit on AMD for their 9590 part due to it's 220W TDP. Do you know how much Intel's 8-core part consumes?

And yes, those are all real. So it really mystifies the shit out of me why I see people laughing at the highest-end FX part in regards to power consumption, when the Intel top-end is literally over double the power consumption in some cases. Talk about double standards, right? Yeah, the Intel part would outperform the FX part with ease, there's no contesting that. But you're also forced to pay an extortionate amount of coin for that performance as well, over $1000 for the processor itself, then a new X99 board, followed by overpriced DDR4 memory, and so on...

Fanboys will be fanboys, I guess. I just never understood the mindset, and never will.

Click to expand...

I don't get what you are trying to show with the graphs.

Looks like intels top parts use 130-140w just as advertised.

AMDs parts use +50% for lower performance.

With that being said I am pretty much AMD in my servers (cheap ecc platforms) and intel on the desktop. I have no allegiance to either.

Did you not see how insanely the power consumption rose when the parts where OC'd? Pretty clear as day. My point was to show how retarded people are who try to throw around power consumption on the desktop as a "victory" for their chosen brand, when they have CPU's using that much power as well as two or three OC'd enthusiast-tier GPU's sucking up power in their rig at the same time.

Obviously the Intel chips have lower TDP's at stock and offer much greater performance, nowhere did I try to negate that.

NaroonGTX said:

Did you not see how insanely the power consumption rose when the parts where OC'd? Pretty clear as day. My point was to show how retarded people are who try to throw around power consumption on the desktop as a "victory" for their chosen brand, when they have CPU's using that much power as well as two or three OC'd enthusiast-tier GPU's sucking up power in their rig at the same time.

Obviously the Intel chips have lower TDP's at stock and offer much greater performance, nowhere did I try to negate that.

Click to expand...

Intel doesn't rate their TDP on overclocking. It rates it on stock speed.

Congrats. You figured that out. Can you explain to me what that has to do with my original point?

I find it absolutely HILARIOUS how people constantly shit on AMD for their 9590 part due to it's 220W TDP. Do you know how much Intel's 8-core part consumes?

http://i.imgur.com/QrWCKc4.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/dYhkVvj.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/gZw31ps.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/k0vzPDR.jpg

Click to expand...

Your original point was that people complain about AMD's 220W (STOCK TDP) part.

Which, IMHO, makes sense since Intel is faster (in most cases) at what...130w? 140w? for their 8 core part. Why should people NOT be upset at AMD for a poorly performing 220w part?

If you are going to take AMD's Stock TDP you should compare it to Intel's stock TDP.

NaroonGTX can you compare really a 5960X overclocked 1.5ghz to a FX9590 which at much can be overclocked 200mhz.? 300mhz? to be real 5ghz base stock? and how much draw a system with a FX9590 overclocked to 5.2ghz (which its insanely hot) ?? can you compare the stock performance of a 5960X vs a overclocked 5960X? and the performance of a stock 9590 vs a overclocked 9590?.. you can undervolt a 5960X at stock turbo speeds and you still will be light years ahead in performance over a FX9590.. can you compare the TDP of a 3570K vs a 9590? and the 3570K will be far superior gaming... bud that 140W are nothing for that kind of performance a 5960X can deliver even at such low stock clocks..

@Robstar: You realize all the 9590 is, is literally just a factory overclocked 8350, right? It's not a new piece of silicon or anything. The 8350 has a TDP of 125W. The Intel octocore scales significantly worse when it comes to power consumption as the clocks ramp up. My entire point was how stupid it is for people to compare TDP's like that, especially in terms of CPUs, on the desktop.

As for people being "upset", if you're still upset that a uArch that debuted two years ago doesn't perform up to snuff with Intel's new 2014 stuff, you're a fucking idiot (this isn't directed at you, just a general statement made with the plural "you".)

@Araxie: I don't see what your point is. Everybody knows Haswell is a good deal faster than Piledriver is. Don't see what you're trying to tell me.

Haswell its a good deal faster than piledriver as its ivy bridge and sandy bridge which are old too.. my point its that whats the problem with the "Total system wattage" of the 5960X you have to add into the formula that the features in a high end X99 board pull a really good bunch of power, specially those with several extra power connectors and CPU extra pins for overclock like the Asus boards.. i do not see the problem with that power consumption.. the problem with the power consumption i see really its why my 3570K at just 4.2ghz with stock cooler perform better than my 8350 at 4.8ghz thats my point with the power consumption with FX chips.. new intel 5960X overclocked draw a ton of power right? but that power its directly traduced into the performance in real world.. they show real advantage in overclocking results, while my FX8350 have a hard time trying to keep up with my tiny and cold 3570K and consuming bit more than double the power..

and how about if we compare it to a 3770K at stock clocks..?..













now power consumption:



see? thats the problem with power consumption..

Once again, you're not telling me anything I didn't already know. Intel has a very mature uArch, and it has been more efficient than AMD for almost a decade now. No point in complaining about it.

NaroonGTX said:

@Robstar: You realize all the 9590 is, is literally just a factory overclocked 8350, right? It's not a new piece of silicon or anything. The 8350 has a TDP of 125W. The Intel octocore scales significantly worse when it comes to power consumption as the clocks ramp up. My entire point was how stupid it is for people to compare TDP's like that, especially in terms of CPUs, on the desktop.

As for people being "upset", if you're still upset that a uArch that debuted two years ago doesn't perform up to snuff with Intel's new 2014 stuff, you're a fucking idiot (this isn't directed at you, just a general statement made with the plural "you".)

@Araxie: I don't see what your point is. Everybody knows Haswell is a good deal faster than Piledriver is. Don't see what you're trying to tell me.

Click to expand...

Not only does it not compare to 2014's, but even i5-2xxx series from...what 2011?

Btw: I bought an FX-8320 for my server today, so I'm not hating on AMD....

Also: BY DEFINITION "Overclocked" is for parts run out of spec. By DEFINITION a 9590 is not overclocked. It's 220w @ Stock.

Not only does it not compare to 2014's, but even i5-2xxx series from...what 2011?

Btw: I bought an FX-8320 for my server today, so I'm not hating on AMD....

Click to expand...

If you wanna be real, even Nehalem is still faster than it, and it's much older. No need to tell me what AMD products you have, to ward of conceptions that you're shilling or whatever, as that's not my purpose here.

Also: BY DEFINITION "Overclocked" is for parts run out of spec. By DEFINITION a 9590 is not overclocked. It's 220w @ Stock.

Click to expand...

This is true.

Comparing the 9590 to the 5960x is possible, but silly. I mean, for the price of the Intel chip, it damn well better perform better than the AMD part across the board.

Robstar said:

Your original point was that people complain about AMD's 220W (STOCK TDP) part.

Which, IMHO, makes sense since Intel is faster (in most cases) at what...130w? 140w? for their 8 core part. Why should people NOT be upset at AMD for a poorly performing 220w part?

If you are going to take AMD's Stock TDP you should compare it to Intel's stock TDP.

Click to expand...

That is why he showed those pictures. Stock TDP is something which is different between AMD and Intel also.

AMD poorly performing 220Watt part is also cheaper.which offsets what is it that you need?
In reality performance counts for applications you use or games. In the latter part you are barely going to notice this unless you run 4K+ resolution.

And now for some interesting bits from The Stilt about these "new" cpu:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...rdie-told-me&p=5237937&viewfull=1#post5237937

The differences?

- On average 18% less leakage*1 (0-38%) for FX-8370
- On average 53% less leakage*1 (14-106%) for FX-8370E
- Up to 300MHz higher overclocking margin *12
- 100mV less voltage required for the same clocks on average *1

*1 - Compared to an average FX-8320 or FX-8350 CPU
*2 - When not restricted by the cooling or the motherboard (VRM)

The E-version is the best choice for air or water cooling thanks to the ultra low leakage characteristics.
The non E-version does the same clocks however it might require use of a higher end motherboard (with better VRM) and high-performance cooling.
The non E-version has significantly better overclockability under sub-zero temperatures (phase, LN2) since the leakage levels of the E-version are too low for the purpose.
Having an ultra low leakage characteristics is great under normal conditions however under sub-zero temperatures the voltage requirements become a issue.
Basically the low leakage part exhaust the usable range of supply voltage prior reaching it's maximum frequency.

Click to expand...

Shark974 said:

So in theory, a whopping 2.5% more performance over the 8350.

But also a needed rejiggering of pricing down the line.

Even the new lower prices still doesn't really make any of the FX processors good buys that I can tell, at least certainly not for gamers, though.

I would like to see some refreshed benchmarks on the FX series though by big sites. Hope we get that with this release.

At least it shows the FX line isn't abandoned dead, though, as many want it to be.

Click to expand...

reviews
http://www.computerbase.de/2014-09/amd-fx-8370e-im-test/
-OC 5 GHz
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8427/amd-fx-8370e-cpu-review-vishera-95w
-OC ned&#283;lali
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8370_and_8370e_processor_review,1.html
-OC 4.7 GHz
http://ht4u.net/reviews/2014/amd_fx-8370e_im_test/
-no OC
http://hothardware.com/Reviews/AMD-FX8370-and-FX8370E-8Core-CPU-Reviews/
-bez OC
http://techreport.com/review/26996/amd-fx-8370e-processor-reviewed
-no OC
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-2014-FX-Refresh-FX-9590-FX-8370-and-FX-8370e-Review
- FX-9590 5.1 GHz, FX-8370 4.8 GHz with 0.07V offset, FX-8370E 4.5 GHz with 0.06V ofset
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_fx8370__fx8370be/
-OC 4990 FX-8370E, 5015 MHz FX-8370
http://benchmarkreviews.com/19942/amd-fx-8370e-am3-processor-performance-review/
-no OC
Edited by FlanK3r - 9/2/14 at 12:27pm

If corsair link can be believed, which I assume it can inside 20% or so, my 9590 pulls power like an 8370 under full load from IBT according to the above graph...

Reported socket temp is 10-15C higher under load vs the 8350, same ambient, that's about it.
Picked up 8 FPS or so in Valley, almost broke 80. Decent upgrade considering I sold my 8350 for like
$40 less than I bought it for new a year ago...

It ain't all about the benchmarks.

Pieter3dnow said:

That is why he showed those pictures. Stock TDP is something which is different between AMD and Intel also.

AMD poorly performing 220Watt part is also cheaper.which offsets what is it that you need?
In reality performance counts for applications you use or games. In the latter part you are barely going to notice this unless you run 4K+ resolution.

Click to expand...

Anyone who NEEDS top performance is going intel on IPC alone. Anyone who doesn't goes AMD for cheap cpu+gpu/low graphics.

Not sure where a 9590 fits into this (less performance than a $200-$300 intel & way more power as well).

Robstar said:

Anyone who NEEDS top performance is going intel on IPC alone. Anyone who doesn't goes AMD for cheap cpu+gpu/low graphics.

Not sure where a 9590 fits into this (less performance than a $200-$300 intel & way more power as well).

Click to expand...

There's a lot more to it than benchmarks to me.
AMD has sold an assload of FX chips, and looking at ebay completed listings and my own experience selling one used recently, they continue to do so. I bought a 9590 as soon as the price dropped recently, and they were out of stock not long after. It was a why-the-hell not purchase, as I suspect many of them are. It's not often you get to have the biggest and baddest and last of the line of anything so cheap.


It's important I think to remember also that even a slow chip is fast these days. I see game benchmarks and the "slow" chip is 60+fps. I remember the struggle to get 30 on quake2. It's also amusing that people liken the fx to the old pentium 4 HT from years back, netburst era, which was the last time I had an Intel based system. It was fast too for it's day. Crappy in a lot of ways, sure, but it was still fast. Everything is relative. I suspect for 98% of people, there is no practical difference between an fx system and an i5 or i7 right now. I enjoy the challenges and eccentricities and handicaps they have as an enthusiast. I have a 9590 system now that is almost silent and runs quite cool, on air, and it was a lot of fun to experiment and figure out what worked and didn't and such. Not cheap, but fun. It'll be plenty fast till ddr4 stuff settles down.
There's a lot more to it than benchmarks to me. And I'm probly not the only one.