FX 8370 FX8320E

Interesting. Nothing really to see if you already have a 8000 or 9000 series. But if you need to upgrade from an earlier AM3 processor, then a $99 - $139 processor that will drop right into your old mobo is a great investment. I hope that the webcast on 8/23/2014 has some hints about a future line of processors to replace these. Just a glimpse into what they are working on. I'd love to hear more about the new ARM server chips in particular. No need to link me the same old release charts; been there done that. ;)

This is a great little stopgate line for them. 95w processors will appeal to some most definately. So it's not a bad release in the long run.
 
yeah it has to be at a good price range , for people coming from AM3 prolly don't have a lot of memory so you are looking at new mainboard ram and cpu.
 
i'm unsure about those specs, confusingly says 4.1/4.3 when refreing to both the 8370 and 8370e.

does this mean;
> two SKU's both with 4.1 normal and 4.3 turbo, separated only by tdp, or;
> 95W at 4.1 normal and 125W at 4.3 normal

whadaya think?
 
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-to-release-three-new-fx-processors-for-september.html

other source confirmed it

The new FX-series microprocessors from AMD, which are due to be formally introduced on September 1, 2014, are the FX-8370 and the FX-8370E. Both chips feature eight cores, 4.10GHz/4.30GHz clock-rates, 8MB L2 cache, 8MB L3 cache and dual-channel DDR3 memory controllers. The FX-8370 will have thermal design power of 125W, whereas the FX-8370E will feature TDP of 95W. Both microprocessors will be priced at $189 in mass quantities.
Click to expand...
 
hmmm, same speed, same price, why would anyone buy the higher tdp version?
 
Why would anyone choose the non-e version over the e?

e is same specs & lower TDP...
 
Robstar said:
Why would anyone choose the non-e version over the e?

e is same specs & lower TDP...
Click to expand...

I could imagine a bit of a price difference, intel sell their identically named 'S' version I7s for a premium. Maybe the E version has a much lower base clock...
 
KazeoHin said:
I could imagine a bit of a price difference, intel sell their identically named 'S' version I7s for a premium. Maybe the E version has a much lower base clock...
Click to expand...

For Intel the S version is the same as the top speed chip (with a factory underclock) and it has the same price as the top speed chip.

Maybe the E version has a much lower base clock...
Click to expand...

I expect a lower base clock or a much higher price.
 
KazeoHin said:
I could imagine a bit of a price difference, intel sell their identically named 'S' version I7s for a premium. Maybe the E version has a much lower base clock...
Click to expand...

Maybe street pricing will be different?

Retail is the same...
 
Same speeds, same price...maybe the 125W is parts that didn't quite make the 9xxx bin? We'll have to see how each one overclocks when they come out.

amd_fx_prices_spt_1.png


Take it with a grain of salt though, they call the 8300 125W as well when everything else says it's 95W.
 
At least with the idea of an 8-core 95w 4.2Ghz CPU, we can hope for a 6-core APU being possible.
 
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.
 
The non e cpu's can sustain the turboed clock speed far longer then the E cpus can. Also the 95w cpu's will appeal to those who have a mobo with a weak vrm circuit.
 
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...


Most sites have pretty recent benchmarks. When they released the 9590. Would be nice to see some new runs though with the new skus.
 
according to the 30 years livestream the cpu should be available retail September 2nd.
 
KazeoHin said:
Give us a steamroller 8-core. Honestly, how hard is it?
Click to expand...

Its not cost effective for them to do so. The only fabs setup for the steamroller core are all died for kaveri. They would need to spend time and money developing new dies for a different cpu. Which simply at this point in time wouldn't be cost effective.

Amd scraped the Steamroller FX cpu when they had issues with the first steamroller (a) core. The core that is in Kaveri is called the Steamroller (b) core. Even in revision B there are some issues when it comes to overclocking. Kaveri owners are unable to pass 4.5ghz and score higher in benchmarks, its like they hit a brick wall at 4.5ghz and even though they are operating at higher speeds does not result in a performance increase.

So given the steam roller cores cannot clock as high as the piledriver cores the small IPC improvement AMD did achieve with Steamroller is lost because it cannot run at the same clock speeds. This is probably why AMD came out with the Centurion chips (FX 9370 and FX 9590) Noting that the Pile driver cores were faster at the higher clock speeds. While the Steamroller Cores excelled in lower TDP variants.
 
They decided a while ago that they would only release Piledriver based cpu on the AM3+ platform. We are still waiting to hear about the new cpu in 2016 if that comes in a different form then APU only and or other platform then FMx.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't mind buying an FMx Mainboard, or the idea of a good GPU built into the die. I7s have been wiping the floor with AMD chips and they have 15% of their silicon dedicated to a GPU. I don't see why AMD couldn't tone down the GPU to say, 2 or 4 CUs and fill the rest of that space up with 4 SR modules (8 integer cores).

The problem I have with the BD architecture was that the WHOLE POINT of the move from cores to modules is that you can fit more integer power into less space, meaning that in the same space of 4 strongish cores, you can squeeze in 4 modules and double the integer throughput, while maintaining the same L2 and FP performance.

The problem is that AMD teased that 10 and 12 core chips were a possibility with this kind I setup (using the same theoretical die-space as a 5 or 6 core CPU). I knew for a fact that an '8-core' BD chip was the FP and L2 equivalent of a 4-core k12 chip. Essentially, the 8150 was the next generation of phenom X4s. I was patiently waiting for the next generation of phenom X6s. That has yet to happen. Yes, the 8350 is pretty similar in clock-per-clock integer performance as the old phenom II CPUs, but the 8350 is a quad-core level chip. AMD have yet to make a CPU that replaces the Phenom II X6 for what it could do in it's day.

Maybe I'm just rambling, but honestly, 4-5 years after the launch of the BD arch and I was expecting 16 core (8 module) chips by now, yet we're still stuck with quad-core (8-int cores) level chips, and the newest CPUs are dual-core (4 int) level ONLY. We've gone backwards!
 
regardless of modules or etc, AMD cant deny the fact that most of their offering can`t really answer the current markets needs. The only answer they have is piling on massive TDP or something nifty but not fast. Also maybe value but again their comes a point when value is frowned upon over speed.

Yes I do fault AMD but also software which basically is slowly moving to multithreaded which offer reasonable performance on Module heavy AMD CPUs.
 
Ok honest question, but just wanted some clarification. Are AMD x86 chips basically done after this year? Looking at their roadmap going forward all the chips are APU's? Yes I have been living under a rock and only really pay attention when I'm about to upgrade which is what I'm considering doing soon. I never paid attention to the APU's as I assumed they were for people who just wanted a basic setup for web browsing, etc. Since I do game periodically, I didn't care for it, same as a gamer wouldn't necessarily buy a mobo with built in graphics.
 
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
 
KazeoHin said:
Maybe I'm just rambling, but honestly, 4-5 years after the launch of the BD arch and I was expecting 16 core (8 module) chips by now, yet we're still stuck with quad-core (8-int cores) level chips, and the newest CPUs are dual-core (4 int) level ONLY. We've gone backwards!
Click to expand...

So did I but in reality it seems that applications that do not push the Bulldozer or just use a few threads and not optimized were never going to make it shine, they bailed on their 5 module part.
And now we have to wait for Jim Keller to present his cpu over the next year and a half?

He didn't want to do Bulldozer or to put it correctly he was not hired to do Bulldozer. even if Mantle shows that Bulldozer still is a very good cpu it is the financial circumstances which made AMD stall the AM3+ platform for few years.

I got to say that the software industry is dragging their feet on this matter as well, to lazy to properly optimize for multiple threads and to stupid to do things in OpenCL.
 
Last edited:
KazeoHin said:
I wouldn't mind buying an FMx Mainboard, or the idea of a good GPU built into the die. I7s have been wiping the floor with AMD chips and they have 15% of their silicon dedicated to a GPU. I don't see why AMD couldn't tone down the GPU to say, 2 or 4 CUs and fill the rest of that space up with 4 SR modules (8 integer cores).

The problem I have with the BD architecture was that the WHOLE POINT of the move from cores to modules is that you can fit more integer power into less space, meaning that in the same space of 4 strongish cores, you can squeeze in 4 modules and double the integer throughput, while maintaining the same L2 and FP performance.

The problem is that AMD teased that 10 and 12 core chips were a possibility with this kind I setup (using the same theoretical die-space as a 5 or 6 core CPU). I knew for a fact that an '8-core' BD chip was the FP and L2 equivalent of a 4-core k12 chip. Essentially, the 8150 was the next generation of phenom X4s. I was patiently waiting for the next generation of phenom X6s. That has yet to happen. Yes, the 8350 is pretty similar in clock-per-clock integer performance as the old phenom II CPUs, but the 8350 is a quad-core level chip. AMD have yet to make a CPU that replaces the Phenom II X6 for what it could do in it's day.

Maybe I'm just rambling, but honestly, 4-5 years after the launch of the BD arch and I was expecting 16 core (8 module) chips by now, yet we're still stuck with quad-core (8-int cores) level chips, and the newest CPUs are dual-core (4 int) level ONLY. We've gone backwards!
Click to expand...


Yeah AMD has so huge advantages over Intel it's ridiculous. Just think of these, either of these two is a huge advantage.

-AMD are eating the cost on much bigger dies/lower margins. FX 8350 is listed at 315mm^2 vs the 177mm^2 of haswell. That's with no integrated GPU in FX series. Yes they are way behind in process, but if they can stay at a large die in a lower node they will be able to pack in huge processing.

-AMD have a much bigger power envelope to work in, 125 watts vs 84 or less for Intel.

Get their act together even the tinest amount and AMD should be able to school Intel. I think that day is coming...something like 16 cores at 4.5 ghz with a much better IPC on 22nm...will destroy anything Intel has. Intel hasn't greatly improved since Sandy Bridge and focus on low power now not performance,

The earliest hope according to rumor would be like 2016 though.

The reason for no steamroller on FX imo, is just that while an improvement, the benefit is probably too small to justify the cost on a new FX chip based on it. They will wait and do a massive architecture revamp apparently. Cant wait for the benchmarks of the Kavari based Athlon's though.
 
boneycat said:
Ok honest question, but just wanted some clarification. Are AMD x86 chips basically done after this year? Looking at their roadmap going forward all the chips are APU's? Yes I have been living under a rock and only really pay attention when I'm about to upgrade which is what I'm considering doing soon. I never paid attention to the APU's as I assumed they were for people who just wanted a basic setup for web browsing, etc. Since I do game periodically, I didn't care for it, same as a gamer wouldn't necessarily buy a mobo with built in graphics.
Click to expand...

No. Obviously, as you see with FX8370 about to release and the whole line revamped and lowered in price. FX isn't going anywhere, that's just a confirmed fact, you can go to newegg and buy them. But, most likely you wont see the new architecture they are working on for a while, rumor is 2016.
 
Yeah, these new CPUs are not actually new CPUs. They are just different Mainboard settings pre-installed on older chips with a different model number stamped on the IHS.
 
Shark974 said:
Yeah AMD has so huge advantages over Intel it's ridiculous. Just think of these, either of these two is a huge advantage.

-AMD are eating the cost on much bigger dies/lower margins. FX 8350 is listed at 315mm^2 vs the 177mm^2 of haswell. That's with no integrated GPU in FX series. Yes they are way behind in process, but if they can stay at a large die in a lower node they will be able to pack in huge processing.

-AMD have a much bigger power envelope to work in, 125 watts vs 84 or less for Intel.

Get their act together even the tinest amount and AMD should be able to school Intel. I think that day is coming...something like 16 cores at 4.5 ghz with a much better IPC on 22nm...will destroy anything Intel has. Intel hasn't greatly improved since Sandy Bridge and focus on low power now not performance,

The earliest hope according to rumor would be like 2016 though.

The reason for no steamroller on FX imo, is just that while an improvement, the benefit is probably too small to justify the cost on a new FX chip based on it. They will wait and do a massive architecture revamp apparently. Cant wait for the benchmarks of the Kavari based Athlon's though.
Click to expand...

Whats the point of building a 16 core desktop cpu when 95% of desktop users won't be able to take advantage of it, even by the end of 2016?
 
I'd say change that 95% to closer to 99%, lol. Most users, even delusional gamers, don't have any legitimate use for that many threads on the desktop.
 
NaroonGTX said:
I'd say change that 95% to closer to 99%, lol. Most users, even delusional gamers, don't have any legitimate use for that many threads on the desktop.
Click to expand...

True, I was gonna write 99% but I thought people would jump on me for that lol.
 
haha, how bout we be a bit more scientific and make it 99.99%

Until AMD offers something that can offer intel a run for its money (value in both performance and $$)
I guess this is the same old same old.
 
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.

Edit: I do want to add that I think it's hilarious that TDP is only so concerning to everyone and their mother, when it comes to AMD and the late ATI. Nobody cares when it IS/WAS NVIDIA and Intel. It's a silly thing to concern yourself about unless your PSU can't handle it: "125w?! No thanks! Extrapolating, I save .01 cents on the dollar 10 years from now by purchasing a more power-efficient and more expensive Intel chip, today. It just makes monetary sense to purchase a more expensive chip that will save me money granted I'm still using it a decade later...like a real enthusiast. Because, numbers. Get your act together AMD. I don't want your affordable performance chip right now, I want to barely be recouping the cost on one 10 years later."
 
Last edited:
They have been producing these chips for 2 years now. I can see them adding some more binned products however I say there will not be any new silicon ever on AM3.
 
drescherjm said:
They have been producing these chips for 2 years now. I can see them adding some more binned products however I say there will not be any new silicon ever on AM3.
Click to expand...

It seems like a bad move, and it probably is, but it's an easy one. TSMC has been producing very bad binning for 2 gens now, and it appears they can't shrink the die again. That doesn't mean they didn't improve their binning on current gen in the interim. If that is the case, and AMD has no alternative, they will absolutely take higher yield/better binned AM3 chips and try to remarket/revive it. This would require a chipset refresh as well to contend with the latest Intel.

Edit: They might simply be testing the waters. If the binning is good, at 95w, and it can overclock better... It's match for match the 125w chip at 95w?! It would definitely be interesting in the enthusiast market.
 
Last edited:
I have a 990FX UD3a sitting around from mining, I'm going to sell my 4770k / Z87 board and pick up one of these, I just realized I haven't overclocked my current rig since I have set it up, and rather have the $300 in my pocket :p
 
samm said:
haha, how bout we be a bit more scientific and make it 99.99%

Until AMD offers something that can offer intel a run for its money (value in both performance and $$)
I guess this is the same old same old.
Click to expand...

They do that now actually. It's just that A) they tap out at about oh, 2500K level, meaning they cant realistically charge more than about $180 for any chip in their lineup. B) they kind of suck at gaming even beyond that, which is what most of this forum cares about. That doesn't make them bad though, just relatively weaker at what we're interested in.

The 8350 is for example a competitive chip NOW, it loses some it wins some versus a $180-$200 Intel chip, meaning it is competitive. And will be even morseo with the rumored price cut to $169. And ditto down the whole lineup. It just so happens to do better at applications, particularly integer focused ones, than gaming.

The 9590/9370 are kind of albatross, but then again they've gotten to be pretty cheap too. The power guzzling is what kills them. To me they are just AMD confirming they are committed to the enthusiast. Even more so than Intel, the new Haswell E-'s tap out at 140 watts, while the FX 9000's guzzle 220 watts. That and if you are an AMD die hard hard or are looking to upgrade a AM-3 board, they are the best you can get, even if they stink compared to Intel's offerings. They are just a way for AMD to try to up profit margins a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top