Wednesday , 23 April 2014
Latest Reviews
Home » Reviews & Articles » Hardware » CPU/Processors » AMD » AMD FX-8350, Piledriver Vishera Review

AMD FX-8350, Piledriver Vishera Review

Sanrda 2012

Sandra is a synthetic benchmark that may not always translates into real-world application performance. However, we still use it to give us an idea about a chip’s raw performance. As always, take the results here with a grain of salt.

In the Dhrystone benchmark, we see a healthy 23% improvement over the FX-8150, putting the FX-8350 above the Intel Core i5 2500K and just below the Hyperthreading enabled Core i7 2600K.

In the Whestone benchmark, we see a 12% improvement over the FX-8150.

Armed with eight integer cores, the FX processors perform quite well here compare to Intel’s quad core offering. Here we can see a 23% improvement over the FX-8150. Only the six-core Sandy Bridge E is able to out-perform the FX CPUs.

When comes to floating point calculation, we see the FX-8350 is about 18% faster than the FX-8150. Intel’s Core i5/i7 still dominates here.

Sandra’s Cryptology benchmark puts Intel ahead of the AMD’s CPUs.

When comes to the multi-core efficiency, we see the FX-8350 scored 11.59 vs 9.11 on the Core i5 2500K. However, Intel has a much better Inter-core latency of 44.7 ns vs the 134.8 ns on the FX-8350.

 AMD has not made much change to the memory subsystem of the Piledriver and as a result, the memory bandwidth remains the same on the FX-8350.

AIDA64 v2.6

Like Sandra, AIDA64 is also another synthetic benchmark that tests CPU and system’s performance.

The FX-8350 shows 10% improvement over the FX-8150, putting it ahead of the Core i5 2500K.

In Photoworxx benchmark, we only see a 5% gain. 

 ZLib shows an impressive 26% gain in performance, putting the FX-8350 faster than the Core i7 3770K. 

When comes to data encryption, we see there is a 4% gain in the AES encryption benchmark and 10% gain in the Hash benchmark. 

 When comes to floating point calculations, we see the FX-8350 shows significant improvement over the FX-8150 in both Julia, Mendel, and VP8 benchmarks. While the FX-8150 failed to keep up with the Phenom II X6 1100T, the FX-8350 is able to deliver slightly better performance over the six-core Phenom CPU. The Intel Core i5 still dominates the float point calculation but at least AMD’s latest flagship desktop CPU is fast enough to replace the Phenom six cores.  

AIDA64: Memory 

AMD has not done much improvement on the Piledriver’s memory controller so we did not expect much of the performance difference here. There is a slightly higher bandwidth in memory read and write on the FX-8350 but the latency is a bit slower.  

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE