We're adding five other CPUs to the mix for our performance comparisons. The FX-8370E represented at three different clock rates takes the total number of bars to eight. Intel’s Core i7-4790K hails from another price range of course, but we still wanted to show what a Haswell-based CPU also capable of scheduling eight threads can do.
Per-clock performance is AMD's most glaring problem area. What happens when an application runs on just one core? The outcome is demonstrated nicely by Cinebench's single-threaded benchmark.
It's made clear in this test that AMD’s new CPU runs at a lower clock rate. Taking scaling into account, we’re basically left with the same performance that AMD’s other FX processors offered. At 4.2 GHz, the FX-8370E nearly catches the non-E version. Haswell blows them both out of the water, though. AMD has nowhere to go but up, and it's a shame that we don't have a Steamroller-based eight-core chip to fold into our chart. The A10-7800 is as much representation as we get from AMD's most modern architecture.
The situation improves when all eight of the FX's integer cores are utilized. Comparing AMD to Intel's Core i7-4790K still yields an ugly outcome, but the Core i5 isn't able to keep up as well in this case.
Well-parallelized tasks tasks allow the CPUs able to handle more than four threads at a time to show off. This is another well-deserved high point for AMD’s new processor.
Unfortunately, real-world tasks typically aren't as dramatically optimized, so they knock AMD's FX-8370E back down to earth. At least the 4.2 GHz configuration almost keeps up with the non-E version.

We could have added more synthetic and application benchmarks, but they wouldn't change the bottom line. Over the past few years, we've covered the Piledriver architecture in much depth, including this Vishera-based implementation. At any given frequency, we know how these CPUs fare, and that won't change due to an optimization for power consumption.
The AMD FX-8370E is an interesting option for processing-intensive applications able to exploit more than four cores. Then again, the competition sells even faster processors available at lower power ceilings, if you have more money to spend.
If you pre-suppose that your sample is tainted why bother to do the testing and the article in the first place. Perhaps this is a case where your should purchase the product of the shelf in order to better serve your readers.
I think we all get it Vishera isn't exactly wonderful in single core operations, but:
A) I have yet to see any software which requires A LOT of single core power, it's 2014, if something is still single-core, it probably doesn't need all that power or il old enough to make even Vishera good at it.
B) You are comparing a 2012 architecture to a 4790K, It's like comparing Pentium 4 to a Pentium G3258.
If you pre-suppose that your sample is tainted why bother to do the testing and the article in the first place. Perhaps this is a case where your should purchase the product of the shelf in order to better serve your readers.
8150, 8320, 8230e, 8350, 8370e.
That would demonstrate the improvements of Vishera over Bulldozer, as well as any improvements offered by binning.
1) almost every vendor does this, cpus, graphics, ect..
2) the chip they received is exactly what you get when you buy it off the shelf, however every cpu/gpu ect varies by a small amount. The vendors simply make sure that review sites get the top end of that group. In all honesty we are probably talking 3% performance from the majority at most.
My 8320 will happily run 3.5/3.6ghz @ 1.15v as long as turbo core is disabled.
I will probably get the 8320E for my office computer during Black Friday. $140 is the price right now but I prefer $125 or less for an AMD CPU.
Far too many people forget the whole cost of OCing a chip. Sure, a 4.5 83XX can slightly beat a stock i5, but at what cost? The 6300 is a far more compelling CPU for tweakers. If you're lucky on a few sales, you can get the chip, cooler, and mboard for the same $200. And as pointed out here, unless you're pairing it with a top-shelf GPU, you won't see any gaming benefits with a pricier platform.
This is AMD's latest offering. The Haswell refresh is Intel's latest offering. Whatever the products' pedigrees, why shouldn't the two latest SKUs be compared?
AMD is embarrassing itself with these "new" releases. It is quite sad. I wonder how many more years they will milk "Piledriver"?
agreed, this cpu need new (limited) mobo to operate.. this making it's a minus point...
anyways we need to keep advocating good balanced built more often..
I see lot's of people keep waste money in one (op) part to only be limited by another parts in his system...
(the true potential of the system is nowhere to be seen)
agreed, this cpu need new (limited) mobo to operate.. this making it's a minus point...
anyways we need to keep advocating good balanced built more often..
I see lot's of people keep waste money in one (op) part to only be limited by another parts in his system...
(the true potential of the system is nowhere to be seen)
Agreed, too many people, and some that I personally know will throw a high end K chip in their rig and match it with a $120 GPU while not wanting to overclock said CPU, and then get mad because they can't max out new titles. Recently, a friend's brand new i7 rig was out ran by my overclocked FX rig in a bet on the Metro LL benchmark due to his GTX 650 GPU vs my heavily overclocked R9 280X
However, it seems that AMD won't be making any new CPU architectures until 2016. I'm doubtful that AMD will manage to push the clock any further in the near-future, though 5 GHz is possible. A 200W part will make your PC a space heater.
For the 2016 build, there's a chance that AMD may be revamping the CPU drastically, but there's also the chance that AMD will just give up. The third alternative is that they will release a CPU update for game consoles.
I'm also doubtful about the hybrid x86/ARM chip they want to make. In theory, it's sound, but I'm thinking of the complications from programming the thing, plus the potential for bugs.