Does the new FX-8370E represent a step forward for AMD’s FX line of processors? Giving a clear answer is somewhat of a challenge. Our test sample performs about the same as its predecessors at similar clock rates, but draws less power doing so. However, we only tested one unit, and it’s always possible that AMD sent us a choice sample. Plus, there is almost certainly variance from one -8370E to the next. And so it's hard to know if the FX-8370E is actually better. Based on our measurements, all we can say is that the CPU in our lab is better than those that came before.
Directly comparing the FX processors in general to the FX-8370E specifically, and then adding Intel's competing models, does give us some clearer answers, though. Nothing changes, which is to say that Intel is still in the lead. It’s plain to see that AMD hasn’t invested in real innovation, at least not in this model. Instead, its recomposes existing ingredients into a somewhat more savory dish.
Bottom Line
The AMD FX-8370E isn’t a bad CPU, and it actually provides decent and acceptable performance in certain areas. A comparison to its direct competition does make it abundantly clear that we're dealing with an old architecture demonstrating noticeable weaknesses, though. The only way to sell it at this point is via lower prices.
This is exactly where we encounter our main problem. For the AMD FX-8370E’s performance, an MSRP of $199 is way too high. In Europe, the first vendors have the new processor listed for 190 Euros, and it just doesn’t offer enough performance to warrant that. Locally, you'll find the processor right around $200.
We’d like to revisit our introductory comments about the importance of street pricing. In the end, what we wrote then is the bottom line now. Whether AMD’s FX-8370E makes sense depends on what you pay for it. At $200, we think AMD needs to do some trimming.
Clarification: This article was updated at 6:25 pm ET to clear up confusion about sampling concerns and our editorial stance on AMD’s greater CPU business.


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.