AMD FX-8370E Review: Pulling The Handbrake For More Efficiency

Features
By ,
published

Going more slowly is more efficient. That’s what AMD must have thought when they designed its new FX-8370E processor, thus closing a gap in the company's line-up. We evaluate whether this CPU is really more efficient and what happens when we overclock it.

The Same CPU, Reprised

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.

Igor Wallossek
62 Comments Comment from the forums
  • MeteorsRaining
    The price point is a deal breaker. Its a fairly good CPU for AMD builders, but can't give it the tag of budget builder, you get i5 non-K in that price. Its moving into a higher (cost wise) territory with weak arsenal.
    Reply
  • The_Doc
    How to start a benchmark review? But of course, let's show how powerful is AMD in single core!

    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.

    Reply
  • husker
    Article quote: "However, it's probable that AMD sent us a sample chosen specifically for this purpose. 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."

    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.
    Reply
  • 1991ATServerTower
    I would have liked to see a power consumption chart of the following cpus all clocked to 3.8GHz.

    8150, 8320, 8230e, 8350, 8370e.

    That would demonstrate the improvements of Vishera over Bulldozer, as well as any improvements offered by binning.
    Reply
  • oxxfatelostxxo
    "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."

    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.
    Reply
  • ShadyHamster
    Any chance the older 8320/50 could be tested at the same voltages and clock speeds to better compare power usage?
    My 8320 will happily run 3.5/3.6ghz @ 1.15v as long as turbo core is disabled.
    Reply
  • m32
    I've had a few 8350's that needed 1.41-1.45v for 4.5. These E models needs less voltage compared to the originals when dealing with "moderate" overclocks.

    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.
    Reply
  • Chris Droste
    for all we know a nice, process-refined 8350 is the exact same chip under the hood, they just clocked it down and gave it a new name. someone wake me when AMD starts to innovate desktop CPUs again.
    Reply
  • hmp_goose
    While it's nice to see a sweet spot staked out for the OC, and really nice to hear about how much smaller the heatsink can be, what I'd like to see if the E OCs cooler/ less wattage then the two non-Es. I like to think a 8350 is better then a 8320 if you care about power consumption at all, and want to see if the trend continues with the 8370 & 8370E …
    Reply
  • RedJaron
    14227111 said:
    The price point is a deal breaker. Its a fairly good CPU for AMD builders, but can't give it the tag of budget builder, you get i5 non-K in that price. Its moving into a higher (cost wise) territory with weak arsenal.
    Precisely, which goes right along with what Igor said:

    Yes 4.5 GHz and higher is possible, but at a certain point you're going to spend too much on a beefy motherboard and high-end cooler, negating the value of overclocking outright.
    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.


    14227240 said:
    B) You are comparing a 2012 architecture to a 4790K, It's like comparing Pentium 4 to a Pentium G3258.
    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?
    Reply