AMD FX-8350 Review: Does Piledriver Fix Bulldozer's Flaws?

By Chris Angelini
published

Last year, AMD launched its Bulldozer architecture to disappointed enthusiasts who were hoping to see the company rise to its former glory. Today, we get an FX processor based on the Piledriver update. Does it give power users something to celebrate?

Benchmark Results: PCMark 7

Futuremark’s PCMark 7 is on notice, in a way. In testing integrated graphics for Core i5-3570K, -3550, -3550S, And -3570T: Ivy Bridge Efficiency, I discovered that the application was weighing performance from the Ivy Bridge architecture’s Quick Sync feature incredibly aggressively. That won’t affect today’s story, given our use of Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 680, but the fact that AMD’s FX-8350 gets ranked below Intel’s Core i5-2550K indicates to us that the test isn’t fully taxing the Piledriver-based processor.

The FX’s performance in the Productivity and Entertainment suites mirrors the Overall benchmark’s results, though the Creativity and Computation sub-tests show the new FX-8350 doing much better. We’ll need to fire up the real-world metrics in our armada of benchmarks to draw more definitive conclusions.

Chris Angelini
Chris Angelini
Chris Angelini is an Editor Emeritus at Tom's Hardware US. He edits hardware reviews and covers high-profile CPU and GPU launches.
291 Comments Comment from the forums
  • amuffin
    Looks like AMD did pretty well with the 8350.

    I now really don't see people purchasing it though....people will be buying the 8320.
    Reply
  • kracker
    Interesting, nice improvement over BD, it spars very closely or beats the i5-3570K sometimes, It really can't compete with intel's high end, but nevertheless good job AMD!
    Reply
  • sixdegree
    AMD is doing good with the pricing this time. This is what AMD should be: aggressively priced CPU with added features.
    Reply
  • esrever
    The price is actually nice this time. Hopefully AMD sticks around and gives good deals like this for years to come.
    Reply
  • Nice job AMD. It just kept itself afloat! Not performance killer, but good enough to get a chunk of desktop sales just in time for the holiday season. Probably wouldn't buy it over an Intel system because most apps are still quite single threaded, but I would certainly consider it. Welcome back to the race AMD. Keep up the good work!
    Reply
  • najirion
    so... amd will still keep my local electric provider happy. Good job AMD but I think FM2 APUs are more promising. The fact that APUs alone can win against intel processors if discrete graphics is not involved. Perhaps AMD should focus in their APU line like integrating better gpus in those apus that will allow dual 7xxx graphics and not just dual 6xxx hybrid graphics. The entire FX architecture seems to have the issue with its high power consumption and poor single-thread performance. Better move on AMD...
    Reply
  • dscudella
    I would have liked to see more Intel offerings in the Benchmarks. Say an i3-2120 & i3-3220 for comparisons sake as they'll be cheaper than the new Piledrivers.

    If more games / daily use apps start using more cores these new AMD's could really take off.
    Reply
  • EzioAs
    Interesting. Probably not a gamers first choice but for users who regularly use multi-threaded programs, the 8350 should be very compelling. About $30 cheaper than a 3570K and can be overclock as well, video/photo editors should really consider this. It doesn't beat current Intel CPUs in power efficiency but at least it's significantly more efficient than Bulldozer.

    Thanks for the review.
    Btw Chris, how many cups of joe did you had to take for the overclocking testing? ;)
    Reply
  • sorry just not overly impressed.
    5-12% performance increase 12% less power - sound familiar?
    the only difference this time was less hype before the release. (lesson well learned AMD!)
    Reply
  • gorz
    I think the fx-4300 is going to be the new recommended budget gaming processor. Good price that is only going to get lower, and it has overclocking.
    Reply