Skip to main content

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

Benchmark Results: Content Creation

A nearly last-place finish for FX-8150 turns into a second-place prize for FX-8350 in our 3ds Max 2012 workload. This time last year we were wondering how AMD could justify charging more for its new flagship than a Core i5-2500K. Now, by bringing the price of FX-8350 down to $200, it’s beating a pricier Core i5-3570K and nipping at the heels of a $320 CPU.

Both FX-based processors actually do pretty well in Blender, similar to what we saw last year (even if this time around we’re using the newer Cycles engine). In fact, even the old Thuban-based Phenom II X6 manages to best Intel’s Core i5-3570K.

The Cinebench single-threaded test illustrates what we’ve known for a year: AMD’s per-core performance is pretty dismal compared to Intel’s. Piledriver at least allows AMD to match the older Stars architecture in the Phenom II X6 and X4 parts. However, Intel’s Ivy Bridge-based CPUs—particularly the Hyper-Threading-equipped Core i7—are much stronger.

Brute-forcing performance with higher clock rates and as many as eight integer clusters allows FX-8350 to snag a second-place finish in the threaded benchmark.

The same speed-up that changed AMD’s position in 3ds Max also affects the results in SolidWorks. The FX-8150 loses out to the $200 Core i5-3470. Meanwhile, the new model manages to top the Core i5-3570K, landing in second place yet again.

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.