AMD FX-8350 Review + BenchMark ~ Saad Reviews (Reviews + Benchmarks)

AMD, the Red colored brand name, who is best , who made better CPUs ,the faster ones, the performer, These questions asked most often .Battle b/t Intel and AMD has been started many years ago and they become Big rivals as there is no major brand in Processor Market so AMD launch their New Fx-8350 8-Core processor as it littler brother 8150 was also a 8-core processor as well.This AMD FX-8350 is the direct successor to the AMD FX-8150, the top-of-the-line eight-core chip from the first-gen Bulldozer range. This is a similarly-specced CPU, which means we have eight AMD cores in a four module array with eight threads of processing power. This time around, though, AMD has made sure the top chip is also clocked the fastest with a speed bump up from the AMD FX-8150’s 3.6GHz up to an impressive 4GHz straight out of the box. FX-8350.

Overall, the group feels that AMD has at least closed the gap a bit on Intel's Core juggernaut with a much better FX offering this time around, but overall the desktop CPU landscape remains unchanged -- with Intel still firmly at the top of the heap. Compared to its last-gen Bulldozer chips, "in every way, today's FX-8350 is better," according to Tom's Hardware: cheaper, up to 15 percent faster and more energy efficient. Still, while the new CPUs represent AMD's desktop high-end, they only stack up against Intel's mid-range Core i5 family, and even against that line-up they only edge ahead in heavily threaded testing. But if you "look beyond those specific (multithreaded) applications, Intel can pull away with a significant lead" due to its superior design, says Anantech. As for power consumption, unfortunately "the FX-8350 isn't even the same class of product as the Ivy Bridge Core i5 processors on this front," claims The Tech Report.Bulldozer-equipped AMD FX-8150, our main criticisms revolved around the fact that few, if any, Windows programs are optimised to take advantage of so many cores. We found that even video-encoding, which traditionally works well with multiple cores, could only use around 50% of the processor. This put the FX-8150 at a disadvantage over Intel's processors, as each individual core was slower and the advantage of having more than four cores was all but nullified by software limitations.Despite all that, Hot Hardware still sees several niches that AMD could fill with the new chips, as they'll provide "an easy upgrade path for existing AMD owners and more flexibility for overclocking, due to its unlocked multipliers." That means if you already have a Socket-AM3+ motherboard, you'll be able to do a cheap upgrade by swapping in the new CPU, and punching up the clock cycles might close the performance gap enjoyed by the Core i5. Finally, AMD also saw fit to bring the new chip in at a "very attractive" $195 by Hexus' reckoning, a much lower price than an earlier leak suggested. Despite that, however, the site says that AMD's flagship FX processor still "cannot tick as many desirable checkboxes as the competing Intel Core i5 chips.Two of the four SKUs boast eight integer cores, or four Piledriver modules, however you choose to label AMD’s compute units. The flagship, FX-8350, features a base clock rate of 4 GHz. Turbo Core technology is able to push that to 4.2 GHz in lightly-threaded workloads, though most of the chip’s speed-up undoubtedly comes from its default state. How much does Turbo Core really do for FX-8350? Not much. In iTunes, our single-threaded benchmark finishes three seconds faster with the feature on.An FX-8320 drops the base clock rate to 3.5 GHz, though Turbo Core pushes that to 4 GHz under defined thermal limits (a 500 MHz speed-up is likely more meaningful to FX-8320). Both eight-core models include 8 MB of L2 cache (split into one shared 2 MB slice per module) and 8 MB of L3 cache (shared between all four of the SoC’s modules). AMD is suggesting a $195 price tag on FX-8350 and a $169 price on FX-8320.FX-6300 comes equipped with three active modules (six cores) and drops pricing all the way to $132. A 3.5 GHz base clock rate helps take advantage of the architecture’s strengths in threaded apps, while a 4.1 GHz peak Turbo Core setting tries to compensate for lackluster single-threaded speed. Like the four-module parts, FX-6300 exposes 2 MB of shared L2 per module (totaling 6 MB in this case) and a shared 8 MB L3 cache. Fewer active resources (along with a slightly slower 2 GHz northbridge clock) allow FX-6300 to fit within a 95 W thermal ceiling, down from the 125 W limit imposed by both FX-83x0 processors.while the arguments for the budget builders going for an AMD platform over an Intel one still ring true, it’s not this eight-core version we’d be talking about. It may still be cheaper than an Intel Core i5-3570K, but not by enough to really make a tangible difference. When you’re just talking around £20-30 then we’d say swallow the hit and go for the Intel. The six-core AMD Piledriver CPU is the one we’d suggest taking a look at for a budget build, though this AMD FX-8350 is still an impressive, competitive new chip from AMD.AMD FX-8350 is good processor and its better than the previous 8 core processor 8150 and earliers but it is still not a good performer as an 8-Core processor should be.I means that if Intel launch an 8 core processor than can you imagine? It may perform twice as fast as 2x Fx-8350s.
Its a good processor but still not as good as we expect.
Let take a look at few benchmarks....