Testseek.com have collected 266 expert reviews of the AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz Socket AM3 Plus and the average rating is 79%. Scroll down and see all reviews for AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz Socket AM3 Plus.
July 2015
(79%)
266 Reviews
Average score from experts who have reviewed this product.
Users
(93%)
2719 Reviews
Average score from owners of the product.
790100266
The editors liked
Excellent Price
Improved "Piledriver" Cores
AMD Turbo Core 3.0
Improved latencies compared to FX8150
4GHz out of the box (4.2GHz with Turbo Core)
Unlocked
5GHz Overclockable
Excellent Multi-threading Performance
Very Reasonable Price
Strong Overclocking Potential
Best OEM Cooler Available
Improved performance and power consumption over previous generation products.
Reasonably priced
Appreciable performance improvements with multicore-optimized software
Compatible with older AMD socket and motherboards
Good Performance
Decent Overclocker
Improved Efficiency
Easy Upgrade For Existing AMD Owners
Lower priced processor and cheaper motherboards
An overall performer with decent scores in almost all benchmarks should be sufficient reasons to get the AMD FX-8350
Designed for overclocking
This processor really does double up on clock speeds without
Eight cores and 5GHz on your desktop computer
Officially supports DDR31866 memory
Better performance than Intel on multithreaded tasks
An FX system has 38 usable PCIE lanes as opposed to the 24 lanes of a Sandy Bridge system
Excellent price/performance ratio
Finally competitive with Intel in the $200 CPU range
Excellent affordability versus computing power
Low platform price
NEW Piledriver CPU core design
Improved "Per Clock" performance
Compatible with existing AM3+ products
The editors didn't like
Power consumption and temperatures have been improved but still high
Lack Luster Single Threaded Performance
Still lags Intel in important areas like gaming
Still lags behind in single-core tests
Uses much more power than comparable Intel chips
Which also have on-chip graphics
Dated Platform
Intel CPUs Still Clearly Faster
Outdated technology that does not match up to latest generation of processors from Intel
Eats a lot of power in stock configuration and naturally heats up when overclocked
With Ryzen 5 coming out shortly
The 8350 might just have breathed its last
Shou
Single core performance still lags far behind Intel
Few programs use new FX instructions like fused multiplyadd
So the full performance potential remains untapped
Same maximum TDP as previous products
Perhaps a bit late to the market. It still uses 32nm while Intel is on 22nm
Higher power consumption than Intel products
"Low" but adequate single-threaded performance will not appeal to some
AMD has done a lot to improve the FX-8350 considering the lack of usual CPU architecture improvements. With no change in die size, TDP or production process, its managed to squeeze up to 15 per cent more performance out of this chip, all whilst lowering p...
Abstract: The AMD FX-8350 has a slight performance-per-Watt advantage over the FX-8150 when running OpenSSL. Through a wide variety of benchmarks, the average system power consumption for the AMD FX-8350 in the system with the ASUS Crosshair V Formula mother...
Abstract: AMD FX 8350 - 8320 - 6300 and 4300 processors performance analyzedAMD released the FX series Vishera - Piledriver based processor. And though everybody has been focusing on that most high-end AMD FX 8350 processor, another three processors have been relea...
Reasonably priced, Appreciable performance improvements with multicore-optimized software, Compatible with older AMD socket and motherboards
Still lags behind in single-core tests, Uses much more power than comparable Intel chips, which also have on-chip graphics
AMD's new-for-2012 octo-core desktop processor shows improved performance with software that takes full advantage of all cores. It's a good option for upgraders with an earlier AMD FX-based system, but single-core performance and power efficiency still f...
Eight cores and 5GHz on your desktop computer, Officially supports DDR31866 memory, Better performance than Intel on multithreaded tasks, An FX system has 38 usable PCIE lanes as opposed to the 24 lanes of a Sandy Bridge system, Excellent price/performance ratio, finally competitive with Intel in the $200 CPU range,
Single core performance still lags far behind Intel, Few programs use new FX instructions like fused multiplyadd, so the full performance potential remains untapped
Benchmark tests should always be taken with a grain of salt. It's difficult to try and isolate the performance difference a single component in a computer system makes, especially when it's necessary to compare across different manufacturers and platf...
Good Performance, Decent Overclocker, Improved Efficiency, Easy Upgrade For Existing AMD Owners
Dated Platform, Intel CPUs Still Clearly Faster
Even before AMD officially released its Bulldozer-based FX-Series of desktop processors last year, the company was already talking about the follow-on microarchitecture codenamed “Piledriver”. In fact, in the conclusion of our launch article featuring the...
Abstract: From the initial testing of the brand new AMD FX-8350 "Vishera", the performance was admirable, especially compared to last year's bit of a troubled start with the AMD FX Bulldozer processors. For many of the Linux computational benchmarks carried out ...
We are big fans of AMD here at OC3D. Not only did we start with AMD CPUs back in the Thunderbird days, but as people who like technology in all forms it's important that all the major manufacturers have healthy competition. Just as the Pentium III was out...
The FX-8350 is closer to what the FX-8150 should have been. There, I said it, and I think that pretty much sums up the comparison…so if you stop reading right now, you at least have the right take away. The CPU performs better in almost all facets, ru...
