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Outdated technology that does not match up to latest generation of processors from Intel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
then. I'll keep saying this, personally I would have preferred a faster per core performing AMD quad-core processor rather then an eight-core processor with reduced nice per core performance. However we do have to be clear here, we have been working with...
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
Power consumption and temperatures have been improved but still high
Expectations have been mixed in regards to the new “Piledriver” core processors, mostly because of the hype that surrounded Bulldozer and the consequent results that were not up to par with what most enthusiasts wished. It also did not help that Bulldoz...
Abstract: Last year's launch of AMD's FX processors was honestly disappointing. The Bulldozer CPU cores that were bundled into each Zambezi chip were hardly power efficient and in many areas couldn't significantly outperform AMD's previous generation platform. Look...
Abstract: Bulldozer is the word. Ok, perhaps it is not “the” word, but it is “a” word. When AMD let that little codename slip some years back, AMD enthusiasts and tech journalists started to salivate about the possibilities. Here was a unique and very new...
I didn't give Bulldozer as bad a review as a lot of people did. Unlike many, I tried to look at Bulldozer as just any other CPU, not the return of the FX of days past, when AMD ruled the roost and Intel was playing catch up. I gave Bulldozer an Overcloc...
Published: 2012-10-23, Author: Steven , review by: techspot.com
Abstract: About this time last year, AMD's new Bulldozer-based FX series launched to bright-eyed system builders who expected the new architecture to challenge Intel's increasingly comfortable position in the upper-end processor market. Unfortunately, Bulldozer was...
Published: 2012-10-22, Author: Dan , review by: legitreviews.com
The AMD FX-8350 has a number of strong points that make it a great choice for your computer. If you're looking to upgrade from an older system you really can't beat the price to performance ratio offered with an eight core 4GHz processor processor fo...
Excellent affordability versus computing power, Low platform price, NEW Piledriver CPU core design, Improved "Per Clock" performance, Compatible with existing AM3+ products
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
What can I say? AMD has priced these new FX-8350 CPUs in such a way that there is no doubt: they make an attractive alternative to their Intel counterparts, and AMD seems focused on keeping that price difference no matter what. AMD can't take Intel ove...
Back then, a year ago, when we first met the desktop Zambezi processors, it already felt like AMD Bulldozer didn’t really end up in a good spot. We can’t say that AMD’s microarchitecture is flawed. On the contrary, it is very interesting and is capabl...
This is one of those occasions where AMD has done their job well, but we can’t really celebrate quite yet. The new flagship AMD FX-8350 “Vishera” definitively takes the title of champion amongst AMD processors. The Phenom II 1100T 6-core CPU can’t even...
