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.
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...
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...
