Pure Overclock – Computer Hardware News, Reviews and More


AMD FX-8370 & FX-8370E Processor Review

Posted September 2, 2014 by Sandy Bruce in CPU & Motherboards


Manufacturer: ,
Release Date: September 2nd 2014
Specifications: AM3+
Price at time of Review: FX-9590- $229 FX-8370 & 8370E- $199 FX-8320E- $147


Lower Wattage for 8370E & 8320E. New Lower Price for select models, Upgrade path for 95w board users


Negligible gains vs 8350, 95w performance hit vs 125w
These are focused on those users currently sitting below the FX-8320 or needing a higher end 95w part. At the end of the day AMD created an upgrade path for more users and made it more competitive in that mid/high gamer market. because of the lower price.
by Sandy Bruce
Full Article





We all know the woes AMD and their fans have been dealing with over the last few years so we will not be hashing that topic again. We will instead focus on the updated line for what they are, a place holder. They are designed to hold the interest of fans, budget shoppers and gamers until further notice. There have been no grand design changes that will suddenly put AMD on top of the performance heap. Instead, this is a product to cover those that have yet to make the switch from an older AM3 or AM3+ CPU or even a lesser CPU in the current AM3+ product stack. There is also a shift in how the FX series chips line up to the competition. We will move right into the overview and benchmarks that cover the new FX-8370 and FX-8370E 8 core CPUs.


Press Release logo


Introducing AMD FX Optimized for Power and Efficiency

Multi-core processing is the future. Game engines are being designed to do more at a time; particle effects, physics calculations, light rays, and shadows are growing progressively more complex by the day. Large-scale computing now relies more on the overall throughput of parallelism than the singular speed of CPU cores.


Today, AMD FX-Series CPUs return to push the boundaries of value to the high-performance desktop platform – introducing the speed-optimized 125W AMD FX-8370 and power-optimized 95W AMD FX-8370E and AMD FX-8320E processors. Featuring the “Piledriver” x86 core architecture, all of our new FX solutions feature 8 native CPU cores for productivity at superior price points. Experience seamless multitasking and unleash the real capabilities of multi-threaded applications. Unlocked out of the box, AMD FX Processors have full potential to unleash additional performance via overclocking1. Paired with the latest AMD Radeon R9 graphics cards, AMD FX platforms will also allow you enable our revolutionary Mantle2 and TrueAudio3 technologies.






    I will still have the AMD FX 6300 in my son’s system. No reason to upgrade from what I see here considering what he uses and I use his pc at times for.


    “Instead these are focused on those users currently sitting below the FX-8320 or are needing a higher end 95w part.”

    I’m inclined to agree, and, with that in mind, I’m puzzled that the FX-8350 wasn’t underclocked to simulate the FX-8320 when these benchmarks were executed. Not to mention including the FX-6300, or, at least an attempt to approximate one by disabling a module.

    It was pretty much a given that the FX-8370E wasn’t going to be a stand-out among the processors chosen for these tests. It’s value, if any, would only be truly revealed by comparing it with mid-to-lower tier members of the FX family.

    Including a Zambezi example would have been a plus, even a 125W example, as it is entirely likely that there might be FX-8120/8150 users who appreciate eight integer threads, but would like to have some relief from their current power/cooling/noise situation.

      Sandy Bruce

      I am pleased to hear you enjoyed the review but there is no need to be puzzled. Time and using the board provided was a major factor. 4 days to complete and would have had to re-bench any processor in this board to get valid results. New Product launches can be tough. So the review pairings were based on a price range and relevance to the product(s) being reviewed. Under-clocking, disabling cores and any approximation creates questions about the validity of the data set because additional variables were introduced that in all likelihood can not be recreated anywhere else.The entire bios setup would need to be published with each mention of the newly created variable. Not going to happen. By using every part as it comes the data is easily reproducible by anyone using the same hardware. Basically we review products as they come not as we would like them to be.

      Over the course of time we replace older hardware, as such we no longer have the FX-8150/8120 products. The FX-6300 was left out as it is no longer relevant in this discussion because it is 50% less then most of the lineup. It would compare more to A10-5800k APU $10 more or an FX-4300 as it is only $5 less than a FX-6300. It priced itself out of being compared to top end products from AMD or Intel.


    I’m not sure why AMD didn’t just make the OEM FX-8300 a mainstream part? It’s 95W and clocked at 3.3GHz with a 4.2GHz turbo so it’s quite similar to the FX-8370E.

Leave a Response


Find us on Google+