The Vishera Review: AMD FX-8350, FX-8320, FX-6300 and FX-4300 Tested
by Anand Lal Shimpi on October 23, 2012 12:00 AM ESTPhotoshop Performance
Adobe Photoshop CS4
To measure performance under Photoshop CS4 we turn to the Retouch Artists’ Speed Test. The test does basic photo editing; there are a couple of color space conversions, many layer creations, color curve adjustment, image and canvas size adjustment, unsharp mask, and finally a gaussian blur performed on the entire image.
The whole process is timed and thanks to the use of Intel's X25-M SSD as our test bed hard drive, performance is far more predictable than back when we used to test on mechanical disks.
Time is reported in seconds and the lower numbers mean better performance. The test is multithreaded and can hit all four cores in a quad-core machine.
We see similar results in our Photoshop benchmark, Vishera falls behind a bit as this test isn't threaded enough to showcase the platform's advantages.
3D Rendering Performance
Our new POV-Ray benchmark uses the latest beta binary (3.7RC6) and runs through both single and multithreaded versions of the popular raytracing benchmark.
The latest POV-Ray test gives us a good look at single threaded performance. Here AMD was able to increase performance over the FX-8150 by 11%, however Intel's Core i5 3570K still manages to hold on to a 20% performance lead over the FX-8350.
Running the same benchmark but multithreaded puts AMD at the top. With the exception of the FX-6300, all of the AMD parts beat out their Intel counterparts.
Cinebench 11.5
Created by the Cinema 4D folks we have Cinebench, a popular 3D rendering benchmark that gives us both single and multi-threaded 3D rendering results.
Cinebench 11.5 paints an even more dire picture for AMD's single threaded performance - Intel manages a 40% advantage over the FX-8350.
Multithreaded performance however continues to be great.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
250 Comments
View All Comments
klatscho - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link
but at least priced decently.leexgx - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link
still like how AMD think they have 8 full cores in there (some sites list the Modules not FP cores in their lists)8x is 4 Modules (4M/8T)
6x is 3 Modules (3M/6T)
4x is 2 Modules (2M/4T)
they hardly outperform stock clocked matched cpus (that they listed)
leexgx - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link
also to add if you own an Bulldozer (or Vishera) type of cpu you should all ready have these patches installedhttp://support.microsoft.com/kb/2646060
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2645594
Penti - Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - link
There are 8 fully pipelined integer cores in there, they are just very weak. Some of it is the shared frontend/decoder some of it is the integer execution units themselves. Weak SIMD/FPU-performance isn't the only thing it got. It just does so much less. You don't have two pipelines with separate resources to achieve SMT/HT. They need wider execution here. Preferably dropping the shared front end thing too. Makes no point of having it around, focus on making it faster and dump all that cache which does no good. Mobile/Notebook chips can't really have 16MB of cache any way. Just a few MB.DDR4 - Wednesday, November 7, 2012 - link
It's just a marketing thing, the cores don't have that much power, AMD's just looking to do better than Intel in one area.P39Airacobra - Wednesday, May 14, 2014 - link
And you base this on the first that came to your mind to make you feel better about you over paying for your wimpy little 4 core Intel CPU with half the power of a FX-8320. LOLP39Airacobra - Wednesday, May 14, 2014 - link
Just kidding I have a i5 myself, But guys you really should stop being such fanboys. AMD has a great Chip here with the FX-8320 and FX-8350. They are priced much lower than the top i5 CPU, And they will perform just as well in gaming if not better. And who cares about it using 125 watts? 125 watts is a bit more than what Intel's i5's use , But it can still be ran more than fine with a High end GPU with just a decent 600watt mainstream PSU like a CX600.spooky2th - Tuesday, June 3, 2014 - link
Intel i5's can handle faster memory than any amp chip. They have a stronger MC plus they OC very well too. With the 1155 socket the amd chips were barely keeping up. Since haswell the speed champs are intel cpu's hands down and with the z97 boards and the new processors that will only work with the 97 boards, look out amd! Better OC'ing and handling faster memory than before!DesiredUser - Friday, February 12, 2016 - link
Currently, FX-8350 costs over $200.Used Xeon 5647 costs just $50 and beats a crap out of it.
Both support ECC. Go figure.
Homeles - Sunday, October 28, 2012 - link
Because performance = core count. Brilliant.