Testseek.se har samlat 266 tester av AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz Socket AM3 Plus och det genomsnittliga betyget är 79%. Scrolla ned och se alla testerna för AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz Socket AM3 Plus.
Juli 2015
(79%)
266 Tester
Genomsnittligt betyg av experter som har testat produkten.
Användare
(93%)
2719 Tester
Genomsnittligt betyg av ägare till produkten.
790100266
Testarna gillade
Billig
Strömsnål
Bra flertårdsprestanda
Extrem flertrådad prestanda
Upplåst överklockning
Modern plattform
Goda anslutningsmöjligheter
Bra prestanda med de flesta applikationer som använder flera trådar
Olåst multipel
Godkända överklockningsresultat
Bra relation mellan pris/prestanda (prisvärd)
Förhållandevis god prestanda i tungt flertrådade applikationer
Upplåst multiplier för överklockning
Goda överklockningsmarginaler
Aggressiv prissättning
Förhållandevis bra prestanda i flertrådsapplikationer. Lätt att överklocka. Priset
Testarna gillade inte
Flyttalsprestandan
Begränsad L3-cache
Låg OC-potential
Tappar prestanda vid dåligt trådade scenarion
Något sämre energieffektivitet än storebror
Dyr plattform
Kräver sannolikt ny processorkylare
Prestandan med en processorkärna är mindre bra
Spelprestandan kunde ha varit bättre
Hög strömförbrukning
Enkeltrådad prestanda ligger långt efter Intel
Fortfarande hög strömförbrukning
Enkeltrådad prestanda och strömeffektivitet långt efter Intel
Sammanfattning: 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 ...
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...
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...
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...
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...
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...
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...
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...
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...
Publicerad: 2012-10-23, Författare: Steven , testad av: techspot.com
Sammanfattning: 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...
