If you run slower, you sweat less. AMD probably thought about that at the time and decided to close a gap in the portfolio with the FX-8370E. But is the CPU itself really more efficient and what actually happens when you increase the clock a bit? There they were, 9 years ago: AMD’s three new FX models FX-8370, FX-8370E as well as FX-8320E. And why am I bringing up this old review of mine again this morning? It’s a bridging and a little thought support for the launch article for the Ryzen 7800X3D, which will probably be published this afternoon. And it will then show nicely what has changed in less than 10 years…
AMD had also made some price adjustments to the older models at the time, although at least the prices of the newly released models are still darn close to the dollar MSRP. To be fair, this caused us to exclude the price comparison for now. We will also see in the course of the old test why the street prices have settled much below these perceptions and it was idle to make hasty comparisons. And that’s why I’ll let the original have its say again…
AMD provided us with the FX-8370E (3.3 GHz base clock) together with the motherboard for testing, since the CPU could not be made to run on the still available AM3+ motherboards and suitable BIOS updates were still pending. In addition, AMD promised a TDP of 95 watts for this processor – not bad considering the previous power consumption of the FX model line. But stop! How actually does AMD achieve this sudden change? Selection, improved manufacturing or just a lower clock rate?
Focus on energy efficiency? That’s fine with us!
We’ll take AMD’s word for it, or rather the specified TDP: We’ll align the content of this review a bit differently this time due to AMD’s statements and our technical possibilities, and we’ll also completely change the order of the content. Of course, we will also benchmark this CPU properly, but only at the end and under very special premises. We want to find out what this CPU really consumes in performance with factory clock and Turbo, where the sweet spot is and when overclocking slips into the silly and surreal. We will then also run our benchmarks with these three determined clock rates in our luggage.
However, AMD scored a small own goal with the delivered motherboard – an ASRock Fatal1ty 990FX Killer – because the board’s idle power consumption was already much higher than what we are used to from AM3+ boards. Therefore, the values measured directly at the motherboard are (unnecessarily) higher than it would have been necessary for this CPU declared as energy-saving. However, we will discuss this topic and also the question of what this has to do with a burnt finger in more detail on the next page.
We’ll spare ourselves a theory section this time, because it’s just another FX in terms of the chip – nothing more, nothing less. If you are interested in the technical basics and history of the FX model series, you can read the following launch articles and reviews. How this new CPU now positions itself between the other models with four modules and eight threads is shown in the final table:
| Base Clock |
max. turbo | L2/L3 cache | NB Clock | TDP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AMD FX-9590 | 4.7 GHz | 5.0 GHz | 8 MByte / 8 MByte | 2.4 GHz | 220 watt |
| AMD FX-9370 | 4.4 GHz | 4.7 GHz | 8 MByte / 8 MByte | 2.4 GHz | 220 watt |
| AMD FX-8370E | 3.3 GHz | 4.3 GHz | 8 MByte / 8 MByte | 2.2 GHz | 95 watt |
| AMD FX-8370 | 4.0 GHz | 4.3 GHz | 8 MByte / 8 MByte | 2.2 GHz | 125 watt |
| AMD FX-8350 | 4.0 GHz | 4.2 GHz | 8 MByte / 8 MByte | 2.2 GHz | 125 watt |
| AMD FX-8320E | 3.2 GHz | 4.0 GHz | 8 MByte / 8 MByte | 2.2 GHz | 95 watt |
| AMD FX-8320 | 3.5 GHz | 4.0 GHz | 8 MByte / 8 MByte | 2.2 GHz | 125 watt |
| AMD FX-8300 | 3.3 GHz | 3.9 GHz | 8 MByte / 8 MByte | 2.0 GHz | 95 watt |
18 Antworten
Kommentar
Lade neue Kommentare
Veteran
Urgestein
Urgestein
Urgestein
Urgestein
Mitglied
Urgestein
Urgestein
Urgestein
Mitglied
Urgestein
Neuling
Mitglied
Mitglied
1
Mitglied
Mitglied
Mitglied
Alle Kommentare lesen unter igor´sLAB Community →