Review Index:
Feedback

AMD FX-8350 and FX-6300 Processor Review: Vishera Breaks Cover

Author: Josh Walrath
Subject: Processors
Manufacturer: AMD

Power, Overclocking, and Heat

 

Power

AMD has worked very hard in controlling their power consumption, but it has not always been easy.  While Zambezi stayed within TDP limits at stock speeds, it could really suck the juice when overclocked.

View Full Size

View Full Size

At idle all of the parts do pretty well, with the 1100T being the most power hungry of the bunch (if you really want to call it power hungry).  Once things are loaded up we see some interesting swings.  My 8350 sample pulls the most power at load (using Cinebench R11.5), even coming in some 30 watts higher than the older 8150.  This is not necessarily surprising since there is a 400 MHz difference between the two, and the 8350 does put in a better result.  The more interesting difference is that again of the 6300 vs. the 6200.  Both chips have around the same performance in Cinebench R11.5, but the power difference is some 43 watts.  The i7’s load characteristics are just sick as compared to how fast it runs.

Overclocking and Heat

The moment we have all been waiting for.  How far do these two processors go?  With good cooling people were often able to take the 8150 up to 4.8 GHz.  I was able to take the older FX-6200 up to 4.5 GHz pretty comfortably, though it started to get a bit shaky at that point.  So where did it all fall out here?  I used an older Thermaltake tower/heatpipe cooler with an 80 mm fan.  It is superior to the stock option from AMD, but it should not be considered an extremely good cooler.  Any self-contained LCS will do a far better job in cooling the CPU.

I was able to take the FX-6300 to 4.6 GHz core and 2.6 GHz NB/L3 cache.  I disabled the AMD Turbo functionality, as well as increased the voltage to 1.5v.  I went into the Asus BIOS and disabled some of the power protections to get as many amps to the socket as possible.  The cooler was seemingly holding this processor back.  I do believe it could have gone well above that number, but much better cooling is needed.  If a user expects these parts to hit 5 GHz on air with a marginal cooler, they are going to be disappointed.

View Full Size

Add another 200 MHz to both core and NB/L3 and we have the final overclock of this particular chip.

The FX-8350 came in around the same.  Using the same adjustments I was able to take it to 4.6 GHz core and 2.4 GHz NB/L3 cache.  I did have to do something a bit different though.  When I ran it at 1.5v, it would trigger the thermal protection and shut the system down.  It simply got too hot.  I took the voltage down to 1.425 and it smoothed right out.  It still got pretty toasty at that speed and voltage, but this seems like a chip that begs for more voltage and better cooling.

AMD claims that most of these chips will run perfectly fine at 5 GHz with either a full water cooling system or one of the self-contained LCS (like AMD is offering with the top end part).  At 5 GHz the FX-8350 is going to be a very fast product with very good performance, with increases over stock in the range of 20% to 30% in a lot of applications.  I know I saw a nice jump even at 4.6 GHz.

When overclocked these chips again show a pretty significant jump in power consumption.  When I hit 4.6 with the FX-6300, it jumped around 60 watts at the wall.  This is quite a bit better than the older FX-6200 at 4.5/4.6 GHz, which showed a 100 watt difference at the wall as compared to stock.

At stock speeds the cooling I had was more than adequate.  Chip temps rarely got above 42C, and in fact stayed mainly around 37C to 39C in light work.  The heat does seem to ramp up pretty quickly when going above 4.2 GHz with the three and four module SKUs.  I am not sure what the new FX-4300 will do, as it only has ½ the working modules and L3 cache.

October 24, 2012 | 07:35 PM - Posted by loophole (not verified)

Thanks for the indepth article Josh. Just one minor correction. In the Test Setup section on the third page, the third sentence reads:
"In the meantime we have seen Intel release their Ivy Bridge lineup, as well as the Ivy Bridge E series."

I'm assuming this should read "Sandy Bridge E" instead of Ivy E, unless you guys at PCPer have access to some shiny newness that you're not telling us about ;)

Otherwise, a good read.

Thanks!

October 25, 2012 | 12:29 PM - Posted by Josh Walrath

Ack, yes... I meant SB-E.  I almost wish that socket would just die...

October 28, 2012 | 03:44 AM - Posted by Arb (not verified)

It would be interesting to see how much power spike happened on the 8350 when it was clocked to 4.6ghz. Since its only 400mhz overclock but AMD cpu's lately have been know to chew power up on mild overclock's.

November 4, 2012 | 08:31 AM - Posted by Mykive (not verified)

I went from amd sempron to amd phenom then to 2x xeons loved it now im with i7 3770k 4.9Ghz im never going back to amd!

November 4, 2012 | 08:40 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

8 Cores, TDP @ 95w, stock speed 4.0ghz/4.6ghz turbo, running cool on air, under $200.00 then we're talking... until then I see no reason to purchase. Step in the right direction however..dont give up AMD!

January 25, 2013 | 08:47 PM - Posted by theprofiteer (not verified)

You guys do know both the PS3 and XBox720 will be using AMD APUs. AMD is not going anywhere.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.