Amd Fx 8350 And Fx 6300 Piledriver Review Synthetic Performance

First up, we have SPECviewperf v11’s SolidWorks test, in which the FX-8350 delivered virtually the same performance as its predecessor, the FX-8150, despite featuring an 11% clock speed advantage. The FX-6300 was just 4% faster than the FX-6100, a smaller margin than would be expected of its 6% clock lead. Regardless of these minor improvements, we found the FX-8350 to be capable of matching the Core i7-3770K while beating the Core i5-3470 by an impressive 18% margin.

SPECviewperf v11’s Maya test results showed very different trends than SolidWorks. Although the FX-6300 was again only slightly faster than the FX-6100 – 3% faster to be exact – and the FX-8350 was just 4% faster than the FX-8150, both were slower than the Core i5-3470. The FX-8350 was 4% slower than the i5-3470 and 29% slower than the i7-3770K.

CINEBENCH R11.5 shows only a slight advantage when comparing Piledriver FX parts to the older Bulldozer models. Here the FX-8350 was 21% faster than the i5-3470, yet 9% slower than the i7-3770K.

When testing with WinRAR’s benchmark, we found the FX-8350 to be 10% faster than the FX-8150, while the FX-6300 was just 2% faster than the FX-6100. The FX-8350 was also 8% slower than the i5-3470 and 15% slower than the i7-3770K.