FX-8350 AM3+ Processor Review (Phenom II X6 1090T versus FX-8350 Comparisons)

[-rascal-]

Introduction

It's been some time since the launch of the second generation of AMD's FX processor line-up. What we have here today is the FX-8350 AM3+ processor on hand.

 

Personally, I've been holding off from upgrading to a newer FX chip, and sticking with my Phenom II X6 1090T CPU for some time. It has been about four years since the launch of the Phenom II X6 product line, so I have finally decided to jump on the bandwagon and make the switch. A majority of the components of my system have been upgraded since then -this includes the graphics card, motherboard, RAM, storage devices, etc- but the only thing major left to change is the processor.

 

Examples:

• 2x / 3x Radeon HD 5850 --> 1x Radeon HD 7970
• ASUS ROG Crosshair IV Formula 890FX --> Crosshair V Formula 990FX
• Single mechanical HDD --> SSD's

 

The purpose of this review is to compare the compute performance between the aging, previously top-of-the-line CPU AMD had to offer, the Phenon II X6 1090T, and its present successor, the FX-8350. There also have been threads appearing on the LLT forums asking if the upgrade from a APU, Phenom II or first-generation AM3+ FX processor to a second-generation FX processor is worthwhile, or how these chips stack up between one another.

 

The review may be broken down into segments due to personal time constraints, and the time required to perform such tests / benchmarks.

The benchmarks and tests are done on a existing system - not a fresh install of Windows - and a simple CPU swap is performed. At this time in stage, it is projected so the comparisons / review will be conducted on different conditions, such as:

• Stock CPU performance
• Overclocked CPU performance
• Stock CPU-NB frequency
• Overclocked CPU-NB frequency
• Stock RAM frequency
• Overclocked RAM frequency

 

As previously mentioned, due to time constraints, there may not be a 100% guarantee all these tests will be conducted and achieved.

 

Without further ado, let's get to it.

 

 

 

System specifications

CPU: AMD Phenom II x6 1090T, AMD FX-8350

CPU Cooling: Thermaltake Frio (original model), two (2) Cooler Master JetFlo 120mm fans in push-pull configuration, Antec Formula 7 thermal paste

Motherboard: ASUS ROG Crosshair V Formula 990FX

Memory: 8GB (4GB X 2) G.SKILL RipJawsX 2133MHz F3-17000CL11D-8GBXL

Graphics Card: Sapphire Dual-X Radeon HD 7970, 11197-11-40G

Power Supply: Corsair TX850 (version 1)

Storage: Corsair ForceGT 120GB (OS), Kingston V200+ 120GB, WD Caviar Black 1TB WD1002FAEX

Chassis / Case: Cooler Master HAF 932

Operating System: Windows 7 Ultimate x64, SP1 (applicable Microsoft Hotfixes installed for the FX processors, and fully up-to-date)

Motherboard BIOS version: 1703 (latest available from ASUS)

Graphic Card Driver version: 13.12 WQHL

 

* Stock memory frequency will be DDR3 1600MHz 9-9-9-24-1T 1.5V

 

 

 

The FX-8350 AM3+ Processor

I was excited when I received my FX-8350 shipment from the local Purolator, hoping it was packaged in the famous "recycled" tin box. Once I've removed the packaging, I was surprised...it was enclosed in the typical cardboard box. Eh, just to test my luck, no matter.

Spoiler

 

 

The packaging used between the Phenom II x6 1090T and FX-8350 were nearly identical in size.

Spoiler

 

 

Surprisingly, the new FX processor clamshell did not come with a piece of black foam pad to provide cushioning and support for the delicate pins on the underside of the chip. Instead, the outer edges of the physical chip just sits on top of one half the plastic clamshell. As a result, the CPU is sitting elevated in between the two clamshell halves, and the pins are held mid air.

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

As you can see, it is a bit different with the Phenon II.

Spoiler

 

 

 

The Included Air-Cooling CPU Cooler

AMD haven't changed their mounting system since the AM2 days. In fact, the FM1, FM2, (maybe FM2+ as well) APU sockets all use the same mounting system. You could potentially use a AM3+ CPU cooler on a AM2 board, or a AM3+ cooler on a FM1 socket motherboard.

 

I have personally tested this. Stock AM3 cooler installed on a socket AM2 board and a FM1 motherboard, and a socket AM2 heatsink cooler on a FM1 motherboard.

 

Looking at the included aluminum fin array and copper heatpipe cooler provided with every boxed AMD processor, it is a lot like some of the "better" stock coolers (not just an aluminum fin array block) supplied by the later socket AM2 Athlon 64 X2's, and first-generation Phenom chips. Come to think of it, it is extremely similar to the heatsinks provided on pretty much all processors ranging from first generation Athlon 64 X2 (AM2 and socket 939), second-generation Athlon II 64 X2  and Phenom II (AM3), all the way to first generation FX (AM3+).

 

Spoiler

 

 

...And guess who the OEM is for these stock CPU coolers? Cooler Master!!

Spoiler

 

Stay tuned, we shall get into testing methodology and the performance numbers soon (already in progress).

In the next....episode of DRAGONBALL Z!!  LLT Member Review.

[-rascal-]

Testing Methodology

All tests / benchmarks are performed to maintain and obtain as most consistent as possible outcomes. After discovering the variables that could occur in manual in-game benchmark runs, I've realized that could be an issue - after attempting to produce multiple constant run-throughs, to the best of my abilities, I've decided to go a slightly different route. After examining some of the reviews performed by professional computer hardware groups, I've decided to do a mix of synthetic benchmarks and "real-world" test runs. These tests will include the following:

• AIDA64
• SiSoftware Sandra 2014 SP1a
• Cinebench R15
• Unigine Valley Bencharks
• 3D Mark (2013) Benchmarks
• Built-in Bioshock Infinite Utility Runs
• WinRAR 5.01 Compression

1. AIDA64 Extreme Edition's Cache and Memory Benchmark will be used examine the Memory Read, Write, Copy speeds, and a well as the Memory Latency.
2. SiSoftware's Sandra 2014 SP1a will be used to examine the Aggregate Memory Performance, Integer Memory Bandwidth, and Float Memory Bandwidth.
3. Cinebench R15 will be utilized to examine the Single-Thread and Multi-Thread performance of the CPU.
4. Unigine Valley Benchmarks will be used to verify if the CPU has any effects on the score and FPS achieved. This is some-what out of personal curiosity after the results from my overclocked HD 7970 had some significant variance compared to other users. The Extreme HD preset, and Basic preset will be used.
5. 3D Mark (2013) Fire Strike 1.1 will be used provide some values to compare the two processors. The latest 3D Mark software has full support for DirectX 11, and multi-thread and multi-core support. The software focuses mainly on the CPU and GPU, providing results for Graphics, Physics, and Combined performance results.
6. The built-in Bioshock Infinte Utility will be used to provide some ideal real-world results. I've decided to use the Utility instead of doing actual in-game runs strictly because the run-throughs performed by the utility is consistent and easily repeatable.
7. WinRAR makes use of multi-core and multi-thread CPUs. Not only that, CPU frequency and IPC play a significant role in the speed the of file compressions.

 

All synthetic benchmarks will under-go a minimum of three (3) test runs. More runs may be conducted and the results with the most variance will be omitted. All the results from each individual trial will be recorded, but only the average, or the more consistent outcomes,  will be taken in for comparison.

 

The built-in Bioshock Infinite utility runs will be treated like the synthetic benchmarks as well - minimum of three (3) trials before numbers are submitted.

 

The WinRAR compression will be done on files consisting of photos and video files. A set of 1,470 items across 34 folders totaling of 5.57GB in size will be used for the compression time tests. A majority of the photos are of 1600x1200 resolution, but some will be 3648x2736. The videos are recorded at 720p.

 

Some thing to noted regarding about the Bioshock Infinite Utility trials:

"Benchmark results are intended to be interpreted as relative results, not necessarily indicative of actual in-game framerates.  Benchmark results will almost always be higher than actual gameplay (in some cases considerably higher). The Benchmark runs the game without audio, without an in-game HUD, and with minimal in-game artifacts.  For example, there are no enemies, and no associated graphic artifacts or textures.  In most cases, the Benchmark results will be up to 20 frames per second higher than actual in-game framerates."

- 2K Games Support > Bioshock > Bioshock Infinite

 

 

Test Results (thus far, Phenom II X6 1090T complete...)

NOTE: Once all the necessary testing have been completed, all the data will be tabulated and put into graphs and charts for improved readability and simpler interpretation.

*NEW* NOTE 2: It was noticed Turbo Core has a effect on the Single-Threaded benchmark runs in Cinebench R15 when enabled. Turbo Core enabled results will be provided as a side, but keep in mind the feature / technology will be disabled when due to overclocking of the CPU. Turbo Core numbers are obtained only when the CPU is running at stock settings.

 

Phenom II X6 1090T @ 3.2GHz (stock), 2000MHz CPU-NB (stock), DDR3 RAM @ 1600MHz

AIDA64 Memory Benchmark: Read: 8879 MB/s, Write: 6859 MB/s, Copy: 10305 MB/s, Latency: 48.6 ns

SiSoftware Sandra 2014 Memory BW: Aggregated Memory performance: 12.58 GB/s, Integer Memory bandwidth: 12.58 GB/s, Float Memory bandwidth: 12.58 GB/s

Cinebench R15 - Single-Threaded, Turbo core ON: CPU (cb): 94

Cinebench R15 - Single-Threaded, Turbo core OFF: CPU (cb): 86

Cinebench R15 - Multi-Threaded: CPU (cb): 489

Unigine Valley - Extreme HD Preset: FPS: 37.3, Score: 1561, Minimum FPS: 17.7, Maximum FPS: 73.8

Unigine Valley - Basic Preset: FPS: 57.1, Score: 2388, Minimum FPS: 18.1, Maximum FPS: 91.4

3D Mark Fire Strike 1.1: Overall Score: 6092, Graphics Score: 6989, Physics Score: 6927, Combined: 2844

Bioshock Infinite - Ultra DX11 with DDOF, 1920x1080: Average: 59.37 FPS, Minimum: 10.66 FPS

Bioshock Infinite - Lowest Settings, 1280x720: Average: 163.44 FPS, Minimum: 30.09 FPS

WinRAR 5.01 - Time for compression to complete: 497 seconds

 

Phenom II X6 1090T @ 3.2GHz (stock), 3000MHz CPU-NB (overclocked), DDR3 RAM @ 1600MHz

AIDA64 Memory Benchmark: Read: 10481 MB/s, Write: 9562 MB/s, Copy: 11474 MB/s, Latency: 44 ns

SiSoftware Sandra 2014 Memory BW: Aggregated Memory performance: 16.1 GB/s, Integer Memory bandwidth: 16.09 GB/s, Float Memory bandwidth: 16.1 GB/s

Cinebench R15 - Single-Threaded, Turbo Core OFF: CPU (cb): 86

Cinebench R15 - Multi-Threaded: CPU (cb): 499

Unigine Valley - Extreme HD Preset: FPS: 37.7, Score: 1577, Minimum FPS: 17.8, Maximum FPS: 73.7

Unigine Valley - Basic Preset: FPS: 59.1, Score: 2474, Minimum FPS: 18.6, Maximum FPS: 95.9

3D Mark Fire Strike 1.1: Overall Score: 6118, Graphics Score: 7016, Physics Score: 6959, Combined Score: 2859

Bioshock Infinite - Ultra DX11 with DDOF, 1920x1080: Average: 62.95 FPS, Minimum: 10.6 FPS

Bioshock Infinite - Lowest Settings, 1280x720: Average: 178.76 FPS, Minimum: 30.17 FPS

WinRAR 5.01 - Time for compression to complete: 460 seconds

 

Phenom II X6 1090T @ 4.1GHz (overclocked), 3000MHz CPU-NB (overclocked), DDR3 RAM @ 1600MHz

AIDA64 Memory Benchmark: Read: 10374 MB/s, Write: 9905 MB/s, Copy: 12015 MB/s, Latency: 42.5 ns

SiSoftware Sandra 2014 Memory BW: Aggregated Memory performance: 16.2 GB/s, Integer Memory bandwidth: 16.2 GB/s, Float Memory bandwidth: 16.22 GB/s

Cinebench R15 - Single-Threaded, Turbo Core OFF: CPU (cb): 109

Cinebench R15 - Multi-Threaded: CPU (cb): 627

Unigine Valley - Extreme HD Preset: FPS: 38.7, Score: 1620, Minimum FPS: 19.7, Maximum FPS: 75.6

Unigine Valley - Basic Preset: FPS: 74, Score: 3095, Minimum FPS: 24.1, Maximum FPS: 117

3D Mark Fire Strike 1.1: Overall Score: 6301, Graphics Score: 7028, Physics Score: 8816, Combined Score: 2861

Bioshock Infinite - Ultra DX11 with DDOF, 1920x1080: Average: 64.32 FPS, Minimum: 13.38 FPS

Bioshock Infinite - Lowest Settings, 1280x720: Average: 209.62 FPS, Minimum: 30.14 FPS

WinRAR 5.01 - Time for compression to complete: 422 seconds

 

As the results have shown, increasing the CPU-NB has a significant performance increase in the memory's read, write, and copy speeds. The latency have also been decreased by a small amount. The differences between purely stock frequency and fully overclocked frequency differs by about 1602 MB/s for the read speeds, 3046 MB/s for write speeds, and 1710 MB/s for copy speeds. The latency has also dropped from approximately 48.6 nanoseconds to 42.5 nanoseconds!  I've noticed by overclocking the CPU to 4.1GHz, the memory read speed decreased by an amount - 10481 MB/s by only increasing the CPU-NB and letting the CPU frequency remain at stock versus 10374 MB/s by having the CPU-NB and CPU frequency overclocked. I am uncertain what isthe cause of this, but further investigation and research may be conducted to determine the cause of this phenomenon. This decrease was repeatable and consistent.

 

Another significant jump due to increasing the CPU-NB frequency was the memory bandwidth. At stock frequencies, all the aggregated memory performance, integer and float memory bandwidth have increased from 12.58 GB/s to 16.2 GB/s.

 

Overclocking the actual CPU provided a impressive amount of improvements in the majority of the tests.  A stock, the 1090T scores 86cb in single-threaded mode, and 489 cb in multi-threaded mode.  As it can be observed, single-threaded and multi-threaded CPU scores increased to 109 cb and 627 cb respectively.

 

In Unigene Valley, the change in performance was minimal when using the Extreme HD preset - but still distinguishable. Both the minimum and maximum frame rates had gone up 2 FPS. This was repeatable in multiple trail runs. The change was much more noticeable when using the Basic preset. Overclocking the CPU boosted the FPS value to 74, score to 3095, minimum FPS to 24.1, and maximum FPS to 117. Compared to the 57.1 FPS, 2388 score, 18.1 minimum FPS, and 91.4 maximum FPS, that's a helluva increase...if I do say so myself.

 

Overall, the 3D Mark (2013) Fire Strike score remained the same throughout, BUT, the Physics score between the stock 3.2GHz and 4.1GHz on the CPU is fascinating; 6927 all the way up to 8816! that's a difference of 1889 points!

 

In the Bioshock Infinite benchmark runs, the frame rates have increased by a few due to the overclocked CPU when using the Ultra DirectX 11 with DDOF settings. Surprisingly enough, overclocking the CPU had no effect on the minimum frame rate when running the benchmarks on the lowest settings and low resolutions, yet, the average frame rate increased significantly. A increase of roughly 46 FPS was obtained by overclocking the CPU and the CPU-NB.

 

Finally, the WinRAR results. As stated previously in the review, WinRAR file compression is greatly affected by CPU IPC (instruction per cycle) and frequency. The results clearly indicate that. Not only this, increasing the CPU-NB also has the same effect. The initial, stock speeds time to compress the 5.57GB of content took 497 seconds. Cranking the CPU-NB up from 2000MHz to 3000MHz cut the time down by about 37 seconds, putting it down to 460 seconds. Overclocking the CPU, from 3.2GHz to 4.1GHz, trimmed another 38 seconds off, clocking in at 422 seconds. In total, that is 75 seconds cut down! 75 seconds! 1 whole minute and 15 seconds shaved off!

 

 

Off to the FX-8350 testing now?

[-rascal-]

FX-8350 @ 4.0GHz (stock), 2200MHz CPU-NB (stock), 2600MHz HT (stock) DDR3 RAM @ 1600MHz

AIDA64 Memory Benchmark: Read: 13775 MB/s, Write: 10897 MB/s, Copy: 16748 MB/s, Latency: 53 ns

SiSoftware Sandra 2014 Memory BW: Aggregated Memory performance: 15.63 GB/s, Integer Memory bandwidth: 15.65 GB/s, Float Memory bandwidth: 15.6 GB/s

Cinebench R15 - Single-Threaded, Turbo core OFF: CPU (cb): 97

Cinebench R15 - Multi-Threaded: CPU (cb): 644

Unigine Valley - Extreme HD Preset: FPS: 38.8, Score: 1622, Minimum FPS: 19.7, Maximum FPS: 75.8

Unigine Valley - Basic Preset: FPS: 76.2, Score: 3187, Minimum FPS: 23.1, Maximum FPS: 117.8

3D Mark Fire Strike 1.1: Overall Score: 6159, Graphics Score: 7083, Physics Score: 7828, Combined: 2680

Bioshock Infinite - Ultra DX11 with DDOF, 1920x1080: Average: 63.15 FPS, Minimum: 12.33 FPS

Bioshock Infinite - Lowest Settings, 1280x720: Average: 186.58 FPS, Minimum: 30.01 FPS

WinRAR 5.01 - Time for compression to complete: 282 seconds

 

FX-8350 @ 4.0GHz (stock), 2600MHz CPU-NB (overclocked), 2600MHz HT (stock) DDR3 RAM @ 1600MHz

AIDA64 Memory Benchmark: Read: 14375 MB/s, Write: 11716 MB/s, Copy: 17319 MB/s, Latency: 50.3 ns

SiSoftware Sandra 2014 Memory BW: Aggregated Memory performance: 17.53 GB/s, Integer Memory bandwidth: 17.52 GB/s, Float Memory bandwidth: 17.53 GB/s

Cinebench R15 - Single-Threaded, Turbo core OFF: CPU (cb): 97

Cinebench R15 - Multi-Threaded: CPU (cb): 645

Unigine Valley - Extreme HD Preset: FPS: 38.9, Score: 1626, Minimum FPS: 19.6, Maximum FPS: 75.7

Unigine Valley - Basic Preset: FPS: 78.6, Score: 3289, Minimum FPS: 23, Maximum FPS: 121.2

3D Mark Fire Strike 1.1: Overall Score: 6184, Graphics Score: 7108, Physics Score: 7912, Combined: 2687

Bioshock Infinite - Ultra DX11 with DDOF, 1920x1080: Average: 63.78 FPS, Minimum: 12.51 FPS

Bioshock Infinite - Lowest Settings, 1280x720: Average: 193.29 FPS, Minimum: 29.99 FPS

WinRAR 5.01 - Time for compression to complete: 271 seconds

 

FX-8350 @ #.##GHz (overclocked), 2600MHz CPU-NB (overclocked), 2600MHz HT (stock) DDR3 RAM @ 1600MHz

AIDA64 Memory Benchmark: Read: ~ MB/s, Write: ~ MB/s, Copy: ~ MB/s, Latency: ~ ns

SiSoftware Sandra 2014 Memory BW: Aggregated Memory performance: GB/s, Integer Memory bandwidth: ~ GB/s, Float Memory bandwidth: ~ GB/s

Cinebench R15 - Single-Threaded, Turbo core OFF: CPU (cb): ~

Cinebench R15 - Multi-Threaded: CPU (cb): ~

Unigine Valley - Extreme HD Preset: FPS: ~, Score: ~, Minimum FPS: ~, Maximum FPS: ~

Unigine Valley - Basic Preset: FPS: ~, Score: ~, Minimum FPS: ~, Maximum FPS: ~

3D Mark Fire Strike 1.1: Overall Score: ~, Graphics Score: ~, Physics Score: ~, Combined: ~

Bioshock Infinite - Ultra DX11 with DDOF, 1920x1080: Average: ~ FPS, Minimum: ~ FPS

Bioshock Infinite - Lowest Settings, 1280x720: Average: ~ FPS, Minimum: ~ FPS

WinRAR 5.01 - Time for compression to complete: ~ seconds

 

Increasing the CPU-NB on the FX-8350 does not seem to have as much of an impact on performance as compared to the Phenom II X6 1090T. Other reviews performed by other enthusiasts points to this indication as well. This could possibly due to the "Vishera" architecture using a single 128-bit IMC versus dual 64-bit found on the "Thuban" architecture.

 

The CPU-NB can no longer be overclocked as high of a frequency than its predecessor. According to man FX-8350 / FX-8320 users, the common frequency obtainable is usually in the 2600MHz range. Anything beyond is mostly unstable, or requires an excessive amount of voltage to operate at a stable level.

 

The WinRAR compression time was reduced, but not by much; shortened down by about 10 seconds. Compared to the Phenom II X6 1090T, increasing the CPU-NB to 3000MHz decreases the compression time by over 30 seconds.

[-rascal-]

Observations / Discoveries

In Cinebench R15, at stock versus stock settings, the FX-8350 has a noticeable improvement over its predecessor. The Phenom II X6 1090T at stock frequencies scored 86 cb in the single-threaded test, and 489 in the multi-threaded test. The FX-8350 obtained a score of 97 cb for single-threaded and 644 cb in multi-threaded. That is a improvement of 12.8% (11 cb increase) and 31.7% (155), single-threaded and multi-threaded respectively.

 

Many individuals on the web believe the CPU has no effect on Unigine valley benchmark scores. At first, I believe what was said is true, but a bit of curiosity was lingering on. Looking at the results obtained, I am quite surprised. The CPU, in fact, does have any effect on the benchmark results - to an extent. Everything, the FPS, Score, Minimum FPS, and Maximum FPS, all have increased by simply swapping out the CPU. The Sapphire Dual-X Radeon HD 7970 that is in my possession is a "regular" HD  7970. It is not a "GHz Edition" or a "Boost Edition"; whatever the clock and memory speeds are set at, that is what they will run at.

 

Examples:

Extreme Preset

1090T at absolute stock settings: 37.3 FPS, Score of 1561, Minimum FPS of 17.7, and Maximum FPS of 73.8.

FX-8350 at absolute stock settings: 38.8 FPS, Score of 1622, Minimum FPS of 19.7, and Maximum FPS of 75.8.

 

Basic Preset

1090T at absolute stock settings: 57.1 FPS, Score of 2388, Minimum FPS of 18.1, and Maximum FPS of 91.4.

FX-8350 at absolute stock settings: 76.2 FPS, Score of 3187, Minimum FPS of 23.1, and Maximum FPS of 117.8.

 

The "Extreme Preset" results did show some change, but the variance by using the "Basic Preset" is much more obvious.

 

The WinRAR compression times between the two Processors is VERY impressive. At stock, the Phenom II X6 1090T completed compressing the 5.57GB of content in 497 seconds (8 minutes, 17 seconds). The FX-8350, at stock, finished the same task in only 282 seconds (4 minutes, 42 seconds). That is a serious heck of an improvement!

[flibberdipper]

If this is any good, I'm interested. Otherwise, not as much. But it seems like it's gonna be good.

[ManOfDisguise]

i dont like my 8350 wish i went for a intel quadcore like the i5 4670k

[ManOfDisguise]

Why not?

in most games i play it brings my fps down since most games use 4 cores max and intel 4 core cpus are much better when it comes to performance in those games and the 8350 just doesnt do that well in them, at least for me. and yes i did unpark my cores

[DaRk0]

i dont like my 8350 wish i went for a intel quadcore like the i5 4670k

 

Yet, people call us fanboys when we recommend Intel over AMD.

[jbro1232]

Would really like to know the result of this as I've got an X6 1100T BE (sig) and have been eyeing up this upgrade for ages.

[ManOfDisguise]

Yet, people call us fanboys when we recommend Intel over AMD.

Hah yea Intel is obviously the better out of the 2 when it comes to CPUs. I got the 8350 because thats what the guys here on the forum reccomended me for my build. I am dissapointed. 

[JoshM]

Hah yea Intel is obviously the better out of the 2 when it comes to CPUs. I got the 8350 because thats what the guys here on the forum reccomended me for my build. I am dissapointed. 

Lol I'm not disappointed at all haha...

[MrAlexOneill]

The 8150 packaging was far superior than the younger brother, but the 8150 is older and is not that good in anything else.

[JoshM]

The 8150 packaging was far superior than the younger brother, but the 8150 is older and is not that good in anything else.

The 8150 was horrible...

[MrAlexOneill]

The 8150 was horrible...

Packaging though...

[JoshM]

Packaging though...

Yeah, it was a metal tin wasn't it?

[MrAlexOneill]

Yeah, it was a metal tin wasn't it?

Yes, I have it on my desk right now and I use it to throw around when I'm bored.

[CartertheCOCguy]

I might go with a 4670k now

[-rascal-]

Yes, I have it on my desk right now and I use it to throw around when I'm bored.

 

Somebody had "Hello Kitty" on the reverse side of the tiny. Then somebody else had "Marlboro."

What did you get?

[knight_40k]

Packaging though...

Yeah, it was a metal tin wasn't it?

 

My FX8350 came in a metal tin...not sure why OP's is in a cardboard box.

[-rascal-]

My FX8350 came in a metal tin...not sure why OP's is in a cardboard box.

 

Where and when did you purchase your FX-8350?

From what I know, the initial / early batches were packaged in a tin box...but the later batches were shipped in the ordinary cardboard box...

I dunno.

[knight_40k]

Where and when did you purchase your FX-8350?

 

Bought it from NCIX in Nov. 2012 for $189 CDN Black Fri.

[nicehat]

Bought it from NCIX in Nov. 2012 for $189 CDN Black Fri.

 

Shortly after the summer of 2013, AMD started shipping them in cardboard. Whether it was due to the popularity of the chips or they realized that the 8350 would be staying in the market for a lot longer than originally anticipated, its anyones guess.

[Profquast]

I got the 8320 oc'd to 8350 stock speeds. The Intel equivalent in my country is the i3 4330, or a low end last-gen i5 (with motherboards factored in). It's an awesome deal.

[Sintezza]

Who cares about in which kind of box it came, anyway?

 

I wanne see numbers no boxes.

[Suika]

The 8150 packaging was far superior than the younger brother, but the 8150 is older and is not that good in anything else.

The 8350's packaging was changed, since I purchased it in a metal tin a year ago, yet OP has a cardboard box now.

 

I like the metal tin more, makes it display worthy.