AMD FX 8370  vs 8350 

L3 is still far faster than DDR3.

L3 still serves a purpose. Not all applications will benefit from more L3 cache but others will benefit greatly from extra L3 cache.

L3 CACHE IS SLOWER THAN THE L2 AND IT FEEDS THE L2 BTW. WHY BUY A TRUCK WHEN YOU CAN DRIVE A CAR?

True, however it didn't when I made that comment.

the new wraith cooler seems to perform similarly to the 212 evo

This website is known to be full of inaccuracies. The performance difference between the 8350 and 8370 should be around 2%, and only when both processors are at half load. Once the fifth core is ramped up, performance between the two is 100% identical. Benchmark results indicated here are most likely just anomaly results, within margins of error, given that no two chips are the same. Also, if you like inaccuracies, this site is great at them. Just check this out! http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-6700K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-4500U

I know this is an old post, but I just wanted to clarify for anyone else that reads this, that this site is wrong. Both CPU's are identical, save for the maximum turbo speed. They both have the same amount of L2 and L3 cache (8MB and 8MB respectively). I also question the performance difference between them in the above tests, based on the fact that they're identical processors (again, save for the turbo).

I am thinking about the same Thing heat + power the only reasons why to go for 8370 .. so far I am happy with my 8350 but it really heats up pretty much everything around ..:D

heheh... arsenide

I got the same mobo and have problems when i overclock it also

8350 has better performance? If anything, the 8370 should have... The site is clueless.

You know that its own preferences.People fighting over trivial stuff really?Here is a fact i bought my 4170kk for 1.5k when it came out intels i3 2100k cost 2.5k back then so the difference between price vs performance was way to great.Now i get amd's 8350k for 2.5k(Dealer price) and the intel 4770k cost between 6-7k(Dealer price)So yet again here amd's a way better option than intel.Stop with benchmark bs etc as some don't really give a fk.As my pc's just for coding + compressing 90% of the time.I do not play a lot of games and am happy.People like you will not really ever appreciate the quality of a pc. If AMD release a faster cpu than intels I7 then you will still look for an excuse to make the amd look bad....

Look at the benchmarks even with it OCed its still slow. Not worth my time

5.0 Ghz perfectly stable on the AMD FX-8370 Verfied by CPUID. Your Welcome.

Your Welcome.

Sadly, I got the shit end of the stick on my 8350. I have to run the voltage at 1.416 just to have a stable overclock at 4.4GHz. Now I might have messed something else up but I doubt it as I tried everything. I'm using a MSI 970 GAMING mobo so maybe that's my issue. It seems like a decent mobo though so I dunno.

If they made a 28nm version I bet it could be overclocked to 6GHz on a 212 Evo.

It seems you pay more to have no L3 cache. I mean a turbo of 4.3GHz is nothing (you can overclock past that just fine with something like a 212 Evo)

I have a 8350 and I have had no issues with it. Water cool it and overclock it to 5GHz and you got yourself a 9590 or just get a 212 Evo (the stock cooler is shit even at stock speeds) and do a mild overclock of something like 4.4~4.5 and it should be fine. I overclocked mine to 4.5GHz with a 212 Evo and it never goes over 57 degrees. I have never been limited by my CPU in games either.

Depends where you live.

considering Intels new chipset series for 350$ plus another 100$ mobo for the performance increase is worth it. I have been with AMD for a very long time now. from the x3 to the x8 not really too impressed anymore. plus they use way too much power.

you're paying a lot less tho

cuz AMD sucks balls. Look at any benchmark

why lol

Man i wish i had just went with Intel.