Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

AMD FX 8370

Front view of AMD FX 8370
Front view of AMD FX 8350

AMD FX 8350

Join the discussion

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of AMD FX 8370

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 8370

Report a correction

CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the 8370 vs the 8350 Black Edition.
Front view of AMD FX 8350

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 8350

Report a correction

CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the 8350 Black Edition vs the 8370.

Benchmarks Real world tests of FX 8370 vs 8350

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8370
11,583
FX 8350
11,483

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8370
2,186
FX 8350
2,193

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8370
2,450,000 MB/s
FX 8350
2,470,000 MB/s

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

FX 8370
23,394
FX 8350
22,674

Cinebench R10 32-Bit (Single Core)

FX 8370
4,436
FX 8350
4,338

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

 FX 8370  vs
8350 
Clock speed 4 GHz 4 GHz
Turbo clock speed 4.3 GHz 4.2 GHz
Cores Octa core Octa core
Is unlocked Yes Yes

features
Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
AVX 1.1
SSE2
F16C
MMX
XOP
AVX
SSE3
SSE
ABM
BMI1
CLMUL
AMD64
SSE4.1
FMA4
FMA3
SSE4.2
CVT16
AMD-V
Supplemental SSE3
AES
TBM
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption
TDP 125W 125W
Annual home energy cost 30.11 $/year 56.1 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 109.5 $/year 159.62 $/year
Performance per watt 12.37 pt/W 5.72 pt/W
Typical power consumption 101.56W 159.66W

details

 FX 8370  vs
8350 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 8 8
L2 cache 8 MB 8 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 8 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 1 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 32 nm
Transistor count 1,200,000,000 1,200,000,000
Die size 319 mm² 319 mm²
Clock multiplier 21 21
Operating temperature Unknown - 61°C Unknown - 61°C

integrated graphics
GPU None None
Label N/A N/A
Latest DirectX N/A N/A
Number of displays supported N/A N/A
GPU clock speed N/A N/A
Turbo clock speed N/A N/A
3DMark06 N/A N/A

memory controller
Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1866
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC Yes Yes
Maximum bandwidth 29,866.66 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s
AMD FX 8370
Report a correction
AMD FX 8350
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

Showing 25 comments.
Junior Dedois (12:02 PM, October 23, 2018)
8370 is low power consumption
Your New SJW Waifu (10:02 PM, April 11, 2018)
L3 is still far faster than DDR3.
Your New SJW Waifu (05:48 PM, July 9, 2017)
L3 still serves a purpose. Not all applications will benefit from more L3 cache but others will benefit greatly from extra L3 cache.
Rado Ratko (09:05 AM, July 9, 2017)
L3 CACHE IS SLOWER THAN THE L2 AND IT FEEDS THE L2 BTW. WHY BUY A TRUCK WHEN YOU CAN DRIVE A CAR?
Your New SJW Waifu (06:39 PM, November 13, 2016)
True, however it didn't when I made that comment.
Thiresan Naidoo (07:47 AM, November 13, 2016)
the new wraith cooler seems to perform similarly to the 212 evo
Dylan (08:59 PM, November 3, 2016)
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
Jito463 (08:47 PM, November 3, 2016)
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).
Jozef Mikula SkiFi (10:26 AM, September 13, 2016)
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
Randomdeath5 (10:45 PM, July 6, 2016)
heheh... arsenide
anon (04:39 PM, May 28, 2016)
I got the same mobo and have problems when i overclock it also
Dylan (03:22 AM, May 28, 2016)
8350 has better performance? If anything, the 8370 should have... The site is clueless.
Pierre J Grobbelaar (05:34 PM, May 8, 2016)
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....
Dan Hansom (03:07 AM, April 27, 2016)
Look at the benchmarks even with it OCed its still slow. Not worth my time
姫佐恵 (05:48 PM, April 24, 2016)
5.0 Ghz perfectly stable on the AMD FX-8370 Verfied by CPUID. Your Welcome.
姫佐恵 (05:24 AM, April 24, 2016)
Your Welcome.
Your New SJW Waifu (09:48 PM, April 20, 2016)
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.
Your New SJW Waifu (09:44 PM, April 20, 2016)
If they made a 28nm version I bet it could be overclocked to 6GHz on a 212 Evo.
Your New SJW Waifu (09:43 PM, April 20, 2016)
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)
Your New SJW Waifu (09:41 PM, April 20, 2016)
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.
Admir Karalic (08:21 AM, April 15, 2016)
Depends where you live.
Dan Hansom (02:03 PM, March 30, 2016)
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.
Ryan Noke (08:04 PM, March 29, 2016)
you're paying a lot less tho
Dan Hansom (12:46 PM, March 29, 2016)
cuz AMD sucks balls. Look at any benchmark
Ryan Noke (04:36 PM, March 27, 2016)
why lol
comments powered by Disqus

features

information

  • terms and privacy
  • about
  • blog

on the web

CPUBoss