AM3+ mobo - worth it to upgrade from Thuban 1045T to FX-something 8-core?

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

I switched all my 1045Ts (2x HTPC, 2x server, folks', etc.) to 8320s and am happy with the upgrade.
The mobos were getting old and cranky, so it was cheaper for me to throw the baby out with the bathwater (so to speak) and get FX8320 combos from Microcenter.

Those systems are never OCed, so the boost from the 8320 was nice, especially for transcoding and encoding.

Some performance numbers from my various systems :

cinebench r15 - 3.6ghz i5 2450P with Turbo		486	137
cinebench r15 - 4.5ghz i5 2500K				603	156
cinebench r15 - 4.5ghz i7 4770K				892	180
cinebench r15 - FX 8320					561	88
cinebench r15 - i7 4810MQ				636	140
cinebench r15 - PII X6 1045t				414	74
cinebench r15 - i7 3770	with Turbo (3.7/3.9ghz)		673	138
cinebench r15 - 4.1ghz i7 3770	with Turbo		744	152
cinebench r15 - 4.4ghz i5 3570K				608	158
cinebench r15 - 2x E5620 with Turbo			766	77

x264 Stability Test
PII X6 1045t				1.72fps
i5 2500K @ 3.6GHz			2.12fps
i5 2500K @ 4.5GHz			2.58fps
FX 8320					2.75fps
i7 4770K @ 4.5GHz			3.60fps
i7 4810MQ (Clevo w230ss)		2.66fps		[Stock settings ~3.2GHz under full load]
i7 3770 @ 4.1GHz			3.10fps
i5 3570K @ 4.4GHz			2.78fps
2x E5620				3.08fps

 

[soccerballtux]

I'm in a similar situation.. I currently have the x6-1055t and I was wondering if it could be worthwile to replace it with the FX-6300. Based on the fact that on ebay x6-1055t seems to go for around 85€ and the FX costs 92 new online.. seems 30% faster in single thread and 20% in multithread from passmark.

depending on your motherboard and how much RAM you can fit in it (can it do 32GB? then you have an upgrade path) I would go for the FX-8xxx just to max it out. That way you're getting the most you can out of your motherboard purchase.

 

[soccerballtux]

I switched all my 1045Ts (2x HTPC, 2x server, folks', etc.) to 8320s and am happy with the upgrade.
The mobos were getting old and cranky, so it was cheaper for me to throw the baby out with the bathwater (so to speak) and get FX8320 combos from Microcenter.

Those systems are never OCed, so the boost from the 8320 was nice, especially for transcoding and encoding.

Some performance numbers from my various systems :

cinebench r15 - 3.6ghz i5 2450P with Turbo		486	137
cinebench r15 - 4.5ghz i5 2500K				603	156
cinebench r15 - 4.5ghz i7 4770K				892	180
cinebench r15 - FX 8320					561	88
cinebench r15 - i7 4810MQ				636	140
cinebench r15 - PII X6 1045t				414	74
cinebench r15 - i7 3770	with Turbo (3.7/3.9ghz)		673	138
cinebench r15 - 4.1ghz i7 3770	with Turbo		744	152
cinebench r15 - 4.4ghz i5 3570K				608	158
cinebench r15 - 2x E5620 with Turbo			766	77

x264 Stability Test
PII X6 1045t				1.72fps
i5 2500K @ 3.6GHz			2.12fps
i5 2500K @ 4.5GHz			2.58fps
FX 8320					2.75fps
i7 4770K @ 4.5GHz			3.60fps
i7 4810MQ (Clevo w230ss)		2.66fps		[Stock settings ~3.2GHz under full load]
i7 3770 @ 4.1GHz			3.10fps
i5 3570K @ 4.4GHz			2.78fps
2x E5620				3.08fps

for comparison, on my FX-8310 at 4.ghz I get 667 points in Cinebench r15, which is right in line with the core i7-3770

 

[gorion]

depending on your motherboard and how much RAM you can fit in it (can it do 32GB? then you have an upgrade path) I would go for the FX-8xxx just to max it out. That way you're getting the most you can out of your motherboard purchase.

It's a M5A97.I don't really need much pc power right now, so I'd like to avoid any spending on the pc. Fx-8xxx need some 50€ on top of my sale

 

[AtenRa]

It's a M5A97.I don't really need much pc power right now, so I'd like to avoid any spending on the pc. Fx-8xxx need some 50€ on top of my sale

With that motherboard get the 8310 or 8320/E and OC to 4.4GHz or more.

 

[gorion]

With that motherboard get the 8310 or 8320/E and OC to 4.4GHz or more.

Actually i was thinking of underclocking, as I mostly use the rig for browsing, office and SC2 and FM15.
By the way.. what could be a useful cpu/gpu load logger?

 

[monkeydelmagico]

VL,

Not sure if you near microcenter but 8320e is under $100.- and 8370e for $120.-

FWIW, I don't think there is enough performance difference to warrant the expense.

 

[Magic Carpet]

VirtualLarry,

I was in the similar situation like you. But I figured, the FX isn't that much better than Thuban in ST, so I just got an 4770K instead. You know what? I have no regrets.

Of course, my Thuban is still around and kicking, I tend to keep most of my rigs around for benchmark purposes, etc.

The other day, I was tempted to buy an 8300 95w OEM SKU for just $90, just because, but I have survived the itch, if you know what I mean :awe:

 

[Dave2150]

I'm in a similar situation, but I've made the decision to wait for Skylake. The ~30% boost in cpu speed just isn't worth going FX for me when another $100 gets my an Intel cpu + motherboard with even better performance and much lower power usage.

Much better option that the OP is considering.

Buying new FX CPU's today is a bad decision - you're buying technology from 2011, crap performance compared to Intel, much more power consumption, noise and heat and a completely outdated feature set.

No native PCI-E v3, no M.2, no native USB3, no Sata Express, the list goes on.

As for 'waiting for Zen 16 core monster' - you'll probably be waiting until 2017, then it will be another bulldozer scenario and will disappoint everyone.

 

[Abwx]

Buying new FX CPU's today is a bad decision - you're buying technology from 2011, crap performance compared to Intel,

First Vishera is from october 2012, HW is a few month later only..

And of course Intel is crap according to thoses benches since they can hardly beat the FX with their overpriced CPUs :

http://www.hardware.fr/focus/99/amd-fx-8370e-fx-8-coeurs-95-watts-test.html

 

[Dave2150]

First Vishera is from october 2012, HW is a few month later only..

And of course Intel is crap according to thoses benches since they can hardly beat the FX with their overpriced CPUs :

http://www.hardware.fr/focus/99/amd-fx-8370e-fx-8-coeurs-95-watts-test.html

The 990X chipset, which lacks all the latest technologies, is from 2011. FX CPU's are built around it, so no getting around the ancient platform limits.

No idea what nonsense benchmark that is that you linked, all I know is that in 99% of consumer applications, games etc, Intel wins every time.

Lets look at some games:

 

[Enigmoid]

First Vishera is from october 2012, HW is a few month later only..

And of course Intel is crap according to thoses benches since they can hardly beat the FX with their overpriced CPUs :

http://www.hardware.fr/focus/99/amd-fx-8370e-fx-8-coeurs-95-watts-test.html

Overclock both and you are pretty much looking at 115% for the i5 (~4.4 ghz) and 127% for the FX (9590 levels). At this point the difference is pretty much academic as a 10% speed difference is only going to be noticed if you are timing stuff. The i5 would have significantly lower power use and much better ST performance.

That said, if you have the mobo which the OP does, upgrading to intel doesn't make much sense. FX is a much better choice.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Uhm, yes, probably, but... kinda expensive, don't you think? I already have a nice motherboard, with two true PCI-E 2.0 x16 slots, and even a third x4 slot, and 4x4GB DDR3-1600 RAM installed. A drop-in CPU replacement is much easier and cheaper...

Edit: I should mention, I also picked up an ATX case and a Biostar TA970 AM3+ mobo recently too, which needs a CPU as well. So I might be looking at getting two FX CPUs.

You picked up the same MOBO I've got. It seemed like the best budget ATX AM3+ board, especially for the price.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Much better option that the OP is considering.

Buying new FX CPU's today is a bad decision - you're buying technology from 2011, crap performance compared to Intel, much more power consumption, noise and heat and a completely outdated feature set.

No native PCI-E v3, no M.2, no native USB3, no Sata Express, the list goes on.

As for 'waiting for Zen 16 core monster' - you'll probably be waiting until 2017, then it will be another bulldozer scenario and will disappoint everyone.

Most of the things you just mentioned are either non-sequiturs for most people or just downright unnecessary.

Noise? My 120mm case fans are much louder than my CPU fans. I've never heard it ramp up.

Heat and power consumption? Unless you're loading all cores, temps are absolutely great. Loading two cores fully for a couple hours (SC2) has a peak temp of 39C and averages 35C. Loading all cores with prime for a sustained load? 56C peak under an Arctic Freezer Pro 7. Heat? Unless you don't have a fan or two in your case you'll be A-OK. If 30-40w extra makes a difference in your power bill you're in the wrong hobby. I didn't see anyone whine like bickering children about power consumption when people were overclocking Nehalem CPUs to nearly 300w alone. It's hilarious to see those same people who had them act like 40w is going to make them miss a mortgage payment.

PCI 3? Are you doing Titan X SLI with a $100 FX-83xx cpu? If not it is unnecessary and there's no impact.

M.2? No one cares. Literally.

Native USB 3? Even my $50 atx board came with a couple full speed ports. You know what else was "native" that didn't mean a damn thing? Phenom 1 being the first "native" quad core.

SATA express? Practically useless for most people. Niche is niche.

 

[Abwx]

The 990X chipset, which lacks all the latest technologies, is from 2011. FX CPU's are built around it, so no getting around the ancient platform limits.

It must be the 100th time that i read this urban legend, what are the latests technologies not supported by the 990X MBs, please tell us rather than doing a blank statement...

No idea what nonsense benchmark that is that you linked, all I know is that in 99% of consumer applications, games etc, Intel wins every time.

The benchmarks i linked are 3ds max, Visual Stdio , compiling with GCC, WInrar + 7 zip, X264 + X265 encoding, Lightroom, Dxo Optics, Stockfish, Houdini pro.

Is this what you call non sense benches..?.

Perhaps we should rather use some Sysmarks..?.

Dont forget to tell us what are thoses 99% consumers apps, for the time you re just talking hot air while i provided actual consumers benches..

Lets look at some games:

Some cherry picked games; 2 games actualy...

As short as your arguments...

Indeed once i point the FX stregnthes this forum seems to morph in some CPU and Gaming only forum, it s telling about Intel CPUs offering no advantages and being overpriced, hence the forever deflection to games, that is, one application...

 

[Magic Carpet]

I have to agree with Scholzpdx & Abwx here. My main issue with AMD wasn't its ancient chipset, non-native USB 3.0, etc but pure performance, it just wasn't fast enough for my liking. Everything else can be easily dealt with, by installing appropriate expansion cards and/or quality fans. Hell, there is even an AM3+ mobo with USB 3.1 support out of the box!

AMD is a budget option at the moment but has its own place on the market. If you want the very best, you go Intel. But with AMD more often than not, you can snag a really good deal. But having said that, I would try to stick to 95/125W SKUs only if I were to buy AMD again, though. That 200 plus watt behemoth is a bit too much, to be honest with you. However, I'd spend a weekend with it, coupled with something like this, hehe. Ah, the toys...

And if you must have Pci Express 3.0 with AMD, here is an option.

 

[SlowSpyder]

And if you must have Pci Express 3.0 with AMD, here is an option.

Wow, didn't know there was a PCIE 3.0 board out there for the FX's. Pretty interesting, I wonder how it performs. My board has USB 3.0, and I'm stuck with PICE 2.0 16x, but I have four of them. Maybe going to populate some more of them sooner or later.

 

[Enigmoid]

And if you must have Pci Express 3.0 with AMD, here is an option.

Not really PCIe 3.0. Well the board is and communication between the GPUs may be, but the CPU only supports PCIe 2.0.

http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1639761/sabertooth-990fx-gen3-worth.html

http://www.techpowerup.com/178545/a...press-3-0-motherboard-for-amd-processors.html

Some fancy switches in action there.

 

[myocardia]

Wow, didn't know there was a PCIE 3.0 board out there for the FX's. Pretty interesting, I wonder how it performs. My board has USB 3.0, and I'm stuck with PICE 2.0 16x, but I have four of them. Maybe going to populate some more of them sooner or later.

Hi , Steve, how are you? PCIe 2.0 is plenty fast enough for 2x7970s/2x GTX 970s, etc. You won't notice any speed improvements at all, until you buy the third card, or start collecting Titan Xs. Most members of this forum, myself included, will see more benefit from having native USB 3.0, than from PCIe 3.0.*

*Until next year, or the year after, when SSDs that use the PCIe bus become popular.

edit: Like this one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820147366&cm_re=XP_941-_-20-147-366-_-Product

 

[Dave2150]

It must be the 100th time that i read this urban legend, what are the latests technologies not supported by the 990X MBs, please tell us rather than doing a blank statement...

No native PCI-E v3, no M.2, no native USB3, no Sata Express, the list goes on.

As mentioned in the post you quoted, not my fault you cannot read properly.

The benchmarks i linked are 3ds max, Visual Stdio , compiling with GCC, WInrar + 7 zip, X264 + X265 encoding, Lightroom, Dxo Optics, Stockfish, Houdini pro.

Is this what you call non sense benches..?.

Perhaps we should rather use some Sysmarks..?.

Dont forget to tell us what are thoses 99% consumers apps, for the time you re just talking hot air while i provided actual consumers benches..



Some cherry picked games; 2 games actualy...

As short as your arguments...

Ok, lets link some more games, as 2 was not enough for you.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2014/06/19/intel-core-i7-4790k-devil-s-canyon-review/5

4790k = 88w. FX 9590 = 220W, or any FX chip like the 8350 clocked to 4.7+ Ghz uses 220w, so much more than the 88W of the 4790k.

There's no comparison - the FX CPU's are garbage, fit only for the the bin.

 

[Enigmoid]

Anandtech's GPU benchmarks are beyond terrible. FX will do decently for gaming. Not as good as an i5 or i7 but pretty good.

Bioshock is likely some scene change or mobo peculiarity. Min FPS is really only useful if you have some idea of performance over a period of time. Otherwise one minor hiccup can misrepresent results.

 

[Abwx]

No native PCI-E v3, no M.2, no native USB3, no Sata Express, the list goes on.

The list goes on of either irrelevant for perfs, like PCIE3, USB3 wich is available with add on chips and so on..

Indeed i never heard people talking of the Intel chipsets as vastly inferior when the 990X was launched, i did hear no one, and certainly not you, telling the masses to discard outdated Intel MBs...

Ok, lets link some more games, as 2 was not enough for you.

Let see at hardware fr. since i gave a link :

http://www.hardware.fr/focus/99/amd-fx-8370e-fx-8-coeurs-95-watts-test.html

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2014/06/19/intel-core-i7-4790k-devil-s-canyon-review/5

Lol, Bitech, the site that display the 2600K with a 7.6 score in Cinebech 11.5 allegedly at stock frequencies, that s the score of a 3770K...

You know well where are the "good" sites, isnt it..

4790k = 88w. FX 9590 = 220W, or any FX chip like the 8350 clocked to 4.7+ Ghz uses 220w, so much more than the 88W of the 4790k.

There's no comparison - the FX CPU's are garbage, fit only for the the bin.

The garbage is your bias, for people interested in actual technical datas and not in random statements the power drained by the so called 220W chips is less than 157W for the FX9370 and 180W for the 9590, at full load all cores loaded, prove that you re just filling this thread with fud since you re blatantly ignoring the real figures..

Now, what are the prices of thoses Intel marvels.?.
Because reading your post one could think that Intel pricing are competitive, wich is not the case at all..

Here a lowish 3.1GHz i5 cost more than a FX8350, the Intel pricing is indeed garbage given the much lower perfs than the competing AMD offerings, and games are not a saving grace given the low frequency...

 

[Abwx]

Curious results at AT, but look that they suit the biaised...

 

[Phynaz]

The garbage is your bias

Of all people to start yelling bias.

Speaking of garbage, are you ever going to stop cherry picking from hardware.fr?

 

[Abwx]

Of all people to start yelling bias.

Speaking of garbage, are you ever going to stop cherry picking from hardware.fr?

There s nothing that can be cherry picked at HFR in respect of AMD, all their softs are very well optimised for Intel CPUs, so if there s cherry picking it s certainly not in the direction you re implying.

But if you can find a bias tell us where it can be found, a hint, the FXs should score better in the average i posted but they castrated the AM3+ plateform for some dubbious reasons by limiting it to 1600MHz RAM even if it support1866 officialy, their explanation is that Intel s plateform only support the former, as if it was AMD fault that Intel only support this RAM speed.

In this respect i would be curious to see if there s a difference in 7 ZIP at 4.4GHz when increasing RAM speed from 1600 to 1866, would be great if some members do the test with their FXs..