Is there any reason to use FX CPUs right now?

[Yuriman]

And 90 years later, we are used to it. I play games at 30-60 fps without motion blur, and I never notice the framerate unless I am specifically looking for it. The game is still fun, so who cares.



No, the argument is like this:

Many of you probably haven't used a modern FX. I'm sure much of the same can be said about an i3 chip, but in day-to-day use, it's indistinguishable from an i7. Chrome with a ton of tabs + minecraft + skype + WMP + burning a DVD runs without a hitch. Given that, there aren't many excuses to have hyperthreading for basic Windows desktop use.

^ So if performance is unnoticeably different, but an FX has higher power draw and is on an older platform with fewer USB3 ports, lacking in ITX / integrated WiFi options, why pick the FX if it costs the same as an i3?

I mean, if you strip away *all* of your requirements for a CPU, you're left without a reason for buying it over another.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

How many of those participate in the hardware survey? In any case it still is a minuscule number compared to the total installed PC base, slightly more than the *new* pc sales for one quarter.

If you've ever taking a stat class you'd know that even if a random 50k of 90 million were counted, the margin of error would be absolutely insignificant.

The hardware survey shows month-to-month fluxuations of practically every needed hardware metric. Clock speeds, core count, X86 manufacturer, OS, APIs, extension support, it's really a good batch of information.

 

[frozentundra123456]

If you've ever taking a stat class you'd know that even if a random 50k of 90 million were counted, the margin of error would be absolutely insignificant.

The hardware survey shows month-to-month fluxuations of practically every needed hardware metric. Clock speeds, core count, X86 manufacturer, OS, APIs, extension support, it's really a good batch of information.

Of course you are ignoring that it is not a random set of the entire population, so any trends cannot be extrapolated to the entire population, which is what the poster of your first reply was referring to.

BTW, I *have* taken stat classes and use statistics every day in my research job.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Of course you are ignoring that it is not a random set of the entire population, so any trends cannot be extrapolated to the entire population, which is what the poster of your first reply was referring to.

BTW, I *have* taken stat classes and use statistics every day in my research job.

Unless I'm mistaken, how is it discriminatory towards any one trend amongst steam users? It doesn't just ask you if you want to participate if you're an AMD/Intel/nVidia user. It's across the board.

 

[Yuriman]

Unless I'm mistaken, how is it discriminatory towards any one trend amongst steam users? It doesn't just ask you if you want to participate if you're an AMD/Intel/nVidia user. It's across the board.

Steam users are necessarily gamers, and won't represent all PC users, and being a platform that offers discounted and free games, it will tend to have a larger proportion of those with lower-end systems than users on, say, Origin.

 

[Arachnotronic]

If you've ever taking a stat class you'd know that even if a random 50k of 90 million were counted, the margin of error would be absolutely insignificant.

Needs to be an actual random sample, though.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Needs to be an actual random sample, though.

Again, explain how it isn't?

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Calculate the margin of error for 7200 responses of a population of 85,000,000. MOE is a beautiful small round number.

500,000 sample to 85 million total systems? Margin of error is non-existent.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Again, explain how it isn't?

Obviously, because it is taken from a subset: those that buy games on Steam.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Obviously, because it is taken from a subset: those that buy games on Steam.

The most played games on steam are free-to-play. You don't have to buy anything.

What's the percentage of pc gamers who use steam? Who doesn't? Practically every single PC gamer has the steam client installed. Almost every single PC game is on steam, save for some retro and a handful of other games from EA/Blizzard.

There us no significant amount of PC gamers that don't have the steam client installed. I don't know a single person who games on PC without steam, and I play mostly SC2/BF3/4 and NBA 2K15. Only one of those is on steam.

The steam hardware survey is the most relevant and up to date metric on what's actually being used in the market for PC gaming, something that AMD cpus are supposedly the worst at.

 

[frozentundra123456]

We are not talking about the same thing. I am talking about the relevance of FX to the cpu market in general, not just gaming.

 

[Enigmoid]

The most played games on steam are free-to-play. You don't have to buy anything.

What's the percentage of pc gamers who use steam? Who doesn't? Practically every single PC gamer has the steam client installed. Almost every single PC game is on steam, save for some retro and a handful of other games from EA/Blizzard.

There us no significant amount of PC gamers that don't have the steam client installed. I don't know a single person who games on PC without steam, and I play mostly SC2/BF3/4 and NBA 2K15. Only one of those is on steam.

The steam hardware survey is the most relevant and up to date metric on what's actually being used in the market for PC gaming, something that AMD cpus are supposedly the worst at.

The entire sphere of torrent users.

Who often do not have steam because it can interfere with the cracked games.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

The entire sphere of torrent users.

Who often do not have steam because it can interfere with the cracked games.

LOL. Ok. I know that personally to be false unless you do something dumb like install a cracked game into the actual steam directory itself. Every cracked games that relies on steam comes with a cracked steamapi DLL as well, making it completely independent of everything else.

Those who don't have the money to afford buying games, what kind of hardware fits in their budget?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Been gaming on my FX a lot today. Been having a good time. Carry on.

 

[escrow4]

Considering 25% of the active gaming marketshare (steam systems) are AMD and we know how lackluster their laptop sales has been, where are these numbers coming from?

And 20% of those are old crappy Phenom II's at best or Athlon x2's.

 

[Enigmoid]

LOL. Ok. I know that personally to be false unless you do something dumb like install a cracked game into the actual steam directory itself. Every cracked games that relies on steam comes with a cracked steamapi DLL as well, making it completely independent of everything else.

Those who don't have the money to afford buying games, what kind of hardware fits in their budget?

Not every cracked game is perfect. There are exceptions or where the crack is a really old game and is finicky.

Having Steam or not having steam can mess up the game for people who do pirate, especially if they want to buy the game afterward. This conversation is not about piracy.

Its simply that there are people, probably not a lot but definitely not an insignificant number who are not using steam (there are also a number of games which do not require steam such as Wow, SCII, LOL, battlefield (anything recent from origin), GW2, etc.)

Steam is a good indicator but it is by no means the end all benchmark.

 

[escrow4]

The entire sphere of torrent users.

Who often do not have steam because it can interfere with the cracked games.

Steam is required as cracked steam games need an emulated .dll which obviously won't run without the original referenced in the system.

 

[Maximilian]

We are not talking about the same thing. I am talking about the relevance of FX to the cpu market in general, not just gaming.

Who else would buy an FX??

Joe average takes what hes given/sold.

Power users take the cheapest hexacore 5820k or maybe older hexacores.

That just leaves gamers really.

 

[Enigmoid]

Steam is required as cracked steam games need an emulated .dll which obviously won't run without the original referenced in the system.

One person says yes. One person says no.

Cracked games will run without steam.

 

[Lepton87]

LOL. Ok. I know that personally to be false unless you do something dumb like install a cracked game into the actual steam directory itself. Every cracked games that relies on steam comes with a cracked steamapi DLL as well, making it completely independent of everything else.

Those who don't have the money to afford buying games, what kind of hardware fits in their budget?

Trust me it's not that, it's mostly because they do not want to spend money where they can get away with not spending. It's like a luxury car owner not buying a car parking ticket because he can get it from someone else when he actually receives a fine and say later that his ticket just slipped away from the view. That's why some parkometers require you to enter your plate number - but that's somewhat different it could be done out of principle.

 

[mrmt]

The steam hardware survey is the most relevant and up to date metric on what's actually being used in the market for PC gaming, something that AMD cpus are supposedly the worst at.

Not really. AMD processors are bad buys only when compared with Intel processors, but you can play most games with 3M and 4M FX processors. In fact, the only reason for you to buy a FX processor is if you already have an AM3+ board and is extremely cash strapped. FX for gaming

IIRC the desktop market was the last market AMD retained more than 20%, the rest of them went down faster.

Been gaming on my FX a lot today. Been having a good time. Carry on.

You would also be having a good time with Sandy Bridge processors or even Nehalen processors.

 

[funboy6942]

Can someone tell me how or why, me playing Grid autosport on my FX 8320 at 4.4 and GTX 970 running at 100+ fps would be any different or better if I was to be using a much more expensive I7 chip so it runs at 150 fps instead? Would I see better eye candy? Would my eyes bleed from all the much higher framerates? would my game play change and make me a better driver? Would spending more money so I can whip out my Intel penis instead so I can gain more frames that my eye wont be able to tell the difference anyway, be sooooooooo much better that I needed to spend more money I could of used to put more ram into my system, or used to buy a better motherboard with better options, I just had to get a Intel set up because my FX didnt run near as fast, all just so I can say my Intel is faster at playing that game, even though my FX can play it just fine without any problems or lag with all options on at max rez?

Im poor, I like my money, Im a fan of my money, I like value for my money, do I really need to buy a intel set up just to say I got a intel and instead of my game running at 50fps like it would if it was a AMD, I spent $300 more for Intel set up so it will run the same game at 65fps, at the same settings, though my eyes would never tell the difference if they were placed side by side? I mean come on, really????

If Intel had a chip that did as good or better then my FX at the same price or better, I would buy Intel, but sadly, at around $150, what does Intel have that can do what my FX can do. No I dont want to spend more money, I have no more money, so at $150, what do they have that can do EXACTLY all my fx can do stock for stock, no overclock either of them?

 

[ShintaiDK]

There are other games than Grid.

 

[funboy6942]

I was using that as an example, so ok, how about COD advanced warfare? I got that game too. I play it as well, no lag, no problems, no slow down, can you please tell me what benefit I will gain my eyes will see if I went intel instead? Is there better eye candy I am missing? Can I all of a sudden No scope them mofo's whacking my mouse button with my golden intel penis? If it is playing smooth on my FX system with no problems at all, will me spending more on a intel set up do WHAT for me? So it is faster, it gets me faster frame rates, ok I get that, but why spend the extra cash on it if it doesnt do anything for me when I can use that extra cash so I can run 16 gigs of ram instead of 8, or instead of a $50 motherboard, I can use it to buy a kick ass $150 motherboard that will allow me to overclock my chip say from 3.5ghz to 4.4 or better?

If it works for me, in my price range, why must I spend more for more frames that I cant see with my eyes, or my my game play any better, that my FX does just fine at, and allowed me to get more ram, motherboard, case, hard drive, or what ever I could of used that extra money I saved by going with a AMD set up rather then having to go with a Intel just so I can sit back and tell all the AMD people, I get more frames in that game, though it looks no different, plays no different, gives you no special powers, I spent a shit ton more then you which means I have more money then you to throw away, just so I can say I have intel, and Im faster then you.

 

[Yuriman]

If you don't need a faster system, don't spend more money. Simple as that.

Unfortunately, an i3 is generally faster in games than an FX-8, and given that an i3 is around $125 and you don't need more than a $45 motherboard, or an aftermarket cooler, you stand to save quite a bit of money over an FX-8 system and get better performance to boot. (in games)

If you do other things than game, that run better on an FX, yeah, you could make a case, but an FX chip performs worse (in games) and costs more than an i3, and if you're overclocking, will probably cost more than a locked i5 too once you factor in cooler and motherboard.

^ If you only need ~24-30fps in CoD, you could have gone with a 9 year old Core2Quad or Phenom-2 based computer, which would probably run you a tiny fraction of the price of a modern platform. Why spend so much on an FX-8?