Is there any reason to use FX CPUs right now?

Yuriman · Feb 18, 2015

Haswell i5 - $180
Motherboard - $45+
Cooler - free with CPU

Total: $225

FX-8320 - $150
Overclocking board - $100+
Hyper212 Evo cooler - $35

Total: $285

It's also possible to go with a power supply that is approximately 100-200w smaller in an i5 system, saving another $20-40.

funboy6942 · Feb 18, 2015

Yuriman said:
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?

Yes it may take a slight hit in games, but still plays them fast enough they dont slow down with everything turned up, but I can run soooooo many things at once an never choke the sucker its not even funny, which is what I really like about it. I can game, and do everything else under the sun I can ever think about with it. I use my pc for much more then gaming. I rip, I burn, media, movies, music, I edit, I recode, I do multiple things at once, and I have yet to make my pc slow down and I have tried. I run 3 monitors at a time, and I fill them with things going on on each, some times with more then one thing running on each monitor, and it just keeps chugging along. Can that I3 do that? It alows me to do ALL I want and never have to worry, damn, if I open that, my pc will slow down and stutter.....

Yuriman · Feb 18, 2015

Generally, yes, an i3 can do that. Each core is capable of doing ~60% more than an FX core, and hyperthreading adds 30-70% (tending toward 30% in games, 70 in scientific computing, let's call it 50%), which makes Intel's dual core roughly equivalent to a 5-core AMD chip in terms of total throughput. AMD chips have a module penalty of 10-20%, so an 8 core FX with all 8 cores loaded up ends up only being ~6.4-7.2x the speed of one of its cores.

An i5 definitely can.

And, because the performance is distributed differently (fewer, faster cores), things that are not well threaded run much, much faster.

funboy6942 · Feb 18, 2015

Yuriman said:
Haswell i5 - $180
Motherboard - $45+
Cooler - free with CPU

Total: $225

FX-8320 - $150
Overclocking board - $100+
Hyper212 Evo cooler - $35

Total: $285

It's also possible to go with a power supply that is approximately 100-200w smaller in an i5 system, saving another $20-40.

Well actually, the cpu comes with a heatsink so dont need that, and you can get a mobo that oc's for $69, so its really just $219 shipped for a AMD set up that overclocks. And this video puts the AMD and you I5 neck to neck with each other, but I can run more stuff at the same time and not choke my pc

Yes the video is a 8350, but I can easily oc mine to its speeds and then some making it just the same at stock.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLvNbZLBGYw

Smoblikat · Feb 18, 2015

Yuriman said:
Generally, yes, an i3 can do that. Each core is capable of doing ~60% more than an FX core, and hyperthreading adds 30-70% (tending toward 30% in games, 70 in scientific computing, let's call it 50%), which makes Intel's dual core roughly equivalent to a 5-core AMD chip in terms of total throughput. AMD chips have a module penalty of 10-20%, so an 8 core FX with all 8 cores loaded up ends up only being ~6.4-7.2x the speed of one of its cores.

An i5 definitely can.

And, because the performance is distributed differently (fewer, faster cores), things that are not well threaded run much, much faster.

Hook. Line. Sinker.

Yuriman · Feb 18, 2015

Depends on your use-case, but regardless, an i3 often performs the same or better in games, for less, and offers adequate multitasking performance, for $50-75 less than an FX setup. (not taking into account the savings from smaller power supply and lower electricity costs)

At the same price I'd take an i5 over an FX any day of the week.

Bradtech519 · Feb 18, 2015

If gaming is the main function of your rig then go with the Intel processors. There are some benchmarks where even the Core I3 CPUs beat the FX 9590 & on the flip side there are benchmarks in some usage patterns where a FX chips areright up there with the 4790k so try to find which is your case. Core i5 4690k/Core I7 4790K are awesome chips & under close to all scenarios are the better chip(coming from someone that was/is an AMD fanboy that misses the days of competition in x86). I'd research as many benchmarks for the games or other tasks you are doing & weigh the cost differences. I'm satisfied with my FX 8350 but I use it for general web usage, distributed computing, and playing Dirt 3/other games that it and my r9 290 handle without issue. Heck, most of my gaming lately has came from playing NES/SNES emulation on my surface pro! If I had to pay full retail unlike I did on my rig below I would have went Intel more than likely. $150-175 more for an I7 4790k from what I've seen in what I do is worth the price to me. That wasn't the case on the 2000/3000k Core i7 series when comparing performance at a very niche thing for custom work units on specific projects in distributed computing.

Abwx · Feb 18, 2015

FXs age better than both i5 and i7, that s what the numbers says, the FX is more advanced than SB and IB, hence why it s still currently competitive.

Pay attention to thoses averages of 10 serious softs from 2011-2012 and the same averages with more recent versions of thoses softs :

June 2013 haswell review at HFR :

September 2014 FX8370E review at HFR, that is one year later :

The i7 resisted but the i5 has to give up its glory in just a matter of one year, what about in 2 years since Hardware.fr stated that some of the softs are still not capable of fully loading 8 threads..?.

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/897-25/gains-moyennes-cpu.html

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

frozentundra123456 · Feb 18, 2015

Wow, havent seen this before.

TheELF · Feb 18, 2015

Abwx said:
FXs age better than both i5 and i7, that s what the numbers says,

Being halfways,and still not fully, utilized after 3-4 years is something totally different than aging well.

FX just underperforms even when programmers go to great lengths to make well threaded software,that is what you are saying here.

Abwx · Feb 18, 2015

TheELF said:
Being halfways,and still not fully, utilized after 3-4 years is something totally different than aging well.

FX just underperforms even when programmers go to great lengths to make well threaded software,that is what you are saying here.

You have to put words on my mouth to try to make a point, that is, a good ole straw as argument.

What i m saying is that i5 will be even more below the FXs next year, i did read that you stated that FXs are not aging as well as Intel i5, thoses graphs are just bursting whatever straws or rethoric you re using now that real world numbers, not urban legends, are showing how wrong you were.

FX performs very well and will perform even better on the future, as for the core count that according to you is not optimaly used then put your money where your mouth is and state that all 6C/12T and 8C/16T Intel CPUs are even more underused and that they are not a worthy buy.

As said i m relying on numbers, and at the risk of repeating me ad nauseam, i give no attention to urban legends and other myths born out of hearsay.

BSim500 · Feb 18, 2015

frozentundra123456 said:
Wow, havent seen this before.

Abwx · Feb 18, 2015

BSim500 said:
And here's one he won't post from his beloved hardware.fr:- :whiste:

Or half of last year's AAA games for that fact:-

Why some resident fanboys insist on churning out the same lame "i5's suck 'cos 8 corez must b twice as fast as 4" inane cr*p week after week I simply do not know...

Games are one application, HFR averages are several applications, indeed it looks like each time the FX stregnthes are commented AT CPU Forums suddenly become AT Games Only Forum, that said i could do the same as you and use 20 charts of the same applications.

Btw, where is the other half of thoses AAA games, or are they too annoying to be displayed.??..

As for the fanboy moniker i suggest that you stop this kind of trashy behaviour, it just show that you have to rely on ad hominems since your technical discourse is poor to the point of using always the same app as pathetic point.

why not a SHA graph since Hardware.fr and AT have nothing of the sort.?..

You want other apps or is it enough, i have no doubt that you ll answer with yet another game, welcome at AT Games Forum for any newcomer..

SlowSpyder · Feb 18, 2015

What those links say to me is that your CPU choice doesn't matter very much. I think some of you get way too hung up on numbers that don't necessarily translate into your actual experience.

BSim500 · Feb 18, 2015

Abwx said:
As for the fanboy moniker i suggest that you stop this kind of trashy behaviour, it just show that you have to rely on ad hominems since your technical discourse is poor to the point of using always the same app as pathetic point.

You're like a broken record "i5's and i7's will be obsolete next year, just you wait and see, all we have to do is wait for..." (repeated every single year since 2006) followed up by throwing out the usual "urban legends, ad hominem, trashy, myths, rethoric, pathetic, straw man, hearsay, thread crapping, blah, blah" dozen overly repeated buzzwords as a virtually automated daily response to anyone who "dares" to disagree with your personal fantasy...

As for games, given that's what people have been talking about for the past 15 pages and how the OP started the thread with : "Historically I've used AMD CPUs in media and modest gaming rigs... now I'm about to build a mid-caliber gaming rig", 'why are we talking about games' says a lot about your own reading comprehension...

Sweepr · Feb 18, 2015

BSim500 said:
And here's one he won't post from his beloved hardware.fr:- :whiste:

Or half of last year's AAA games for that fact:-

AC Unity : http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...Action-Assassins_Creed_Unity-test-ac_proz.jpg
Alien Isolation : http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...ction-Alien_Isolation_-test-alien_proz_nv.jpg
BF4 Dragons Teeth : http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...lefield_4_Dragons_Teeth-test-bf4_proz_amd.jpg
Borderlands PS : http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...erlands_-_The_Pre-Sequel-test-border_proz.jpg
Bound by Flame : http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...t_GPU-Action-Bound_By_Flame-test-bbf_proz.jpg
Civ Beyond Earth : http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...ion_Beyond_Earth-test-civilizationbe_proz.jpg
CoD AW : http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...Duty_Advanced_Warfare-test-cod_proz_intel.jpg
Daylight : http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...ies-Test_GPU-Action-Daylight_-test-d_proz.jpg
DayZ : http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...ories-Test_GPU-Action-DayZ-test-dayz_proz.jpg
Dead Rising 3 : http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...t_GPU-Action-Dead_Rising_3-test-dr_3_proz.jpg
Evil Within : http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...ion-The_Evil_Within_-test-evilwithin_proz.jpg
Fable Anniversary : http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt..._Anniversary_-test-Fable_Anniversary_proz.jpg
Far Cry 4 : http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...Test_GPU-Action-Far_Cry_4-nv-test-fc_proz.jpg
Grid Autosport : http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...RID_Autosport-test-GRIDAutosport_proz_amd.jpg
Lichdom Battlemage : http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...ction-Lichdom_Battlemage-test-lb_proz_amd.jpg
Lords Of The Fallen : http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt..._Of_The_Fallen-test-LordsOfTheFallen_proz.jpg
Metal Gear Solid V : http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...Gear_Solid_V_Ground_Zeroes_-test-mgs_proz.jpg
Metro LL Redux : http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...Metro_Last_Light_Redux-test-mtero_ll_proz.jpg
Shadow of Mordor : http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...hadow_of_Mordor-test-ShadowOfMordor_proze.jpg
Styx Master of Shadows : http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...Styx_Master_of_Shadows-test-StyxGame_proz.jpg
Thief : http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Thief_-test-proz.jpg
Vanishing Ethan Carter : http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...f_Ethan_Carter_-test-AstronautsGame-_proz.jpg
Watch Dogs : http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...-Action-Watch_Dogs-test-proz_nvidia_ultra.jpg
World of Tanks : http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...t_GPU-MMO-World_of_Tanks_9.0-test-wotproz.jpg

Why some resident fanboys insist on churning out the same lame "i5's suck 'cos 8 corez must b twice as fast as 4" inane cr*p week after week I simply do not know...

After Crysis 3 there were certain users claiming PS4/X1 console ports would scale perfectly with 8 cores and a 4-threaded Core i5 would be outdated after their launch. Thanks for busting this bullshit.

You're like a broken record "i5's and i7's will be obsolete next year, just you wait and see, all we have to do is wait for..." (repeated every single year since 2006) followed up by throwing out the usual "urban legends, ad hominem, trashy, myths, rethoric, pathetic, straw man, hearsay, thread crapping, blah, blah" dozen overly repeated buzzwords as a virtually automated daily response to anyone who "dares" to disagree with your personal fantasy...

BSim500 · Feb 18, 2015

SlowSpyder said:
What those links say to me is that your CPU choice doesn't matter very much. I think some of you get way too hung up on numbers that don't necessarily translate into your actual experience.

For those "easy" games with consistent min & avg frame-rates over 60fps on both brands - sure there's little difference. But for others with regular min fps drop to 30 vs a stable +60fps, it's pretty noticeable.

Yuriman · Feb 18, 2015

SlowSpyder said:
What those links say to me is that your CPU choice doesn't matter very much. I think some of you get way too hung up on numbers that don't necessarily translate into your actual experience.

This is often the case, really. I find it hard to objectively recommend an FX over an Intel chip for every day use, but it's not a bad CPU for most things. A vast majority of games run fine, idle power consumption is acceptable, and most people will not have them under heavy load for extended periods.

As to whether an FX will age better than an i5, that depends on your uses, and is still debatable. In games, the gap between Intel and AMD chips seems on average to have grown since the FX was released, with a few exceptions. If past trends are representative of future trends, this doesn't predict FX chips will age better in gaming. Those saying the gap will close or that FX chips will perform better than Intel chips because of DX12 should look at Mantle benchmarks, which generally indicate that all current chips will have their lives extended, but that Intel's offerings still perform better.

In scientific computing, FX chips were always faster, on average, than Intel chips. The amount of people on this forum interested in that type of computing is a minority, but an FX will probably serve them very well.

For non-gamers and non-power users, both an i5 and an FX will probably be overkill, and a waste of money. FX chips lack an iGPU and will generally cost more overall because of this, but the rest of the arguments (power use, performance, noise) are irrelevant for a CPU that sits idle 99.9% of the time. I've been recommending i3's a lot lately for this reason.

Abwx · Feb 18, 2015

BSim500 said:
You're like a broken record "i5's and i7's will be obsolete next year, just you wait and see, all we have to do is wait for..." (repeated every single year since 2006) followed up by throwing out the usual "urban legends, ad hominem, trashy, myths, rethoric, pathetic, straw man, hearsay, thread crapping, blah, blah" dozen overly repeated buzzwords as a virtually automated daily response to anyone who "dares" to disagree with your personal fantasy...

You are a liar and i will point where by quoting your lies :

BSim500 said:
You're like a broken record "i5's and i7's will be obsolete next year, just you wait and see, all we have to do is wait for..."

Pure invention, i never said so, find me where i would have said that these will be obsolete, you wont , and i already pointed numerous times that you re a specialist when it comes to create false quotes.

BSim500 said:
(repeated every single year since 2006)

yet another of your lies...
Check since when i m registered at AT....

BSim500 said:
followed up by throwing out the usual "urban legends, ad hominem, trashy, myths, rethoric, pathetic, straw man, hearsay, thread crapping, blah, blah"

That describes accurately your posts, it s only ad hominem and deliberate personal attacks using forged quotes, it s like you are unable to discuss the presented datas.

BSim500 said:
As for games, given that's what people have been talking about for the past 15 pages and how the OP started the thread with : "Historically I've used AMD CPUs in media and modest gaming rigs... now I'm about to build a mid-caliber gaming rig", 'why are we talking about games' says a lot about your own reading comprehension...

That could have been a part worthy of discussion but your behaviour is such that it s not interesting to discuss with you, i ll get in this debate with other people eventualy, indeed i often singled you for creating wrong quotes but it seems that s an habit really hard to break, so to no more have to adress posts that are essentialy irrelevant i ve no other choice than to put you on ignore list, you ll be the only one there currently, it say it all.

Abwx · Feb 18, 2015

I noticed on the links above that GameGPU.Ru use watchdog wich is included in hardware.fr suite, let s compare the results, and HFR said that they selected the most power hungry possible scene that was reproducible and exactly the same for all CPUs, let s start with the russian site :

http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Watch_Dogs-test-proz_nvidia_ultra.jpg

And let see what HFR got at the same definition :

A big lol about GameGPU.ru, it s obvious that they dont use heavy loading scenes contrary to Hardware.fr that used the scene, and always the same, that put the more pressure on CPUs.

frozentundra123456 · Feb 18, 2015

Yea, game.gpu *must* favor Intel. That is why they have all those ads for FX processors and AMD graphics cards on their front page.

Abwx · Feb 18, 2015

frozentundra123456 said:
Yea, game.gpu *must* favor Intel. That is why they have all those ads for FX processors and AMD graphics cards on their front page.

Yet i said that they dont use scenes that load heavily the CPU, so from where did you extract that i would had said that they favour Intel CPUs..?.

Or is it an habit here to not even read accurately other people posts since this allow to go full straw like you did.?.

Now, can you comment on the differences, that is, being on point with what i posted.?.

Anyway it s curious that numbers are never attacked, surely that since they cant it s the messengers that are under scrutinity...

Yuriman · Feb 18, 2015

Abwx said:
Yet i said that they dont use scenes that load heavily the CPU, so from where did you extract that i would had said that they favour Intel CPUs..?.

Or is it an habit here to not even read accurately other people posts since this allow to go full straw like you did.?.

Now, can you comment on the differences, that is, being on point with what i posted.?.

Anyway it s curious that numbers are never attacked, surely that since they cant it s the messengers that are under scrutinity...

It would seem to me that, because their framerates are lower, they're probably using scenes with *heavier* CPU loading.

Also, what video card are they using? Probably not SLI 780's.

Abwx · Feb 18, 2015

Yuriman said:
It would seem to me that, because their framerates are lower, they're probably using scenes with *heavier* CPU loading.

Also, what video card are they using? Probably not SLI 780's.

They use a 780TI, isnt it curious that they get higher FPS with a FX8350 and a single card that Game.GPU.ru using a SLI set up..?.

Yuriman said:
As to whether an FX will age better than an i5, that depends on your uses, and is still debatable. In games, the gap between Intel and AMD chips seems on average to have grown since the FX was released,

Gaming remain generaly a strength of Intel most pricey CPUs but although their advantage is still quite substancial it has fairly narrowed according to Hardware.fr, i5 4670K has a 25% advantage over the FX8350 but that s a long shot from the previous 42% difference, on the mid term the evolution will be the same as for applications, with the FX8xxx progressively closing the gap before eventualy beating the i5 thanks to much higher throughput.

Same reviews as above but for gaming averages :

2013 haswell review

2014 FX8370 review :

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/897-25/gains-moyennes-cpu.html

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

BSim500 · Feb 18, 2015

Yuriman said:
It would seem to me that, because their framerates are lower, they're probably using scenes with *heavier* CPU loading.

Also, what video card are they using? Probably not SLI 780's.

Hardware.fr's test was with 1x GTX 780Ti, GameGPU's was done with 2x 780 Ti's in SLI. So the fact the faster Intel CPU's got up to 20% higher fps on GameGPU (but the FX-8350 was within 7% of itself) was more about removing a mild GPU bottleneck on hardware.fr's test than his usual made-up "cherry picked scenes" excuses. As you can see by this chart, a single 780Ti dips down to 49fps (and average 56fps) where in 780TI SLI the min fps is 67fps and 85avg.

What's more hardware.fr included the amusing review note : "The framerate Watch Dogs for its part measured at a 20s racing in a pretty busy part of the game. We found scenes with framerate from 10 to 20% lower but the automatic backup system prevented us to use them in a very reproducible, as the changing environment." (whatever that means...)

So given all that, it's not really surprising that CPU's that can do up to 100fps are being held back on the hardware.fr's test. Which presumably is why he loves hardware.fr so much - if you can artificially cap the fastest Intel CPU's by 15-20% with a GPU bottleneck, then you can "narrow the gap" in CPU comparisons...) :sneaky:

Is there any reason to use FX CPUs right now?

Diamond Member

Lifer

Diamond Member

Lifer

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Senior member

Lifer

Lifer

Diamond Member

Lifer

Golden Member

Lifer

Lifer

Golden Member

Diamond Member

Golden Member

Diamond Member

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Diamond Member

Lifer

Golden Member