Is there any reason to use FX CPUs right now?

[TurtleCrusher]

No.

Then clearly you didn't buy an i5 just for gaming. Look at the same AT CPU bench you referred to and compare an i3 to an i5. There's zero reason to get an i5 over an i3 considering by your own words "Matter of fact, the only cpu demanding thing I do is gaming, so they are irrelevant to me."

An i3 2130 is faster and cheaper than the i5 2320 at gaming, especially then. Today the Core i3 4360 is just as fast as the Core i7 4790 in AT's CPU bench when it comes to gaming. Surely you'd recommend the i3 over the i7 for gaming, right?

 

[frozentundra123456]

Are you a mind reader? Otherwise how do you know my motivations?

As a matter of fact, i did buy it for gaming. Otherwise, i would have just bought the cheapest pentium that i could find. Actually, if not for gaming, i would have just stuck with the 2006 era core 2 duo system that i still use as a media center box.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Just take a look at the AT bench that you referred to. Unless more cores were the answer or are needed, the i3 is the same or faster with games at the time. Even now with the 4xxx series.

 

[coercitiv]

As a matter of fact, i did buy it for gaming. Otherwise, i would have just bought the cheapest pentium that i could find.

So in your opinion i3 is not worth the money?

Of course. Why not? And an i3 would not necessarily lose. Just depends on the workload. If you dont do a lot of multithreaded work, the i3 will give you more clockspeed for the dollar, while the i5 is the obvious choice for uses that can take advantage of the threads.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Magical futureproof FX . . . . then Skylake will hit around Christmas and put it in the cemetery once and for all.

You are always go on about future proofing but right now FX is just outclassed. It will just be poorer and poorer as Intel continues with tick-tock.

Yep, the same BS every time. 3½ years have the first people that bought into the FX delusion suffered contra a Sandy Bridge, And they still have to sit and wait for some miracle to unfold for their spaceheater CPUs not to be massively slower.

DX11 multithreading.
Games not taking advantage of the new CPU.
Consoles will make games use 6-8 cores and really leapfrog FX.

And now DX12 to will fix everything multithreading.

In a year we can read about the next excuse on why FX CPUs perform like crap. And how it will be magically fixed in the future.

Anyone that bought or buy an FX CPU for gaming burned their fingers.

 

[Erenhardt]

Like it or not FX makes a strides!
Before:

AFter:

Before, FX8300 had problems to beat wintel i3+DX11 combo. Mantle, and it is neck to neck with i5.
<Pixie dust magic.GIF>

The performance is there, but most don't reach it, yet.

Just look at the scaling from 4.7Ghz Fx4300 to 4.7Ghz Fx8300

DX11 +14% FPS increase
Mantle +29% FPS increase
Mantle Doubled the core scaling despite bringing it much closer to GPU bottleneck.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Like it or not FX makes a strides!
<Pixie dust magic.GIF>

The performance is there, but most don't reach it, yet.

Just look at the scaling from 4.7Ghz Fx4300 to 4.7Ghz Fx8300

DX11 +14% FPS increase
Mantle +29% FPS increase
Mantle Doubled the core scaling despite bringing it much closer to GPU bottleneck.

You compared 2 completely different benchmark cases. One in the benchmark run, the other is after 236 turns. But I guess you know, just hoping nobody noticed. That magic dust dissapeared again.

Not to mention AMDs DX driver is notoriously bad. And they ahve a tendency to...sabotage it when mantle is compared to DX.

Moving from prescripted to actually gaming. And FX CPUs falls flat on their face again. And yes thats right, a GTX970 scoring 75% higher than a 290X in DX.

And those i3s, they are cheaper than any 8 core AMD. And using 40% the power.
http://ark.intel.com/products/77488/Intel-Core-i3-4160-Processor-3M-Cache-3_60-GHz

And thats in a game designed for AMD.

 

[Abwx]

Magical futureproof FX . . . . then Skylake will hit around Christmas and put it in the cemetery once and for all.

You are always go on about future proofing but right now FX is just outclassed. It will just be poorer and poorer as Intel continues with tick-tock.

Skylake wont be better than Haswell, expect at best the same perf/watt, Anand s review point the Core M as being 10% less efficient than Haswell, so it s likely that the FX will be even more competitive in december...

Yep, the same BS every time. 3½ years have the first people that bought into the FX delusion suffered contra a Sandy Bridge, And they still have to sit and wait for some miracle to unfold for their spaceheater CPUs not to be massively slower.

Lol, look where the i5 2500K is compared to a FX8150, this latter can have as much as 50% better perf in integer tasks, you know , the ones that make sense for the average user, keep on advertising inferior CPUs by using the game mantra ad nauseam, this is the only app where the SB i5 still make some sense.


http://techreport.com/review/27018/intel-xeon-e5-2687w-v3-processor-reviewed/8

Look at real numbers and you ll grasp who is using BS as argumentation.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Lol, look where the i5 2500K is compared to a FX8150, this latter can have as much as 50% better perf in integer tasks, you know , the ones that make sense for the average user, keep on advertising inferior CPUs by using the game mantra ad nauseam, this is the only app where the SB i5 still make some sense.


http://techreport.com/review/27018/intel-xeon-e5-2687w-v3-processor-reviewed/8

Look at real numbers and you ll grasp who is using BS as argumentation.

Nobody cares about your cherrypicked rendering, encoding or file compressions.

We know thats the only thing FX CPUs are good for. Unfortunately thats all they are good at. Useless when you do anything else.

 

[Abwx]

Nobody cares about your cherrypicked rendering, encoding or file compressions.

We know thats the only thing FX CPUs are good for. Unfortunately thats all they are good at. Useless when you do anything else.

You should seriously stop assuming that you are the whole forum, speak for yourself without usurpating other people opinion by using terms like "we", "nobody" and so on.

As for cherry picking you could had added chesses, photo editing, compiling, that s quite a lot of cherry picked applications compared to your forever reference to gaming, that is, you are relying in a single application, you are the one cherry picking because you cant point a single application set apart games where the 2500K would be better than a FX8150 or even 8120.


Here another site, Computerbase.de, see where the 2500K stands, even in games it s not that better :

http://www.computerbase.de/2014-09/amd-fx-8370e-im-test/2/

Keep on posting your mythology, no wonder that you never post numbers, you know too well that this wouldnt show the Intel CPU s you re hyping as really good products overall, indeed you upgraded your 2500K for the IB and HW i5s, isnt this an aknwoledgment that you consider the 2500K as not a worthy CPU, yet you re advising other to use what you yourself discarded long ago..

 

[AtenRa]

Nobody I dont care about your cherrypicked rendering, encoding or file compressions.

We know thats the only thing FX CPUs are good for. Unfortunately thats all they are good at. Useless when you do anything else.

Fixed that for you

 

[Erenhardt]

Y

Moving from prescripted to actually gaming. And FX CPUs falls flat on their face again. And yes thats right, a GTX970 scoring 75% higher than a 290X in DX.

First part is just your speculation.
Second part is simply stupid.
gtx970 is scoring 100% lower than 290x in mantle. So what?

 

[TheELF]

Counting FPS in a TURN BASED strategy game is stupid anyway, its just a VGA benchmark if you want to see the differences between CPU's you will have to measure the time it takes the CPU to complete the turns of the enemies.

 

[TheELF]

As for cherry picking you could had added chesses, photo editing, compiling, that s quite a lot of cherry picked applications compared to your forever reference to gaming, that is, you are relying in a single application, you are the one cherry picking because you cant point a single application set apart games where the 2500K would be better than a FX8150 or even 8120.

Ok then,lets take a look at what runs better on the old &#953;5 ,
internet runs better
http://pclab.pl/art51730-6.html
irfanview | MS word | PDF
http://pclab.pl/art51730-7.html
After effects | Adobe premiere
http://pclab.pl/art51730-8.html

So what do 99.9% of people do all day long on their computers?
Render and compile stuff use adobe soft?
or do they just look at videos on youtube?

Other than gaming the most demanding thing that everybody does for long times on their comps every day is surfing.

 

[ShintaiDK]

First part is just your speculation.
Second part is simply stupid.
gtx970 is scoring 100% lower than 290x in mantle. So what?

No its not. And 100% lower would mean..nothing.

You tried to compare a prescripted benchmark with an ingame turn 236 and you got caught. So try again.

But lets try and look on the prescripted again.

Oh my, GTX970 faster than 290X. And Mantle performs roughly the same as DX. Just a shame the FX goes south when moved to ingame.

Turn 236, DX vs DX.

Someone better fix their drivers.

 

[Erenhardt]

Someone remind him of the topic.

I shoved you fx performance under mantle in comparison to intel cpus.

970 vs 290 is for the whole other forum. Its quite expected to see nv have better framerates in game based on their technology (modded civ5)

 

[ShintaiDK]

You should seriously stop assuming that you are the whole forum, speak for yourself without usurpating other people opinion by using terms like "we", "nobody" and so on.

As for cherry picking you could had added chesses, photo editing, compiling, that s quite a lot of cherry picked applications compared to your forever reference to gaming, that is, you are relying in a single application, you are the one cherry picking because you cant point a single application set apart games where the 2500K would be better than a FX8150 or even 8120.


Here another site, Computerbase.de, see where the 2500K stands, even in games it s not that better :

http://www.computerbase.de/2014-09/amd-fx-8370e-im-test/2/

Keep on posting your mythology, no wonder that you never post numbers, you know too well that this wouldnt show the Intel CPU s you re hyping as really good products overall, indeed you upgraded your 2500K for the IB and HW i5s, isnt this an aknwoledgment that you consider the 2500K as not a worthy CPU, yet you re advising other to use what you yourself discarded long ago..

You still try and try. But without putting huge focus on compression/encoding/rendering you fall flat.

Look at your own link. Theoretical tests. Thats where your FX behaves well. the destription also says it benefits hugely on more cores.

Now look at the gaming one. And the 8350 is yet again behind an i3.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Someone remind him of the topic.

I shoved you fx performance under mantle in comparison to intel cpus.

970 vs 290 is for the whole other forum. Its quite expected to see nv have better framerates in game based on their technology (modded civ5)

The OP is about if tthere is any reason to use an FX CPU. The answer is no as seen in the benchmark. Ingame in Civ BE as you posted. It still loses to the lwoest I3s that are cheaper and uses 40% the power.

The only place the FX doesnt look like a complete flop is in the prescripted benchmark. Something you tried to compare with a turn 236 benchmark to give the illusion that DX12 will fix everything for AMD. You got caught red handed tho.

 

[Abwx]

Ok then,lets take a look at what runs better on the old &#953;5 ,
internet runs better
http://pclab.pl/art51730-6.html
irfanview | MS word | PDF
http://pclab.pl/art51730-7.html
After effects | Adobe premiere
http://pclab.pl/art51730-8.html

So what do 99.9% of people do all day long on their computers?
Render and compile stuff use adobe soft?
or do they just look at videos on youtube?

Other than gaming the most demanding thing that everybody does for long times on their comps every day is surfing.

Surfing doesnt require a powerfull CPU, those tests are inflated for the purpose, a task that would take 0.1s instead of 0.15 is repeated a lot of times such that it will yield 10s and 15s but that s certainly not representative of the real experience, do you download 100 differents pages before starting to read the first one..?.

Also most people game on integrated GPUs and in this respect AMD s APUs are vastly superior to any Intel APU, a 80$ APU will trounce an i7 in this register, so in short Intel is better where it doesnt matter at all since the performance difference is not perceptible, that is, when browsing, and are lagging where it matters, gaming.

Would you pretend that a i3, or even i5, would give a better experience in a familial PC than a Kaveri.?

Possibly, but for this you ll have to spend even more money to buy a dGPU, otherwise the Intel APUs will be less good.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Magical futureproof FX . . . . then Skylake will hit around Christmas and put it in the cemetery once and for all.

You are always go on about future proofing but right now FX is just outclassed. It will just be poorer and poorer as Intel continues with tick-tock.

I know, right? The FX is going to get better with the next round of software in the future, and Nehalem, Westmere, Sandy, Ivy, Haswell, Broadwell, were all going to be the end of AMD. And now it'll be Skylake that does it, right?

 

[frozentundra123456]

Fixed that for you

I'm with Shintai on this one. BTW, it seems really rude to edit other peoples posts.

 

[Abwx]

You still try and try. But without putting huge focus on compression/encoding/rendering you fall flat.

Look at your own link. Theoretical tests. Thats where your FX behaves well. the destription also says it benefits hugely on more cores.

Now look at the gaming one. And the 8350 is yet again behind an i3.

You re just confirming that the 8150 is better since it also best the 2500K in the "Anwendungen" test, that is an average built using those softs :

Cyberlink Media Expresso
dB Power Amp
iTunes
PC Mark 7
Povray
Paint.NET
TrueCrypt
Winar
X264 Encoding

Notice that Cinebench is on the theorical tests list.

On gaming 2500K is 12% better than the FX8150 at 1080p, that s what you call a massive win?

And why didnt you post that the i3 4330 is only 6% better in games while being trounced in about everything else.

So it s a win in theorical and practical tests for the 8150 and a little advantage for the 2500k in games, you really were inspired when shifting from your 2500K to more recent i5s...

http://www.computerbase.de/2014-09/...2/#diagramm-abschliessendes-performancerating

I'm with Shintai on this one. BTW, it seems really rude to edit other peoples posts.

Is it as rude as writing "we know", "nobody", so you dont have problems with people that pretend to speak on behalf of everybody, including thoses that do not agree..?.

Would you also use such methods.?.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Fixed that for you

Agreed.

ShintaiDK just loves to listen to himself talk. Anyone who runs both Intel and AMD hardware knows that
there isn't anything an Intel CPU can do that an AMD can't. It's kinda depressing that he probably actually believes such a distorted reality.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

The OP is about if tthere is any reason to use an FX CPU. The answer is no as seen in the benchmark.

And you yet again conveniently ignore the benchmarks that don't suit the distortion.... The FX remains an excellent chip for a home server, rendering or scientific computing -- an octocore FX will mop the floor with an i5 for pretty much any task the Opteron excels (since that is the architecture the FX was derived with). Its not like the Opteron was ever designed to play games.

It's like complaining about how fast a Peterbilt truck runs the Motor Trend slalom. The Peterbilt wasn't designed for that intended task -- but it does a damn good job of hauling 80,000 lbs of freight.

 

[Yuriman]

MiddleOfTheRoad, I largely agree, but for a home server I'd probably use a cat core or Atom-based solution, depending on what it's serving.

EDIT: In a situation where you're paying for electricity and working with constant heavy loads, an i7 will end up cheaper overall, and as fast or faster, while in a situation where you're never working with large loads, both 1150 and AM3 will be poor choices in terms of ecnomy. An FX fits the niche where you'll have very occasional spikey loads that are well threaded. There is the added upfront cost of a video card though, which is not included with FX chips...