Is there any reason to use FX CPUs right now?

Page 23 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Dave2150

Senior member
Jan 20, 2015
639
178
116
I've been reading this thread trying to determine what the best buy would be for a system for my kids to game on. I *really* expected to see AMD offer a decent alternative but I have to admit I'm shocked as hell to see even the i3 pretty much mowing it down in most games. What happened to AMD? I keep looking for the winning use case for gaming with chips like the 8350...and it doesn't exist. There is no value proposition for AMD in gaming from what I've read.

Hell, now I'm even hesitent to look at AMD/ATI Gpus. Hopefully there is still an angle there for them.

No, I'm not trolling. I just haven't looked into AMD for years..this was surprising.

While AMD's CPU's are terrible junk from 2011, their GPU's are very competitive with NVIDIA. They offer the best card avilable at certain price points and they function flawlessly.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
198
106
No its AMD's fault for allowing crappy manufacturing specs
Its AMD's fault for not forcing partners to be more clear about how they advertise specs on their boards
Its AMDs responsibility to ensure people who purchase their products feel good and are willing to recommend or buy again.

That post is so full of crap.

Your comments amount to ford telling parts manufacturers they have to hold to a certain quality. Last time I bought brake pads for my wifes tahoe the pads were not certified by GM.

Maybe exxon should only sell gas that is certified by GM, ford, dodge, toyota?

If an exxon gas station sells gas that has water in it, that is not toyotas fault.

AMD is only responsible for the parts they manufacture.
 
Last edited:

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
198
106
How does it work for you? Do you feel the FX 8350 is slow or holds you back? I think Intel is making more well rounded CPU's right now, but I feel like my FX is no slouch.

After using the 8350 for around 2 months I feel the performance could be a lot better.

Metro last light is slow, even with the video settings on low.
Path of exile stutters from time to time.
Video editing on 1080p I feel is a little slow.
Playing Rust is ok.
The Witcher 2 is laggy.

I feel this will be the last time I go with AMD. That is until they make some major improvements.
 

Dave2150

Senior member
Jan 20, 2015
639
178
116
After using the 8350 for around 2 months I feel the performance could be a lot better.

Metro last light is slow, even with the video settings on low.
Path of exile stutters from time to time.
Video editing on 1080p I feel is a little slow.
Playing Rust is ok.
The Witcher 2 is laggy.

I feel this will be the last time I go with AMD. That is until they make some major improvements.

If your bought the AMD setup 3 months ago, then it should be no surprise for you that hardware released in 2011 performs poorly in 2015.
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
After using the 8350 for around 2 months I feel the performance could be a lot better.

Metro last light is slow, even with the video settings on low.
Path of exile stutters from time to time.
Video editing on 1080p I feel is a little slow.
Playing Rust is ok.
The Witcher 2 is laggy.

I feel this will be the last time I go with AMD. That is until they make some major improvements.
sorry but what you seem to be describing there is most certainly not all related to the 8350.
 

Ramses

Platinum Member
Apr 26, 2000
2,871
4
81
Kinda missing the crucial "I have x video card" data point there.

I can only speak as to Metro LL, but with an 8350@4.2 and a pair of 280x it ran fine at 1080p. Had to dissable some NV physics or shadows thing, something like that, but it was happy otherwise. It runs about as well with a 4790k and a 290x fwiw.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
That post is so full of crap.

Your comments amount to ford telling parts manufacturers they have to hold to a certain quality. Last time I bought brake pads for my wifes tahoe the pads were not certified by GM.

Maybe exxon should only sell gas that is certified by GM, ford, dodge, toyota?

If an exxon gas station sells gas that has water in it, that is not toyotas fault.

AMD is only responsible for the parts they manufacture.

Have to strongly disagree. The things you are talking about are installed *after* the car leaves the manufacturer. They are out of the manufacture's control. That is more like saying AMD is not responsible for parts installed after the consumer takes delivery of the computer, like adding a gpu or something. That I would agree with.

Products that AMD supplies the cpu for are known products. Do you reasonably believe that when AMD sells a cpu to an OEM they dont know the quality of the device it will be put into? If that is true, then they are highly negligent in their supply chain. It is in their best interest to make sure their cpus are put into attractive and reliable products. If they dont do this, they are actually hurting themselves and the image of their product.
 
Last edited:

Ramses

Platinum Member
Apr 26, 2000
2,871
4
81
Sandy-E was released in 2011...performs *superbly* in 2015
I'm sure it does, but it's important to qualify such things for the less informed with the reason why it still performs so well. That advances in cpu performance have been at a snails pace relative to the recent past lately.

This is why, ironically, it was a good time for the FX to be released if it was going to be not updated for a long while, and why so long after and despite its disadvantages in a number of areas they are still selling and being used and actively discussed. Same goes for sandybridge or what have you of course. Lots of folks are still happily running what would have been considered ancient CPU's not too long ago.

May well be happy coincidence for amd, but it's how I see it after having owned and used them and Intel recently.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
After using the 8350 for around 2 months I feel the performance could be a lot better.

Metro last light is slow, even with the video settings on low.
Path of exile stutters from time to time.
Video editing on 1080p I feel is a little slow.
Playing Rust is ok.
The Witcher 2 is laggy.

I feel this will be the last time I go with AMD. That is until they make some major improvements.
Can you turn on high performance computing mode in BIOS, disable APM, and try again?
 

Maximilian

Lifer
Feb 8, 2004
12,604
15
81
9OG0pBN.png
 

Dave2150

Senior member
Jan 20, 2015
639
178
116
I'm sure it does, but it's important to qualify such things for the less informed with the reason why it still performs so well. That advances in cpu performance have been at a snails pace relative to the recent past lately.

This is why, ironically, it was a good time for the FX to be released if it was going to be not updated for a long while, and why so long after and despite its disadvantages in a number of areas they are still selling and being used and actively discussed. Same goes for sandybridge or what have you of course. Lots of folks are still happily running what would have been considered ancient CPU's not too long ago.

May well be happy coincidence for amd, but it's how I see it after having owned and used them and Intel recently.

Yeh, AMD are selling so many CPU's right now:

lud9iW0.png
 

Ramses

Platinum Member
Apr 26, 2000
2,871
4
81
I miss my 9590. The 4790k was functionally a waste of money right now but I didn't feel right touting the virtues of the FX without first hand experience with the alternative. It is faster and I'm sure it'll pay off down the road if I keep it long enough though, but to me it illustrated just how well the FX does in general use despite its demonstrable shortcomings. If one has the budget and time I highly recommend running both with equal supporting components, it's been very interesting. I wish I could have had both at once, and I should have kept the crossfire setup for the i7 as well. I'm awfully tempted to try out an a10 next. I think the AMD stuff appeals more to the types that are interested in how much they can do with how little rather than what is best. Best is generally kinda boring to me, anyone with a credit card can have best. Just my preference though.
 

monstercameron

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2013
3,818
1
0
I miss my 9590. The 4790k was functionally a waste of money right now but I didn't feel right touting the virtues of the FX without first hand experience with the alternative. It is faster and I'm sure it'll pay off down the road if I keep it long enough though, but to me it illustrated just how well the FX does in general use despite its demonstrable shortcomings. If one has the budget and time I highly recommend running both with equal supporting components, it's been very interesting. I wish I could have had both at once, and I should have kept the crossfire setup for the i7 as well. I'm awfully tempted to try out an a10 next. I think the AMD stuff appeals more to the types that are interested in how much they can do with how little rather than what is best. Best is generally kinda boring to me, anyone with a credit card can have best. Just my preference though.


My thoughts exactly, anyone can buy a nice Intel cpu and be happy. I like to see the enthusiasts come out and for cheaper build something better. It may have a few caveats but it is just more interesting.

The 9590 is interesting because in order to be competitive, amd managed to produce a chip that can sustain a 5ghz clock.
 

Yuriman

Diamond Member
Jun 25, 2004
5,530
141
106
I miss my 9590. The 4790k was functionally a waste of money right now but I didn't feel right touting the virtues of the FX without first hand experience with the alternative. It is faster and I'm sure it'll pay off down the road if I keep it long enough though, but to me it illustrated just how well the FX does in general use despite its demonstrable shortcomings. If one has the budget and time I highly recommend running both with equal supporting components, it's been very interesting. I wish I could have had both at once, and I should have kept the crossfire setup for the i7 as well. I'm awfully tempted to try out an a10 next. I think the AMD stuff appeals more to the types that are interested in how much they can do with how little rather than what is best. Best is generally kinda boring to me, anyone with a credit card can have best. Just my preference though.

A10 makes a perfectly adequate light-duty PC (from experience). Atom and Kabini can feel a bit slow at times, but an A10's CPU doesn't disappoint, even if it falls short in some benchmarks. The iGPU is capable of playing any and all games at low settings unlike Intel's offering which is hit and miss, as much from drivers as raw performance, but as soon as you want more than low graphical settings and 30-40fps, that huge and relatively expensive iGPU just sits idle next to a discrete card and screams "you should've bought an i3".

AMD's APUs hold an interesting part of the market which contains the cheapest machines that are still capable of doing anything. I was very tempted to build my brother-in-law an A8-based PC last week but decided that moving up to an i3 and used dGPU for about $100, though marginally more expensive, actually offered far better performance per dollar. I know he'd have been satisfied with the APU, but 3-4x the gaming performance for ~20% more total system cost makes them hard to swallow sometimes.
 

monstercameron

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2013
3,818
1
0
A10 makes a perfectly adequate light-duty PC (from experience). Atom and Kabini can feel a bit slow at times, but an A10's CPU doesn't disappoint, even if it falls short in some benchmarks. The iGPU is capable of playing any and all games at low settings unlike Intel's offering which is hit and miss, as much from drivers as raw performance, but as soon as you want more than low graphical settings and 30-40fps, that huge and relatively expensive iGPU just sits idle next to a discrete card and screams "you should've bought an i3".

AMD's APUs hold an interesting part of the market which contains the cheapest machines that are still capable of doing anything. I was very tempted to build my brother-in-law an A8-based PC last week but decided that moving up to an i3 and used dGPU for about $100, though marginally more expensive, actually offered far better performance per dollar. I know he'd have been satisfied with the APU, but 3-4x the gaming performance for ~20% more total system cost makes them hard to swallow sometimes.


How much was the a10 going for at that time?
 

Yuriman

Diamond Member
Jun 25, 2004
5,530
141
106
How much was the a10 going for at that time?

It was recent, past few weeks, and I was going off Newegg prices. A8 7600 was $100, and A10 7850 was $145. I ended up going with a Haswell i3 ($120) and used 7950 ($100) I plucked out of the classifieds. Unfortunately, motherboard selection was pretty limited on FM2+ in the ITX form factor, and it was about $20 more to feature match an 1150 board.
 

bunnyfubbles

Lifer
Sep 3, 2001
12,248
3
0
I'm sure it does, but it's important to qualify such things for the less informed with the reason why it still performs so well. That advances in cpu performance have been at a snails pace relative to the recent past lately.

This is why, ironically, it was a good time for the FX to be released if it was going to be not updated for a long while, and why so long after and despite its disadvantages in a number of areas they are still selling and being used and actively discussed. Same goes for sandybridge or what have you of course. Lots of folks are still happily running what would have been considered ancient CPU's not too long ago.

May well be happy coincidence for amd, but it's how I see it after having owned and used them and Intel recently.

well, a major reason why my 3930K isn't yet archaic is because of AMD being unable to put out a more competitive CPU. Intel could readily make my situation very obsolete by releasing more consumer 8 core options with 10+ core X editions, but without that pressure from AMD they can just go about charging $1000 for those 8 cores and otherwise make it hard for me to justify an upgrade.
 

Ramses

Platinum Member
Apr 26, 2000
2,871
4
81
I agree, and it's why the wise man is earnestly hopeful that amd can get it's cpu act together in the reasonably near future. I've done my part by buying from them when they had something that would do the job well enough. Only other thing I can do is hope. I'm not looking forward to an Intel only desktop cpu world.
 
Apr 20, 2008
10,067
990
126
I agree, and it's why the wise man is earnestly hopeful that amd can get it's cpu act together in the reasonably near future. I've done my part by buying from them when they had something that would do the job well enough. Only other thing I can do is hope. I'm not looking forward to an Intel only desktop cpu world.

While my professional career benefits greatly on Intel being the top IC producer (hires thousands of electricians to build fabs in Hillsboro OR), I absolutely do not want to see them be the only player in the desktop market. Prices will skyrocket. All of you who keep spelling doom and gloom for AMD will no longer be able to afford enthusiast pricing on their top tier chips. If it wasn't for AMD those i3's would be at the maximum the market would bear, which is likely around $400-600 a chip at this time. i7? You'll have to max out a couple credit cards.

As a consumer I absolutely loathe the day Intel gets a two generation lead on desktop parts over AMD. For work I know it'll help provide for thousands of us tradesmen. It's a double edge sword that if it goes in either direction will negatively impact us.

As stated long ago in the thread, AMD is relatively keeping intel honest in their pricing. I didn't have a big budget for an upgrade from my C2Q system back in August, and the only thing that had an reasonable pricing and acceptable performance on it was a $125 FX-8350. It was either that or an i3 which is not threaded well enough for what my current and projected uses.

Photoshop, 60hz gaming, heavy browser work, video editing, game streaming... their products fill everyday uses exceptionally at a very low cost. I absolutely know I'd have been fine with an i7 and most likely an i5 in 99% of cases, but the price point of an i3 vs FX in terms of performance was a no brainer.