Is there any reason to use FX CPUs right now?

Page 25 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Enigmoid

Platinum Member
Sep 27, 2012
2,907
31
91
Absolutely not. Maybe in your little circles the same nonsense is parroted back and forth, but it's not like the market is 90% Intel and 10% AMD. It's 74/26 according to steam hardware survey alone, and likely closer for non-gamers.

Except steam hardware survey doesn't include a lot of businesses and companies who run pentium office computers.

I walk into any government building in my city, the dentists office, the university, etc. and its pretty much all pentiums (if new) or core2 for older computers.
 

Phynaz

Lifer
Mar 13, 2006
10,140
819
126
I'm happy to be an amateur in this case.
Business on that level I find distasteful.

You find Intel setting the market price distasteful compared to AMD setting the market price?

Please expand upon this, I'd love to hear the reasoning why.
 

Ramses

Platinum Member
Apr 26, 2000
2,871
4
81
I find the machinations of capitalism and business in general distasteful. Pretty much anything to do with money or the pursuit thereof is pretty low in my book. It's a personal and emotional thing. To each their own if that's something they are into or want to pursue but I avoid it like the plague and it's one of the few subjects where I indulge in intentional targeted ignorance. I deal with a relatively small amount of it at work and that's more than enough.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
198
106
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.

Have you seen the recommended CPUs for new games? The 8350 is recommended for brand new games,

http://store.steampowered.com/app/271590/

Processor: Intel Core i5 3470 @ 3.2GHz (4 CPUs) / AMD X8 FX-8350 @ 4GHz (8 CPUs)

Kinda missing the crucial "I have x video card" data point there.

R9 270X


Can you turn on high performance computing mode in BIOS, disable APM, and try again?

Thank you.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,002
126
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.


For whatever it is worth, the only game I have that you listed is The Witcher 2. I haven't played through it, just the first couple hours really, but things were quite smooth only my system. I'll have to load it up again and see how it goes.
 

Ramses

Platinum Member
Apr 26, 2000
2,871
4
81
Some overclocking on the 8350 and the 270 are probly in order, though the 270 isn't a real winner of a GPU imo. If you go with an Intel setup you're going to be GPU limited I suspect anyway. Toss a cheap 280x or 290 in there, should be tons of used ones cheap soon with the new cards inbound.
 

jhu

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
11,918
9
81
Except steam hardware survey doesn't include a lot of businesses and companies who run pentium office computers.

I walk into any government building in my city, the dentists office, the university, etc. and its pretty much all pentiums (if new) or core2 for older computers.

This is exactly what I was referring to. Our institution is all Intel. We even have a few leftover Pentium 4 machines. The rest are Core2, Nehalem, and Sandy Bridge. I haven't seen anything newer. There's really been no need to upgrade further. This is what Intel is facing.
 

Jovec

Senior member
Feb 24, 2008
579
2
81
Have you seen the recommended CPUs for new games? The 8350 is recommended for brand new games

You are misinterpreting that recommendation. It's less an endorsement and more about publishers wanting to have both an Intel and AMD CPU option. Just like they have both a Nvidia and AMD GPU option.
 

mrmt

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2012
3,974
0
76
I find the machinations of capitalism and business in general distasteful. Pretty much anything to do with money or the pursuit thereof is pretty low in my book. It's a personal and emotional thing. To each their own if that's something they are into or want to pursue but I avoid it like the plague and it's one of the few subjects where I indulge in intentional targeted ignorance. I deal with a relatively small amount of it at work and that's more than enough.
But yet you don't refrain from comment about something that distasteful.
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,715
2,012
126
This is exactly what I was referring to. Our institution is all Intel. We even have a few leftover Pentium 4 machines. The rest are Core2, Nehalem, and Sandy Bridge. I haven't seen anything newer. There's really been no need to upgrade further. This is what Intel is facing.

This.
 

Ramses

Platinum Member
Apr 26, 2000
2,871
4
81
But yet you don't refrain from comment about something that distasteful.

But i'm only willing to go so far into that end of the rabbit hole. I'm interested in hardware, not money. Spin it however you like, I dislike something that you like, and that's perfectly ok, no reason to be upset about it. I don't think less of you, or anything for that matter, nor should you of me. If anything you should enjoy a little sense of superiority because you know something about things I have no intention of learning or being involved with. Be happy with that. :thumbsup:
 
Apr 20, 2008
10,067
990
126
I can't wait to see GTA 5 CPU benchmarks when it's released. I'm betting the AMD CPU's get annihilated like they do in most games.

Bet away.

If it's anything like the port for NBA 2K15, FX-8 will outperform all i3 and some i5 chips. On high settings CPU usage jumps around from 30-75% during gameplay (up to 100% during loads) on an 8-threaded machine. People with a dual core, i3 and semi-often i5 complain about stuttering and freezing when CPU load jumps. FX? I7? Smooth as butter.

They're under the same tree and likely will have access to the same tools.
 

mrmt

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2012
3,974
0
76
But i'm only willing to go so far into that end of the rabbit hole. I'm interested in hardware, not money. Spin it however you like, I dislike something that you like, and that's perfectly ok, no reason to be upset about it. I don't think less of you, or anything for that matter, nor should you of me. If anything you should enjoy a little sense of superiority because you know something about things I have no intention of learning or being involved with. Be happy with that. :thumbsup:

I'm not spinning anything. Before you were pointed out to be incorrect you were not shy to verbalize your comments about the same subjects you are now calling distasteful. In fact, you were far lower in this rabbit hole than merely describing a price curve. The subject only became distasteful when you realized that AMD isn't the price moderator you thought was, but in fact, it is being the price- moderated part of the ecosystem.

It is something akin to the feeling people buying FX 9000 series feel. They think they are buying special silicon, when in fact they are buying trash silicon that didn't make to more efficient bins. The premium bins became the FX E series, which not only are more efficient, they overclock higher than FX 9000 series.
 

Ramses

Platinum Member
Apr 26, 2000
2,871
4
81
I'm not spinning anything. Before you were pointed out to be incorrect you were not shy to verbalize your comments about the same subjects you are now calling distasteful. In fact, you were far lower in this rabbit hole than merely describing a price curve. The subject only became distasteful when you realized that AMD isn't the price moderator you thought was, but in fact, it is being the price- moderated part of the ecosystem.

It is something akin to the feeling people buying FX 9000 series feel. They think they are buying special silicon, when in fact they are buying trash silicon that didn't make to more efficient bins. The premium bins became the FX E series, which not only are more efficient, they overclock higher than FX 9000 series.

I said what I believe within the limits of my understanding. You proposed something which is, I assume, a deeper and more clear understanding. I can accept that, I don't have a competitive bone in my body nor any ego really in relation to an online forum about computer stuff.

What you are expecting and/or looking for is me to backpedal or continue to justify my simplistic position that you can pick apart easily since you have a better understanding of it, and you believe my saying I find it "distasteful" was the start of a weak attempt to distance myself from it once confronted with your superior understanding. This is not the case. I have zero problem with the whole world knowing you understand these things better than I do, nor with being wrong about it. I'm wrong all the time, and I generally welcome it as an opportunity to learn. Except for this time. Since I was being completely honest with the fact that I find business matters distasteful, and I was being diplomatic at that. It's one thing, and this is merely my opinion, to have or share an off-hand opinion such as that if AMD was to fold Intel would raise prices. It is quite another, and here is where I start to get an unpleasant feeling about it, when things are not as they seem and somehow Intel is in fact making AMD sell CPU's cheaper. That smacks of.. Something. And that something makes me uncomfortable and unhappy and life is way too short to dwell on such when it's not required. I really don't want to understand it, and I really do find it distasteful. Honestly. Always have. I'm more than happy to leave that stuff to you or whoever to sort through.

In closing, again, you understand these things better than I.
You probably always will.
I do not deny my previous simplistic opinion or make any excuse for it.
I am in fact happy to be a simpleton in such matters.
I honestly do not want to nor see any compelling reason to understand it further since it does in fact make me unhappy.

That cover it? We good? I don't know what else say. I'm sure we've both done this before at some point in the last twenty years, if you need anything else just tell me and I'll supply it if I can.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,002
126
I'm not spinning anything. Before you were pointed out to be incorrect you were not shy to verbalize your comments about the same subjects you are now calling distasteful. In fact, you were far lower in this rabbit hole than merely describing a price curve. The subject only became distasteful when you realized that AMD isn't the price moderator you thought was, but in fact, it is being the price- moderated part of the ecosystem.

It is something akin to the feeling people buying FX 9000 series feel. They think they are buying special silicon, when in fact they are buying trash silicon that didn't make to more efficient bins. The premium bins became the FX E series, which not only are more efficient, they overclock higher than FX 9000 series.


For whatever it is worth, my FX runs at FX 8350 speeds at well under FX 8350 voltages.
 

mrmt

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2012
3,974
0
76
That cover it? We good? I don't know what else say. I'm sure we've both done this before at some point in the last twenty years, if you need anything else just tell me and I'll supply it if I can.

Don't say anything. I have no desire to simply prove you wrong or to "feel superior". If this isn't an opportunity for you to learn then there is no point in further evolving the subject. And yes, we're good.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,002
126
The FX 8350 is also trash silicon.

Well, I don't have an FX 8xxxE CPU to test and I wouldn't try and draw too many conclusions from a sample size of one from my FX 9370 and FX 8xxxE CPU's anyway. Not to mention the tests aren't the same and my power supply isn't the same, etc. Hardly a scientific comparison.

But at 4.0GHz @ 1.20v my power use climbed roughly the same as Anandtech's FX 8370E did at factory clocks (3.3GHz base) running AVX code. I imagine I could get away with some pretty low voltage numbers if I ran at 3.3GHz.
 

erunion

Senior member
Jan 20, 2013
765
0
0
As far as I know, AMD have the same binning complexity that Intel does. They said as much when they made their TWKR Phenom.
 
Apr 20, 2008
10,067
990
126
Well, I don't have an FX 8xxxE CPU to test and I wouldn't try and draw too many conclusions from a sample size of one from my FX 9370 and FX 8xxxE CPU's anyway. Not to mention the tests aren't the same and my power supply isn't the same, etc. Hardly a scientific comparison.

But at 4.0GHz @ 1.20v my power use climbed roughly the same as Anandtech's FX 8370E did at factory clocks (3.3GHz base) running AVX code. I imagine I could get away with some pretty low voltage numbers if I ran at 3.3GHz.

Stock voltage for 3.4Ghz locked is 1.27V, so if you can run 4.0 at 1.2V stable I'd imagine 1.1V is doable for 3.3Ghz locked.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,002
126
Less efficient bins that couldn't go as opterons SKUs.


How many CPU's does AMD produce? How much demand is there for Opteron CPU's? I would think that demand would be low enough for Opteron CPU's that some quite good silicon could find it's way to the consumer lines.
 

mrmt

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2012
3,974
0
76
How many CPU's does AMD produce? How much demand is there for Opteron CPU's? I would think that demand would be low enough for Opteron CPU's that some quite good silicon could find it's way to the consumer lines.

I don't think Bulldozer is manufactured in more than token quantities because of the colapse of AMD HETD and server business. No more than 50.000 chips per month. AMD should be manufacturing around 2.5 million chips per month.
 
Last edited: