Is there any reason to use FX CPUs right now?

[DrMrLordX]

So I guess, the main reason to use an FX right now is to start a neverending flame war.

 

[Gikaseixas]

If FX was really bad like some (who never used it) here are trying so hard to prove, we wouldn't have 20+ pages discussing this.
I own both a FX and i7, again, being 100% honest, sincere, real and transparent: FX is a great all-rounder cpu, it won't beat Intel in games but it won't give you a bad experience either. Please look also at the multithreaded armada of software, games, etc that are on the horizon and FX becomes a decent choice.

My i7 is a better cpu no doubt, but i can see my FX challenging i5's in most tasks which itself is no small feat.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Not to beat a dead horse, but a 4.0/4.8GHz FX with a cooler for $135 is hard to beat. A Pentium system with an overclock would be a good option too, and has a better upgrade path, I'll concede that. But for the performance now and how it'll run future games without putting another penny into it for an upgrade, I think that's a tough combo to beat. Of course no overclock is guaranteed. But, I'd be quite surprised to see an FX that couldn't reach 4GHz base.

I was not intending to imply anything about a specific model of cpu. I was only talking in general terms of cpu vs gpu.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

I have a crapton of various i5s and i7s, but am happy with the usability of my trusty X6 1045Ts and FX8320s.

 

[DreamMystic]

Greetings All,

I use my PC for digital art and gaming. For digital art I use Corel Painter, not Photoshop. When I was building my current machine, there were many users that had problems with Intel hyper threading with Painter:

http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?223188-If-your-painter-12-brushes-move-too-slow

So I decided to get the Amd FX 8150 (later I switched to the 8350) instead since I didn't want to have to deal with potential problems. Right now my CPU is overclocked to 4.7ghz, stable. Painter runs smooth and so do games for the most part. Being a mmorpg player, the only game that the FX cpu was significantly worse in was Guild Wars 2. When I was playing it was tempting to just build a Intel machine just for GW2 lol. I ended up having to OC my cpu to 4.7ghz just to get it to run smooth. Recently I switched to FFXIV and it runs great on both Intel and Amd cpus (average fps is 60+ but in crowded areas its 30-40fps).

When ever I build a new machine it will probably be Intel though. The latest version of Painter doesn't have any issues with hyper threading, intel performs better with games most of the time and Amd hasn't made any new desktop cpus for a while.

Overall, at this time I'm happy with my FX cpu, at this time I feel there is little reason for me to upgrade.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Core for core, Intel get's more done. But, I could see a situation where a very well threaded piece of software that could take advantage of all eight integer cores of an FX could best an i5 in efficiency, or at least get very close.

BOINC (World Community Grid) would be an example of said software. The software is heavily biased towards good integer performance (afterall, it is doing scientific calculations). That is exactly why octocore AMD FX chips are monsters at their respective price points for running WCG.

It is food for thought for anyone who wants to build a desktop for BOINC. For $115, nothing from Intel can touch the FX-8310 for BOINC. It's not even close..... You can barely buy an i3 at that price level and the FX-8310 can generate nearly twice as many points per day. (4 simultaneous threads versus 8). If you've got money though, the i7 5960x is the chip to buy for BOINC (can process 16 simultaneous projects).

 

[frozentundra123456]

Undoubtedly, the FX will get more work done than an i3 at the low price point. But even then if you want to talk efficiency, it will use more power as well. It may be better, but we would need power consumption figures to be sure. But lets face it, this is absolutely best case scenario for FX, and one which the vast majority of the overall computer buying population will never use.

 

[Yuriman]

Undoubtedly, the FX will get more work done than an i3 at the low price point. But even then if you want to talk efficiency, it will use more power as well. It may be better, but we would need power consumption figures to be sure. But lets face it, this is absolutely best case scenario for FX, and one which the vast majority of the overall computer buying population will never use.

Right.

Taken out of context, this is the answer to the question in OP's title. BOINC and other highly parallel integer-heavy scientific computing, that does not run on a GPU, is where FX chips shine.

What the answer is not, is "Well, FX chips may not be better than another chip in the price range for X task, but they get the job done well enough so who cares?", which is unfortunately true for a lot of other use cases, probably more than not.

Right chip for the right job, though. They're still selling, so clearly there's a market.

 

[Phynaz]

BOINC (World Community Grid) would be an example of said software. The software is heavily biased towards good integer performance (afterall, it is doing scientific calculations). That is exactly why octocore AMD FX chips are monsters at their respective price points for running WCG.

It is food for thought for anyone who wants to build a desktop for BOINC. For $115, nothing from Intel can touch the FX-8310 for BOINC. It's not even close..... You can barely buy an i3 at that price level and the FX-8310 can generate nearly twice as many points per day. (4 simultaneous threads versus 8). If you've got money though, the i7 5960x is the chip to buy for BOINC (can process 16 simultaneous projects).

BOINC is a framework. It's the project code that BOINC runs that uses the CPU. And there are plenty of BOINC projects that are floating point intensive.

You don't build a system to run BOINC. You build a system to run BOINC projects. You really should read the BOINC documentation.

 

[Essence_of_War]

It's the project code that BOINC runs that uses the CPU. And there are plenty of BOINC projects that are floating point intensive.

Einstein@home is a great example.

 

[Texashiker]

If FX was really bad like some (who never used it) here are trying so hard to prove, we wouldn't have 20+ pages discussing this.
I own both a FX and i7, again, being 100% honest, sincere, real and transparent: FX is a great all-rounder cpu, it won't beat Intel in games but it won't give you a bad experience either.

Thank you.

In January I built myself a new FX 8350 system. This was an upgrade from my 5 year old AMD Athlon II X4 620. My computer is used for gaming, web browsing and video editing for youtube.

After reading threads like this I was wondering if I had made a mistake by going with AMD.

It is nice to know I did not screw the new build up by going with an FX cpu.

 

[Dave2150]

Thank you.

In January I built myself a new FX 8350 system. This was an upgrade from my 5 year old AMD Athlon II X4 620. My computer is used for gaming, web browsing and video editing for youtube.

After reading threads like this I was wondering if I had made a mistake by going with AMD.

It is nice to know I did not screw the new build up by going with an FX cpu.

As long as you don't play the latest games in high quality, your FX CPU from 2011 will be awesome:

 

[SlowSpyder]

Thank you.

In January I built myself a new FX 8350 system. This was an upgrade from my 5 year old AMD Athlon II X4 620. My computer is used for gaming, web browsing and video editing for youtube.

After reading threads like this I was wondering if I had made a mistake by going with AMD.

It is nice to know I did not screw the new build up by going with an FX cpu.

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.

 

[Texashiker]

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.

I do not really have anything to compare it to. The 8350 can play games my old 620 could not.

However, the 8350 lags on metro last light, even on low settings. But then again, the game is only using 4 out of 8 cores. Is it fair to say the 8350 lags when the games are not utilizing only half the cores.

My video card is an R9 270.

My wifes next build is going to be an I5. Once her system is built I will have something to go by.

So far I am happy with the 8350. It seems like gamers are caught in a catch 22. The games are not utilizing all 8 cores, but the cpu catches the flak.

 

[SlowSpyder]

As long as you don't play the latest games in high quality, your FX CPU from 2011 will be awesome:

High graphics quality stresses the GPU, not the CPU.

In this game, going by this bench, the FX is obviously slower. But it seems when that is the case, where the FX is slow, it isn't like the Intel CPU's are doing great either.

Newegg prices. The FX 8350 is $170. Intel i5 4690k is $240 ($215 for the non-k). The Intel i7 4770k / i7 4790k are $320.

The i5 4690k is 55% faster in this bench, and 41% more expensive than the FX 8350. The i7 4790k is 88% more expensive than the FX 8350 and 65% faster in this bench. It isn't like the FX 8350 doesn't slot in where it should.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I do not really have anything to compare it to. The 8350 can play games my old 620 could not.

However, the 8350 lags on metro last light, even on low settings. But then again, the game is only using 4 out of 8 cores. Is it fair to say the 8350 lags when the games are not utilizing only half the cores.

My video card is an R9 270.

My wifes next build is going to be an I5. Once her system is built I will have something to go by.

So far I am happy with the 8350. It seems like gamers are caught in a catch 22. The games are not utilizing all 8 cores, but the cpu catches the flak.

I'd say give it light overclock if the CPU is holding you back. I think most of them will hit 4.3-4.4GHz on the factory cooler without much trouble. It doesn't sound like much, but 4.4GHz is 10% faster. My next build will be Intel as well. The FX isn't bad, but I wish I had eight Excavator cores with 8MB of L3 like originally planned. Meh. :\

 

[Yuriman]

I'd say give it light overclock if the CPU is holding you back. I think most of them will hit 4.3-4.4GHz on the factory cooler without much trouble. It doesn't sound like much, but 4.4GHz is 10% faster. My next build will be Intel as well. The FX isn't bad, but I wish I had eight Excavator cores with 8MB of L3 like originally planned. Meh. :\

Would 4 excavator cores at twice the frequency or IPC (per core) be preferable to 8 as they currently are? ()

 

[SlowSpyder]

Would 4 excavator cores at twice the frequency or IPC (per core) be preferable to 8 as they currently are? ()

I want eight.

Yes, obviously AMD guessed wrong. The right way to go was stronger IPC and performance per watt, not throughput / multicore. But twice the frequency? My FX does 5GHz+ easy. I'd take a 10GHz Excavator quad.

I think AMD was banking on software and games becoming more multithreaded quicker than it has happened. That makes the FX a decent choice in applications that can take advantage, but obviously Intel took the better route.

 

[Texashiker]

I'd say give it light overclock if the CPU is holding you back. I think most of them will hit 4.3-4.4GHz on the factory cooler without much trouble. It doesn't sound like much, but 4.4GHz is 10% faster. My next build will be Intel as well. The FX isn't bad, but I wish I had eight Excavator cores with 8MB of L3 like originally planned. Meh. :\

Since around 2001 2002 I have been using nothing but amd chips. I think it is time to give intel another try.

What really won me over with amd was their performance in the late 1990s and early 2000s. One of the best running cpus I have ever had was a slot A 850 mhz amd, 512 memory and windows 98. Half life, quake, team fortress classic, quake 2,,,, all played great on that machine.

When I get tired of the 8350 I will move back to intel.

 

[Yuriman]

I want eight.

Yes, obviously AMD guessed wrong. The right way to go was stronger IPC and performance per watt, not throughput / multicore. But twice the frequency? My FX does 5GHz+ easy. I'd take a 10GHz Excavator quad.

I think AMD was banking on software and games becoming more multithreaded quicker than it has happened. That makes the FX a decent choice in applications that can take advantage, but obviously Intel took the better route.

I'm thinking it's probably cheaper / easier to design a CPU that has 2/3 the IPC, and then double it. FX chips are pretty big.

 

[AtenRa]

Would 4 excavator cores at twice the frequency or IPC (per core) be preferable to 8 as they currently are? ()

No, I would like a 8-core Excavator at 20nm SOI as it was planed to be.

Then i could OC to 5GHz and would have both 8-cores and a nice single thread performance.

 

[Enigmoid]

High graphics quality stresses the GPU, not the CPU.

In this game, going by this bench, the FX is obviously slower. But it seems when that is the case, where the FX is slow, it isn't like the Intel CPU's are doing great either.

Newegg prices. The FX 8350 is $170. Intel i5 4690k is $240 ($215 for the non-k). The Intel i7 4770k / i7 4790k are $320.

The i5 4690k is 55% faster in this bench, and 41% more expensive than the FX 8350. The i7 4790k is 88% more expensive than the FX 8350 and 65% faster in this bench. It isn't like the FX 8350 doesn't slot in where it should.

Adding shadows often stresses the CPU. As does increasing animation quality, game effects, and possibly things such as terrain/draw distance.

It depends on the game really but there are often settings that do affect the CPU (draw distance in dying light).

Would 4 excavator cores at twice the frequency or IPC (per core) be preferable to 8 as they currently are? ()

Most definitely. Pretty much always given the same amount of performance the smaller the number of cores the better.

 

[Idontcare]

No, I would like a 8-core Excavator at 20nm SOI as it was planed to be.

Then i could OC to 5GHz and would have both 8-cores and a nice single thread performance.

Me too!

Wasn't Excavator originally planned for 14nm though? Steamroller was supposed to 20nm and Piledriver 28nm until folks realized there was no way the revenue from bulldozer was going to support the necessary R&D for piledriver's 28nm shrink (thus derailing the scope and target nodes for all later cores).

That's what a design engineer at AMD told me once, anyways. But who knows, so many roadmaps have been created and destroyed over the years, no one probably knows the original plan.

But even on 20nm I'd still take a full-blown Excavator core with hopes they'd do a finfet variant a year later.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

BOINC is a framework. It's the project code that BOINC runs that uses the CPU. And there are plenty of BOINC projects that are floating point intensive.

You don't build a system to run BOINC. You build a system to run BOINC projects. You really should read the BOINC documentation.

Again, I would re-read the thread if I were you. As I am a member of a team of 2 people which is now ranked in the Top 6800 out of 30,000+ teams for points.... I'm pretty familar with how BOINC works.

I had already stated that the WCG project is biased toward integer, so the FX is a monster for its relative price point.... The FX is fairly mediocre for to Seti @ Home. There are even some projects that both floating point and integer are practically meaningless -- and the project is all about strong GPU performance.

 

[AtenRa]

Me too!

Wasn't Excavator originally planned for 14nm though? Steamroller was supposed to 20nm and Piledriver 28nm until folks realized there was no way the revenue from bulldozer was going to support the necessary R&D for piledriver's 28nm shrink (thus derailing the scope and target nodes for all later cores).

That's what a design engineer at AMD told me once, anyways. But who knows, so many roadmaps have been created and destroyed over the years, no one probably knows the original plan.

But even on 20nm I'd still take a full-blown Excavator core with hopes they'd do a finfet variant a year later.

Actually im talking about the original plan by Dirk Meyer. Bulldozer and PileDriver were to be made at 32nm SOI Game First (IBM), then SteamRoller and Excavator were to be made at 20nm SOI Gate First (IBM).

I would even buy a 28nm planar 8-Core Excavator today to replace any PileDriver.

It has way higher single Thread and MT performance at way lower power consumption. Even if you cant OC to 5GHz, i would like a 4.4GHz 28nm EX than 5GHz PileDriver.