AMD FX 6 month conclusion

[itachipirate]

This is a thread meant to be referenced when people ask about "AMD or Intel CPU?" to explain the reason that the FX CPUs aren't good for gaming in most cases. It's a commonly asked question and people can be misinformed. I'm trying to show people without much information on this topic what I've found after buying and using an FX-6300 I purchased on Christmas 2014 and this post is made based on my experience owning and FX-6300 @Faceman has a post like this one that he references often
 
-----The BIG reasons the FX CPUs aren't for modern day gaming computers:
 
1: AGE! The architecture for the FX CPUs is 3 years old, and is basically just a re-hash of an even older architecture. These CPUs are old by computer technology standards
 
2. The single-core performance is very low in comparison to modern Intel CPUs. DX-11 is limited to one CPU core communicating with the graphics card to tell it what to draw on the screen. With one strong core communicating with the graphics card you are much less likely to find a bottleneck in gaming
 
3. You can not upgrade to anything worthwhile on the AM3+ socket. The best AM3+ CPU, the FX-9590 will perform marginally better in most games than the FX-6300. And costs as much as the Intel i5 4690k, which is the go-to high end gamer PC
 
-----Common reasons people buy FX CPUs:
 
1: Price-performance With options today like the Intel i3 4150, which runs on a very new architecture, has tons of upgradability, has very strong single-core performance, and costs less than the FX-8320 while beating it in most games, The FX CPUs are not good price-performance gaming CPUs anymore
 
2: DirectX 12 is not something you should be relying on when buying a new CPU. It will be beneficial to all computer hardware. And will likely scale as well with the i3-4150 as it will with the FX-6300

 

3: "It's fine for well optimized games." Through my testing with my FX-6300 overclocked to 4.2ghz in GTA V, which is a very well optimized game, the stock i3-4160 performs the same. This is a game that is able to utilize all of my CPU cores and the dual-core i3 can pull off the same thing without an overclock. For reference: In games utilizing all cores. The i3 has the same overall performance as an overclocked FX-6300. The difference is, for games that can't utilize 6+ cores (Most games use around 4) the i3 outperforms the FX CPUs greatly
 
-----They aren't complete garbage like some people would make you think
 
1: They are good for budget video editing and budget use of professional applications. If you frequently use programs like Photoshop and video editing softwares and are on a tight budget. These CPUs are great!

 

2: If you already have one it is not worth it to sell your FX CPU for an i3. If you'd like to upgrade waiting until you can afford an i5 is a much better option. You can play many games just fine on these. But the Intel i3-4150 does the same or better in almost every game except:The i3 doesn't need an aftermarket cooler, it doesn't need to be overclocked, and you can upgrade the CPU without buying a new motherboard.

 

 

-----Overall:

AMD is hated too much on the internet. For gaming CPUs the AMD FX line is not something you should buy today. AMD hasn't made a new architecture for a very long time and hopefully they will take what they've learned from the FX line of CPUs into consideration during the design of Zen

 

I play lots of games on my FX-6300 and I'm satisfied. But at the same time I know an i3 would've been the better option for upgradability, value, and performance. I made an uninformed decision when buying my computer upgrade, don't do the same! I made this post in kind've a hurry. Sorry if there are errors!

[John Luxston]

the 9590 is fine

[dragoon20005]

pretty much a summary of what @Faceman says

[Kherm]

the 9590 is fine

It's an overclocked FX8350 that costs as much as an i5, so no.

[Godlygamer23]

the 9590 is fine

It's a hot, high power draw CPU that gets rivaled or beaten by a 2500K at stock. It's not fine.

[bamerx98]

A very well written piece and I agree with almost all of it coming from a 8350 to a i7 4790k

[Dabombinable]

the 9590 is fine

Your talking about downgrading to an APU as you don't want to buy an Intel CPU-even when your running Titan X in SLI and seeing massive bottlenecks so......

[___]

the 9590 is fine

That's the bottleneck in your "LOW FPS ON GTA" thread. So no, it's definitely not fine.

[Suika]

the 9590 is fine

It's not, you just posted a thread complaining about GTA V performance, and your 9590 is entirely what's holding back your Titans.

 

---

 

@OP: Good thread.

[Dabombinable]

That's the bottleneck in your "LOW FPS ON GTA" thread. So no, it's definitely not fine.

20-30% GPU usage says it all.

[___]

20-30% GPU usage says it all.

The worst part is he's just going to wait for amd to release a new cpu instead of getting an intel cpu.. Or at least that's what he said.

 

Edit: Just checked his profile, it says he's 12 years old. So how did he get a tax return for the titans anyways? I think we have a troll, or a little kid wasting his parents money.

[Dabombinable]

The worst part is he's just going to wait for amd to release a new cpu instead of getting an intel cpu.. Or at least that's what he said.

Which is why I left the thread and un-followed it.

[Faceman]

Thank you for finally coming around.  I have added your post to the big spoiler in the testimonials section.

[itachipirate]

Thank you for finally coming around.  I have added your post to the big spoiler in the testimonials section.

Thank you. I heard so much that was just wrong I had to experience it for myself I bought without knowing anything

[D3MON]

anyone reading this as "intels better and amd sucks" obviously hasnt read it.
dx11 only uses one core :rolleyes: 

spoiler alert
gta5

if you have an fx6 or fx8 chances are you wont need to upgrade for a long time unelss yuo're getting paid for pro work like rendering in which case 5820k is probably the best bang for buck cpu in existance.
if you demand single core performance and upgradability get a g3258 like i did, when the time is right in a year or 2 ill get a 4790k off some idiot that paid 5x what i will.
amd isnt hated much on the net (okay a few review sites do, but when you're given a 4960x for free to test, the 8320E isnt going to get a lot of love is it) its mostly this forum, the jayztwocents and overclock.net are completely different. this forums was built on the coat tails of a youtuber who hasn't had an amd fx cpu in his personal rig (can i point out it was an fx8 that hosted this site originaly, not intel?) so most people reading this are probably the same people that saw the videos and read/leave youtube comments (because we know how awesome they are) wheras the other sites (besides jayz who started his channel on amd and only switched to intel because he wants a boss benchmark destroying rig....kinda like me eventually lol) have grown up based on hardware enthusiasts who decide what thier requirements are and then base the tech they'll buy from that, not "i want a gaming rig, i guess im buying intel then"

[Faceman]

Can I see the testimonials section?

 

iUpgraded to an i7: A 30 Day Journal:

If you don't like numbers and want pure user experience without benchmarks and stats, check out Suika's 30 Day Journal of his experience going from an FX8350 + GTX 780 to an i7-4790k + GTX780. Like many others on this forum, he noticed that he was being held back in many games with his overclocked FX8, and his expensive GPU wasn't being fully utilized.  Here is a pure experience based review from a forum member on his experience going from FX to Intel. 

 

Suika is one of many users here on LTT who were previously using FX processors with high end GPUs thinking it was a good match, only to realize in the end that it was not a good balance.  I am aware that an i7 is much more expensive than an FX8, but the performance in games between an i5 and i7 is nearly identical, especially when at the same clock speed.

 

Here is another member, UnbendingNose who was told on this very forum to buy an FX8 because it won't hold back an R9 290, and an ASRock Extreme 3 wont throttle his CPU.  Both of which are false.  Here are his two posts, the one where he is asking for advice on what to buy, and the 2nd where he is unhappy with his FX8320s performance because of bottlenecking and throttling.  He finally ended up buying an i5, which is what he should have done in the first place, and miraculously, to the surprise of no one, his performance in every single game improved, most notably minimum fps.

 

Another one is itachipirate who used to be an FX crusader but finally saw enough compelling evidence to persuade him otherwise.  Here is his write up on the FX6.

AMD FX6, 6 Month Conclusion

 

i_build_nanosuits was probably one of the biggest advocates for the FX8, but after 6 months of bottlenecking a 780 in the majority of games, he finally came around and realized how big of a mistake the FX processors are.  He doesn't have a post that he created, but you can see him frequenting the forums telling others of what happened to him and for you to learn from his experience.

 

These are just a few, but there are many, many more.  If you have a story of your experience, please feel free to share and I will add it to this post.

 

[Godlygamer23]

anyone reading this as "intels better and amd sucks" obviously hasnt read it.

dx11 only uses one core :rolleyes: 

gta5

The graphics API isn't the only thing that gets processed in video games.

[itachipirate]

pretty much a summary of what @Faceman says

Yeah but the reason I didn't listen to what Faceman said in the first place was that I was too lazy to read his whole post. This is more summarized, but lest informal

[Ertman]

So why did you buy a fx based system at Christmas 2014 then?

[i_build_nanosuits]

i_build_nanosuits was probably one of the biggest advocates for the FX8, but after 6 months of bottlenecking a 780 in the majority of games, he finally came around and realized how big of a mistake the FX processors are.  He doesn't have a post that he created, but you can see him frequenting the forums telling others of what happened to him and for you to learn from his experience.

indeed, ...i'm glad to be mentionned there, it's true that those CPU's are of absolutely NO MATCH for today's higher end graphics solutions. They play some games at reasonable level but will fall way short in MANY other titles...if not most of them to be honest. If you have one and are happy with it: good for you. You probably play games that are not cpu intensive and you probably own a low or mid range GPU. Once you'll experience better you'll realize how poor the AMD FX line of CPU really is.

 

@itachipirate: nice post, nice thread...that sums it up well and it take a good deal of self respect to be able to admit that...i did came in here a little over a year ago and i defended the AMD FX line at first until i came to realize that this cpu had major flaws and weaknesses that really where exposed really bad when it comes to gaming...i owned the FX-8320 personaly i had it overclocked to 4.6ghz for about 3 months (not 6 @Faceman...i had it from january 2014 to end of march the same year) and in all honesty it was still really not a good match for my GTX 780...i play a huge variety of games at 1080p...and outside of some sports and racing games the amd FX was for me a very big let down.

 

So why did you buy a fx based system at Christmas 2014 then?

I guess like many others he looked at prices, clockspeed and core count without looking at real world performance results...and he thought it was a good deal.

[itachipirate]

So why did you buy a fx based system at Christmas 2014 then?

I didn't know anything about CPUs. I had a dual core pentium so I thought another dual core would be bad. I got this because my friend had a 8350 and said it was good

[LordMustangGT]

in the games "I" play, My 780Ti doesn't bottle neck. This being BF4, new wolfenstein, Metro LL. I'n NOT a arma gamer. I think the other game I have that would really benefit from an intel cpu is COH, after getting another 780Ti in SLI, it show'd no gains what so ever. Keep in mind I play 5760x1080. BF4 ultra'd no bottlenecking. On a single 1080 screen lot of bottlenecking in sli. we all know why. GTA 5, 5760x1080, everything maxed but msaa off, 80-90% gpu usage steady, so it tells me there's a lil bottle neck there. Enough to warrant switching to intel yet, no, not for me. If Zen cpu's are all there suppose to be, AMD will be back in the game, can't wait!

[Ertman]

I didn't know anything about CPUs. I had a dual core pentium so I thought another dual core would be bad. I got this because my friend had a 8350 and said it was good

Thanks for sharing. They are not absolute garbage though, but like your experience in the initial post, they are not really acceptable for purchasing for gaming in 2014-15.

 

At lower level, budget gaming they are generally still adequate, but they aren't worth the investment. 

- There has been no reasonable improvement in years

- It's a dead end upgrade path

- The cost of Intel Mobo/CPU combinations have declined in price equaling the cost of a good FX setup for gaming in both performance and price. (wasn't always this way)

[FruitBasketSilex]

the 9590 is fine

No.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Keep in mind I play 5760x1080. BF4 ultra'd no bottlenecking.

See, that's the thing...the higher the resolution you game at the higher the stress on the GPU...if you'd play your games at 1920x1080 like pretty much everybody else with your single 780ti you would tell me that the machine you have in hands is not very ''balanced''...that's why i had to switch CPU and my 780 is not even a ''ti''

...and i like my games running a constant butter smooth 60FPS minimum at all time that's why increasing the resolution wasn't an option i hate games dipping in the 35 or 40ish FPS all the time...especialy when it's because the CPU is not fast enough to keep up with the GPU.

Also yes it does depend on the game if it's BF4, Crysis 3 or Metro you're good...but if it's just about anything else...the CPU will become your limiting factor pretty quickly most of the time, which sucks.