Two Options : Go FX or Go Athlon 860K

[Dive5885]

Lets keep this simple as possible!

 

I have a GA-990FXA-UD7 (rev. 3.0) motherboard already and I'm not sure if I should build another FX system or go with the Athlon 860K, this is going to be just to game when I have free time.

 

Motherboard : http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=4658#ov

 

So what would you guys recommend?

 

Go with a FX or go with the Athlon?

 

Let me know!

 

Thank you.

 

Planning Stage!

[AwkwardKnight]

are you asking about CPU's?

[Dive5885]

are you asking about CPU's?

Yes

[Gabe]

FX, pick up an 8350 and youll be sorted, it performs better than some i5s in games so if you can afford it I would pick one up/

 

https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/amd-cpu-fd8350frhkbox

[Dive5885]

FX, pick up an 8350 and youll be sorted, it performs better than some i5s in games so if you can afford it I would pick one up/

 

https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/amd-cpu-fd8350frhkbox

I've had the FX 8350 before but I'm not gaming like I used to so I just wasn't sure what to go with at this point.

[PCPartPickerPro9171787]

FX, pick up an 8350 and youll be sorted, it performs better than some i5s in games so if you can afford it I would pick one up/

 

https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/amd-cpu-fd8350frhkbox

Games that can particularly use multiple cores effectively will outperform the i5 by leaps and bounds, however few games at this do that. Most games the Fx 8350 will perform slightly worse than the i5. However, it will be more common in the future for the use multiple cores effectively in games so you could view it as future proofing your system.   

[Aereldor]

Lets keep this simple as possible!

 

I have a GA-990FXA-UD7 (rev. 3.0) motherboard already and I'm not sure if I should build another FX system or go with the Athlon 860K, this is going to be just to game when I have free time.

 

Motherboard : http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=4658#ov

 

So what would you guys recommend?

 

Go with a FX or go with the Athlon?

 

Let me know!

 

Thank you.

 

Planning Stage!

Your motherboard only seems to support older, lower-tier Athlon processors- http://www.gigabyte.com/support-downloads/cpu-support-popup.aspx?pid=4658

I was going to say something about how the Athlon x4 won't bottleneck most anything, and how you should spend everything you can on a graphics card to get the best performance, but at this point, I'll have to recommend an FX-series processor. While it's true that games haven't been optimized to run on more than two or four cores so far, newer titles coming out now will take advantage of having more physical cores on hand. An 8350 is a solid bet- hell, so is a 6350, or an overclocked 6300.

Alternatively, you could look towards the Phenom line of chips. The x4 and x6 series has notable performance, and have been popular among gamers for some time now.

[Dive5885]

Your motherboard only seems to support older, lower-tier Athlon processors- http://www.gigabyte.com/support-downloads/cpu-support-popup.aspx?pid=4658

I was going to say something about how the Athlon x4 won't bottleneck most anything, and how you should spend everything you can on a graphics card to get the best performance, but at this point, I'll have to recommend an FX-series processor. While it's true that games haven't been optimized to run on more than two or four cores so far, newer titles coming out now will take advantage of having more physical cores on hand. An 8350 is a solid bet- hell, so is a 6350, or an overclocked 6300.

Alternatively, you could look towards the Phenom line of chips. The x4 and x6 series has notable performance, and have been popular among gamers for some time now.

If you're concerned about an upgrade path, I'd have to go Intel, though. You can grab an i5-4460 for about the same price as an 8350, and LGA1150 motherboards are getting cheaper by the week. Also, even their most low-tier i5 processors (like the 4460) still far outperform almost any AMD CPUs as far as gaming is concerned. If you have programs that capitalize on multiple cores like editing and rendering, I'd still have to recommend the FX chips, despite their inferior gaming performance.

 

Yes the Athlon 860K would require me to get a new motherboard that has a FM2+ socket and would cost me around $170.

 

$59.99 = Athlon 860K

 

$97.99 = Gigabyte GA-F2A88X-UP4 (Rev 3.0)

 

Prices are from Frys & Directron

 

I had intel before but It would honestly cost me more money to get intel at this point and I live near a micro center so the FX isn't that expensive compared to other stores and I already have a AM3+ motherboard.

 

The FX Cpu depending on which model can cost me around $109 - $199.

 

$199 = FX 9590

 

$169 = FX 8370

 

$149 = FX 8370E

 

$149 = FX 8350

 

$119 = FX 8320

 

$109 = FX 8320E

 

Prices are from my local MicroCenter

Edited October 10, 2015 by Dive5885

[jimakos234]

i would go for 8320/8350/8370, depending on the budget

[TheRandomness]

The 9590 is basically a binned 8350 from what i've heard so it's close to pointless to buy one, so post above.

[Prysin]

if you got a 990FX board, just grab a FX 6300 or FX 8320e

[Nena Trinity]

I say get a FX-6350 or 8350 but if you will get a cooler then a FX-6300 should be good cause its stock cooler is junk... (the 125w cooler is loud!)

(6300 needs a OC at stock its a i3 equal but at higher clock speed its equal to a higher end i3 or maybe better depends on lottery!)

For OCing leave voltage at max of 1.425 I think higher than that may be a risk... (does this thing have a 8+2 VRM? If so its a awesome OCer!)

[Prysin]

Your motherboard only seems to support older, lower-tier Athlon processors- http://www.gigabyte.com/support-downloads/cpu-support-popup.aspx?pid=4658

I was going to say something about how the Athlon x4 won't bottleneck most anything, and how you should spend everything you can on a graphics card to get the best performance, but at this point, I'll have to recommend an FX-series processor. While it's true that games haven't been optimized to run on more than two or four cores so far, newer titles coming out now will take advantage of having more physical cores on hand. An 8350 is a solid bet- hell, so is a 6350, or an overclocked 6300.

Alternatively, you could look towards the Phenom line of chips. The x4 and x6 series has notable performance, and have been popular among gamers for some time now.

If you're concerned about an upgrade path, I'd have to go Intel, though. You can grab an i5-4460 for about the same price as an 8350, and LGA1150 motherboards are getting cheaper by the week. Also, even their most low-tier i5 processors (like the 4460) still far outperform almost any AMD CPUs as far as gaming is concerned. If you have programs that capitalize on multiple cores like editing and rendering, I'd still have to recommend the FX chips, despite their inferior gaming performance.

 

the 4460 "far outperform" in MOST games. But it does not hold true for all games.

In the Witcher 3, it performs about equal to a slightly OCd FX 6300... The witcher 3 is very well optimized, and as such a FX 8350 will beat out a 4690k (stock vs stock). While the intel CPUs get higher FPS, they drop further down on their minimums, while the FX CPUs simply has lower FPS but also lower minimums

 

 

Proper benchmarks of Battlefront isnt out yet, but the preliminary ones showing a Athlon 860k being within 10 FPS of a 5960X goes to show that even that game is bloody well optimized and would NOT be let down by a FX CPU.

 

Again, yes it is absolutely true that a Haswell or even Ivy bridge CPU would generally beat out a FX CPU -> Until you enter into titles who DO make use of the massive multi threading capabilities. One can hate FX for a lot of reasons... like that a 8350 has worse single core performance then a Ivy Bridge i3. Or that it produces a lot of heat.

But when even a FX 6350 is between a i3 4170 and a i5 4690k in multi-thread, stock vs stock, knowing that with an overclock you can easily reach i5 levels for a MUCH lower price.

 

Then again, a FX 6300/6350 would even at 5GHz barely score 125-130 points in Cinebench R15 single thread (stock figures, 3.5GHz FX is around 110 points).... a i3 4130 scores like 140ish... So yeah, single thread performance will always be abyssmal.

 

 

EDIT:

 

 

here is a Battlefront test with a FX

[Dive5885]

The 9590 is basically a binned 8350 from what i've heard so it's close to pointless to buy one, so post above.

Yes it is but with my past 8350 all it could do is 4.6Ghz, So the only reason I would get the 9370/9590 is because its binned and will run 4.8Ghz +

[Dive5885]

I say get a FX-6350 or 8350 but if you will get a cooler then a FX-6300 should be good cause its stock cooler is junk... (the 125w cooler is loud!)

(6300 needs a OC at stock its a i3 equal but at higher clock speed its equal to a higher end i3 or maybe better depends on lottery!)

For OCing leave voltage at max of 1.425 I think higher than that may be a risk... (does this thing have a 8+2 VRM? If so its a awesome OCer!)

With my past 8350 it took 1.45v to run 4.6Ghz and it wouldn't run any higher than that and yes the motherboard is a 8 +2 VRM design board.

[Prysin]

I say get a FX-6350 or 8350 but if you will get a cooler then a FX-6300 should be good cause its stock cooler is junk... (the 125w cooler is loud!)

(6300 needs a OC at stock its a i3 equal but at higher clock speed its equal to a higher end i3 or maybe better depends on lottery!)

For OCing leave voltage at max of 1.425 I think higher than that may be a risk... (does this thing have a 8+2 VRM? If so its a awesome OCer!)

8+2 phase is not a guarantee that a board is good at OCing.

 

seriously, educate yourself on this. YOu keep spreading misinformation or half baked information that can DAMAGE  and or limit the capabilities of peoples hardware.

[Suika]

FX, pick up an 8350 and youll be sorted, it performs better than some i5s in games so if you can afford it I would pick one up/

No it doesn't. In a best case scenario, it might perform pretty closely to an i5, but minimum FPS will usually be drastically worse and in more CPU intensive games, your averages can be 50% worse than a comparable i5.

 

OP, if there's no way you can get rid of that motherboard and move to an Intel chipset, then the FX-6300 or FX-8320E. You're not going to take advantage of 8 threads and higher clocks aren't going to help, so going as cheap as possible is the best case.

 

Games that can particularly use multiple cores effectively will outperform the i5 by leaps and bounds, however few games at this do that. Most games the Fx 8350 will perform slightly worse than the i5. However, it will be more common in the future for the use multiple cores effectively in games so you could view it as future proofing your system.   

Battlefield 4, a game that can take advantage of more than 4 threads like you're describing, does not have the FX-8350 "outperform the i5 by leaps and bounds." If anything, the i5 demolishes the FX-9590.

 

 

Unless you have proof that states otherwise, the FX-8350 is a piss poor choice for a gaming PC.

[Prysin]

No it doesn't. In a best case scenario, it might perform pretty closely to an i5, but minimum FPS will usually be drastically worse and in more CPU intensive games, your averages can be 50% worse than a comparable i5.

 

OP, if there's no way you can get rid of that motherboard and move to an Intel chipset, then the FX-6300 or FX-8320E. You're not going to take advantage of 8 threads and higher clocks aren't going to help, so going as cheap as possible is the best case.

 

Battlefield 4, a game that can take advantage of more than 4 threads like you're describing, does not have the FX-8350 "outperform the i5 by leaps and bounds." If anything, the i5 demolishes the FX-9590.

 

 

Unless you have proof that states otherwise, the FX-8350 is a piss poor choice for a gaming PC.

i5 costs WAY more. In before you spread bullshit prices of extremely high end mobos + FX

 

He OWNS a 990FX board. That is the FX equivalent of a Z97 board...

why on earth would you buy a new mobo when you can dump 50-95 bucks into a CPU and get a more then capable gaming rig

 

you also fail to realize that your benchmark proves one important point.

That even a FX will get over 60FPS. IF your monitors refresh rate is not higher then 60Hz, you will NOT SEE ANY FRAMES ABOVE 60FPS.

 

Why spend money on frames you'll never in your life will see.

 

You also show a benchmark where the FX is worse then all intel offerings.

I can do THE OPPOSITE.

 

 

Here, enjoy seeing a i5 4690k lose to a FX 8350 and a i3 4360 lose to a FX 6300... Who would have thought...

 

 

Every product on the market has its place. In the case of the OP, he has a mobo already. Thus he might aswell get a FX.

There is no point buying intel, to get 10 FPS, when you got a 100 USD board already! That is called wasting money.

 

Also, when i still had my FX, the minimum FPS was NEVER THE PROBLEM it is the maximum FPS that is the limit of the FX. Low IPC causes it to fall short of the Haswell CPUs, BUT it is remarkebly at staying very fluent. In some games, such as The Witcher 3, my Intel i7 4790k has higher fluctuations then my FX 8320 had. However my FX never got over 33 FPS no matter what (didnt have CF profile back then)

[Nena Trinity]

With my past 8350 it took 1.45v to run 4.6Ghz and it wouldn't run any higher than that and yes the motherboard is a 8 +2 VRM design board.

Funny cause I have a FX-8370 at 1.425 and it is at 4.5 and others say it can reach 4.6 or 4.7 but it depends on luck!

 

Well FX-8370 is newer and may require less voltage and stuff but I still think you should atliest be able to get it to 4.4 without more voltage! 

 

8+2 phase is not a guarantee that a board is good at OCing.

 

seriously, educate yourself on this. YOu keep spreading misinformation or half baked information that can DAMAGE  and or limit the capabilities of peoples hardware.

It will most likely throttle down...  (but some boards wont do that and fire!)

[Prysin]

 -snip-

 

Average FPS doesnt mean shit. You can have a sample of 10 seconds of a benchmark.

second 1-4 is running at 100 frames pr second, second 5-7 is 25, second 7-10 is 60.... the average FPS is 65.5 however do you in your wildest dream think that the gaming experience would be good if that is how your CPU performs? That is basically how a G3258 performs.

It spikes up to insane FPS, then drops down, then stays in the middle... it is all over the place. The result is that the image you see on the screen becomes horribly choppy and stuttering.

 

And no, you do not need a 120 USD board + Hyper212 to get 4.5GHz. You do not need 8+2 phases to OC an FX, you can easily do it with 4+1 phase VRMs, if the VRMs are of adequate quality. Which surprisingly quite a few of the lower end boards are.

 

Like i said to Nena, please educate yourself on FX VRM requirements. You are spreading misinformation. That can be dangerous.

While it is not bad to suggest a "overkill" motherboard, it can be considered fraud when you try to make other people waste their money just to prove a point. Wasting peoples money is not cool. In this case you are trying to sell in a i5, to someone who has clearly stated that he is not interested in an i5.

 

The OP owns a 990FX board already, which means you have no valid argument for the OP to throw away a perfectly fine motherboard just to gain 10-12 FPS. Would you throw away 100 USD just to get 10 FPS? I mean litterally throw 100 USD in the toilet, flush, then go buy something else to get 10 FPS?

 

Think man. Preferably before start posting stuff that has no relation to the OPs question.

 

You cannot win this discussion, because you cannot disprove me at any point. Everything i stated in my previous post holds true. Unless you want to resort to further ad-hominem replies.

[Dive5885]

 In this case you are trying to sell in a i5, to someone who has clearly stated that he is not interested in an i5.

 

The OP owns a 990FX board already, which means you have no valid argument for the OP to throw away a perfectly fine motherboard just to gain 10-12 FPS. Would you throw away 100 USD just to get 10 FPS? I mean litterally throw 100 USD in the toilet, flush, then go buy something else to get 10 FPS?

 

Think man. Preferably before start posting stuff that has no relation to the OPs question.

 

You cannot win this discussion, because you cannot disprove me at any point. Everything i stated in my previous post holds true. Unless you want to resort to further ad-hominem replies.

You are right, I did say I don't want a i5 system because it will cost more and I did say I already have a AM3+ board.

 

All I needed was Help/Advice on which model of the FX to get or if I should get the Athlon.

 

But this went from a planning stage thread to a AMD Vs Intel thread

[Suika]

You cannot win this discussion, because you cannot disprove me at any point. Everything i stated in my previous post holds true. Unless you want to resort to further ad-hominem replies.

So because you're ignoring my posts, you win the argument? I don't think it works like that.

"OP, if there's no way you can get rid of that motherboard and move to an Intel chipset, then the FX-6300 or FX-8320E. You're not going to take advantage of 8 threads and higher clocks aren't going to help, so going as cheap as possible is the best case."

That was my recommendation to OP in my first post without an edit, so unless you mean to tell me that OP should strictly go with Intel and ignore AMD completely, I don't see how you win any arguments in this thread, unless you're going for poster with the worst score in reading comprehension.

[Dive5885]

"OP, if there's no way you can get rid of that motherboard and move to an Intel chipset, then the FX-6300 or FX-8320E. You're not going to take advantage of 8 threads and higher clocks aren't going to help, so going as cheap as possible is the best case."

 

I could sell it but the question is would it honestly be worth it?

[Suika]

I could sell it but the question is would it honestly be worth it?

ROI would be too little to justify it, I assumed you just bought or something and had the option to return it.

[Dive5885]

ROI would be too little to justify it, I assumed you just bought or something and had the option to return it.

No option to return at this point.