An issue with people bashing the FX CPUs !

[SkilledRebuilds]

High res benchmarks are more ignorant.

 

Agreed.

Most people ONLY use low resolution benchmarks to check the CPU's performance in that metric. People DON"T ACTUALLY USE these settings to game on, this....seems lost on a few people

To which you can say... why bother then... at high resolution their equal...

 

The point being, I'm discussing the performance on CPU's when not GPU bound and how well they fare against competitors products, I may bench a game with a couple of CPU's at a lower res to show their differences, it gives the end-user more information about the strengths and weakness's the CPU can have, regardless of being equal in a GPU bound situation, regardless that I won't be using such a low res, it's GOOD to know better.

[Dabombinable]

1080p Skyrim, graphics setings maxed out, 28 texture/environment mods, 4GHz core 2 duo = no excuse for an FX series CPU to get lower FPS. I'll be testing sometime at the start of Janurary with an x5450, if it gets better FPS than an FX cpu, something is really wrong.

[sgloux3470]

Agreed.

Most people ONLY use low resolution benchmarks to check the CPU's performance in that metric. People DON"T ACTUALLY USE these settings to game on, this....seems lost on a few people

To which you can say... why bother then... at high resolution their equal...

 

The point being, I'm discussing the performance on CPU's when not GPU bound and how well they fare against competitors products, I may bench a game with a couple of CPU's at a lower res to show their differences, it gives the end-user more information about the strengths and weakness's the CPU can have, regardless of being equal in a GPU bound situation, regardless that I won't be using such a low res, it's GOOD to know better.

I'm the sort of person who cares most about real world scenarios.  I absolutely see the value in CPU tests, but as long as I can run the game at 60 FPS then I see no reason to rush out to spend $500-600 to replace my CPU/Mobo.  There are a couple of games that run like trash on FX, but the vast majority run just fine.  

 

It's kind of how I feel about a lot of SSD benchmarks.  I want to know how the hardware performs in the way I want to use it, not how it performs when you have it do things that no one actually does.  

 

There are a handful of games where performance absolutely tanks on FX and doesn't (tank as much) on intel.  For the vast majority, FX delivers a great gameplay experience when paired with an adequate GPU that will be indistinguishable from the same game/GPU paired with the intel equivalent.  

[Dabombinable]

If people thought about it, there is no point in actually having a higher FPS than the refresh rate of their computer's monitor-its why I moved back to my core 2 duo instead of going through the painful process of an RMA on my h87m pro and i5 4440.

[79wjd]

If people thought about it, there is no point in actually having a higher FPS than the refresh rate of their computer's monitor-its why I moved back to my core 2 duo instead of going through the painful process of an RMA on my h87m pro and i5 4440.

except that if you're just getting your monitors refresh rate then tomorrow or wont be enough, and it also means frame drops will be much more noticeable. Not to mention 144hz monitors exist (and monitor overclocking is a thing).

And not rma'g your board and cpu and using an inferior cpu is such a god dawned waste.

[i_build_nanosuits]

If people thought about it, there is no point in actually having a higher FPS than the refresh rate of their computer's monitor-its why I moved back to my core 2 duo instead of going through the painful process of an RMA on my h87m pro and i5 4440.

except that if you're just getting your monitors refresh rate then tomorrow or wont be enough, and it also means frame drops will be much more noticeable. Not to mention 144hz monitors exist (and monitor overclocking is a thing).

and the FX processor won't even push a steady 60FPS in many games regardless of how sexy your gpu setup is...and in many mmo's it's not even able to hold 30FPS in raids...

[Dabombinable]

except that if you're just getting your monitors refresh rate then tomorrow or wont be enough, and it also means frame drops will be much more noticeable. Not to mention 144hz monitors exist (and monitor overclocking is a thing).

"there is no point in actually having a higher FPS than the refresh rate of their computer's monitor" includes all monitors, and so far the only times I have troubles with games on the older cpu is when the game actually makes use of multithreading.

[Faceman]

"there is no point in actually having a higher FPS than the refresh rate of their computer's monitor" includes all monitors, and so far the only times I have troubles with games on the older cpu is when the game actually makes use of multithreading.

Using that same logic, we should only have cars that are capable of doing just the speed limit as a maximum.  What happens if there is an incline?  Oh well, my car wasn't designed for that, guess I won't get to see what is over the hill.

[79wjd]

"there is no point in actually having a higher FPS than the refresh rate of their computer's monitor" includes all monitors, and so far the only times I have troubles with games on the older cpu is when the game actually makes use of multithreading.

Except that you're failing to realize that a lot of people decide to upgrade to a 144hz monitor down the road. When I figrst built my system I never thought I would bother going 144hz as I was happy with 60....well, as it turned out, I decided to pick up a 144hz monitor. Had I gone with an 8320 I would've also needed to upgrade my cpu, which would've just been a waste. And again, the FX cpus, while able to maintain a 60fps average in many games, the minimums are usually lower and occur more often. 

 

 

Using that same logic, we should only have cars that are capable of doing just the speed limit as a maximum.  What happens if there is an incline?  Oh well, my car wasn't designed for that, guess I won't get to see what is over the hill.

lol 

[Dabombinable]

I know FX cpus are slower (single core performance on an fx 8350 is actually very close to my e8500's) but they get the job done, not that well compared to newer Intel CPUs granted but they are still close to the old sandybridge cpus.

[Faceman]

I know FX cpus are slower (single core performance on an fx 8350 is actually very close to my e8500's) but they get the job done, not that well compared to newer Intel CPUs granted but they are still close to the old sandybridge cpus.

The i5-2500k still hands it to FX CPUs.  An FX is going to be passable for 4/5 games, but for that 5th game, you are SoL.  Not to mention you are paying more.  Its done, its over.  AMD is not relevant in the gaming department anymore, no matter the price point, and pretty much no matter the location.  There are still some areas in the world where an Intel CPU is prohibitively more expensive, but if not, then Intel is the way to go if your priority is gaming.

[Adepted K]

we bash them because there old, inefficient and not particularly amazing in anyway.

I dont know man .... I still think AMD could make a better cpu than you or someone who doesn't know what their talking about.

[PlayModeOn]

We bash them so we can help AMD to release a better CPU for everyone.

[Dabombinable]

The i5-2500k still hands it to FX CPUs.  An FX is going to be passable for 4/5 games, but for that 5th game, you are SoL.  Not to mention you are paying more.  Its done, its over.  AMD is not relevant in the gaming department anymore, no matter the price point, and pretty much no matter the location.  There are still some areas in the world where an Intel CPU is prohibitively more expensive, but if not, then Intel is the way to go if your priority is gaming.

Done some research, if the core 2 series (which is 4 years older than the FX line) had the same amount of cores as say an FX 8350, they'd be the faster CPU even with the older architecture as at the same or slightly lower speeds their single threaded performance is better.

 

 

 

We bash them so we can help AMD to release a better CPU for everyone.

They need to if older CPUs can keep up.

[Faceman]

Done some research, if the core 2 series (which is 4 years older than the FX line) had the same amount of cores as say an FX 8350, they'd be the faster CPU even with the older architecture as at the same or slightly lower speeds their single threaded performance is better.

 

 

 

They need to if older CPUs can keep up.

Yea, this is not news.  Architecture and IPC is what matters, not cores and GHZ.

[Dabombinable]

Yea, this is not news.  Architecture and IPC is what matters, not cores and GHZ.

Enough said:

 

[Toddwjp]

I dont know man .... I still think AMD could make a better cpu than you or someone who doesn't know what their talking about.

Were specifically talking about the fx series of cpus and they are right now all three of those things I said. There price is decent but compared to the latest chips from Intel and even AMD. Also I'm pretty sure amd can make a better cpu then me, but I do know the basics and the fx series, definitely old tech, the cpu equivalent of a used car from the early 2000's, perfectly usable and cheap, but not special any more

[LegacyStijncat]

i7 $300+

8350 ~$150

The i7 is not twice the performance 

i7's are not made for gaming, i5's are.