AMD FX 6 month conclusion

[Unlikelyjoker]

Do you guys have anything better to do than bashing people for picking something you don't like?

You should all be ashamed of yourselves (the ones that bashed)

[kronickiller]

assasins creed black flag verson 1.0 no updates

IMG]http://i62.tinypic.com/fdr31g.jpg

 

===========================================================

 

 

 

FINAL FANTASY A REAL REBORN

MMO

dibs are alt tabbing

[itachipirate]

These two points are contradictory. In the first you are saying that when all six cores can be utilised the core count and the poor IPC cancel eachother out and the 6300 and the 4160 give the same performance. In the second you are saying that the 6300 is good when you have applications that use all of the six cores.

Outside of gaming when all 6 cores are utilized the FX-6300 outperforms the i3. Benchmarks in full-core gaming i3=FX6300 but for other programs like video rendering FX-6300>i3. I don't know why this is the case, but it is

[Dabombinable]

Fun Fact: My first Gaming PC almost had a i7 3770K/i5 4670K 

I choose AMD because i wanted to support them and Intel Z boards are expensive(I wanted Asus and i wanted to OC so i would need to get a K CPU and a Z board anyway).. If AMD goes out of CPU business, then do you like paying 900 dollars for a 3.5GHZ Dual Core Intel CPU.....but that probably won't happened anyway since there's laws about no monopoly. 

My 8320 does me fine in games, i mostly play CS:GO so no bugging me there since i already have a decent frame rate to play CS:GO smoothly. 

Take a clue, Intel could have crushed AMD years ago if they'd wanted too, condisering how much they can loose each year and still make several billion dolars profit. If Intel is the only CPU manufacturer left, they will get split up and lose a shitload of money and have lower profits-which they don't want.

[JamGorby]

Take a clue, Intel could have crushed AMD years ago if they'd wanted too, condisering how much they can loose each year and still make several billion dolars profit. If Intel is the only CPU manufacturer left, they will get split up and lose a shitload of money and have lower profits-which they don't want.

Not to mention, if enough people supported AMD "just because" then AMD would also have no incentive to improve. 

Not that a handful of fanboys who refuse to accept reality are able to make such an impact, but loyalty to a company that only cares about your money is just as silly. The only reason AMD isn't a "big evil corporation" like Intel is because that kind of greed costs money.

 

[Dabombinable]

Not to mention, if enough people supported AMD "just because" then AMD would also have no incentive to improve. 

Not that a handful of fanboys who refuse to accept reality are able to make such an impact, but loyalty to a company that only cares about your money is just as silly. The only reason AMD isn't a "big evil corporation" like Intel is because that kind of greed costs money.

 

And they lost that money due to their CEO's fucking things up and buying companies when they couldn't really afford to.

[Faceman]

@kronickiller

 

No, I don't trust you, especially when you already admitted to trolling and faking results in a different thread the other day.

 

Going from Mantle to DX11 and getting better results makes absolutely no sense.  Of course I am going to be skeptical of that result. I also don't know what kind of action you were in, if you were sniping or actually in the action.  It is very easy to push your GPU loads to the max in that game, you just throw resolution scaling up to 200% and boom, GPU bound.  A screenshot doesn't prove much coming from an already proven unreliable person, and you are probably a youngin based on the way you type.

 

Same goes for Dying Light.  You aren't doing anything.  You are standing in a hallway with nothing going on.  Go do something demanding like running around with lots of zombies around you doing parkour. Also not sure why you have paint open.

 

I am not saying AMD wont play these games, I am saying Intel will do it better, for cheaper.

[Faceman]

Yeah umm proper cooling for a AMD CPU.....

How about downvolting your FX CPU and put fan speeds at standard not silenAnd i'm using the stock FX cooler, i'd even showed my GPU temps that their still cool. When you say all the heat that comes out of the CPU.

Oh yeah that 4 out of 5 games part, for some people it doesn't seem like a reasonable upgrade from a FX to a i5 if all the games that you play have decent frame rates. I mostly play Source games, and i get 100+ FPS on those games(unless it has 60 FPS cap), so there's no point from upgrading from a FX to a i5 for me. 

Not everyone is lucky enough to get a good enough chip to downvolt.  If you want to overclock, you do need proper cooling.  Also, if I remember correctly, you are on a bad motherboard and cannot overclock because you get unstable.  Your only option is to downvolt.  A proper cooler wont do you any good if your motherboard can't handle an OC.

 

There have been a lot of people who upgraded from FX to i5 and all of their old issues with FX vanished.  That isn't worth the upgrade?  Being able to push a high end GPU to its full potential?  Not worth the upgrade?  Sure, for some people it doesn't make sense to upgrade, but for a lot of people, upgrading is going to give them the results they were expecting when they first bought AMD.  So for you, it doesn't make sense, but for others, it could make sense.  Don't use your situation and apply it to everyone.  That is what so many of your FX owners are doing.  "It works fine for me in the games I like, so it must work fine for you in the games you like."

 

I am so exhausted of this "I wanted to support the underdog" argument.  This is so silly.  It takes emotion into the equation, and emotion is the last thing you should be using when trying to evaluate performance.  I want to support Africa, let me donate 25 cents a day.  Sure it might help one kid, but it isn't solving the big problem.  <-- This is all of you.

[sgloux3470]

 

 

Going from Mantle to DX11 and getting better results makes absolutely no sense. 

 

My experience using mantle with my 270x CF was that it often degraded performance. Iirc it's because it causes it to use more VRAM or something.  I really wasn't very impressed with how mantle functioned, it was very buggy and plagued by issues in every game when it was first added. (Which makes sense, but it still turned me off using it.)

 

Don't think it would effect a 290x nearly as much, but my experience with it was pretty poor in everything except Sniper Elite 3. 

[Clyne]

Not everyone is lucky enough to get a good enough chip to downvolt.  If you want to overclock, you do need proper cooling.  Also, if I remember correctly, you are on a bad motherboard and cannot overclock because you get unstable.  Your only option is to downvolt.  A proper cooler wont do you any good if your motherboard can't handle an OC.

 

There have been a lot of people who upgraded from FX to i5 and all of their old issues with FX vanished.  That isn't worth the upgrade?  Being able to push a high end GPU to its full potential?  Not worth the upgrade?  Sure, for some people it doesn't make sense to upgrade, but for a lot of people, upgrading is going to give them the results they were expecting when they first bought AMD.  So for you, it doesn't make sense, but for others, it could make sense.  Don't use your situation and apply it to everyone.  That is what so many of your FX owners are doing.  "It works fine for me in the games I like, so it must work fine for you in the games you like."

Says who i had a bad motherboard? The only time that my PC crashed was voltage issues, AMD TurboCore was spiking up voltage that made it crash. My board is a M5A97 R2.0, so far no problems with crashing, and yes i'd overclocked my CPU before(around the 4.3-4GHZ area). The only reason i changed it back to stock because i had high temps(still using stock cooler).

[Faceman]

Says who i had a bad motherboard? The only time that my PC crashed was voltage issues, AMD TurboCore was spiking up voltage that made it crash. My board is a M5A97 R2.0, so far no problems with crashing, and yes i'd overclocked my CPU before(around the 4.3-4GHZ area). The only reason i changed it back to stock because i had high temps(still using stock cooler).

Oh, I must have been confusing you with the hundred other people who get bad overclocking results on their FX processors because they are using bad motherboards.  Its difficult to keep you all in mind, ya know.. cause there are so many of you.

 

So... your point is exactly the one I am making.  You need aftermarket cooling.

 

Your solution was to undervolt, which worked, but not everyone can do.  Sometimes people have to undervolt and downclock just to get stable on their shoddy motherboards, which is again why AMD costs the same as Intel because you have to buy a proper motherboard in order to even operate at stock settings.  If you want to overclock, which is very necessary to even make FX CPUs competitive in a lot of games, you need aftermarket cooling, driving the cost up even more.  Bottlenecking high end GPUs, no upgrade path, still worse performance, and energy consumption costs.

 

If building new, you go Intel.

 

If you already own FX, it is up to you and your personal situation whether or not to upgrade to Intel, but based on the numerous people I have helped who switched from FX to Intel, they are all incredibly pleased with their performance gains, have issued a mea culpa, and have told others to avoid the pitfalls of buying into such an ancient technology.

 

Grasp this.  You have to grasp this.  If you cannot, then I dunno what else to say.

[Clyne]

Oh, I must have been confusing you with the hundred other people who get bad overclocking results on their FX processors because they are using bad motherboards.  Its difficult to keep you all in mind, ya know.. cause there are so many of you.

 

So... your point is exactly the one I am making.  You need aftermarket cooling.

 

Your solution was to undervolt, which worked, but not everyone can do.  Sometimes people have to undervolt and downclock just to get stable on their shoddy motherboards, which is again why AMD costs the same as Intel because you have to buy a proper motherboard in order to even operate at stock settings.  If you want to overclock, which is very necessary to even make FX CPUs competitive in a lot of games, you need aftermarket cooling, driving the cost up even more.  Bottlenecking high end GPUs, no upgrade path, still worse performance, and energy consumption costs.

 

If building new, you go Intel.

 

If you already own FX, it is up to you and your personal situation whether or not to upgrade to Intel, but based on the numerous people I have helped who switched from FX to Intel, they are all incredibly pleased with their performance gains, have issued a mea culpa, and have told others to avoid the pitfalls of buying into such an ancient technology.

 

Grasp this.  You have to grasp this.  If you cannot, then I dunno what else to say.

Undervolt or not, i still had decent temps. Like 40C idle and 60C load. At the time when i was building my PC, going with Intel was obviously more expensive because i wanted a K CPU for the extra performance and the Z97 boards at the time were way out of my price range, i didn't want to go with a locked CPU. So might as well go AMD anyway. The reason why i'm not OC now because my case can't fit a decent aftermarket cooler, so i have to upgrade my case anyway to OC. 

[Faceman]

Undervolt or not, i still had decent temps. Like 40C idle and 60C load. At the time when i was building my PC, going with Intel was obviously more expensive because i wanted a K CPU for the extra performance and the Z97 boards at the time were way out of my price range, i didn't want to go with a locked CPU. So might as well go AMD anyway. The reason why i'm not OC now because my case can't fit a decent aftermarket cooler, so i have to upgrade my case anyway to OC. 

So you bought AMD just so you could have fun overclocking?  That is your reason?  Because even a heavily overclocked FX8 doesn't beat a locked i5.  Flawed rationale.

[itachipirate]

-snip-

I am so exhausted of this "I wanted to support the underdog" argument.  This is so silly.  It takes emotion into the equation, and emotion is the last thing you should be using when trying to evaluate performance.  I want to support Africa, let me donate 25 cents a day.  Sure it might help one kid, but it isn't solving the big problem.  <-- This is all of you.

I want to support AMD so that there is a reason to push boundaries of technology. Intel is already pushing boundaries with thing like 3d printing, touch screen projection, and synthetic limbs since they don't have to do much new with CPU technology. If AMD brings something really good to the table with Zen and it actually becomes a competition of "who can make a better architecture" the speed of new CPU technology will advance rapidly due to the companies trying to outperform each other. This hasn't been the case for a while, because AMD hasn't brought anything very good to the table in terms of new technology for a long time. Right now Intel doesn't have large intensive to make sizable investments into new CPU technology, since a %10 IPC improvement every couple of years or so is all they need to keep themselves ahead of AMD and continue to completely own the market.

I ask people to consider their graphics cards since they perform well for decent price, and mostly in hopes of AMD staying around and coming to competition with Intel so that we can see more rapid CPU technology advancements

 

From Intel's "advancement of CPU technology" point of view they're already winning the race by far, so there's no need to speed up

[Faceman]

I want to support AMD so that there is a reason to push boundaries of technology. Intel is already pushing boundaries with thing like 3d printing, touch screen projection, and synthetic limbs since they don't have to do much new with CPU technology. If AMD brings something really good to the table with Zen and it actually becomes a competition of "who can make a better architecture" the speed of new CPU technology will advance rapidly due to the companies each trying to outperform each other. This hasn't been the case for a while, because AMD hasn't brought anything very good to the table in terms of new technology for a long time. Right now Intel doesn't have large intensive to make sizable investments into new CPU technology, since a %10 IPC improvement every couple of years or so is all they need to keep their selves ahead of AMD and continue to completely own the market.

I ask people to consider their graphics cards since they perform well for decent price, and mostly in hopes of AMD staying around and coming to competition with Intel so that we can see more CPU advancements in a short amount of time.

 

From Intel's standpoint of technology advancement they're already winning the race by far, so there's no need to speed up

Thats what I want too, but that doesn't mean I'm going to give them money for an inferior product with the hope that one day they will make a competitive product. 

 

Its like going to the horse race and betting on the horse with 3 legs, but hey, he had a clever name, so lets bet on him even though he has a glaring defect.

 

I want competition.  I want AMD's Zen to be awesome.  These are all things I also want, but buying sub-par products is not the way to go about it.  I also heavily recommend AMD GPUs.  Its their CPUs that are the wrong tool for the job.

 

Intel was winning the "race" even before Bulldozer was released.  The FX line of processors was seen as a failure even at launch.

[Dabombinable]

I want to support AMD so that there is a reason to push boundaries of technology. Intel is already pushing boundaries with thing like 3d printing, touch screen projection, and synthetic limbs since they don't have to do much new with CPU technology. If AMD brings something really good to the table with Zen and it actually becomes a competition of "who can make a better architecture" the speed of new CPU technology will advance rapidly due to the companies each trying to outperform each other. This hasn't been the case for a while, because AMD hasn't brought anything very good to the table in terms of new technology for a long time. Right now Intel doesn't have large intensive to make sizable investments into new CPU technology, since a %10 IPC improvement every couple of years or so is all they need to keep themselves ahead of AMD and continue to completely own the market.

I ask people to consider their graphics cards since they perform well for decent price, and mostly in hopes of AMD staying around and coming to competition with Intel so that we can see more rapid CPU technology advancements

 

From Intel's standpoint of technology advancement they're already winning the race by far, so there's no need to speed up

AMD had their chance when they were beating Intel every which way and had a greater market share, they fucked up and now Intel is the better option, which is why @Faceman and I only recommend an FX 8350/8320 in a few very specific circumstances that an everyday computer user and gamer won't come across. You arguement for buying AMD products because you want to 'support them' is flawed by the very fact that at one point it was the other way around. With your logic you'd have people crippling their rigs to help a company get out of their own mess when they shouldn't need to 'help'.in the first place if AMD's CEOs had been doing their jobs correctly.

[kronickiller]

Even my 4460 beats out the flagship 9590 in gaming.

Sad day for amd when a mid end intel çpu beats their flaghship products.

Edit: Not my video , but it proves the point.

 

the performance isnt where we were arguing about

intel will always win that argument

their pretty much saying its pretty much impossible for a fx chip to use a graphix card and do gaming

which is wrong lol i posted screenshots of a bunch  the games he listed and it uses the power of my graphix card just fine and didnt tank my system

( would love and excuse to buy another computer )

might not be as good as a i7 but definatly no reason to go dump 700 bucks for me on a a new system for the meager 10-15 fps gain i might get

[Dabombinable]

the performance isnt where we were arguing about

intel will always win that argument

their pretty much saying its pretty much impossible for a fx chip to use a graphix card and do gaming

which is wrong lol i posted screenshots of a bunch  the games he listed and it uses the power of my graphix card just fine and didnt tank my system

( would love and excuse to buy another computer )

might not be as good as a i7 but definatly no reason to go dump 700 bucks for me on a a new system for the meager 10-15 fps gain i might get

Any CPU can play a game with varying degrees of performance, the main point is that any FX CPU is a bad choice for gaming, period. Edit: Also, you'd only need an i5 4440 and a cheap motherboard to see a greater minimum FPS, a higher average FPS and a higher maximum FPS. People like you overexagerating so much are the reason this farce is still going.

[kronickiller]

Any CPU can play a game with varying degrees of performance, the main point is that any FX CPU is a bad choice for gaming, period.

 

thank you thats the point i am tryin to make to the other intel fanboys

all i wanted to here

[itachipirate]

Thats what I want too, but that doesn't mean I'm going to give them money for an inferior product with the hope that one day they will make a competitive product. 

 

Its like going to the horse race and betting on the horse with 3 legs, but hey, he had a clever name, so lets bet on him even though he has a glaring defect.

 

I want competition.  I want AMD's Zen to be awesome.  These are all things I also want, but buying sub-par products is not the way to go about it.  I also heavily recommend AMD GPUs.  Its their CPUs that are the wrong tool for the job.

I wasn't trying to promote buying their CPUs. They've been mostly sitting on their asses (So has Intel but they've had a bigger lead) in terms of CPU technology. Just making small improvements each generation, we shouldn't let them think we'll just buy whatever old crap they still sell (Like the FX CPUs) We can't do much to force Intel and AMD to make something new and big unless the two are competing. The invention of multi-core CPUs completely changed the market of CPUs, I want a breakthrough like that instead of a small improvement each generation. That won't happen unless the companies have a reason to make something new.

 

AMD had their chance when they were beating Intel every which way and had a greater market share, they fucked up and now Intel is the better option, which is why @Faceman and I only recommend an FX 8350/8320 in a few very specific circumstances that an everyday computer user and gamer won't come across. You arguement for buying AMD products because you want to 'support them' is flawed by the very fact that at one point it was the other way around. With your logic you'd have people crippling their rigs to help a company get out of their own mess when they shouldn't need to 'help'.in the first place if AMD's CEOs had been doing their jobs correctly.

Read above, I think I was misunderstood. I do not recommend buying AMD CPUs to support them. Since again, they would not need to make any improvements if we're already buying their old crap just to support them

[Dabombinable]

thank you thats the point i am tryin to make to the other intel fanboys

all i wanted to here

Not fanboys, people who buy the best CPU when its time to upgrade their rigs. Doingthe logical thing with a shitload of evidence doesn't make someone a 'fanboy'.

[Dabombinable]

I wasn't trying to promote buying their CPUs. They've been mostly sitting on their asses (So has Intel but they've had a bigger lead) in terms of CPU technology. Just making small improvements each generation, we shouldn't let them think we'll just buy whatever old crap they still sell (Like the FX CPUs) We can't do much to force Intel and AMD to make something new and big unless the two are competing. The invention of multi-core CPUs completely changed the market of CPUs, I want a breakthrough like that instead of a small improvement each generation. That won't happen unless the companies have a reason to make something new. People look at the new Skylake specs and say it looks like the same old crap, but a little better

AMD Didn't make the first 8 core CPU, their FX 8*** CPU's actually have 4 cores, as you can see here, yes its 8 threaded but it is nowhere near 8 cores. An so much for their 8 physical threads being faster than Intel's 4 cores, 8 strong threads.

 

Read above, I think I was misunderstood. I do not recommend buying AMD CPUs to support them. Since again, they would not need to make any improvements if we're already buying their old crap just to support them

Well that's the way what you were saying came across.

[Clyne]

So you bought AMD just so you could have fun overclocking?  That is your reason?  Because even a heavily overclocked FX8 doesn't beat a locked i5.  Flawed rationale.

Yep, and because of price of the 4690K and a Z97 board. Unlike others states that have MC, Fry's is the only PC shop here that sells PC parts and most of the parts are expensive anyway so i couldn't fit a 4690K in my budget. 

[Dabombinable]

Yep, and because of price of the 4690K and a Z97 board. Unlike others states that have MC, Fry's is the only PC shop here that sells PC parts and most of the parts are expensive anyway so i couldn't fit a 4690K in my budget. 

Its called saving your money up, not wasting it.

[Clyne]

Its called saving your money up, not wasting it.

It's called saving up your money for a long time(2-3yr) and i was using a 64 X2 1.9GHZ with 2GB of Ram and a HD5450(added sometime later in 2011) for 7 years, i desperately needed a upgrade.