AMD FX 6 month conclusion

[Dabombinable]

I dont understand. Dont those cpus/motherdoards have somekind of protection in place (ie, a 4 phase mobo wont take 220W monster) ?

Nope. Then again, that would mean people wouldn't replace motherboards as frequently if there was a limit.

[hojnikb]

Nope. Then again, that would mean people wouldn't replace motherboards as frequently if there was a limit.

wow, this is beyond retarded.

[JamGorby]

I dont understand. Dont those cpus/motherdoards have somekind of protection in place (ie, a 4 phase mobo wont take 220W monster) ?

Just like cheap shitty power supplies, cheap motherboards often have no kind of vrm overvolt/overheat protection that works properly.

[sgloux3470]

I dont understand. Dont those cpus/motherdoards have somekind of protection in place (ie, a 4 phase mobo wont take 220W monster) ?

 

Most AM3+ motherboards do have some protections.  I've heard of some simply shutting down if the CPU tries to draw too much voltage.

[d1screet]

Are the Athlon X4 processors objectively worse than the FX chips due to the fact that they're APU's with disabled onboard graphics?

[Dabombinable]

Are the Athlon X4 processors objectively worse than the FX chips due to the fact that they're APU's with disabled onboard graphics?

They have a higher IPC, so in some scenarios an Athlon X4 will be better.

[Opcode]

They have a higher IPC, so in some scenarios an Athlon X4 will be better.

Although the lack of L3 drives a portion of Bdver3 IPC gains into the ground. With the way things sit right now I would rather go FX-6300 @ $99 than 860k @ $77.

[Dabombinable]

Although the lack of L3 drives a portion of Bdver3 IPC gains into the ground. With the way things sit right now I would rather go FX-6300 @ $99 than 860k @ $77.

There are the 6 core BE Phenom 2's.....

[Kyuubixchidori]

It also depends on the deals you can get. I can get a 8320e+mobo for 120$. The Intel price comparison of that would be a Pentium.

That's something people need to remember also. They compare a 8350 to a i5 when they arnt in the same price range.

That being said, Xeon is the way to go. I love mine. Who doesn't want server grade hardware? +10 to epeen

[Dabombinable]

It also depends on the deals you can get. I can get a 8320e+mobo for 120$. The Intel price comparison of that would be a Pentium.

That's something people need to remember also. They compare a 8350 to a i5 when they arnt in the same price range.

That being said, Xeon is the way to go. I love mine. Who doesn't want server grade hardware? +10 to epeen

True, an i3-which is better for games-is the same price, and the i5 is inline with an FX 9590.

[Faceman]

It also depends on the deals you can get. I can get a 8320e+mobo for 120$. The Intel price comparison of that would be a Pentium.

That's something people need to remember also. They compare a 8350 to a i5 when they arnt in the same price range.

That being said, Xeon is the way to go. I love mine. Who doesn't want server grade hardware? +10 to epeen

Are you talking about the Microcenter FX8320E + ASRock Extreme3 mobo for $120?  Yea, good luck getting stable on that motherboard even at stock.  You really need to spend at least $150 through the Microcenter in-store deals in order to get a motherboard that is able to handle an FX processor, the M5A97 R2.0.  Then you also need cooling, thats another $30, energy consumption per year comparing a stock FX8 to stock FX5 is conservatively $10 more per year, that adds up fast, all while bottlenecking high end GPUs and not performing as good as a locked i5.

 

If you are including Microcenter prices, then Intel also benefits because you can pick up an i5-4440 in-store for $140, pair it with a $40 motherboard and you're off to the races.  Heck, i3s are only $80 in-store and are shown to be beating FX processors in a lot of games.  Not to mention, you now have upgradability, something you don't really have with AM3+.

 

 

I also want to throw in these power consumption graphs.

 

Top graph is power draw during Far Cry 3.  This is a good example because Far Cry 3 hits both the CPU and GPU adequately.   Some games will draw more power, some less, so this is a good middle of the road example.

 

The Below graph is during a x264 Encoding Benchmark with all processors at stock speeds.  This is hitting the CPU to the max 100%, and you can see when both an i5 and FX8 are hit to the max, there is a 100W+ difference.

 

Power consumption is another aspect of the FX CPU that needs to be talked about.  It draws so much more power than the Intel equivalent, that in just 2-3 years of use, the FX will end up costing you even more money.  Of course some places it is less expensive for energy than others, but you cannot deny that there is a 100W+ difference between an FX8 and an i5.  This power disparity only grows the further you overclock the FX.

 

I will use the average price of residential electricity in the U.S., which is $0.1294c per KWh according to EIA in September 2014.  For this example, we will assume the average price is a flat $0.12 per KWh to give a conservative estimate.  We will also assume that the overclocked FX power draw is 100W higher than the stock i5, again a conservative estimate.  Lastly, lets assume that the average gamer plays for two hours per day, with an additional 2 hours of regular use(non-gaming), so lets just call it 3 hours a day to make it easy.

 

Power Consumption = 100W

Hours of Use Per Day = 3

Energy Consumed Per Day = .3 KWh

Price Per Killowatt Hour = $0.12

 

Energy Cost Per Day = $0.036

Energy Cost Per Month = $1.08

Energy Cost Per Year = $13.14

 

With our quick and dirty calculation, we see that the difference between the FX and i5 is going to add up to over $10 per year, and that is a conservative estimate.  With most of us wanting to keep our components as long as possible before having to upgrade, owning components for 2-3 years, and sometimes even longer, is not out of the question and that energy cost per year really starts to add up.  You also have to consider that you will likely need a more expensive PSU to keep up with this power draw, especially if you want to overclock.

 

 

If you would like to calculate this for yourself, you will need to find out what the cost of energy is where you are located, and these two formulas:

Energy consumption calculation

The energy E in kilowatt-hours (kWh) per day is equal to the power P in watts (W) times number of usage hours per day t divided by 1000 watts per kilowatt:

E_(kWh/day) = P_(W) × t_(h/day) / 1000_(W/kW)

Energy cost calculation

The energy cost per day in dollars is equal to the energy consumption E in kWh per day times the energy cost of 1 kWh in cents/kWh divided by 100 cents per dollar:

Cost_($/day) = E_(kWh/day) × Cost_(cent/kWh) / 100_(cent/$)

 

 

You cannot compare just the price of the processor, because there are ancillary costs associated with owning an FX processor.

 

You can forget about small form factors because there are no AM3+ motherboards available with sufficient VRM phase design that are smaller than ATX.  Even some ATX mobos have small phase counts, and are not reliable.  If you need to educate yourself on what VRMs are and why they are so important, please refer to this link about VRMs and Mosfets.  That link is slightly dated, being last updated in 2012, but the basic educational information in it remains the same.

 

"Failures on motherboards with higher phase counts have been relatively infrequent if at all. Most of the culprits for VRM failures are the lower end 4+1 phase and 3+1 phase motherboards that aren't equipped to handle processors that consume lots of power and may be overclocked.  Smaller 4+1 phase systems or less on CPUs can be particularly risky due to the fact that each transistor must be capable of outputting more current and heat. This is why you normally see motherboards with low phase count failing (i.e. catching fire, frying, overloading), often on motherboards from only certain manufacturers or certain particular motherboards."

 

This next video is a bit of an exaggeration because it is the behemoth FX9590, but the point remains, if you don't have a sufficient motherboard for these power hungry processors, problems can arise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu2stchAmRo

 

This is why you HAVE to buy a quality motherboard for the FX series, which makes the overall cost of an FX based system more expensive, and we haven't even begun to talk about cooling.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/6JNdt6

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/6JNdt6/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($145.95 @ Amazon)

Motherboard: ASRock 970 Performance ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($83.99 @ Newegg)

Total: $229.94

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-01-04 15:50 EST-0500

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/c7WWt6

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/c7WWt6/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($169.99 @ SuperBiiz)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B85M-DS3H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($45.98 @ OutletPC) <-- You could even save an additional $10 by going with a motherboard with only 2 DIMM slots, which is all you really need.

Total: $215.97

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-11 17:20 EST-0500

 

Germany:

PCPartPicker part list: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/rzHNP6

Price breakdown by merchant: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/rzHNP6/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4430 3.0GHz Quad-Core Processor  (€160.82 @ Hardwareversand)

Motherboard: ASRock H81M-DGS Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (€42.49 @ Home of Hardware DE)

Total: €203.31

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:51 CET+0100

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  (€124.90 @ Caseking)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (€79.78 @ Hardwareversand)

Total: €204.68

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:49 CET+0100

 

 

Australia:

 

Limited selection on PcP

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/WYvZcf

Price breakdown by merchant: http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/WYvZcf/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4570 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($228.00 @ CPL Online)

Motherboard: ASRock H81 Pro BTC ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($39.00 @ PLE Computers)

Total: $267.00

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 22:47 EST+1100

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/MDtBGX

Price breakdown by merchant: http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/MDtBGX/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($182.00 @ CPL Online)

Motherboard: MSI 970 GAMING ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($129.00 @ CPL Online) <-- Any less expensive motherboards only have 4+1 VRM phase design, which is not adequate.

Total: $311.00

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 11:52 EST+1100

 

New Zealand:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/p/fZTrrH

Price breakdown by merchant: http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/p/fZTrrH/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($272.00 @ Paradigm PCs)

Motherboard: ASRock H81M-HDS Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($72.44 @ PB Technologies)

Total: $344.44

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 13:53 NZDT+1300

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/p/MytJxr

Price breakdown by merchant: http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/p/MytJxr/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($207.00 @ 1stWave Technologies)

Motherboard: Asus M5A97 R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($149.95 @ Computer Lounge)

Total: $356.95

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 13:52 NZDT+1300

 

Canada:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/VCGVFT

Price breakdown by merchant: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/VCGVFT/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($186.96 @ Newegg Canada)

Motherboard: ASRock H81 Pro BTC ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($39.99 @ Memory Express)

Total: $226.95

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 06:52 EST-0500

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($157.90 @ DirectCanada)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($106.00 @ Vuugo)

Total: $263.90

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-26 19:53 EST-0500

 

United Kingdom:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL

Price breakdown by merchant: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  (£131.20 @ Aria PC)

Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (£32.17 @ Scan.co.uk)

Total: £163.37

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 00:54 GMT+0000

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  (£103.00 @ Amazon UK)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (£63.54 @ Aria PC)

Total: £166.54

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 00:54 GMT+0000

 

Italy:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://it.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL

Price breakdown by merchant: http://it.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  (€173.38 @ Amazon Italia)

Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (€41.17 @ Amazon Italia)

Total: €214.55

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 13:03 CET+0100

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://it.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://it.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  (€131.67 @ Amazon Italia)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (€87.62 @ Amazon Italia)

Total: €219.29

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:55 CET+0100

 

Spain:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://es.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL

Price breakdown by merchant: http://es.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  (€163.00 @ Amazon Espana)

Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (€42.20 @ Amazon Espana)

Total: €205.20

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:56 CET+0100

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://es.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://es.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  (€130.83 @ Amazon Espana)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (€87.83 @ Amazon Espana)

Total: €218.66

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:55 CET+0100

 

Want to try and find a cheaper option for AMD?  Be my guest.  Here is the AM3+ Motherboard Phasing Guide.  You need at least 6+2, but recommended 8+2.

 

Outside of a budget workstation rig, the FX processors don't really have a place in the market anymore.  If you already own an FX should you upgrade to Intel?  That is up to you, depending on the satisfaction you have in games, but if you are building a new machine for gaming, Intel is currently the way to go, hopefully that will change with the release of Zen in ~2016.

[Kyuubixchidori]

Are you talking about the Microcenter FX8320E + ASRock Extreme3 mobo for $120? Yea, good luck getting stable on that motherboard even at stock. You really need to spend at least $150 through the Microcenter in-store deals in order to get a motherboard that is able to handle an FX processor, the M5A97 R2.0. Then you also need cooling, thats another $30, energy consumption per year comparing a stock FX8 to stock FX5 is conservatively $10 more per year, that adds up fast, all while bottlenecking high end GPUs and not performing as good as a locked i5.

If you are including Microcenter prices, then Intel also benefits because you can pick up an i5-4440 in-store for $140, pair it with a $40 motherboard and you're off to the races. Heck, i3s are only $80 in-store and are shown to be beating FX processors in a lot of games. Not to mention, you now have upgradability, something you don't really have with AM3+.

I also want to throw in these power consumption graphs.

Top graph is power draw during Far Cry 3. This is a good example because Far Cry 3 hits both the CPU and GPU adequately. Some games will draw more power, some less, so this is a good middle of the road example.

The Below graph is during a x264 Encoding Benchmark with all processors at stock speeds. This is hitting the CPU to the max 100%, and you can see when both an i5 and FX8 are hit to the max, there is a 100W+ difference.

Power consumption is another aspect of the FX CPU that needs to be talked about. It draws so much more power than the Intel equivalent, that in just 2-3 years of use, the FX will end up costing you even more money. Of course some places it is less expensive for energy than others, but you cannot deny that there is a 100W+ difference between an FX8 and an i5. This power disparity only grows the further you overclock the FX.

I will use the average price of residential electricity in the U.S., which is $0.1294c per KWh according to EIA in September 2014. For this example, we will assume the average price is a flat $0.12 per KWh to give a conservative estimate. We will also assume that the overclocked FX power draw is 100W higher than the stock i5, again a conservative estimate. Lastly, lets assume that the average gamer plays for two hours per day, with an additional 2 hours of regular use(non-gaming), so lets just call it 3 hours a day to make it easy.

Power Consumption = 100W

Hours of Use Per Day = 3

Energy Consumed Per Day = .3 KWh

Price Per Killowatt Hour = $0.12

Energy Cost Per Day = $0.036

Energy Cost Per Month = $1.08

Energy Cost Per Year = $13.14

With our quick and dirty calculation, we see that the difference between the FX and i5 is going to add up to over $10 per year, and that is a conservative estimate. With most of us wanting to keep our components as long as possible before having to upgrade, owning components for 2-3 years, and sometimes even longer, is not out of the question and that energy cost per year really starts to add up. You also have to consider that you will likely need a more expensive PSU to keep up with this power draw, especially if you want to overclock.

If you would like to calculate this for yourself, you will need to find out what the cost of energy is where you are located, and these two formulas:

Energy consumption calculation

The energy E in kilowatt-hours (kWh) per day is equal to the power P in watts (W) times number of usage hours per day t divided by 1000 watts per kilowatt:

E_(kWh/day) = P_(W) × t_(h/day) / 1000_(W/kW)

Energy cost calculation

The energy cost per day in dollars is equal to the energy consumption E in kWh per day times the energy cost of 1 kWh in cents/kWh divided by 100 cents per dollar:

Cost_($/day) = E_(kWh/day) × Cost_(cent/kWh) / 100_(cent/$)

You cannot compare just the price of the processor, because there are ancillary costs associated with owning an FX processor.

You can forget about small form factors because there are no AM3+ motherboards available with sufficient VRM phase design that are smaller than ATX. Even some ATX mobos have small phase counts, and are not reliable. If you need to educate yourself on what VRMs are and why they are so important, please refer to this link about VRMs and Mosfets. That link is slightly dated, being last updated in 2012, but the basic educational information in it remains the same.

"Failures on motherboards with higher phase counts have been relatively infrequent if at all. Most of the culprits for VRM failures are the lower end 4+1 phase and 3+1 phase motherboards that aren't equipped to handle processors that consume lots of power and may be overclocked. Smaller 4+1 phase systems or less on CPUs can be particularly risky due to the fact that each transistor must be capable of outputting more current and heat. This is why you normally see motherboards with low phase count failing (i.e. catching fire, frying, overloading), often on motherboards from only certain manufacturers or certain particular motherboards."

This next video is a bit of an exaggeration because it is the behemoth FX9590, but the point remains, if you don't have a sufficient motherboard for these power hungry processors, problems can arise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu2stchAmRo

This is why you HAVE to buy a quality motherboard for the FX series, which makes the overall cost of an FX based system more expensive, and we haven't even begun to talk about cooling.

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/6JNdt6

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/6JNdt6/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor ($145.95 @ Amazon)

Motherboard: ASRock 970 Performance ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($83.99 @ Newegg)

Total: $229.94

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-01-04 15:50 EST-0500

Vs.

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/c7WWt6

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/c7WWt6/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor ($169.99 @ SuperBiiz)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B85M-DS3H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($45.98 @ OutletPC) <-- You could even save an additional $10 by going with a motherboard with only 2 DIMM slots, which is all you really need.

Total: $215.97

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-11 17:20 EST-0500

Germany:

PCPartPicker part list: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/rzHNP6

Price breakdown by merchant: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/rzHNP6/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4430 3.0GHz Quad-Core Processor (€160.82 @ Hardwareversand)

Motherboard: ASRock H81M-DGS Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard (€42.49 @ Home of Hardware DE)

Total: €203.31

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:51 CET+0100

Vs.

PCPartPicker part list: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor (€124.90 @ Caseking)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard (€79.78 @ Hardwareversand)

Total: €204.68

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:49 CET+0100

Australia:

Limited selection on PcP

PCPartPicker part list: http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/WYvZcf

Price breakdown by merchant: http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/WYvZcf/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4570 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($228.00 @ CPL Online)

Motherboard: ASRock H81 Pro BTC ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($39.00 @ PLE Computers)

Total: $267.00

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 22:47 EST+1100

Vs.

PCPartPicker part list: http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/MDtBGX

Price breakdown by merchant: http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/MDtBGX/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor ($182.00 @ CPL Online)

Motherboard: MSI 970 GAMING ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($129.00 @ CPL Online) <-- Any less expensive motherboards only have 4+1 VRM phase design, which is not adequate.

Total: $311.00

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 11:52 EST+1100

New Zealand:

PCPartPicker part list: http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/p/fZTrrH

Price breakdown by merchant: http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/p/fZTrrH/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor ($272.00 @ Paradigm PCs)

Motherboard: ASRock H81M-HDS Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($72.44 @ PB Technologies)

Total: $344.44

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 13:53 NZDT+1300

Vs.

PCPartPicker part list: http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/p/MytJxr

Price breakdown by merchant: http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/p/MytJxr/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor ($207.00 @ 1stWave Technologies)

Motherboard: Asus M5A97 R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($149.95 @ Computer Lounge)

Total: $356.95

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 13:52 NZDT+1300

Canada:

PCPartPicker part list: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/VCGVFT

Price breakdown by merchant: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/VCGVFT/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor ($186.96 @ Newegg Canada)

Motherboard: ASRock H81 Pro BTC ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($39.99 @ Memory Express)

Total: $226.95

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 06:52 EST-0500

Vs.

PCPartPicker part list: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor ($157.90 @ DirectCanada)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($106.00 @ Vuugo)

Total: $263.90

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-26 19:53 EST-0500

United Kingdom:

PCPartPicker part list: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL

Price breakdown by merchant: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor (£131.20 @ Aria PC)

Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard (£32.17 @ Scan.co.uk)

Total: £163.37

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 00:54 GMT+0000

Vs.

PCPartPicker part list: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor (£103.00 @ Amazon UK)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard (£63.54 @ Aria PC)

Total: £166.54

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 00:54 GMT+0000

Italy:

PCPartPicker part list: http://it.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL

Price breakdown by merchant: http://it.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor (€173.38 @ Amazon Italia)

Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard (€41.17 @ Amazon Italia)

Total: €214.55

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 13:03 CET+0100

Vs.

PCPartPicker part list: http://it.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://it.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor (€131.67 @ Amazon Italia)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard (€87.62 @ Amazon Italia)

Total: €219.29

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:55 CET+0100

Spain:

PCPartPicker part list: http://es.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL

Price breakdown by merchant: http://es.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor (€163.00 @ Amazon Espana)

Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard (€42.20 @ Amazon Espana)

Total: €205.20

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:56 CET+0100

Vs.

PCPartPicker part list: http://es.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://es.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor (€130.83 @ Amazon Espana)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard (€87.83 @ Amazon Espana)

Total: €218.66

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:55 CET+0100

Want to try and find a cheaper option for AMD? Be my guest. Here is the AM3+ Motherboard Phasing Guide. You need at least 6+2, but recommended 8+2.

Outside of a budget workstation rig, the FX processors don't really have a place in the market anymore. If you already own an FX should you upgrade to Intel? That is up to you, depending on the satisfaction you have in games, but if you are building a new machine for gaming, Intel is currently the way to go, hopefully that will change with the release of Zen in ~2016.

The thing is, if your buying that, its not to throw a 780 or 290x with. Its to throw a 270 or a 750ti.

And your still throwing things that are better, AT HIGHER PRICES. Well of course they will be better. And I highly doubt they will sell a board in a bundle that can't handle the CPU. That's assine. My brothers fx6300 runs overclocked at 4.4 GHz on the free motherboard that came with it 6ish months ago. Let alone stock.

Something you have to remember, is this is for 400-500$ builds. So that 40-80$ upgrade you recommend could mean you might have to go 4 gigs of ram, sketchy power supply, or make serious GPU sacrifices. I'd be willing to bet that at 500$ total budget build, the 120$ combo with the money saved instead of a i3 being put towards a GPU, will help like crazy.

Granted, depends on use case and budget. Obviously if you have more to spend you can go i3-i5.

[Faceman]

The thing is, if your buying that, its not to throw a 780 or 290x with. Its to throw a 270 or a 750ti.

And your still throwing things that are better, AT HIGHER PRICES. Well of course they will be better. And I highly doubt they will sell a board in a bundle that can't handle the CPU. That's assine. My brothers fx6300 runs overclocked at 4.4 GHz on the free motherboard that came with it 6ish months ago. Let alone stock.

Something you have to remember, is this is for 400-500$ builds. So that 40-80$ upgrade you recommend could mean you might have to go 4 gigs of ram, sketchy power supply, or make serious GPU sacrifices. I'd be willing to bet that at 500$ total budget build, the 120$ combo with the money saved instead of a i3 being put towards a GPU, will help like crazy.

Granted, depends on use case and budget. Obviously if you have more to spend you can go i3-i5.

LOTS of people don't know any better and put high end GPUs in with FX processors.  "8 Cores, 4 Ghz, it won't bottleneck!"

 

Its not a higher price.  Its the same price.

 

Lots of people have issues with throttling on insufficient VRM motherboards. 

 

"Failures on motherboards with higher phase counts have been relatively infrequent if at all. Most of the culprits for VRM failures are the lower end 4+1 phase and 3+1 phase motherboards that aren't equipped to handle processors that consume lots of power and may be overclocked. Smaller 4+1 phase systems or less on CPUs can be particularly risky due to the fact that each transistor must be capable of outputting more current and heat. This is why you normally see motherboards with low phase count failing (i.e. catching fire, frying, overloading), often on motherboards from only certain manufacturers or certain particular motherboards."

 

The CPUs section, the Video games section, the trouble shooting section, the GPUs section, the Air cooling/Water cooling section of this forum.  People misdiagnose this problem and fail to realize that the motherboard is the culprit because of its lack of consistent power delivery. It is almost a daily occurrence.  It used to be much, much more, but myself and a lot of other people have helped to fix this problem at the source, and that is using an FX with a bad motherboard.

 

The retailer doesn't care.  Newegg sells 8 series motherboards and advertise them as compatible with Devil's Canyon, while yes, it is compatible with Devil's Canyon, its only compatible with a BIOS update, and you cannot do that update without a Haswell CPU. AM3/AM3+ motherboards that were designed for Phenom, but are compatible with FX, people only end up having problems.  Or using these mATX motherboards that have terrible VRMs with FX processors. Its on you to do your research, not the retailer.

 

That motherboard with an FX processor is a recipe for disaster.  It is risky.  You don't want risk when building a PC.  You also need cooling, and energy consumption per year is $10+.  Not to mention, it under performs compared to i3s and i5s in the majority of games.

 

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Even this supposedly very good multi-threaded game, Call of Duty:Advanced Warefare runs better on an i3 than an FX9

---

---

---

Really pitiful when modern games are playing so much better on an i3 than an FX9.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

You have to OC an FX8 to 5Ghz just to match an i5-4440 at stock in BF4 multiplayer with an R9 290X.

---

Even Mantle doesn't bridge the gap.  Too bad they don't show the minimums in this above graph.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Very modern, multi-threaded game that does take advantage of all cores available, yet you have to OC an FX to 5Ghz to MATCH an i3.

---

---

---

---

This one above is Witcher 2

---

---

---

These are just a few games, and obviously skewed towards Intel, but my point is to try and illustrate that some games run very poorly on the weak cores on FX processors.  Even these new games that are well multithreaded are running better on i3s than FX8s.  If you can find benchmarks from multiple sources that show something else, please share because in all of my research, I have not found any. 

 

What benchmarks fail to show is in-game performance.  There is no substitute for actually playing these games on both processors.  Now, I will admit I haven't played all of the games listed above, but in the games I did play, there was a noticeable stutter that would happen.  It didn't happen in all games, but it happened often enough for me to be displeased with it.  My friend who owns the FX8 simply said "You get used to it."  This is the wrong attitude to have.

 

Now...why buy a processor that can only play 4 out of 5 games, when you can pay the same and play 5 out of 5 games without issue?  In the 18 gaming graphs above that show both the FX8 processor and the 4th Gen Intel i3, the i3 is performing better than the FX8 in 16 of the games!  In not a single game does the i5 perform worse than the FX8.  A locked i5 + H81/B85 motherboard can be purchased for less than the cost of an FX8 + 8+2 VRM Phase Motherboard.  I will show that below in another spoiler.

 

 

Look through all of these sources... the i3 is handing it to the FX8s and FX9s in so many games!

Benchmarks:

http://www.hardcorew...-4340-review/2/

http://www.hardwarep...8-games-tested/

http://www.tomshardw...cpu,3929-7.html

http://www.anandtech...w-vishera-95w/3

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fgamegpu.ru%2Ftest-video-cards%2Figry-2014-goda-protiv-protsessorov-test-gpu.html

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpclab.pl%2Fart57842.html

http://benchmarkreviews.com/24051/amd-fx-8320e-am3-processor-performance-review/14/

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-4340-vs-AMD-FX-8320E/2877vs2985

 

 

 

"To put it nicely, the FX-8370E is a true middle-of-the-road CPU. Using it only makes sense as long as the graphics card you choose comes from a similar performance segment.

Depending on the game in question, AMD’s new processor has the potential to keep you happy around the AMD Radeon R9 270X/285 or Nvidia GeForce GTX 760 or 660 Ti level.

A higher- or even high-end graphics card doesn’t make sense, as pairing it with AMD's FX-8370E simply limits the card's potential."

 

"In terms of raw single-core performance the flagship AMD FX-8350 is lagging behind intel's processor line-up by over two generations. The PassMark Single Thread scores for the i5-2500K vs the FX-8350 are 1863 to 1520 which shows that in terms of raw per-core processing the FX-8350 is lagging the two year old i5 by 23%. Where the AMD FX makes up is on multi-core performance, with a score of 9156 vs 6745, the AMD leads the Intel 2500K by 36% making it the far more capable multi-threaded server orientated performer. The AMD is also cheaper but significantly more power hungry which counts strongly against it as a sever proposition. The FX-8350 could be a good fit for specific server use cases but for general consumer use, which is single and dual core intensive, Intel's two year old i5-2500K will deliver better performance."

 

"When AMD first released CPUs for their AM3+ platform we at OC3D were not overly impressed, behind the hype of AMD's "Bulldozer" architecture was some very power hungry, hot running and under-performing CPUs. When AMD's second generation of FX CPUs, Piledriver, was released AMD had lessened a lot of these issues, but many of those flaws still remained."

 

"This is a huge result – it wasn’t until we used a Haswell core CPU that the R9 280X  was able to deliver consistent frame times and a 60 FPS frame rate in Assassin’s Creed IV. All three AMD CPUs we used – even the FX 8350 – and the Ivy Bridge Core i3 would deliver a sub 60 FPS frame rate, with frame spikes throughout the benchmark run.

In this case, the Core i3 4340 allows the R9 280X GPU to run at maximum potential, just like the Core i5 (and Core i7 would)."

 

"My benchmarks show that the Core i3-4360 is faster than the FX-8320E in virtually every test on a per-core basis, you’re probably never going to see this differential unless you spend quite a lot of time in benchmark-land. Benchmark-land is fun, kind of like taking your car to the drag strip to see what it will do. But, like your quarter-mile time, it often doesn’t have that much correlation with real-world performance."

 

 

"Pop over to the gaming scatter, though, and the picture changes dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the highest-performance AMD desktop processor to date for gaming, finally toppling the venerable Phenom II X4 980. Yet the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor. Meanwhile, the Core i5-3470 delivers markedly superior gaming performance for less money than the FX-8350. The FX-8350 isn't exactly bad for video games—its performance was generally acceptable in our tests. But it is relatively weak compared to the competition.

This strange divergence between the two performance pictures isn't just confined to gaming, of course. The FX-8350 is also relatively pokey in image processing applications, in SunSpider, and in the less widely multithreaded portions of our video encoding tests. Many of these scenarios rely on one or several threads, and the FX-8350 suffers compared to recent Intel chips in such cases. Still, the contrast between the FX-8350 and the Sandy/Ivy Bridge chips isn't nearly as acute as it was with the older FX processors. Piledriver's IPC gains and that 4GHz base clock have taken the edge off of our objections.

The other major consideration here is power consumption, and really, the FX-8350 isn't even the same class of product as the Ivy Bridge Core i5 processors on this front. There's a 48W gap between the TDP ratings of the Core i5 parts and the FX-8350, but in our tests, the actual difference at the wall socket between two similarly configured systems under load was over 100W. That gap is large enough to force the potential buyer to think deeply about the class of power supply, case, and CPU cooler he needs for his build. One could definitely get away with less expensive components for a Core i5 system."

 

"The FX-8370E stretches its legs a little in terms of minimum frame rates, particularly in SLI, however it is handily beaten by the i3-4330."

 

"Average frametimes did not do AMD’s processors any justice either. As we already said the game was fluid with i7 and i5’s, and somewhat playable with the i3 processor line. When we switched to FX CPUs not only did we have worse framerate but the gameplay was simply put, laggy."

 

i5 + R9 280 for $515  <-- Below $500 if you use Microcenter price on the i5-4440.

 

FX8 + R9 280 For $490 <-- This is using Microcenter pricing.

 

It equals out to the same.  You have to overclock the FX8 to try(and fail) to match the locked i5, also, the PSU will probably have to be bigger than 500W because even at stock you are doing 440W.  No upgrade path, bottlenecks high end GPUs.

 

The AMD FX Processors have no place other than budget workstation rigs.

[Dabombinable]

LOTS of people don't know any better and put high end GPUs in with FX processors.  "8 Cores, 4 Ghz, it won't bottleneck!"

 

Its not a higher price.  Its the same price.

 

Lots of people have issues with throttling on insufficient VRM motherboards. 

 

"Failures on motherboards with higher phase counts have been relatively infrequent if at all. Most of the culprits for VRM failures are the lower end 4+1 phase and 3+1 phase motherboards that aren't equipped to handle processors that consume lots of power and may be overclocked. Smaller 4+1 phase systems or less on CPUs can be particularly risky due to the fact that each transistor must be capable of outputting more current and heat. This is why you normally see motherboards with low phase count failing (i.e. catching fire, frying, overloading), often on motherboards from only certain manufacturers or certain particular motherboards."

 

The CPUs section, the Video games section, the trouble shooting section, the GPUs section, the Air cooling/Water cooling section of this forum.  People misdiagnose this problem and fail to realize that the motherboard is the culprit because of its lack of consistent power delivery. It is almost a daily occurrence.  It used to be much, much more, but myself and a lot of other people have helped to fix this problem at the source, and that is using an FX with a bad motherboard.

 

The retailer doesn't care.  Newegg sells 8 series motherboards and advertise them as compatible with Devil's Canyon, while yes, it is compatible with Devil's Canyon, its only compatible with a BIOS update, and you cannot do that update without a Haswell CPU. AM3/AM3+ motherboards that were designed for Phenom, but are compatible with FX, people only end up having problems.  Or using these mATX motherboards that have terrible VRMs with FX processors. Its on you to do your research, not the retailer.

 

That motherboard with an FX processor is a recipe for disaster.  It is risky.  You don't want risk when building a PC.  You also need cooling, and energy consumption per year is $10+.  Not to mention, it under performs compared to i3s and i5s.

 

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Even this supposedly very good multi-threaded game, Call of Duty:Advanced Warefare runs better on an i3 than an FX9

---

---

---

Really pitiful when modern games are playing so much better on an i3 than an FX9.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

You have to OC an FX8 to 5Ghz just to match an i5-4440 at stock in BF4 multiplayer with an R9 290X.

---

Even Mantle doesn't bridge the gap.  Too bad they don't show the minimums in this above graph.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Very modern, multi-threaded game that does take advantage of all cores available, yet you have to OC an FX to 5Ghz to MATCH an i3.

---

---

---

---

This one above is Witcher 2

---

---

---

These are just a few games, and obviously skewed towards Intel, but my point is to try and illustrate that some games run very poorly on the weak cores on FX processors.  Even these new games that are well multithreaded are running better on i3s than FX8s.  If you can find benchmarks from multiple sources that show something else, please share because in all of my research, I have not found any. 

 

What benchmarks fail to show is in-game performance.  There is no substitute for actually playing these games on both processors.  Now, I will admit I haven't played all of the games listed above, but in the games I did play, there was a noticeable stutter that would happen.  It didn't happen in all games, but it happened often enough for me to be displeased with it.  My friend who owns the FX8 simply said "You get used to it."  This is the wrong attitude to have.

 

Now...why buy a processor that can only play 4 out of 5 games, when you can pay the same and play 5 out of 5 games without issue?  In the 18 gaming graphs above that show both the FX8 processor and the 4th Gen Intel i3, the i3 is performing better than the FX8 in 16 of the games!  In not a single game does the i5 perform worse than the FX8.  A locked i5 + H81/B85 motherboard can be purchased for less than the cost of an FX8 + 8+2 VRM Phase Motherboard.  I will show that below in another spoiler.

 

 

Look through all of these sources... the i3 is handing it to the FX8s and FX9s in so many games!

Benchmarks:

http://www.hardcorew...-4340-review/2/

http://www.hardwarep...8-games-tested/

http://www.tomshardw...cpu,3929-7.html

http://www.anandtech...w-vishera-95w/3

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fgamegpu.ru%2Ftest-video-cards%2Figry-2014-goda-protiv-protsessorov-test-gpu.html

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpclab.pl%2Fart57842.html

http://benchmarkreviews.com/24051/amd-fx-8320e-am3-processor-performance-review/14/

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-4340-vs-AMD-FX-8320E/2877vs2985

 

 

 

"To put it nicely, the FX-8370E is a true middle-of-the-road CPU. Using it only makes sense as long as the graphics card you choose comes from a similar performance segment.

Depending on the game in question, AMD’s new processor has the potential to keep you happy around the AMD Radeon R9 270X/285 or Nvidia GeForce GTX 760 or 660 Ti level.

A higher- or even high-end graphics card doesn’t make sense, as pairing it with AMD's FX-8370E simply limits the card's potential."

 

"In terms of raw single-core performance the flagship AMD FX-8350 is lagging behind intel's processor line-up by over two generations. The PassMark Single Thread scores for the i5-2500K vs the FX-8350 are 1863 to 1520 which shows that in terms of raw per-core processing the FX-8350 is lagging the two year old i5 by 23%. Where the AMD FX makes up is on multi-core performance, with a score of 9156 vs 6745, the AMD leads the Intel 2500K by 36% making it the far more capable multi-threaded server orientated performer. The AMD is also cheaper but significantly more power hungry which counts strongly against it as a sever proposition. The FX-8350 could be a good fit for specific server use cases but for general consumer use, which is single and dual core intensive, Intel's two year old i5-2500K will deliver better performance."

 

"When AMD first released CPUs for their AM3+ platform we at OC3D were not overly impressed, behind the hype of AMD's "Bulldozer" architecture was some very power hungry, hot running and under-performing CPUs. When AMD's second generation of FX CPUs, Piledriver, was released AMD had lessened a lot of these issues, but many of those flaws still remained."

 

"This is a huge result – it wasn’t until we used a Haswell core CPU that the R9 280X  was able to deliver consistent frame times and a 60 FPS frame rate in Assassin’s Creed IV. All three AMD CPUs we used – even the FX 8350 – and the Ivy Bridge Core i3 would deliver a sub 60 FPS frame rate, with frame spikes throughout the benchmark run.

In this case, the Core i3 4340 allows the R9 280X GPU to run at maximum potential, just like the Core i5 (and Core i7 would)."

 

"My benchmarks show that the Core i3-4360 is faster than the FX-8320E in virtually every test on a per-core basis, you’re probably never going to see this differential unless you spend quite a lot of time in benchmark-land. Benchmark-land is fun, kind of like taking your car to the drag strip to see what it will do. But, like your quarter-mile time, it often doesn’t have that much correlation with real-world performance."

 

 

"Pop over to the gaming scatter, though, and the picture changes dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the highest-performance AMD desktop processor to date for gaming, finally toppling the venerable Phenom II X4 980. Yet the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor. Meanwhile, the Core i5-3470 delivers markedly superior gaming performance for less money than the FX-8350. The FX-8350 isn't exactly bad for video games—its performance was generally acceptable in our tests. But it is relatively weak compared to the competition.

This strange divergence between the two performance pictures isn't just confined to gaming, of course. The FX-8350 is also relatively pokey in image processing applications, in SunSpider, and in the less widely multithreaded portions of our video encoding tests. Many of these scenarios rely on one or several threads, and the FX-8350 suffers compared to recent Intel chips in such cases. Still, the contrast between the FX-8350 and the Sandy/Ivy Bridge chips isn't nearly as acute as it was with the older FX processors. Piledriver's IPC gains and that 4GHz base clock have taken the edge off of our objections.

The other major consideration here is power consumption, and really, the FX-8350 isn't even the same class of product as the Ivy Bridge Core i5 processors on this front. There's a 48W gap between the TDP ratings of the Core i5 parts and the FX-8350, but in our tests, the actual difference at the wall socket between two similarly configured systems under load was over 100W. That gap is large enough to force the potential buyer to think deeply about the class of power supply, case, and CPU cooler he needs for his build. One could definitely get away with less expensive components for a Core i5 system."

 

"The FX-8370E stretches its legs a little in terms of minimum frame rates, particularly in SLI, however it is handily beaten by the i3-4330."

 

"Average frametimes did not do AMD’s processors any justice either. As we already said the game was fluid with i7 and i5’s, and somewhat playable with the i3 processor line. When we switched to FX CPUs not only did we have worse framerate but the gameplay was simply put, laggy."

 

i5 + R9 280 for $515  <-- Below $500 if you use Microcenter price on the i5-4440.

 

FX8 + R9 280 For $490 <-- This is using Microcenter pricing.

 

It equals out to the same.  You have to overclock the FX8 to try(and fail) to match the locked i5, also, the PSU will probably have to be bigger than 500W because even at stock you are doing 440W.  No upgrade path, bottlenecks high end GPUs.

 

The AMD FX Processors have no place other than budget workstation rigs.

And most of the time someone building a workstation is able to stretch their budget a bit further for a Xeon and if they are lucky an i7.

[Kyuubixchidori]

LOTS of people don't know any better and put high end GPUs in with FX processors.  "8 Cores, 4 Ghz, it won't bottleneck!"

 

i5 + R9 280 for $515  <-- Below $500 if you use Microcenter price on the i5-4440.

 

FX8 + R9 280 For $490 <-- This is using Microcenter pricing.

 

It equals out to the same.  You have to overclock the FX8 to try(and fail) to match the locked i5, also, the PSU will probably have to be bigger than 500W because even at stock you are doing 440W.  No upgrade path, bottlenecks high end GPUs.

um. No, its not the same. a stock cooler with no overclocking is more then enough for a 95 watt chip. there is zero NEED for a hyper 212 at stock. 

 

I highly doubt a 8320E+r9280 system is pulling as much as a I7+780ti build. under FULL load with a 780ti it pulls 366

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/78689-amd-fx-8320e-95w-32nm-vishera/?page=8

once again, its $120 for cpu+mobo. compared to a 170$ processor alone. OF COURSE it will be slower. thats my whole point, everyone compares it to things that cost more. keep in mind im talking about the 8320E chip, not 8320. and keep in mind this is for a budget build, not a high end build. thats the whole reason its a cpu thats half the cost of intel chips people consider. 

 

 

lots of people think that all that matters is cpu, and throw a I7 then just get a "graphics card" with no care about which one

[Dabombinable]

um. No, its not the same. a stock cooler with no overclocking is more then enough for a 95 watt chip. there is zero NEED for a hyper 212 at stock. 

 

I highly doubt a 8320E+r9280 system is pulling as much as a I7+780ti build. under FULL load with a 780ti it pulls 366

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/78689-amd-fx-8320e-95w-32nm-vishera/?page=8

once again, its $120 for cpu+mobo. compared to a 170$ processor alone. OF COURSE it will be slower. thats my whole point, everyone compares it to things that cost more. keep in mind im talking about the 8320E chip, not 8320. and keep in mind this is for a budget build, not a high end build. thats the whole reason its a cpu thats half the cost of intel chips people consider. 

 

 

lots of people think that all that matters is cpu, and throw a I7 then just get a "graphics card" with no care about which one

You really don't know much about the architecture of an FX CPU do you?

[Kyuubixchidori]

You really don't know much about the architecture of an FX CPU do you?

please enlighten me. All I know is that my brothers 7970 doesnt bottlneck his fx-6300 at all. 

 

I personally use a xeon. so I am not the most knowledgable tbh, but every benchmark ties it with super high end gpus, which is not its use case. you dont judge vans on 0-60 times

[d1screet]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/AMD_Bulldozer_block_diagram_%288_core_CPU%29.PNG

 

Here's a link on the AMD Bulldozer architecture. The integer clusters are what AMD is referring to as cores, but as you can see they're all paired up within modules, and each module has 1 shared L2 cache, 1 floating point core, and 2 integer clusters.

[Faceman]

um. No, its not the same. a stock cooler with no overclocking is more then enough for a 95 watt chip. there is zero NEED for a hyper 212 at stock. 

 

I highly doubt a 8320E+r9280 system is pulling as much as a I7+780ti build. under FULL load with a 780ti it pulls 366

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/78689-amd-fx-8320e-95w-32nm-vishera/?page=8

once again, its $120 for cpu+mobo. compared to a 170$ processor alone. OF COURSE it will be slower. thats my whole point, everyone compares it to things that cost more. keep in mind im talking about the 8320E chip, not 8320. and keep in mind this is for a budget build, not a high end build. thats the whole reason its a cpu thats half the cost of intel chips people consider. 

 

 

lots of people think that all that matters is cpu, and throw a I7 then just get a "graphics card" with no care about which one

The FX8320E is unfairly advertised at 95W, I'm trying to find where this is said, but I'm kind of in a hurry to get going to watch the fight tonight.  Anyways, once overclocked, because you do have to overclock these processors, the power draw is the same as the non E versions.

 

When you overclock, power consumption and wattage increases exponentially.  500W could be a limiting factor for overclocking, not just the CPU but the GPU too.  As said in one of those links I posted earlier, and LTT's recent overclocking and wattage benchmark, albeit they used Intel.

 

You are going to have problems with that motherboard.  You HAVE to buy the $150 option if you want to avoid any problems.  It is also unfair for you to compare Microcenter prices of the AMD to Newegg prices of the Intel.  The i5-4440 is $140 in-store at Microcenter.  At least at the location near me.  On Newegg, it is $160.

 

You cannot compare just the price of the processor.  The motherboard for FX has to be mid to high end.  Intel, you can use a $40 motherboard just fine with an i7-4790k.  It won't overclock, but not like you need to.  The price is the same once you factor in appropriate motherboard and cooling.  Not even taking into account $10+ per year on energy.  The performance of one doesn't equal the other.  It is not a budget option.

 

I just built you a sub $500 i5 + R9 280 build.  That is pretty budget, and amazingly powerful with lots of upgradability.  The FX8 build cost the same, but doesn't perform the same.

 

CPU does matter a great deal as evidence by these modern games.  Of course GPU is more important, but CPU must not be forgotten, and at any price point, Intel offers a better option than AMD for gaming.

[Faceman]

please enlighten me. All I know is that my brothers 7970 doesnt bottlneck his fx-6300 at all. 

 

I personally use a xeon. so I am not the most knowledgable tbh, but every benchmark ties it with super high end gpus, which is not its use case. you dont judge vans on 0-60 times

You have it wrong.  Its the CPU that bottlenecks the GPU.  That is the highest end GPU you should consider pairing with an FX processor, because anything above that and you are bottlenecking.

 

Check his usage in games.

[Kyuubixchidori]

The FX8320E is unfairly advertised at 95W, I'm trying to find where this is said, but I'm kind of in a hurry to get going to watch the fight tonight.  Anyways, once overclocked, because you do have to overclock these processors, the power draw is the same as the non E versions.

 

When you overclock, power consumption and wattage increases exponentially.  500W could be a limiting factor for overclocking, not just the CPU but the GPU too.  As said in one of those links I posted earlier, and LTT's recent overclocking and wattage benchmark, albeit they used Intel.

 

You are going to have problems with that motherboard.  You HAVE to buy the $150 option if you want to avoid any problems.  It is also unfair for you to compare Microcenter prices of the AMD to Newegg prices of the Intel.  The i5-4440 is $140 in-store at Microcenter.  At least at the location near me.  On Newegg, it is $160.

 

You cannot compare just the price of the processor.  The motherboard for FX has to be mid to high end.  Intel, you can use a $40 motherboard just fine with an i7-4790k.  It won't overclock, but not like you need to.  The price is the same once you factor in appropriate motherboard and cooling.  Not even taking into account $10+ per year on energy.  The performance of one doesn't equal the other.  It is not a budget option.

 

I just built you a sub $500 i5 + R9 280 build.  That is pretty budget, and amazingly powerful with lots of upgradability.  The FX8 build cost the same, but doesn't perform the same.

 

CPU does matter a great deal as evidence by these modern games.  Of course GPU is more important, but CPU must not be forgotten, and at any price point, Intel offers a better option than AMD for gaming.

your assuming you have to overclock. which is simply not true. the VAST amount of users will never overclock. you added a unnecessary 50$ to the fx build, and it was still cheaper. so for 70$ more, it should perform better in some games. 

 

 

You have it wrong.  Its the CPU that bottlenecks the GPU.  That is the highest end GPU you should consider pairing with an FX processor, because anything above that and you are bottlenecking.

 

Last time I checked, my gpu is always sitting at 100% in games, and cpu sits at around 30-40%. as in the gpu is bottlenecking.(my PC) 

 

I was legitimately curious about the fx-6300 bottlenecking, and I tested with a gt 450 and a hd 7970. I can also test with 750ti. I was easily able to get 1080P50-60fps with zero overclocks in far cry4. I ran myself with a I5-3570k at 4.4 ghz, and it achieved literally no diffrence. Now, the game choices are limited to my steam libary, and I Dont have Arma 3, the go to cpu bound game. It kind of bothered me my brother could play just as well as I could with games, when his cpu+mobo+ram was less then my cpu alone. that has a selling point all onto itself. 

 

all the benchmarks are high end, so the only thing you can really do is test it yourself. and the real question, with the 70$ diffrence, yeah the cpu might be more powerful, but how much of a difference does it truly make?

 

 

edit: if you want benchmarks, I have access to a I7-920, fx6300, and a xeon E3 1230 v3, and I7-4770k

Have 20 gigs of ram available

for gpus, have a 750ti, hd 6670, gt 450, and a 7970. 

for games, I have over 90. bf4 and far cry 4 are probably the most demanding I can think off of the top of my head. 

[FLUFFYJELLO]

-snip-

I'm honored

[Faceman]

your assuming you have to overclock. which is simply not true. the VAST amount of users will never overclock. you added a unnecessary 50$ to the fx build, and it was still cheaper. so for 70$ more, it should perform better in some games. 

 

 

Last time I checked, my gpu is always sitting at 100% in games, and cpu sits at around 30-40%. as in the gpu is bottlenecking.(my PC) 

 

I was legitimately curious about the fx-6300 bottlenecking, and I tested with a gt 450 and a hd 7970. I can also test with 750ti. I was easily able to get 1080P50-60fps with zero overclocks in far cry4. I ran myself with a I5-3570k at 4.4 ghz, and it achieved literally no diffrence. Now, the game choices are limited to my steam libary, and I Dont have Arma 3, the go to cpu bound game. It kind of bothered me my brother could play just as well as I could with games, when his cpu+mobo+ram was less then my cpu alone. that has a selling point all onto itself. 

 

all the benchmarks are high end, so the only thing you can really do is test it yourself. and the real question, with the 70$ diffrence, yeah the cpu might be more powerful, but how much of a difference does it truly make?

 

 

edit: if you want benchmarks, I have access to a I7-920, fx6300, and a xeon E3 1230 v3, and I7-4770k

Have 20 gigs of ram available

for gpus, have a 750ti, hd 6670, gt 450, and a 7970. 

for games, I have over 90. bf4 and far cry 4 are probably the most demanding I can think off of the top of my head.

You do have to overclock if you want any semblance of decent performance. Look at the benchmarks. I3s are outperforming FX8s that are overclocked to 4.7Ghz. Heck, just buy an i3, it's better than the FX8 anyways, costs less and gives you an upgrade path.

Not everyone has access to Microcenter, and again, that motherboard is a 50/50 chance of working or not working. Why would you recommend someone take that risk? Are you going to refund them money if they buy that mobo and it doesn't work out? I didn't think so. Don't recommend something that comes with so much risk.

Why would you also test with a 750Ti? That's a lower end GPU, you would need a higher end GPU to show a bottleneck. So exactly as I said, anything above that 280/770 level will bottleneck by the FX processors. You are at the limit. If you went with Intel, you have future expansion possibilities.

Stop saying there is a $70 difference. You are comparing Microcenter prices vs. Online prices. You are also recommending an iffy motherboard. It is an unfair comparison.

[Kyuubixchidori]

Why would you also test with a 750Ti? That's a lower end GPU, you would need a higher end GPU to show a bottleneck. So exactly as I said, anything above that 280/770 level will bottleneck by the FX processors. You are at the limit. If you went with Intel, you have future expansion possibilities.

Stop saying there is a $70 difference. You are comparing Microcenter prices vs. Online prices. You are also recommending an iffy motherboard. It is an unfair comparison.

I would test it with gpus relevant with the cpu. you wouldn't test a gt 720 with a extreme edition processor. 

 

I thought you used micro center prices for both? if not I apologize. The thing is not everyone needs super high end. its unfair to say everyone needs something over a 280/770. 

http://www.microcenter.com/product/446572/970_Extreme3_R20_Socket_AM3_ATX_AMD_Motherboard

 

read the reviews. Reviews tend to be baised towards the negative, as people only really comment on a product when they are mad. I can promise you its not a 50/50 split wether it works or not... 

 

to say a board only works 50% of the time is just ignorant. While yes, it may throttle higher end cpus(or wattage), for chips such as the fx-6300 or 8320e it works. Thats just fact. I dont know how to explain it otherwise. 

 

I digress. I seems like we are getting no where, thank you for "debating" without just insulting. 

 

the one thing I truely dont understand, why does it always have to be paring a budget chip with a high end card? 

 

checking microcenter for a I3 bundle, its 180. so I guess it depends. if your doing a 400-500$ build and never plan on upgrading, id go amd, and if your doing over 500, or want to upgrade in the future, Id go intel. 

 

the thing is, my brother had 200$ to upgrade, and he wont get money to put into his computer after. and this was before the new pentium, so it was fx-6300 or a stock I3 with only 4 gigs of ram. he is not going to upgrade soon.

 

Me personally? I have a xeon and a 750ti. it was targeted to be upgradable down the road. 2 diffrent use cases. 

[Alfered Bie]

anything said about DX12 is irrelevant as 1. It's not out yet and 2. We dont know for sure how it will actually scale. All we have are speculation and rumors.