AMD SUED!

[79wjd]

10 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Were 970 chipset boards really that expensive?  It was the 990 and 990fx chipsets that were more expensive here, and they were only needed for the 9590 and 9370 minus like 4 mobos?

Virtually all 970 motherboards came with VRMs that really weren't suited to handle anything more than an FX6. 

[Dabombinable]

21 minutes ago, 79wjd said:

It also WAS significantly worse, and required an expensive motherboard and cooler. It was a horrible choice for gaming at the time it was released and even for the next six years or so. It's only more recent that it has started to be somewhat competitive against a 4c/4t i5 -- overclock both, and the i5 gains ground again.

That $1000 original price tag...just because it was an FX8*** binned for 5GHz.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Sparru said:

That has to be one of the silliest things I've read in a while. There's no such performance measuring unit as "core". You don't buy "8 cores of performance" and instead buy whatever the CPU can output in tests. Otherwise we'd have to lock "1 core" into some sort of performance value instead of physical/logical structure.

It's not silly, people are just getting confused about the point. Performance becomes a comparative qualifier when any company makes a quantitative claim regarding the size or number of core components.    AMD claimed it was the worlds first 8 core processor, but if it only runs on four cores because it's shared FP, L2 cache and prefetch then the marketing about it's performance is misleading (they did not state that there are only 4 FP processors and 4 L2 cache modules). Hence consumers being lead to believe that it would have performed faster had it been what they claimed.

[MEC-777]

Click bait title much? lol. AMD hasn't been sued and I doubt they will be over this. Of all the things to go after companies about, this is not something worth pursuing, IMO. 

 

 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, MEC-777 said:

Click bait title much? lol. AMD hasn't been sued and I doubt they will be over this. Of all the things to go after companies about, this is not something worth pursuing, IMO. 

 

 

Quote

U.S. district judge Haywood Gilliam has allowed the class-action lawsuit alleging that AMD misled its customers about the number of cores in its FX CPUs to continue. According to the lawsuit, which was filed in 2015, the shared cores utilized by the FX processor line's Bulldozer modules shouldn't have been counted individually.

 

Yes they have, how far they get will remain to be seen, but from my perspective it is exactly like the GTX970 issue.  

[Dabombinable]

4 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

I oced a 9370 to 4.9 on a low-end gigabyte 970 chipset board.  The GA-970A-D3P had no stability issues.

Did it run at 4.9GHz consistently though? Because that VRM would have been throttling.

 

[MEC-777]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

 

Yes they have, how far they get will remain to be seen, but from my perspective it is exactly like the GTX970 issue.  

I stand corrected. What I meant was I doubt it will get too far. I could be wrong, but I just think it's a trivial thing to dispute. 

[Chronified]

2 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

It does matter because the FX cpu would likely bottleneck on anything more than the equivalent of a 1050, while using twice the power of a Sandy Bride or Ivy Bridge CPU.

Lies and slander, my 1050ti runs happily never passing 60% CPU usage in games.
Also tested a friends 1070 and it barely reached 80% usage.

 

Keep in mind this is at 3k 60hz (5760*1080) with max settings so the CPU can keep up pushing frames.

Yeah, if you game at 120hz+ you might end up with bottlneck, but for budget 60hz gamers it's a perfect chip.

[Blademaster91]

38 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Yes they have, how far they get will remain to be seen, but from my perspective it is exactly like the GTX970 issue.  

Yeah there was so much arguing on how the VRAM worked with the GTX970, it is a bit like the GTX970 issue since the marketing should have been more clear how it might perform in certain loads.

1 hour ago, 79wjd said:

/s

Oh I missed your post from earlier,sorry. I think if someone has an FX cpu they are ok for CAD or adobe or work that can use it as an 8 core, but it doesn't make much sense for gaming.

[THraShArD]

Nothing is going to happen with this lawsuit.  Lawsuits happen all the time with these companies

[mr moose]

13 minutes ago, THraShArD said:

Nothing is going to happen with this lawsuit.  Lawsuits happen all the time with these companies

Why not?  Nvidia lost one because under certain conditions their last .5Gb of vram didn't operate as fast as it could due to sharing L2 cache, in this case under certain conditions 8 cores aren't going to perform as fast as they can due to sharing L2 cache and FP processors.  From a consumer perspective it is almost identical. In both cases the product performed exactly as advertised and demonstrated before during and after purchase.

[Stefan Payne]

1 hour ago, 79wjd said:

It also WAS significantly worse,

No, depends on the Use case, Software that you used, what you did with the system and especially how many high load tasks you had.

For example: For Streaming while gaming, FX was a good CPU.

Also for some Content creation.

With Games it highly depended if the FX got special treatment or not.

 

Its not that "significantly worse" as you claim. It just depends and the performance can be awesome and compete with 300€ CPU - or not, depending on what you do with it.

 

Quote

and required an expensive motherboard

That is not true.

A decent board is like 75€ or so for a decent one with decent VRM Heatsink.

That's something some saved on for no reason...

For example, that would be an OK Board

https://geizhals.eu/asus-m5a97-r2-0-90-mibjk0-g0eay0mz-a818969.html

 

Quote

and cooler.

Its not like you don't need an after Market Cooler on Intel, now is it?!

And the AMD Boxed Coolers, even at the time, were totally fine.

Not great but fine. And better than the stuff Intel packs in the Box.

I still have the Boxed from my FX8350 and its the same model that AMD used for like 15 years or so for higher end products even today they still use this cooler though modified with a bigger fan - 80 or 92mm instead of the 70x15mm.

But its the same copper base, four 6mm Heatpipe Heatsink that was introduced back in the Socke 940 days...

 

Sadly they already had a good version, back when the AM2 FX CPUs were released, there was a version of this cooler with a big fan (iirc 80x25mm), that was said to be rather quiet...

Quote

It was a horrible choice for gaming at the time it was released and even for the next six years or so.

When you put the i3-4150 was around 130€ at the time and the FX8320 about the same price, it looks different.

Espacially since the i5-4670k was like 200€, later increased to 250€ at the time it doesn't look too bad.

And as you see above, there were some decent and cheap Boards with decent VRM Heatsinks...

 

The FX6300 was IIRC around 80€ or so. So really cheap and Pentium (2c/2t) pricelevel.

As the cheaper i3 were at least 100€.

 

Granted, the FX8k Series was a bit on the expensive side and because of that it didn't make too much sense.

The FX6k Series however made a whole lot of sense as the choice would have been either an Intel Celeron or Pentium.

And the FX is clearly better than that.

 

Quote

It's only more recent that it has started to be somewhat competitive against a 4c/4t i5 -- overclock both, and the i5 gains ground again.

Yeah and how do you overclock the lower end Intel Chips with mid range (B81 and B85) Boards? Oh wait, you don't...

As its heavily locked...

[79wjd]

43 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

No, depends on the Use case, Software that you used, what you did with the system and especially how many high load tasks you had.

For example: For Streaming while gaming, FX was a good CPU.

Also for some Content creation.

Thanks for reading half the post.

Quote

With Games it highly depended if the FX got special treatment or not.

 

Its not that "significantly worse" as you claim. It just depends and the performance can be awesome and compete with 300€ CPU - or not, depending on what you do with it.

But it was since it was outperformed by an i5-4460+h81 board+stock cooler in virtually all games -- even when the 8350 was overclocked (which again, requires an expensive motherboard and cooler). You can choose to ignore that bit of reality, but that won't change reality. The 970 boards were never designed to handle the power draw that the FX8 CPUs required. 

Quote

That is not true.

A decent board is like 75€ or so for a decent one with decent VRM Heatsink.

That's something some saved on for no reason...

For example, that would be an OK Board

https://geizhals.eu/asus-m5a97-r2-0-90-mibjk0-g0eay0mz-a818969.html

 

Its not like you don't need an after Market Cooler on Intel, now is it?!

And the AMD Boxed Coolers, even at the time, were totally fine.

Not great but fine. And better than the stuff Intel packs in the Box.

I still have the Boxed from my FX8350 and its the same model that AMD used for like 15 years or so for higher end products even today they still use this cooler though modified with a bigger fan - 80 or 92mm instead of the 70x15mm.

But its the same copper base, four 6mm Heatpipe Heatsink that was introduced back in the Socke 940 days...

 

Sadly they already had a good version, back when the AM2 FX CPUs were released, there was a version of this cooler with a big fan (iirc 80x25mm), that was said to be rather quiet...

It was an okay board if it was underclocked and somewhat acceptable at stock speeds, but the VRMs weren't designed to handle the load put on them by an FX8 cpu -- which needed to be overclocked to keep up with even a locked i5 in gaming. And yes, the stock cooler was more than sufficient with Intel since even at stock speeds it yielded better gaming performance.

 

Quote

When you put the i3-4150 was around 130€ at the time and the FX8320 about the same price, it looks different.

Espacially since the i5-4670k was like 200€, later increased to 250€ at the time it doesn't look too bad.

And as you see above, there were some decent and cheap Boards with decent VRM Heatsinks...

See above. 

Quote

The FX6300 was IIRC around 80€ or so. So really cheap and Pentium (2c/2t) pricelevel.

As the cheaper i3 were at least 100€.

The FX6300 was about $100~ compared to the $115~ of an i3, except that the i3 would happily run on the cheapest board you could find whereas you would want something at least slightly decent for the FX6300 -- the two ended up in the same price bracket with the i3 very often performing better. So very much so no.

Quote

Granted, the FX8k Series was a bit on the expensive side and because of that it didn't make too much sense.

The FX6k Series however made a whole lot of sense as the choice would have been either an Intel Celeron or Pentium.

And the FX is clearly better than that.

The FX8 made no sense for gaming whatsover and in most cases performed the same as an FX6 when at the same clockspeeds. The only strength that the FX8 had was in budget virtualization -- although even that was a fine line as a Xeon E3 1230v3 ($220~) could run on an H81 board and didn't end up all that much more expensive than an FX8 platform but yielded better performance.

Quote

Yeah and how do you overclock the lower end Intel Chips with mid range (B81 and B85) Boards? Oh wait, you don't...

As its heavily locked...

You don't, because you didn't need to. Even at stock speeds they were outperforming overclocked bulldozer in gaming.

 

 

Anyway, I'm done; there are mountains of benchmarks that were ran over the years showing bulldozer being a poor choice for gaming at virtually all price points when compared to Ivy Bridge/Haswell. Just because they finally become something other than garbage over the last year or so doesn't change that. When they were supposed to be competitive, they weren't, now finally, almost a decade later, they're about on par with what Intel was offering then for a similar price. 

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, 79wjd said:

It also WAS significantly worse, and required an expensive motherboard and cooler. It was a horrible choice for gaming at the time it was released and even for the next six years or so. It's only more recent that it has started to be somewhat competitive against a 4c/4t i5 -- overclock both, and the i5 gains ground again.

Yep, it has to be actually good for the time period it's actually relevant to. It might be more competent on more modern workloads now than other similar options of the time but who actually cares other than current owners of those CPU, near as much no one. Just like no one cares about 2700k now as well.

[HomeBoi]

Im still running a fx8350 @ 4.10 ghz soo id totally settle for a new ryzen 2600x and a mobo. Where do sign up? Haha

[pas008]

10 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

OK; since you wanted it, here some Proof that the FX can compete with Haswell (at least the i5):

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/FX-9590-CPU-257460/Tests/AMD-FX-9590-im-Test-1081286/

Click on Dirt Showdown

 

Another Benchmark, where the 8350 competes with the i5-4670K

https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/doom-test-gpu

 

Or lets look at that:

 

FX8350 beats i5-7600K

 

 

Here a compilation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMrgepXW7MI

 

 

Why so hateful, when someone shows you that Bulldozer is not as bad as you thought?!

As I said, it needs special treatment and Optimizations for the Architecture.

 

 

And lets not forget that the FX8350 was a ~150€ CPU!

https://geizhals.de/?phist=852989

 

 

 

Thx for links on a highly binned/clocked chip barely keeping a lead in a couple modern games

Doesn't have anything to do with running higher clocks on those links?

 

 

 

 

[Stefan Payne]

13 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Thx for links on a highly binned/clocked chip barely keeping a lead in a couple modern games

Doesn't have anything to do with running higher clocks on those links?

???
I was looking at the FX8350 and ignored the 9590...

 

[79wjd]

29 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Thx for links on a highly binned/clocked chip barely keeping a lead in a couple modern games

Doesn't have anything to do with running higher clocks on those links?

That's not actually the fault with those metrics.

Check out the site itself: https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-v-test-gpu-cpu-2018 and look how the performance changes when switching between DXR settings, and then look at performance in DX11 and DX12. 

[Mooshi]

Man, this is buying a cheeseburger and complaining it isn't steak. 

[pas008]

56 minutes ago, 79wjd said:

That's not actually the fault with those metrics.

Check out the site itself: https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-v-test-gpu-cpu-2018 and look how the performance changes when switching between DXR settings, and then look at performance in DX11 and DX12. 

I see looks like threads start to matter more then clock speed and ipc somewhat 

If it can be utilizing them

Similar to raising the resolution

 

But many variables of all playing into the mix 

Relieving overhead? Idk?

[crystal6tak]

Reminds me I still got a FX 8350 build lying around I never managed to sell...

 

Absolutely hated that CPU, had CPU bottleneck in majority of the games I played with a 290X. Sure there's a select few games under the most optimal condition the CPU bottleneck wasn't as bad, but practically you throw any random game at it and 80% of the time it'll bottleneck...

 

I remember back then, whenever I want to try out a new game, the first couple of hours would be me fiddling the settings while monitoring CPU/GPU usage to see what settings can push the most usage towards GPU. 

[mr moose]

I think Linus' impersonation of AMD fanboys defending the FX  was pretty spot on.  Even today they can't let it go.

[79wjd]

6 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

I do love the argument that you need an expensive board for an 8350.  Um, any cheap 970 will do.  I doubt the people stating this have much experience with FX at all.  I went from a 9370 to a 4790k, and didn't see this exaggerated upgrade every Intel fan claims.  That doesn't mean the 4790k isn't better in specific tasks.  However, I didn't see this massive frame increase that was advertised to me in AAA graphically intense games.  Does that mean I should sue Intel for being misleading or the fans?  If you wanna argue the first point then explain to me how I OCed a 9370 to 4.9 for over a year with no issues while gaming on a cheap Gigabyte board.  I had no crashing!  I had no thermal throttling either.  I get people don't like FX, but I think most people hating it have very little to no experience with the platform.

Luck. 

 

My 15 year old Cooler Master eXtreme Power 430 PSU that came with a case, that is borderline crap, is still running fine -- as is the hardware that was paired with it. That doesn't make the PSU good or even worth considering using. 

[79wjd]

12 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Eh, the Intel fanboys are pretty bad too.  They tend to exaggerate the performance differences.  FX wasn't really as perfect as AMD hoped.  My problem was more going from a 9370 to a 4790k then not seeing this exaggerated performance increase in certain tasks that I was promised from the Intel diehards.

Ah yes, blame other people for your own inability to research relative performance in the specific workloads in which you partake.

 

The FX series absolutely struggled at higher refresh rates compared to even a locked i5 (and i3 in many cases) -- including 1% minimums.

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Eh, the Intel fanboys are pretty bad too.  They tend to exaggerate the performance differences.  FX wasn't really as perfect as AMD hoped.  My problem was more going from a 9370 to a 4790k then not seeing this exaggerated performance increase in certain tasks that I was promised from the Intel diehards.

All fanboys are bad, It's just the defense of FX is next level emotional ideals etc.