FX was really that bad?

[Eric Kazer]

Hi, 

just screwing around. I tested my I7-3770 and found that it beats FX hard in CPUz bench. I compared it to a FX-9590. My CPU has seem to have killed it. 

[3 Lions]

Yes, it really was that bad. 

[Levent]

FX9590 was the best out of them too running at measly 220W TDP

[MeatFeastMan]

Doesn't tell the whole story. I use an FX 9590 for my pc, and it plays all the games I want it to at 2560 x 1080 75hz. Yes there are drops here and there, but is it playable? YOU BET IT IS.

 

So when people say it's garbage, don't listen to them.

 

I am a Battlefield fanboy, and it is perfectly playable on Battlefield V. I am regularly up there in the top 10 in a 32 vs 32 multiplayer match, and it is easily smooth enough.

 

Should you buy it NOW? Unless it's extremely low price, no. Because stuff like the 2200g and 2400g are better choices. But is it still good enough to play modern titles at 60fps, absolutely.

 

I looked through all the haters. They say you need a watercooler, yet my Noctua NH-D15 is making the job look easy. They say your house burns down..it doesn't. They say you need a 1000w psu, you don't. My electricity bill is fairly normal and before you say.. 'oh but you only turn your pc on for 15 minutes a day'..NO, I don't. I turn it on for 10,12 sometimes even up to 15 hours a day, playing games, web browsing, videos etc. The usual stuff.

 

The...haters...are...wrong.

 

[JoostinOnline]

While a CPU-Z benchmark is not really an accurate means of performance measurement, the FX series was definitely bad. It was actually kind of funny that when Ryzen launched, AMD did ads showing it being so much more powerful than the FX series.

[Eric Kazer]

OH crap, need more money for power. 

 

[Java]

As some who used a fx-6120 for about 5 years...yes it was. 

[spartaman64]

in multi threaded work loads they were not that bad with their pricing they are actually a pretty good value but their single threaded is really weak. amd made a bet that software will become optimized for multiple threads and they lost that bet

[Eric Kazer]

Well here is a Ryzen 5 score in comparison to mine. Ryzen will beat it in multi core/thread. It's close on single. 

[JoostinOnline]

12 minutes ago, MeatFeastMan said:

Doesn't tell the whole story. I use an FX 9590 for my pc, and it plays all the games I want it to at 2560 x 1080 75hz. Yes there are drops here and there, but is it playable? YOU BET IT IS.

  

So when people say it's garbage, don't listen to them. 

Meeting the bare minimum requirements for playable doesn't mean it's not garbage.

[Origami Cactus]

9 minutes ago, Eric Kazer said:

Well here is a Ryzen 5 score in comparison to mine. Ryzen will beat it in multi core/thread. It's close on single. 

 

Cpu-z bench is not too good, use Cinebench 15 or 20 if you want to get more reliable scores and measurements.

[Vishera]

I have an overclocked FX processor,I can tell you about my experience with it:

In most games in 2019 there is no bottleneck or slight bottleneck above 80 FPS:

Resident Evil 2,Apex Legends,Devil May Cry 5,Call of Duty Modern Warfare Remastered,The Witcher 3,Nier Automata, Above 80 FPS at all times.

I do get bottlenecked a bit in Final Fantasy XV,

And bottlenecked a lot in Assassin's Creed Odyssey.

 

In gaming the 3770 will always beat any FX processor.

But in multithreaded performance my CPU beats the 3770.

[Eric Kazer]

Start to come ahead of I7-3770 with the  started to come ahead with Ryzen 5 1600, but had 6 cores and 12 threads to do it. They are close chips in single core. They did disrupt industry.

 

I built with a FX-8150 and a HD-6870. Back than I would have spent money better on a I7-3770 and a intel board. I upgraded to a FX-8350. 1 I7-3770 would have made more sense at time. I was hyped for FX after using Phenom II 1090t. Years later I got the HP from the trash at work, plopped a I7-3770 into it with the GTX 1660, and 16GB DDR3 @ 1600 MHz and noticed what it could do. Also that is with using less power. This is on a stock shitty HP/ Foxconn 2ABF motherboard. I don't thionk I did to badly being that I had the CPU and board already, and I bought the card and memory.

[Eric Kazer]

I had a AX 750 recently go bad. I wonder if the FX-8350 and the HD 7970 had something to do with it. I could feel heat from the H100 on the CPU under CPU z stress test after 15 seconds.

 

Both CPUs are usable today, being the FX-8350, not the FX 9590 with the unbelievably high TDP. I am surprised the the VRM didn't fall off of the motherboard with the FX-9590. TDP was 220. Newegg said on motherboard that can handle it. I am not sure if that would work on my Sabertooth 990FX that I used with the FX-8150 at the time it came out. That system has a FX-8350 now.

 

Ya,

Power to performance is crazy on FX CPUs. This is in comparison to Ivybridge.

 

I7-3770, GTX 1660 and 16GB @ 1600MHz Samsung memory seems to be well balanced for now on a Foxconn 2ABF motherboard from HP out of trash.

[Otto_iii]

If somebody is giving it to you as a free computer its fine, i wouldn't go out spending $ to build with a FX.  The used market for 3470, 3770, 4770 etc etc Q77 intel is in a very affordable sport right now if going with used parts/used pre-builts. 

[Eric Kazer]

FX 8350 VS. I7-3770

I have the FX on my Asus Sabertooth 990FX motherboard. If going by this quick bench is true, FX was behind, but not that bad for the time it was made. My FX pc is pretty close to the score when benching it. FX-8350 is what I built with back in 2012 when it came out. I jumped the gun to soon in that time. Knowing what I know now, back than I would have used I7-4770 after seeing 3770 now. Team blue got that one. At least with CPU z.

 

[CPUguy101]

On 8/18/2019 at 3:14 PM, MeatFeastMan said:

Doesn't tell the whole story. I use an FX 9590 for my pc, and it plays all the games I want it to at 2560 x 1080 75hz. Yes there are drops here and there, but is it playable? YOU BET IT IS.

 

So when people say it's garbage, don't listen to them.

 

I am a Battlefield fanboy, and it is perfectly playable on Battlefield V. I am regularly up there in the top 10 in a 32 vs 32 multiplayer match, and it is easily smooth enough.

 

Should you buy it NOW? Unless it's extremely low price, no. Because stuff like the 2200g and 2400g are better choices. But is it still good enough to play modern titles at 60fps, absolutely.

 

I looked through all the haters. They say you need a watercooler, yet my Noctua NH-D15 is making the job look easy. They say your house burns down..it doesn't. They say you need a 1000w psu, you don't. My electricity bill is fairly normal and before you say.. 'oh but you only turn your pc on for 15 minutes a day'..NO, I don't. I turn it on for 10,12 sometimes even up to 15 hours a day, playing games, web browsing, videos etc. The usual stuff.

 

The...haters...are...wrong.

 

Your air cooler is a beast though and better then a lot of 240 rads 

 

Don't kid yourself unless the game really uses all the cores you are limited and will bottleneck even a GTX 1060. 

 

Bulldozer-Piledriver was the worst thing Amd ever made in terms of CPU's and if you are old enough to remember what FX used to mean you would know why so many Amd fanboys hated that processor including me. 

 

FX-53 was such a effing beast back in the day made Intel cry in the corner then Amd ruined the FX name with the 8150 which was slower then a 1100T Phenom II x6 in a lot of cases including emulation. 

 

Thankfully FX is done and Ryzen is here and its finally making Amd competitive again

[bignaz]

No. FX's were amazing!

 

FX-57

FX-60

FX-62

Etc.

 

The crap they called FX not long ago was absolutely horrible and something we should just forget ever happen.

[Mira Yurizaki]

For the time, yes, the FX processors weren't really that great of a processor. But this was a time when the focus was still on single core performance and the FX processor was bad in this regard.

 

Fast forward to about 2017 or so and applications are started to take advantage of more cores. The FX processor can now go toe-to-toe with its competitors of the day, if not beat it by a small margin. However, if you care about efficiency and not needing a beefy cooler, the FX processor still sucks in this regard.

 

However, waiting 7 years to be vindicated seems kind of silly.

Edited August 19, 2019 by Mira Yurizaki

[atxcyclist]

A few years ago I built my brother a very inexpensive gaming setup with an FX-8350, 8gb 1866 DDR3, and an RX 480. It does fine, but titles optimized for one or two threads run very poorly compared to my 7600k setup. Now with games being able to utilize more cores/threads, perhaps he'll get another few years out of it. 

 

I also have an FX-8350 in a workstation in my office, but it gets slapped around by my 4790k workstation at stock speeds in CAD/BIM work, and basically anything of the sort.

[Eric Kazer]

That's the same results for me. I often get crashes too with FX where the Intel I7-3770 does not. 1st gen Ryzen is than likely better on the lower end of Ryzen than FX and close or better than I7-3770. Both FX and I7 3rd gen are still usable to this day for a lot of games and apps. I think that the enemy of FX 8 series CPUs was heat. they were probably throttling. They run hot, even with a H100 I can feel heat after a minute or so of use. Intel chips of 3rd gen did run cooler. Than there is always power consumption with FX. 125 tdp vs. 77 tdp of I7-3770. Also most of the time the Intel chip is not using that much power. I've seen my 3770 using around 55 to 60 watts. Both the FX and the I7 are not overclocked in any way. FX 8 series uses a lot of power to accomplish less. That's why a lot of the time it gets a bad wrap. I would say that 6 series is a better deal than 8 series if using FX.