An issue with people bashing the FX CPUs !

[79wjd]

Oh so I can give myself the fitting title of "PC Martyr" ?

yes

[Hatsune Miku 「 」]

Please stop it the FX CPU are a fine value for money option and they run games just fine as depicted here when some people today tried to hate on FX claiming that it is "So terrible" at running Crysis 3 even though it runs it just fine.

1280x700, NO AA >_>

[Spev]

If the shoe were on the other foot, and Intel were still producing 1st Gen Core i5/i7 CPU's, people would be bashing Intel much harder. now granted, Intel have not really improved much since 2nd Gen Sandy Bridge, But Intel at least upgrade their chipsets to support newer standards, like PCI-E 3.0 for example. (not counting FM2+ chipsets, they obviously do)

 

There's a difference between bashing something, and telling it like it is. I agree that some people take it a step too far and make it personal, or even spout nonsense. An FX8350 is actually an amazing CPU for the money, and is stronger in AAA gaming now than when the FX 8xxx architecture launched because of newer games using more threads... and when DX12 games finally launch in a year or two the cpu overhead will shrink, making per core performance less of a thing. Still though, Its hard to defend a product that isn't pushing any boundaries or breaking new ground.

What do you mean by CPU overhead will shrink? Just curious.

[I/O]

1280x700, NO AA >_>

The lower the resolution and AA the more load that is put onto the CPU.

[XiaoPineApple]

Please stop it the FX CPU are a fine value for money option and they run games just fine as depicted here when some people today tried to hate on FX claiming that it is "So terrible" at running Crysis 3 even though it runs it just fine.

just saw that res. 1280x720.... 

i think steam user are over 80% using 1080p panel nows day.

so, maybe if we can find one graph benching at 1080p.

also, people not hating FX chips .

it's just amd havn't release anything good enough to pair with higher end GPU. 780, 980 even R9 290 ....

[Laurysss]

just saw that res. 1280x720.... 

i think steam user are over 80% using 1080p panel nows day.

so, maybe if we can find one graph benching at 1080p.

also, people not hating FX chips .

it's just amd havn't release anything good enough to pair with higher end GPU. 780, 980 even R9 290 ....

"The lower the resolution and AA the more load that is put onto the CPU." Isnt this true?

[XiaoPineApple]

"The lower the resolution and AA the more load that is put onto the CPU." Isnt this true?

we're not trying to find CPU load.

we want to know will a 780 Run at 100% GPU load, with this CPU?

[harrynowl]

The idea of running games at low res with no AA when comparing CPUs is to remove any GPU bottleneck and just compare CPU performance.

[XiaoPineApple]

The idea of running games at low res with no AA when comparing CPUs is to remove any GPU bottleneck and just compare CPU performance.

is that becuz low res require less work for the GPU?

so is easier for the CPu to process?

[harrynowl]

is that becuz low res require less work for the GPU?

so is easier for the CPu to process?

First part is true, it removes the GPU as the limiting factor in the FPS by making it easy to run graphically.

 

But the CPU load is still the same, which is why its used to compare CPUs.

 

If we have a 4k benchmark, basically all CPUs will be identical as GPU is the limiting factor, if we have a 720p benchmark, there's gaps as the CPU is the limiting factor.

[JoaoPRSousa]

The FX CPUs are great.

But if the budget allows, get an i5.

[Hatsune Miku 「 」]

X99 FOR LIFE!

[Zulkkis]

is that becuz low res require less work for the GPU?

so is easier for the CPu to process?

 

You want the CPU to be the limitation, not your GPU. If you run it at a higher resolution, your GPU might be only able to pull, say, 25 fps. Then all the graphs would show a max of 25 fps.

 

When you make it so that the GPU can run the game at i.e 120 fps, you start to see where the CPU actually starts to slow things down. The game will run at ~59 fps with the FX because that's what it is able to, not because some other part of the system won't allow it to run the game any faster.

 

Anyhow, idk. AMD is not that great at the moment. Sure, you won't see much of an impact on your power bill, but the heat is another issue. The graph has the processors at stock, and we all know whose processors have more headroom with overclocking. Not only that, but the AMD processors are on the ancient AM3+ platform, and that also slows some things down.

 

I really want AMD to succeed because more competition is for the better, but right now they're mostly out of the game. Sure, the FX might run your things just fine and I wouldn't be in a rush to replace it unless you have some very specific things you need to do, but recommending an AMD processor right now that isn't an APU is disingenious.

[Shroomster]

How is it when C/Okeman makes a thread it becomes the fieriest pit of hate and despair so fast? Like srsly guys?

[Rubenis]

I do not get it.

 

So if I am on a budget, I have to buy FX 83XX CPU, find some good motherboard (with at least 970 chipset), then buy some good cooler, so I can overclock that CPU and get good performance.

And in the end it will run same or worse than locked i5 4460 and cheapest motherboard, that in the end cost the same or less than FX + 970 chipset+ cooler??

 

Whats the point??

 

P.S. Athlon 860k is direct enemy to Pentium G3258. Allthough Pentium works wonders against Athlon.

[Briggsy]

What do you mean by CPU overhead will shrink? Just curious.

 

number of draw calls will decrease with dx12, requiring less work for the cpu. like i say though, thats a year or two away.

[Mush Brain]

So we have BF4 and Crysis 3 that run wonderfully on the FX CPUs any more you can think of off the top of your head ?

BF4 on FX is worse than a 2500K in the unoptimized Beta..

2500K @5GHzWatermelons with single GTX 480.

http://youtu.be/tsyPnpQxGrE

FX 8350 @4.7Ghz with GTX 980

http://youtu.be/tg_FrzhAnh4

[Tim Drake]

I am unbiased and I think they are great for price to performance but the only real circumstance to get an fx 8320/8350 is if you already have a 970 motherboard with say an fx 4300/6300 as it costs just the same as a locked Intel with a cheap motherboard.

[Guest]

Did you stumble across my thread in the CPU sub forum somehow?....

I was just asking if it was okay :7

[typographie]

Oh, look, another AMD/Intel rant thread with eight pages. What a shocker.

 

These are companies trying to sell you products, not sports teams or political parties. If AMD needs to innovate, tell them with your wallets. And for their part, it's not like Intel has earned anyone's undying devotion either. There's not really much to discuss here for the discerning customer, from my perspective.

[rentaspoon]

BF4 on FX is worse than a 2500K in the unoptimized Beta..

2500K @5GHzWatermelons with single GTX 480.

http://youtu.be/tsyPnpQxGrE

FX 8350 @4.7Ghz with GTX 980

http://youtu.be/tg_FrzhAnh4

That's hardly a fair comparison, its not even on the same map and the player count was smaller IIRC and the FPS can be increase by turning the motion blur to 10% or how it should be off.

Regardless I don't understand why people keep arguing about this, yes the fx series are good and I'm happy with mine but there is not enough of a price difference to warrant not buying an Intel CPU.

[sugalumps]

Every time there is a thread where the op is asking why he is not getting full usage out of his high end card it almost always ends in the same conclusion - fx chip. They bottleneck, it's as simple as that. Maybe not by alot depending on the card/cards, but they do and alot of people find that out the hard way thinking they will save £50-100 going with amd then having to switch to intel down the road anyway because they want to fully use their gpu.

 

Also you created two different threads on this subject within 40 minutes of each other, you basically looking to stir up crap at this point.

[rentaspoon]

snip

No its not, that's usually what people people say.

Hell someone was complaining a month or twovago about poor performance on mantle but it was fine on directx and the first post was "that's the AMD's CPUs for you, they're poop"

[sgloux3470]

I think there's value in the FX CPU's, but I also think that if you were buying a CPU today the fourth gen intel options are quite a bit better.  

 

That said, in most games an FX processor totally delivers a playable experience.  The amount of games where my experience is ruined by having an FX (but would have been playable on intel) is very low, while in most games I get a very playable experience.  

 

That said, outside of a handful of well-developed engines and titles intel will generally get a higher max framerate.  This is only really important if you're aiming for 120 FPS in all your games or you can't manage 60 FPS but I think in either case with a beefier GPU you can achieve it on an FX anyway.  

[79wjd]

I think there's value in the FX CPU's, but I also think that if you were buying a CPU today the fourth gen intel options are quite a bit better.  

 

That said, in most games an FX processor totally delivers a playable experience.  The amount of games where my experience is ruined by having an FX (but would have been playable on intel) is very low, while in most games I get a very playable experience.  

 

That said, outside of a handful of well-developed engines and titles intel will generally get a higher max framerate.  This is only really important if you're aiming for 120 FPS in all your games or you can't manage 60 FPS but I think in either case with a beefier GPU you can achieve it on an FX anyway.  

More important than the max framerate, an i5 will usually yield higher minimums as well, which is very noticeable.