An issue with people bashing the FX CPUs !

[Mush Brain]

Read this you'll enjoy it.

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/48571-intel-amd-architectural-discussion-how-far-ahead-is-intel/

Seems pretty irrelevant by now, i mean it is 2014, not 2012.

[AlwayssunnyD]

They're just targeted at a "budget" market. You can't expect to pay less and get the exact same performance as a $300 intel CPU. You get what you pay for.

Even with massive overclocks and water cooling you can expect better performance on the higher tier intel CPUs. This in itself is a product of better architecture. Besides if you're spending so much money on a GPU just buy a better processor if you're worried about bottlenecks.

[TechFan@ic]

Seems pretty irrelevant by now, i mean it is 2014, not 2012.

Quite the contrary, I've updated it with Haswell when it was launched. And quite frankly the architectural fundamentals didn't change on both the Intel and AMD side since 2011.

[79wjd]

They're just targeted at a "budget" market. You can't expect to pay less and get the exact same performance as a $300 intel CPU. You get what you pay for.

Even with massive overclocks and water cooling you can expect better performance on the higher tier intel CPUs. This in itself is a product of better architecture. Besides if you're spending so much money on a GPU just buy a better processor if you're worried about bottlenecks.

The issue is that it's really not a "budget" targeted cpu (compared to intel) as by the time you get a decent board, that can handle the cpu properly, and a cooler, that can properly cool the chip once overclocked, the two end up being very similar in pricing. 

[Faa]

Read this you'll enjoy it.

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/48571-intel-amd-architectural-discussion-how-far-ahead-is-intel/

All benchmarks were pretty much cherrypicked, showing 2-3 integer benchmarks out of the 50000 where AMD won.

[79wjd]

All benchmarks were pretty much cherrypicked, showing 2-3 integer benchmarks out of the 50000 where AMD won.

Rather than just calling it out, why not point to those 50000 cases where AMD won. 

[Faa]

Rather than just calling it out, why not point to those 50000 cases where AMD won. 

Uh? In those 50000 benchmarks AMD probably won 3 times which were the only ones that were included in his "objective" architectural discussion. Sha/AES benchmarks which AMD uses sha extensions for and AES hardware acceleration, theyre missing on Intel. Sha extensions were planned for Skylake. In other AES/sha benchmarks Intel is even doing better >.>

[79wjd]

Uh? In those 50000 benchmarks AMD probably won 3 times which were the only ones that were included in his "objective" architectural discussion. Sha/AES benchmarks which AMD uses sha extensions for and AES hardware acceleration, theyre missing on Intel. Sha extensions were planned for Skylake. In other AES/sha benchmarks Intel is even doing better >.>

Oh, I misread your post -- I thought you said the results that showed AMD beating Intel constantly were left out. 

 

whoops. 

[kevin28115]

my oc at 4.8 idled at 17c. that being said my room temp feels like 50 and was shivering.

...idles at 20C on average...what the hell is your room temperature???

[spwath]

I have a 8350 at 4.65GHZ and it idles at 20C on average. So the hotter argument doesn't really matter. Now I will admit that it does take a lot more power to run, but I love my OC'd 8 core

No it doesn't. That's called broken temp sensor. Your CPU does not idle at 68 degrees f.

[Suika]

No it doesn't. That's called broken temp sensor. Your CPU does not idle at 68 degrees f.

The sensor doesn't function correctly until it reaches around 45-50C I've noticed. My 8350 would say it was around 25C with a 212 EVO, but 40C in the BIOS. When it ran at 4.8GHz, it would reach 60-70C on load under an H100i.

[spwath]

The sensor doesn't function correctly until it reaches around 45-50C I've noticed. My 8350 would say it was around 25C with a 212 EVO, but 40C in the BIOS. When it ran at 4.8GHz, it would reach 60-70C on load under an H100i.

Mine doesn't work with anything but MSI control center and bios

[RevoltTrain]

No it doesn't. That's called broken temp sensor. Your CPU does not idle at 68 degrees f.

It works perfectly fine, that's my ambient temp

 

[Faceman]

It works perfectly fine, that's my ambient temp

 

If you think your CPU is idling AT ambient temp, its not your sensor thats broken, its your brain.

[vlkn´]

If you think your CPU is idling AT ambient temp, its not your sensor thats broken, its your brain.

HAHAHHAHAHAHA

[kevin28115]

would the socket temp be better when seeing the fx series' temp? like an actual reading from a sensory.

[79wjd]

would the socket temp be better when seeing the fx series' temp? like an actual reading from a sensory.

I think you're asking if a temperature reading from a heat gun would be better, and the answer is yes, it would be better since you could verify the accuracy of its sensor. 

[Revel]

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

 

My reaction:

 

>see this thread

>ARRGH

>shows 1 of the games that favours the AMD

>AMD is good value

>-.-

[kevin28115]

I think you're asking if a temperature reading from a heat gun would be better, and the answer is yes, it would be better since you could verify the accuracy of its sensor. 

no. I"m asking if the socket temp is a better judge of the core temp than the actual core temp reading.

[CDHoward]

Yeah, its a constant thing, innit. The aspect of it all that stands out most to me is how sneering and nasty Intel Fanboys are. They're by far the most insecure and unhinged.

 

To me personally, Intel is the boring, predictable, middle class mainstream brand. Whilst AMD is more exciting, working class, unpredictable and cool

 

I have the 8350, and I like it. Yes, its a raw brute. But it adds to its character etc.

[Faceman]

Yeah, its a constant thing, innit. The aspect of it all that stands out most to me is how sneering and nasty Intel Fanboys are. They're by far the most insecure and unhinged.

 

To me personally, Intel is the boring, predictable, middle class mainstream brand. Whilst AMD is more exciting, working class, unpredictable and cool

 

I have the 8350, and I like it. Yes, its a raw brute. But it adds to its character etc.

Not sure if trolling, or just really doesn't know...

[CDHoward]

Not sure if trolling, or just really doesn't know...

 

Yeah, I know the I7's beat any FX. They ought to do for the price. The I5's and FX's are similarly able (no matter what anyone says), but the I5 has a lot more stable game FPS.

 

But I'm talking about the cultural aspect. In most cases, I'd say we AMD users are usually working class, or on a limited budget. And, on building our FX machine, we were all in the mindset of getting as much power as possible for the money. Also, Intel has a really boring, mainstream, mass-market image, which affected my decision.

 

Anyway: High End Intel users specifically, on the other hand, are largely relatively well-off, and possibly largely middle class. And they love to sneer at FX users.

 

Basically, its a case of: "HeHeHeHeHe. I had the most money, and I could pick my parts with zero budget limit, so GET DOWN you peasant LOL", which is hardly an attractive or helpful community attitude. 

 

All this said, I think Fanboyism (healthy Fanboyism) is a good thing. Its good to make it part of your identity etc.

[79wjd]

Yeah, I know the I7's beat any FX. They ought to do for the price. The I5's and FX's are similarly able (no matter what anyone says), but the I5 has a lot more stable game FPS.

 

But I'm talking about the cultural aspect. In most cases, I'd say we AMD users are usually working class, or on a limited budget. And, on building our FX machine, we were all in the mindset of getting as much power as possible for the money. Also, Intel has a really boring, mainstream, mass-market image, which affected my decision.

 

Anyway: High End Intel users specifically, on the other hand, are largely relatively well-off, and possibly largely middle class. And they love to sneer at FX users.

 

Basically. its a case of: "HeHeHeHeHe. I had the most money, and I could pick my parts with zero budget limit, so GET DOWN you peasant LOL", which is hardly an attractive or helpful community attitude. 

 

All this said, I think Fanboyism (healthy Fanboyism) is a good thing. Its good to make it part of your identity etc.

A stable FPS is just as important if not more important than being able to hit a high max fps. 

 

As has already been shown, AMD setups aren't that much cheaper than a comparable Intel setup; and a lot of people who ended up buying FX chips bought them not because they were cheaper but because they had more cores and were clocked higher -- this making them the superior chip. 

[CDHoward]

A stable FPS is just as important if not more important than being able to hit a high max fps. 

 

As has already been shown, AMD setups aren't that much cheaper than a comparable Intel setup; and a lot of people who ended up buying FX chips bought them not because they were cheaper but because they had more cores and were clocked higher -- this making them the superior chip. 

 

Yeah, true. That's the main reason I got my 8350. The 8 cores claim tipped the balance, big time. That and the much better overclock capability.

 

It wasn't that long ago when I built my machine. And I do admit I've wondered if I made the right decision. But, its too late now. I'll stay with this until Zen/Xen comes along.

[Faceman]

Yeah, true. That's the main reason I got my 8350. The 8 cores claim tipped the balance, big time. That and the much better overclock capability.

 

It wasn't that long ago when I built my machine. And I do admit I've wondered if I made the right decision. But, its too late now. I'll stay with this until Zen/Xen comes along.

People think they are getting a good deal when they buy FX, and they are not.

 

If you enjoy games like MMOs(ArcheAge, WoW, Guild Wars2, World of Tanks, Planetside2 etc..) DayZ, ARMA2, ARMA3, Dead Rising 3, Indies, RTS, Emulators, etc.. the FX will fall WAY behind the equally priced Intel processors making them unplayable(at least by my standards), sometimes even dropping to 15-20fps when the action starts.

 

Then there are other games that are playable, but no where near as fluid as they would be on Intel.  A few examples are: Starcraft, Skyrim, Civilization V, Assassin's Creed, etc..

 

Then there are a lot of games where the FX will perform similar to Intel, provided you're using a 60Hz Monitor and don't see the bottleneck happening. 

 

----

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

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

This one above is Witcher 2.

-Source

 

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.

 

 

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

 

 

"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."

 

"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)."

 

"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."

 

 

 

The architecture behind the FX CPUs cannot keep up with high end graphics cards that require strong cores to consistently feed the card.  Monitor your GPU load in your games and you will quickly see that your GPU is not running at 90%+ if you own a high end graphics card paired with an FX processor.  Use an FX with a mid range GPU all you want, that is fine and you won't limit the card's potential and makes for a much more balanced rig. If you get into the upper echelon of GPUs, that is when you are holding your card back by the FX that has worse IPC than Conroe which dates back to 2005.

 

When AMD sends out R9 290Xs for review, or release new drivers they send out Intel i7s along with them because they know their FX processors can't power their high end GPUs to their max potential.

-Source

 

Check out LTT's own Cinebench Scores:

 

 

 

-LTT's Cinebench Database

These FXs are overclocked to 4.8Ghz and 5.3Ghz! and still fall well behind Intel's offerings.

 

Even when you pair the FX with a mid range GPU, it doesn't change the fact that some games are largely CPU bound and require strong IPC.  Parallelism doesn't exist in games.  There are not many, if any highly repetitive calculations going on in games that the CPU can guess what is coming next like in video editing or rendering.  They have tricked you into thinking that more cores and higher Ghz is what matters for your CPU, when it all comes down to the architecture and instructions per cycle. 

 

Websites like cpubenchmark.net have a suite of synthetic benchmarks that they run each processor through to spit out a score.  Going by this, the FX8 outperforms the i5 because those synthetic tests are highly repetitive calculations that benefit from more cores.  People see that result and automatically think "Oh, the FX8 is a much stronger processor than the i5."  And in some tasks it is, gaming is just not one of them.

 

Gaming performance aside, the vast majority of daily tasks are single threaded.  Everything you do on your desktop, booting up your computer, loading a simple program such as iTunes is going to be faster on Intel because these are single threaded tasks and the performance per core is so much more powerful which results in a more snappy overall experience.  There are very few tasks that benefit from 8 cores.  A program that really benefits from all the cores you throw at it is a real niche area, often reserved for content creation and calculations-not games.

 

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.

 

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.  I wish I could exclude Hawaii, because the electricity there kinda skews things unfavorably, so for this example, we will assume the average price is a flat $0.12 per KWh.  We will also assume that the overclocked FX power draw is 100W higher than the stock i5(which is more realistic being as most FX8 users don't OC to 4.7Ghz).  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.  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.

 

 

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

 

-Source

 

 

You should really read through the link above, it is a great and detailed read. Here is the conclusion.

 

"Conclusion

 

If you've made it this far, congrats and thank you very, very much for reading. I appreciate it genuinely.

 

Okay, so let's conclude. Yes, Intel won 5-2, but that's meaningless. Looking at benchmarks for the sake of looking at benchmarks doesn't

help us. What helps us is seeing where the 4670K wins massively and where the 8350 wins massively. 

 

Gaming

In gaming, the 4670K wins. This is said by Linus, said by AnandTech, said by Bit-Tech, said by Tom's Hardware, said all around the internet

except for at Tek Syndicate. If you are going for a gaming PC, go with the 4670K.

 

Video Editing and 3D Rendering

Yes, there are benchmarks where the 8350 beats the 4670K, however, what is important is that these two are almost neck and neck.

Some sites have the 8350 ever so slightly faster, some have the 3570K/4670K as ever so slightly faster. At the end of the day, it's too close to call.

However, the extra IPC that Haswell offers should help in a wider variety of situations, so I would award this to the 4670K. 

 

Calculations

This one goes to the 8350 which demonstrates a higher performance with calculations throughout due to its higher core count. It beats Intel convincingly

in most calculation benchmarks. 

 

So, what does this mean?

 

This has been said in the introduction, but I will say it again. I am not an Intel fanboy, which is why I went out to research instead of screaming that Intel

is better. I have suggested AMD in the past, their Athlon 64 was better than the Pentium 4, their Athlon 64 x2 was better than the Pentium D. However,

I genuinely dislike the promulgation of false information, especially to people who are asking for help selecting new parts. 

 

If you're an AMD fanboy, you're not going to like it, but Intel's 4670K is better than AMD's 8350. Regardless of however you look at it, in most situations,

the 4670K wins, but it isn't just that, its far superior IPC gives it such an advantage in most every day tasks, which are mostly still single-threaded. 

 

The AMD 8350 is good for certain workloads, but apart from those workloads, it is simply terrible. Its IPC, which is weaker than the i7 920's, which is

5 years old, is simply too weak to put it as any sort of real competition to the 4670K. 

 

I hope that this clears up some of the misconceptions here. Yes, AMD had their time, their Athlon 64 was better than the Intel Pentium 4, however,

those days are well and truly over. If, in this day and age, you recommend an AMD processor for any usage apart from calculations, you are either

being a fanboy or just plainly ignorant of the facts which say that the 4670K is superior. 

 

Of course, this is not to say that nobody should use AMD, but, if you suggest an AMD build for someone else, especially if you suggest an 8350

against a 4670K, know that you are suggesting a worse option, especially for a gaming PC. To argue that the 8350 is competitive with the 4670K

across the board is delusional and just plainly wrong. Yes, you are wrong. 

 

So that's it guys, for most people, the 4670K is the better option compared to the 8350 and the information shows it. 

 

Once again, thank you for taking the time to read my little article. I hope I have helped you see what the statistics say about these two processors.

I appreciate you taking the time to read what I have written. Cheers :)"

 

This video is the most meticulous head to head comparison of the FX8 and i5.  Its lengthy, but it is the most comprehensive and in-depth review of the FX8 and i5-4670k in a myriad of scenarios pitted against each other.  Single player, multiplayer, 1080p, 1440p, power consumption, min/max/avg framerates, daily tasks, rendering, editing, streaming, mid level GPUs, high level GPUs, multi-threaded games, single core games, this video covers it all.

 

Also, when people say that the FX8 is a less expensive option, they are wrong.  In order for the FX8 to be viable, it needs to be overclocked, which means you need a motherboard with at least 8+2 VRM phase design, and more expensive cooling solution.  You can squeeze by on a 6+2, but you aren't going to get as consistent results as an 8+2, also overclocking results drop with the 6+2.  This makes it cost the same, if not more than a locked i5 processor which will beat the FX8 in every single game, no matter how high the FX is overclocked.  I'm not arguing that the processor is less expensive on AMD's side, but the ancillary components needed end up making it cost the same as a locked i5.

 

 

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

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

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($124.99 @ Amazon)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($29.98 @ OutletPC)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($74.98 @ OutletPC)

Total: $229.95

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-11-19 22:28 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/HxP68d

Price breakdown by merchant: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/HxP68d/by_merchant/

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

Motherboard: ASRock H81M-HDS Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (€46.95 @ Hardwareversand)

Total: €207.77

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 12:44 CET+0100

 

Vs.

 

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

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

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

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  (€32.99 @ Amazon Deutschland)

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

Total: €237.67

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 12:45 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/mPMpgs

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

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

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($36.00 @ CPL Online)

Motherboard: ASRock 970 Extreme3 ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($105.00 @ CPL Online) <-- Not a good motherboard, but the least expensive that I recognized.

Total: $323.00

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 22:51 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  ($74.00 @ 1stWave Technologies)

Total: $346.00

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-13 01:06 NZDT+1300

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/p/88knQ7

Price breakdown by merchant: http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/p/88knQ7/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($217.35 @ Aquila Technology)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($61.02 @ Wiseguys)

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

Total: $428.32

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-13 01:07 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/jsYCzy

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

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($141.96 @ Newegg Canada)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($30.98 @ DirectCanada)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($98.50 @ Vuugo)

Total: $271.44

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 06:53 EST-0500

 

United Kingdom:

 

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

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

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

Motherboard: ASRock H81 Pro BTC ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (£32.99 @ Amazon UK)

Total: £164.19

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 12:01 GMT+0000

 

Vs.

 

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

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

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  (£101.50 @ Amazon UK)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  (£24.97 @ Amazon UK)

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

Total: £190.01

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 12:02 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/jsYCzy

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

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

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  (€47.08 @ Amazon Italia)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (€84.28 @ Amazon Italia)

Total: €263.03

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 13:04 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  (€165.00 @ Amazon Espana)

Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (€40.09 @ Amazon Espana)

Total: €205.09

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 13:04 CET+0100

 

Vs.

 

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

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

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  (€127.99 @ Amazon Espana)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  (€47.30 @ Amazon Espana)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (€85.83 @ Amazon Espana)

Total: €261.12

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 13:05 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.

 

With the AM3+ platform, there is nothing to upgrade to.  Going from an FX6 to FX8 to FX9 doesn't yield much performance gains because they all use the same architecture, which has horrible single core performance.  If you tried to go from FX8 to FX9, you're going to have to spend even more on super high end 990FX motherboard, and at least a $60 CPU Cooler.  Just throwing money at a bottomless pit of poor gaming performance.  Basically, you're stuck with what you have if you decide to go FX.

 

With Intel, upgrading is easy.  You can go from an i5 to an i7 or Xeon, even if you're on one of the less expensive, and older motherboards.  All that is necessary is a BIOS update, which is easy to do as long as you already have a Haswell processor, which you would have if you went this route.  Even the soon to be released Broadwell processors should be compatible with H81 motherboards.  They are going to be compatible with Devil's Canyon motherboards, which are also LGA1150, so they will fit in the same socket as these motherboards, so in theory all that is necessary is a BIOS update.  Going this route, you won't be able to overclock using the multiplier, but you can always squeeze an extra 1-300Mhz by BCLK overclocking.  Good thing Intel processors at stock already blow the doors off the highest overclocked FX chip out there. At least the option for truly increased performance is there with Intel, unlike with AMD.

 

Referring to the FX as the budget option, or good for its price needs to stop.  $200 equals $200 but the performance of one does not equal the other.