An issue with people bashing the FX CPUs !

[i_build_nanosuits]

to sum this up: FX CPU's CAN be a good pick if you are after cheap but good multi-threaded performance (rendering videos, editing huge photos, small server for home work, or even maybe streaming video games on tight budget)...but where the problem lies with those is that many people build higher end Gaming PC's these days with GTX970 or R9 290(x) GPU's in them and those FX cpu's are not meant to render games as such high framerates and more often than not they will limit the performance of such high end GPU's in a very noticeable ways in many games, and this is why they get bashed on and for that reason alone IMHO they deserve it...once you've factored in a good motherboard for overclocking and a cpu cooler for the thing you are at the price of a core i5 and a lower end motherboard which will outperform any overclocked FX chip in every games.

[TheMidnightNarwhal]

All I know is my friend has problems running BF4 and it was because of his FX 6350

[i_build_nanosuits]

All I know is my friend has problems running BF4 and it was because of his FX 6350

funny...BF4 was about the only game that was running fine with my FX-8320 and in which my GTX780 was not getting limited by it (and my cpu was running at 4.6ghz stable all day long)

[Fate]

All I know is my friend has problems running BF4 and it was because of his FX 6350

Overclock that shiet

[i_build_nanosuits]

Overclock that shiet

the IPC on these is so poor that even overclocking it balls to the walls with LN2 cooling will only ever so slightly improve your performance...

but as i said BF4 is a multi-threaded game designed with multi-core FX CPU's in mind...it's an AMD optimised title and it run's fine on FX CPU's...they went as far as including mantle for that game...i always played BF4 on ultra and i was getting consistent 98% GPU load with my FX CPU and my framerate was EPIC...but so so so many other games are not like that.

[XiaoPineApple]

i remember readed an article saying AMD totally giving up on FX cpu now, or we need to wait 2 more years - 2016 to see new FX CPU.

 

[Fate]

i remember readed an article saying AMD totally giving up on FX cpu now, or we need to wait 2 more years - 2016 to see new FX CPU.

 

In 2016 we'll be seeing Zen, unfortunately no more CPU's until then I believe. 

 

It's unfortunate because I love AMD but I don't want to invest in 3+ yearold hardware. 

I was going to buy an AM3+ motherboard for my 960T and overclock the hell out of it until I realized, hey, if I do this, I'll be screwed because the only thing I can upgrade to in the future is FX, which sucks. 

So I guess I'm sticking with my 770 chipset until Zen for AMD CPU's

[Majestic]

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.

 

I Nominate you for the Most Subjective LLT Post of 2014 ©

[Mush Brain]

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.

Well I'm not well off, I don't have kids and I work 50hrs a week. But lets paint Intel users with one brush...

[Analog]

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

 

Hhahaha, unless you live in the North Pole, and you have your PC outside it is impossible to have it running at 20C. It is physics dude. The processor temp is never lower than the ambient temp! Having this in mind you just said another problem that the FX line-up has - faulty temp sensors on the motherboards...

 

You guys are digging the hole deeper.  

[Fate]

Hhahaha, unless you live in the North Pole, and you have your PC outside it is impossible to have it running at 20C. It is physics dude. The processor temp is never lower than the ambient temp! Having this in mind you just said another problem that the FX line-up has - faulty temp sensors on the motherboards...

 

You guys are digging the hole deeper.  

My 3570k has idled at 16 degrees on the coolest core before (though generally around 18) and my 960T idles at ~19 degrees. Granted it's pretty cool in my house, but your idles are generally only a few degrees warmer than your ambient temps (assuming you have good airflow and whatnot), which is why idle temperatures don't matter (unless they're extremely high).

[Analog]

My 3570k has idled at 16 degrees on the coolest core before (though generally around 18) and my 960T idles at ~19 degrees. Granted it's pretty cool in my house, but your idles are generally only a few degrees warmer than your ambient temps (assuming you have good airflow and whatnot), which is why idle temperatures don't matter (unless they're extremely high).

 

Sorry, but for your processor to run at 16C, firstly your ambient temp should be 10C or lower, you must have just turned on the PC and you have to be water cooling it. Anything other than that means you have faulty temp sensors. 

 

If you run a stress test and let it cool after that it will never idle at 16C.

[Fate]

Sorry, but for your processor to run at 16C, firstly your ambient temp should be 10C or lower, you must have just turned on the PC and you have to be water cooling it. Anything other than that means you have faulty temp sensors. 

 

If you run a stress test and let it cool after that it will never idle at 16C.

Lowest I saw with my Hyper 212+ was 18 (on the coolest core), with my H60 16 (again, on the coolest core). It was probably around 14-15c in my house, and no I don't have faulty sensors.

Of course you aren't supposed to take the coolest core for your actual idles, but my point was it is possible for it to get that low, so he's not inherently lying.

[vlkn´]

bra, my fx 9530 @7ghz is @-06°C (idle) and I live next to a errupted volcano.

[Sintezza]

If i have to recommmend a Gaming cpu right now, sure go with an 4690K.

Its the best gaming cpu on the market right now.

FX platform is 3 years old allready, so in my opinnion not realy worth it to invest in that for pure gaming.

Unless you are on a budget, and you do allot of 3d rendering video encoding / rendering or virtualization.

Then the FX is still a good choice for just $150,-

 

But people should stop talking crap about AMD FX cpu´s.

Because the only time that FX cpu´s realy bottlenecks a highend gpu is on low res benchmarks 720p and 1080p. in cpu bound games.

1440P the FX8350 does still a decent job, and will maxout any highend single gpu in 8 out of 10 games.

There only a few games, that are still highly cpu bound on 1440p but not that much.

Most of those particular games, are just those old MMO´s that are only using 1 or 2 threads..

But still on 1440p or up, you will become GPU limited in 8/10 games

 

So that a FX8350 is garbage for gaming is basicly BS.

Because it highly depends on what games you play, and also how you play them.

[Dabombinable]

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.

Are you sure that the graphs are correct? Because my Core 2 Duo E8500 @ 4GHz with a gtx 970 stock running off PCIe gen 1 has higher a average FPS than the FX 3820 (maximum isn't too much higher but above 60FPS most of the time). And yes I actually played the games at full settings (Skyrim with 28 texture/environment mods), there is only the occasional stutter caused by the CPU (not a game breaker).

[vlkn´]

If i have to recommmend a Gaming cpu right now, sure go with an 4690K.

Its the best gaming cpu on the market right now.

FX platform is 3 years old allready, so in my opinnion not realy worth it to invest in that for pure gaming.

Unless you are on a budget, and you do allot of 3d rendering video encoding / rendering or virtualization.

Then the FX is still a good choice for just $150,-

 

But people should stop talking crap about AMD FX cpu´s.

Because the only time that FX cpu´s realy bottlenecks a highend gpu is on low res benchmarks 720p and 1080p.

1440P the FX8350 does still a decent job, and will maxout any highend single gpu in 8 out of 10 games.

There only a few games, that are still highly cpu bound on 1440p but not that much.

Most of those particular games, are just those old MMO´s that are only using 1 or 2 threads.

 

So that a FX8350 is garbage for gaming is basicly BS.

Because it highly depends on what games you play, and also how you play them.

HOW DARE ANYONE MAKE FUN OF AMD FX, LEAVE AMD FX ALOOOOOOOOENE

[RevoltTrain]

Hhahaha, unless you live in the North Pole, and you have your PC outside it is impossible to have it running at 20C. It is physics dude. The processor temp is never lower than the ambient temp! Having this in mind you just said another problem that the FX line-up has - faulty temp sensors on the motherboards...

 

You guys are digging the hole deeper.  

That is my ambient temp. I live in Indiana and it's always cold here and my window is never closed. It idles at that handily.

[Majestic]

Most of those particular games, are just those old MMO´s that are only using 1 or 2 threads..

But still on 1440p or up, you will become GPU limited in 8/10 games

 

I told you "citation needed" the last time you said this. Yet you ignored that and continued to use the same argument a few comments later. It means provide evidence for your claims, Kira.

 

We aren't talking shit. The Intel CPU's are just objectively the best choice. It does not matter "what games you play" or at "what resolution you play". That only bridges the gap a bit. It does not shift the ultimate recommendation or make the 8350 any more viable as a candidate. It does not make the 8350 any more capable in regard to the 4690K.

 

And don't start that budget argument. I think that has been debunked enough. If you start the budget argument again you're just trolling now.

An i5 system is not more expensive than a 8350 system. 

[Faceman]

Are you sure that the graphs are correct? Because my Core 2 Duo E8500 @ 4GHz with a gtx 970 stock running off PCIe gen 1 has higher a average FPS than the FX 3820 (maximum isn't too much higher but above 60FPS most of the time). And yes I actually played the games at full settings (Skyrim with 28 texture/environment mods), there is only the occasional stutter caused by the CPU (not a game breaker).

I highly doubt that you're getting better FPS in all games with a Core 2 Duo, but in Skyrim, I don't think its too far fetched considering its a game that runs much better on stronger cores than weak cores.

 

A core 2 duo is not a good match for a 970, you should look into upgrading your CPU and motherboard in the near future.

[Sintezza]

yeah right just keep posting low res benchmarks.

I call that ignorant.

[Mush Brain]

Low res benchmarks show CPU performance in games where normally higher resolutions will become GPU bound. 

[Sintezza]

Low res benchmarks show CPU performance in games where normally higher resolutions will become GPU bound. 

 

indeed. So at higher res, you will become GPU bound in 8/10 games before the cpu even makes that much sense.

Honnestly would you spend 500+ on a GTX980 for just 1080p?

If you spend that amount for a gpu you would also wanne have decent image quality so 1440p and up.

and at that point the FX8350 cpu´s still does a decent job.

 

Sure that intel cpu´s are the better allrounders for gaming, that is something i wont deny.

The FX8 core cpu´s will simply bottleneck highend gpu´s on 1080p thats a fact.

Thats proven tons of times.

 

But claiming that a FX8 core is garbage for gaming, is just complete BS.

Because at 1440p the diffrence between amd and intel isnt that significant anymore in most games.

Because again we get gpu limited.

 

Like i said in my previous post, i would personaly recommend an 4690K for just gaming realy.

Because like i said the FX platform is realy starting to get old. And basicly not realy worth to invest anymore, if you on the line for a new system.

 

Allot of people dont read my posts right

[Mush Brain]

indeed. So at higher res, you will become GPU bound before the cpu even makes that much sense.

Honnestly would you spend 500+ on a GTX980 for just 1080p? seriously?

If you spend that amount for a gpu you would also wanne have decent image quality so 1440p and up.

A single 980 will not cut it for 1440p for very long,why i went SLi.

[Majestic]

yeah right just keep posting low res benchmarks.

I call that ignorant. 

 

And you keep ignoring my request for evidence and continue to spew the same garbage.

Even if 1440p somewhat narrows the gap, it does not make the 8350 a better CPU in comparisson. That's why low-res benchmarks still have their value.

 

Now show some evidence for your claims, or be quiet. You should get moderated for trolling ffs.