Is AMD fx a good cpu for gaming?

[Faceman]

im not a fanboy tho. all i said was 9590 is great for gaming (it is compared to lots of cpus) and that people trash amds when they are actually good cpus. then the real fanboys came out. then we went to war. they posted thier benchmarks, i posted one. they are correct in many things and i have admitted that, but they wont admit that amd 8 core is still a good cpu. the ops original question was would the 9590 bottleck gtx 970 in advanced warfare. the answer is no.

 

advanced warfare is locked at 90fps in multplayer and im maxed out on that with a 8350 and 280x which is lesser than 9590 and 970.

News flash! This just in:

You are a fanboy.

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

"they wont admit that amd 8 core is still a good cpu"

Have you read anything I've said? I've said at least three times in this thread that the 8350 is a good cpu, locked i5's are better.

Stop calling everybody a fanboy because you can't back your shit up. You keep saying things that are factually disproven, and still going with it. Are you insane?

dude, all these insults you're shouting are unnecessary and totally uncalled for, also..i see you in another thread defending amd 8 cores against intel and you're in here doing the exact opposite...troll much?

 

im always up for simple debate,as i like to learn more and more...but this is getting ridiculous.

[david cassar]

im not a fanboy tho. all i said was 9590 is great for gaming (it is compared to lots of cpus) and that people trash amds when they are actually good cpus. then the real fanboys came out. then we went to war. they posted thier benchmarks, i posted one. they are correct in many things and i have admitted that, but they wont admit that amd 8 core is still a good cpu. the ops original question was would the 9590 bottleck gtx 970 in advanced warfare. the answer is no.

 

advanced warfare is locked at 90fps in multplayer and im maxed out on that with a 8350 and 280x which is lesser than 9590 and 970.

Thats why I used / /. I know you are trying to say that amd isn't that bad for gaming..and i agree with you they're not that terrible, but when you compare amd to intel when it comes to gaming, you will get much better fps on an intel cpu than on an amd cpu 90% of the time

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

News flash! This just in:

You are a fanboy.

i am a fanboy of pc. i own both intel set up (htpc) and amd (gaming). they both have recieved my money.intel recieving alot more cauze i've used intel for as far back as i can remember. i am planning on going back to intel if amd new line up isnt good. but to say amd is crap is wrong

[Fate]

dude, all these insults you're shouting are unnecessary and totally uncalled for, also..i see you in another thread defending amd 8 cores against intel and you're in here doing the exact opposite...troll much?

 

im always up for simple debate,as i like to learn more and more...but this is getting ridiculous.

Yes because that other thread the guy is mainly doing video rendering/photo editing/CAD. 

You're not up for a simple debate, you're calling everybody fanboys and denying factual evidence. Stop complaining about me insulting you when you're insulting my intelligence. 

I've clearly stated many times on this forum that 8350 has its uses, and gaming is not one of them. Do you not understand that?

Also, me not being a fanboy makes me a troll (referring to me recommending the 8320 earlier)? 

 

If anybody is a fanboy here, it's you. 

[Dabombinable]

so you want people to test thier AMDS on INTEL burn test? well almost anyone who overclocks thier cpu runs either prime95 or intelburntest. i have passed on it with good overclocks many of times...not sure where you're going with that

I know it says 'Intel burn test', but all it does is calculate an equation, give the processing power, and state whether the CPU is stable or not.

[Faa]

to answer ops question..the 9590 is absolutely excellent for next gen gaming, it will handle the gtx 970 fine, and can handle 2 gtx 970s just fine.

You mean the 970's can't handle 4K? I assume you work for AMD, have you considered letting the CPU team know that;

http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-core-i7-3770k-4-8ghz-multi-gpu-gaming-performance/17494.html

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/11/03/amd_fx8150_multigpu_gameplay_performance_review/2#.VJnpzACyA

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7189/choosing-a-gaming-cpu-september-2013

all of their CPU's are equally garbage? Their CPU's perform ok when you have extremely low CPU tasks. One thread, usually which we call the main thread, once it overloads any other thread will be waiting for the mainthread to give its next order and at that point multithreaded performance means shit since the bottlenecking is on one core. Quit that bullshit about 8 cores, it's a fucking FX 4300 performing CPU with a higher clock speed and more cache for 100$ more. CPU's should be judged by its IPC and not some gimmicky sales like "OMAGAD WAT VERY REAL 8 CORES ALL GAMES USE IT" - AMD is not even on par with Conroe which is a decade old. Tell your boss to fire the PR & marketing team, bunch of 14 years old kids with idiotic PR who even decided to compete the 10 years old 8350 with a 3960x for 1000$ as well and all the way down the i3 now with the 8320 and you guys were supposed to be offering the best value.

When are we getting a 6GHz 8350 with another fx 4300 built in so we have 12 cores with a nice gaming evolved label on the box for around 2500$?

[Sauron]

About the same? It's atm 144$ without mail-in rebates. You don't really want to toast your motherboard, do you? This is the bare minimum you'll pay for a 8320;

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

 

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($134.98 @ OutletPC) 

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-D3P ATX AM3+/AM3 Motherboard  ($63.99 @ SuperBiiz) 

Total: $198.97

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-23 12:51 EST-0500

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

 

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($169.99 @ SuperBiiz) 

Motherboard: ECS B85H3-M(1.0) Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($31.48 @ Newegg) 

Total: $201.47

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-23 12:52 EST-0500

 

What? So the i5 is allowed to have a 32$ motherboard, but the 8320 must have a 65$ one? And by the way it was not the 4440 in your comparison, it was a 4670, which is 50$ more expensive. And DUH, single threaded performance isn't great. That's why it has EIGHT cores, have you considered that? Without the motherboard nonsense the difference is 35$ even with the 4440, which can be significant when you're on a budget. Plus, the 8320 can overclock (granted you get a half-decent motherboard, but that goes for any cpu) whereas the 4440 simply cannot (unless you get specific and expensive z97 motherboards and even then the oc is limited artificially), meaning you can get significantly more value out of it than you initially pay for. I never said it's an end-all be all solution, I'm just saying for the price it makes sense. It's in i3 price range, and i3s are not overclockable nor significantly better at stock, hence it makes sense for the price.

[Sauron]

@Sauron

You are forgetting cost of motherboard, cost of cooling, and cost of energy. Just including proper motherboard for the FX8, it costs the same as a locked i5.

Why do I include benchmarks of older tech? Because the i5-2500k that was released around the same time is still trouncing the FX when it comes to gaming. Say it with me: Architecture, IPC.

I post that because the difference between 8150 and 8300 is minimal. There was like a 10% improvement from one to the other. Also, the two i5s I show have the same architecture, just a different clock speed by 100 or 200Mhz. I'm on my kindle so can't check.

 

Last time I checked the difference between the 8150 and 8350 was closer to 30%, but I'm not sure.

 

Either way if you do NOT want to oc, then you're perfectly fine getting a cheap motherboard and using the stock cooler. If you DO want to oc, aside from the fact that most 8320s can oc to 8350 level and not heat up any more than one, at that point you're already taking into account something a locked i5 cannot do. Besides I would not get the cheapest motherboard available even on a tight budget if I could avoid it. A core i5 + 30$ motherboard doesn't make a lot of sense to my eyes. So given about 70$ for the motherboard in both scenarios, the only extra cost would be cooling in case of oc, and that fits right into the 30$ buffer zone between an i5 and an 8320. An overclocked 8320 can certainly trade blows with a locked i5,

[DildorTheDecent]

As most people have noticed, the Intel circle jerk is on fire today. If you have a problem with the TDP that a component is rated for, then PC gaming isn't for you. 

 

Yes, FX is fine for gaming. It may be a hungry monster, but a good cooler can sort that out. 

 

/thread

[Phillyphries]

As most people have noticed, the Intel circle jerk is on fire today. If you have a problem with the TDP that a component is rated for, then PC gaming isn't for you. 

 

Yes, FX is fine for gaming. It may be a hungry monster, but a good cooler can sort that out. 

 

/thread

 

Skipped to last page to find out if somebody gave a sensible answer ffs

[harrynowl]

Last time I checked the difference between the 8150 and 8350 was closer to 30%, but I'm not sure.

it's closer to 7% ipc wise, main gap is clock speed gain by switching to hard-edge flip flops which saved ~25% tdp (Which they invested into ramping up clocks)

[Faceman]

What? So the i5 is allowed to have a 32$ motherboard, but the 8320 must have a 65$ one? And by the way it was not the 4440 in your comparison, it was a 4670, which is 50$ more expensive. And DUH, single threaded performance isn't great. That's why it has EIGHT cores, have you considered that? Without the motherboard nonsense the difference is 35$ even with the 4440, which can be significant when you're on a budget. Plus, the 8320 can overclock (granted you get a half-decent motherboard, but that goes for any cpu) whereas the 4440 simply cannot (unless you get specific and expensive z97 motherboards and even then the oc is limited artificially), meaning you can get significantly more value out of it than you initially pay for. I never said it's an end-all be all solution, I'm just saying for the price it makes sense. It's in i3 price range, and i3s are not overclockable nor significantly better at stock, hence it makes sense for the price.

Sauron..

You HAVE to have at least a 4+2 VRM phase design motherboard for the FX8320, even at stock.  Otherwise your VRMs will overheat and throttle your performance.  8+2 is recommended for overclocking.  All you need for Intel is a $30 motherboard with a locked processor.  Thats all you need to extract the most performance out of it.  This is where there is no price difference between an FX8 and locked i5.  Not even taking into account power consumption which costs conservatively $10 more per year at stock, overclocking will bump that number closer to $15 per year. If you want cooling, thats another $30 minimum for a good CPU cooler. Overclocking the FX8s doesn't help much in these incredibly CPU bound games.  Say it with me: IPC, Architecture.  This is what matters.  Not cores, not clock speed, its the underlying architecture that determines how powerful a processor is for gaming. 4 out of 5 games will run fine on the FX, albeit they might bottleneck high end GPUs.  But that 5th game?  That 5th game is going to run like crap on even the highest overclocked FX8.  So, why pay more for only 4 out of 5 games, when you can pay less for 5 out of 5 games?  Its already been shown that a modern i3, from Haswell on performs on par with an FX8.

 

 

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."

 

Overclocking doesn't help the FX8 in that 5th game.  It just doesn't.  If you want to venture into overclocking with the FX8, you end up spending even more money.  Proper motherboard, cooling, power costs per year.  The bridge is gapped very quickly into the realm of unlocked i5 territory.

 

Comparing the i5-4400 to i5-4560. Its a difference of 300Mhz, which for a locked processor is noticeable, but not a death knell by any means.  Say it with me: Architecture, IPC.  Its the same architecture.  It will perform roughly the same, maybe not the same level as the i5-4570, but close enough and definitely better than even the highest of overclocked FX8s.  One out of five games is going to run poorly on the FX.  No amount of OC will fix this, and high end GPUs will be bottlenecked by the FX.  Throwing more cores onto the same architecture doesn't solve the problem when the first core(main thread) is the limiting factor because of its poor IPC.

 

Going from FX8150 to FX8320 is a less than 10% difference in IPC.  Let me find the link, hold one.  It is no where near 30%.

[Sauron]

-

 

All right, all right, I don't want to get in a fight over this. Let's agree to disagree, ok?

[Faceman]

All right, all right, I don't want to get in a fight over this. Let's agree to disagree, ok?

There is no disagreeing.  You are saying the earth is flat when its been proven to be round.

[Faa]

What? So the i5 is allowed to have a 32$ motherboard, but the 8320 must have a 65$ one? And by the way it was not the 4440 in your comparison, it was a 4670, which is 50$ more expensive. And DUH, single threaded performance isn't great. That's why it has EIGHT cores, have you considered that? Without the motherboard nonsense the difference is 35$ even with the 4440, which can be significant when you're on a budget. Plus, the 8320 can overclock (granted you get a half-decent motherboard, but that goes for any cpu) whereas the 4440 simply cannot (unless you get specific and expensive z97 motherboards and even then the oc is limited artificially), meaning you can get significantly more value out of it than you initially pay for. I never said it's an end-all be all solution, I'm just saying for the price it makes sense. It's in i3 price range, and i3s are not overclockable nor significantly better at stock, hence it makes sense for the price.

You're missing the point; we're taking the cheapest possible motherboard that will run the CPU flawlessly and in this case AMD's cheapest boards like the 20$ things don't even have the bios to support that CPU. Anything between 20-60$ aren't even designed to take the FX CPU's, how old are they exactly? 6 years? Those mosfets are far from ideal and they mostly don't even have a heatsink on it. A PSU has the potential to kill your system completely, VRM is another PSU that's doing DC to DC conversion which has the potential of blowing your CPU up as well. VRM uses fairly similar components PSU's use except that it has to take the 12V to 1.2V orsomething. It's just simple, the less power your CPU consumes the less harsh the VRM requirements are and that's why a H81 works perfectly with any lga1150 CPU at full load where as your 8320 turns out to be throttling under full load with a cheap thing. H81's are designed to take any lga1150 in a worst case scenario, where as the vast majority of AMD boards aren't even designed for it.

I'll give you an example; a 3930K around 4.9GHz easily pulls 350W from the CPU cable and with moderate amount of airflow you aren't getting the mosfets cooled down. Just to pass my stresstests at frequencies starting around 4.6GHz I had to ziptie a 3000 rpm fan to my switch 810 I had before to cool my RIVE's VRM down. Now a 5960x at 4.5GHz consumes as much as the 3930K does at 4.9GHz so imagine what a 5960x at 5GHz (lets say it needs 1.47V) on my board would be or imagine what would happen on the lower-end X79 boards. X99 got released, even Asrock uses the IR3550 60A rated mosfets which are currently the best and X99 boards are the first boards that have those mosfets, literally all X99 motherboards do. Reason is obvious to fully saturate a 5960x when heavily overclocked, none of them are purely designed only for a 5820K at 4.2GHz. This is the advantage of releasing a new platform.

You aren't getting far with a 50$ motherboard and the stock cooler or with an evo, 70-80$ boards do some moderate overclocks to around 4.2-4.4GHz where as 4670K's can hit 5GHz with an evo 212 on a 70$ board if the chip quality allows it.

Also there's not much of a point arguing between the i3/8320 if there's a 35$ difference and again a 35$ difference with the i5. Why would you pay 50$ more for a 4580 orsomething which just has a 500MHz higher clock speed? Thats why most people here mention the 8320 instead of the 8350.