fx 8350 bottleneck

[Faa]

Because a good friend of me, who has a FX8350 + 290X gets literly twice as much performance in skyrim, then i get with my FX8350 and 7870GHz lol.

Then you both were GPU limited.

 

if i upgrade my 7870GHz to a 290X for Skyrim, which is a cpu bound game, im not going to see any performance increase, because i use a FX8350?

If you're bottlenecking it, yes. Monitor it. If you're CPU limited you can't gain more performance from a better GPU or a GPU OC or SLI/CF unless you get a better CPU/CPU OC. If you get like 50% GPU usage out of a 7870 and you upgrade to a 390x your GPU usage will be like 20% while the frame rates are exactly the same. Because people say the game is CPU bound doesn't mean you're always CPU bound, quite useless to use that statement especially with all the tricks to make the game GPU bound through a bunch of graphical mods and higher resolutions.

In the beginning I had my GPU downclocked to 800MHz, GPU usage was at 50%. Then I overclocked the GPU to 1500MHz with an offset of 170MHz (my max default boost clock is 1330MHz), it only reached 1100MHz because the CPU bottleneck was so huge that it prevented the GPU from going to it's max turbo, at the point it reached 1100MHz the GPU usage went from 50% down to 30% while providing zero performance. That's what I'm saying if you upgrade a weaker card for a stronger card when you were bottlenecking that weaker card you won't gain a thing. Even if you don't bottleneck your current GPU, so lets say a 7870% at 99% usage, you upgrade to a 390x there will be no guarantee that you'll be hitting 99% usage. Could be that you just gained 10% only.

I could make a video, same place, changing the settings all the way to ultra and show you the difference between 1300MHz & 1500MHz which would be easily like 10-20% gain in FPS.

[TorqueS]

 

I've got to admit, I get sick of these AMD 8350 vs Intel I5 / I7 debates because they end up pointless. I am personally using an 8350 and 970 because for me, the price and performance was right. And it still is! I don't take sides or fanboy over one company as I will be upgrading to an intel I7 but for completely different reasons. In terms of gaming an 8350 or i5 is absolutely fine. I understand that Intel chips with their hyperthreading and much mrope efficient power consumption, heat output etc make them generally better for gaming but the FX chips arent as bad as some benchmarks seem to show. For example, I get constant 60FPS on MGSV with rare drops to 50-55ish but nothing like the benchmark shows with an average of 45 Same with BF4, i get 65 - 80fps average on ultra the benchamrk was showing around 50 - 55 i think? That isn't right. And then when people show how an intel chip with the same gpu runs at 100fps in a game and the amd at 80ish, does it really matter? The average person / gamer probably has a 60Hz monitor so those extra frames aren't a big deal as long as the game is a steady 60? because in my opinion if you have the money to buy a 144Hz monitor, then you probably have enough to get an I7 and not have to worry about bottlenecks. Stuff like this seems to be more fanboyism and peopel trying to prove their setup us better than it is about the gaming experience and how well the games perform.

 

So that's my 2 cents. Alot of the time the performance difference isn't enough for a price difference (And don't forget that price differences are different for different places aswell). As long as you get a steady, playable frame rate, who cares? Intel, AMD they're both good, both got disadvantages and advantages. Get whatever. For the OP, yes an 8350 will bottleneck a gpu in some games, some i notice im only using around 60% but still getting stable playable fps and in other games i take advantage of 100% of the gpu and get stable, playable frame rates. But don't forget some games like GTA IV and WATCH_DOGS which had terrible optimisation, they run badly for people with very high end rigs as well from what they've said.

 

 

Exactly..i really don't see the point of debating this over and over...in 1005616106 topics...

 

The bottom line should be:

 

1. Got an FX? Looking for a new mid-high end GPU? Buy it...and enjoy the performance, and if you're not satisfied..you can switch platforms later on. But whatever you'll get, it will definitely be an improvement.

 

2.Looking for a new gaming rig? Intel all the way.

Most users always say that AMD CPUs are cheaper than i5s and you're right, but you don't see the whole picture. An 83xx will require a good motherboard and an aftermarket cooler. If you're looking just for gaming performance, then an i5 4460+H81 motherboard will do better than the AMD stuff.

The cost of the platform for locked intel will be significantly lower than the cost of a stable AMD platform.

[Faa]

 

*

I'm trying to understand what you're trying to prove with your screenshots, you're not getting 99% usage in Furmark.. I mean, if that's the case you're having a huge bottleneck there. 

[Dabombinable]

 

 

I'm trying to understand what you're trying to prove with your screenshots, you're not getting 99% usage in Furmark.. I mean, if that's the case you're having a huge bottleneck there. 

 

I've got about a 49-51% bottleneck in cpu bound games, in ones that are actually done correctly and run most of the graphics through the GPU, the bottleneck drops to 0%, and either way that's still better than the 650ti that the 970 replaced.

[i_build_nanosuits]

I've got about a 49-51% bottleneck in cpu bound games, in ones that are actually done correctly and run most of the graphics through the GPU, the bottleneck drops to 0%, and either way that's still better than the 650ti that the 970 replaced.

so now you admit your core 2 cpu does vastly limit the performance of a gpu such as the GTX970 right?!

[Dabombinable]

so now you admit your core 2 cpu does vastly limit the performance of a gpu such as the GTX970 right?!

Yep, but I didn't actually notice the bottleneck at all in crysis.

Edit: an overclocked X5450 (think of a Core 2 Extreme QX9775 that is designed for dual socket servers, and is currently cheaper) will fix the bottleneck.

Edit 2: The X5450 also puts out less heat than the equivalent core 2 extreme

[i_build_nanosuits]

Yep, but I didn't actually notice the bottleneck at all in crysis.

i had to upgrade my Q6600 for the HD7950 almost 2 years ago already...just saying

[Dabombinable]

i had to upgrade my Q6600 for the HD7950 almost 2 years ago already...just saying

A Q6600 is far from the best of the Core 2 range.....

[Zubkover]

EVEN 9590 DOES BOTTLENECK? WHAT THE ACTUAL FORK ?!

[Majestic]

EVEN 9590 DOES BOTTLENECK? WHAT THE ACTUAL FORK ?!

It's only a 8350 on steroids.. what did you expect.

[cooperb21]

9590  is a bottleneck rofl intel fanboys at its finest. 

 

The i7 is better by 5-10 fps in most modern games. There are yes a few games where it does alot worse skyrim being one of them but thats not because its requires an intel cpu or amd cpu is weak its because skyrim is optimized for intel cpus the same way you some games run better on Nvidia and some AMD for gpu's. I dont say one gpu is better because one game was optimized for another.

 

Also fx 9590 is 260$ and 4790k is 380$ hope your happy paying 120$ more for 5-10 fps. So if you want and 8 core cpu and want do more than gaming you should get an amd its pretty simple alot better deal. 

 

Even in games like skyrim where it loses quite a bit to intel its not like intel is getting much benfit when your locking fps at 60 with vsync. 

[cooperb21]

I could even get fx-9590 liquid cooling bundle and its still cheaper than intel with it coming with good quality cooler out of box.

[Dabombinable]

9590  is a bottleneck rofl intel fanboys at its finest. 

 

The i7 is better by 5-10 fps in most modern games. There are yes a few games where it does alot worse skyrim being one of them but thats not because its requires an intel cpu or amd cpu is weak its because skyrim is optimized for intel cpus the same way you some games run better on Nvidia and some AMD for gpu's. I dont say one gpu is better because one game was optimized for another.

 

Also fx 9590 is 260$ and 4790k is 380$ hope your happy paying 120$ more for 5-10 fps. So if you want and 8 core cpu and want do more than gaming you should get an amd its pretty simple alot better deal. 

 

Even in games like skyrim where it loses quite a bit to intel its not like intel is getting much benfit when your locking fps at 60 with vsync. 

It being a bottleneck is kind of easy to see, since my core 2 duo at 4GHz is faster per thread than any AMD cpu at the same speed, and yet it bottlenecks my 970 by as much as 51% (overclocked to about 1.5GHz to really load the CPU). So all an AMD FX 8350 or a 9590 really has going for it is the core count, and the way things are currently that is just not enough to keep up with Intel. Especially if Intel manages to get the iGPU in their cpus beating what's in AMDs APUs - then AMD will be completely outclassed. Its sad I know, but I think AMD stretched themselves too thin when they bought ATI as they aren't keeping up that well (or at all depending on your point of view) with their competitors.

[Dabombinable]

I could even get fx-9590 liquid cooling bundle and its still cheaper than intel with it coming with good quality cooler out of box.

Cooler master Seidon 120V, Intel Xeon X5450 (4 years older than an FX 8350) costs $100, and it can run off a cheap 3+1 phase LGA 775 mobo, and even overclock to about 4.7-4.8GHz and outperform any FX cpu except in tasks that require more than 4 threads. That cooler will also get an FX 8350 to about the same clock speeds, but it will need to utilize more than 4 threads all the time if it wants to beat the Xeon.

[Suika]

lolwhut

So you are litterly saying

if i upgrade my 7870GHz to a 290X for Skyrim, which is a cpu bound game, im not going to see any performance increase, because i use a FX8350?

You are joking right?

Because a good friend of me, who has a FX8350 + 290X gets literly twice as much performance in skyrim, then i get with my FX8350 and 7870GHz lol.

I don't think you understand.

Skyrim is not a completely CPU bound game, there are plenty of areas where it's almost entirely GPU dependent. In a wide area with little to no AI, it will have restrictions imposed by the limited strength of the CPU, but the GPU may still be able to get pretty close to max utilization. This was the case with my GTX 780. When I did find CPU bound scenarios, yes, there was a bottleneck.

What Faceman is implying is that if the CPU is at 100%, or the limited threads used are maxed out, then no amount of graphical horsepower, especially from AMD, will change the frame rate for the better. That is a bottleneck. No other component can reach its fullest potential because the CPU can't work harder. Skyrim is not 100% CPU bound, yes you will see bottlenecks but in most areas the 8350 doesn't actually reach max utilization without mods pushing it even further.

I must ask, do you understand what a bottleneck is? Because honestly I feel like your next argument might be how upgrading to 32GB of RAM will eliminate the 8350's bottleneck, or something completely irrelevant like that.

[cooperb21]

It being a bottleneck is kind of easy to see, since my core 2 duo at 4GHz is faster per thread than any AMD cpu at the same speed, and yet it bottlenecks my 970 by as much as 51% (overclocked to about 1.5GHz to really load the CPU). So all an AMD FX 8350 or a 9590 really has going for it is the core count, and the way things are currently that is just not enough to keep up with Intel. Especially if Intel manages to get the iGPU in their cpus beating what's in AMDs APUs - then AMD will be completely outclassed. Its sad I know, but I think AMD stretched themselves too thin when they bought ATI as they aren't keeping up that well (or at all depending on your point of view) with their competitors.

AMD is doing fine dude lol. They already have the better price points in gpu's and cpu's. Thats part of the reason there parts sell more than Intel on most pc builder sites. I agree they should come out with something new and be more competitive in the higher end stuff. I read there not coming out with anything till 2016. 

 

fx 6300 and 8320 are still best selling cpus atm. 

[Fate]

9590  is a bottleneck rofl intel fanboys at its finest. 

 

The i7 is better by 5-10 fps in most modern games. There are yes a few games where it does alot worse skyrim being one of them but thats not because its requires an intel cpu or amd cpu is weak its because skyrim is optimized for intel cpus the same way you some games run better on Nvidia and some AMD for gpu's. I dont say one gpu is better because one game was optimized for another.

 

Also fx 9590 is 260$ and 4790k is 380$ hope your happy paying 120$ more for 5-10 fps. So if you want and 8 core cpu and want do more than gaming you should get an amd its pretty simple alot better deal. 

 

Even in games like skyrim where it loses quite a bit to intel its not like intel is getting much benfit when your locking fps at 60 with vsync. 

For one, an i5 beats 9590 in 99% of games, so comparing it to the i7 only is biased. 

Secondly, you don't need a $100+ motherboard for an i5/i7 like you do with the 9590, so you have to take that into consideration. 

 

 

edit: Forgot about the ridiculous cooler you need for a 9590. You also have to take that into consideration...

[Faceman]

9590  is a bottleneck rofl intel fanboys at its finest. 

 

The i7 is better by 5-10 fps in most modern games. There are yes a few games where it does alot worse skyrim being one of them but thats not because its requires an intel cpu or amd cpu is weak its because skyrim is optimized for intel cpus the same way you some games run better on Nvidia and some AMD for gpu's. I dont say one gpu is better because one game was optimized for another.

 

Also fx 9590 is 260$ and 4790k is 380$ hope your happy paying 120$ more for 5-10 fps. So if you want and 8 core cpu and want do more than gaming you should get an amd its pretty simple alot better deal. 

 

Even in games like skyrim where it loses quite a bit to intel its not like intel is getting much benfit when your locking fps at 60 with vsync. 

Ya, the FX9 is a bottleneck.

---

---

---

---

---

---

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

---

---

---

---

You have to OC an FX8 to 5Ghz just to match an i5-4440 at stock in BF4 multiplayer with an R9 290X.

---

---

 

You cannot compare just the price of the processor.  For an FX9 to really work, you need a mega high end motherboard, which costs $120+.  Add in advanced cooling, at least $50+ and that is a minimum.  You don't need an i7 for games.  All you need is an i5.  Any i5 will trounce the highest overclocked FX8/9 whatever, it doesn't matter.  An Intel i5 + H81 motherboard for just over $200 is all you need to destroy FX processors in all things gaming.  Period.

 

Game developers don't make games thinking "oh, lets tailor it to Intel."  No, thats not how it is done.  They make a game on an engine, that engine just so happens to prefer stronger cores over weak ones.  Also, Intel and Nvidia sells way more CPUs and GPUs than AMD.  Their market share is much larger.  AMD GPUs are fantastic for their price!  But their CPUs are not.

 

We are not talking about FPS highs.  We are talking about minimums.  The minimum fps is the most important fps because it is the most noticeable and provides the most fluid game play. When you're on an FX processor, and your minimum fps drops dramatically, which it does in many games, that is when your in-game experience suffers.

 

AMD is not the better deal.  You are paying the same, sometimes more for worse performance at every price point except ultra budget, sub $100 builds where the FM2+ 860k is quite good given its price.

[cooperb21]

Ya, the FX9 is a bottleneck.

---

---

---

---

---

---

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

---

---

---

---

You have to OC an FX8 to 5Ghz just to match an i5-4440 at stock in BF4 multiplayer with an R9 290X.

---

---

 

You cannot compare just the price of the processor.  For an FX9 to really work, you need a mega high end motherboard, which costs $120+.  Add in advanced cooling, at least $50+ and that is a minimum.  You don't need an i7 for games.  All you need is an i5.  Any i5 will trounce the highest overclocked FX8/9 whatever, it doesn't matter.  An Intel i5 + H81 motherboard for just over $200 is all you need to destroy FX processors in all things gaming.  Period.

 

Game developers don't make games thinking "oh, lets tailor it to Intel."  No, thats not how it is done.  They make a game on an engine, that engine just so happens to prefer stronger cores over weak ones.  Also, Intel and Nvidia sells way more CPUs and GPUs than AMD.  Their market share is much larger.  AMD GPUs are fantastic for their price!  But their CPUs are not.

 

AMD is not the better deal.  You are paying the same, sometimes more for worse performance at every price point except ultra budget, sub $100 builds where the FM2+ 860k is quite good given its price.

i5 does worse in none gaming. I still think 8350 and 8370 are better deal than i5 there are alot cheaper i5 260$. 

[Faceman]

i5 does worse in none gaming. 

You're just trolling now.

[cooperb21]

You're just trolling now.

Im trying to help people they dont need spend 250 plus dollars on intel cpu. Amd is much better deal. 

[Faceman]

i5 does worse in none gaming. I still think 8350 and 8370 are better deal than i5 there are alot cheaper i5 260$. 

You don't get it.  What you think is WRONG.  It is proven wrong, and we are trying to help others not make the same mistake that is repeatedly being made.  Stop telling people that the FX8 is fine.  Its not.  An i3 is doing better than an FX8 in the majority of games.  A locked i5 which costs the same destroys it.

 

 

Here is your FX beater:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/Xn4RK8

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/Xn4RK8/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i3-4130 3.4GHz Dual-Core Processor  ($106.97 @ OutletPC)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B85M-DS3H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($55.98 @ Newegg) <-- Can even go with a $30 motherboard and it works just fine!

Total: $162.95

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-01-04 15:46 EST-0500

 

FX Demolisher:

 

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  ($168.99 @ NCIX US)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B85M-DS3H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($55.98 @ Newegg) <-- Can go with a $30 motherboard and it still works! Imagine that!

Total: $224.97

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-01-04 15:47 EST-0500

 

Here is how much your FX costs just to run at stock, while still getting beaten out by i3s and i5s, while bottlenecking high end GPUs, and costing $10+ per year in energy.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/6JNdt6

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/6JNdt6/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($145.95 @ Amazon)

Motherboard: ASRock 970 Performance ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($83.99 @ Newegg)

Total: $229.94

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-01-04 15:50 EST-0500

 

You are paying the same/more for worse performance.  Don't forget you generally need an aftermarket CPU cooler for AMD as well.  Especially if you want to overclock.

[Faceman]

Im trying to help people they dont need spend 250 plus dollars on intel cpu. Amd is much better deal. 

Read everything below that I am about to post.  You are lying to people when you say that.  It is not.  Read every link, every source, every word, every video before you say another ignorant word.

 

People think they are getting a good deal when they buy an FX for gaming, 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, and in some instances, become unplayable unless you are fine with 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 because minimum framerates, which are the most important, drop much more significantly with FX processors.  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.

 

For the majority of games, the FX will be fine.  But why would you want to spend more or the same amount of money on an old, and inferior product, when you can get a new and superior product for the same amount of money.  Why play 4 out of 5 games well, when you can play 5 out of 5 games well, with no bottlenecking, lower energy costs, and future upgrade paths.  That is what Intel provides.  You will see below that even the less expensive Intel i3 is outperforming the FX8s in many games, and the locked i5 is running away with it.

 

I always advocate the right tool for the job, and for some jobs, the FX processor is the best tool for the job, but you need to be aware of what your priorities are when building your machine.  If your priority is gaming, then Intel is the clear winning regardless of price point. I don't hate AMD, and I have experience with both processors, and have owned both Intel and AMD. My goal here is to help others by avoiding costly mistakes that so many before them have made.  I see so many users on this forum complaining about their gaming experience with FX processors that it is time to put a stop to it, and the best way to do that is nip it in the bud and recommend the correct tool for the job. The most common problems are unsatisfactory results in certain games, VRM throttling, and GPU bottlenecking.  In my links below I will show you many different, yet conclusive results compiled from respected hardware reviewers.  I hope to paint a picture as to why the FX processor is the inferior option and why it is a bad choice for a gaming machine.

 

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

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

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

You have to OC an FX8 to 5Ghz just to match an i5-4440 at stock in BF4 multiplayer with an R9 290X.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

This one above is Witcher 2

---

---

---

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.  If you can find benchmarks from multiple sources that show something else, please share because in all of my research, I have not found any.  Why buy a processor that can only play 4 out of 5 games, when you can pay the same and play 5 out of 5 games?  In the 18 gaming graphs above that show both the FX8 processor and the 4th Gen Intel i3, the i3 is performing better than the FX8 in 16 of the games!  In not a single game does the i5 perform worse than the FX8.  A locked i5 + H81/B85 motherboard can be purchased for less than the cost of an FX8 + 8+2 VRM Phase Motherboard.  I will show that below in another spoiler.

 

 

Look through all of these sources... the i3 is handing it to the FX8s and FX9s in so many games!

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

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fgamegpu.ru%2Ftest-video-cards%2Figry-2014-goda-protiv-protsessorov-test-gpu.html

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpclab.pl%2Fart57842.html

 

 

"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.

 

There are very few games that are very well multithreaded, and even in those games, such as CoD:AW, an i3 is still beating out an FX9.  The reason behind this is because games typically have one main thread, Core #0.  When this main thread is being choked by poor single core performance, the rest of the threads struggle.  So even in these really well multithreaded PC port games, we are still seeing Intel processors beating out FXs because their poor IPC simply can't give as good as results on that main thread.

 

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.  That's a big red flag.

-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.  This niche area is where the FX processors really shine because those programs benefit from many cores able to execute highly repetitive tasks.  Please note that not all content creation programs benefit from 8 cores, some programs do still prefer the strong cores of Intel, so please check and see if the program you specifically plan to use benefits from more cores, or stronger ones.

 

This is PCMark 7, it is a FutureMark benchmark that "is a complete PC benchmark that measures overall system performance during typical desktop usage across a range of activities such as handling images and video, web browsing and gaming. This is the most important test since it returns the official PCMark score for the system."

-PCMark 7

This shows that while the performance in daily workloads is similar, Intel is still ahead.  Also consider that these are older generation Intel processors that have since been improved upon, only further increasing the result in Intel's favor for daily tasks.  Think multi-tasking is better on the FX8 because of all those cores?  Nope.

 

Some more productivity benchmarks for your enjoyment:

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

 

The FX processors do have some strengths, just make sure that you are using a program that maximizes those strengths because as shown above, even in some multithreaded programs, the i5-4690k still comes out ahead.  In my opinion the gaming benefits of a locked i5, far outweigh the productivity(certain programs) benefits of the FX8.  You will have to personally weigh the pros and cons of what your priorities of your computer will be, and make your decision based on that, but if I'm building a gaming computer with a side of content creation, I will take the better gaming results over a 20 second(arbitrary number) shorter render time.

 

Sources:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8427/amd-fx-8370e-cpu-review-vishera-95w/2

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130_6.html#sect0

http://pclab.pl/art57691-12.html

 

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.  This is hitting the CPU to the max 100%, and you can see when both an i5 and FX8 are hit to the max, there is a 100W+ difference.

 

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.  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, and that is a conservative, no-overclock estimate.  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 and that energy cost per year really starts to add up.

 

 

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

 

Temperatures:

I hear the argument that AMD runs cooler than Intel, and this is a really silly misconception.  I can understand why someone would think that it does, but the temperatures from AMD processors are inaccurate.  They don't measure the cores, they measure the socket, cores tend to be hotter than the socket by a fair amount, and its an algorithm, not a direct measurement like with Intel. It is against the laws of physics for an FX processor to be less hot than an Intel one.  The FX draws much more power.  At stock, the FX8 draws 125W compared to 84/88W of an i5. The FX processor heats up the room much more as well.  I know in my friends' house who owns the FX, his room is sweltering after just an hour of gaming.

 

"Concerning your question regarding the temperatures with your processor. The maximum temperature threshold is 62 Celsius which set for the internal die (core) temperature of the chip. The core temperatures have an equational offset to determine temperature which equalizes at about 45 Celsius thus giving you more accurate readings at peak temperatures. The hindrance in this is the sub ambient idle temperature readings you speak of.

 

 The silicon and adhesives used in manufacturing these processors has a peak temperature rating of 97+ Celsius before any form of degradation will take place. The processor also has a thermal shut off safe guard in place that shuts the processor down at 90 Celsius.

The Cpu temperature is read form a sensor embedded within the socket of your motherboard causing about a 7-10 Celsius variance form the actual Cpu temperature, which may be what you are reading about on the net.

 I hope I was able to answer your questions, If you have any more inquiries don't hesitate to contact us.

 You can use an application called AMD overdrive, that will allow you to monitor your temperatures accurately.

 As long as your core temperature has not exceeded the high side of the 60 degree mark for extended periods of time you should be ok. 62 degrees holds a generous safety net to begin with.

 Thank You

 Alex Cromwell

 Senior Technology Director

 Advanced Micro Devices

 Fort Collins, Colorado

 2950 East Harmony Road

 Suite 300

 Fort Collins, CO"

 

-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.

 

 

You can forget about small form factors because there are no AM3+ motherboards available with sufficient VRM phase design that are smaller than ATX.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/6JNdt6

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/6JNdt6/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($145.95 @ Amazon)

Motherboard: ASRock 970 Performance ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($83.99 @ Newegg)

Total: $229.94

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-01-04 15:50 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/rzHNP6

Price breakdown by merchant: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/rzHNP6/by_merchant/

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

Motherboard: ASRock H81M-DGS Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (€42.49 @ Home of Hardware DE)

Total: €203.31

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:51 CET+0100

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

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

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

Total: €204.68

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:49 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/MDtBGX

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

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

Motherboard: MSI 970 GAMING ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($129.00 @ CPL Online) <-- Any less expensive motherboards only have 4+1 VRM phase design, which is not adequate.

Total: $311.00

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 11:52 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  ($72.44 @ PB Technologies)

Total: $344.44

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 13:53 NZDT+1300

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/p/MytJxr

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

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($207.00 @ 1stWave Technologies)

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

Total: $356.95

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 13:52 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/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($157.90 @ DirectCanada)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($106.00 @ Vuugo)

Total: $263.90

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-26 19:53 EST-0500

 

United Kingdom:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL

Price breakdown by merchant: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL/by_merchant/

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

Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (£32.17 @ Scan.co.uk)

Total: £163.37

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 00:54 GMT+0000

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  (£103.00 @ Amazon UK)

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

Total: £166.54

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 00:54 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/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://it.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

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

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (€87.62 @ Amazon Italia)

Total: €219.29

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:55 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  (€163.00 @ Amazon Espana)

Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (€42.20 @ Amazon Espana)

Total: €205.20

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:56 CET+0100

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://es.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://es.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  (€130.83 @ Amazon Espana)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (€87.83 @ Amazon Espana)

Total: €218.66

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:55 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.

 

If you don't like numbers and want pure user experience without benchmarks and stats, check out Suika's 30 Day Journal of his experience going from an FX8350 + GTX 780 to an i7-4790k + GTX780. Like many others on this forum, he noticed that he was being held back in many games with his FX8, and his expensive GPU wasn't being fully utilized.  Here is a pure experience based review from a forum member on his experience going from FX to Intel. 

 

Suika is one of many users here on LTT who were previously using FX processors with high end GPUs thinking it was a good match, only to realize in the end that it was not a good balance.

 

Here is another member, UnbendingNose who was told on this very forum to buy an FX8 because it won't hold back an R9 290, and an ASRock Extreme 3 wont throttle his CPU.  Both of which are false.  Here are his two posts, the one where he is asking for advice on what to buy, and the 2nd where he is unhappy with his FX8320s performance because of bottlenecking and throttling.  He finally ended up buying an i5, which is what he should have done in the first place, and miraculously, to the surprise of no one, his performance in every single game improved, most notably minimum fps.

 

 

I am aware that an i7 is much more expensive than an FX8, but the performance in games between an i5 and i7 is nearly identical, especially when at the same clock speed.

 

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 in games.

[cooperb21]

You don't get it.  What you think is WRONG.  It is proven wrong, and we are trying to help others not make the same mistake that is repeatedly being made.  Stop telling people that the FX8 is fine.  Its not.  An i3 is doing better than an FX8 in the majority of games.  A locked i5 which costs the same destroys it.

 

 

Here is your FX beater:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/Xn4RK8

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/Xn4RK8/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i3-4130 3.4GHz Dual-Core Processor  ($106.97 @ OutletPC)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B85M-DS3H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($55.98 @ Newegg) <-- Can even go with a $30 motherboard and it works just fine!

Total: $162.95

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-01-04 15:46 EST-0500

 

FX Demolisher:

 

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  ($168.99 @ NCIX US)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B85M-DS3H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($55.98 @ Newegg) <-- Can go with a $30 motherboard and it still works! Imagine that!

Total: $224.97

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-01-04 15:47 EST-0500

 

Here is how much your FX costs just to run at stock, while still getting beaten out by i3s and i5s, while bottlenecking high end GPUs, and costing $10+ per year in energy.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/6JNdt6

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/6JNdt6/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($145.95 @ Amazon)

Motherboard: ASRock 970 Performance ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($83.99 @ Newegg)

Total: $229.94

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-01-04 15:50 EST-0500

 

You are paying the same/more for worse performance.  Don't forget you generally need an aftermarket CPU cooler for AMD as well.  Especially if you want to overclock.

Switched my currency and it went up 50$. I3 is cheaper slightly though but i would never buy a under 100$ mother board lacks to many features. 

 

For one i cant connect my fans to the motherboard and if connect them to psu they will run full speed 24/7. 

[Faceman]

Switched my currency and it went up 50$. I3 is cheaper slightly though but i would never buy a under 100$ mother board lacks to many features. 

 

For one i cant connect my fans to the motherboard and if connect them to psu they will run full speed 24/7. 

What currency?  Because I just showed you in the bellow post that in every region on PcP, the i5 is less expensive.

 

Thats funny about the motherboard considering AM3+ is so old that it doesn't have many of the modern features that LGA1150 motherboards have.  Fan headers is a simple fix with a splitter, and can be controlled with software or in the BIOS.

 

Did you even read that post I told you to read?  I'm guessing not because ignorance is still spilling out of your mouth.