Highest graphics for FX

[sgloux3470]

I would recommend a 280X or a 290.

[i_build_nanosuits]

You're probably a retard having the mighty 780 withe the useless piece of junk called fx-8350 that cpu is total crap ;  i was misguided by the internet and Amd fanboys like yourself and i bought one before and it was so bad my framerates were dropping like crazy and i solved that by buying an intel 4670k i'm not saying that Amd are crap because they make great Gpu's i had several ones in the past and i have one now but when it comes to Gaming cpu's they just always lose to Intel hahaha Bang for the buck my ass

not even worthy of a reply.

kids like you should have better stuff to do other then hanging around in tech forums where you obviously know's squadoosh and only are here to troll.

[Faceman]

You're probably a retard having the mighty 780 withe the useless piece of junk called fx-8350 that cpu is total crap ;  i was misguided by the internet and Amd fanboys like yourself and i bought one before and it was so bad my framerates were dropping like crazy and i solved that by buying an intel 4670k i'm not saying that Amd are crap because they make great Gpu's i had several ones in the past and i have one now but when it comes to Gaming cpu's they just always lose to Intel hahaha Bang for the buck my ass

In Nanosuit's defense, he was a R-tard for quite some time, until he monitored his GPU loads and realized "Oh wait... the CPU I was raving about saying it is the best, most future proof, no-bottleneck CPU ever made because CPU usage isn't at 85% is actually bottlenecking my GTX780 in most games."  It took him a lot of time to come to this realization, but he finally came to it rather than deny deny deny like a lot of these other AMD trolls.  Nanosuits was one for awhile, but he has excellent insight because he has used both the FX8 @ 4.6Ghz and an i7.  He even downclocked the i7 to run some tests and came away with the comparison that an FX8 @ 4.6Ghz basically equals an i5 @ 3.2Ghz, except the i5 had much better minimum framerates.  Since his days of trolling, he has since worked to redeem himself by offering up good advice on a number of issues regarding the FX and Intel processors.

 

The misguided AMD fanboys are a plenty, and they just cannot face facts.  Luckily we are showing them the light one by one, and the few that can actually use logic and reasoning are coming to the conclusion that we all know: an FX processor is not good for gaming.  We, including nanosuits are combating the AMD fanboys who still run around saying it is just fine for gaming.  You cannot lump him in with that group.  For a time, he was, but he has since seen the error of his ways.  The trials and tribulations of those using the FX processors are a plenty, and well documented.  It is absolutely, positively not bang for buck.  You're basically getting FX4 performance +10-15%.

 

Nano, you're off probation =p

[SoftenButterCream]

In Nanosuit's defense, he was a R-tard for quite some time, until he monitored his GPU loads and realized "Oh wait... the CPU I was raving about saying it is the best, most future proof, no-bottleneck CPU ever made because CPU usage isn't at 85% is actually bottlenecking my GTX780 in most games." It took him a lot of time to come to this realization, but he finally came to it rather than deny deny deny like a lot of these other AMD trolls. Nanosuits was one for awhile, but he has excellent insight because he has used both the FX8 @ 4.6Ghz and an i7. He even downclocked the i7 to run some tests and came away with the comparison that an FX8 @ 4.6Ghz basically equals an i5 @ 3.2Ghz, except the i5 had much better minimum framerates. Since his days of trolling, he has since worked to redeem himself by offering up good advice on a number of issues regarding the FX and Intel processors.

The misguided AMD fanboys are a plenty, and they just cannot face facts. Luckily we are showing them the light one by one, and the few that can actually use logic and reasoning are coming to the conclusion that we all know: an FX processor is not good for gaming. We, including nanosuits are combating the AMD fanboys who still run around saying it is just fine for gaming. You cannot lump him in with that group. For a time, he was, but he has since seen the error of his ways. The trials and tribulations of those using the FX processors are a plenty, and well documented. It is absolutely, positively not bang for buck. You're basically getting FX4 performance +10-15%.

Nano, you're off probation =p

Lmao this sounds like a intro to a fps. But i was blinded as well, until i owned both.

[sgloux3470]

In Nanosuit's defense, he was a R-tard for quite some time, until he monitored his GPU loads and realized "Oh wait... the CPU I was raving about saying it is the best, most future proof, no-bottleneck CPU ever made because CPU usage isn't at 85% is actually bottlenecking my GTX780 in most games."  It took him a lot of time to come to this realization, but he finally came to it rather than deny deny deny like a lot of these other AMD trolls.  Nanosuits was one for awhile, but he has excellent insight because he has used both the FX8 @ 4.6Ghz and an i7.  He even downclocked the i7 to run some tests and came away with the comparison that an FX8 @ 4.6Ghz basically equals an i5 @ 3.2Ghz, except the i5 had much better minimum framerates.  Since his days of trolling, he has since worked to redeem himself by offering up good advice on a number of issues regarding the FX and Intel processors.

 

The misguided AMD fanboys are a plenty, and they just cannot face facts.  Luckily we are showing them the light one by one, and the few that can actually use logic and reasoning are coming to the conclusion that we all know: an FX processor is not good for gaming.  We, including nanosuits are combating the AMD fanboys who still run around saying it is just fine for gaming.  You cannot lump him in with that group.  For a time, he was, but he has since seen the error of his ways.  The trials and tribulations of those using the FX processors are a plenty, and well documented.  It is absolutely, positively not bang for buck.  You're basically getting FX4 performance +10-15%.

 

Nano, you're off probation =p

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

Cost of processor is not the only thing to consider. For FX, you need a high end motherboard with at least 6+2 VRM phases. Not the case with Intel. An FX8320 + sufficient AM3+ Motherboard costs the same as an i5-4440 and H81/B85 Motherboard. Don't forget the $10+ in energy cost per year at stock, and you will likely need cooling as well.

 

as much as i dislike facepalm , he is right about this

 

if you get a 8320/50 you have to get a good 990fx motherboard (if you dont you will be dissapoint) preferably a sabertooth or a 5ghz plus motherboard  which is around 180 bucks, a 4.8ghz capable gygabyte 990fxa-ud3 is around 125. then you have to get a top notch cooler as these chips are hot like lava, a hyper 212 evo is only good up to 4.5 but thats pushing it temp wise so you need better cooling for longer life like a noctua nh-d14 or h100i which are 100 bucks. so 130+125+100= $355 for the cheapest for that money you can buy a 4690k with a crappy z97 and still have money left over and that will beat a fx 8350 at 5.2 ghz with all the expensive stuff to get it that high

 

8350 will do a good job on things but you can buy a locked i5 and a cheap $40 motherboard and be just fine with newer /better features such as higher ram speed compatibility.

 

it doesnt make sense to buy 2012 amd when you can get 2014 intel for less.

 

and it hurts me to say that but its true.....but a 8350 is still good for gaming

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

my cpu never bottlenecked my 280x, and now that i have 2x 280x crossfired i admit in some games it bottlenecks and some games it doesnt but either way im still getting crazy good fps

bf4 now 100-150fps avg 135fps maxed settings depending on map (64 players)

black ops 2 150-200 avg 170fps maxed settings

 

135fps all maxed setting in bf4 is heavy on any cpu.

 

8350 especially when overclocked can handle any single gpu in most games, will handle 290x just fine. but in some games you would get better performance with intel.

[i_build_nanosuits]

In Nanosuit's defense, he was a R-tard for quite some time, until he monitored his GPU loads and realized "Oh wait... the CPU I was raving about saying it is the best, most future proof, no-bottleneck CPU ever made because CPU usage isn't at 85% is actually bottlenecking my GTX780 in most games."  It took him a lot of time to come to this realization, but he finally came to it rather than deny deny deny like a lot of these other AMD trolls.  Nanosuits was one for awhile, but he has excellent insight because he has used both the FX8 @ 4.6Ghz and an i7.  He even downclocked the i7 to run some tests and came away with the comparison that an FX8 @ 4.6Ghz basically equals an i5 @ 3.2Ghz, except the i5 had much better minimum framerates.  Since his days of trolling, he has since worked to redeem himself by offering up good advice on a number of issues regarding the FX and Intel processors.

 

The misguided AMD fanboys are a plenty, and they just cannot face facts.  Luckily we are showing them the light one by one, and the few that can actually use logic and reasoning are coming to the conclusion that we all know: an FX processor is not good for gaming.  We, including nanosuits are combating the AMD fanboys who still run around saying it is just fine for gaming.  You cannot lump him in with that group.  For a time, he was, but he has since seen the error of his ways.  The trials and tribulations of those using the FX processors are a plenty, and well documented.  It is absolutely, positively not bang for buck.  You're basically getting FX4 performance +10-15%.

 

Nano, you're off probation =p

yeah! can't be any happier

[Nuc lover]

In Nanosuit's defense, he was a R-tard for quite some time, until he monitored his GPU loads and realized "Oh wait... the CPU I was raving about saying it is the best, most future proof, no-bottleneck CPU ever made because CPU usage isn't at 85% is actually bottlenecking my GTX780 in most games."  It took him a lot of time to come to this realization, but he finally came to it rather than deny deny deny like a lot of these other AMD trolls.  Nanosuits was one for awhile, but he has excellent insight because he has used both the FX8 @ 4.6Ghz and an i7.  He even downclocked the i7 to run some tests and came away with the comparison that an FX8 @ 4.6Ghz basically equals an i5 @ 3.2Ghz, except the i5 had much better minimum framerates.  Since his days of trolling, he has since worked to redeem himself by offering up good advice on a number of issues regarding the FX and Intel processors.

 

The misguided AMD fanboys are a plenty, and they just cannot face facts.  Luckily we are showing them the light one by one, and the few that can actually use logic and reasoning are coming to the conclusion that we all know: an FX processor is not good for gaming.  We, including nanosuits are combating the AMD fanboys who still run around saying it is just fine for gaming.  You cannot lump him in with that group.  For a time, he was, but he has since seen the error of his ways.  The trials and tribulations of those using the FX processors are a plenty, and well documented.  It is absolutely, positively not bang for buck.  You're basically getting FX4 performance +10-15%.

 

Nano, you're off probation =p

Thank you man what i wanted to say is instead of Getting bang for the buck performance i got banged for my bucks hahahaha but we don't deny thet Amd makes nice Gpu's that's a fact

[Nuc lover]

not even worthy of a reply.

kids like you should have better stuff to do other then hanging around in tech forums where you obviously know's squadoosh and only are here to troll.

If you were happy with your Fx cpu why did you buy a 4770k?

[i_build_nanosuits]

If you were happy with your Fx cpu why did you buy a 4770k?

did i said i was?

[Nuc lover]

did i said i was?

you were viciously deffending it so i understood that you liked it a lot am i wrong?

[sgloux3470]

as much as i dislike facepalm , he is right about this

 

if you get a 8320/50 you have to get a good 990fx motherboard (if you dont you will be dissapoint) preferably a sabertooth or a 5ghz plus motherboard  which is around 180 bucks, a 4.8ghz capable gygabyte 990fxa-ud3 is around 125. then you have to get a top notch cooler as these chips are hot like lava, a hyper 212 evo is only good up to 4.5 but thats pushing it temp wise so you need better cooling for longer life like a noctua nh-d14 or h100i which are 100 bucks. so 130+125+100= $355 for the cheapest for that money you can buy a 4690k with a crappy z97 and still have money left over and that will beat a fx 8350 at 5.2 ghz with all the expensive stuff to get it that high

 

 

You can run a stock 8320, 8350 or 8370 on some fairly low end boards, you just won't be able to overclock them.  

 

I ran an 8350 on an 890FX AM2+/Am3 board that got support via bios update for AM3+ that I purchased for a phenom II back in 2011. for over a year, with a mild OC even.

 

And when you look at the FX6300 you could spend even less.  It still offers great bang for buck, 

 

Overclocking FX requires higher end coolers and motherboards.  Stock FX can do without.  

 

 

  I wouldn't recommend building an AMD system today, because the i3's are very competitive in that price bracket.  However quite frankly the price and performance are so close, you could go either way without any major concerns when paired with something like a 280X.

[Spev]

Wait you bought a ROG swift? Aren't those like 600+ bucks? But you bought that CPU? It seems you are already getting some flak on this thread, I'm not trying to bug you. But man you could have put way more hardware into your PC, and gone with a less expensive monitor. Just my 2 cents. 

[Spev]

In Nanosuit's defense, he was a R-tard for quite some time, until he monitored his GPU loads and realized "Oh wait... the CPU I was raving about saying it is the best, most future proof, no-bottleneck CPU ever made because CPU usage isn't at 85% is actually bottlenecking my GTX780 in most games."  It took him a lot of time to come to this realization, but he finally came to it rather than deny deny deny like a lot of these other AMD trolls.  Nanosuits was one for awhile, but he has excellent insight because he has used both the FX8 @ 4.6Ghz and an i7.  He even downclocked the i7 to run some tests and came away with the comparison that an FX8 @ 4.6Ghz basically equals an i5 @ 3.2Ghz, except the i5 had much better minimum framerates.  Since his days of trolling, he has since worked to redeem himself by offering up good advice on a number of issues regarding the FX and Intel processors.

 

The misguided AMD fanboys are a plenty, and they just cannot face facts.  Luckily we are showing them the light one by one, and the few that can actually use logic and reasoning are coming to the conclusion that we all know: an FX processor is not good for gaming.  We, including nanosuits are combating the AMD fanboys who still run around saying it is just fine for gaming.  You cannot lump him in with that group.  For a time, he was, but he has since seen the error of his ways.  The trials and tribulations of those using the FX processors are a plenty, and well documented.  It is absolutely, positively not bang for buck.  You're basically getting FX4 performance +10-15%.

 

Nano, you're off probation =p

O...M....G...what did I just read!!? @Faceman  you freaking crack me up dude, LOL.

[i_build_nanosuits]

you were viciously deffending it so i understood that you liked it a lot am i wrong?

not at all...all i said is that battlefield 4 is one of the rare games that run's flawlessly with an FX 8 core cpu...so well that it can feed a gtx780 all it can handle at 1080p...not something you see very often.

i agree that overall the FX cpu is not particularly brilliant when it comes to gaming but you have to give credit where credit is due...and to play battlefield 4 it's just plain excellent (and so is an i5 or i7 while being much more versatile and much better performer overall that is not the point.)

[SoftenButterCream]

not at all...all i said is that battlefield 4 is one of the rare games that run's flawlessly with an FX 8 core cpu...so well that it can feed a gtx780 all it can handle at 1080p...not something you see very often.

i agree that overall the FX cpu is not particularly brilliant when it comes to gaming but you have to give credit where credit is due...and to play battlefield 4 it's just plain excellent (and so is an i5 or i7 while being much more versatile and much better performer overall that is not the point.)

Yep, can't agree more. Hopefully AMD delivers on Skybridge, I wanna see some Skybridge VS Cannonlake throw down lol