What would you recommend FX cpus for?

[decripple]

FX Series CPUs simply are cheaper. You can get a 970 motherboard for $75 and an FX-8350 for $150 relatively often. Add a CM 212 class cooler and you are about $50 cheaper than any i5 system.

 

But truly they are power hogs.

 

Also, pure budget gamers or people that want to learn how to OC and make their first gaming system.

 

FX-6300

120MM tower heatsink of nearly any brand

AMD 970 ATX mobo

 

and the basis for decently overclockable/tweakable system with much better multithreaded performance than an equivalent features/price Core i3 combo

 

They are not the best but they are still a good product.

[zappian]

FX Series CPUs simply are cheaper. You can get a 970 motherboard for $75 and an FX-8350 for $150 relatively often. Add a CM 212 class cooler and you are about $50 cheaper than any i5 system.

 

But truly they are power hogs.

 

Also, pure budget gamers or people that want to learn how to OC and make their first gaming system.

 

FX-6300

120MM tower heatsink of nearly any brand

AMD 970 ATX mobo

 

and the basis for decently overclockable/tweakable system with much better multithreaded performance than an equivalent features/price Core i3 combo

 

They are not the best but they are still a good product.

 

You can do a locked i5 system for cheaper.

 

Just saying.

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

 

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($174.99 @ NCIX US) 

Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($44.88 @ OutletPC) 

Total: $219.87

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-01-27 15:18 EST-0500

[Hieb]

not exactly. dx12 is going to be like mantle in where it uses multiple cores at the same time instead of one core at a time,thats why intels beat it right now because of faster single core. dx puts everything on core 0 then the next core and the next so it outperforms because it can get to the next core faster. if everything is evenly distributed across all eight cores at the same time then it will give very huge performance increase.

 

mantle already does this. an i3 with 2 cores/4threads prolly wont beat it when it goes that route,currently with the way dx is designed..maybe. an i3 still loses to 8350 in bf4 ultra settings on a 64 player map. it bottlenecks single gpu's in some games worse than the 8350.

 

Can you provide evidence of that? I'm struggling to find any BF4 MP gameplay videos on YT with an FX CPU that doesn't drop below 60 fps at parts, even with good GPUs like GTX 780.

[TorqueS]

This is the main problem...there are too many things people don't understand, or are too ignorant to understand...IF YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC BUDGET, then you should expect THE BEST PERFORMANCE FOR THE MONEY YOU PAY.

 

If money is not a concern, and you want to test things then go with whatever you want...it's your money.

 

Intel will always be better if you take into consideration all options. 

The only thing that gives AMD a bit of an edge in some cases is the fact that all their CPUs are unlocked, so you can start learning tweaking without paying a metric butt-ton of money for a K CPU and a Z motherboard.(Don't even bring G3258 into this discussion).

 

Then again...there are still some people who don't know that Intel Haswell chips have part of the VRM circuit integrated onto the chip, and thanks to some manufacturers you can OC K CPUs on B85s, H81s, and H97s. Then again this is all thanks to ignorance...

 

I don't like how @Faceman throws those benches over and over again in our faces...but he's right at some point. And I don't blame him...he repeated those tihngs so many times on this forum that he got sick of explaining to every single ignorant man that FXs are not the best...

 

As soon as someone defending AMD or Intel finds it unable to bring supporting arguments...boom "AHAHAH you're just a X fanboy" and then the flame war starts..

 

 

Then again...we can't decide that for the ultimate buyer...we don't know his definition for smooth gaming or fast PC, that's why we're RECOMMENDING parts. 

 

I'll say from my experience that FX CPUs are not bad for gaming...they don't limit you in a way that they will destroy your experience, but then again...that's my opinion as an AMD user....i like their chips...but i can't negate the fact that there are faster offers on the market...

[Dive5885]

Can you provide evidence of that? I'm struggling to find any BF4 MP gameplay videos on YT with an FX CPU that doesn't drop below 60 fps at parts, even with good GPUs like GTX 780.

I can make a video showing you the FX Cpu running a 64 Player Map with 60 Fps butter smooth on Ultra Settings & 1080p.

[zappian]

I can make a video showing you the FX Cpu running a 64 Player Map with 60 Fps butter smooth on Ultra Settings & 1080p.

 

I can show a video of a i3 doing the same.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_MPb7Rinq0

[Dive5885]

I can show a video of a i3 doing the same.

 

We don't know what settings he's running or what resolution.

 

You can't just pull a video out of your ass and say here you go.

[Hieb]

I can make a video showing you the FX Cpu running a 64 Player Map with 60 Fps butter smooth on Ultra Settings & 1080p.

 

I'd appreciate that. With MSI Afterburner stats in the corner and/or the on-screen graph in the bottom left (command is like PerfOverlay.DrawGraph 1 or something like that)

[Faceman]

This forum needs a new policy in place to test members when they sign up.  Instead of a captcha, captchka?  There is a simple bar graph, no names, just two lines with two values.  The user must pick which one is displaying a higher value.  If you can pass this test, then you are smart enough to use the forum.  That will easily purge the forum of all the clueless FX fanboys who cannot read a bar graph to save their life.

[Dive5885]

I'd appreciate that. With MSI Afterburner stats in the corner and/or the on-screen graph in the bottom left (command is like PerfOverlay.DrawGraph 1 or something like that)

I will do it later tonight or sometime this week.

 

How would you like it recorded?

 

I never recorded using software before

[i_build_nanosuits]

I'd appreciate that. With MSI Afterburner stats in the corner and/or the on-screen graph in the bottom left (command is like PerfOverlay.DrawGraph 1 or something like that)

Battlefield 4 run's perfectly fine on an AMD 8 ''core'' CPU...just saying...it has been optimised for it...BF4 is an AMD sponsored game and they developped this with slow CPU cores in mind...i experienced this first hand...no CPU limitations with even a GTX 780 at 1080p in that particular game...it's one of the few games that i've tested in which the FX won't limit performance on higher end cards.

 

The FPS where certainly slightly lower than they are on my i7 right now but the card was fed pretty much all it could handle (95%+ GPU loads) with no drops bellow 65FPS...it was a good gaming experience in that game...in fact if i would have played only battlefield i'd still have my FX processor.

[zappian]

We don't know what settings he's running or what resolution.

 

You can't just pull a video out of your ass and say here you go.

 

You can ask @JustCallMeVlad

 

What settings he was using in this video.

 

[coen113]

Cheap rendering pcs

[Dive5885]

Battlefield 4 run's perfectly fine on an AMD 8 ''core'' CPU...just saying...it has been optimised for it...BF4 is an AMD sponsored game and they developped this with slow CPU cores in mind...i experienced this first hand...no CPU limitations with even a GTX 780 at 1080p in that particular game...it's one of the few games that i've tested in which the FX won't limit performance on higher end cards.

The only game that had dips was Far cry 4 but other than that I never had issues.

[i_build_nanosuits]

The only game that had dips was Far cry 4 but other than that I never had issues.

oh gosshhhh...okay, try ANY of the assassin's creed games, latest hitman game, watchgogs...any MMO's or RTS, ARMA 3 (TERRIBLE), most indie games...there's a lot of games that can bring an FX to it's knees man, you probably just don't happen to play them.

[Faceman]

@TorqueS

 

I don't like having to post that "Great China Wall of Text", as it has now been dubbed, but there is no better way for me to shut the ignorant people up. I'm open to criticism, I'm open to being corrected, but you have to provide me evidence of me being wrong.  Until any FX proponent can do so, that wall of text stays because it is the most simple, least time consuming way for me to shower the ignorant person with all of the pertinent information.

[zappian]

oh gosshhhh...okay, try ANY of the assassin's creed games, latest hitman game, watchgogs...any MMO's or RTS, ARMA 3 (TERRIBLE), most indie games...there's a lot of games that can bring an FX to it's knees man, you probably just don't happen to play them.

 

Far cry 4 runs MUCH BETTER on i3s.

 

Thats why he had trouble

 

[Hieb]

I will do it later tonight or sometime this week.

 

How would you like it recorded?

 

I never recorded using software before

 

oh crap just realized you have AMD GPU

I'm not sure, whatever provides similar performance to Shadowplay... would that be the Raptr app?

[Dive5885]

oh gosshhhh...okay, try ANY of the assassin's creed games, latest hitman game, watchgogs...any MMO's or RTS, ARMA 3 (TERRIBLE), most indie games...there's a lot of games that can bring an FX to it's knees man, you probably just don't happen to play them.

I Played the latest Hitman and it ran fine.

 

But I will say that your right I don't play most games because I have no interest in them.

 

The games I play and have played ran fine for me.

[Dive5885]

oh crap just realized you have AMD GPU

I'm not sure, whatever provides similar performance to Shadowplay... would that be the Raptr app?

I think Raptr has something like that to record.

 

I will have to install it and see.

[Faceman]

I Played the latest Hitman and it ran fine.

 

But I will say that your right I don't play most games because I have no interest in them.

 

The games I play and have played ran fine for me.

And that is a bad argument for the FX.

 

"It works fine in the games I like to play, so it will work fine in the games you like to play."

 

I'm not picking on you, I'm just reiterating what so many FX lovers say.  It works in the games I like to play, so it will work in the games you like to play.  This is not a good way to recommend products.

 

Why buy a CPU that can run 4 out of 5 games, when you can have a CPU that runs 5 out of 5 games.

[Hieb]

@TorqueS

 

I don't like having to post that "Great China Wall of Text", as it has now been dubbed, but there is no better way for me to shut the ignorant people up. I'm open to criticism, I'm open to being corrected, but you have to provide me evidence of me being wrong.  Until any FX proponent can do so, that wall of text stays because it is the most simple, least time consuming way for me to shower the ignorant person with all of the pertinent information.

 

The only thing I'd suggest is the removal of the Battlefield 4 multiplayer graphs. While it has been my observation that Intel CPUs outperform AMD's CPUs in BF4 multiplayer (even when comparing an i3 to an FX-6300/8320), that particular source doesn't seem too reliable. The CPU scaling is very bizarre and it almost seems like they made the numbers up. For one thing their R9 290 is performing just barely better than my GTX 760 when it should be getting a good 40-50% higher fps.

 

Secondly, BF4 isn't badly enough CPU-bound that it runs substantially better on an i7 than an i5, unless you're running a multiGPU setup at like >144 fps... seeing changes like that at sub 60 fps just doesn't seem realistic.

[Hieb]

Battlefield 4 run's perfectly fine on an AMD 8 ''core'' CPU...just saying...it has been optimised for it...BF4 is an AMD sponsored game and they developped this with slow CPU cores in mind...i experienced this first hand...no CPU limitations with even a GTX 780 at 1080p in that particular game...it's one of the few games that i've tested in which the FX won't limit performance on higher end cards.

 

The FPS where certainly slightly lower than they are on my i7 right now but the card was fed pretty much all it could handle (95%+ GPU loads) with no drops bellow 65FPS...it was a good gaming experience in that game...in fact if i would have played only battlefield i'd still have my FX processor.

 

Good to know... literally have not found one single test on YouTube of BF4 64p multiplayer that reflects this. All of them, even with high end GPUs, drop below 60 fps. I seen one where a guy had an FX-8350 overclocked and a GTX 780 on Golmud Railway TDM and he was dropping to like 45 fps at times .__. maybe his CPU was throttling lol

[SIGSEGV]

Anything that needs low prices and doesn't need crazy amounts but rather a fair bit of horsepower

[Dive5885]

And that is a bad argument for the FX.

 

"It works fine in the games I like to play, so it will work fine in the games you like to play."

 

I'm not picking on you, I'm just reiterating what so many FX lovers say.  It works in the games I like to play, so it will work in the games you like to play.  This is not a good way to recommend products.

 

Why buy a CPU that can run 4 out of 5 games, when you can have a CPU that runs 5 out of 5 games.

We all play different games, I never said to get a FX and play the same games I play. 

 

We also have different style of playing , I play at 60 Fps due to the computer being hooked to a Plasma Tv and I never had issues running games at there full potential besides Far cry 4.

 

Far cry 4 was a great game but it had it dips when driving or flying around and I know that's due to the horrible single core performance of the FX.