AMD FX 6 month conclusion

[itachipirate]

-snip-

AMD Didn't make the first 8 core CPU, their FX 8*** CPU's actually have 4 cores, as you can see here, yes its 8 threaded but it is nowhere near 8 cores. An so much for their 8 physical threads being faster than Intel's 4 cores, 8 strong threads.

I didn't say that AMD made the first 8 core CPU. But it does actually have 8 processing cores, with each pair sharing other resources but still ultimately being able to carry out their own instructions. I'm tired of that argument. This is a good explanation: http://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/1e8226/discussion_amds_module_architecture_the_fx_8350/

[Faceman]

Yep, and because of price of the 4690K and a Z97 board. Unlike others states that have MC, Fry's is the only PC shop here that sells PC parts and most of the parts are expensive anyway so i couldn't fit a 4690K in my budget. 

Again, you could have bought a locked i5.

 

You don't have to just buy in person, although Frys does have some excellent in store deals.  The i5-4690k does go on sale for $200 in store, I know because I subscribe to their deal emails.  A Z97 motherboard can be bought for as cheap as $75.

 

The difference in price is not massive, maybe $50.

[Faceman]

I wasn't trying to promote buying their CPUs. They've been mostly sitting on their asses (So has Intel but they've had a bigger lead) in terms of CPU technology. Just making small improvements each generation, we shouldn't let them think we'll just buy whatever old crap they still sell (Like the FX CPUs) We can't do much to force Intel and AMD to make something new and big unless the two are competing. The invention of multi-core CPUs completely changed the market of CPUs, I want a breakthrough like that instead of a small improvement each generation. That won't happen unless the companies have a reason to make something new.

They are waiting for Software to catch up.  Its unfortunate that Linus deleted the tech talk with the Intel guy because he talks about this.  Intel has it developed, but there is no reason to release it because software hasn't caught up.  At least Intel is giving us an ~8% IPC increase per year, while also increasing iGPU.  Yes, there isn't a push for much of an improvement, but a radical improvement won't do much because we're coming up close to the limitations of silicon(Moore's Law) and they probably want to milk that for all they can.

 

AMD hasn't done anything.  Like you said, its a server CPU using architecture from 2008, but was rebranded as a 2011 launch.  There hasn't been anything new.  Its weak when it was released, outside of a few applications like rendering and server use. They marketed it brilliantly because people see 8 cores, 4.0Ghz and think its a great CPU.  Especially when websites like CPUbenchmark.net, CPUBoss, Passmark.com use these horrible synthetic benchmarks suites and it looks like a good processor.  For gaming, it is the wrong tool for the job.  AMD hasn't had an enthusiast class CPU for a long, long time.

[Clyne]

Again, you could have bought a locked i5.

 

You don't have to just buy in person, although Frys does have some excellent in store deals.  The i5-4690k does go on sale for $200 in store, I know because I subscribe to their deal emails.  A Z97 motherboard can be bought for as cheap as $75.

 

The difference in price is not massive, maybe $50.

Like you, i want a Asus board and Asus boards aren't dirt cheap. Even if i gotten a 4690K, price would still be higher anyway because Asus boards are expensive.

[Dabombinable]

Like you, i want a Asus board and Asus boards aren't dirt cheap. Even if i gotten a 4690K, price would still be higher anyway because Asus boards are expensive.

And you would have gotten a CPU that was actually worth paying just that bit more for.

[Clyne]

And you would have gotten a CPU that was actually worth paying just that bit more for.

Yet my 8320 is fine for my workload. 

[JamGorby]

Buying AMD just to support the company is like giving a student who draws nothing but stick figures with crayons an art award. 

[Elapo]

Not fanboys, people who buy the best CPU when its time to upgrade their rigs. Doingthe logical thing with a shitload of evidence doesn't make someone a 'fanboy'.

 

In fact, buying an inferior product because you like the company is being a fanboy, and so is trying to mislead people into thinking said inferior product is worth it.

 

Note: Inferior due to age, mainly.

[Dabombinable]

In fact, buying an inferior product because you like the company is being a fanboy, and so is trying to mislead people into thinking said inferior product is worth it.

 

Note: Inferior due to age, mainly.

Age, and because  it wasn't going to perform as well as expected in the first place (AMD didn't expect floating point operations to be important-and in games they are).

[JamGorby]

In fact, buying an inferior product because you like the company is being a fanboy, and so is trying to mislead people into thinking said inferior product is worth it.

 

Note: Inferior due to age, mainly.

+1

The last Intel I owned up until now was a P3 667. It has been nothing but AMD since then. I had reasons for that were justified and backed by objective reasons. Those reasons no longer exist. 

My last AMD build (the last AMD build was actually a 1100t but I bought the chip and mb used for $50 so it doesn't count) was a Phenom II X4 955. 

Funny thing is, when doing research and pricing on my current build, I went in with the whole "AMD is the best bang for the buck" mentality that I'm sure a lot of AMD fans still have. Boy, was that ever so not the case. 

Unless I wanted to throw an FX chip on a shitty 760G based board (a chipset, BTW, that is over 7 years old by now) Intel was just a better choice. Bare in mind, my original plan was to shop in the core i3/Fx8xxx range. I wound up with the 4790k because I ended up with a bigger budget than I anticipated having when I made my purchase. But, the point I'm making is that AMD has even lost their position in the bang for the buck department. Now, they are only compelling in the entry level cheapo market. 

Before having a better budget, I kept playing around with different builds and Intel kept coming out the victor. AMD 9xx series boards are just not good value. While the chips look like a good price to performance option, decent boards will eat up any savings you might make. When an Intel cost more, it was usually a difference of only $20. With a few configs, Intel even cost less. 

People throw that word, fanboy, around a lot. As you can see, AMD took a good bit of my computing money for over a decade. But reality doesn't care about how you feel. Facts will continue to be true. AMD is losing and for many good reasons. The free market doesn't lie. Their failings aren't part of some conspiracy. 

[Dabombinable]

+1

The last Intel I owned up until now was a P3 667. It has been nothing but AMD since then. I had reasons for that were justified and backed by objective reasons. Those reasons no longer exist. 

My last AMD build (the last AMD build was actually a 1100t but I bought the chip and mb used for $50 so it doesn't count) was a Phenom II X4 955. 

Funny thing is, when doing research and pricing on my current build, I went in with the whole "AMD is the best bang for the buck" mentality that I'm sure a lot of AMD fans still have. Boy, was that ever so not the case. 

Unless I wanted to throw an FX chip on a shitty 760G based board (a chipset, BTW, that is over 7 years old by now) Intel was just a better choice. Bare in mind, my original plan was to shop in the core i3/Fx8xxx range. I wound up with the 4790k because I ended up with a bigger budget than I anticipated having when I made my purchase. But, the point I'm making is that AMD has even lost their position in the bang for the buck department. Now, they are only compelling in the entry level cheapo market. 

Before having a better budget, I kept playing around with different builds and Intel kept coming out the victor. AMD 9xx series boards are just not good value. While the chips look like a good price to performance option, decent boards will eat up any savings you might make. When an Intel cost more, it was usually a difference of only $20. With a few configs, Intel even cost less. 

People throw that word, fanboy, around a lot. As you can see, AMD took a good bit of my computing money for over a decade. But reality doesn't care about how you feel. Facts will continue to be true. AMD is losing and for many good reasons. The free market doesn't lie. Their failings aren't part of some conspiracy. 

I've always bought something based on performance: AMD 386 DX-40, Celeron 300A, AMD K6-2 500, Pentium III 667MHz (still got it working), i5 4440. (The gap between the P3 and i5 was filled by laptops that just did the job).

[Elapo]

People throw that word, fanboy, around a lot. As you can see, AMD took a good bit of my computing money for over a decade. But reality doesn't care about how you feel. Facts will continue to be true. AMD is losing and for many good reasons. The free market doesn't lie. Their failings aren't part of some conspiracy. 

 

This, many fanatics don't realize that it's not because of fanboyism that AMD is losing. There's fairly few enthusiasts  compared to the total number of computers out there. Not many manufacturers of pre-built systems are choosing AMD, because, in this case, they can cheap out on other things like PSU/cooling, or in the case of laptops can claim a higher battery life due to the better power efficiency of the intel chips.

 

If the entire Enthusiast market went away over night, AMD would still be losing.

[JamGorby]

I've always bought something based on performance: AMD 386 DX-40, Celeron 300A, AMD K6-2 500, Pentium III 667MHz (still got it working), i5 4440. (The gap between the P3 and i5 was filled by laptops that just did the job).

I had a k6-2 for what seemed like forever back in the day. It was actually the first machine I ever built from scratch. Also, it was a desktop form factor. 

Explanation for those under 18

You see, kids, desktop used to be a form factor and not just a generic catch all phrase for a consumer computer..........

[JamGorby]

Oh, the memories......

[Dabombinable]

I had a k6-2 for what seemed like forever back in the day. It was actually the first machine I ever built from scratch. Also, it was a desktop form factor. 

Explanation for those under 18

You see, kids, desktop used to be a form factor and not just a generic catch all phrase for a consumer computer.......... And its true, early laptops weren't designed for use in laps per-say, 

I'd have my K62 in use as a basic PC, but its got 2 swollen caps, the same as one of my slot 1 mobo and S370. And its the same damn caps on all 3 mobo in the VRM circuitry. Thank god for ex server multi socket boards-apart from the K6-2 both my old Intel CPU's can still be used (and overclocked).

[Dabombinable]

Oh, the memories......

*sigh* rip 386 rig. I still have all of the parts (including the switches) apart from the 5.25" FDD and the case. (It's power LED lights, but corrosion around the front panel header means I need to repair it before trying to boot it up-either that or my VGA cards are dead/not correctly configured).

[Faceman]

+1

The last Intel I owned up until now was a P3 667. It has been nothing but AMD since then. I had reasons for that were justified and backed by objective reasons. Those reasons no longer exist. 

My last AMD build (the last AMD build was actually a 1100t but I bought the chip and mb used for $50 so it doesn't count) was a Phenom II X4 955. 

Funny thing is, when doing research and pricing on my current build, I went in with the whole "AMD is the best bang for the buck" mentality that I'm sure a lot of AMD fans still have. Boy, was that ever so not the case. 

Unless I wanted to throw an FX chip on a shitty 760G based board (a chipset, BTW, that is over 7 years old by now) Intel was just a better choice. Bare in mind, my original plan was to shop in the core i3/Fx8xxx range. I wound up with the 4790k because I ended up with a bigger budget than I anticipated having when I made my purchase. But, the point I'm making is that AMD has even lost their position in the bang for the buck department. Now, they are only compelling in the entry level cheapo market. 

Before having a better budget, I kept playing around with different builds and Intel kept coming out the victor. AMD 9xx series boards are just not good value. While the chips look like a good price to performance option, decent boards will eat up any savings you might make. When an Intel cost more, it was usually a difference of only $20. With a few configs, Intel even cost less. 

People throw that word, fanboy, around a lot. As you can see, AMD took a good bit of my computing money for over a decade. But reality doesn't care about how you feel. Facts will continue to be true. AMD is losing and for many good reasons. The free market doesn't lie. Their failings aren't part of some conspiracy. 

Amazing.  So much poetry.  I weep.

[Akamii]

so i think it was worth upgrading from fx 6300 stock to i5 4440 ?

[Opcode]

The graphics API isn't the only thing that gets processed in video games.

It's not but it is the only thing that matters when it comes to keeping the GPU fed. AMD performance is not the issue with gaming it's the amature hour at Microsoft with leaving the API serialized for over a decade now. Once DirectX 12 comes around you won't see the "buy Intel for gaming" recommendations anymore (simply because an FX-6300 is $99). You can't blame sub-par performance on a CPU that has massive amounts of potential when leveraged properly. I could go off on a tangent breaking down why but to sum it up in easy words the graphics stack is single threaded all the way through the stack. A majority of the software that you use on your computer is likely to be threaded (even simple shit like CCleaner). The whole single core performance argument is moot this day in age. Why should AMD take the heat for Microsoft being a slow poke in catching up with the times. It wasn't until AMD pushed out Mantle that influenced Microsoft into creating a low level API for the desktop computer that's finally threaded.

[Dabombinable]

It's not but it is the only thing that matters when it comes to keeping the GPU fed. AMD performance is not the issue with gaming it's the amature hour at Microsoft with leaving the API serialized for over a decade now. Once DirectX 12 comes around you won't see the "buy Intel for gaming" recommendations anymore (simply because an FX-6300 is $99). You can't blame sub-par performance on a CPU that has massive amounts of potential when leveraged properly. I could go off on a tangent breaking down why but to sum it up in easy words the graphics stack is single threaded all the way through the stack. A majority of the software that you use on your computer is likely to be threaded (even simple shit like CCleaner). The whole single core performance argument is moot this day in age. Why should AMD take the heat for Microsoft being a slow poke in catching up with the times. It wasn't until AMD pushed out Mantle that influenced Microsoft into creating a low level API for the desktop computer that's finally threaded.

That's the thing I don't get, multithreaded CPU's have been around since 2001-2002 (heck, even multi CPU computers in the late 90's because of readily available and competitvely priced multi CPU motherboards) and even after 12-13 years they are only just starting to migrate Windows to fully multithreaded operation.

[Opcode]

That's the thing I don't get, multithreaded CPU's have been around since 2001-2002 and even after 12-13 years they are only just starting to migrate Windows to fully multithreaded operation.

Hell Windows itself wasn't optimized for threading until Windows 7. The more they try to innovate the OS the more Microsoft seems to be a bunch of idiots. They're the type of company that will buy a turd for a $1, polish it and then sell it back to you for $5.

[Dabombinable]

Hell Windows itself wasn't optimized for threading until Windows 7. The more they try to innovate the OS the more Microsoft seems to be a bunch of idiots. They're the type of company that will buy a turd for a $1, polish it and then sell it back to you for $5.

Which is partly the reason why I'm starting to go towards Windows inside a VM in Linux. I've got plenty of RAM (16GB) and an i5 4440 which seems to handle VM ok (I might end up with an i7/xeon at some point). That way I can play games and not deal with any BS 24/7.

[Opcode]

Which is partly the reason why I'm starting to go towards Windows inside a VM in Linux. I've got plenty of RAM (16GB) and an i5 4440 which seems to handle VM ok (I might end up with an i7/xeon at some point). That way I can play games and not deal with any BS 24/7.

The only reason I run Windows is for game support. I have periods where gaming becomes an ultimate "meh" thing for me so I jump to Linux (I like my wobbly windowz) until I get a game craving again some months later. It won't take long for some games to hit Linux that I enjoy playing and Windows will no longer be of any interest to me as a daily driver. I'll just install an nLite stripped copy of Windows XP on VirtualBox to continue on my software development such as my tray tool.

[Doobeedoo]

I have FX 8350 with R9 290 and only where I notice poor performance are Blizzard games -.-. They're so badly optimized and running on old engines. Their games run like on one core, other 2-3 cores are just somewhat utilized for other stuff, but main heavy lifting is done on 1 core -.-.

I've also noticed sometimes that how people benchmark games and specially some of them are not a good presentation of actual performance. Many don't do random stuff in game that would cause performance to fluctuate and don't test multiplayer or games crowded with units/players.

 

Anyway I got my platform for solid price year+ ago. CPU and mobo together were like 50% cheaper than competition. And extra threads come in handy with multitasking with bunch of programs, game, stream, recording, editing.

 

I just hope my next upgrade will be and 8-core with top grade IPC and normal price

[rtpb5642]

Oh, I must have been confusing you with the hundred other people who get bad overclocking results on their FX processors because they are using bad motherboards.  Its difficult to keep you all in mind, ya know.. cause there are so many of you.

 

So... your point is exactly the one I am making.  You need aftermarket cooling.

 

Your solution was to undervolt, which worked, but not everyone can do.  Sometimes people have to undervolt and downclock just to get stable on their shoddy motherboards, which is again why AMD costs the same as Intel because you have to buy a proper motherboard in order to even operate at stock settings.  If you want to overclock, which is very necessary to even make FX CPUs competitive in a lot of games, you need aftermarket cooling, driving the cost up even more.  Bottlenecking high end GPUs, no upgrade path, still worse performance, and energy consumption costs.

 

If building new, you go Intel.

 

If you already own FX, it is up to you and your personal situation whether or not to upgrade to Intel, but based on the numerous people I have helped who switched from FX to Intel, they are all incredibly pleased with their performance gains, have issued a mea culpa, and have told others to avoid the pitfalls of buying into such an ancient technology.

 

Grasp this.  You have to grasp this.  If you cannot, then I dunno what else to say.

I only have an 8350 and my VRMs were cooking at 80C at 4.6ghz, imagine a 9590 on the board.... And i have a Sabertooth 990fx 2.0. 

Hes in denial (Yeah ik coming from me but i learned didnt I?)