AMD FX 6 month conclusion

[d1screet]

Damn, this is still going on?

[Opcode]

Are you talking about the Microcenter FX8320E + ASRock Extreme3 mobo for $120?  Yea, good luck getting stable on that motherboard even at stock.  You really need to spend at least $150 through the Microcenter in-store deals in order to get a motherboard that is able to handle an FX processor, the M5A97 R2.0.  Then you also need cooling, thats another $30, energy consumption per year comparing a stock FX8 to stock FX5 is conservatively $10 more per year, that adds up fast, all while bottlenecking high end GPUs and not performing as good as a locked i5.

 

If you are including Microcenter prices, then Intel also benefits because you can pick up an i5-4440 in-store for $140, pair it with a $40 motherboard and you're off to the races.  Heck, i3s are only $80 in-store and are shown to be beating FX processors in a lot of games.  Not to mention, you now have upgradability, something you don't really have with AM3+.

 

Outside of a budget workstation rig, the FX processors don't really have a place in the market anymore.  If you already own an FX should you upgrade to Intel?  That is up to you, depending on the satisfaction you have in games, but if you are building a new machine for gaming, Intel is currently the way to go, hopefully that will change with the release of Zen in ~2016.

That board is more than enough to handle a FX-8320E at stock clocks. The stock cooler should be sufficient as well (95w TDP) although we recommend anyone to replace them anyways due to the cheap noisiness nature of the stock heatsink (both Intel & AMD). Energy cost is another thing that's effectively irrelevant. I don't think people honestly give two shits if their power bill goes up $3-6 a year because they chose a larger CPU which pretty much boils down to common sense to begin with. You're selling Intel a little too hard when you think $3-6 a year adds up fast. You know how much you'll have by the end of your life? Yeah, not even enough bury you with a GTX 980. The FX line of chips do not bottleneck high end GPUs because of lacking performance. This is something a lot of people are under the impression of with misguided information. Microsoft is the sole responsible party for providing a serialized graphics stack since the dawn of the multiple core revolution. There are also several Intel chips that even choke higher end cards. Evidence that both companies products fall short due to limitations of poorly written software. DirectX 12 will roll out before you know it and a FX-4300 will probably hold a GTX 980 to it's performance wall and the concrete will all off a sudden harden. That even with AMD's lacking single core performance that all game performance has been a limiting factor of a company who thinks single thread oriented software is still rectifiable in 2015. By the end of 2015 the FX chips will likely be a largely recommended budget gaming CPU again for upcoming DirectX 12 game titles. Not that I'm not condoning the purchase of a FX based chip right now as games are still based around DirectX 11. Although I hate seeing the continuous spread of misinformation to those seeking the facts. Once you strip the gaming limitations due to Microsoft from the equation I haven't seen a single user complain about poor performance in desktop software. Simply because you're not going to notice the difference at all unless you're doing something highly synthetic (timed workloads). It's not that AMD didn't deliver performance because they certainly did (the performance potential of the FX-6300 @ $99 is a solid deal) they just didn't deliver good enough single thread performance which matters in gaming right now due to the 10+ year old serialized nature of DirectX.

[Faceman]

I would test it with gpus relevant with the cpu. you wouldn't test a gt 720 with a extreme edition processor. 

 

I thought you used micro center prices for both? if not I apologize. The thing is not everyone needs super high end. its unfair to say everyone needs something over a 280/770. 

http://www.microcenter.com/product/446572/970_Extreme3_R20_Socket_AM3_ATX_AMD_Motherboard

 

read the reviews. Reviews tend to be baised towards the negative, as people only really comment on a product when they are mad. I can promise you its not a 50/50 split wether it works or not... 

 

to say a board only works 50% of the time is just ignorant. While yes, it may throttle higher end cpus(or wattage), for chips such as the fx-6300 or 8320e it works. Thats just fact. I dont know how to explain it otherwise. 

 

I digress. I seems like we are getting no where, thank you for "debating" without just insulting. 

 

the one thing I truely dont understand, why does it always have to be paring a budget chip with a high end card? 

 

checking microcenter for a I3 bundle, its 180. so I guess it depends. if your doing a 400-500$ build and never plan on upgrading, id go amd, and if your doing over 500, or want to upgrade in the future, Id go intel. 

 

the thing is, my brother had 200$ to upgrade, and he wont get money to put into his computer after. and this was before the new pentium, so it was fx-6300 or a stock I3 with only 4 gigs of ram. he is not going to upgrade soon.

 

Me personally? I have a xeon and a 750ti. it was targeted to be upgradable down the road. 2 diffrent use cases. 

I didn't use the Microcenter price on my Intel build, I did on yours, but used the proper motherboard, not the sketchy 4+1 VRM phase mobo.  Price of an i5-4440 in store is $140 at Microcenter in Dallas.  Then you can buy a $40 mobo from Newegg.  Same with an i3, in-store for $90, paired with a $40 mobo.  Gives you better immediate performance, and an upgrade path.  Also, not everyone has access to Microcenter.

 

How do you not see the risk of using that motherboard?

"Failures on motherboards with higher phase counts have been relatively infrequent if at all. Most of the culprits for VRM failures are the lower end 4+1 phase and 3+1 phase motherboards that aren't equipped to handle processors that consume lots of power and may be overclocked. Smaller 4+1 phase systems or less on CPUs can be particularly risky due to the fact that each transistor must be capable of outputting more current and heat. This is why you normally see motherboards with low phase count failing (i.e. catching fire, frying, overloading), often on motherboards from only certain manufacturers or certain particular motherboards."

 

The AM3+ Motherboard Phasing Guide even says : "Will throttle on overclocked FX8 processors" for that specific mobo that comes in the $120 deal.

 

We have had plenty of people on this forum have issues with that very motherboard.  We have had people had issues with better motherboards than that at stock speeds.  We have also seen the rare person being ok with a less motherboard.  It is hit or miss.  There is risk involved.  Why on earth would you risk it, to save $20?  That you will just have to put back into cooler, and energy cost negates any savings also, all while being the less powerful platform for gaming.  It is lunacy to think the FX processors are a good purchase in 2015 for gaming when they are clearly being outperformed by i3s and i5s that cost the same and sometimes less.

 

If you're doing a $400-$500 build, you can buy Intel.  It. Costs. The. Same.  But the performance of one doesn't equal the other.  Why would want to buy a processor that can only play 4 out of 5 games at a satisfactory level, when you could have a processor that plays 5 out of 5 games at an excellent level, while costing the same if not less.

 

Lots of people buy high end GPUs with these mid range processors thinking they are a balanced system.  By going with the FX you are limiting yourself to that R9 280/770 ceiling.  If you ever wanted to upgrade in the future, you aren't going to be able to access that GPU horsepower because your CPU is holding you back, unless you increase your resolution above 1080p.  Even if you never upgrade, you are still buying the worse of the two options at the same price point.

[Faceman]

That board is more than enough to handle a FX-8320E at stock clocks. The stock cooler should be sufficient as well (95w TDP) although most are recommended to replace them anyways due to the cheap noisiness nature of them. Energy cost is another thing that's effectively irrelevant. I don't think people honestly give two shits if their power bill goes up $3-6 a year because they chose a larger CPU which pretty much boils down to common sense (more cores = more power). You're selling Intel a little too hard when you think $3-6 a year adds up fast. You know how much you'll have by the end of your life? Yeah, not even enough bury you with a GTX 980. The FX line of chips do not bottleneck high end GPUs because of lacking performance. This is something a lot of people are under the impression of with misguided information. Microsoft is the sole responsible party for providing a serialized graphics stack since the dawn of the multiple core revolution. There are also several Intel chips that even choke higher end cards. Evidence that both companies products fall short due to limitations of poorly written software. DirectX 12 will roll out before you know it and a FX-4300 will probably hold a GTX 980 to it's performance wall and the concrete will all off a sudden harden. That even with AMD's lacking single core performance that all game performance has been a limiting factor of a company who thinks single thread oriented software is still rectifiable in 2015. By the end of 2015 the FX chips will likely be a largely recommended budget gaming CPU again for upcoming DirectX 12 game titles. Not that I'm not condoning the purchase of a FX based chip right now as games are still based around DirectX 11. Although I hate seeing the continuous spread of misinformation to those seeking the facts. Once you strip the gaming limitations due to Microsoft from the equation I haven't seen a single user complain about poor performance in desktop software. Simply because you're not going to notice the difference at all unless you're doing something highly synthetic (timed workloads). It's not that AMD didn't deliver performance because they certainly did (the performance potential of the FX-6300 @ $99 is a solid deal) they just didn't deliver good enough single thread performance which matters in gaming right now due to the 10+ year old serialized nature of DirectX.

Its hit or miss with those weak motherboards.  As said above, we have had people with better motherboards than that still have problems at stock speeds.  Its risky.  Why would you risk it?  The upside is low, and the downside is big.

 

Energy consumption is more like $10 a year, and that is a non-overclocked FX8 Vs. an i5 using average U.S. Kwh price of $0.12.

 

More cores = more power only for certain tasks.  Gaming is not one of them, and DX12 isn't out yet.  I am not going to stop using sun screen with the hope that a cure for skin cancer is around the corner.  That is irrational. Of course the FX processors bottleneck high end GPUs.  To deny that is beyond me.   Until it actually happens, I am not proceeding with recommending them until they consistently show they are performing up to snuff, because currently they aren't, and I am living in the now, recommending components for today.  While DX12 will help load GPUs to 99%, it likely won't change that some games still want strong cores, not weak ones.

 

So, Intel works fine, but FX doesn't.  So..... blame the API?  I get that it isn't optimal, but if one is working well, and the other isn't based on the current technology available, that is the fault of the processor that isn't using architecture from this decade.

 

If/when DX12 revitalizes the FX line, then I will recommend them, but until then I'm not.

[Opcode]

Its hit or miss with those weak motherboards.  As said above, we have had people with better motherboards than that still have problems at stock speeds.  Its risky.  Why would you risk it?  The upside is low, and the downside is big.

 

Energy consumption is more like $10 a year, and that is a non-overclocked FX8 Vs. an i5 using average U.S. Kwh price of $0.12.

 

More cores = more power only for certain tasks.  Gaming is not one of them, and DX12 isn't out yet.  I am not going to stop using sun screen with the hope that a cure for skin cancer is around the corner.  That is irrational. Of course the FX processors bottleneck high end GPUs.  To deny that is beyond me.   Until it actually happens, I am not proceeding with recommending them until they consistently show they are performing up to snuff, because currently they aren't, and I am living in the now, recommending components for today.  While DX12 will help load GPUs to 99%, it likely won't change that some games still want strong cores, not weak ones.

 

So, Intel works fine, but FX doesn't.  So..... blame the API?  I get that it isn't optimal, but if one is working well, and the other isn't based on the current technology available, that is the fault of the processor that isn't using architecture from this decade.

 

If/when DX12 revitalizes the FX line, then I will recommend them, but until then I'm not.

If you look at the board it does have a sufficient VRM for a 95w CPU. The only thing that would be an underlying issue is if the mosfets were not heatsinked. If he was going to slap a FX-9590 into it then sure I would start to agree with you but a FX-8320E? Shouldn't be any problems without any risks.

 

Actually less, I did the calculations not long ago for another thread as people were going on about power consumption so I did so to shut them up. Even at $10 a year which is a really high estimate it's literally nothing. It would cost you like less than a few nickles more to run your FX based PC 24/7 each month. You can literally easily find a couple soda/beer cans every month on the side of the road if you're that poor.

 

You're interpreting power as in performance and not power as in consumption. Although as stated you're not going to find a place where you can argue performance per dollar other than gaming. Every time someone brings up FX "poor performance" they immediately jump to gaming as an all around factor as to why not buy the chip. It may be a big influence certainly here on a tech community although not everyone games and not everyone plays the latest heavy games. Some people are content with games like Trine 2 such as myself (even though I do play bigger games). Keep in mind the problem isn't game logic but the rendering workload taking forever to be piped through the graphics stack. The longer it takes the higher your frame times will be which is what ultimately defines frame rate. With weaker IPC FX chips struggle with game logic and rendering workloads to get the necessary frames through the stack in a timely manner. This is because a lot of game logic happens on thread 0 which happens to be the same thread responsible for pushing rendering workloads through the graphics stack. With DirectX 12 the rendering workload can happen across multiple cores allowing other cores to push the workload through the graphics stack instead of waiting on thread 0.

 

Intel doesn't work fine as you can cripple high end cards easily with the i3 as well. A GTX 770 can be held back by an i3 in BF4 and that's certainly not the highest end card there is. The blame is unarguably the API as no software that you run I'm willing to bet is single threaded. Why should should heavy graphics workloads be subjected to single threading? There's no way around it as AMD cannot be fully to blame for their gaming performance when the graphics stack only gives a shit about one of the eight cores you have. Right? It's poor programming 101 and Microsoft has been really dropping the ball for the last 10+ years. Game logic branched out to help alleviate the workload on thread 0 to ensure higher frame rates. Then DirectX 11 introduced branching of the rendering workload that could be pipped back to thread 0 to help alleviate some of that workload as well before being pushed through the graphics stack. These are just mere workarounds to getting around the real problem at hand that DirectX has been a restrictive API for longer than you can imagine.

[d1screet]

Because putting high-level multi-threaded code together is really difficult and can lead to some really nasty race conditions and errors?

 

EDIT: Not saying that it isn't possible; just more that people are going to be lazy about things, and won't try for the most elegant solution, just an easy one until it breaks.

[Faceman]

If you look at the board it does have a sufficient VRM for a 95w CPU. The only thing that would be an underlying issue is if the mosfets were not heatsinked. If he was going to slap a FX-9590 into it then sure I would start to agree with you but a FX-8320E? Shouldn't be any problems without any risks.

 

Actually less, I did the calculations not long ago for another thread as people were going on about power consumption so I did so to shut them up. Even at $10 a year which is a really high estimate it's literally nothing. It would cost you like less than a few nickles more to run your FX based PC 24/7 each month. You can literally easily find a couple soda/beer cans every month on the side of the road if you're that poor.

 

You're interpreting power as in performance and not power as in consumption. Although as stated you're not going to find a place where you can argue performance per dollar other than gaming. Every time someone brings up FX "poor performance" they immediately jump to gaming as an all around factor as to why not buy the chip. It may be a big influence certainly here on a tech community although not everyone games and not everyone plays the latest heavy games. Some people are content with games like Trine 2 such as myself (even though I do play bigger games).

 

Intel doesn't work fine as you can cripple high end cards easily with the i3 as well. A GTX 770 can be held back by an i3 in BF4 and that's certainly not the highest end card there is. The blame is unarguably the API as no software that you run I'm willing to bet is single threaded. Which should such heavy graphics workloads be subjected to single threading? There's no way around it as AMD cannot be fully to blame for their game performance when the graphics stack only gives a shit about one of the eight cores you have. Right?

Its clearly not, as evidenced by the people who come to this forum with VRM throttling problems on even stock CPUs.  It is very hit or miss.  It is risky.  You shouldn't be taking on unnecessary risk if you can avoid it, and again, the Intel i5 build costs the same.

 

I always advocate the right tool for the job, and sometimes the FX is the right tool for the job.  They are freaking amazing budget workstation CPUs for certain tasks.  Gaming, not so much, and as you pointed out, vast majority of people are asking about gaming performance.  Of course I am going to talk about gaming if that is what they are asking.

 

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.  For this example, we will assume the average price is a flat $0.12 per KWh to give a conservative estimate.  We will also assume that the overclocked FX power draw is 100W higher than the stock i5, again a conservative estimate.  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 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.  You also have to consider that you will likely need a more expensive PSU to keep up with this power draw, especially if you want to overclock.

 

 

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

 

$10 is a reasonable estimate, and that is a non-overclock FX.  $10 per year adds up fast, especially when people are talking about saving $20-$30 by going with AMD, which they really aren't because they should be buying good motherboards, not crappy ones. 

 

BF4 is one of the rare games that FXs perform very well on.  If BF4 is all you play, then yea, you should look into an FX6 over an i3.  But at the FX8 level, a locked i5-4440 is outperforming a 5.0Ghz FX8 in BF4.  If you play games outside of BF4, then an Intel based system is your go-to because an i3 is outperforming FX6/8/9s in the majority of games.  Again, you cannot generalize gaming to one or two games.  This: "it plays the games I like at the settings I like just fine, so it will play the games you like, at the settings you like" mentality is terrible.  The FX processors are better than Intel in two games: Dragon Age Inquisition and Battlefield 4.  I haven't seen any others.  If those are the only two games you ever play, then you will think the FX processors are amazing.  But when you venture out into other games, you are going to be disappointed when an i3 is performing better than an FX9 in the most recent AAA title.

 

The vast majority of desktop tasks are single core reliant and want strong processing power to execute commands quickly.  It is only in very niche areas where the 8 integer cores of the FX processor can really take off.  I recently sold an i5-4690k + Asus Z97-A motherboard to someone through Craigslist, turns out he is also on OCN.  Anyways, helping him through the process, he was blown away by how fast overall system responsiveness improved by going from an FX8350 @ 4.6Ghz to an i5-4690k @ 3.5Ghz.  I'll say it again, the vast majority of things we do on our computers are single core reliant.  iTunes, Firefox, Skype, MS Office, you name it.

 

The blame is not entirely on FX, no, but they should be shouldering the majority of the blame because they aren't optimized for 2015.  They aren't good gaming processors.  Meanwhile the Intel processors are.  They both rely on the same API, but one is doing well and the other isn't.  Its unfair the place the blame entirely on the API.  They took a risk thinking the software would catch up to the multithreaded performance of an 8 core CPU.  They gambled and lost big.  They created something ahead of its time you could argue, but it fell flat in the present, and that doesn't mean you should feel sorry for them.  They weren't good when they were first released, and they aren't doing good 5 years later, an eternity in the technology world.  We still have to wait another year at least until we see if they get back in the game.

 

Here is a scenario that I just thought up.  You give two different people $1000 to invest in the stock market.  One person makes a lot of money, the other people makes a little bit of money.  Are you going to blame the stock market as a whole?  No, you blame the person who invested that money into bad, or worse performing stocks.

 

That analogy is a bit of a stretch, but I hope you understand what I am trying to get at.

[d1screet]

@Faceman I would feel that using a stock market analogy is a little risky considering that a good amount of the people who are involved seek to speculate (or at least that's my impression of it). I would rather get what works for my money now rather than speculate that something beneficial will happen in the future (the DX12 argument). From the way I see it, it's game theory:

 

You could stand to lose some performance for the money if DX12 doesn't pan out the way people expect/speculate, or you could gain an indeterminate (at the moment) amount of performance if things DO work out. Surely, it's not like Intel processors would get worse perfomance than before with a new API. But who knows, I've been wrong before.

[D3MON]

8320+r9-290 user here
no problems
sorry.

intel fanboyss will never know (cant say users because I am one)
[goes back to gaming leaving the intel fanboys to kill the forum]

[Dabombinable]

please enlighten me. All I know is that my brothers 7970 doesnt bottlneck his fx-6300 at all. 

 

I personally use a xeon. so I am not the most knowledgable tbh, but every benchmark ties it with super high end gpus, which is not its use case. you dont judge vans on 0-60 times

The GPU doesn't bottleneck the CPU, the CPU bottlenecks the GPU.

[Dabombinable]

8320+r9-290 user here

no problems

sorry.

 

 

 

 

 

intel fanboyss will never know (cant say users because I am one)

[goes back to gaming leaving the intel fanboys to kill the forum]

Oh, we are fanboys because we have a shitload of evidence pointing out that an FX CPU is bad for anything except use in a budget workstation? I've got a friend who upgraded from a Phenom II x4 to an FX 8350, and straight up he told me that he regretted the purchase as his old Phenom was faster. The main point is that AMD were utter idiots with their FX line and went backwards with their CPU's. The way AMD was surprised about the end performance leads me to think that they didn't even test their CPU's before launching them. Also, why should people cripple their rigs when they can buy better? The smart thing to do-which a lot of people forget-is to buy based on performance not brand. You can bet your ass that if AMD brings out a CPU that can beat my current i5 4440 or at the very least my Xeon X5450 clock for clock I'll be looking at it as a viable option. Also, what's the minimum FPS your experiencing? Because I can gurantee that the usage is all over the place and not smooth.

Edit: the images loaded, the GPU usage is all over the place, your CPU is bottlenecking your GPU, which is normal for anything in the FX line.

[D3MON]

Edit: the images loaded, the GPU usage is all over the place, your CPU is bottlenecking your GPU, which is normal for anything in the FX line.

are you blind? are you touchtyping?

i think you're missing the evidence i have and that I AM!!!!!!! just seen your rig, why am i even trying. have fun with that cute thing.

[Dabombinable]

are you blind? are you touchtyping?

I'm using my Dual Pentium 3 rig, it struggles with Firefox as the CPU's don't support SSE2 instructions, so everything slows down as a result.

[D3MON]

I'm using my Dual Pentium 3 rig, it struggles with Firefox as the CPU's don't support SSE2 instructions, so everything slows down as a result.

okay thats legitimately cool, but the fact you got presented with proof than amd doesnt bottleneck an r9-290 and can sustain 100% gpu usage (without even resorting to res's the card was meant for) and you couldnt see the line before proclaiming its bottlenecking shows your an idiot.

[Dabombinable]

okay thats legitimately cool, but the fact you got presented with proof than amd doesnt bottleneck an r9-290 and can sustain 100% gpu usage (without even resorting to res's the card was meant for) and you couldnt see the line before proclaiming its bottlenecking shows your an idiot.

Frofpmsl, check your last screen shot. Check your minecraft screen shot-that's no where near 100% sustained. And I'm not the only one who sees them bottlenecking. @Faceman, testimonials needed.

[D3MON]

Frofpmsl, check your last screen shot. Check your minecraft screen shot-that's no where near 100% sustained. And I'm not the only one who sees them bottlenecking. @Faceman, testimonials needed.

.....minecraft?............beta?..................tabbed?

[Dabombinable]

.....minecraft?............beta?..................tabbed?

Minecraft is far beyond beta. Unless you don't have an official copy. And the term is 'Windowed'. BTW, Minecraft is a game that prefers strong cores over more threads. (Its difficult to compare modules to cores-since a module is effectively 4 cores with the integer unit split in half).

[Opcode]

@Faceman I would feel that using a stock market analogy is a little risky considering that a good amount of the people who are involved seek to speculate (or at least that's my impression of it). I would rather get what works for my money now rather than speculate that something beneficial will happen in the future (the DX12 argument). From the way I see it, it's game theory:

 

You could stand to lose some performance for the money if DX12 doesn't pan out the way people expect/speculate, or you could gain an indeterminate (at the moment) amount of performance if things DO work out. Surely, it's not like Intel processors would get worse perfomance than before with a new API. But who knows, I've been wrong before.

No processor will see worse performance from the movement to a low level API. With that level of hardware abstraction it's simply not feasible to actually lose performance into space coming from a high level API. I would recommend getting what is optimal now over what could be optimal in the future. Even when DirectX 12 lands it's not going to magically change the 10+ years of damage Microsoft left behind while jerking off. These DirectX 9-11 games will still coexist meaning you will still need a CPU with optimal performance to play them. Zen will be out before any major steps forward happen with DirectX 12 titles saturating the market. I personally wouldn't suggest anyone wasting their time buying a Piledriver based CPU in that regard.

[Kyuubixchidori]

Minecraft is far beyond beta. Unless you don't have an official copy. And the term is 'Windowed'. BTW, Minecraft is a game that prefers strong cores over more threads. (Its difficult to compare modules to cores-since a module is effectively 4 cores with the integer unit split in half).

....Minecraft doesn't use my 750 ti to its full potential and its paired with a Xeon. Unless you want to claim my Xeon sitting at 15% usuage is a bottleneck. So please, never, ever, use Minecraft as a benchmark.

[Kyuubixchidori]

The GPU doesn't bottleneck the CPU, the CPU bottlenecks the GPU.

Um. That depends on your set up. But most set ups, its the GPU pinned at 100%. It can go either way but with every single one of my rigs its the GPU that's holding things back

[JamGorby]

....Minecraft doesn't use my 750 ti to its full potential and its paired with a Xeon. Unless you want to claim my Xeon sitting at 15% usuage is a bottleneck. So please, never, ever, use Minecraft as a benchmark.

This. Minecraft is a Java app. Does anything else really need to be said of it as a benchmark?

[Kyuubixchidori]

This. Minecraft is a Java app. Does anything else really need to be said of it as a benchmark?

The fact it ran better on my dads i7-920 and gt 9800 system then my i5-3570k+hd7970 should be proof enough its not very acurate as a benchmark. Anyone that trys to use it as so is grabbing at straws. Because most of the time it doesn't fully use hardware

[Faceman]

@Faceman I would feel that using a stock market analogy is a little risky considering that a good amount of the people who are involved seek to speculate (or at least that's my impression of it). I would rather get what works for my money now rather than speculate that something beneficial will happen in the future (the DX12 argument). From the way I see it, it's game theory:

 

You could stand to lose some performance for the money if DX12 doesn't pan out the way people expect/speculate, or you could gain an indeterminate (at the moment) amount of performance if things DO work out. Surely, it's not like Intel processors would get worse perfomance than before with a new API. But who knows, I've been wrong before.

Ok yea, I messed up that analogy.

 

Even though, based on what we know now, DX12 will make FX processors stronger, but still not strong enough. Intel will also benefit from DX12. Also, it won't help performance in any game released to date. Only games forward of the DX12 launch might benefit, and even then, certain game calculations prefer strong cores over many weak ones.  Its a help, a big help, but its not a miracle cure for the FX.

 

Still, you get what works now and not what might work based on speculation especially when there is a wealth of evidence to show how much better one is over the other at the same price.

[d1screet]

I get what you were saying though; ultimately I am NOT wanting to say that the FX-6300 is a BAD chip Nor that AMD makes BAD processors/products. It's just with the price point that they're selling at, they just don't seem as competitive as Intel counterparts, especially now that the lower-end Intel processors have dropped in price.

 

I'm shopping around for parts as of now, and I was seriously considering and curious about the FX-4300/FX-6300 as well as the APU line that AMD had to offer. I've tried searching far and wide for opinions from various people so I can try to sift out the fanboy attitude and make a decision on my own; I've even rejected a good number of arguments on both sides.

[Opcode]

I get what you were saying though; ultimately I am wanting to say that the FX-6300 is a BAD chip or that AMD makes BAD processors/products. It's just with the price point that they're selling at, they just don't seem as competitive as Intel counterparts, especially now that the lower-end Intel processors have dropped in price.

 

I'm shopping around for parts as of now, and I was seriously considering and curious about the FX-4300/FX-6300 as well as the APU line that AMD had to offer. I've tried searching far and wide for opinions from various people so I can try to sift out the fanboy attitude and make a decision on my own; I've even rejected a good number of arguments on both sides.

The FX-6300 isn't a BAD processor nor does AMD make BAD products. It's just the fact that it's performance doesn't meet expectations of some consumers. Intel has the performance edge right now but that doesn't make AMD offerings BAD. It just makes them a BAD choice for particular needs. Per example when it comes to gaming you're better off going with a i5-4460 over any Piledriver based FX due to how well they perform with DirectX. If you're building a multitasking budget machine for grandma that only needs to run basic software like a web browser and instant messaging applications then a FX-6300 would be a golden ticket. It all boils down to what use is to be expected of the microprocessor. You could really sum it up simply with gaming & time critical tasks < Intel, everything else < AMD.