I switched from AMD: A Testimonial.

[connorpiper]

My god you've convinced me of what I already know. You sir deserve a medal. Are you just arguing to argue? I don't know what you think you're accomplishing here

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/351398-amd-fx-6-month-conclusion/#entry4777673

You're bashing on FX CPUs like they're the worst performing things in the whole world. And my ingame-server hosting performs about the same as my friends i7-4790k with few people so I think you may have had another problem there besides CPU. (minecraft, gmod, unturned, AOM)

 

When talking about gaming, I do "bash" FX CPUs. (Though I do so without stupid/biased reasoning)  

Also, I was talking about Civ V hosting, which is very CPU heavy and multithreaded, not minecraft. 

 

But you should not care considering your careless comment "Keep going". (And yes, I understand sarcasm)

I even have your page bookmarked because I like some of the writing. But being rude just because you can is not a good idea if you are trying to get someone to shut up.

[itachipirate]

When talking about gaming, I do "bash" FX CPUs. (Though I do so without stupid/biased reasoning)  

Also, I was talking about Civ V hosting, which is very CPU heavy and multithreaded, not minecraft. 

 

But you should not care considering your careless comment "Keep going". (And yes, I understand sarcasm)

I even have your page bookmarked because I like some of the writing. But being rude just because you can is not a good idea if you are trying to get someone to shut up.

Didn't mean to start a fight, I just got annoyed because of how badly you overly-hate FX CPUs. There are bad things about them but you make them sound much worse than they are

[connorpiper]

Didn't mean to start a fight, I just got annoyed because of how badly you overly-hate FX CPUs. There are bad things about them but you make them sound much worse than they are

 

I have many people who treat them like gods. So when someone starts with "FX CPUs are decent at gaming" my brain goes right to "FUCK NO!" because of the existence of FX 9590, and the poor efficiency of the 6300 and 8350. Which still sell because of the more cores per dollar thing. 

I may hate FX CPUs but that is because we just got into 2015, in 2013, I recommended them, in 2014 I avoided them and now I think AMD should just stop selling them and get Zen out of the gates so the i7s will not be so elitist. But I did not give any biased info, which is what I usually shoot for. 

[FruitBasketSilex]

Very informative thread. A+ for effort and don't worry, your benchmarking proves fine.

Only issue is this.

 

AMD CPUs are totally fine for modern gaming. Intel's just offer better performance.

If you're fine with the game looking like poop.

 

Why play the game at opoop settings when you could play it at much higher settings?

 

This is the heart of the entire debate.

 

Yes, I can play Skyrim on Low with a 9590, but I could also use the same equipment and play it on High on an i5 or my own personal 4790k.

 

That's the heart of it. We're not saying it's a peice of crap. We're saying it's on its way out, and we need to let go of it. It's antiquated technology.

[itachipirate]

I have many people who treat them like gods. So when someone starts with "FX CPUs are decent at gaming" my brain goes right to "FUCK NO!" because of the existence of FX 9590, and the poor efficiency of the 6300 and 8350. Which still sell because of the more cores per dollar thing.

I may hate FX CPUs but that is because we just got into 2015, in 2013, I recommended them, in 2014 I avoided them and now I think AMD should just stop selling them and get Zen out of the gates so the i7s will not be so elitist. But I did not give any biased info, which is what I usually shoot for.

Now we seem to be on the same page. They're not the worst thing in the world, but you shouldn't buy them anymore. I misunderstood you at first

Yes, I can play Skyrim on Low with a 9590, but I could also use the same equipment and play it on High on an i5 or my own personal 4790k.

I play Skyrim with tons of mods and ENBseries on ultra with an FX-6300 and GTX 970. That's just... not right. I think you had a different problem besides the CPU, or something else was wrong

[FruitBasketSilex]

 

#1 Looking like poop? That's not CPU dependent. How a game looks is GPU.

 

#2 I have no idea what you're talking about, but a 9590 can easily run Skyrim on max settings with good FPS. BUT, like I KEEP repeating, Intel does it better.

 

#3 Doesn't anyone read what I'm saying? AMD will work fine, but Intel will work better. That is 100% truth.

 

#4  Look up any benchmark of the 83XX CPU with a high end GPU and you will get very playable, enjoyable average FPS. The only difference is that Intel CPUs will have higher average FPS and more consistent gameplay. THAT'S IT.

 

#5 What is there to argue about? I know about the antiquated technology and the price similarities.

 

You completely missed what I was saying.

 

I have altered the quote to introduce a numbered list. I will reply to each one in turn below:

 

#1: I know it's not CPU dependant, I was referring to having to lower graphics quality to get better (over60) FPS.

 

#2:  I was giving an example, I'm sorry I didn't care to look up benches to find a specific game it applied to.

 

#3:  That is exactly what I was saying. 

 

#4: The problem is not Average FPS, it's the minimum. Between the i5-4690k, and the FX-8350 for example, there is, across many games, a significant difference in minimum FPS and GPU usage. I wouldn't play FC4 on high with stuttering and hitching, i'd move it down to medium to get rid of it. Many people are like that. It's extraordinarily annoying ot have happen.

 

#5:  Good for you./Minimum FPS

[FruitBasketSilex]

What exactly did I miss?

All you said, basically, is that an AMD CPU can't play Skyrim (or insert AAA game here) at low settings while an Intel CPU can max it out. That's complete nonsense. You're just now mentioning minimum frame rates. You never once mentioned it in your initial post.

I have no idea what this argument is still over. My point still stands 100% which you just agreed too...what is up with you people lol

UGH, my point was not that a 9590 cannot run skyrm at high.

I was giving an example.

I'm sure it can.

What I was saying, was people may have to reduce graphical fidelity in order to increase their FPS, or reduce hitching/stuttering, whereas with an equivalently priced intel CPU they would not.

I play Skyrim with tons of mods and ENBseries on ultra with an FX-6300 and GTX 970. That's just... not right. I think you had a different problem besides the CPU, or something else was wrong

I'm sorry, apparently the situation I gave was not clear enough for all of you.

I simply meant, that when purchasing a cpu, you should go with the equivalently priced Intel CPU rather than the AMD cpu, As you may have to lower settings in some games to increase minimum/average FPS or reduce stuttering/hitching if you were to go red.

I was not saying that you can't play skyrim with a 9590 on high. I was throwing a scenario out there that I made up on the spot to illustrate my point. This is the case with a fair few games, but I didn't feel like taking the time to find one, just to show a person on the internet.

[asusfan]

see its all about matching components, a FX cpu with a AMD gpu at the right specs works fine, but make sure you dont get gready and get to high a spec gpu as the cpu will then be the restriction.

looks like you found a good match, my old and still working very nicely rig has a FX6300 and paired with 2x Asus HD7790's 2gig OC edition cards in crossfire works really good.

no what i see is the intel has a higher (lowest fps) rating meaning it dont drop the performace as much, and the max is most likely down to the gpu maxed out. so hence the AMD & Intel have somewhat simular max fps.

[Guest trucker2]

For many Intel is the best choice and for others AMD is the best choice. Teksyndacate did a great vid putting an 8350 against 3 different I5's and the AMD smoked all tree in a bunch of games. I am not a programmer but i have read articles on how to optimize code in C++ for an L2 cache. It was over my head and incredible complex but I doubt many EXPERTS here ever wrote a hello world program in MASM or even basic. Intel and AMD have different cache systems. Theres allot I don't know and I'll be the first to admit it but BS is easy to spot. Best option is to research the Games you like and avoid this forum unfortunately. BTW you build is FXinf-awesome and thought of ya when I saw this vid about the fx8350 its here:  

[FLUFFYJELLO]

 

 

In regards to your video of TekSyndicate having benchmarks that contradict essentially every other credible source on the internet...well, not much else has to be said about that.

[Nena Trinity]

I agree with everyone here that the i5 is better than a FX but when people say i3 is better for gaming I just wanna facedesk! The i3 may have hyper treading but that does not fix the fact that it has 2 cores. I have seen many live tests that shows how poorly i3 handles in many multi-core supported games. Sure many games the i3 does better cause they have poor multi-core support and only uses 1 or 2 cores which is MANY! Yes I admit it that the i3 is better at more games but still when the game support 4 or more the FX takes the lead but the i5 still beats it after that! But lets all agree the allmighty i7 is the best right?

 

Pentium < i3 < FX < i5 < i7

i7 is king you most buy a i7 to be a king!

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

edited.

 

yeah im not even gonna debate this anymore

[Faceman]

For many Intel is the best choice and for others AMD is the best choice. Teksyndacate did a great vid putting an 8350 against 3 different I5's and the AMD smoked all tree in a bunch of games. I am not a programmer but i have read articles on how to optimize code in C++ for an L2 cache. It was over my head and incredible complex but I doubt many EXPERTS here ever wrote a hello world program in MASM or even basic. Intel and AMD have different cache systems. Theres allot I don't know and I'll be the first to admit it but BS is easy to spot. Best option is to research the Games you like and avoid this forum unfortunately. BTW you build is FXinf-awesome and thought of ya when I saw this vid about the fx8350 its here:

As I already explained to you on a different thread, this video is rubbish.  No other place on the internet has anyone replicated these results.  Its bogus.  Tek Syndicate also has a lot of other videos that are completely outrageous like an APU + 780 outperforming an i7-4770k + 780.  Its just not going to happen.

 

Please stop posting this crap.  Look at the long spoiler I have linked to you before because I cannot stand your subjective stupidity.  The information has been presented to you, you cannot plead ignorance.

[Faceman]

I agree with everyone here that the i5 is better than a FX but when people say i3 is better for gaming I just wanna facedesk! The i3 may have hyper treading but that does not fix the fact that it has 2 cores. I have seen many live tests that shows how poorly i3 handles in many multi-core supported games. Sure many games the i3 does better cause they have poor multi-core support and only uses 1 or 2 cores which is MANY! Yes I admit it that the i3 is better at more games but still when the game support 4 or more the FX takes the lead but the i5 still beats it after that! But lets all agree the allmighty i7 is the best right?

 

Pentium < i3 < FX < i5 < i7

i7 is king you most buy a i7 to be a king!

You need to stop.  It is getting ridiculous.

 

The i3 has 4 threads.  The vast, vast majority of games don't utilize more than 4 threads.  The i3 is handily beating FX processors in a lot of games, even modern, multi-threaded ones.  There is not a single game that the i3 cannot play, and it plays them all very well.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

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

---

---

---

Really pitiful when modern games are playing so much 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.

---

Even Mantle doesn't bridge the gap.  Too bad they don't show the minimums in this above graph.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Very modern, multi-threaded game that does take advantage of all cores available, yet you have to OC an FX to 5Ghz to MATCH an i3.

---

---

---

---

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.  Even these new games that are well multithreaded are running better on i3s than FX8s.  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. 

 

What benchmarks fail to show is in-game performance.  There is no substitute for actually playing these games on both processors.  Now, I will admit I haven't played all of the games listed above, but in the games I did play, there was a noticeable stutter that would happen.  It didn't happen in all games, but it happened often enough for me to be displeased with it.  My friend who owns the FX8 simply said "You get used to it."  This is the wrong attitude to have.

 

Now...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 without issue?  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

http://benchmarkreviews.com/24051/amd-fx-8320e-am3-processor-performance-review/14/

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-4340-vs-AMD-FX-8320E/2877vs2985

 

 

 

"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."

 

"In terms of raw single-core performance the flagship AMD FX-8350 is lagging behind intel's processor line-up by over two generations. The PassMark Single Thread scores for the i5-2500K vs the FX-8350 are 1863 to 1520 which shows that in terms of raw per-core processing the FX-8350 is lagging the two year old i5 by 23%. Where the AMD FX makes up is on multi-core performance, with a score of 9156 vs 6745, the AMD leads the Intel 2500K by 36% making it the far more capable multi-threaded server orientated performer. The AMD is also cheaper but significantly more power hungry which counts strongly against it as a sever proposition. The FX-8350 could be a good fit for specific server use cases but for general consumer use, which is single and dual core intensive, Intel's two year old i5-2500K will deliver better performance."

 

"When AMD first released CPUs for their AM3+ platform we at OC3D were not overly impressed, behind the hype of AMD's "Bulldozer" architecture was some very power hungry, hot running and under-performing CPUs. When AMD's second generation of FX CPUs, Piledriver, was released AMD had lessened a lot of these issues, but many of those flaws still remained."

 

"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)."

 

"My benchmarks show that the Core i3-4360 is faster than the FX-8320E in virtually every test on a per-core basis, you’re probably never going to see this differential unless you spend quite a lot of time in benchmark-land. Benchmark-land is fun, kind of like taking your car to the drag strip to see what it will do. But, like your quarter-mile time, it often doesn’t have that much correlation with real-world performance."

 

 

"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 FX processor makes no sense because it costs the same or more than their Intel counterparts.  The FX6 system ends up costing the same/more as an i3, but the i3 wins.  The FX8 costs the same/more than the i5, but the i5 wins.  The FX processors only make sense in very specific situations, very very few of which are gaming.  Stop this nonsense that you have been posting.  I have presented you all of the relevant information, you cannot plead ignorance.  I have shown you the facts from multiple, credible sources yet you continue to refute what has been proven. 

 

When you talk, its like you are saying that the earth is flat when it has been proven to be round.

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

the whole thing with the teksyndicate video (and i used to use this video for arguement too) is that he had those cpus paired with a hd 7870,thats a pretty lower end card and he used games that the fx does well in..also that was fps while he was streaming..if they were paired with higher end gpus especially something like a titan-x those results would be different.

 

still fx isnt that bad,facedude hates them for whatever reason but i thought my fx served me well,but they are limited....and newer things are coming out.

[FLUFFYJELLO]

As I already explained to you on a different thread, this video is rubbish. No other place on the internet has anyone replicated these results. Its bogus. Tek Syndicate also has a lot of other videos that are completely outrageous like an APU + 780 outperforming an i7-4770k + 780. Its just not going to happen.

Please stop posting this crap. Look at the long spoiler I have linked to you before because I cannot stand your subjective stupidity. The information has been presented to you, you cannot plead ignorance.

It's not worth arguing with this person anymore. With the amount of flame bait and harassment towards other members within their posts it's only a matter of time before that get banned from the forum. I suggest reporting them as a member because reporting the multiple posts they've made hasn't yielded any results aside from posts being removed. I just would prefer they not muddy up my threads.

[FLUFFYJELLO]

the whole thing with the teksyndicate video (and i used to use this video for arguement too) is that he had those cpus paired with a hd 7870,thats a pretty lower end card and he used games that the fx does well in..also that was fps while he was streaming..if they were paired with higher end gpus scpecially a titan-x those results would be different.

still fx isnt that bad,facedude hates them for whatever reason but i thought my fx served me well,but they are limited....and newer things are coming out.

They aren't bad, they are old and outdated and not made for gaming. Equally priced Intel alternatives do better and can let high end GPUs unleash their full potential. In the middle ground of components, if FX is an insane amount cheaper than Intel for equal performance, then by all means do your thing and go AMD. But even then I'd still recommend Intel; to save your pennies and get the superior product at all price points. Until they release something new that can compete price to performance wise, FX processors are not a good choice for gaming.

[sgloux3470]

They are not, as evidenced by all of these modern games that are running better on an i3 than an FX6/8/9.

 

 

This is like saying "The 280 isn't suited to modern gaming because the 960 outperforms it in 1/5 titles."

 

No one has ever contested that Intel offers better performance.  We don't even contest that Intel's new i3's are extremely price competitive and offer the same or better performance.  What people contest is the "FX CPU's aren't capable enough for modern gaming" sentiment. Probably because most of us are totally doing the whole modern gaming thing with them.

 

It got to the point where people were recommending fucking pentiums over FX6 or FX8 cpu's.  Pentiums are trash for gaming outside of a single threaded/MMO environment and sputter and choke in multithreaded titles like The Witcher 3 or GTA V.

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

This is like saying "The 280 isn't suited to modern gaming because the 960 outperforms it in 1/5 titles."

 

No one has ever contested that Intel offers better performance.  We don't even contest that Intel's new i3's are extremely price competitive and offer the same or better performance.  What people contest is the "FX CPU's aren't capable enough for modern gaming" sentiment. Probably because most of us are totally doing the whole modern gaming thing with them.

 

It got to the point where people were recommending fucking pentiums over FX6 or FX8 cpu's.  Pentiums are trash for gaming outside of a single threaded/MMO environment and sputter and choke in multithreaded titles like The Witcher 3 or GTA V.

yeah the douche-bag is strong within some of these guys...all i know is my 8350 with my 280x crossfire maxed most games at pretty high fps...i outscored like 70% of all linustechtips in firstrike with amd fx at the time....but people always wanna bash anyone saying fx can play games....

 

and you're higher scored than me with a 4770k with your dual 980s...so i'd say we are evidence that they play games just fine.

 

also...im not arguing with these guys over it..its pointless war

[FLUFFYJELLO]

also...im not arguing with these guys over it..its pointless war

Cool, then how about doing what you said you were going to do 3 posts ago? Or is hypocrisy a pastime of yours?

I didn't say FX can't game at all. I said Intel does it better, for equal or cheaper cost. If you can get a superior product for cheaper, why wouldn't you? Misinformation causing you to think the inferior option was better, when it isn't? Threads like mine exist for this purpose: inform people that at this point in the computer building world, going with an FX processor outside of very specific production applications is not a good investment. Particularly when it comes to gaming, Intel is just flat out better. This is FACT; and a fact that the general populace needs to know. To waste money on an inferior product and then finding out that for equal and sometimes less money you could have gotten much better is a terrible feeling. Better they get the best they can now, lest regret their purchase later on.

And to end any "fanboy" arguments before they begin: Whichever has the best price to performance is what should be purchased. If I found out a potato could run Witcher 3 better than a Titan X, you can sure as hell bet I'm gonna buy that potato and jam that s#!+ into my PCIE slot.

[FLUFFYJELLO]

@airdeano @WoodenMarker @any mods currently online:

Please lock this thread.

[Shiro Hagane]

May just say one thing? JUst essentially the whole price to performance thing. It is relevant no matter what. An FX6 is 100-150 USD less than an i5 4690(k). But FX chips are as old as the 500 series Nvidia GPU's. A GTX 970 beats a 280x, but a 280x is 100 USD cheaper. It all depends on  budget, what performance you're looking for and if you want to save money, might end up cutting some good 5% FPS or more considering the type of games being played. EX Tera, WoW, LoL. And with old games, usually doesn't matter. Thank you friend, you did a great job posting up this thread. I hope one day to have an AMD build for fun, knowing that my FPS will drop, but the games I play are not really intensive. And I hope this thread gives some new knowledge to newcomers.