Is it time to stop discouraging use of the FX-8350?

[Dabombinable]

but again, those cost more. The 8320 in particular costs the same as a i3 6100... and the 6100 also has faster RAM as standard. Thus the 80% higher single core performance and faster RAM will effectively negate even a OCd 4 "core" 8320... (although, using the ASRock 970M Pro3 you can get fast RAM for FX without breaking the bank).

FX8 is for home servers and cheap-o rendering...

 

FX6 is cheap enough to rival the i3s. If i3s drop in price, the FX6 got to follow, if not -> useless due to price vs performance.

 

EDIT:

FX6 with half the ALUs would be faster, single core wise, then the Phenom II X3. Phenom II has 10-15% single core advantage, but the FX, with only 3 ALU could easily be OCd to 4.5GHz or higher without having voltage or heat issues.

Still though, when it comes to price/performance AMD is really struggling at the moment-they could have just die shrunk K10, and stopped chasing higher frequencies (eg 5GHz) the way Intel did after Netburst, and been left with CPU that were almost on par with Sandybridge while having 2, 3, 4, 6 and possibly 8 cores (smaller manufacturing process=more room for cores). They could also have had SMT already in use.

What the op feels about a website has 0 things to do with how CPUs objectively perform. Unless you have information relevant to that graph you are talking out of your butt.

The website is unreliable-its bechmarks aren't to be trusted. And yes the CPU might be catching up with a limited selection of recent titles, but they still perform badly.

[Prysin]

Still though, when it comes to price/performance AMD is really struggling at the moment-they could have just die shrunk K10, and stopped chasing higher frequencies (eg 5GHz) the way Intel did after Netburst, and been left with CPU that were almost on par with Sandybridge while having 2, 3, 4, 6 and possibly 8 cores (smaller manufacturing process=more room for cores).

true, but we do not know if K10 had leakage issues. If it did, shrinking it would have caused more bad then good, as leakage in tight spaces is a nightmare.

 

Personally, i think they should have started out with Piledriver (rather then bulldozer), then worked from there...

If "FX 8320" was based on steamroller, we would see a damn fine CPU, 7% increase in single core and 15% multi-core then worked their way "up" from there...

 

imagine if Kaveri was based on Excavator... that would be something.... if the rumored 30% single core perf over steamroller is true. then that APU would be a fucking beast!

[Dabombinable]

true, but we do not know if K10 had leakage issues. If it did, shrinking it would have caused more bad then good, as leakage in tight spaces is a nightmare.

 

Personally, i think they should have started out with Piledriver (rather then bulldozer), then worked from there...

If "FX 8320" was based on steamroller, we would see a damn fine CPU, 7% increase in single core and 15% multi-core then worked their way "up" from there...

 

imagine if Kaveri was based on Excavator... that would be something.... if the rumored 30% single core perf over steamroller is true. then that APU would be a fucking beast!

Unfortunately, too many bad design choices where made, AMD's higher ups appeared to be stoned, and we are now left with a shit line of CPU, several shit lines of APU and AMD almost at the point of collapse.

[Prysin]

Unfortunately, too many bad design choices where made, AMD's higher ups appeared to be stoned, and we are now left with a shit line of CPU, several shit lines of APU and AMD almost at the point of collapse.

APUs, for what they are worth, are good. Their downfall is that only Carrizo can CF with ANY AMD GPU, while Kaveri is locked to only R7 240 and R7 250... Other then that, price to performance. the APUs are actually good. The FPS they give without needing a GPU is quite respectable for the price.

 

As for FX, yeh, they aint good.

 

but aslong as they remain as cheap as today, they can still be used. Their price to performance isnt half bad now that more and more games are using multiple cores. However, it boils down to a "use case" scenario.

 

If you plan to play AAA titles, FX isnt a bad choice, as several benchmarks are showing.

If you plan to play WoW, GW2 or other MMOs (most MOBAs will run just fine on FX) then i would reccomend Intel due to IPC being higher.

 

EDIT: that being said. Did you try out GW2 yet?

[SpaceNugget]

really no one should discourage the use of any processor. If someone asks about a processor, let them know what the processor can do and let them decide for themselves.

[flibberdipper]

Jesus Christ, all I see in this thread are a bunch of people aimlessly throwing their own shit around. SOOOOOOOOOOOOO much flame and salt in one thread, OMG.

 

APUs, for what they are worth, are good.

Other than the first gen ones. My grandma has the 3650 in her computer and it is god awful. Like, ohmygod this is MINECRAFT and you can't run it. WTF.

[FruitBasketSilex]

Jesus Christ, all I see in this thread are a bunch of people aimlessly throwing their own shit around. SOOOOOOOOOOOOO much flame and salt in one thread, OMG.

Other than the first gen ones. My grandma has the 3650 in her computer and it is god awful. Like, ohmygod this is MINECRAFT and you can't run it. WTF.

This happens every time someone asks about intelVsAMD, or someone decides to become a keyboard paladin on behalf of AMD.

[flibberdipper]

This happens every time someone asks about intelVsAMD, or someone decides to become a keyboard paladin on behalf of AMD.

I know. It's stupid. amirite

[FruitBasketSilex]

I know. It's stupid. amirite

You are right. Unfortunately, it is just part of inhabiting the CPU/Mem/MOBO section.

[TravisTea]

I think it is time to retire those FX chips. For the same price of an 8320/8350 you can get a locked i5 and decent budget board which will generally out perform the entire FX lineup in gaming. Heck an i3 will too. Might as well go Intel until AMD releases Zen, then go from there. If you're on a major budget strain and live near a micro center then I could maybe say FX is ok, but those chips were never really that great to begin with. My opinion, of course.

[flibberdipper]

You are right. Unfortunately, it is just part of inhabiting the CPU/Mem/MOBO section.

Or just idiots on the forum in general.

[skyler_mertz]

It is obvious this whole forum is extremely biased towards Intel and Nvidia. That being said, EVERY AMD processor I have every owned (FX-6300, FX-8350) have always been a great experience for me. They have always overclocked well, cooled well, and never gave me the issues that my 4670k AND 4770k do. I cannot even maintain a 1ghz overclock on any of my Haswell cpu's. It might work for me one day but for others it is a shit show. Temps are always crazy high (70's under load) for my 4670k and 4770k when my AMD CPU's were never above 50C at load. This forum will always tote how great their Intel CPU's are, and show links to benchmarks, but it is increasingly biased which makes the sources invalid. 

 

With my experience with Intel, I will most likely pick up Zen on day one. 

 

Edit: Seen a few videos that compare Intel to AMD. I like how Tek Syndicate did theirs, link: 

. 

 

Intel single core performance is no doubt better than AMD. However, with the gaming I do, I never notice a bottleneck of any sort with AMD. For those streaming or looking to start streaming, even for video editing, 8 cores definitely come in handy. With more games coming out that support multicore CPU's and DirectX 12, a 4 year old architecture is still keeping up with the newer stuff. 

 

Something to think about. 

 

/Flame suit on.

[FruitBasketSilex]

It is obvious this whole forum is extremely biased towards Intel and Nvidia. That being said, EVERY AMD processor I have every owned (FX-6300, FX-8350) have always been a great experience for me. They have always overclocked well, cooled well, and never gave me the issues that my 4670k AND 4770k do. I cannot even maintain a 1ghz overclock on any of my Haswell cpu's. It might work for me one day but for others it is a shit show. Temps are always crazy high (70's under load) for my 4670k and 4770k when my AMD CPU's were never above 50C at load. This forum will always tote how great their Intel CPU's are, and show links to benchmarks, but it is increasingly biased which makes the sources invalid.

With my experience with Intel, I will most likely pick up Zen on day one.

/Flame suit on.

Taking you on, fucknut.

Intel and NVIDIA?

HAH!

I have a 390x, and nine times out of ten in the GPU section I see 380>960, 370>950, and 390>970. So, lol to that one.

Your tjmax on AMD is 63(?) Degrees. Intel's tjmax is 100c. Neither are having heat problems according to the temps you stated, the 50c-75c isn't even comparable at all because of the different tjmax values, and architectures.

A 1ghz oc on a 4790k is laughable. You can't directly compare overclockability across TOTALLY different architectures. The i7 doesn't even need an overclock because it smashes the FX already, that being said, I can overclock to 4.8ghz pretty easily with my 4790k.

Your overclock failing on some days is a sign, one that's telling you TURN VOLTAGE UP, or TURN MULTI DOWN. Whichever you feel better achieving.

Benchmarks? We say Intel is better, because it is a fact. We don't fabricate any of these benchmarks, none of them are pulled from our ass, they are all from legitimate, reputable sources. And how the hell would our "supposed" bias completely NEGATE all info from EVERY CREDIBLE SOURCE OUT?

You have 12 posts. You should have left this forum 12 posts ago if you are going to restart a flame war, for no reason, with no evidence to back you up, on purpose.

This forum is not for you.

EDIT: This AMD experience, yes, you have so much experience with AMD, two processors. You must be the almighty expert on AMDs architecture. Please, go join their team and help out with Zen with all of your experience you have.

EDIT EDIT: M.2, PCIE3, NVME, etc.

[GalacticRuler]

Currently, since the FX series is 4 years old, the i5 is still the better deal because of its newer technology and single core performance. Even though more and more games are starting to utilize 8 cores, there are still a majority that don't. So, until the FX series gets a refresh and the majority of games utilize 8 cores, the i5 is the better deal.

[skyler_mertz]

Taking you on, fucknut.

Intel and NVIDIA?

HAH!

I have a 390x, and nine times out of ten in the GPU section I see 380>960, 370>950, and 390>970. So, lol to that one.

Your tjmax on AMD is 63(?) Degrees. Intel's tjmax is 100c. Neither are having heat problems according to the temps you stated, the 50c-75c isn't even comparable at all because of the different tjmax values, and architectures.

A 1ghz oc on a 4790k is laughable. You can't directly compare overclockability across TOTALLY different architectures. The i7 doesn't even need an overclock because it smashes the FX already, that being said, I can overclock to 4.8ghz pretty easily with my 4790k.

Your overclock failing on some days is a sign, one that's telling you TURN VOLTAGE UP, or TURN MULTI DOWN. Whichever you feel better achieving.

Benchmarks? We say Intel is better, because it is a fact. We don't fabricate any of these benchmarks, none of them are pulled from our ass, they are all from legitimate, reputable sources. And how the hell would our "supposed" bias completely NEGATE all info from EVERY CREDIBLE AOURCE OUT?

You have 12 posts. You should have left this forum 12 posts ago if you are going to restart a flame war, for no reason, with no evidence to back you up, on purpose.

This forum is not for you.

EDIT: This AMD experience, yes, you have so much experience with AMD, two processors. You must be the almighty expert on AMDs architecture. Please, go join their team and help out with Zen with all of your experience you have.

EDIT EDIT: M.2, PCIE3, NVME, etc.

 

Resulting to insults already? I never said the FX line was BETTER. I said it was a BETTER experience for me. All of my AMD CPU's overclocked easily to 4.8+ with hardly any effort. With both of my Intel CPU's I have to fight the CPU's to overclock them even 500mhz. 1.3v is all that is recommended for Intel CPU's so 4.4ghz/4.5ghz is all I am going to get out of it before I brick the things. Numerous friends also agree that AMD is an overall better experience.

 

Your 3,000 posts only show how much you troll the forums and bash people with differing views than you. 

 

TJ maxes are different, so are idle temps. AMD is also much lower than Intel anyday. My silent AMD rig is much more enjoyable next to my ear than my Intel rig constantly ramping the fans up and down everytime I open Chrome or open Word and the temps spiking at 55C when something random pops up in my task bar. Yes, fan ramp up time is turned up to 30 seconds, and it will still do it. I know I am not the only one experiencing these things.

 

Bottom line is, your 4.8ghz 4790k is getting a ton of use from the LTT forums. Or the "workstation" things you probably do. You can hate on AMD all you want but you still have a $450 290x sitting in your rig. You have little say in opinions.

 

I never claimed to be an expert. I made a claim and supported it with a unbiased source. Tek Syndicate uses both brands to create their content and their videos show their expertise. Biased benchmarks are benchmarks from places like LTT and all of their videos, the AMD marketing benchmarks and Nvidia Benchmarks, Benchmarks from unproven sources, Benchmarks without controls, etc.

 

Scientific method and proper citing is something you learn in high school, might want to look into it.

 

EDIT: 13 posts.

 

EDIT EDIT: PCIe 3.0 is all you take advantage of, PCIe 2.0 still provides more than enough bandwidth for a 390X.

[Dabombinable]

Resulting to insults already? I never said the FX line was BETTER. I said it was a BETTER experience for me. All of my AMD CPU's overclocked easily to 4.8+ with hardly any effort. With both of my Intel CPU's I have to fight the CPU's to overclock them even 500mhz. 1.3v is all that is recommended for Intel CPU's so 4.4ghz/4.5ghz is all I am going to get out of it before I brick the things. Numerous friends also agree that AMD is an overall better experience.

 

Your 3,000 posts only show how much you troll the forums and bash people with differing views than you. 

 

TJ maxes are different, so are idle temps. AMD is also much lower than Intel anyday. My silent AMD rig is much more enjoyable next to my ear than my Intel rig constantly ramping the fans up and down everytime I open Chrome or open Word and the temps spiking at 55C when something random pops up in my task bar. Yes, fan ramp up time is turned up to 30 seconds, and it will still do it. I know I am not the only one experiencing these things.

 

Bottom line is, your 4.8ghz 4790k is getting a ton of use from the LTT forums. Or the "workstation" things you probably do. You can hate on AMD all you want but you still have a $450 290x sitting in your rig. You have little say in opinions.

 

I never claimed to be an expert. I made a claim and supported it with a unbiased source. Tek Syndicate uses both brands to create their content and their videos show their expertise. Biased benchmarks are benchmarks from places like LTT and all of their videos, the AMD marketing benchmarks and Nvidia Benchmarks, Benchmarks from unproven sources, Benchmarks without controls, etc.

 

Scientific method and proper citing is something you learn in high school, might want to look into it.

 

EDIT: 13 posts.

Tek Syndicate are the only ones to get those results with an FX 8350 vs a 4690K.

[iHardware Shelden]

 

 

This is what this thread makes me think of.....

[FruitBasketSilex]

Resulting to insults already? I never said the FX line was BETTER. I said it was a BETTER experience for me. All of my AMD CPU's overclocked easily to 4.8+ with hardly any effort. With both of my Intel CPU's I have to fight the CPU's to overclock them even 500mhz. 1.3v is all that is recommended for Intel CPU's so 4.4ghz/4.5ghz is all I am going to get out of it before I brick the things. Numerous friends also agree that AMD is an overall better experience.

Your 3,000 posts only show how much you troll the forums and bash people with differing views than you.

TJ maxes are different, so are idle temps. AMD is also much lower than Intel anyday. My silent AMD rig is much more enjoyable next to my ear than my Intel rig constantly ramping the fans up and down everytime I open Chrome or open Word and the temps spiking at 55C when something random pops up in my task bar. Yes, fan ramp up time is turned up to 30 seconds, and it will still do it. I know I am not the only one experiencing these things.

Bottom line is, your 4.8ghz 4790k is getting a ton of use from the LTT forums. Or the "workstation" things you probably do. You can hate on AMD all you want but you still have a $450 290x sitting in your rig. You have little say in opinions.

I never claimed to be an expert. I made a claim and supported it with a unbiased source. Tek Syndicate uses both brands to create their content and their videos show their expertise. Biased benchmarks are benchmarks from places like LTT and all of their videos, the AMD marketing benchmarks and Nvidia Benchmarks, Benchmarks from unproven sources, Benchmarks without controls, etc.

Scientific method and proper citing is something you learn in high school, might want to look into it.

EDIT: 13 posts.

EDIT EDIT: PCIe 3.0 is all you take advantage of, PCIe 2.0 still provides more than enough bandwidth for a 390X.

@mods, please, please lock this thread already. The topic has been discussed and now its just fuel.

That being said, I do not insult people on this forum, or troll them, as you say, but I do become quite angry when some kid thinks its alright to just dessecrate this forum by providing nothing to a discussion and just fueling fire.

NVME, PCIE3, and M.2 may not mean much to ME, but I'm sure they do for MANY people on this forum.

I did not buy my 390x for 450$, I bought it for 410$, and I have a 410$ 980 in my rig, I don't care for shadowplay as I don't have a use for it, and I don't mind not having a minor performance increasing driver day 0 for every single AAA game.

Your problem with your fans could be solved if you spent even a moment adjusting fans in the BIOS. I have an aggressive can curve, and have never had a single problem like that.

1.45v is Intel's reccomended maximum voltage for non-chemical cooling, I.e. water cooling and air cooling. Maybe you should try overclocking a bit better than you are, because if you can only reach 4.5ghz on a 4790k, you've either got poor silicon lottery luck, or you're doing something massively wrong.

I haven't seen a single person on this forum actually cite an LTT benchmark, I've seen anandtech benches, I've seen digital foundry benches, not once have I seen someone throw out an LTT benchmark as a source, I am pretty sure that IT is not biased either way red or blue.

If you want to see some FXvCoreI benches as some proof, go see @Majestic posts above, and on the preceding pages.

You want to fight about this, go ahead and find a different forum to shitpost all over. No one here enjoys seeing this shit, and you pushing it along doesn't help anything.

[skyler_mertz]

Tek Syndicate are the only ones to get those results with an FX 8350 vs a 4690K.

 

Heres a LTT video: 

 

I just skipped through it. 8350 actually trades blows with the 3570k. 

 

Heres another: 

 

Shows DirectX 12 API and DX 11 utilizing all 8 cores and doing much better than an i5.

 

Last one: 

 

Video shows the 9590, 8350 doing much better in video encoding.

 

Take what you want from these videos. It took me a 5 minutes youtube search and I just clicked through the videos to the benchmarks. There are definitely multiple sources showing these 4 year old processors still up to par with Haswell and IvyBridge. 

[skyler_mertz]

@mods, please, please lock this thread already. The topic has been discussed and now its just fuel.

That being said, I do not insult people on this forum, or troll them, as you say, but I do become quite angry when some kid thinks its alright to just dessecrate this forum by providing nothing to a discussion and just fueling fire.

NVME, PCIE3, and M.2 may not mean much to ME, but I'm sure they do for MANY people on this forum.

I did not buy my 390x for 450$, I bought it for 410$, and I have a 410$ 980 in my rig, I don't care for shadowplay as I don't have a use for it, and I don't mind not having a minor performance increasing driver day 0 for every single AAA game.

Your problem with your fans could be solved if you spent even a moment adjusting fans in the BIOS. I have an aggressive can curve, and have never had a single problem like that.

1.45v is Intel's reccomended maximum voltage for non-chemical cooling, I.e. water cooling and air cooling. Maybe you should try overclocking a bit better than you are, because if you can only reach 4.5ghz on a 4790k, you've either got poor silicon lottery luck, or you're doing something massively wrong.

I haven't seen a single person on this forum actually cite an LTT benchmark, I've seen anandtech benches, I've seen digital foundry benches, not once have I seen someone throw out an LTT benchmark as a source, I am pretty sure that IT is not biased either way red or blue.

If you want to see some FXvCoreI benches as some proof, go see @Majestic posts above, and on the preceding pages.

You want to fight about this, go ahead and find a different forum to shitpost all over. No one here enjoys seeing this shit, and you pushing it along doesn't help anything.

I added to a discussion by disagreeing with other peoples opinions. I provided sources and my own experience. 

 

It is clearly not mocking, or insulting the other members of this group unless you want to claim me saying the obvious that this forum is biased against AMD. At which case, calling me a "fucknut" contradicts your "shitpost" claim.

 

I have a 4770k, overclocking headroom is not as high as a better binned and better thermal solution 4790k. Guides have shown 1.3v and lower is considered safe for them. 

[FruitBasketSilex]

Heres a LTT video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICVeN6WEGgg

I just skipped through it. 8350 actually trades blows with the 3570k.

Heres another: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emEEjJtFVL8

Shows DirectX 12 API and DX 11 utilizing all 8 cores and doing much better than an i5.

Last one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NNwSDPo1Dg

Video shows the 9590, 8350 doing much better in video encoding.

Take what you want from these videos. It took me a 5 minutes youtube search and I just clicked through the videos to the benchmarks. There are definitely multiple sources showing these 4 year old processors still up to par with Haswell and IvyBridge.

Video 1: I don't want to watch it right now, as I'm on mobile, but my money's on a good mix of those benches (assuming gaming) that they're a mix of multithreaded games and more single threaded games.

Video 2: DX12 has nothing to do with multithreaded games. All it does is allow any core to issue a drawcall rather than just the first core. A common misconception is going around that any game built for DX12 is magically multithreaded and will bring FX back. No. It is still up to the devs to run game logic, AI, etc, on other cores.

VIDEO 3: I'm fairly sure that's not a credible source. An FX8 is pretty equivalent to a fourth gen i5 in multithreaded performance. And with the slight performance increase it should beat out the FX chips, and if you choose to overclock the skylake i5, you're increasing the gap even more.

[Dabombinable]

Heres a LTT video: 

 

I just skipped through it. 8350 actually trades blows with the 3570k. 

 

Heres another: 

 

Shows DirectX 12 API and DX 11 utilizing all 8 cores and doing much better than an i5.

 

Last one: 

 

Video shows the 9590, 8350 doing much better in video encoding.

 

Take what you want from these videos. It took me a 5 minutes youtube search and I just clicked through the videos to the benchmarks. There are definitely multiple sources showing these 4 year old processors still up to par with Haswell and IvyBridge. 

Guess what? Video encoding makes uses of 8 threads. In gaming none of the CPU in the FX series beat an i5.

[FruitBasketSilex]

I added to a discussion by disagreeing with other peoples opinions. I provided sources and my own experience.

It is clearly not mocking, or insulting the other members of this group unless you want to claim me saying the obvious that this forum is biased against AMD. At which case, calling me a "fucknut" contradicts your "shitpost" claim.

I have a 4770k, overclocking headroom is not as high as a better binned and better thermal solution 4790k. Guides have shown 1.3v and lower is considered safe for them.

You didn't disagree with people's opinions, you disagreed with FACT.

1.45v is what INTEL THEMSELVES say you should max out the volts on a 2500/2600/3570/3770/4690/4790/6600/6700k at. It is safe to go up there. Thermal headroom on your 4770k can be improved by delidding and replacing the shitty TIM Intel chose.

I called you a Fucknut for choosing to reignite a flame ware, ON PURPOSE, for no other reason than to fight.

[Kyzer]

I used new DLC for the Witcher 3. And who are you to decide what makes sense? I'll trust benchmarks of a reputable site over your arguing like it's a religious conviction.

http://www.technologyx.com/featured/amd-vs-intel-our-8-core-cpu-gaming-performance-showdown/4/

you'll be interested in this

[Dabombinable]

http://www.technologyx.com/featured/amd-vs-intel-our-8-core-cpu-gaming-performance-showdown/4/

you'll be interested in this

1 word based on every other website: Bullshit