I attempt to settle probably the biggest argument on this forum: FX misconceptions

[PlayStation 2]

After seeing what I would probably consider as the worst fucking flame war, I really wanted to start clearing up misconceptions about the FX series.

Anyways, here goes nothing and a probable permanent ban.

 

1) The FX can't game/s poorly.

Fact: No. Stop right there. The FX can game. And it can game well. In games that are poorly optimized (something along the ranges of CSGO or Arma 3) it's gonna lag behind even the Core i3s from Ivy Bridge days. In games that are properly optimized (Dirt Rally, Grand Theft Auto V, Just Cause 3 to name a few), the FX series will easily keep up with a Haswell and get within backstabbing range of a Skylake i5 while typically being a bit cheaper.

 

2) You need separate coolers to cool the FX-8xxx!

Fact: This depends. If you're overclocking, yes. However, if you aren't, then you don't really need one unless a bit of noise bothers you. In that case, I'd highly recommend something along the lines of a Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO or a Cryorig H7. However, I'd personally recommend an aftermarket cooler, because it never kills to have a better cooler than stock cooler.

 

3) The FX runs hot!

Fact: It dissipates more heat. That does not mean it is hotter. The FX-8320's and above's TDP of 125 watts means it's pumping some heat into the case. The FX-8320/70e is a special exception as its TDP of 95 watts means it really doesn't pump more heat than an i7-4790.

 

4) Motherboards for it cost too much!

Fact: If you're getting a nicely OCable CPU, you're obviously planning on a decent motherboard. Saying that you need a great motherboard to run an FX-8350 at a 4.5GHz OC is like saying that an i5-4690K needs a high end motherboard to get a good overclock. It's kind of a "Well, duh." situation. That being said, if you're approaching really expensive $300+ territory, go Intel.

 

That's all of the myths I can think of at the moment. If you've got anything decent to say, comment. I will get moderators here if things get ugly.

[Syntaxvgm]

we know 
And it still games poorly, will not 'keep up with haswell', even clocked lower. Making broad statements like that with no specifics makes me question what the fuck you are talking about. What an i3-4130?  or a 5960x?

And bulldozer is still shit. 

Wake me up when we get Zen 

[skyress3000]

It dissipates more heat. That does not mean it is hotter.

myth: more watts TDP = dissipating heat

 

More watts TDP = more energy/sec being transferred into heat by the chip = higher temperature. I'm pretty sure hotter means higher temperature. Further more, this energy is not dissipated by the chip (for the most part); the heatsink does that work. If you have a chip with a higher TDP than another, and you run both on a heatsink with the same TDP, the chip with the higher TDP (FX) will run hotter, assuming they both have a high enough TDP that the heatsink can't cool to room temperature.

[Marcus Torre DeProspero]

we know 

And it still games poorly, will not 'keep up with haswell'

And bulldozer is still shit. 

Wake me up when we get Zen 

Dude first of all chill and that's your opinion not a fact

[skyress3000]

that's your opinion not a fact

actual benchmark numbers = opinion 10/10 would logic again

[Marcus Torre DeProspero]

actual benchmark numbers = opinion 10/10 would logic again

The FACT that it has much lower FPS than other Intel CPUs is a fact. Your OPINION is that it isn't good for gaming.

[AresKrieger]

Well the first point is subjective to what you call poorly, they do run games less effectively than intel, but it is subjective in this context so ones man's trash is another man's treasure

 

2nd and 3rd point are fine

 

The 4th point shows how amd cpus are not as cheap as they appear to be due to the moba cost, though people do exaggerate this issue it is still an issue

[Syntaxvgm]

Dude first of all chill and that's your opinion not a fact

Bulldozer = Shit. Fact. 

Literally everything about it is a shame. The low IPC, the shared cache, the destruction of the AMD mobile market, everything. It made their engineers want to either murder the marketing team or commit suicide, and it's so terrible intel has been slacking off since they have no high end competition. 

There is no way I should still be using a 2600 in 2016. That's AMD's fault. Since they've given intel no competition. 

The games that do take advantage of an 8 core bulldozer are properly optimized to run on 8 or more threads, of coarse it comes a bit closer to a  4 core 4 thread i5, I mean like what the fuck. 

The games that are 'improperly optimized' simply demonstrate the bulldozer fails on a per-thread basis. 

 

Supporting bulldozer is asinine. It's what lead to the current slump in enthusiast CPUs.

You can use cpus from 5+ years ago like the 2500 and 2600 (even non-k) and still game perfectly with little or no bottlenecks. I mean what the fuck. 2005-2010 that would NOT have happened....you know...when AMD was competitive? 

[Pcinacan]

FX may not be that bad, but i still wish i got an i5...

[Marcus Torre DeProspero]

Bulldozer = Shit. Fact. 

Literally everything about it is a shame. The low IPC, the shared cache, the destruction of the AMD mobile market, everything. It made their engineers want to either murder the marketing team or commit suicide, and it's so terrible intel has been slacking off since they have no high end competition. 

There is no way I should still be using a 2600 in 2016. That's AMD's fault. Since they've given intel no competition. 

The games that do take advantage of an 8 core bulldozer are properly optimized to run on 8 or more threads, of coarse it comes a bit closer to a  4 core thread i5, I mean like what the fuck. 

The games that are 'improperly optimized' simply demonstrate the bulldozer fails on a per-thread basis. 

 

Supporting bulldozer is asinine. It's what lead to the current slump in enthusiast CPUs.

You can use cpus from 5+ years ago like the 2500 and 2600 and still game perfectly with little or no bottlenecks. I mean what the fuck. 2005-2010 that would NOT have happened. 

Again CCCCCHHHHHHIIIIIILLLLLL out when you make any cpu for yourself call me because you have no authoritative right to say that an AMD cpu is shit because without AMD Intel wouldn't be where it is. AMD gave INTEL the rights to the x64 platform which is what you are using right now. Also without AMD Intel would be a monopoly and due to American Anti-Trust laws Intel would split up into around three to four groups of itself all making cpus independently.

[comicsansms]

I am very happy with my FX 6300 and my Laptop (A10 5750m)

I am not happy that my Laptop died, so now I have to use a Prescott Pentium 4 Desktop.

 

I'll will be upgrading to Zen, but that is because I can afford to and NOT because I need too.

[Godlygamer23]

Let's keep it peaceful people.

[KuJoe]

FX doesn't game well? Damn, I'm glad nobody told my FX6300 that or I'd be sad.  :lol:

[Marcus Torre DeProspero]

Let's keep it peaceful people.

If you look at what I have typed I am and thanks for supporting the peace

[Clyne]

Shit mobile Bulldozer APUs are the problem, prefer a Penryn Core 2 Duo Mobile CPU instead of my shitty 5745M.

Oh yes FX desktop will run any game, but in some games it won't be at a frame rate like Sandy or higher.

[Syntaxvgm]

Shit mobile Bulldozer APUs are the problem, prefer a Penryn Core 2 Duo Mobile CPU instead of my shitty 5745M.

Oh yes FX desktop will run any game, but in some games it won't be at a frame rate like Sandy or higher.

I used to support the mobile APU platform, back when bulldozer was newer. The CPU side WAS shit, but the GPU department was far better than anything intel had at the time of the first line of amd APUs, and it was kinda nice to see some med-low end laptops that could game. 

Unfortunately it's no longer competitive, and worse yet made the cpu side of current gen game consoles a mess

[Clyne]

I used to support the mobile APU platform, back when bulldozer was newer. The CPU side WAS shit, but the GPU department was far better than anything intel had at the time of the first line of APUs, and it was kinda nice to see some med-low end laptops that could game. 

Unfortunately it's no longer competitive, and worse yet made the cpu side of current gen game consoles a mess

I got a APU laptop just for a "GPU" upgrade over my Core 2 Duo laptop until i realize it was a bad choice as the CPU performed the same as my Core 2 Duo laptop.

Not to mentions it throttles a lot....it idles at 80-90C.

[Syntaxvgm]

 

First, I used to build AMD almost exclusively. No longer worth my money 

I'm not dissing AMD without cause or never having used it. 

I'm stupid. I'm dissing AMD because they are putting out shit products, and intel gets to be asleep at the wheel in this market thanks to that. 

I mean do you remember the original AMD dual cores? I mean holy shit I thought I'd never touch intel again. 

 

I read exactly what you said. My claims are not illegitment. They're back-but numbers WOW! What a concept! Some of AMD's one-off itx products even used the intel platform, they themselves know they can't compete in the high end...or the compact area either. 

edit-

I grow tired of mods trimming my comments without telling me, especially when they were not personal attacks or anything. Oh, and when they edit again to remove the complaint.

I don't know why I even try on this forum. 

[KingKeith55]

Also they're excellent budget rendering CPU's. This is a big one and you should add it. Even a FX-6300 does a great job at rendering.

 

But, if you can get an i5 instead of an FX, then get one. i3's aren't worth it, because you really can't do video recording or streaming with one. You can get by with a FX series, although it's nothing special. That's an area they excel in.

[FruitBasketSilex]

After seeing what I would probably consider as the worst fucking flame war, I really wanted to start clearing up misconceptions about the FX series.

Anyways, here goes nothing and a probable permanent ban.

 

1) The FX can't game/s poorly.

Fact: No. Stop right there. The FX can game. And it can game well. In games that are poorly optimized (something along the ranges of CSGO or Arma 3) it's gonna lag behind even the Core i3s from Ivy Bridge days. In games that are properly optimized (Dirt Rally, Grand Theft Auto V, Just Cause 3 to name a few), the FX series will easily keep up with a Haswell and get within backstabbing range of a Skylake i5 while typically being a bit cheaper.

 

2) You need separate coolers to cool the FX-8xxx!

Fact: This depends. If you're overclocking, yes. However, if you aren't, then you don't really need one unless a bit of noise bothers you. In that case, I'd highly recommend something along the lines of a Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO or a Cryorig H7. However, I'd personally recommend an aftermarket cooler, because it never kills to have a better cooler than stock cooler.

 

3) The FX runs hot!

Fact: It dissipates more heat. That does not mean it is hotter. The FX-8320's and above's TDP of 125 watts means it's pumping some heat into the case. The FX-8320/70e is a special exception as its TDP of 95 watts means it really doesn't pump more heat than an i7-4790.

 

4) Motherboards for it cost too much!

Fact: If you're getting a nicely OCable CPU, you're obviously planning on a decent motherboard. Saying that you need a great motherboard to run an FX-8350 at a 4.5GHz OC is like saying that an i5-4690K needs a high end motherboard to get a good overclock. It's kind of a "Well, duh." situation. That being said, if you're approaching really expensive $300+ territory, go Intel.

 

That's all of the myths I can think of at the moment. If you've got anything decent to say, comment. I will get moderators here if things get ugly.

4) the Cheapest motherboard that won't burst into bright red, AMD themed flames when you put the chip in there is 70$, as compared to abou 30-40$ on the intel side.

3) You know litteraly nothing about TDP.

2) pretty much correct, except you also commonly need a fan on your VRM/socket to actually get anywhere.

1) The biggest BS here. it games piss poor as compared to all similarly priced option, you can get an intel setup for less often, or even the same, at worst, a little bit more, bdepending on the prices ATM. "Backstabbing range" Yeah, totally fucking not. Need I mention minimum frames, frame timing, stuttering, etc?

 

And just for the hell of it: @Dabombinable

[Prysin]

Bulldozer = Shit. Fact. 

Literally everything about it is a shame. The low IPC, the shared cache, the destruction of the AMD mobile market, everything. It made their engineers want to either murder the marketing team or commit suicide, and it's so terrible intel has been slacking off since they have no high end competition. 

There is no way I should still be using a 2600 in 2016. That's AMD's fault. Since they've given intel no competition. 

The games that do take advantage of an 8 core bulldozer are properly optimized to run on 8 or more threads, of coarse it comes a bit closer to a  4 core 4 thread i5, I mean like what the fuck. 

The games that are 'improperly optimized' simply demonstrate the bulldozer fails on a per-thread basis. 

 

Supporting bulldozer is asinine. It's what lead to the current slump in enthusiast CPUs.

You can use cpus from 5+ years ago like the 2500 and 2600 (even non-k) and still game perfectly with little or no bottlenecks. I mean what the fuck. 2005-2010 that would NOT have happened....you know...when AMD was competitive? 

Bulldozer is not being sold anymore. Piledriver is.

 

what is the difference?

higher IPC

lower memory latencies (still bad)

equal or higher clock speeds

[Prysin]

4) the Cheapest motherboard that won't burst into bright red, AMD themed flames when you put the chip in there is 70$, as compared to abou 30-40$ on the intel side.

3) You know litteraly nothing about TDP.

2) pretty much correct, except you also commonly need a fan on your VRM/socket to actually get anywhere.

1) The biggest BS here. it games piss poor as compared to all similarly priced option, you can get an intel setup for less often, or even the same, at worst, a little bit more, bdepending on the prices ATM. "Backstabbing range" Yeah, totally fucking not. Need I mention minimum frames, frame timing, stuttering, etc?

 

And just for the hell of it: @Dabombinable

 

Dab doesnt have any valid counter arguments anymore except "its old" "its CMT" "its AMD"... ive disproved his arguments by now.

 

TDP is indeed how much heat it kicks out, and it is indeed higher on AMD then on Intel. The heat argument is retarded indeed.

 

You need airflow for any mobo VRM, even intel boards are designed with a stock cooler pushing air down towards the socket and propegating out from there. Seriously, no modern consumer motherboard ever is designed NOT to have any airflow across it. They all need a little airflow. Typically, if you have a case configured with front intake and back exhaust, then you should be fine.

Some AMD boards, especially FM2+ and cheaper AM3+ boards, come without VRM heatsinks. these boards are the ones to watch out for. As they arent going to be safe with any CPU above 95w (so that leaves FX 6300, FX 8320e, FX 8370e).

 

The cheapest boards to be able to whitstand an AMD FX8 is the 65 USD ASRock 970m Pro3 and 65USD Biostar TA970. These boards feature decent quality VRMs and MOSFETs. So despite being 4+1 phase, they are able to handle stock 125w CPUs. Or mildly overclocked 95w CPUs. Overclocking with a FX8 would require some exotic VRM cooling solution though.

 

Phases are not everything. They are more of a marketing buzz word these days. Please read this thread to learn more about it.

http://www.overclock.net/t/973918/a-clarification-of-phases-also-re-exploding-gtx590s

http://www.overclock.net/t/943109/about-vrms-mosfets-motherboard-safety-with-125w-tdp-processors

 

and for your last argument:

 

 

i3 4130 is equal the 6300.

 

Skylake i3 6100 is better if you use Z170 board + 2666MHz RAM or faster.

if you need proof that memory speed matters. check out this thread written by Magetank.

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/486004-impact-of-memory-speed-on-gaming-performance/

 

the "awesome" part of the 6300 is that it can perform between the 4130 and a 4450.

do not take my word for it. watch ALL these videos.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEIRYS0xMZk

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNsQKALO4nM

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxRbd53JTJU

 

 

FX overclock. is there a real benefit?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBs3wZw0xnE

 

 

FX vs FX

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koiBqmZ2VpE

 

 

"average gamer with FX setups: 6300 + R9 380"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buRYuvTKM60

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxMI6b3FY28

 

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

 

4690k vs 8350 in terms of GPU behavior (specific to JC3 so far due to some issues with drivers/game code. Though can happen on other systems too.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBBw5nssai0

 

here is some static benchmarks:

4690k vs 8350

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=1261

 

 

 

 

as we can see, FX gets uniform increases no matter what under DX12. Whilst Intel see little to negative performance on Nvidia GPU hardware. On AMD hardware, we see the CPU bottleneck being "removed" due to how DX12 works. Thus everyone gets a massive increase in performancel

Ashes of the Singularity is STILL in early alpha.

 

 

 

here is an example of frequency dependent game:

 

 

 

 

Bear in mind.

The FX 6300 costs $90~ish USD, a decent 4+1 970 board with mild OC headroom (capable of sustaining 4.2Ghz core clock) is about 70 bucks. Cheaper boards can be had, but OC would be unwise.

 

an i3 4170 is around $110~ish USD, a decent board that has all Sata3, not sata2, is around 55-70 bucks....

an i5 4460 is around $175~ish USD, and a board is around 55-70 bucks.

 

Given that the i3 is more expensive, for the CPU, we should see more performance. And given that the i5 is NOTABLY more expensive, actually costing nearly twice that of the FX, we should see much higher performance. reality however is that we do not... We see increases or decreases on a game by game basis. Which means that we have to look at use case.

 

First off: haswell is dead, just like FX.

There is no new parts coming for Haswell, ironically FX just got a new 970 board from Asus during CES and more boards ARE on the way, as AMD is doing one last platform refresh this spring before ZEN. FX is still dead. there is not enough performance gain going with a FX8 core to justify "upgrading". However upgrading on intel comes at a notable cost.

 

So given that the FX 6300 can span between a i3 4130 and a i5 4450 we can conclude that for the sub $175 USD CPU market. FX 6300 makes sense from a price to performance standpoint.

 

There is also the argument of chipset features. an argument often overlooked, but still relevant.

Skylake isnt as much the IPC or DDR4 improvements as it is PURE CHIPSET improvements. the Z170 chipset really make me regret buying a Haswell i7 4790k + ASUS ROG Hero board last summer. i should have waited and gotten a Z170 board + 6700k.... but i digress.

What you buy into with Skylake is "the future". DDR4 is the future. Faster, cheaper kits is a given. Kaby lake will come to the 100 series chipset and LGA 1151. You have a few more PCIe Gen3 lanes then previously. Albeit not as user friendly as one might think.

 

But just like Skylake, FX is a "feature" choice.

by dropping an upgrade path, you can choose a "meatier" board, for less money.

 

One can scoff at FX only having PCIe Gen2, but given that they have so damn MANY lanes, AMD makes up for their shortcomings in pure quantity. Sure, for single GPU usage, Intel HAS better offerings with actual Gen3 x16 slots, vs AMD with their Gen2 x16 slots. However, performance difference between Gen2 and Gen3 with single GPU is slim at best. In multi GPU settings, bandwidth matters, especially for GCN2.0 and 3.0 cards such as Bonaire, Hawai, Tonga and Fiji respectively, as these use the PCIe bus for the interconnect instead of the physical bridge. However, here, AMD actually matches or exceeds Haswell. AMD 990FX chipset is infact only beaten by the X99 based 5930k and 5960x in terms of raw bandwidth. In dual configurations, 990FX can provide 2x 16x Gen2 + another 6 lanes for other parts. LGA1150 and LGA 1151 can only provide 2x 8x Gen3 and a single 1x Gen3 on the side. Meaning that in dual configurations, the LGA 1150 and 1151 boards will have issues with NVMe based M.2 drives as they would be bandwidth starved.

AMD on the other hand, have a few boards offering 10GBs Gen2 x4 M.2 slots. It is not enough for the full NVMe speed, but at 2.25 times the speed of your average 850 evo, it is still more then you'd ever need in storage speed.

 

Then again, for 990FX, M.2 or other exotic multiGPU configurations, both AMD and INtel boards are considerably more expensive.

[Nena Trinity]

Awesome!

[PlayStation 2]

4) the Cheapest motherboard that won't burst into bright red, AMD themed flames when you put the chip in there is 70$, as compared to abou 30-40$ on the intel side.

3) You know litteraly nothing about TDP.

2) pretty much correct, except you also commonly need a fan on your VRM/socket to actually get anywhere.

1) The biggest BS here. it games piss poor as compared to all similarly priced option, you can get an intel setup for less often, or even the same, at worst, a little bit more, bdepending on the prices ATM. "Backstabbing range" Yeah, totally fucking not. Need I mention minimum frames, frame timing, stuttering, etc?

 

And just for the hell of it: @Dabombinable

4) Same goes for any OCable Intel CPU.

3) Eh. I try my best.

2) See number 4.

1) "Backstabbing range" is possible. Also, please, show me these benchmarks.

 

Remember, I'm not defending the FX series as a whole. I'm just saying that it gets way too much shit for being from 2011.

[Nena Trinity]

4) Same goes for any OCable Intel CPU.

3) Eh. I try my best.

2) See number 4.

1) "Backstabbing range" is possible. Also, please, show me these benchmarks.

 

Remember, I'm not defending the FX series as a whole. I'm just saying that it gets way too much shit for being from 2011.

No the FX Piledriver lineup was released in 2013-2014 Bulldozer was in 2011-2012!