Which AMD Processor do you prefer?

[ZekeGeekTech]

Between 4 cores - 8 cores  which AMD CPU you prefer.

[Dabombinable]

1 minute ago, ZekeGeekTech said:

Between 4 cores - 8 cores  which AMD CPU you prefer.

Nothing from their CMT designs, and their Phenom II x4 N970 - which some how manages to bottleneck a MR HD5650 despite being about as fast as Intel HD4600 graphics in DX 11 games - and Phenom II x6 1090T. Honestly the entire CMT lineup is crap.

[agentagent47]

zen??

[Djole123]

For general use and light gaming:

Athlon 5350

For a bit heavier gaming:

Athlon X4 860K

For best performance:

FX 8320E

 

Anything above the 8320E is a waste of money.

[ImBleu]

AMD is not worth it in 2016 until Zen comes out. Stick with Intel or go AMD once Zen comes out (if its hopefully as good as we expect it).

[Imakuni]

10 minutes ago, ZekeGeekTech said:

Between 4 cores - 8 cores  which AMD CPU you prefer.

One which has AVX 2.0 (or 512). One which has a dedicate FPU for each core. One that consumes as little power as possible. One that supports as much RAM bandwidth as possible.

 

In other words, either Zen or nothing.

[Kryis]

Back in the day the Phenom II 945 x4, good CPU, good OC and value.

[ivan134]

Zen. AMD's current CPU offerings are garbage. 

[Nena Trinity]

Athlon X4 880K, FX-6350 & FX-8370 (sorted by price also I have 2 of these including 860K!)

[Guest]

Wait. period. 

[tbake0155]

I can't comment on which one is better but I'd like to see cinebench results from all the AMD haters : )  Bench off!

 

I also recommend waiting for zen unless you already have a good motherboard and you need to upgrade. 

[harrynowl]

Thuban

[ZekeGeekTech]

Nice reply guys but the topic is about AMD and which processors is better. so far we got 

1. Athlon 5350
2. Athlon X4 860K
3. FX 8320E 
4. Athlon X4 880K,
5. FX-6350
6. FX-8370 

thank you for sharing your opinion i'll will be looking in to it. 

 

On 5/17/2016 at 1:29 AM, Djole123 said:

For general use and light gaming:

Athlon 5350

For a bit heavier gaming:

Athlon X4 860K

For best performance:

FX 8320E

 

Anything above the 8320E is a waste of money.

how is anything above the 8320E is a waste of money? 

i believe anything higher will give you a better performance can you tell me differ?   

[Prysin]

On 17/05/2016 at 8:24 AM, Dabombinable said:

Nothing from their CMT designs, and their Phenom II x4 N970 - which some how manages to bottleneck a MR HD5650 despite being about as fast as Intel HD4600 graphics in DX 11 games - and Phenom II x6 1090T. Honestly the entire CMT lineup is crap.

we've been over this. the Phenom II X6 WILL NOT BE FASTER THEN FX NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU OC. BECAUSE IT IS OLD AND OUTDATED.

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 hour ago, ZekeGeekTech said:

how is anything above the 8320E is a waste of money? 

i believe anything higher will give you a better performance can you tell me differ?   

because they are all the same FX-8320/8350/8370/9370/9590 they are ALL the same processor there is only the clockspeed out of the box that is different but you can grab any of these and clock them to 4.5ghz and they all perform the same...all within a few percentage point from the flagship FX-9590...nothing you will be able to notice...

Anyways, all of them offer abysmall performance for the price in the current market when compaired to intel offerings.

 

1 hour ago, Prysin said:

we've been over this. the Phenom II X6 WILL NOT BE FASTER THEN FX NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU OC. BECAUSE IT IS OLD AND OUTDATED.

hummm...actually yoU'RE WRONG MATE...FX overclock better and higher making it ''maybe'' faster...but if you grab FX-6300 and phenom X6 and clock them both to say 4.0ghz...the phenom part will perform better...it has a stronger design and greater IPC.

 

Anyways, you can compare them here from the user submitted database you will quickly realise that those perform about the same across the board:

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Phenom-II-X6-1100T-vs-AMD-FX-6300/2004vs1555

[Mira Yurizaki]

It's probably just me, but I also consider the TDP per performance. I wouldn't touch anything other than an 8320E on the AM3+ side. Especially anything in the FX 9000 series. Seriously, a 220W CPU? Even Intel with the horribly inefficient Prescott didn't reach that.

[i_build_nanosuits]

6 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

It's probably just me, but I also consider the TDP per performance. I wouldn't touch anything other than an 8320E on the AM3+ side. Especially anything in the FX 9000 series. Seriously, a 220W CPU? Even Intel with the horribly inefficient Prescott didn't reach that.

yeah but if you grab an AMD FX-8320E and overclock it and tweak it in the bios and raise the voltages and stuff you can easily make it pull 250W from the wall..this is as much as a high-end graphics card these days...it's rediculous.

I had the FX-8320 @ 4.6ghz for a while...it was terrible.

[PlayStation 2]

14 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

hummm...actually yoU'RE WRONG MATE...FX

we tumblr now bois

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 minute ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

we tumblr now bois

and...fun fact...the FX-6300 is not even the one that came as the replacement for the 1100T...

The FX-6100 is it's real successor...so here is AMD coming out: ''here is our latest and greatest...the bulldozer core you've all been waiting for...we took pre-orders already and asked stupid amount of money for them...here it is in all it's glory...10% slower than the old one out of the box''

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Phenom-II-X6-1100T-vs-AMD-FX-6100/2004vs1984

[Prysin]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

hummm...actually yoU'RE WRONG MATE...FX overclock better and higher making it ''maybe'' faster...but if you grab FX-6300 and phenom X6 and clock them both to say 4.0ghz...the phenom part will perform better...it has a stronger design and greater IPC.

if you get ALL 6 Phenom cores stable at 4GHz, yes. But you forget that FX can OC better then Phenom II. Essentially your argument is like comparing a 780Ti to a GTX 980. Sure if you set both to a certain clock speed, the 780Ti (if it can handle the clock speed) will most likely destroy the 980. Because one of the benefits of Maxwell was higher clock speeds. Kepler performs better, but uses lower clock speeds to achieve its performance.

 

However, once you actually remember that the 980 can OC far beyond what you can get a 780Ti to do even on DICE, then you realize that the argument is completely shit. Who runs a 980 at 1GHz? noone. They all run at 1250-1400+MHz. At the same time, most people arent able to get their 780Ti's stable above 1300MHz.

I dare you to get a Phenom II X6 (any version) stable and working at reasonable power levels and temperatures at anything higher then 4.4GHz. At the same time, i promise you, you can get a FX 6300 (depending on chip ofc) to 4.8 to 5.2GHz. And at those speeds, the clock speed advantage of FX will once again make up for what IPC benefit the X6 had.

 

One thing FX will never beat P2 at is multi-threaded scaling. Real cores scale better. The end.

 

Buuuuut!!!!

Phenom II has slower IMC, less L2 and L3 cache. IPC is about 10% higher then Piledriver (aka about equal to Steamroller). Surely it is notably higher then Bulldozer (first iteration of CMT).

 

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 hour ago, Prysin said:

if you get ALL 6 Phenom cores stable at 4GHz, yes. But you forget that FX can OC better then Phenom II.

no i did not if you read closely i did mentionned that first hand so therefore i did not read anything you wrote after that.

Nanosuit said: '' ..FX overclock better and higher making it ''maybe'' faster.. ''

 

fun thing to do: write in google AMD FX-6100 review

you will find original reviews from 2011 where they compare the newest and greatest vs the old K10 phenom...:p LOL

http://www.techradar.com/us/reviews/pc-mac/pc-components/processors/amd-fx-6100-black-edition-1044580/review/2

 

 

[Prysin]

1 hour ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

no i did not if you read closely i did mentionned that first hand so therefore i did not read anything you wrote after that.

Nanosuit said: '' ..FX overclock better and higher making it ''maybe'' faster.. ''

here is a fact: 200MHz is all it takes for the FX to make up for the IPC difference.

You must be insanely lucky and unlucky to get a P2 that OCs high enough, and a FX that OCs badly enough for you not to be able to push a FX higher then a P2.

My own 8320 does 4.77GHz on a 92mm Noctua AIR COOLER when disable 2 cores. Sure it sits 3c under the thermal limit and just barely avoids throttling during benchmarks. But it is stable and actually works. If i had a serious cooling solution, i bet you i could get it to 5GHz or more.

 

1 hour ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

fun thing to do: write in google AMD FX-6100 review

you will find original reviews from 2011 where they compare the newest and greatest vs the old K10 phenom...:p LOL

http://www.techradar.com/us/reviews/pc-mac/pc-components/processors/amd-fx-6100-black-edition-1044580/review/2

 

 

FX 6100 is Bulldozer. FX 6300 is Piledriver. the latter had its IPC improved by 7% over the former. In addition to an extra improvement in clock speeds.
 

Original bulldozer had lower IPC and more or less equal clock speeds. The only benefit original FX had over P2 was Turbo 2.0

[LeStringMan]

The thing nobody is mentioning here is the Phenom's very limited instruction set, yes it is faster in synthetic benchmarks, but in real world testing an X6 1090t is no faster than a 6300.

[jett473]

On May 17, 2016 at 1:19 AM, ZekeGeekTech said:

Between 4 cores - 8 cores  which AMD CPU you prefer.

The Intel kind. Kappa.

 

but no, in all seriousness I've been using AMD since I started building computers, (do I want to swap to Intel? yes, but this thread makes me upset due to how it's just people talking about how shitty AMD is...so I'm going to properly contribute.) 

 

i went from a FX-6300 to a FX-8350, yes, I know. Same CPU, just 2 extra cores. I have my 8350 overclocked to about 4.4 (won't go higher because if I do, my room gets really hot. I live in Texas and would rather not sweat when I play games ok? Ok.), and according to the benchmarks I've ran it out performs the i5s I was looking at when I grabbed this CPU. 

 

so, all in all, I like the FX series. Not to insult them but they're kinda like "baby's first CPU". cheap, easily overclockable, yatta yatta. I've enjoyed these two very much and I feel stick with the FX series while I was still kinda on the cheaper side for my computer budget has been a good decision because it's allowed me to learn how to overclock, and kept me interested in computers do to how easy and user friendly it is. 

 

in a few years, I might go to Intel due to their better performance and TDP (which is actually really important for me, like I said.) but I'll always keep a open mind towards Intel, and I won't let my 8350 sit around and collect dust because it's simply too nice of a /product/ to do so.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, jett473 said:

The Intel kind. Kappa.

 

but no, in all seriousness I've been using AMD since I started building computers, (do I want to swap to Intel? yes, but this thread makes me upset due to how it's just people talking about how shitty AMD is...so I'm going to properly contribute.) 

 

i went from a FX-6300 to a FX-8350, yes, I know. Same CPU, just 2 extra cores. I have my 8350 overclocked to about 4.4 (won't go higher because if I do, my room gets really hot. I live in Texas and would rather not sweat when I play games ok? Ok.), and according to the benchmarks I've ran it out performs the i5s I was looking at when I grabbed this CPU. 

 

so, all in all, I like the FX series. Not to insult them but they're kinda like "baby's first CPU". cheap, easily overclockable, yatta yatta. I've enjoyed these two very much and I feel stick with the FX series while I was still kinda on the cheaper side for my computer budget has been a good decision because it's allowed me to learn how to overclock, and kept me interested in computers do to how easy and user friendly it is. 

 

in a few years, I might go to Intel due to their better performance and TDP (which is actually really important for me, like I said.) but I'll always keep a open mind towards Intel, and I won't let my 8350 sit around and collect dust because it's simply too nice of a /product/ to do so.

thermal limit of FX-8350 is 61c. (http://products.amd.com/en-us/search/CPU/AMD-FX-Series/AMD-FX-8-Core-Black-Edition/FX-8350/92)

 

How is it hotter than an intel chip?