Gaming CPU Needed

[Hiebly]

Cores and clock speed tells you almost nothing about a CPU's performance.

 

Clock speed is how many cycles per second the CPU completes. But what the spec sheet doesn't tell you is how much gets done in each cycle ("instructions per cycle" / IPC). AMD's FX processors get done about as much in each cycle as Intel's Core 2 processors from 2007. Current Intel CPUs (~Ivy Bridge and onwards) complete upwards of 50% more than AMD's FX CPUs in each clock cycle.

Something like an FX-8350 would be better than your i5-3330 by a pretty good margin in something like video encoding that will use every core to its fullest. For gaming it would be worse in most cases, but better in the few games that really thrive on having a boatload of multi-threaded performance. Most games should run just as well or better on your i5-3330 tbh. Many modern games will be close enough either way that it wouldn't be worth it to upgrade from one to the other.

 

If you want a good upgrade from your i5-3330, you'll be looking at a Skylake i5/i7 or waiting for AMD Zen. Ivy Bridge i5 @ 3GHz isn't too slow.

[asand1]

Almost one year agoPurchased a MOBO/CPU/RAM combo which included a 3.8Ghz AMD FX-4300 (Quad core). Later I was disappointed to discover it was merely a Dual core with hyperthreading.

 

I later was given an OEM Lenovo with a 3.1 Ghz Dual core i3 2100. I decided to swap my HDD and GPU into the Lenovo and see how it worked. Now you would think a 3.8Ghz Dual core/Hyperthreaded AMD would outperform a  one year older 3.1Ghz Dual core/Hyperthreaded Intel right? Wrong. While on paper, and according to CPUboss, the FX is the winner, the "lowly" i3 outperforms the FX in everything I have thrown at it. Bear in mind that this was with the same amount (albeit slower) RAM in the i3 Lenovo, and the same video card.

 

I have ran AMD in my four previous (all my) machines, but I am born again, PRAISE INTEL!!! I will just save more money and buy the better Intel CPUs from here on out.

[Hiebly]

8 minutes ago, asand1 said:

Almost one year agoPurchased a MOBO/CPU/RAM combo which included a 3.8Ghz AMD FX-4300 (Quad core). Later I was disappointed to discover it was merely a Dual core with hyperthreading.

Ehh it's technically a quad-core... there's no exact definition of a core, strictly speaking. It's got four execution units, they just share a couple resources within the pairs of them. The problem with AMD's FX CPUs isn't that they aren't "true" 4/6/8 cores. The problem is each of these cores is slow as balls. It doesn't matter in most uses if there's 8 of them, because the single-threaded performance is absolute garbage, and that's what the majority of tasks depend on.

 

In terms of scalability, the FX CPU is quite good

[asand1]

16 minutes ago, Hiebly said:

Ehh it's technically a quad-core...

That's Debatable, and I belive AMD lost in court in a class action over it. But if you say so...

[Prysin]

8 hours ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

This you can't overclock but will serve you well and still outperform the FX-9590 across the board while consuming less than half the energy and come on a much more modern platform, you can used the included CPU cooler it's fine for this CPU:

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Xeon E3-1231 V3 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($239.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: ASRock H97 PRO4 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($78.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $318.98
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-06-23 21:12 EDT-0400

The whole platform argument is DEAD. Since FX uses AM3+, which runs chipset off the mobo, rather then some off CPU and some off mobo, it is much more modular then Intels offerings are.

The board you linked offer a VERY low end feature set. You can with ease get AM3+ boards with similar or better features for just a bit less or just a bit more.

 

Haswell aint got shit on AM3+ feature wise unless you go X-99 LGA 2011-V3

Skylake and the Z100 series, that is another story. Skylake is WAY better then FX, not just from a IPC and CPU core standpoint, but from a feature standpoint too.

 

if you want to argue for or against FX, get your facts straight and cut the crap man. 

 

FX is not great, but for a mid-range level system, it is enough. There are AM3+ motherboards that are easily matching even some skylake boards in terms of quality, price and features.