FX 6300 still relevant ?

[A-C-R]

I have a 6350 on my main system , was a sweet little chip back in 2012-2013 , but nobody is recommending it or it's little brother (6300) nowadays. The architecture is old and the chip kicks 50C after 2 min in DOOM and 70C after a 1:30 hour gaming session, so I get why but it looks to me that it's performance is not half bad, especially for the price. Yet still people don't recommend it, albeit if you buy it it's pretty much standard to get an after-market cooler to overclock it aswell. Still less expensive and better performing than the i3-4170 at around the same price . . . or is it ? I made a pc for a friend with the i3 in question , it performed phenomenally but his resolution was lower than 720p so I can't really compare it's performance with my rig. Can somebody with hands on experience fill me in ?

 

[Electronics Wizardy]

The problem is not that its a horrible chip, its that its about the same price as a i3 and slower in every task.

[79wjd]

AM3+ is basically a dead platform in all but a few highly select areas (virtualization on an extreme budget). Otherwise, even an i3 will perform similarly to an FX9590 in current AAA titles and better in older ones. The FX CPUs need to be heavily overclocked for them to be able to keep up with Intel, so once you factor in a decent motherboard and decent cooling an FX CPU isn't any cheaper. 

[RuLeZ]

The main problem is that the platform is too old.

[Crt]

Because for a few hours more or for a few bucks more, the competition on Intel's side has stronger single-core performance.

 

Don't get me wrong, I used to recommend the FX6300, but with games like Rust and other massive map/world games that require the draw distance to be heavily rendered, the single core performance of the AMD chips are just lackluster.

 

For the record my old i5 750 is comparable to the FX 6300, possibly still stronger.

[manikyath]

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-4170-vs-AMD-FX-6300/m28214vs1555

the FX 6-cores and modern intel i3's kinda trade blows depending on what you're doing.

 

- FX is faster in multicore, but i3 is a winner on single thread, and in fact also in quad

- the FX generally can be gotten cheaper, but it kicks out more heat so they generally require a bigger cooler (and better mobo)

- i3 is on a newer platform which has some advantages, FX is known to be a great overclocker (and from what i've seen some people take that a bridge too far and kill their chip in 2 years time)

[Tom Hanks]

Refer to this thread.

 

Reason being.. Nehalem is older than Bulldozer or Vishera... yet none of them keep up with even that intel arch.

[A-C-R]

I've been into PCs for a while so I've read all this tbh but never seen it IRL . . . that's why I asked . 

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, Raptor_zzr said:

I've read all this tbh but never see it IRL . . . that's why I asked .

Check out Techspot's CPU performance benchmark for any/all games they review. They usually include an FX4,6,8 an i3,i5,i7 and then a 9590/4790k/6700k at various clock speeds. And they also include minimum framerates as well as averages (which are at least just as important and are a place where the FX series has a definite problem in many games).

[SageOfSpice]

It's no less capable than it was. I mean, I'm running this thing as essentially base clocks, and I haven't run into a CPU bottleneck in anything so far.

 

The thing that sucks is that an i3 is usually cheaper, the motherboards are cheaper, you can buy it on an updated platform with better features, and it generally runs everything quite a bit more smoothly due to the single threaded performance of those intel chips. Less heat, less power, equivalent or more performance in some cases....

 

There's just becoming too few reasons to recommend the FX series anymore. They aren't horrible processors, they're just not standing up to the test of time.

[manikyath]

19 minutes ago, Tom Hanks said:

Refer to this thread.

 

Reason being.. Nehalem is older than Bulldozer or Vishera... yet none of them keep up with even that intel arch.

if price per performance was all we cared about all of us would be running HP proilant G5's

[79wjd]

4 minutes ago, manikyath said:

if price per performance was all we cared about all of us would be running HP proilant G5's

Except that the energy costs would outweigh the cost savings in the long run

[manikyath]

3 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Except that the energy costs would outweigh the cost savings in the long run

i'd be more worried about the damage to hearing than about the power cost

[M477430]

the fx 6350 was a good chip, but now Intel is continuing to update their line of cpus where AMD isn't, meaning some developers are not programming code for it in ways the architecture would take advantage of, not only that but i think the fx line is almost considered hyper-threaded, it does have physical cores but it has 1 instruction thing for every 2 cores or something along those lines, I heard that on a YouTube video i cant remember the name of but, with outdated technology comes outdated support or the less developers care about trying to optimize the older cpu, sorry if this doesn't make sense, i tried my best lol.

[79wjd]

15 minutes ago, M477430 said:

the fx 6350 was a good chip, but now Intel is continuing to update their line of cpus where AMD isn't, meaning some developers are not programming code for it in ways the architecture would take advantage of, not only that but i think the fx line is almost considered hyper-threaded, it does have physical cores but it has 1 instruction thing for every 2 cores or something along those lines, I heard that on a YouTube video i cant remember the name of but, with outdated technology comes outdated support or the less developers care about trying to optimize the older cpu, sorry if this doesn't make sense, i tried my best lol.

An FX module consists of two cores, two integer units, one FPU, and I believe a shared L2 cache. 

 

So an FX8 has four modules, 8 cores, 8 integer units, 4 floating point units. 

 

(it uses CMT)

[Tom Hanks]

3 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

An FX module consists of two cores, two integer units, one FPU, and I believe a shared L2 cache. 

 

So an FX8 has four modules, 8 cores, 8 integer units, 4 floating point units. 

 

(it uses CMT)

Downside here is the huge latency that this design gives, bringing down IPC heavily and making this CPU only potent relative to cost at multithread away from gaming.