AMD FX CPUs are underrated and their proper overlcocking

[tom_w141]

35 minutes ago, Nena360 said:

They are both right, it only depends on the games tested really...

HWB's suite of test games is very extensive, modern and based on the most popular titles.

[Nena Trinity]

1 hour ago, tom_w141 said:

HWB's suite of test games is very extensive, modern and based on the most popular titles.

GTA V is not very modern actually its based on old stuff even tough it came much later on PC and well I do recall him using World of Tanks last time which is terribly optimized and uses 1 core no matter what even tough it became better after its DX11 upgrade...

[tom_w141]

15 minutes ago, Nena360 said:

GTA V is not very modern actually its based on old stuff even tough it came much later on PC and well I do recall him using World of Tanks last time which is terribly optimized and uses 1 core no matter what even tough it became better after its DX11 upgrade...

GTA V is on there because its popular and known to be CPU intensive. The games are quite modern on the whole:

 

5:51 - The Division (2016)
6:16 - For Honor (2017)
6:44 - Gears of War 4 (2016)
7:18 - Overwatch (2016)
7:39 - Civilization VI (2016)
7:59 - Deus Ex: Mankind Divided (2016)
8:40 - F1 2016 (2016)
8:55 - Far Cry Primal (2016)
9:08 - Grand Theft Auto V (2015)
9:31 - Hitman (2016)
9:52 - Mafia III (2016)
10:25 - Mirror’s Edge Catalyst (2016)
10:47 - Total War: Warhammer (2016)
11:02 - Watch Dogs 2 (2016)
11:28 - ARMA 3 (2013)
11:46 - Battlefield 1 (2016)

[Gameborn]

26 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

GTA V is on there because its popular and known to be CPU intensive. The games are quite modern on the whole:

 

5:51 - The Division (2016)
6:16 - For Honor (2017)
6:44 - Gears of War 4 (2016)
7:18 - Overwatch (2016)
7:39 - Civilization VI (2016)
7:59 - Deus Ex: Mankind Divided (2016)
8:40 - F1 2016 (2016)
8:55 - Far Cry Primal (2016)
9:08 - Grand Theft Auto V (2015)
9:31 - Hitman (2016)
9:52 - Mafia III (2016)
10:25 - Mirror’s Edge Catalyst (2016)
10:47 - Total War: Warhammer (2016)
11:02 - Watch Dogs 2 (2016)
11:28 - ARMA 3 (2013)
11:46 - Battlefield 1 (2016)

for now, best games to test cpus is battlefield 1, the witcher 3 (but be careful to test it at 720p because it is very gpu intensive, but uses cpu alot too) and watch dogs 2 (super cpu demanding)

[tom_w141]

12 minutes ago, Gameborn said:

for now, best games to test cpus is battlefield 1, the witcher 3 (but be careful to test it at 720p because it is very gpu intensive, but uses cpu alot too) and watch dogs 2 (super cpu demanding)

More games = more thorough. The previously linked video is in-depth enough and sorry the FX series never got better than the 2nd gen i5, end of.

[Nena Trinity]

21 hours ago, tom_w141 said:

GTA V is on there because its popular and known to be CPU intensive. The games are quite modern on the whole:

 

5:51 - The Division (2016) Dunno
6:16 - For Honor (2017) Why is this a CPU benchmark?
6:44 - Gears of War 4 (2016) I guess its fair.
7:18 - Overwatch (2016) I guess its fair.
7:39 - Civilization VI (2016) I guess its fair but it still prefers one core clearly...
7:59 - Deus Ex: Mankind Divided (2016) Dunno
8:40 - F1 2016 (2016) Dunno but I heard it clearly prefer Intel...
8:55 - Far Cry Primal (2016) Dunno
9:08 - Grand Theft Auto V (2015) It uses 1 core for draw calls and the game is hungry for them! o3o
9:31 - Hitman (2016) Dunno
9:52 - Mafia III (2016) Dunno but I heard its fair...
10:25 - Mirror’s Edge Catalyst (2016) Does this demand CPU at all? o3o
10:47 - Total War: Warhammer (2016) I guess its fair, tough I am not sure...
11:02 - Watch Dogs 2 (2016) Dunno
11:28 - ARMA 3 (2013) WTF REALLY?!!! o3o
11:46 - Battlefield 1 (2016)I guess its fair.

I rated them for you!

[tom_w141]

1 hour ago, Nena360 said:

I rated them for you!

The best cpu benchmarks here are civ, warhammer, watchdogs 2 and BF1. As much as I root for AMD FX was a flop and never got better, sandy bridge still wins 5 years on. Love my Ryzen CPU though, zen put AMD back in the game.

[Nena Trinity]

3 hours ago, tom_w141 said:

The best cpu benchmarks here are civ, warhammer, watchdogs 2 and BF1. As much as I root for AMD FX was a flop and never got better, sandy bridge still wins 5 years on. Love my Ryzen CPU though, zen put AMD back in the game.

People tell me Sandy Bridge cannot even get over 60fps in BF1...

[fastcar123]

here is my thoughts on the whole topic. 

 

FX chips were decent. For them to be able to stand up to modern tasks after not being changed for 5 years is damn impressive. Are they better than intel chips? No. But they had their own niche that I felt they did a really good job at filling 

Also to add to that I got a whole 1.6 Ghz overclock from my fx-6300 and a 1.2Ghz from my fx-8320e ( a processor meant for lower oc and tdp.)

that is for sure something I can't say about my ryzen chip.  It was beyond satisfying to see my 8320 running at 4.4Ghz from a 3.2 base.  Same goes for my fx-6300 running at 4.8 Ghz. 

one more thing is that they handled "hyperthredded" (because I know these didn't have smt) workloads with 2 cores.

 

They were not the best by far. But they had their place. They were riddled with faults but they got the job done. I too have thought they were underrated.

 

My ryzen chip is miles better and even the current at the time intel chips did better. But the point is that fx was not a dud.

hopefully ryzen will carry on the competition we have now.

[luigi90210]

2 hours ago, fastcar123 said:

here is my thoughts on the whole topic. 

 

FX chips were decent. For them to be able to stand up to modern tasks after not being changed for 5 years is damn impressive. Are they better than intel chips? No. But they had their own niche that I felt they did a really good job at filling 

Also to add to that I got a whole 1.6 Ghz overclock from my fx-6300 and a 1.2Ghz from my fx-8320e ( a processor meant for lower oc and tdp.)

that is for sure something I can't say about my ryzen chip.  It was beyond satisfying to see my 8320 running at 4.4Ghz from a 3.2 base.  Same goes for my fx-6300 running at 4.8 Ghz. 

one more thing is that they handled "hyperthredded" (because I know these didn't have smt) workloads with 2 cores.

 

They were not the best by far. But they had their place. They were riddled with faults but they got the job done. I too have thought they were underrated.

 

My ryzen chip is miles better and even the current at the time intel chips did better. But the point is that fx was not a dud.

hopefully ryzen will carry on the competition we have now.

This

I love my FX8370 but now I'm looking for something a little faster, it makes a great gaming CPU though on a budget

[Spudbilly]

I used to own an fx 8320 4.6 GHz 24/7...the problem was how much money, at the time, you were willing to invest in a 990fx mobo and 2400mhz ram for just a minor bump in performance. 

 

I sold the machine and now have an i5 3470 and I honestly am happier with the i5. 

 

 

[Tsuki]

and here i am still rocking an FX 8320@4Ghz, knowing its a PoS and hoping my wife stops spending all my money long enough for me to upgrade

[Gameborn]

13 hours ago, Spudbilly said:

I used to own an fx 8320 4.6 GHz 24/7...the problem was how much money, at the time, you were willing to invest in a 990fx mobo and 2400mhz ram for just a minor bump in performance. 

 

I sold the machine and now have an i5 3470 and I honestly am happier with the i5. 

 

 

you can go up to 2000 mghz in standart 1600 ram with no problems and 970 board instead of 990.

[i_build_nanosuits]

they are aweful i had an FX-8320 clocked to 4.6ghz paired with a GTX 780 at 1080p gaming the CPU would hold back the GPU in 1/2 the games out there...worse tech purchase in years, if not ever. aweful chip especially for a gamer.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

they are aweful i had an FX-8320 clocked to 4.6ghz paired with a GTX 780 at 1080p gaming the CPU would hold back the GPU in 1/2 the games out there...worse tech purchase in years, if not ever. aweful chip especially for a gamer.

I highlighted the key words  

I'm far from having a bad experience gaming with FX CPUs, however. I guess they must be far from optimal for people with higher than 60Hz screens, though.

In any case, I doubt they ever were a good purchase for console-replacement PCs. For other tasks they had the best performance per euro for a while. They may even still have, given the drop in prices, although their total output may no longer be satisfactory (in that a PC that outperforms them in muti-core tasks can still be very reasonably priced, as opposed to the situation a few years ago).

 

I agree that buying it for a pure/mostly gaming PC was probably a bad move, though.