Stay with FX-8320 or upgrade to 1500x

[Kenrou]

13 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

I'm defending Intel by saying that r5 1400/1500x are far from intel's i7 CPUs?Ok, spotting amd fanboys is really easy these days.

A 1400/1500x is only far from a 6700k/7700k by dint of clock speed, they are nearly neck to neck in terms of IPC for nearly half the price. Yes they don't hit the same overclocks but if you have a 60hz screen it's completely redundant. Not hard to do the math here ? And before I'm called a AMD fanboy check my sig.

 

@Possiblejam If you only do gaming with nothing else even the 1500x does a better job then the 8350 (35%-55% faster if OC). If you do streaming and/or image/video encoding the 1600 is the sweet spot for price/performance. I have both and I can tell you that the 1600 does slightly lower framerates then the 6700k but it's much smoother in gameplay with multitasking and much faster in video encoding

[MyName13]

13 minutes ago, Kenrou said:

A 1400/1500x is only far from a 6700k/7700k by dint of clock speed, they are nearly neck to neck in terms of IPC for nearly half the price. Yes they don't hit the same overclocks but if you have a 60hz screen it's completely redundant. Not hard to do the math here ? And before I'm called a AMD fanboy check my sig.

 

@Possiblejam If you only do gaming with nothing else even the 1500x does a better job then the 8350 (35%-55% faster if OC). If you do streaming and/or image/video encoding the 1600 is the sweet spot for price/performance. I have both and I can tell you that the 1600 does slightly lower framerates then the 6700k but it's much smoother in gameplay with multitasking and much faster in video encoding

Depending on the task, there is 20-30% difference even when 1400 is overclocked to 3.8 GHz, sometimes they are almost the same clock for clock, but not in everything.

 

1500x doesn't seem to be that much better than fx 8350 (at least ryzen 3 isn't, 1500x is around 10-15% better because of the additional cache, SMT doesn't help that much in games so it would be better to either keep that fx or buy r5 1600 or even better, wait for coffee lake/cannon lake/zen2).

[Kenrou]

Stock - http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-FX-8350-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1500X/1489vs3921

 

 

[MyName13]

25 minutes ago, Kenrou said:

Stock - http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-FX-8350-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1500X/1489vs3921

 

 

These benchmarks, made by channels who somehow release dozens of benchmarks a week, shouldn't be considered trustworthy.

[Kenrou]

8 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

These benchmarks, made by channels who somehow release dozens of benchmarks a week, shouldn't be considered trustworthy.

If i go by your words there isn't a website or channel on the web that should be trusted. Again simple math, Ryzen has (if we go by what AMD said) 52% more IPC then FX, not taking into account cache and optimisations. Even if we consider that it's a 4c/8t vs 8c/8t if we put both at the same speed (or an average overclock) it will be more then what you state. Intel will do better in ST and Ryzen will do better MT which is what they were designed to do.

 

Regardless the conclusion is that Ryzen is a brilliant upgrade price/performance-wise for anyone that isn't well off in life and a better choice if you do heavy multitasking regardless of finances. I could have built 2 Ryzen gaming rigs with what i spent on my 6700k at the time  

[MyName13]

8 minutes ago, Kenrou said:

If i go by your words there isn't a website or channel on the web that should be trusted. Again simple math, Ryzen has (if we go by what AMD said) 52% more IPC then FX, not taking into account cache and optimisations. Even if we consider that it's a 4c/8t vs 8c/8t if we put both at the same speed (or an average overclock) it will be more then what you state. Intel will do better in ST and Ryzen will do better MT which is what they were designed to do.

 

Regardless the conclusion is that Ryzen is a brilliant upgrade price/performance-wise for anyone that isn't well off in life and a better choice if you do heavy multitasking regardless of finances. I could have built 2 Ryzen gaming rigs with what i spent on my 6700k at the time  

There are, you just trust everyone on the internet (gamers Nexus, techpowerup, anandtech, digital foundry, hardware Canucks, hardware unboxed are far more reliable than these YouTube channels).

[Kenrou]

Most of the websites you mentioned don't have comparisons with the older FX but the ones that do agree with the ones i posted. Also IMHO saying that something isn't reliable simply because it isn't of "brand X" is ridiculous to say the least, some proof of your claims might go well in future posts  

 

Here's an example from your website list, showing a stock 1500x well above the FX-9590 (heavily overclocked 8350) :

 

 

[MyName13]

10 minutes ago, Kenrou said:

Most of the websites you mentioned don't have comparisons with the older FX but the ones that do agree with the ones i posted. Also IMHO saying that something isn't reliable simply because it isn't of "brand X" is ridiculous to say the least, some proof of your claims might go well in future posts  

 

Here's an example from your website list, showing a stock 1500x well above the FX-9590 (heavily overclocked 8350) :

 

 

Ok...BTW it's really sad how quad core ryzens perform almost like fx 83xx or few percent better, so much about 52% higher IPC, this is just a repackaged bulldozer.

[Kenrou]

11 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Ok...BTW it's really sad how quad core ryzens perform almost like fx 83xx or few percent better, so much about 52% higher IPC, this is just a repackaged bulldozer.

That made absolutely no sense    a stock 4c/8t does better then a 5 year old massively overclocked 8c/8t while consuming less then half wattage and you still complain and try to put it down, what was the point of that ? we're all trying to help the OP here.

[JoostinOnline]

12 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Ok...BTW it's really sad how quad core ryzens perform almost like fx 83xx or few percent better, so much about 52% higher IPC, this is just a repackaged bulldozer.

Lol no.  Where have you been?

[MyName13]

1 minute ago, Kenrou said:

That made absolutely no sense    a stock 4c/8t does better then a 5 year old massively overclocked 8c/8t while consuming less then half Wattage and you still complain and try to put it down, what was the point of that ? i thought we're all trying to help the OP ?

Except fx 8 is basically a 4c8t CPU just because it consumes less power doesnt mean we are getting a new product after 6 years, not to mention that fx is considered as a failure and yet people recommend quad r5s.

[MyName13]

1 minute ago, JoostinOnline said:

Lol no.  Where have you been?

Wat?

[JoostinOnline]

Just now, MyName13 said:

Except fx 8 is basically a 4c8t CPU just because it consumes less power doesnt mean we are getting a new product after 6 years, not to mention that fx is considered as a failure and yet people recommend quad r5s.

 

Just now, MyName13 said:

Wat?

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[The Benjamins]

Here is someones upgrade experience

 

 

[Kenrou]

29 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Except fx 8 is basically a 4c8t CPU just because it consumes less power doesnt mean we are getting a new product after 6 years, not to mention that fx is considered as a failure and yet people recommend quad r5s.

The FX 8*** are true 8 cores, they simply are divided into modules of 2 that share the FPU. They were classed as failures by Intel fanboys because they had much lower IPC for gaming but they had more cores which meant they multi-tasked better as i said in a post above.

 

Sony and Microsoft like FX so much they put them on the Playstation 4 and Xbox One