AMD FX 8300 vs. Intel i3 6100 benched. (video)

Zero regrets on either one of my purchases pertaining to the machines in my sig. The AMD rig - being as old as it is now is not bad. I could get by with it and I'm sure the GTX 980 would make the most difference between the two. But no way would I ever try to put it up against even the first gen i7's. I ran an i7 930 before jumping to the 4770k and with both of them I could definitely tell a difference in performance from the AMD 1055t.

Aside from noticing the performance difference, which is indeed noticeable for me, (maybe the FX chips are that much better than the 1055t, I don't know as I've never tried one before) but other considerations especially with the 4770k was future proofing myself once again for nearly five years (I got about four years out of the Bloomfield build), more performance (compared to the i7 930) and heat. Heat was a major consideration. I got my mobo, CPU and RAM for my Haswell platform for much less than my Bloomfield platform. Everything cost less and it's much better performance. I'd consider myself stupid for not making the upgrade at this point honestly because everything I wanted and was looking for was met with Haswell. And FYI I got the 4770k from a Hard Forum user for quite a bargain.

And when considering the upgrade going FX would have been stupid because I was already using Bloomfield... Why sidegrade at best?

That's just how it went for me. I'm sure I'm not using the 4770k to it's full potential and I'm okay with that. I honestly think an i5 is my sweet spot in what I do with my PC and I was going to go that route with Haswell until I stumbled across the sweet deal for the 4770k.
 
xTrident said:
Zero regrets on either one of my purchases pertaining to the machines in my sig. The AMD rig - being as old as it is now is not bad. I could get by with it and I'm sure the GTX 980 would make the most difference between the two. But no way would I ever try to put it up against even the first gen i7's. I ran an i7 930 before jumping to the 4770k and with both of them I could definitely tell a difference in performance from the AMD 1055t.

Aside from noticing the performance difference, which is indeed noticeable for me, (maybe the FX chips are that much better than the 1055t, I don't know as I've never tried one before) but other considerations especially with the 4770k was future proofing myself once again for nearly five years (I got about four years out of the Bloomfield build), more performance (compared to the i7 930) and heat. Heat was a major consideration. I got my mobo, CPU and RAM for my Haswell platform for much less than my Bloomfield platform. Everything cost less and it's much better performance. I'd consider myself stupid for not making the upgrade at this point honestly because everything I wanted and was looking for was met with Haswell. And FYI I got the 4770k from a Hard Forum user for quite a bargain.

And when considering the upgrade going FX would have been stupid because I was already using Bloomfield... Why sidegrade at best?

That's just how it went for me. I'm sure I'm not using the 4770k to it's full potential and I'm okay with that. I honestly think an i5 is my sweet spot in what I do with my PC and I was going to go that route with Haswell until I stumbled across the sweet deal for the 4770k.
Click to expand...
Granted it could be any number of things that influenced your experience but the i7 930 and 1055t are nearly identical in performance from most benches I have seen. Now the 4770k is definitely better and could be noticeable but not the i7 930 unless there were some other difference in the rigs or issue with something else.

Even in CPU boss the FX 6300 was a fair bit stronger than both the i7 930 and 1055t so FX would not have been a side grade.

Intel Core i7 930 vs AMD Phenom II X6 1055T
 
JustReason said:
Granted it could be any number of things that influenced your experience but the i7 930 and 1055t are nearly identical in performance from most benches I have seen. Now the 4770k is definitely better and could be noticeable but not the i7 930 unless there were some other difference in the rigs or issue with something else.

Even in CPU boss the FX 6300 was a fair bit stronger than both the i7 930 and 1055t so FX would not have been a side grade.

Intel Core i7 930 vs AMD Phenom II X6 1055T
Click to expand...

Forgetting to mention I had the i7 930 @4.0GHz which I know helped a lot. BUT I did overclock the 1055t to 3.5GHz. Yeah, there's a difference but I ran a benchmark tool on both of them just because I was curious - note that I wasn't running the benchmark just in an effort to shit on AMD. I forget exactly what one it was - I believe it's fairly well known - PassMark or something similar. Anyway, regardless it shocked the hell out of me when the CPU test scores for the i7 930 were anywhere from 50% to 100% better. And I mean the i7 930 literally had numbers twice as good as the 1055t.

Checking out cpuboss and comparing the 930 to the 1055t I agree - test scores look identical. That simply wasn't the experience I had, and it was most noticeable gaming. Now of course web browsing or using Office even compared to the 4770k the 1055t's speed is identical both running an SSD.

Of course it could have been tests done were single threaded that showed the biggest difference between the 930/1055t.
 
Last edited:
Just have to be aware, there were alot of biased actions in benchmarks especially then. Your results could have been skewed although I think Intel was stronger with memory so could be the benchmark you used illustrated that.
 
seriously CPU boss?.. that's the worse thing to compare CPU performance always inaccurate, fully ton of shit to believe the 1055T have better IPC than the i7 930 also there's no reason an FX6300 could be anywhere better than an OC'd Phenom II X6 that have stronger cores.. only reason the FX6000 are able to possibly match a Phenom II X6 its because of the higher clocks..

let's try this couple:

i7 920 - X6 1055T all stock settings.. more inline with xTrident findings.. and with the higher 4ghz clock of the 930 things just go farther in favor of the i7 930..

i7 950 - X6 1100T higher clocks confirm the same, no way at 4ghz i7 930 the X6 1055T at 3.5ghz could be any better

X6 1100T(just for higher clocks) - FX6300(still higher clock) so yes I would call a Side Grade as he said.

those results match his findings..
 
Pieter3dnow said:
How does that rhyme ? Truly multi-thread and not able to make better use of 8 cores then 2.
Click to expand...

Not enough multi-thread can do to fight about 80% IPC advantage on the little i3 skylake this is specially bad when you add the i3 at over 4.2ghz to the comparison.. again 8 very weak threads can't truly match 4 powerful threads for gaming.. they will do better job than an skylake i3 a lot of things, but not anything related to gaming included DX12 which are already proven the tiny skylake perform better than FX8000 chips..
 
"Well rounded"
AMD FX 8 Core

gjn81wvxqsq6yzcwubok.png
 
Araxie said:
Not enough multi-thread can do to fight about 80% IPC advantage on the little i3 skylake this is specially bad when you add the i3 at over 4.2ghz to the comparison.. again 8 very weak threads can't truly match 4 powerful threads for gaming.. they will do better job than an skylake i3 a lot of things, but not anything related to gaming included DX12 which are already proven the tiny skylake perform better than FX8000 chips..
Click to expand...

You know that you are talking out of your ass , right ?
Why don't you look at some older benchmarks with Star Swarm where they run 100K batches :) .
 
cageymaru said:
My FX matched the 2500K. Lots of people still game on 2500K nowadays without an issue or a hint of a slowdown. ;)
Click to expand...

well... nope, the actual fact is that 2500K are needing 4.7ghz+ to maintain and sustain stable 60FPS with high-end GPUs specially with AMD GPUs and their craptastic DX11 CPU overhead.... and the uglier fact is that skylake i3 outperform the legendary sandy bridge i5 2500K at any clock.. so if your 9370 equal the 2500K gaming performance (which isn't also true beside no more than 5 games in the market) then you are automatically accepting skylake i3 is better than your CPU because this one outperform the i5 2500K.



This video confirm what I always say.. only 1 game match i5 2500K performance (The witcher 3) and only 1 game offer better performance than i5 2500K (Crysis 3 only and unique game in the world ever able to achieve that trick) the rest of the games.. and then boom skylake i5 6600K is just there to bully their younger siblings and obliterating the almighty FX8350.. ugh.. as soon as you are an AMD GPU to an FX CPUs you know how bad FX CPUs are for gaming in comparison to intel offerings. there's a substantial amount of difference between intel and AMD CPU with the huge driver overhead in AMD cards.

May I predict your next Answer?:

"I don't care how intel CPU perform against AMD CPU as much as I stay above 60FPS, more FPS here and there doesn't matter as i'm happy how my CPU perform and stay above 60FPS.."

Pieter3dnow said:
You know that you are talking out of your ass , right ?
Why don't you look at some older benchmarks with Star Swarm where they run 100K batches :) .
Click to expand...

uuuuuuh.. and how that helped AoS? let me guess? offering negative FX8000 performance in comparison to haswell and skylake i3 and i5 CPUs? uuuh thats ugly, are you having fun playing Star Swarm demo 24/7?.
 
Araxie said:
well... nope, the actual fact is that 2500K are needing 4.7ghz+ to maintain and sustain stable 60FPS with high-end GPUs specially with AMD GPUs and their craptastic DX11 CPU overhead.... and the uglier fact is that skylake i3 outperform the legendary sandy bridge i5 2500K at any clock.. so if your 9370 equal the 2500K gaming performance (which isn't also true beside no more than 5 games in the market) then you are automatically accepting skylake i3 is better than your CPU because this one outperform the i5 2500K.



This video confirm what I always say.. only 1 game match i5 2500K performance (The witcher 3) and only 1 game offer better performance than i5 2500K (Crysis 3 only and unique game in the world ever able to achieve that trick) the rest of the games.. and then boom skylake i5 6600K is just there to bully their younger siblings and obliterating the almighty FX8350.. ugh.. as soon as you are an AMD GPU to an FX CPUs you know how bad FX CPUs are for gaming in comparison to intel offerings. there's a substantial amount of difference between intel and AMD CPU with the huge driver overhead in AMD cards.

May I predict your next Answer?:

"I don't care how intel CPU perform against AMD CPU as much as I stay above 60FPS, more FPS here and there doesn't matter as i'm happy how my CPU perform and stay above 60FPS.."



uuuuuuh.. and how that helped AoS? let me guess? offering negative FX8000 performance in comparison to haswell and skylake i3 and i5 CPUs? uuuh thats ugly, are you having fun playing Star Swarm demo 24/7?.
Click to expand...


Thank you proving my point with that video. All current FX and Intel offerings are the same when it comes to gaming! So you can buy any Intel from the 2500 days or AMD FX and be equal!

Thank you so much! And you're right about staying above 60 fps. Because NONE of the CPUs will keep you above 120Hz ALL of the time which is my refresh rate.
 
cageymaru said:
Thank you proving my point with that video. All current FX and Intel offerings are the same when it comes to gaming! So you can buy any Intel from the 2500 days or AMD FX and be equal!

Thank you so much!
Click to expand...

Why buy old tech? why? when you can just buy a recent i3 or i5 and have a helluva of better performance with better platform features is there a reason to buy ancient tech? common man, please, common sense, think beyond brand loyalty. if you were going to build a machine now, with the knowledge than current skylake i5 outperform by a vastly margin every other AMD offerings, would you still buy an AMD platform?.... unless buying extremely cheap used parts there's no reason to buy old technology with the current tech we have now at the price we have now, don't forget ever that the 9590 was 900$ at launch, and the 9370 was at 500$ at launch, way overpriced to the performance offered even by current intel i7 at 320$ K models, then the failed it represented in the industry made AMD re-launch those chips at way lower the price of intel i5s.. why? because they knew how poor performance had in comparison and nobody would ever buy an 9370 over an i7.. way even worse the 9590 versus 400$ and 500$ hexa core i7s..

aaaand, nope, the point I have proven is that AMD with their ancient tech match the same ancient intel i5 offerings in ~5 games in the world but also outperformed by the same ancient tech (sandy bridge) in the rest of the games, and vastly outperformed by current tech(skylake)... that's the point.. nobody can't ever be proud of an octa cora chip being outperformed by a dual core chip in gaming, I just can't allow that.. its beyond reasoning.. the whole thing and point of this discussion is about buying a new gaming rig.. a very tight low budget? no reason to buy AMD which its also more expensive than actual skylake i3.. a reasonable budget? i5 it will outperform the highest-end AMD offering specially overclocked by just costing 100$ more..

So if a were going to buy an gaming machine right now with a reasonable budget. what machine would you offer me to buy? I have no parts to reuse, I have nothing, I have to build everything from 0... common, give me reasons and sell me a FX Platform and trust me, if you are able to convince me im going to build that machine and game with it.. (sometimes ^^ [already have 2 FX platform but no for gaming])
 
I have a FX-9370 as in my signature. :) OC'd to 4.7 - 5.2 depending on mood. Right now my system is dismantled. Going to redo some stuff with my custom water loop and possibly get a new motherboard. Thinking that a 1TB M.2 drive would suit me well and USB C looks neat. I can transfer them to whatever AMD or Intel system I build in October.

Typing this from a shitty DUAL CORE Intel notebook. Ha ha. I hate this slow ass thing. Dell should have been shot for making this with a dual core.
 
Araxie said:
Why buy old tech? why? when you can just buy a recent i3 or i5 and have a helluva of better performance with better platform features is there a reason to buy ancient tech? common man, please, common sense, think beyond brand loyalty. if you were going to build a machine now, with the knowledge than current skylake i5 outperform by a vastly margin every other AMD offerings, would you still buy an AMD platform?.... unless buying extremely cheap used parts there's no reason to buy old technology with the current tech we have now at the price we have now, don't forget ever that the 9590 was 900$ at launch, and the 9370 was at 500$ at launch, way overpriced to the performance offered even by current intel i7 at 320$ K models, then the failed it represented in the industry made AMD re-launch those chips at way lower the price of intel i5s.. why? because they knew how poor performance had in comparison and nobody would ever buy an 9370 over an i7.. way even worse the 9590 versus 400$ and 500$ hexa core i7s..

aaaand, nope, the point I have proven is that AMD with their ancient tech match the same ancient intel i5 offerings in ~5 games in the world but also outperformed by the same ancient tech (sandy bridge) in the rest of the games, and vastly outperformed by current tech(skylake)... that's the point.. nobody can't ever be proud of an octa cora chip being outperformed by a dual core chip in gaming, I just can't allow that.. its beyond reasoning.. the whole thing and point of this discussion is about buying a new gaming rig.. a very tight low budget? no reason to buy AMD which its also more expensive than actual skylake i3.. a reasonable budget? i5 it will outperform the highest-end AMD offering specially overclocked by just costing 100$ more..

So if a were going to buy an gaming machine right now with a reasonable budget. what machine would you offer me to buy? I have no parts to reuse, I have nothing, I have to build everything from 0... common, give me reasons and sell me a FX Platform and trust me, if you are able to convince me im going to build that machine and game with it.. (sometimes ^^ [already have 2 FX platform but no for gaming])
Click to expand...


I can't help that your ignorance is showing through so much the last few days. I can't help you to see my point. So I'll just leave you this. I'll not comment on this again.




Why has Intel done 2 large layoffs lately? Because their chips have FAILED TO BEST THE LAST GENERATIONS. In the real world they all look the same when it comes to everyday tasks. You can barely tell a 2500k from a 6700k but in a few benchmarks tests. Big whoop. There is nothing special about the current Intel chips. Ask one of the 12,000 Intel employees that were laid off this year. Bet they will admit that also.

Read what [H]ardocp readers said about the newest Intel chips. Many agree with me that it's not a big enough jump from a 2500k to matter. And this is a i7-6700K which costs a helluva lot more than a FX-8320E + mobo.

Look at the FX-8320E bundles on this page. That's $129 for a CPU + motherboard. The new motherboards have M.2, USB C, etc.
Micro Center - Computers and Electronics


Stop trying to hype Intel's regurgitated releases into the second coming of Christ.
 
cageymaru said:
I have a FX-9370 as in my signature. :) OC'd to 4.7 - 5.2 depending on mood. Right now my system is dismantled. Going to redo some stuff with my custom water loop and possibly get a new motherboard. Thinking that a 1TB M.2 drive would suit me well and USB C looks neat. I can transfer them to whatever AMD or Intel system I build in October.

Typing this from a shitty DUAL CORE Intel notebook. Ha ha. I hate this slow ass thing. Dell should have been shot for making this with a dual core.
Click to expand...


It is sometimes why I regret moving from my FX 8350 / Asrock 990FX Extreme 9 setup to my now Gigabyte Z170X Gaming 7 and i7-6700k setup. It is faster in games but, it does not make any real difference with day to day usage and I have found, I do not game all that much on my computer anymore. (Strange thing to say since I purchased a EVGA 980 Ti FTW in December of 2015) Only thing is, I was going to upgrade eventually, I just became impatient but, oh well, I will enjoy what I have regardless since I am now committed to this setup for at least 4 or so years going forward.

I have a 28 Inch 4k Samsung monitor and I do enjoy that very much.
 
ManofGod said:
It is sometimes why I regret moving from my FX 8350 / Asrock 990FX Extreme 9 setup to my now Gigabyte Z170X Gaming 7 and i7-6700k setup. It is faster in games but, it does not make any real difference with day to day usage and I have found, I do not game all that much on my computer anymore. (Strange thing to say since I purchased a EVGA 980 Ti FTW in December of 2015) Only thing is, I was going to upgrade eventually, I just became impatient but, oh well, I will enjoy what I have regardless since I am now committed to this setup for at least 4 or so years going forward.

I have a 28 Inch 4k Samsung monitor and I do enjoy that very much.
Click to expand...

I hear ya. At the time I purchased my 9590 there was a threaded performance advantage against the then current i7. No regrets. Spent more than I needed to on the 9590. But I wanted a guaranteed clock speed. Gaming is something I love to do, but everything else I do demands good threaded performance- and from that standpoint the chip has been outstanding.

So I await Zen to see whether I switch platforms or not. But for now I'm quite happy.
 
cageymaru said:
I can't help that your ignorance is showing through so much the last few days. I can't help you to see my point. So I'll just leave you this. I'll not comment on this again.




Why has Intel done 2 large layoffs lately? Because their chips have FAILED TO BEST THE LAST GENERATIONS. In the real world they all look the same when it comes to everyday tasks. You can barely tell a 2500k from a 6700k but in a few benchmarks tests. Big whoop. There is nothing special about the current Intel chips. Ask one of the 12,000 Intel employees that were laid off this year. Bet they will admit that also.

Read what [H]ardocp readers said about the newest Intel chips. Many agree with me that it's not a big enough jump from a 2500k to matter. And this is a i7-6700K which costs a helluva lot more than a FX-8320E + mobo.

Look at the FX-8320E bundles on this page. That's $129 for a CPU + motherboard. The new motherboards have M.2, USB C, etc.
Micro Center - Computers and Electronics


Stop trying to hype Intel's regurgitated releases into the second coming of Christ.
Click to expand...


You cannot lie that the mentioned mobo for 129 won't OC as much as you would recommend anyone to, and you would almost ask everyone to buy a $20 CM212 Fan. On the other hand the i3 + H110 mobo is 134.99 which destroys the value of the FX here too.
 
Araxie said:
uuuuuuh.. and how that helped AoS? let me guess? offering negative FX8000 performance in comparison to haswell and skylake i3 and i5 CPUs? uuuh thats ugly, are you having fun playing Star Swarm demo 24/7?.
Click to expand...

It shows that a 3 year old demo that can push batches a long time ago means that game development will follow. The days that developers are tied down by batch counts are over. Also showed that a FX 8 core cpu does still do very well at 100K batches and there was no mention about any I3 because it would crap out before 60K.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
It shows that a 3 year old demo that can push batches a long time ago means that game development will follow. The days that developers are tied down by batch counts are over. Also showed that a FX 8 core cpu does still do very well at 100K batches and there was no mention about any I3 because it would crap out before 60K.
Click to expand...

agree, totally agree, we all know that, however... how that impact ACTUAL gaming performance?. just nothing, to the moment that may present any game impact, necessity or being really useful, everything now in the CPU mainstream market will be obsolete...

Good that demo the FX 8 core do 100K batches and that meant really anything useful for the actual market?. no even in AoS which is the kind of game that can make more use of hundreds of hard body movement calculation and heavy AI calculation that represent any advantage in the market, we have no GPU power in the market to take any advantage of the powerful CPU with 8+ threads, and I think it will take about 5+ years to have that kind of GPU power, and then everything now will be obsolete. good the FX8000 do 100K batches and i3 do less than 60K batches however still the i3 outperform the FX8000 in AoS how its that possible? could you explain? because even I was expecting FX8000 to perform at i7 3770K or 4770K levels, however it is still below i3 6100.

Yes thread bottleneck does exist now and the perfect example is crysis 3, however it actually mean nothing in this game market. Just think, no developer in the world will make a code to take advantage of ancient technology, we have actually strong enough cores to counter every need of CPU power, and this is just going to increase with Zen and Cannonlake (if its true that intel its going to move up the core count numbers for the mainstream market i3 quad core, i5 quad core +HT and i7 hexa core + HT) if Zen have Haswell level per core power the devs will never have any need of worry about CPU per core power and that will mitigate the need of create a multi-thread able code, if we want the devs to invest in the PC market we need the work easy for them DX12 will help to achieve that but that doesn't mean everything in the PC gaming will change, AoS proved that.
 
Look at other markets even Android devices are going with more cores that developers will adept to it is obvious.
Lower batch count = better performance of less cores. Take a look at what Pendragon1 posted in the AMD cpu DX11 vs DX12 thread it shows the difference between 4 core amd and 8 core amd and both reach the same number at crazy on medium the 8 core wins.

Engine limitations define performance if that engine could scale higher with more cores there would be clear difference
 
Pieter3dnow said:
Look at other markets even Android devices are going with more cores that developers will adept to it is obvious.
Lower batch count = better performance of less cores. Take a look at what Pendragon1 posted in the AMD cpu DX11 vs DX12 thread it shows the difference between 4 core amd and 8 core amd and both reach the same number at crazy on medium the 8 core wins.

Engine limitations define performance if that engine could scale higher with more cores there would be clear difference
Click to expand...

Which always had me begging the question to AMD when they went with their FX line.... Why? Why go that route when the software wasn't there yet? It's still not here yet - it's definitely better but if the software/engine's were taking full advantage of core count the FX8*** series, even the FX6*** series wouldn't be compared to a damn i3. So AMD gambled on "advanced" tech - if you want to call it that, by lacking on IPC for a higher core count all the while the software continued to take advantage of one, two and sometimes four cores for the most part. Meanwhile Intel dominates IPC and because Intel's IPC is so much better Intel performs better in most/all benchmarks when comparing an Intel dual-core with an AMD dual-core and so on.... So of course a dual-core Intel is going to cost quite a bit more than an AMD. Or quad core Intel compared to an AMD. You're getting a lot more processor from Intel when comparing as close to apples with AMD.

It really pissed me off when FX came out - and while I won't call it a "failure" the fact that the term failure is associated with FX says a lot - and AMD saw there were major issues, yet they continued down that path not worrying about IPC. Obviously there were issues when their old tech was faster than their new stuff out of the gate. To an extent I agree with the reasoning that the software wasn't/isn't optimized for the FX line... But how does that help us?
 
Pieter3dnow said:
Look at other markets even Android devices are going with more cores that developers will adept to it is obvious.
Lower batch count = better performance of less cores. Take a look at what Pendragon1 posted in the AMD cpu DX11 vs DX12 thread it shows the difference between 4 core amd and 8 core amd and both reach the same number at crazy on medium the 8 core wins.

Engine limitations define performance if that engine could scale higher with more cores there would be clear difference
Click to expand...

Do you know there are numerous times where an Apple dual core chip beats everything else on release? ROFL.
So a dual core apple mobile chip can beat an octa core samsung chip in performance numbers (when using all cores) why are you trying to contradict yourself here?
Cores are not the major factor in performance in consumer systems and they aren't going to be for the near future.
 
a3venom said:
Do you know there are numerous times where an Apple dual core chip beats everything else on release? ROFL.
So a dual core apple mobile chip can beat an octa core samsung chip in performance numbers (when using all cores) why are you trying to contradict yourself here?
Cores are not the major factor in performance in consumer systems and they aren't going to be for the near future.
Click to expand...

But would that be because of "engine" limitations though? If so I don't think he is contradicting himself.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
Look at other markets even Android devices are going with more cores that developers will adept to it is obvious.
Lower batch count = better performance of less cores. Take a look at what Pendragon1 posted in the AMD cpu DX11 vs DX12 thread it shows the difference between 4 core amd and 8 core amd and both reach the same number at crazy on medium the 8 core wins.

Engine limitations define performance if that engine could scale higher with more cores there would be clear difference
Click to expand...

Pretty much different things.. couple of facts, Android as OS, and ARM arch scale linearly with clock increase way more than the core count increase, not only by the fact that every advancement made for those chips aren't only focused in performance but power saving so more of the time you have an octa core device running with 1 or 2 cores at half the max speed of the chip, outside bechmarks rarely any application on android phone utilize more than 2 cores even on truly octa core devices (not 4+4 big.LITTLE) even in games you rarely see the phone running at max speed Im used to run "system monitor" paid version to run CPU monitoring realtime OSD and the only time the phone utilize all cores its launching a game and then its obviously "disk" Write/Read speed limited, Android phones are precisely and genuinely a market where CPU performance have surpassed by an ample margin the engine limitations, IPC weight more than everything in those phones because everything its focused in power saving features turning every core OFF always as possible. im pretty confident Android doesn't scale beyond 4 cores (of the same ARM revision) more than what do with IPC or core clock and this is nothing new, that's the main reason suddenly every major phone designer decided to just increase more and more screen resolution not only by marketing but because they don't had where utilize all of that extra power.

Everything in the Android environment are designed and coded to run by CPU and not GPU And even with that fact still no android phone out there it's able to utilize full CPU power in any application outside benchmarks, they are Overpowered and the scaling have already stopped by core count past 4. Main limiting factor in phones are actually RAM that's what make android fast a lot of RAM and fast RAM, So Android isn't a good example at all..
 
xTrident said:
Which always had me begging the question to AMD when they went with their FX line.... Why? Why go that route when the software wasn't there yet? It's still not here yet - it's definitely better but if the software/engine's were taking full advantage of core count the FX8*** series, even the FX6*** series wouldn't be compared to a damn i3. So AMD gambled on "advanced" tech - if you want to call it that, by lacking on IPC for a higher core count all the while the software continued to take advantage of one, two and sometimes four cores for the most part. Meanwhile Intel dominates IPC and because Intel's IPC is so much better Intel performs better in most/all benchmarks when comparing an Intel dual-core with an AMD dual-core and so on.... So of course a dual-core Intel is going to cost quite a bit more than an AMD. Or quad core Intel compared to an AMD. You're getting a lot more processor from Intel when comparing as close to apples with AMD.

It really pissed me off when FX came out - and while I won't call it a "failure" the fact that the term failure is associated with FX says a lot - and AMD saw there were major issues, yet they continued down that path not worrying about IPC. Obviously there were issues when their old tech was faster than their new stuff out of the gate. To an extent I agree with the reasoning that the software wasn't/isn't optimized for the FX line... But how does that help us?
Click to expand...
Couple of reasons.

First FX and GCN were likely conceived at the same time. And at this time a DX12-like API was being considered, around 2009. But for some reason it was scrapped. Unfortunately AMD was left out in the cold with their designs already in the works. They thought that the software was indeed headed in a direction allowing for more cores on not just the CPU but GPU as well (loose interpretation of GPU cores here as in the ability to speak to more than one from the CPU). They also probably didn't think it would take this long to get that DX12-like API.

A lot of that would explain the lack of FPU, rather sharing of the FPU within the FX modules. A DX12-like API would be a lot like HSA in that software would use the best hardware for the software needs.

And there is of course the failings of the process, where AMDs target speed of FX was 6-8Ghz. Had it been met they would have dominated Intel for that time even without the DX12-like API.

But none of it matters other than to explain why we are here and how here came to be. The fact is that the FX line for the most part is a quality part and can give great performance to the user wishing to have it.

Is it a huge recommendation today for one slightly interested in upgrading from something? No.

Is it a viable purchase for the majority of users? Yes.

Unfortunately too many posters like posting information out of context and that does a great injustice to the majority of those looking for information.

A few facts of the FX line:

POSITIVES

1: Can be over clocked as they all are supported to do so.

2: The whole system is free to OC which gives total system potential. (Not a huge deal but some FX CPUs, like mine, prefer FSB OCing over Multi).

3: For the most part, achieves 60FPS with relative ease so if using a 60hz monitor and a single GPU then there is no reason not to get one or a compelling reason to choose anything else outside of specific needs.

4: Price as of today is rather competitive and cheap. (Goes hand in hand with the negative below).

5: Physical cores tend to work all the time. HT used by Intel isn't a works-all-the-time solution although today it usually does but some games show that the i5 equivalent of the i7 works better showing that HT isn't working to the benefit of the game.

NEGATIVES

1: obviously power usage is vastly different between FX and Intels current line. But for the majority of users it is a moot point. (nothing more annoying than someone touting power usage then having everything they got clocked to the max).

2: Heat. The FX line requires, more so with the higher core counts, vastly better cooling to achieve decent OCs, enough to bridge the performance gap.

3: The above adds to the cost which fortunately with the FX line being low cost helps alleviate the cost of purchasing better cooling but still it is usually what gets left out of those discussions when looking at just the cost of the CPUs.

4: MoBo quality is another huge consideration and another cost addition. The higher the core count the bigger the need for higher quality boards with that extra quality cost.

All in all The FX line can get the job done for the avg user. Not an immediate upgrade need and likely better to go with Intel if no preference. However if the question is solely if the FX line is viable then yes it is. There have been enough posters that can attest to this so it isn't just some fan boy gaff. But rather a reasonable look at what we have available and what we can REASONABLY expect if that were a path we wish to go down.
 
Aiming to overclock any AMD cpu adds way too much to the overhead cost for it to be remotely viable, because it brings it into intel price range. How does that make it viable? It can be ok when you buy the cheapest possible mobo and get 0.2 or 0.4 Ghz on the stock cooler - and for that it will do an OK job for the price you paid.

Start looking for a better than average mobo and add a $30 CPU cooler - it makes it completely retarded to spend that type of money on an AMD cpu unless someone has a lot of money to spare because someone wants to support a company at cost of performance.

The cheapest 990FX board + 8320E + 212 Evo costs more than Cheapest H110+ i5 6500. that is just LUL
 
a3venom said:
Aiming to overclock any AMD cpu adds way too much to the overhead cost for it to be remotely viable, because it brings it into intel price range. How does that make it viable? It can be ok when you buy the cheapest possible mobo and get 0.2 or 0.4 Ghz on the stock cooler - and for that it will do an OK job for the price you paid.

Start looking for a better than average mobo and add a $30 CPU cooler - it makes it completely retarded to spend that type of money on an AMD cpu unless someone has a lot of money to spare because someone wants to support a company at cost of performance.

The cheapest 990FX board + 8320E + 212 Evo costs more than Cheapest H110+ i5 6500. that is just LUL
Click to expand...
You might as well just leave the AMD sub forum then. You apparently don't see anyones view that contrasts your own. And then to degradate any that may choose a route that you do not agree with is not very helpful at all nor in the heart and intent that such forums hope to attain.

You have your opinion, which is your right but have yet to prove once that an FX is not viable. Generally speaking most CPUs are viable. My post went so far as to explain where and in what context and yet I didn't feel the need to call others names or put their decisions in context of intellectual failings.
 
cageymaru said:
Hope this 10 phase mobo is good for $109. It should be nice for my great-niece when I give it to her around Zen time.
GIGABYTE GA-990FX-Gaming AM3+ AMD 990FX SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.1 USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard - Newegg.com
Click to expand...

very good indeed.. normally I don't like Gigabyte board, but that price is very good specially with more modern features that most of the motherboards I would trust.. I still see potential VRM cooling issues, but unbeatable for the price.. nice finding.
 
I still have a problem with statements such as "The FX line can get the job done", or "It's good enough for the average user". That really doesn't say much IMO. It actually comes off to me as grasping at straws a bit.

My bottom line with this thread in general is the OP posts a video showing the FX 8300 being better than the i3 6100... An "eight" core better than a "dual core"... (yeah I know it's not a true 8-core and a true dual-core but for arguments sake...) And then a statement saying five year old tech doesn't look bad compared to 2016 tech. Well of course not, look what is being compared??? I don't even think the price comparisons are great as far as comparing them goes at this point considering it's ~2011 tech pricing to 2016 pricing. Because essentially it's telling someone to buy this five year old tech for the same price as this brand new tech...

I'm curious to see what Zen is able to do, the price points and how said price point CPU compares to Intel's. I see a lot being said of not going with FX because it's so long in the tooth now. I've got nothing against the FX line other than the fact that I think it came out too soon and that it is old tech now. I could see the same things being said about Sandy Bridge at this point.

One last note to your reply to me JustReason - which I understand and agree with everything you said - you mention FX basically being just fine for the average user, which to me comes off more as pointing average users to using the FX line. But one of your positives to using FX is overclockability. I just don't see many average users doing a lot of overclocking. While that probably still won't matter for an average user, they still have to be sold on buying old tech. Because if we're going to talk about what will get the job done for the average user dare I say an i3 6100 will as well?
 
109 Mobo + 120 CPU(8320E) + 30 Cooler(212EVO) - isn't this overpriced as fuck for a FX series? that will take atleast $30 extra on the PSU to support this system over a i5 6500($195) and H110($49)?
People can't cease to amuse me, you only buy it because you like the brand, but there is no argument for the product to be on par with the competition for the exact same $.
People come to a lot of forums to ask for build advice and maybe 20% of people will recommend them AMD if they want to save some money.
Our goal should be to stop those 20% from spreading misinformation (that AMD can lead to cost savings) and silence this myth that AMD is a cheaper alternative to Intel, because it is not.

One of the ways to achieve that is by shoving PCpartpicker links and benchmarks down ppl's throats - which is just objective comparison.
 
I'd love to do a major overhaul to my AMD machine, but I want to stick with AMD. I'm not a fanboy of either but I am more bias towards AMD.
 
a3venom said:
109 Mobo + 120 CPU(8320E) + 30 Cooler(212EVO) - isn't this overpriced as fuck for a FX series? that will take atleast $30 extra on the PSU to support this system over a i5 6500($195) and H110($49)?
People can't cease to amuse me, you only buy it because you like the brand, but there is no argument for the product to be on par with the competition for the exact same $.
People come to a lot of forums to ask for build advice and maybe 20% of people will recommend them AMD if they want to save some money.
Our goal should be to stop those 20% from spreading misinformation (that AMD can lead to cost savings) and silence this myth that AMD is a cheaper alternative to Intel, because it is not.

One of the ways to achieve that is by shoving PCpartpicker links and benchmarks down ppl's throats - which is just objective comparison.
Click to expand...

In their defense a lot of recommendations I see for going FX revolves around really good bundle deals typically at Microcenter. Someone did post a link to I believe 8320e deals there and for CPU+Mobo it was $149. To be honest that is about the only way I'd ever go with an FX right now.
 
Araxie said:
very good indeed.. normally I don't like Gigabyte board, but that price is very good specially with more modern features that most of the motherboards I would trust.. I still see potential VRM cooling issues, but unbeatable for the price.. nice finding.
Click to expand...

I was going to go with this $89 Asus, but I just wanted to try something different. AMD let the 970 series boards have CrossfireX and this one is SLi certified also. If the Gigabyte doesn't work out, then I'll fall back on this.

Review.
ASUS 970 PRO GAMING/AURA Review - Overclockers

Newegg. $89
ASUS 970 PRO GAMING/AURA AM3+ AMD 970 + SB 950 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.1 ATX AMD Motherboard - Newegg.com

Same as Amazon. $89
Amazon product ASIN B01A33PHLA
 
cageymaru said:
I was going to go with this $89 Asus, but I just wanted to try something different. AMD let the 970 series boards have CrossfireX and this one is SLi certified also. If the Gigabyte doesn't work out, then I'll fall back on this.

Review.
ASUS 970 PRO GAMING/AURA Review - Overclockers

Newegg. $89
ASUS 970 PRO GAMING/AURA AM3+ AMD 970 + SB 950 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.1 ATX AMD Motherboard - Newegg.com

Same as Amazon. $89
Amazon product ASIN B01A33PHLA
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be too much confident using a FX Octa with a 970 Mobo.. probably FX hexa, but no more, specially with FX9000 chips or if overclocking are intended..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top