Is there any reason to use FX CPUs right now?

[schmuckley]

Should't x/h265 be the standard now?

OT ..but yes..and no it isn't.

PS: A $75 X5650 is better at absolutely everything than FX-series chips.
..and that's basically Nehalem.

 

[Ramses]

PS: A $75 X5650 is better at absolutely everything than FX-series chips.
..and that's basically Nehalem.

seriously dude? lol

we got the reference a few post back, while it probably isn't completely untrue it's essentially
irrelevant.

 

[svarog19]

OT ..but yes..and no it isn't.

PS: A $75 X5650 is better at absolutely everything than FX-series chips.
..and that's basically Nehalem.

I mean if you want to talk about used chips that cost 75$ then be free to do so.

 

[schmuckley]

I mean if you want to talk about used chips that cost 75$ then be free to do so.

..that have a good bit more performance than FX chips all the way around.

:awe:

 

[Ramses]

that cost a grand new and is five years old..
I love a xeon or such as much or more than the next guy, but that's not even in the same ballpark. I get it and it's a cool chip but it's not very relevant.
I actually looked into some of that era chip since they are cheap now but the ancient motherboards that still aren't especially cheap were a turnoff. I really wanted m.2/SATAx without a card if I was going to board-hop. They are as much of a dead-end as the FX is. A very cool and interesting dead-end, but just as dead. I'd like to have one to play with if I had room and spare budget.

 

[Nhirlathothep]

cheap fake-pro-users love amd. They claim about free oc and MT power


cheap real-pro-users buy on ebay 1366 server with dual 4core xeon at 600$

 

[Ramses]

and the 1337'ist just buy Alienware

 

[SlowSpyder]

and the 1337'ist just buy Alienware

First thing I thought.

 

[Nhirlathothep]

and the 1337'ist just buy Alienware

alienware is a gaming pc, and definetely not cheap.


everyone can have better performance for the money!



Never advised someone to buy alienware.


()

 

[Ramses]

Just jerkin your chain man, they are nice stuff.

 

[Nhirlathothep]

and the 1337'ist just buy Alienware

First thing I thought.

socket 1366

 

[Nhirlathothep]

Just jerkin your chain man, they are nice stuff.

 

[TheELF]

AMD CPU's are great for price for performance and FX 8350 is great for multitasking, just play your games and render videos in background as soon as you're done recording the footage of the game and then upload it to youtube if you have fast enough internet connection to play online while also upload videos.

I really wonder why people keep thinking that this is some sort of great feat,any CPU can do this,I am doing this on my celeron while recording gameplay , the only difference is that I can lower the games FPS to give more power to the transcoding while the FX* forces you to have low FPS and a lot of empty cores, due to it's minced meat module-cores.

*any multicore(more than 2) CPU really, no matter if AMD or intel, the more cores the more of them will stay unused

 

[Nhirlathothep]

I really wonder why people keep thinking that this is some sort of great feat,any CPU can do this,I am doing this on my celeron while recording gameplay , the only difference is that I can lower the games FPS to give more power to the transcoding while the FX* forces you to have low FPS and a lot of empty cores, due to it's minced meat module-cores.

*any multicore(more than 2) CPU really, no matter if AMD or intel, the more cores the more of them will stay unused

no, with amd fx s cpu there is really almost-no impact on gaming performace if they're 100% working also on other things.

It s the different way the cpu load is managed. With i7 4970k u cant do the same, if it s 100% occuped converting files, u lose fps while gaming. fx 8350 no.


disclaimer:
i m not an amd user by ... far ... i buy intel extreme edition cpu for main pc or intel low socket cpu for (future) itx build

 

[TurtleCrusher]

I really wonder why people keep thinking that this is some sort of great feat,any CPU can do this,I am doing this on my celeron while recording gameplay , the only difference is that I can lower the games FPS to give more power to the transcoding while the FX* forces you to have low FPS and a lot of empty cores, due to it's minced meat module-cores.

*any multicore(more than 2) CPU really, no matter if AMD or intel, the more cores the more of them will stay unused

If I couldn't stream and run Counterstrike Source:GO without a sizable performance hit with an overclocked C2Q, I can only imagine the limited number of games that can be streamed with a Celeron without performance hits.

Not only can I stream now, but it's accompanied with a zero performance hit. Even with games that utilize 6 cores such as NBA 2K15 are spot on.

 

[TheELF]

no, with amd fx s cpu there is really almost-no impact on gaming performace if they're 100% working also on other things.

With quick sync the impact is ~5-10% for the celeron which has the slowest current cores,depending on the capture software used, and since almost no game can utilize 100% of even a dual core the impact is even lower than that,
with faster cores the impact is even smaller.


On the other side an FX will have a huge in build performance hit for every game you're gonna play on it,you have no additional performance hit because no game can utilize nowhere near all it's cores.

 

[Nhirlathothep]

With quick sync the impact is ~5-10% for the celeron which has the slowest current cores,depending on the capture software used, and since almost no game can utilize 100% of even a dual core the impact is even lower than that,
with faster cores the impact is even smaller.


On the other side an FX will have a huge in build performance hit for every game you're gonna play on it,you have no additional performance hit because no game can utilize nowhere near all it's cores.

no. no .no

Set low details 1280x720p or buy a hi-performance card, u re gonna see 100% cpu usage all the day with your dual core

 

[svarog19]

..that have a good bit more performance than FX chips all the way around.

:awe:

...and? FX chips are for desktops and Xeon's are for servers, Xeon 5650 is a far more expensive chip than FX 8350. Xeon 5650 is 483$ compared to FX 8350 which is 180$ on Newegg if you want unused. If you don't want to bother with overclocking FX 8350 then FX 9590 which is 240$.

Unused motherboard for Xeon 5650 is 200$ at minimum...

that cost a grand new and is five years old..
I love a xeon or such as much or more than the next guy, but that's not even in the same ballpark. I get it and it's a cool chip but it's not very relevant.
I actually looked into some of that era chip since they are cheap now but the ancient motherboards that still aren't especially cheap were a turnoff. I really wanted m.2/SATAx without a card if I was going to board-hop. They are as much of a dead-end as the FX is. A very cool and interesting dead-end, but just as dead. I'd like to have one to play with if I had room and spare budget.

It is not clear if AM3'+ is dead or not for sure and its more alive since FX Piledriver has instructions that Xeon 5650 does not have such as TBM, AVX, XOP, FMA3-FMA4, F16C, SSE4a, Advanced Bit Manipulation, 128 SSE instructions, etc.. F16C, FMA4 and XOP are SSE5.

cheap fake-pro-users love amd. They claim about free oc and MT power


cheap real-pro-users buy on ebay 1366 server with dual 4core xeon at 600$

Reverse is also valid... :awe:

If you live in USA and can use some of rebates then you can get this under 600$ rather than go cheapo and buy used from potentially shady people that could con you and in the end you end up spending more money. Except of course you have a friend/family member that is selling his old hardware

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/DFM6xr

 

[janeuner]

With quick sync....

OBS already has NVENC support, and VCE support is available in its own branch. For streaming games, QuickSync is hardly an advantage over FX, as you are practically required to have a supported video card anyhow.

As long as FX is cheap and good enough, the Intel fan-flaming is going to fall on deaf ears. The only decent competition Intel fields for cheap-ass cold-climate gamers (like myself) is G3258 (which I own) and that chip really punishes multitasking while gaming. With all that in mind, I see absolutely no reason to drop $180+ on an i5; this $110 FX is good enough.

 

[TheELF]

no. no .no

Set low details 1280x720p or buy a hi-performance card, u re gonna see 100% cpu usage all the day with your dual core

Wait,what just happened,that was partly my original point, I said
"I can lower the games FPS to give more power to the transcoding" (or whatever else I want to run in the background)
Having all of your CPU work for you has become a bad thing?

(still if you do your math on the threads of games they never add up to 100% of the CPU, even on a dual)

 

[svarog19]

With quick sync the impact is ~5-10% for the celeron which has the slowest current cores,depending on the capture software used, and since almost no game can utilize 100% of even a dual core the impact is even lower than that,
with faster cores the impact is even smaller.


On the other side an FX will have a huge in build performance hit for every game you're gonna play on it,you have no additional performance hit because no game can utilize nowhere near all it's cores.

No... Streaming and recording is intensive when using CPU.

Most games nowadays use 4 cores, rarely 6 and I don't know any game using 8 cores. Since FX 8350 has 8 cores then 4 to 6 cores are used for game and 4 to 2 cores are used for streaming/video rendering.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSgpckRJlp4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHM-LBtJc2Q

 

[Ramses]

I'd rather have four cores loaded to 80% than two loaded to 100%. This applies to almost anything, not just CPU's. The absolute performance may be less but some breathing room is a good rule of thumb to follow with any machine. It's part of why an FX multitasks so well compared to a (faster) dual core. Everyone is quick to point out how two or more cores are likely to be sitting around doing nothing in a lot of games, I find uses for that "nothing" myself and windows is good enough these days to help me. Recall I mentioned leaving 60 tabs open in two browsers while playing heavy games with no perceptible impact? Stuff like that. It works rather well in practice and has for me since the Pentium Pro/II days when I first got into SMP.

 

[SPBHM]

for streaming with slower CPUs you can try accelerated encoding (quicksync, VCE...), but quality is always higher with CPU encoding...
while using the CPU, the extra cores on the FX are pretty useful compared to i3s and i5s, from what I noticed quad core i7s work pretty well for this, but they are more expensive.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Not sure it is really that simple. Doesn't windows split up the loads among the cores dynamically? I mean if you look at the core usage of almost any well threaded game on an FX all 8 cores are already being used to some extent, and in a game like BF4, all 8 cores are loaded almost equally.

 

[Ramses]

Not sure it is really that simple. Doesn't windows split up the loads among the cores dynamically? I mean if you look at the core usage of almost any well threaded game on an FX all 8 cores are already being used to some extent, and in a game like BF4, all 8 cores are loaded almost equally.

Yep, works a lot better than it used to but it's not perfect. I asked and tried to find an even semi-simple way to find out what program was running what thread(s) on what core but nobody could come up with anything. My understanding is it's more efficient if the software itself is aware and coded to actively use more cores/threads rather than windows bouncing things around.