Is there any reason to use FX CPUs right now?

[Yuriman]

Who cares?
Actually not that much..
It's a 95-watt chip..32nm.
Less than a Q6600 or FX 8-core..that's for sure.

Seriously..all you people crying about "energy efficiency" on CPUs and GPUs is ridiculous.
It's about the difference of 1 light bulb from lowest to highest power usage.
If AMD released a 200w chip tomorrow that outperformed Intel..I'd be all over it.

100w extra at 6 hours per day works out to around $30 per year. For myself, 4 years is a fair estimate for how long I'll keep a chip, so an FX would cost me ~$120 more.

I suppose 6 hours might be on the high side for most users though?

Anyhow, AMD's FX9590 costs just a hair more than an unlocked i5 and is a 220w chip. Granted, you need a cooler for it, and a more expensive motherboard, and you're not going to get much of an overclock from it, but it's definitely faster than a 4690K in a lot of tasks.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I could have went with AMD FX 8350 over my Z97X 4690K setup but all I would have saved was $50 bucks so it was a no brainer to go with intel this time. If I were to go for the FX 9590 it would have cost $50 more than my Intel setup.

Some people may have been stretching their budget just to get the $50 cheaper FX 8350 set up, so it isn't a no brainer for everyone. The high end of a line up is typically less bang for the buck, much like the $3000 Titan Z and the $1000+ 5960x. That doesn't make the whole series overpriced, I think we can agree Intel and Nvidia have some solid buys despite how much their fastest hardware costs. AMD is much the same, the FX 9590 might not be worth it's ~$240 price tag, but that doesn't mean there are no good buys in that family of products.

 

[PC Master Race]

Some people may have been stretching their budget just to get the $50 cheaper FX 8350 set up, so it isn't a no brainer for everyone. The high end of a line up is typically less bang for the buck, much like the $3000 Titan Z and the $1000+ 5960x. That doesn't make the whole series overpriced, I think we can agree Intel and Nvidia have some solid buys despite how much their fastest hardware costs. AMD is much the same, the FX 9590 might not be worth it's ~$240 price tag, but that doesn't mean there are no good buys in that family of products.

The 4690K is the best bang for buck gaming CPU going today ...
See when OCed it offers high end performance for a mid range price
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-4.html

 

[SlowSpyder]

The 4690K is the best bang for buck gaming CPU going today ...
See when OCed it offers high end performance for a mid range price
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-4.html

I'm not arguing that the i5 4690 isn't necessarily the better buy for gaming for many people, likely most people even at $50 more. I'm saying that the FX still offers good bang for the buck, and depending on your budget, games you play, other software you use, and if you overclock / tweak hardware, it could still be quite a good buy. The platform is dated and lightly threaded performance is lower, no argument there. But that doesn't necessarily translate into a worse experience.

I game fairly regularly. When I play an enjoyable game, I have yet to run into a situation where my immersion in that game is ruined because my CPU is holding me back. And really, that's the point of a gaming rig... to play games and enjoy them. If I can get lost in a game and not think about the hardware under the hood, than I'm happy.

 

[2is]

Fair enough but not everyone thinks like you though. It is why AMD, Intel, and every other company has so many choices of SKUs. Other wise they would only make and sell a single CPU

Right, and there's a reason why I specifically started my post with "I personally wouldn't" it makes replies like yours redundant.

 

[2is]

You're over generalizing. You can get a motherboard + FX + capable enough cooler to run the CPU at 4.4-4.5GHz for ~$200, (an i5 4670 is $225 on Newegg, alone). They aren't as efficient as Intel, certainly. But I don't think they're nearly as bad as some people make them out to be either. I think the power use and associated costs are not an issue for most people. If you run your CPU at 100% load 24x7, than I understand why that's important to you. If you're a typical gamer, the extra cost in power use is probably very little.

And Intel isn't nearly as pricier as some "other" people make them out to be either. They'll make up fairytales about how $50-80 in an insurmountable price premium and say that the additional power costs that will easily match that amount over the course of the computers life are negligible.

Then, when FX is compared to an older Intel processor that still performs better but brings the price down to where the FX is, they'll question the power efficiency of the Intel chip. Which sadly for them still ends up being at least as good or better than FX

 

[Abwx]

Then, when FX is compared to an older Intel processor that still performs better but brings the price down to where the FX is, they'll question the power efficiency of the Intel chip. Which sadly for them still ends up being at least as good or better than FX

What are thoses old intel chips with good perfs watt and good perfs.?.

Are you talking of thoses dated Nehalems.?.

 

[Yuriman]

Nehalem was pretty power hungry. Efficiency under load *might* have been similar to a modern FX chip (unlikely), but their idle draw was much, much higher. There's no arguing that an overclocked 6 core Nehalem isn't faster than an FX-8 though.

EDIT: Is -> Isn't

 

[SlowSpyder]

And Intel isn't nearly as pricier as some "other" people make them out to be either. They'll make up fairytales about how $50-80 in an insurmountable price premium and say that the additional power costs that will easily match that amount over the course of the computers life are negligible.

Then, when FX is compared to an older Intel processor that still performs better but brings the price down to where the FX is, they'll question the power efficiency of the Intel chip. Which sadly for them still ends up being at least as good or better than FX

"Other" people? I provided an example, an FX 8310 + capable motherbaord + cooler for less than the cost of an i5 4670(non K). Of course Intel has cheaper options than that CPU with i3's and the Pentium, and some lower spec'd i5's even. Depending on what you do with your computer, games you play, if you're an overclocker, the FX system can be a good buy. That's all I'm saying. And while higher benches are great for forum posts and epeen, the fact is I simply don't feel my CPU holds me back, I still enjoy the games I play and forget about what hardware is running the game. I may be every bit as happy with an Intel system, and may even save 50 - 100 watts. That's probably less than $1-$2 / month for me with my usage pattern. I can handle that.

 

[2is]

2(12 )= $24/year and if you're still recommending FX after all these years that means you keep your systems for a while so $24x5 years = $120

If you can handle $120 you can handle $80 for the superior system.

 

[Ramses]

2(12 )

If you can handle $120 you can handle $80 for the superior system.

While I understand how that feels right, as I explained in this, or another, thread there is a marked difference between right-now money and later or over-time money. This is the basis of the credit industry.

I ran my 8350 and 9590 for 18hrs a day, 6 days a week and a bit less on Sunday. I watch my tier'd pricing not-cheap west coast utility bill quite closely, and I can't tell any difference in it from running the laptop for a few weeks, or from the prior PC. I can believe it's an issue for some people, but I live five miles from a nuclear power plant. I'm ok with a bit of money spread over a year, it is considerably less noticeable than money spent up front. I'm sure the difference is there, but if I was really to the point of ten or fifteen bucks a month being a make or break deal I'd have a chromebook or some such. It just isn't that large an issue for anyone I've spoken with that actually owns and uses the things.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Sigh more slow cores do not make a slow CPU fast. Where FX falls flat is in (IPC) Instructions Per Clock and Per Core Performance.

That is pure garbage coming from someone who clearly has never run any scientific computing. You can't change the massive architecture disadvantage of only running 4 projects simultaneously versus a CPU that can run 8.

The FX 8320e is a far superior chip to your i5 for those running multithreaded scientific calculations. Your original quote was "In short you need an aggressively clocked AMD FX 8 core chip to even come somewhat close to a stock clock core i5 Devils Canyon in most tasks." That is clearly incorrect -- a stock clocked FX octacore will soundly thump any i5 on the World Community Grid any other grid computing projects where integer performance matters. That faster IPC on only 4 threads can't keep up with running 8 projects simultaneously. I've run both chips personally -- the i5 is considerably slower.

My i7 4790K is a monster on BOINC that can run 8 threads faster than any FX can, but you were talking about the i5.

 

[meester]

Basically, for 99% of people, no.

An FX costs within $10 of an i3, which is a superior choice for home purposes.

The X4 is a little cheaper, but even so, $30 in a first world country is nothing.

(And bear in mind that the most popular PCs sold have a Celeron low-power J1800, so even an X4 is in reality far from entry level, so if you care enough to put the thing together yourself, source an overspecced PSU, and everything else, an i3 or better is definitely within your budget.)

 

[coercitiv]

Although I'm no gamer, I can't wait for the DX 12 games/reviews and the s**t storm they will bring among the brand loyalists.

 

[Ratman6161]

I have an i5 3550 (OC'd to 3.9GHz thanks to the ASRock board) and it makes one hell of a VM machine because of the VT-d letting VM have direct access to the hardware instead of the VM's virtual hardware, quite a nice thing to have.

I'm using an 8320 on a 990FX board as a home server running a free version of VMWare ESXi 5.5. For home use (or a lab environment) its hard to beat. I got the motherboard and CPU combo cheap at Microcenter and then spent some money on an LSI hardware raid card. This was the reason for the 990FX and the extra PCIe lanes as the Raid card is an X8 and I've got an Intel dual port gigabit NIC that's an x4 (I think). For a cheap home or lab server that runs multiple VM's but a small number of users (in my case two users) its hard to beat.

If you don't need the 990Fx board (i.e. building something a little lower end than mine) micro center has a bundle deal for a 8320E + 970 motherboard for $120 (yes, that is both motherboard and CPU!). Or same CPU with a 990FX board for $175

http://www.microcenter.com/site/products/amd_bundles.aspx

 

[Yuriman]

Although I'm no gamer, I can't wait for the DX 12 games/reviews and the s**t storm they will bring among the brand loyalists.

You can get a glimpse of what happens by looking at Mantle reviews:

http://www.techspot.com/review/793-thief-battlefield-4-mantle-performance/

 

[2is]

While I understand how that feels right, as I explained in this, or another, thread there is a marked difference between right-now money and later or over-time money. This is the basis of the credit industry.

Most people are ordering online which involves using a credit card 99% of the time, so either way, it's money later.

Although I'm no gamer, I can't wait for the DX 12 games/reviews and the s**t storm they will bring among the brand loyalists.

Not sure why that would make a difference really. It will reduce overhead, but developers will not just stop there... They're going to take advantage of the additional CPU resources that DX12 made available to make more advanced games. DX12 might make AMD a little more competitive initially but with the good previews that Windows 10 is receiving, combined with the free upgrade the first year, I don't think it will be long before developers start taking full advantage of DX12 and the extra CPU resources available to them. Anyway you look at it, CPU is going to matter.

 

[Ramses]

Most people are ordering online which involves using a credit card 99% of the time, so either way, it's money later.

Not me, they take debit cards and paypal just the same. Debt isn't as popular as it once was I don't think after that housing fiasco and the job market being such a mess and education being so expensive, what I hear from young folks anyway. That and most of them are buying mobile devices rather than PC's lol...


As an enthusiast, an i3 or i5 was never even on the table, speaking of which. While I don't believe comparing the i7 to the FX is especially fair given it's price and obvious handicaps, my choice/interest was top of the range from either outfit, not midrange. The performance across the board was so high for any and all it moved the decision making choices onto other areas. I'm not John J Consumer of course, but FX was an easy choice. Was a great experience too. I expect the i7-4790k I have in the mail to be great as well, but much less interesting/unique, and much more expensive.

There is a thread on here just started about what drives one to a given level of PC part purchases that's sure to be a good read. Folks don't decide things for the reasons that might seem obvious often times. Humans are weird that way. And that's ok in my book. What isn't OK is intentional ignorance and aggressive disagreement with other peoples preferences and thoughts. This thread has been fairly civil and grown-up till someone started using derogatory language a bit ago. I was embarrassed for them. But only a little.

 

[tential]

I'm not arguing that the i5 4690 isn't necessarily the better buy for gaming for many people, likely most people even at $50 more. I'm saying that the FX still offers good bang for the buck, and depending on your budget, games you play, other software you use, and if you overclock / tweak hardware, it could still be quite a good buy. The platform is dated and lightly threaded performance is lower, no argument there. But that doesn't necessarily translate into a worse experience.

I game fairly regularly. When I play an enjoyable game, I have yet to run into a situation where my immersion in that game is ruined because my CPU is holding me back. And really, that's the point of a gaming rig... to play games and enjoy them. If I can get lost in a game and not think about the hardware under the hood, than I'm happy.

If 50 dollars is the make or break point for a build though then you're not supposed to be PC Gaming.

Lets be real, most gamers who have a $50 make or break budget for a PC Build probably have easily 100+ Steam games. They've probably spent $50+ on games already this year.

At the end of the day, it's almost ALWAYS better to save 1 more month and get a better CPU if you're gaming. Between an R9 290 and a GTX 980, it's a vastly different choice.
But we're talking the cost of 1-2 games here.

It's just not a good deal.

 

[svarog19]

Mobo: $210 http://www.ebay.com/itm/ASUS-P6X58D...261?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3cf17ab3e5

CPU: $81 http://www.ebay.com/itm/BX80614X565...702?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3cdbcae016

Total: $291

Typical OC for one of those chips:

For 291$ you can buy a decent AM3+ motherboard, FX 8350 and two 4GB 1600Mhz CAS 9 RAM under 291$ all brand new, so with warranty while eBay is risky and you are buying used so no warranty in case some or even all of your hardware dies somehow which is likely with used as you really don't know what its user/owner has done with it previously.

Even with used you will spend up more money which is... D:

No FX is old, hot and overpriced when considering you need high end cooling and mobo to get the most out of them.

Old? Bulldozer FX is now old and Piledriver isn't yet that old...

If you're looking at flagship consumer desktop CPU of FX line which is 8350 and not 9370-9590 which are enthusiast class, FX 8350 is hot that's a given as its an 8 core clocked at 4Ghz with 8MB of L2 and L3 Cache which makes a large die at 32nm process which is pushing it for a consumer desktop.

If AMD's CPU's are expensive then you should switch to ARM... lol

@boldunderlined

Dude... That is a given and guess what, same applies to Intel products... Oh, you didn't see that coming? What a shocker... :awe:

 

[frozentundra123456]

@ tential: Exactly. Or one month's internet, or one month's cell phone bill, or a few drinks or going out to eat a nice dinner. And people dont even need to start with the insults that I think everyone needs quad Titans and a hex core intel. That is certainly not the case. OTOH, PC gaming is an expensive hobby, and picking an inferior (for gaming) cpu that uses more power to boot in order to save 10% or less of the cost of a system just seems like false economy.

 

[jhu]

@ tential: Exactly. Or one month's internet, or one month's cell phone bill, or a few drinks or going out to eat a nice dinner. And people dont even need to start with the insults that I think everyone needs quad Titans and a hex core intel. That is certainly not the case. OTOH, PC gaming is an expensive hobby, and picking an inferior (for gaming) cpu that uses more power to boot in order to save 10% or less of the cost of a system just seems like false economy.

Car enthusiasts laugh at this "expensive hobby".

 

[Ramses]

At the end of the day, it's almost ALWAYS better to save 1 more month and get a better CPU

That's a slippery slope, but is not untrue.
You could "one more month" your way into a thousand dollar CPU eventually.
Not untrue though.

I do think budget hardware buyers will employ stuff like the Steam automated emails for wish list items going on sale. I sure don't pay more than ten or fifteen bucks for a game at a time anymore.

 

[Ratman6161]

Not me, they take debit cards and paypal just the same.

I always highly discourage people from using their debit cards online. Why?

If your debit card is compromised a lot of very bad things can happen to you even if you eventually get all the fraudulent charges refunded. For example in between the time the card is compromised and the time you figure it out, you could be bouncing checks all over town. And after that its up to you to fix your credit rating and convince your land lord or mortgage company it wasn't your fault

I never use anything but a credit card online because my liability is limited and it can't backfire into other areas of my finances like the debit card would. And credit card != pay later. There is nothing stopping me from buying now and paying off at the next statement

 

[Ramses]

Car enthusiasts laugh at this "expensive hobby".

ain't that the truth. some of us are trying to maintain both(or more). Saving fifty bucks looks mighty good when you have a financial bottomless pit sitting in the shop.