Is there any reason to use FX CPUs right now?

[Ramses]

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph8227/65063.png

PII X6 is not working well with this thing...

Wonder why that is, the old x6 still manages to hang up with the 8350 somewhat in a lot of areas.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph8227/65063.png

PII X6 is not working well with this thing...

Wonder why that is, the old x6 still manages to hang up with the 8350 somewhat in a lot of areas.

No AVX extensions? Shot in the dark here.

 

[Ramses]

Got me, I can't keep up with what uses what anymore. I gave up after mmx, sse and 3dnow

 

[jhu]

No AVX extensions? Shot in the dark here.

Maybe. Does the code dispatch or not?

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Maybe. Does the code dispatch or not?

I'm not a software guy, so what you're asking me I don't understand. What I am seeing about hybrid x265 is that its performance using Core2/Phenom/Athlon is atrocious compared to newer architectures.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

LOL no no AMD FX is not competing with Intel Haswell LOL. My Core i5 4690K OC is a top dog and best price to performance gaming CPU. Meanwhile AMD FX is still trying to keep up with core i3 and getting pitied by Pentium Dual Core G3258 LOL .

At $240 as opposed to $115, price/perf isn't bad but it's not really a winner at all. Since you've likely had it for a while, you probably paid a decent amount more for it as well. 95w FX-83xx often hit $90 as well.

I'd love to see a Pentium G3258 run NBA 2K15 maxed out 60fps. Many i3s can barely run the game without massive stuttering and it's a major indication of AAA console ports to come. Or better yet, Battlefield 3/4 64 player maps. Hilarious on any clocked dual core.

Unless you play old games and old games only, it's FX 83xx, i5 or i7 from here on out. Looking at the top 100 played games on steam, there's only a few games that may be an issue with an FX. i3 or any dual core? Lots of issues. They are all priced accordingly as well. Pentium dual cores and i3s are for office boxes.

Would you pair a GTX 980/R9 290x with an i3 or FX-83xx?

 

[lamedude]

Maybe. Does the code dispatch or not?

I see some SSSE3 and SSE4.1 and the assembly is taken from x264 which uses AVX's 3 operand encoding when available. I don't think there are official x265 binaries so who knows what compiler and settings were used.

 

[schmuckley]

Xeon 5650 6 core Nehalem idle; 143 watts
FX 8350 8 core Piledriver idle; 95 watts

Both are 32nm, 5650 die size is 240mm^2 compared to FX 8350's 320mm^2.

If FX 8350 was also overclocked then it would beat overclocked 6 core Nehalem.

LOL

Real world:
Best water FX-8350 Cinebench: 906 @ 5.56 Ghz
http://hwbot.org/submission/2652276_mandrake4565_cinebench_r15_fx_8350_906_cb

Water x5650 @ 4.35Ghz: 1015
http://hwbot.org/submission/2742178_looproll_cinebench_r15_xeon_x5650_1015_cb

^That's not even the best score..I could run that daily.

LOL
There's not a thing that FX is better at.
Well..clocking high when frozen,yes;FX IS better at that.

 

[PC Master Race]

At $240 as opposed to $115, price/perf isn't bad but it's not really a winner at all.

$60 dollars difference and it's worth every penny cause Intel in much much better than some AMD FX cheez. AMD just can;t comepete and the money saved is money spent on the power bill over the life time of the hot and power hungry AMD FX CPUs. Also you can cheap out on the mobo with Intel where you can;t with the hot and shitty AMD FX CPUs so price is very similar. I will ask you kindly to stop being an AMD FX apologist cause it's kind of a pity.

Cussing, flaming, trolling are all not allowed here.
Markfw900


$280 4690K http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product...-372-_-Product

$220 FX 8350 http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product...-284-_-Product

$280 FX 9590 http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product...-347-_-Product

 

[Abwx]

LOL

Real world:
Best water FX-8350 Cinebench: 906 @ 5.56 Ghz
http://hwbot.org/submission/2652276_mandrake4565_cinebench_r15_fx_8350_906_cb

Water x5650 @ 4.35Ghz: 1015
http://hwbot.org/submission/2742178_looproll_cinebench_r15_xeon_x5650_1015_cb

^That's not even the best score..I could run that daily.

A 4790k would also be below the X5650, where did you state that it s also an unworthy CPU in an Intel related thread..?

This is a prove that you re just here for thread crapping purposes and expressing your anti AMD stances...

Indeed this thread seems to attract people that should better consult some psychatry specialists..

Flaming and insulting other members is not allowed.
Markfw900

 

[Enigmoid]

A 4790k would also be below the X5650, where did you state that it s also an unworthy CPU in an Intel related thread..?

This is a prove that you re just here for thread crapping purposes and expressing your anti AMD stances...

Indeed this thread seems to attract people that should better consult some psychatry specialists..

Well no, if you have the money and want newer features and lower power then the 4790k is a pretty good bet.....

I think he also said the the x5650 is pretty much the best MT cheap powerhouse there is.

 

[Abwx]

Well no, if you have the money and want newer features and lower power then the 4790k is a pretty good bet.....

I think he also said the the x5650 is pretty much the best MT cheap powerhouse there is.

At this frequency a minimalist x5650 set up with a 5870 gfx and 1 HDD consume roughly 180W at idle, seems that wattage doesnt matter anymore when it comes to intel explained by some intel supporters, only the metric that suit their bias is of any relevancy, other times it s single thread perfs but once i point that intel s 12C have lower ST perfs then FXs suddenly it s the more cores that become the new metric of choice, along with wattage this time...

 

[Yuriman]

You have a point.

It's clear that we've figured out where the FX chips lie.

Compared to Haswell, MT performance is generally between an i5 and an i7, both stock vs stock and OC vs OC, while single-threaded performance on Intel's latest uArch us in the range of ~60% faster. Idle power consumption is a bit higher but competitive, and load power is significantly higher to do the same work, high enough that it matters to some, but definitely not to all. Depending on which FX you buy, you're likely to get MT performance between an i5 and i7 for between the price of an i3 and i5, with the caveat of weak ST performance, which is around that of Intel's chips 3-4 generations ago.

Compared with Intel's 3 generations old 6-core offerings, an FX will be slower in both single- and multi-threaded performance, though ST doesn't trail by quite as much as with Haswell. An FX will likely also be as or more expensive, depending on the kind of deal you can find on a motherboard, but we're comparing new vs used, which isn't apples-to-apples. Idle power consumption, which is what your PC will be doing a vast majority of the time, is much better on the FX, while load power consumption is similar to Intel's.


Is ST performance most important to you, on a budget? -> Haswell i3
Is MT performance most important to you, on a budget, but you're wary of old used motherboards and/or don't want excessive idle power draw? -> FX-8
Is ST performance most important to you, but MT is also somewhat important, and can spend a bit more? -> HW i5
Is MT performance important to you, and you don't pay your own power bill, and you don't mind used parts? -> Westmere Xeon
Are ST and MT performance important, as well as long-term cost of ownership, but you can afford to pay a bit more up-front? -> HW i7
Need absolute max performance, both ST and MT, and have deep pockets? -> HW-E i7

So yes, FX chips have their place. They can be used outside of their optimal niche, for sure. Someone who does tons of encoding/archiving for a living can still play games very comfortably on an FX-8350, but a budget gaming computer that will likely be doing very little productive work will probably be better served with an i3. Likewise, someone with included utilities may find a Westmere Xeon to be an excellent choice, but an FX chip will provide 80-90% of the single- and multi-threaded performance *new* and with much better power consumption characteristics, for roughly the same price upfront.

 

[svarog19]

No AVX extensions? Shot in the dark here.

AVX for sure since Haswell supports it and maybe Ivy Bridge and H265 is new format which uses AVX and maybe even SSE5 instruction like FMA3/FMA4.

LOL

Real world:
Best water FX-8350 Cinebench: 906 @ 5.56 Ghz
http://hwbot.org/submission/2652276_mandrake4565_cinebench_r15_fx_8350_906_cb

Water x5650 @ 4.35Ghz: 1015
http://hwbot.org/submission/2742178_looproll_cinebench_r15_xeon_x5650_1015_cb

^That's not even the best score..I could run that daily.

LOL
There's not a thing that FX is better at.
Well..clocking high when frozen,yes;FX IS better at that.

You are not telling the truth at all...

Using Cinebench is easy to make an "argument" because of Intel's compilers that are being used and its shady while also few years ago a hacker/programmer on his own blog discovered that same compiler with little to no modifications is still being used in Cinebench that was suppose to be removed as it intentionally crippled performance of competing CPU's.

Benchmarks are one thing, real world testing like playing a game, 3D rendering and video rendering, compression and decompresssion of files and so on which matters in real world activities...

Since Intel is leader in x86 market that makes it primary vendor for program developers to optimize their code for that company, Dying Light is a good example as it runs like snail on AMD hardware...

$60 dollars difference and it's worth every penny cause Intel in much much better than some AMD FX cheez. AMD just can;t comepete and the money saved is money spent on the power bill over the life time of the hot and power hungry AMD FX CPUs. Also you can cheap out on the mobo with Intel where you can;t with the hot and shitty AMD FX CPUs so price is very similar. I will ask you kindly to stop being an AMD FX apologist cause it's kind of a pity.

$280 4690K http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product...-372-_-Product

$220 FX 8350 http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product...-284-_-Product

$280 FX 9590 http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product...-347-_-Product

Those aren't the latest prices... FX 8350 is 180$ and sometimes goes down to 160$. FX 9590 is 240$.

 

[PC Master Race]

Those aren't the latest prices... FX 8350 is 180$ and sometimes goes down to 160$. FX 9590 is 240$.

I just got those prices from Newegg.ca this morning. Yes they are the current pricing.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I just got those prices from Newegg.ca this morning. Yes they are the current pricing.

Move south, FX's are cheaper.

 

[PC Master Race]

Move south, FX's are cheaper.

LOL US what a pity. If I stay in Canada I will save more money cause we have free health care. Obama care is mandatory $500 per month per person. I would save lots of money on PC parts cause of micro center but health care is fucking stupid down there.

 

[SlowSpyder]

LOL US what a pity. If I stay in Canada I will save more money cause we have free health care. Obama care is mandatory $500 per month per person. I would save lots of money on PC parts cause of micro center but health care is fucking stupid down there.

My health insurance costs ~$180 / month through my employer. But, I don't want to drag this off topic, I was just making a joke.

 

[Enigmoid]

AVX for sure since Haswell supports it and maybe Ivy Bridge and H265 is new format which uses AVX and maybe even SSE5 instruction like FMA3/FMA4.
You are not telling the truth at all...

Using Cinebench is easy to make an "argument" because of Intel's compilers that are being used and its shady while also few years ago a hacker/programmer on his own blog discovered that same compiler with little to no modifications is still being used in Cinebench that was suppose to be removed as it intentionally crippled performance of competing CPU's.

Benchmarks are one thing, real world testing like playing a game, 3D rendering and video rendering, compression and decompresssion of files and so on which matters in real world activities...

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/444?vs=1289

Stock for stock the 990x is 10-20% faster than the 9590.

Overclocked it will easily keep that advantage.

 

[2is]

A 4790k would also be below the X5650, where did you state that it s also an unworthy CPU in an Intel related thread..?

This is a prove that you re just here for thread crapping purposes and expressing your anti AMD stances...

Indeed this thread seems to attract people that should better consult some psychatry specialists..

Flaming and insulting other members is not allowed.
Markfw900

What it proves is that to beat an Intel processor, you need an Intel processor. This is about whether or not the FX is worth buying, comparing two Intel processors to each other like you're doing isn't a point for FX, especially when BOTH of them blow away FX.

 

[2is]

At this frequency a minimalist x5650 set up with a 5870 gfx and 1 HDD consume roughly 180W at idle, seems that wattage doesnt matter anymore when it comes to intel explained by some intel supporters, only the metric that suit their bias is of any relevancy, other times it s single thread perfs but once i point that intel s 12C have lower ST perfs then FXs suddenly it s the more cores that become the new metric of choice, along with wattage this time...

The "Intel supporters" are merely adhering to your arguments. You keep saying how much money FX will save you when the reality is that it won't. Why do you suddenly want to play the power draw game? If you want to play the power draw game, a haswell i5 is faster and will not end up costing you anymore. If you don't want to play the power draw game a x5650 is faster and the rest doesn't matter... AMD loses either way.

 

[Maximilian]

The "Intel supporters" are merely adhering to your arguments. You keep saying how much money FX will save you when the reality is that it won't. Why do you suddenly want to play the power draw game? If you want to play the power draw game, a haswell i5 is faster and will not end up costing you anymore. If you don't want to play the power draw game a x5650 is faster and the rest doesn't matter... AMD loses either way.

Aha!! But that x5650 is on an old outdated platform from ~2010 and the new AMD FX chips are on... oh wait never mind :whiste:

 

[SlowSpyder]

Aha!! But that x5650 is on an old outdated platform from ~2010 and the new AMD FX chips are on... oh wait never mind :whiste:

I like my motherboard.. USB 3.0, SATA6, 4x PCIE 2.0 x 16 slots, 12+2 power phases. It lacks some new stuff (I don't need M.2), but gets the job done.

 

[cbn]

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.

+1.

Here are some recent prices I paid on Steam and Origin starting in 2014:

Battlefield 3 $0
Battlefield 4 $5
TitanFall $5
Crysis 3 $6

 

[cbn]

AM3+ 125w capable mobo $50

That is one of the older chipset AM3+ boards without usb 3.0 and SATA 6 Gbps.

Too bad AMD cannot offer us something with native SATA 6 Gbps and usb 3.0 for the low prices I have seen on the FM2+ boards.

For example, this ASUS A78 FM2+ for $34.99 AR plus $2.99 shipping is a frequent sale price item.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813132135

But then I figure the AM3+ platform is getting quite old and expensive to make with the separate northbridge and southbridge chips.