Why do AMD's CPUs get so much stick?

[Yuriman]

Current Newegg prices

FX8350 = $159,99

Core i3 6300 = $155,99

i3 6300 isn't a very good value. Better to buy the cheapest i3, or an i5 6400/6500.

i5 6500 + $50 H110 motherboard + $35 (or less, if there's a sale) 350-400w PSU + stock cooler is pretty solid. You're probably going to want a little more power supply and a better-than-stock cooler for the FX, and possibly a slightly more expensive motherboard which puts it in price-parity with the i5.

 

[frozentundra123456]

i3 6300 isn't a very good value. Better to buy the cheapest i3, or an i5 6400/6500.

i5 6500 + $50 H110 motherboard + $35 (or less, if there's a sale) 350-400w PSU + stock cooler is pretty solid. You're probably going to want a little more power supply and a better-than-stock cooler for the FX, and possibly a slightly more expensive motherboard which puts it in price-parity with the i5.

Yea, you beat me to it. The i5 6500 is only 205.00 right now on New Egg. Only 45 dollars for a more efficient, well rounded processor. If you want an i3 better to go with the 4160 for only 120.00 or even the 4170 for 125 dollars.

 

[AtenRa]

FX8350 is not a good value either, you can get the FX8300 at $120, turn Turbo off, increase multiplier to 3.8GHz with default cooler and again you have a close to FX8350 performance at lower price.

 

[Yuriman]

All said and done the 8300 likely comes out less than an i5, but not $80 less. What's the cheapest motherboard with modern connectivity you'd feel comfortable pairing with a mildly overclocked 8300? How little power supply would you feel comfortable using with it? And, how is AMD's included stock cooler with the 8300? Is it going to be reasonably quiet under typical loads at 3.8ghz?

 

[Dasa2]

needing to pair a more expensive mb with amd cpu to prevent it throttling at stock clocks due to vrm overheating let alone overclocked kills its value despite there low cpu price

plenty of examples out there of just how far behind amd cpu are in performance
not to say there isnt a lot of new games that are less demanding on the cpu they can run perfectly fine at 60fps+ but as far as bang for your buck goes im afraid amd is a fair way behind

that said im still hoping amds next cpu proves to be a worthwhile upgrade from my 3770k and at the very least matches its single threaded performance

 

[AtenRa]

All said and done the 8300 likely comes out less than an i5, but not $80 less. What's the cheapest motherboard with modern connectivity you'd feel comfortable pairing with a mildly overclocked 8300? How little power supply would you feel comfortable using with it? And, how is AMD's included stock cooler with the 8300? Is it going to be reasonably quiet under typical loads at 3.8ghz?

Currently on newegg Asrock 970M Pro3 is at $50 AR. It can easily get the FX8300 to 4GHz. It has the same features (more memory slots) as the H110. Remember H110 also has 16x PCIe Gen 2.

PSU for the FX + HD7950 (and higher) will be the same as with any Core i3-i5. The difference in gaming will be close to 50-70W with the FX at 3.8GHz.

The Heat-sink will be loud but it will do the job at 3.8GHz.

The Core i5 will be a good option but more expensive. Core i3 will be at the same price but slower in many of the latest games with worse stuttering than the FX.

 

[postmortemIA]

Somebody said "AMD" and "gaming". I'll just leave this here...

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1289?vs=1367

Am I the only one that finds that comparison hilarious?

It's so bad that gov't should mandate that AMD improves power efficiency.

 

[SlowSpyder]

An FX at around 4GHz really doesn't need a motherboard with a very beefy power supply. These CPU's are relatively reasonable until you get north of the mid 4GHz range.

I keep seeing Arma III and Total War: Atilla posted in these kinds of threads. Assuming the benches are an accurate representation of game play, yes, AMD gives a poor performance in these titles. But it's not like anything plays them 'well'. Also, for whatever it's worth, I'm surprised how well my lower clocked 8320e plays Crysis 3 so far (I am not too far into the game, though).

 

[Dasa2]

those prices are a lot better than whats available in au
cant even get fx 8300 95w here

FX8320 125w $215
ASUS M5A97-EVO-R2 $155

fx 6300 95w $155
asrock 970 pro3 r2 $109 no vrm hs

i3 1600 $158
i5 6400 $247
i5 6500 $271
asrock h110-dgs ddr3 $83
asus h110m-k $89 ddr4
although gigabyte b150m-d3h ddr4 $129 is the popular choice to go with a i5

those titles are show as examples of amds performance as they are cpu heavy games with really bad multithreading which show just how far behind they are in some games
we could show of a pentium and a fx6300 matching a 6700k@5ghz in fps due to a gpu bottlneck but why bother? for example http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/1106

 

[DrMrLordX]

I hereby blame this thread on Zika.
.

iknorite?

And I'd like to reiterate the point that no matter what the value proposition of buying AMD processors today (particularly the FX chips being discussed), AMD refuses to release any new designs with more than two modules. That trend will continue until the release of Zen.

And that's why AMD gets "stick".

 

[Leyawiin]

Currently on newegg Asrock 970M Pro3 is at $50 AR. It can easily get the FX8300 to 4GHz. It has the same features (more memory slots) as the H110. Remember H110 also has 16x PCIe Gen 2.

I originally bought a Gigabyte GA-78LMT-USB3 for $39.99 after rebate to replace my sister's old Phenom II motherboard, but turned out didn't need to to it. Just for a project I decided to go ahead and build a PC with it. I bought an FX-8320E and used an old Xigmatek tower cooler I had. Runs at 4.2 Ghz with no throttling/overheating issues. Yeah, its not a modern motherboard by an stretch (SATA II for instance), but I was pleasantly surprised how well the pair work together even with a 4+1 power phase. In Fallout 4 for instance all I have to do to approximate my i7-4790k's FPS with the Ultra preset (using the same GTX 970) is to lower Shadow Distance form Ultra to Medium. Visual quality is very nearly the same.

 

[escrow4]

That's nonsense. My i7 4790K dips just as much as my FX-8320 in intense games. Stop the FUD already. If anything, the FX is better at maintaining consistent minimum frames when at 4k.

The stutter is way more pronounced on any FX chip. The video the OP posted hitches. Frequently.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Currently on newegg Asrock 970M Pro3 is at $50 AR. It can easily get the FX8300 to 4GHz. It has the same features (more memory slots) as the H110. Remember H110 also has 16x PCIe Gen 2.

PSU for the FX + HD7950 (and higher) will be the same as with any Core i3-i5. The difference in gaming will be close to 50-70W with the FX at 3.8GHz.

The Heat-sink will be loud but it will do the job at 3.8GHz.

The Core i5 will be a good option but more expensive. Core i3 will be at the same price but slower in many of the latest games with worse stuttering than the FX.

If we are talking budget builds though, you would still be better of with the i3, because you have a good upgrade path.

I don't recommend AMD CPUs to anyone anymore, unless they are replacing a dead CPU.

 

[AtenRa]

If we are talking budget builds though, you would still be better of with the i3, because you have a good upgrade path.

I don't recommend AMD CPUs to anyone anymore, unless they are replacing a dead CPU.

If you are thinking upgrading to Core i7 KabyLake by the end of the year then yes Socket 1151 + Core i3 is what you want today.

If you are keeping the system for 2-3 years then better get a new system at that time, by then you will have options of 10nm and AMDs ZEN++.

 

[Vossy96]

The stutter is way more pronounced on any FX chip. The video the OP posted hitches. Frequently.

I'm not biased towards AMD, in fact I'd much rather have an Intel chip as they're world's apart with performance, but everybody is saying what I'm reporting in performance is impossible, so the fact I can play Fallout 4 on high in 1440p in a stable manner while recording in the background really does prove a lot of people wrong.

The video might be stuttery but the game was perfectly fine, significantly more so when not recording.

 

[TheELF]

but everybody is saying what I'm reporting in performance is impossible, so the fact I can play Fallout 4 on high in 1440p in a stable manner while recording in the background really does prove a lot of people wrong.

As I said before,performance depends on the area you are in,go to the corvega factory or the boston commons and tell us what you get there.
Thinking that the least demanding scenario is all that counts is very wrong.

 

[SlowSpyder]

The stutter is way more pronounced on any FX chip. The video the OP posted hitches. Frequently.

Fallout 4 is silky smooth on my PC, though I've never recorded my game play.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

I guess you can't deal with being proven wrong. I don't understand your emotional investment in AMD, but whatever.

You didn't prove anything. They are two entirely different topics....

Why don't you compare Mac gaming while you're at it? Since you are dragging in a bunch of things that have nothing to do with the OP.

That's like saying my stance on Climate Change is totally inconsistent with the National Debt. What? Huh? They aren't related.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

The stutter is way more pronounced on any FX chip. The video the OP posted hitches. Frequently.

Sorry, but gamers don't run FRAPS in the background 100% of the time. That's the only time an FX stutters like that.

At 4K resolution, the FX generally has higher minimum frame rates than its Intel rivals.

 

[lehtv]

At 4K resolution, the FX generally has higher minimum frame rates than its Intel rivals.

Source?

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Source?

The search tool for this forum is your friend. Do we really need to rehash the threads from the last 2 week again?

But just to stay on topic -- you can read the benches here:
http://www.technologyx.com/featured/amd-vs-intel-our-8-core-cpu-gaming-performance-showdown/4/

 

[sm625]

The problem with AMD is that its strictly a value proposition in a world where there are thousands of Xeon x5687 systems sitting around collecting dust ready to be sold for under $300. Seriously you can buy a Xeon x5687 system with 12GB of RAM for less than $300. There is no way to build an FX8350 system for that price, and even if you could it wouldnt perform better. And then there's all the old hex core intel systems also sitting around collecting dust that new AMD chips cant beat.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

All said and done the 8300 likely comes out less than an i5, but not $80 less. What's the cheapest motherboard with modern connectivity you'd feel comfortable pairing with a mildly overclocked 8300? How little power supply would you feel comfortable using with it? And, how is AMD's included stock cooler with the 8300? Is it going to be reasonably quiet under typical loads at 3.8ghz?

Well, are we talking about Skylake or Haswell?

Just looking at the Micro Center Bundles with the cheapest motherboards:
i5 4690K with motherboard = $269
i5 6600K with motherboard = $354

http://www.microcenter.com/site/brands/intel-processor-bundles.aspx

Versus
FX 8320e with motherboard = $124

....And that MSI 970 SLI motherboard is pretty beefy -- so you can expect a decent overclock.

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

That's a pretty massive difference in price.... Definitely more than $80. Approximately $145 Cheaper than a Haswell i5 and $230 cheaper than a Skylake i5. Now you know why people are still doing new AMD builds. That $230 savings can buy a pretty sweet dedicated video card.

 

[USER8000]

I wish we could get an FX8320e for £100 including a motherboard in the UK. At that price it would sell well even though its quite an old CPU.

 

[lehtv]

The search tool for this forum is your friend. Do we really need to rehash the threads from the last 2 week again?

If you make a claim, no matter how recent, it's your job to provide the source or reasoning for it. It's not my job to go hunting for the source, I can't know if it was posted here or somewhere else in the gazillion tech sites on the interwebs

But just to stay on topic -- you can read the benches here:
http://www.technologyx.com/featured/amd-vs-intel-our-8-core-cpu-gaming-performance-showdown/4/

1) LGA2011v3 does not have an AMD rival, it stands on its own as an enthusiast platform. LGA1150 & LGA1151 processors are rivals to AMD FX. Comparing 8 AMD threads to 8 Intel threads is comparing 4 module / 8 thread FX-8000 series processors to 4 core / 8 thread i7 processors.
2) FX-8370 vs i7-5960X cannot necessarily be generalized to all AMD FX processors vs. all of their Intel rivals.
3) They should test with HyperThreading off on the 5960X just to rule out whether HT is causing performance degradation. I'm assuming HT was on since it wasn't specified anywhere that they disabled it.