Why do AMD's CPUs get so much stick?

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

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

I am not employed by Anandtech, so no...... it's not my job.

Telling him to use the search tool instead of repeating the same thing 10 times on thread after thread is way more efficient -- and it is depressing that more people don't do it. What he just asked was discussed in excessive detail in this forum last week.... If someone is just lazy, then they don't deserve the answer.

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.

None of that is relevant when high res games are GPU bound. The $200 AMD and $1,000 Intel CPU's provide identical performance. Max out the detail setting @ 1440p or above, and the CPU's are identical experiences. For modern PC gaming -- and I'd argue still playing @ 1080p doesn't really qualify as modern gaming...... the CPU has become nearly irrelevant -- it's all carried by the power of your GPU's.

 

[Phynaz]

Soon some people will be using something like a R7 GPU or some other $50 video card to prove that AMD is just as good as Intel at gaming.

 

[SlowSpyder]

$124 for an FX8320e + motherboard is cheaper than an i3 alone! Nice.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Not really. New Egg prices: i3 6100 = 125.00
i3 4160 = 120.00
I assume that 8320e deal is from microcenter, which is avaliable to only a limited number of people. 8320e on New Egg is actually *more expensive* at 150.00.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Soon some people will be using something like a R7 GPU or some other $50 video card to prove that AMD is just as good as Intel at gaming.

Well, I dont know where MOTOR dug out that data from some obscure test site, but at 1080p, from the game.gpu tests, 5960x is consistently at the top of the charts in min FPS and 8350 is middle of the pack at best.

 

[Markfw]

Not really. New Egg prices: i3 6100 = 125.00
i3 4160 = 120.00
I assume that 8320e deal is from microcenter, which is avaliable to only a limited number of people. 8320e on New Egg is actually *more expensive* at 150.00.

Exactly. I would have to drive over 1000 miles to get that. No way its worth it. And from what I see on their locations, that means that a very small percentage of the world can get that.

 

[AtenRa]

FX8320E is at $132 at Amazon.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Not really. New Egg prices: i3 6100 = 125.00
i3 4160 = 120.00
I assume that 8320e deal is from microcenter, which is avaliable to only a limited number of people. 8320e on New Egg is actually *more expensive* at 150.00.

Yea of course, I never meant to imply that the $124 FX8320e+mobo was a regular price available everywhere, it's a Microcenter price. For those close to a Microcetner, however, that's a pretty sweet deal. I have two, both about an hour from me.

 

[AtenRa]

Well, I dont know where MOTOR dug out that data from some obscure test site, but at 1080p, from the game.gpu tests, 5960x is consistently at the top of the charts in min FPS and 8350 is middle of the pack at best.

true, but most GameGPU CPU tests dont use any Anti Aliasing filters.

The benchmarks posted above, use image quality settings that Gamers with those hardware setups (970 SLI) are going to use.

 

[lehtv]

I am not employed by Anandtech, so no...... it's not my job.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_speech

Learn something new every day, eh? Well, not every day... :sneaky:

Telling him to use the search tool instead of repeating the same thing 10 times on thread after thread is way more efficient -- and it is depressing that more people don't do it. What he just asked was discussed in excessive detail in this forum last week.... If someone is just lazy, then they don't deserve the answer.

I can't but facepalm to thinking like that. I'm not lazy, it's the person who fails to provide the source when asked who is lazy. I knew you had the source at your fingertips, so I knew it'd take far less effort for you to simply post it than it would for me to go hunting for it. Not that I would've - either you give the source or you don't, and if you don't, I will just dismiss your claim.

None of that is relevant when high res games are GPU bound. The $200 AMD and $1,000 Intel CPU's provide identical performance. Max out the detail setting @ 1440p or above, and the CPU's are identical experiences. For modern PC gaming -- and I'd argue still playing @ 1080p doesn't really qualify as modern gaming...... the CPU has become nearly irrelevant -- it's all carried by the power of your GPU's.

*image*

Of course it has to matter whether the platform is LGA2011v3 or LGA1150 or LGA1151. If it didn't, then it would also not matter that it's AM3+ instead of LGA2011v3, and we would see identical results with 5960X and FX-8320E, assuming no CPU bottleneck.

 

[Leyawiin]

I have an FX-8320E @ 4.2 Ghz on all 8 cores and right now I have my main PC's GTX 970 in it. I did a clean install of Skyrim (no mods). Using the Ultra preset @ 1920x1200 it drops below 60 FPS in a number of spots - looking over Whiterun from Dragonsreach, several places in Markarth, looking over the market area of Riften and while running through Riverwood. No better performance than the old Phenom II X4 980 BE I had with a GTX 670. In fact it seems worse - probably the greater mismatch of CPU & GPU is causing a bit more stuttering than with the Phenom II/GTX 670.

I need to do some quick screenshots - here we go:





Of those spots my i7 4790k only drops below 60 FPS in looking over Markarth (and even this its about 50 FPS instead of 32 FPS with the FX-8320E)

I tried to recreate where my character was standing yesterday with the FX-8320E @ 1920x1200 with a GTX 970 and Ultra settings. This is with my i7-4790k @ stock and Ultra settings with a GTX 750 Ti. Even with that much weaker video card it beats the FX-8320E. The shot in Markarth jumping from 32 FPS to 60 FPS is the most telling.





Now Fallout 4 is a different story. It takes a mix of Low and Medium settings with the i7-4790k/GTX 750 Ti to match what the FX-8320E/GTX 970 can do with mostly Ultra. Anyway, someone mentioned Skyrim so there's a little example.

 

[Bradtech519]

Because they generally don't perform as well as Intel solutions & consume more power. They can offer people good enough performance for what they do though. So in your case the AMD CPU is good enough for you. Can't really argue with that if it is your preference. I had used AMD for almost all my rigs since the mid 90s. When my FX 8350 rig went south. I went with intel. I mainly use my PC to play games or general usage along with light distributed computing projects these days.

 

[ElFenix]

Because they generally don't perform as well as Intel solutions & consume more power. They can offer people good enough performance for what they do though. So in your case the AMD CPU is good enough for you. Can't really argue with that if it is your preference. I had used AMD for almost all my rigs since the mid 90s. When my FX 8350 rig went south. I went with intel. I mainly use my PC to play games or general usage along with light distributed computing projects these days.

did you have a k5? or maybe an Am5x86?

 

[SlowSpyder]

did you have a k5? or maybe an Am5x86?

I did! 133MHz K5 upgrade in my Packard Bell's 486 socket (replaced a 66MHz DX2). Those were the days.

 

[Madpacket]

You have to take into account the value when looking at these arguments. It's all about money money money....

Last time I passed a Microcenter I grabbed a few AMD combo's as they're just stupidly cheap compared to the Intel combo's. Geography plays a role of course.

If you can get an 8 core FX for $120.00 USD or less Intel really has no answer to match the value. It's becoming more clear where the strength of DX12 lies so that bodes well for the longevity of the FX chips.

There's no argument Intel is the best for speed and power efficiency but I agreed with the OP. FX 6 and especially 8 core AMD chips really are good enough for most modern games. They start to really shine once you hit around 4Ghz (which almost any FX chip can do with a $10.00 aftermarket cooler) or even with the stock cooler if you have adequate case airflow and a set of headphones. You can even undervolt most of these FX chips and hit 4Ghz pretty easily. They're not power hungry monsters when you tweak them properly.

Also one thing everyone seems to forget is Freesync...

I just bought my buddy an AOC 27" 144Hz Freesync gaming monitor for pretty cheap (well under $400 USD). The Freesync range is rediculous at 30-146Hz. Think about that the next time you worry about your games dipping below the golden standard of 60Hz (where even high end Intel chips have trouble maintaining in some games).

Depending on your needs and pricing opportunities FX AMD chips still make for a good experience and the money saved can be better spent on things that matter most for gamers (SSD, Freesync monitor, video card, RAM, a better set of headphones, heck even a better chair!).

 

[cbn]

I do. Are there any particular mods you want me to install or would you prefer me to test a clean copy?

Edit: Oh I missed your first post. I'll get that downloaded now. You want me to record or just report the results?

How did the Vanilla Skyrim testing go?

FPS?

Any stuttering?

(I think this would be one of the hardest tests for FX and a R9 380 since Skyrim doesn't use many cores.)

 

[Dave2150]

You have to take into account the value when looking at these arguments. It's all about money money money....

Last time I passed a Microcenter I grabbed a few AMD combo's as they're just stupidly cheap compared to the Intel combo's. Geography plays a role of course.

If you can get an 8 core FX for $120.00 USD or less Intel really has no answer to match the value. It's becoming more clear where the strength of DX12 lies so that bodes well for the longevity of the FX chips.

There's no argument Intel is the best for speed and power efficiency but I agreed with the OP. FX 6 and especially 8 core AMD chips really are good enough for most modern games. They start to really shine once you hit around 4Ghz (which almost any FX chip can do with a $10.00 aftermarket cooler) or even with the stock cooler if you have adequate case airflow and a set of headphones. You can even undervolt most of these FX chips and hit 4Ghz pretty easily. They're not power hungry monsters when you tweak them properly.

Also one thing everyone seems to forget is Freesync...

I just bought my buddy an AOC 27" 144Hz Freesync gaming monitor for pretty cheap (well under $400 USD). The Freesync range is rediculous at 30-146Hz. Think about that the next time you worry about your games dipping below the golden standard of 60Hz (where even high end Intel chips have trouble maintaining in some games).

Depending on your needs and pricing opportunities FX AMD chips still make for a good experience and the money saved can be better spent on things that matter most for gamers (SSD, Freesync monitor, video card, RAM, a better set of headphones, heck even a better chair!).

Longevity of AMD's FX CPU's? They are already obsolete. Not sure if you noticed, but 99.999999% of games are DX11 or below. This will not change for quite a few years. Even when it does, Skylake beats FX chips at DX12 also.

FX chips have no longevity at all. They already have a completely out of date chipset, connectivity options, and burn through much more electricity than Skylake.

FX CPU's are cheap, for a good reason. They have pathetic performance in all currently released games.

 

[cbn]

You have to take into account the value when looking at these arguments. It's all about money money money....

Last time I passed a Microcenter I grabbed a few AMD combo's as they're just stupidly cheap compared to the Intel combo's. Geography plays a role of course.

If you can get an 8 core FX for $120.00 USD or less Intel really has no answer to match the value. It's becoming more clear where the strength of DX12 lies so that bodes well for the longevity of the FX chips.

There's no argument Intel is the best for speed and power efficiency but I agreed with the OP. FX 6 and especially 8 core AMD chips really are good enough for most modern games. They start to really shine once you hit around 4Ghz (which almost any FX chip can do with a $10.00 aftermarket cooler) or even with the stock cooler if you have adequate case airflow and a set of headphones. You can even undervolt most of these FX chips and hit 4Ghz pretty easily. They're not power hungry monsters when you tweak them properly.

Also one thing everyone seems to forget is Freesync...

I just bought my buddy an AOC 27" 144Hz Freesync gaming monitor for pretty cheap (well under $400 USD). The Freesync range is rediculous at 30-146Hz. Think about that the next time you worry about your games dipping below the golden standard of 60Hz (where even high end Intel chips have trouble maintaining in some games).

Depending on your needs and pricing opportunities FX AMD chips still make for a good experience and the money saved can be better spent on things that matter most for gamers (SSD, Freesync monitor, video card, RAM, a better set of headphones, heck even a better chair!).

Longevity of AMD's FX CPU's? They are already obsolete. Not sure if you noticed, but 99.999999% of games are DX11 or below. This will not change for quite a few years. Even when it does, Skylake beats FX chips at DX12 also.

FX chips have no longevity at all. They already have a completely out of date chipset, connectivity options, and burn through much more electricity than Skylake.

FX CPU's are cheap, for a good reason. They have pathetic performance in all currently released games.

Games are scaling better to eight threads.

Example in Fallout 4 FX-8150 (Bulldozer, not Vishera) is comparable to Haswell Core i3 and FX-8350 is comparable to i5 4670K:

With that mentioned, I am comparing to Haswell (not Skylake) here and in older games like Skyrim (which is still kept alive via new upcoming free mods like Enderal: The shards of order slated for Q3 2016 release) a Core i3 is going to be better.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Games are scaling better to eight threads.

Example in Fallout 4 FX-8150 (Bulldozer, not Vishera) is comparable to Haswell Core i3 and FX-8350 is comparable to i5 4670K:

With that mentioned, I am comparing to Haswell (not Skylake) here and in older games like Skyrim (which is still kept alive via new upcoming free mods like Enderal: The shards of order slated for Q3 2016 release) a Core i3 is going to be better.

In general, I would agree FX is more competitive in *some* new games. However, FO4 benchmarks are all over the place. Techspot for instance shows i3-6100 faster than 9590 techspot cpu scaling . Even Haswell i3 is slightly faster.

 

[myocardia]

Haha, the utter mess that is Fallout 4 is in no way the fault of either of the CPU manufacturers, nor of either of the GPU manufacturers. That mess is none other than Bethesda's.

 

[Madpacket]

Longevity of AMD's FX CPU's? They are already obsolete. Not sure if you noticed, but 99.999999% of games are DX11 or below. This will not change for quite a few years. Even when it does, Skylake beats FX chips at DX12 also.


FX chips have no longevity at all. They already have a completely out of date chipset, connectivity options, and burn through much more electricity than Skylake.

FX CPU's are cheap, for a good reason. They have pathetic performance in all currently released games.

That's the thing. They may be outdated but if they're a better value than Intel Core i3 chips and outperform them in modern games and especially outside of gaming that's something to take into consideration. Also when's the last time you looked at recent FX board? They have all the important features that the latest Intel boards have, but for less money. The core chipset and CPU my be outdated (and why does this matter if it still performs adequatley) but feature wise they're not at all.

Skylake beats everything sure, but you need to buy at least their locked quad core for any sort of consistent performance advantage. The i3's don't compare that well except in single threaded gaming and since Intel ruined the ability of overclocking them, they're not very attractive any longer.

Outdated or not, one system is clearly a better value when purchased at the right price. I know this bugs the Intel diehards to know their precious 14nm CPU's have trouble competing with crusrty old 32nm chips but it's the truth.

 

[escrow4]

That's the thing. They may be outdated but if they're a better value than Intel Core i3 chips and outperform them in modern games and especially outside of gaming that's something to take into consideration. Also when's the last time you looked at recent FX board? They have all the important features that the latest Intel boards have, but for less money. The core chipset and CPU my be outdated (and why does this matter if it still performs adequatley) but feature wise they're not at all.

Skylake beats everything sure, but you need to buy at least their locked quad core for any sort of consistent performance advantage. The i3's don't compare that well except in single threaded gaming and since Intel ruined the ability of overclocking them, they're not very attractive any longer.

Outdated or not, one system is clearly a better value when purchased at the right price. I know this bugs the Intel diehards to know their precious 14nm CPU's have trouble competing with crusrty old 32nm chips but it's the truth.

False economy. You see AMD cheap you think cheap, weeeeeee, don't need to spend another $250 on Intel + Intel chipset/mobo, you fail to think that in most every AAA gaming title you should have gone Intel and spent that $250 in the first place to ensure consistent performance. i3s have always been a waste of money, and shouldn't even be considered. Buy a Celeron if you want a dual core, otherwise buy an i5.

 

[VirtualLarry]

$124 for an FX8320e + motherboard is cheaper than an i3 alone! Nice.

Hmm, at that price, might be worth trying out.

 

[frozentundra123456]

@ Escrow: Yea, I basically agree, although I probably am not as demanding of my hardware requirements as you. But considering that PC gaming is a relatively expensive hobby, and considering all the other ways most people spend disposable income, it definitely strikes me as false economy to try to save fifty to a hundred bucks and get an inferior product. Especially when a gaming cpu can last now for several years, and the FX will eat up part of the initial savings in increased energy costs, and the need for beefier cooling and psu power, especially if highly overclocked, which it needs to be to be competitive.

Each to his own I guess. If one defines "good value" as getting the job done at minimal initial cost, I guess you can make a case for the FX, although even for a budget system, to me it is not a clear winner over Haswell or Skylake i3.

But if one defines "good value" as an efficient, well rounded system at only slightly more cost, then an i5 or higher is the way to go.

 

[cbn]

In general, I would agree FX is more competitive in *some* new games. However, FO4 benchmarks are all over the place. Techspot for instance shows i3-6100 faster than 9590 techspot cpu scaling . Even Haswell i3 is slightly faster.

Aside from the FPS, I wonder how smooth the gameplay is? (with a dGPU realistic to a FX83xx or Core i3 system)

With that mentioned, I do know single thread performance can strongly factor into game smoothness.