AMD FX CPU only upgrade Vs Total Intel switch over

[vikrang]

I have been an ardent fan of AMD because of excellent price to performance ratio. However I can now see Intel has bridged the AMD price advantage to a large extent.

I am in a dilemma to choose one of the following which works out to more or less the same cost.

1.Upgrade from Athlon II X2 270 (6GB DDR3 1333Mhz+ ASUS MOBO+ 250GB HDD SATA+ 2* IDE Disks 160 GB each in good condition) to either FX 8350 or FX 8320 . I have a spare Gigabyte Board (M68M-S2) which is AM3+ ready and needs a flash but lacks IDE port.

2. Ditch the AMD completely and go for an Intel i3 4150 + MOBO combination

3. Go for the cheaper FX 6300 which will result in great savings using which I can maybe buy a 1TB HDD

4. Go for an FX + AM3+ new MoBO upgrade which gives IDE port provisions enabling me to use the 2 spare IDE disks

Pl advise with reference to AMD's upgrade path (is FX a dead end?) vis a vis the performance. I had compared it in CPUboss where i3 is almost equal to an 8320 in the benchmarks. I am a safe user and do not wish to experiment with Overclock , cooling etc and risk burning my CPU. So pl consider I will be using default configuration and manufacturer provided hard ware like stock cooler.My place is also too hot and humid with dust and so on . So the usage would be in rigid conditions. My main requirement is
1. Snappy Windows operation (booting, shutdown etc),
2.Video and Audio conversion, Multimedia ,
3.Mild gaming (like solitaire , sudoku etc !! LOL),
4.Futuristic to some extent (dont want obsoloscence and replacement in near future ),
5 Better resale and exchange price. (Intel is best as even my old Dual core sells much higher than my current Athlon XII though I think performance wise AMD is better)

 

[slyu9213]

1. Snappy Windows operation (booting, shutdown etc),
2.Video and Audio conversion, Multimedia ,
3.Mild gaming (like solitaire , sudoku etc !! LOL),
4.Futuristic to some extent (dont want obsoloscence and replacement in near future ),
5 Better resale and exchange price. (Intel is best as even my old Dual core sells much higher than my current Athlon XII though I think performance wise AMD is better)

1. Any Quad-Core and above from both AMD and Intel should be plenty for snappy Windows operations. As for booting/shutdown that will be more effected by the OS you use (Windows 7 vs Windows 8/8.1) and HDD vs SSD for the OS.
2. As for multimedia work I believe the additional cores for AMD will help you more often than not. It won't be always the case but some video/audio conversion programs can utilize 6+ CPU cores which should come in handy and same with video work. Additionally multiple cores help with multi-tasking by multi-tasking I mean serious ones like audio/video work while you're doing some other activity.
3. For what you call mild gaming the CPU won't really matter haha. Even when it comes to higher end gaming both 6300+ and i3+ will do well, although Intel will always fare a little better.
4. CPUs from 2010 and beyond that are Quad-Core+ all seem to perform decently even now as far as gaming. Obviously newer CPUs will be better but I don't think they will be obsolete because software isn't changing as rapidly as the hardware in my opinion.
5. Like you said Intel has the resale value down just like Apple.

For your uses you may not see much difference between 6-Cores and 8-Cores for AMD except for multimedia work. In that case the 6300 might be the better buy. Additionally getting a better motherboard may be the best idea but there may be PCI to IDE or PCI-E to IDE cards that provide IDE connection through card expansion.

 

[vikrang]

Thanks Slyu9213... Going ahead with the Hexacore 6300 from AMD after considering the following

1. Though it is an older CPU than core i3 , there are multi cores than only dual cores. As someone commented who would go with a dual core in 2014? (one year earlier!). Even intel enthusiasts are advising to save some money and go for an i5 instead of i3 at this point in time.In single thread ops , Intel may be king but most of the guys in various forums feel more the cores , the better is the overall performance which I feel makes lot of sense.For multitasking AMD 6300 may fare slightly better is what I understand.

2. To me FX 6300 is the cheapest option considering the fact I have a spare board.

3. Even assuming AMD abandons the FX line up completely in future in favour of AM1 or FM , I may still be able to pick up an FX 8350 which would then be available at a throw away price and can match an i5 haswell.

4. All the theory and benchmark really does not matter to an average joe like me and wont be felt to the naked eye as long as it works reasonably! . I will wait the extra 2 seconds or more for AMD even if it is slower as the world wont come to an end!

There were times when I had to literally wait for my 486DX2 in the early 1990s to open a simple excel file. The jump from 486DX2 (66Mhz) to pentium I (133Mhz) was a giant leap in terms of performance and compatibility . Sadly those days some apps had a minimum spec of Pentium I for execution itself(let alone slow processing!) forcing an upgrade for the end user(hate you intel and microsoft for this aspect !) . I tend to have a soft corner for AMD and Linux OSes considering they were able to contain the monopoly of Intel - Microsoft partnership to a large extent and that only has forced intel to come up with affordable processors..

5. Power consumption is relevant but there is only a 10W difference between i3 4150 and FX 6300 (think 55 W vs 65W)

6. Thinking along the lines of my possible upgrade path it may include a Hard Disk replacement , A motherboard with slightly better features like 6gb/s SATA , USB 3.0 interface like you said, more RAM and, maybe an SSD.

7. Whether it is intel or AMD ,after useful life , you are going to end up with a complete re hash of the system starting from scratch replacing one by one. So resale value and stuff really dont matter that much which I was unnecessarily mixing up in decision making

So I think AMD would fit my bill considering my cost and my day to day usage.

Thanks a lot for your inputs.

 

[slyu9213]

Thanks Slyu9213... Going ahead with the Hexacore 6300 from AMD after considering the following

So I think AMD would fit my bill considering my cost and my day to day usage.

Thanks a lot for your inputs.

No problem. I can't say that I remember what I recommended you in the prior post without looking back at it again. An i3 luckily has Hyper-Threading which saves it from some doom in gaming and for non gaming uses that does not revolve around multimedia the i3 with 4 total threads is plenty in my opinion. But you are right I use to recommend the Pentium G3258 for it's price but 2-Cores is cutting it now and it will only get worse with Dual-Cores. Although pure Dual-Cores like the G3258 get good FPS in games their frame latency is a bit worse than AMD-Quads and the rest of Intel's lineup. That being said I believe the FX 6300 is the better option. Also the FX 6300 is 95W CPU. The only AM3+ CPU that is below 95W is a 65W 8-Core Opteron 3380 that is 2.6GHz. Both Intel and AMD tell CPU temps differently but the people who know more about this tend to agree that AMD runs hotter than what the temps they tell you. I have no clue. I honestly couldn't really care about power consumption and heat which is why I OC my CPUs most often than not.

Also the FX line or at least the AM3+ is abandoned and has been for a while in my opinion. Yes AMD released the FX 9370/9590 in October 2013 and the 8320E/8370E/8370 in September 2014, along with some OEM CPUs but they are the same 8-Core FX CPU at different speeds and TDP. The only upgrade is obviously the 8-Cores for you. From the way things look AM3+ and FM2+ is basically dead. Piledriver CPUs will be the last for AM3+ which is the FX 43xx/63xx/83xx/9xxx CPUs and for FM2+ the last CPUs will be Kaveri and the Kaveri Refresh to be released later this year. FM3 will probably be the new socket from AMD released in 2016 that may be a unified socket for both the APU group and the performance CPU. That being said I own an FX 8350 and I am plenty happy with it so I am not trying to keep you away from AMD.

As for benchmarks some are just pure numbers but some benchmarks indeed show what kind of performance you can have. For example if you have always experienced a 'tier 3' performance than you will learn to cope with it. But let's say you experience a tier 1 performance for a while and then revert back to tier 3 performance. You'll notice the difference. I have a few examples. I thought 10-20FPS gaming was perfectly fine at the beginning of my PC gaming adventures. Then I upgrade some hardware and experienced 30FPS and 20 FPS and below use to look like a internet video buggering. The same happens with 60FPS on a 60Hz monitor when the FPS drops to 30FPS. Both 30FPS and 60FPS is fine for me but when it goes back and forth the latency between the frames is what kills me in the addition to stuttering. Then there are people who play on monitors that have refresh rates higher than 60Hz where the higher FPS matters to them. I haven't experienced it but if I did I probably would have noticed the difference. Another example is SSD vs HDD. Once you go SSD it is nearly impossible to use a pure HDD system in my opinion. Also Windows 8 was a major improvements in boot time compared to Windows 7 where a Windows 8 + HDD felt much faster and is faster than Windows 7 and a HDD.

I can agree with your resale value comment. Everything will be put to rest sometime in the future. I'm the type that uses something until it can no longer perform in most tasks. I really haven't sold any of my belongings, especially tech until I sold my 360 preparing for a PS4. That is the only reason why I have sold my non used products now. But it's true that Intel has a higher sale value in general. I'm amazed at how expensive the Sandy Bridge CPUs are, obviously they perform really well still.

Anyway I'm glad you've made a decision. I like both Intel and AMD for what they are, I have a soft spot for AMD because that is where my PC gaming started and my hobby of PC tech in general. I went from Intel Pentium 4/M and AMD Athlon/Athlon XP to an Athlon 64 X2 so it was a hell of an upgrade for me back then. I am perfectly happy with the FX 8350 and Phenom II X6 1055T I have in two of my main PCs at home. I'm sure you will be too.

 

[NubUser]

Thanks Slyu9213... Going ahead with the Hexacore 6300 from AMD after considering the following

So I think AMD would fit my bill considering my cost and my day to day usage.

Thanks a lot for your inputs.

No problem. I can't say that I remember what I recommended you in the prior post without looking back at it again. An i3 luckily has Hyper-Threading which saves it from some doom in gaming and for non gaming uses that does not revolve around multimedia the i3 with 4 total threads is plenty in my opinion. But you are right I use to recommend the Pentium G3258 for it's price but 2-Cores is cutting it now and it will only get worse with Dual-Cores. Although pure Dual-Cores like the G3258 get good FPS in games their frame latency is a bit worse than AMD-Quads and the rest of Intel's lineup. That being said I believe the FX 6300 is the better option. Also the FX 6300 is 95W CPU. The only AM3+ CPU that is below 95W is a 65W 8-Core Opteron 3380 that is 2.6GHz. Both Intel and AMD tell CPU temps differently but the people who know more about this tend to agree that AMD runs hotter than what the temps they tell you. I have no clue. I honestly couldn't really care about power consumption and heat which is why I OC my CPUs most often than not.

Also the FX line or at least the AM3+ is abandoned and has been for a while in my opinion. Yes AMD released the FX 9370/9590 in October 2013 and the 8320E/8370E/8370 in September 2014, along with some OEM CPUs but they are the same 8-Core FX CPU at different speeds and TDP. The only upgrade is obviously the 8-Cores for you. From the way things look AM3+ and FM2+ is basically dead. Piledriver CPUs will be the last for AM3+ which is the FX 43xx/63xx/83xx/9xxx CPUs and for FM2+ the last CPUs will be Kaveri and the Kaveri Refresh to be released later this year. FM3 will probably be the new socket from AMD released in 2016 that may be a unified socket for both the APU group and the performance CPU. That being said I own an FX 8350 and I am plenty happy with it so I am not trying to keep you away from AMD.

As for benchmarks some are just pure numbers but some benchmarks indeed show what kind of performance you can have. For example if you have always experienced a 'tier 3' performance than you will learn to cope with it. But let's say you experience a tier 1 performance for a while and then revert back to tier 3 performance. You'll notice the difference. I have a few examples. I thought 10-20FPS gaming was perfectly fine at the beginning of my PC gaming adventures. Then I upgrade some hardware and experienced 30FPS and 20 FPS and below use to look like a internet video buggering. The same happens with 60FPS on a 60Hz monitor when the FPS drops to 30FPS. Both 30FPS and 60FPS is fine for me but when it goes back and forth the latency between the frames is what kills me in the addition to stuttering. Then there are people who play on monitors that have refresh rates higher than 60Hz where the higher FPS matters to them. I haven't experienced it but if I did I probably would have noticed the difference. Another example is SSD vs HDD. Once you go SSD it is nearly impossible to use a pure HDD system in my opinion. Also Windows 8 was a major improvements in boot time compared to Windows 7 where a Windows 8 + HDD felt much faster and is faster than Windows 7 and a HDD.

I can agree with your resale value comment. Everything will be put to rest sometime in the future. I'm the type that uses something until it can no longer perform in most tasks. I really haven't sold any of my belongings, especially tech until I sold my 360 preparing for a PS4. That is the only reason why I have sold my non used products now. But it's true that Intel has a higher sale value in general. I'm amazed at how expensive the Sandy Bridge CPUs are, obviously they perform really well still.

Anyway I'm glad you've made a decision. I like both Intel and AMD for what they are, I have a soft spot for AMD because that is where my PC gaming started and my hobby of PC tech in general. I went from Intel Pentium 4/M and AMD Athlon/Athlon XP to an Athlon 64 X2 so it was a hell of an upgrade for me back then. I am perfectly happy with the FX 8350 and Phenom II X6 1055T I have in two of my main PCs at home. I'm sure you will be too.

+1