AMD Updates Desktop FX Processor Line With Three New CPUs, Price Cuts

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
We'll all stick with our intels, but these CPU's are geared towards people that fall in a lower income bracket. Which is a larger portion of the buyers market. People buy cheap laptops and tablets because they can't afford big flashy expensive i7 rigs which at the cheapest are $1200+.
I built an FX8320 system for a relative and he can play sniper elite 3 on ultra with his radion card, and i built that system inlcluding the OS for 800 bucks. Mine costed me $2500 and I love it.
In order to steal more people from the 500 dollar laptop market and 500 dollar consol market, we need cheaper CPU's like AMD's lineup. I just wish they'd work on single core and wattage a little more.
Click to expand...
I wont stick with Intel. In fact I'm sticking with AMD and my 8350. Intel will have to change there ( i ) marketing before I even consider them. Im so tired of everyone following apples lead. It makes me sick. It doesn't matter who was first on the I thing I just want it to stop. It isn't always about money.
 
i still remember back in march 2000 when 1GHz AMD Athlons were priced at $1299 which was a premium price. In contrast the 1GHz Intel Pentium III cost a mere $990 .
now Intel has the upper hand ...Huh....ironic .
 

I find it even more ironic that back then, AMD was going for the efficiency route with their Thoroughbred design while Intel was chasing the clock rates with Netburst. Considering the success they had with the Athlon XP, I'm not sure why AMD allowed that paradigm to flip-flop.
 
how much more can they beat this dead horse ? as stated above its not just the chips its also no chipset nothing same ol same ol but with a new number and revision change to the board but nothing fresh- they can put usb 3 native or pci-e 3 on a new chipset and make things more apparent to some one whos looking to upgrade its like I got this when AM3+ first came out and did a chip upgrade for what little it was worth in the end but when it was time to do a new build it had to be intel cause all I seen with amd was rebuying the past all over today .. that's just a wast and silly and seeing I never did a intel build at least it was refreshing and new and not old hat been there done that ho hum
 
"All they have to do is make an FX-9590E for $250 to create a viable i7 competitor. 5 GHz for 150w would be perfectly acceptable. "

I have both a 9590 and a 2600K (95W)---in almost all situations the 2600K is as fast or slightly faster. Even if AMD was somehow able to get the FX series stable at 4.7/5.0 (TURBO) with 150W TDP, it would still be consuming much more power than the 2600K, which is 3 year old Intel technology. And its highly unlikely they would be able to get very many FX chips that bin well enough to achieve such a feat.

I mean, the 9590 is just a "golden binned" sample of the 8350, that AMD has tested to be be stable a 4.7/5.0 (turbo) with 1.5+ Vcore (220W).
 
For the price of 1 Intel 8 core, 4.0+ghz base you are looking at near 1000 bucks. JUST for the processor. I'll take AMD anyday. Hell Ic an buy 5 of these chips for the 1 intel is charging. If you think Intel is worth the price, you are just as brainwashed as Apple product buyers. The truth hurts. Value for price, AMD is unbeatable.
Click to expand...

Sigh...in most cases, a 4 core 95W Sandy Bridge is about the equivalent of the power-hungry super-top-of the line 8 core 9590. Neither the 9590 nor the 2600K are true 8 cores---Intel has zero physical cores beyond 4, and AMD's doesnt have 4 full extra cores.

The new top of the line Haswell-E is the first Intel consumer desktop (full) 8 core CPU. It doesnt share FPUs like the FX series does, PLUS it has hyperthreading.
 
I'm an old man and built AMD K systems, Intel Pentium, and Cyrix back in the day.
They were all networked and running SETI, still drink my coffee from an AMD K6 mug, still have all my computers and software.
Something happened along the way and I got a life that did not involve computers.
The urge hit me last year to get back into the scene, so I started researching again, built a Intel 4770K system that has been folding with a GTX 770 at 100 percent load on all 8 threads 24/7. Gaming is the only thing that will shut FAH down.
I'll stop blowing wind now and get to the point, why do people spend money on a inferior system, the cost is not it. The AMD system built to specs can't compete because of a long toothchip set whos' memory controller and the processor itself can't keep up even at higher clock rates.What has Intel done to the clock rate on the Haswell-E,did stock performance suffer... no.
I'll built my next AMD system when they can truly compete with Intel for my money.
 
Changing clock speeds does not make a new product, lets see something new?
We need some competition in the CPU market, while amd refuses to add steamroller cores to the fx line.
 
We'll all stick with our intels, but these CPU's are geared towards people that fall in a lower income bracket. Which is a larger portion of the buyers market. People buy cheap laptops and tablets because they can't afford big flashy expensive i7 rigs which at the cheapest are $1200+.
I built an FX8320 system for a relative and he can play sniper elite 3 on ultra with his radion card, and i built that system inlcluding the OS for 800 bucks. Mine costed me $2500 and I love it.
In order to steal more people from the 500 dollar laptop market and 500 dollar consol market, we need cheaper CPU's like AMD's lineup. I just wish they'd work on single core and wattage a little more.
Click to expand...

The prices on Intel are just as cheap as AMD. An FX-8320E costs $150, but what does that get you? It gets you a CPU that can't even compete with Intel in single-threaded performance, even at 4.5 GHz it lags behind Haswell stock clocks immensely... and with Broadwell it's only going to get worse. For that same $150 you can score an i3-4330 which at 3.5 GHz absolutely demolishes an FX-9590 at a whopping 4.7 GHz (source) when it comes to single-threaded performance. Sure AMD makes sense when you need to work on a program that's heavily multithreaded in the ALU department and you don't want to spend $1,000 on an 8 core i7, but that's not gaming. Games are superbly single-threaded. Most will continue to use about 2 cores and that's it, with extremely heavy reliance on the first core. Only the biggest budget titles with fantastic engines like the Frostbite 3.0 engine actually use 4 cores (thank God for DICE, amiright?) but typically multithreading is really hard to program for a game and while things like mantle will certainly help with some of that from what I hear, there's still always going to be a need for brute force processing when the optimization just isn't there -- and considering that the games industry is a place where huge numbers of PC titles are poorly optimized ports, multithreading just can't be expected for each game. Take AC4 for example. On my i5-4690k I disabled 2 cores leaving me with 2 cores overall and my frame rates didn't change at all in AC4 -- still a consistent 60. Then I disabled 3 cores, leaving me with only 1 active core and on AC4 my frame rate only dropped to 45... that's on a single core! When it comes to gaming, there's a massive reliance on single-threaded efficiency and piledriver absolutely does not have that.
 
At the end of the day I think what is going to hurt AMD the most is the fact that they are allowing the FX line to stagnate right now. We need 2 things from AMD right now

1) If you're going to revise an old chip give us a revision worth investing in: The 8350 with the same specs but cut down to 95W and/or enhanced single core performance. 8350 is pretty much the workhorse of the FX line and it is easy to see why. An updated version would get some attention.

2) FX AM4 slot, and the appropriate chipsets. The obvious specs here, USB 3 support, PCI-E 3, cpu would work on AM3+ and AM4 boards (Like early AM3), Support for both DDR3 and DDR4 ram.
 


Actually a good number of games do benefit from the upgrade. Per clock cycle Haswell is about 30% faster than Baytrail, and almost 70% faster overall when you consider the general discrepancy in clock speeds. But anyway, a lot of games actually do benefit from Haswell's stronger performance as compared to Baytrail. My previous FX-6300 which according to most benchmarks is more powerful in single-threaded performance than an i7-920 (mostly due to the clock speed differences) bottlenecked my GTX 770 in a lot of games (Crysis 1, AC4, Borderlands 2, many others). This was even after I had overclocked my FX-6300 to 4.5 GHz. When I upgraded to an i5-4690k, my frame rates in games had a massive increase -- most hitting 60 at the stock 3.5 GHz when my FX-6300 at 4.5 GHz could only hit 45.
 


To be fair, my brother went from a Phenom II x4 @ 4 GHz to an FX-8320 @ 4.2 GHz and his framerates doubled in some games (HD 7950). Now if you have a GPU weaker than that, yeah you are fine.
 


I find that kind of funny. I guess it really depends on if you play the latest games or not. The games you listed only use 4 cores, but in games like BF4 the FX-6300 is practically as strong as lesser i5's...
 


I find that kind of funny. I guess it really depends on if you play the latest games or not. The games you listed only use 4 cores, but in games like BF4 the FX-6300 is practically as strong as lesser i5's...
 


but when your a gamer, you want all games to run well, not just bf4. an intel i5 will play better, across more games, than an fx63xx or 83xx period. even the latest haswell i3's would probably trump similarly priced AMD cpu's on an fps average over all games released in the last 3 years, if your not cherry picking
 


Well for now it will on average, but in the future the FX-83xx will pull ahead of the i5's. It already outperforms them in BF4, Watchdogs, and Crysis 3. FYI that's not cherry picking, those are the most demanding AAA games out now.

Also keep in mind that the FX-6300 is bloody $110, and the FX-8320 is $150. Yeah you may sacrifice performance in some games now, but in the future it will more than earn its worth.
 


But it's the same old, same old, with AMD. I was hoping they'd learn from their mistakes from the Phenom line, even seeking to give them the benefit of a doubt, but here we are again. Slow to move, little to improve, and builders not enthused.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom