ANY Benefits to FX Processors?

[Atomicdonut17]

So, I've not been in the forums very long, and just as long have I been a rookie techie- although in my short time I've learned a pretty good bit and helped a lot of people. In my experiences, I've learned that a general rule of thumb is to turn away from FX processors, due to their atrocious overheating, age, etc. However, people still use them. Is there any real benefit to them besides their higher core count (which doesn't seem to help anything) and cheaper market value?

 

[KR2]

no, the FX processors have terrible performance.

 

[13thmonkey]

That's it really, they can do zip things quite quickly. BUT Ryzen which has superseded them is a very different animal.

 

[captaincharisma]

the ironic thing is the higher core count on the FX CPU's was pretty much useless since some 6 core FX CPU's easily got outperformed by some duel core intel core I3 CPU's

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

FX is EOL , not worth using it , too many newer options that outperform.

 

[Atomicdonut17]

I knew the FX platform wasn't worth it, I just wondered why people still used them. Current-day Pentiums outperform the whole platform for cheaper.

 

[jaslion]

I knew the FX platform wasn't worth it, I just wondered why people still used them. Current-day Pentiums outperform the whole platform for cheaper.

It's just that people are like this:
Person: time to get a new pc: "hey a g4560 that has 2c/4t for 60 thats pretty good. O wait a minute a amd fx 6300 for only 80$ and it has 6 cores and is clocked higher. That must be so much better"
Pc guy: "It's old, weaker, more power hungry etc"
Person: "ok pentium it is"

The fact that it says 6 cores or 8 cores lures people over into believing it's better. We are here to say that it is not.

 

[spdragoo]

There's no benefit to buying it for a brand-new system.

But for those of us that are still using one, it comes down to the usual suspects: performance & money.

Money is the obvious one, in that until recently FX-based systems were much cheaper than Intel systems, & (until the 2C/4T Kaby Lake unlocked Pentiums debuted) were the cheapest way to get at least a quad-core (or at least a 2C/4T) CPU that would run games (i.e. Titanfall 2 won't run on any 2C/2T CPU, http://www.techspot.com/review/1271-titanfall-2-pc-benchmarks/page3.html), regardless of actual performance.

Performance may seem to be a strange metric. However, there is performance, as in, "This system with CPU W, RAM X, SSD Y, & GPU Z, delivers the absolute, 100% best performance that any system can currently achieve, & is the standard benchmark by which all other systems will be measured (& found wanting)"...& then there's performance as in, "My monitor can only reach X resolution with Y refresh rate, & I'm only playing group Z of older games that don't require as much horsepower, so do I really need the expensive, top-line system?" For example, my brother-in-law generally plays Rise of Nations or Earth Defense Force: Insect Armageddon (the latter being a game that my old HP laptop can play on integrated graphics); his sons also play a lot of Minecraft, & they've all rediscovered Starcraft: Brood War (now that the new patch from Blizzard makes it 100% free to play)...& that's when my nephews aren't working on their school projects. They don't even need a brand-new, Kaby Lake Pentium build, let alone a core i5/i7 or Ryzen 5/7 build, to play those games or perform their non-gaming tasks. Heck, they'd probably benefit more from installing SSDs, but my brother-in-law doesn't want to spend the time to reinstall the OS on 3 separate desktops (he's had to do that too often in the past on those systems anyway to choose to do so unnecessarily).

And that's why you will probably see FX systems hang around for a while. They were cheaper to build/buy, & they still provide "good enough" performance for a lot of people, not just non-gamers but also gamers that don't drool over having bleeding-edge technology & rebuild their systems from scratch every year.

And even in some modern games, you'd be hard-pressed to see any difference in performance between an FX chip & the newest ones. Take Dark Souls III, for example (http://www.techspot.com/review/1162-dark-souls-3-benchmarks/page5.html); because of the 60FPS cap, even an FX-8350 paired with a GTX 980Ti had no trouble maintaining an average 60FPS at 1440p resolutions. And sure, Intel performance blew the FX chips away in Overwatch (http://www.techspot.com/review/1180-overwatch-benchmarks/page5.html), but for someone like me (using a 1600x900/60Hz monitor paired with an R9 380), I wouldn't get any benefit from a "faster" Intel system. Same thing happens with DOOM (http://www.techspot.com/review/1173-doom-benchmarks/page5.html), BF1 (http://www.techspot.com/review/1267-battlefield-1-benchmarks/page2.html), For Honor (http://www.techspot.com/review/1333-for-honor-benchmarks/page3.html), & Gears of War 4(http://www.techspot.com/review/1263-gears-of-war-4-benchmarks/page4.html); my system would be held back more by the R9 380 than by the FX-8320, but the performance I would get matches up with what my monitor can provide anyway.

But....

If I had the cash & the opportunity to build a new system right now, then I wouldn't pick an FX-based system. As SR-71 pointed out, it's at End Of Life with Ryzen being released. Just like I wouldn't build a brand-new system with a Haswell chip (being also EOL).

 

[TJ Hooker]

Is there any real benefit to them besides their higher core count (which doesn't seem to help anything) and cheaper market value?

Their higher core count does allow them to perform better than an equivalently priced Intel chip in certain productivity/workstation applications. So if you wanted to build a workstation on the cheap (that's still capable of decent gaming performance), a 6/8 core FX chip could make sense. Although I still wouldn't recommend a new AM3+ build to anyone in 2017.

 

[Atomicdonut17]

Is there any real benefit to them besides their higher core count (which doesn't seem to help anything) and cheaper market value?

Their higher core count does allow them to perform better than an equivalently priced Intel chip in certain productivity/workstation applications. So if you wanted to build a workstation on the cheap (that's still capable of decent gaming performance), a 6/8 core FX chip could make sense. Although I still wouldn't recommend a new AM3+ build to anyone in 2017.

They still have comparatively weak single-core performance. I couldn't justify anything beyond a workstation/browsing PC.

 

[jeffredo]

I knew the FX platform wasn't worth it, I just wondered why people still used them. Current-day Pentiums outperform the whole platform for cheaper.

Usually because they already own it. If its doing the job why should they replace it? For a new build, no, it doesn't make any sense. The Kaby Lake Pentiums are cheaper and perform better in the gaming related tasks most people build a PC for.

 

[Atomicdonut17]

I knew the FX platform wasn't worth it, I just wondered why people still used them. Current-day Pentiums outperform the whole platform for cheaper.

Usually because they already own it. If its doing the job why should they replace it? For a new build, no, it doesn't make any sense. The Kaby Lake Pentiums are cheaper and perform better in the gaming related tasks most people build a PC for.

When I said, "I just wondered why people still use them," I didn't mean use as in, already owned- even though it came across that way, to which I have to clarify- why do people still purchase them, even if they're doing workstation work? The tasks that an FX processor can handle strictly due to the number of cores and multithreading doesn't become synonymous with poor performance across the board, as well as irreparable heat issues and a poor reputation overall. I could understand using one in a browser/home entertainment PC, something menial/trivial in the 200/300USD range... but from a practical technology standpoint, I.E.: Price to performance, they should be even cheaper due to how poor they actually *are*. When you have Intels' Kaby Lake Pentium series kicking their 6-core platforms in the teeth for the same price with 2 cores, 4 threads, it almost is no competition. If you're doing workstation work, you'd think a compromise like an FX processor is almost like a sin. Go for something more viable, something that will get the work done (which, granted, it can, but not as well as the examples to follow) like the i5, i7, R5 and R7 chips. They're significantly pricier, but you don't come across budget workstations enough to justify a 60/80 dollar chip being the 'pride and joy' of a creator station.

 

[captaincharisma]

I knew the FX platform wasn't worth it, I just wondered why people still used them. Current-day Pentiums outperform the whole platform for cheaper.

Usually because they already own it. If its doing the job why should they replace it? For a new build, no, it doesn't make any sense. The Kaby Lake Pentiums are cheaper and perform better in the gaming related tasks most people build a PC for.

When I said, "I just wondered why people still use them," I didn't mean use as in, already owned- even though it came across that way, to which I have to clarify- why do people still purchase them, even if they're doing workstation work? The tasks that an FX processor can handle strictly due to the number of cores and multithreading doesn't become synonymous with poor performance across the board, as well as irreparable heat issues and a poor reputation overall. I could understand using one in a browser/home entertainment PC, something menial/trivial in the 200/300USD range... but from a practical technology standpoint, I.E.: Price to performance, they should be even cheaper due to how poor they actually *are*. When you have Intels' Kaby Lake Pentium series kicking their 6-core platforms in the teeth for the same price with 2 cores, 4 threads, it almost is no competition. If you're doing workstation work, you'd think a compromise like an FX processor is almost like a sin. Go for something more viable, something that will get the work done (which, granted, it can, but not as well as the examples to follow) like the i5, i7, R5 and R7 chips. They're significantly pricier, but you don't come across budget workstations enough to justify a 60/80 dollar chip being the 'pride and joy' of a creator station.

when it comes to workstation work you don't need very much performance and this is why AMD FX CPU's turned out to be bought mainly by users looking for a web surfing computer

 

[Ditt44]

This was a dangerous question to pose when it was sort of hypothetical If you were a user asking whether to buy an FX or a Ryzen, you'd get much different answers in wording but the same intent.

IF you have an FX now and IF that system meets your current needs and provide decent performance for whatever productivity or gaming you may do, then why spend more money on a new build? Probably, you shouldn't. But, being that I have an FX-6350 and a GTX770 I want to upgrade, I do not "need" to upgrade. Granted I'm not knocking out high FPS on AAA game titles. I'm doing heavy mod work on "Napoleon: Total War" and playing "Elite Dangerous" ten hours or so a week. I run multiple windows across two screens, a 24" 1080p and a 27" 1440p at 60hz each. My build is FINE, for me.... for you or the next guy... maybe not so much.

That's all OK. I don't "need" to upgrade at all. I push good enough frames for what I'm doing and my CPU is snappy with an SSD for the OS and my primary apps/games. 16GB of RAM helps too. It boots in 22 seconds, runs idle in the 20s and peaks in the 50s. It's fine. Really. But... then why did I just spend $1,000 last Friday? Because a random look at Newegg found the Taichi to be IN STOCK!!! And in two minutes of mad-a$$ panic, I'd bought one... and RAM, and an M.2 drive, and the 1600x.

I don't "need" a new build. I "wanted" to do one and figured on June before I could find the mobo of my choice. It was unplanned but I pulled that trigger. I've had "migrator's remorse" since. I love my build.... a 2007 Sabertooth r1.0, upgraded parts here and there, but a very fine, stable, productive unit. But it's time. For my dad, at 90, a spry and sharp minded tinkering guy, my build would be more than enough.

There's no 'bad' in having a stable, productive FX build. There is no reason to start fresh and build one... unless it's for your aging family member on a tight budget... or if you are on a tight budget and can acquire one cheap. It's all about the need vs want vs use. To each his own.

 

[synphul]

If anything, it's price. Considering right now ryzen is out and intel has (and has had) better options, it depends on the work. For instance an older pentium was strictly 2 cores/2 threads. For video editing compared to an fx 6xxx or 8xxx it wouldn't keep up. I3's may have struggled some and i5's competed but i5's start out close to the $180+ range. An fx 8xxx is closer to $130 and 6xxx are cheaper still.

In heavily threaded workloads the only thing making fx viable were its high core counts. That helped make up for the ipc (core performance) it was lacking and still be at a cheap price. Now that ryzen is out, it performs better. They improved greatly on ipc and offer higher core counts and smt (hyper threading) for things like video editing. However as good as ryzen is, their current r5/r7 lineup starts out around $170 for the r5 1400. Anything faster or with 6 or 8 cores is going to quickly put a customer over $200 and up to $480 for a cpu.

With so many budget users complaining about the 'high' price of i5's and i7's amd's current offerings don't give them anywhere to go. Whether r5 or i5, you're nearly at $200 to start. No more 6 or 8 core cpu's for $95-120. A new 6 core while it may be a better performer starts at $220 for ryzen and i5's and i7's are still $200-350.

 

[Atomicdonut17]

If anything, it's price. Considering right now ryzen is out and intel has (and has had) better options, it depends on the work. For instance an older pentium was strictly 2 cores/2 threads. For video editing compared to an fx 6xxx or 8xxx it wouldn't keep up. I3's may have struggled some and i5's competed but i5's start out close to the $180+ range. An fx 8xxx is closer to $130 and 6xxx are cheaper still.

In heavily threaded workloads the only thing making fx viable were its high core counts. That helped make up for the ipc (core performance) it was lacking and still be at a cheap price. Now that ryzen is out, it performs better. They improved greatly on ipc and offer higher core counts and smt (hyper threading) for things like video editing. However as good as ryzen is, their current r5/r7 lineup starts out around $170 for the r5 1400. Anything faster or with 6 or 8 cores is going to quickly put a customer over $200 and up to $480 for a cpu.

With so many budget users complaining about the 'high' price of i5's and i7's amd's current offerings don't give them anywhere to go. Whether r5 or i5, you're nearly at $200 to start. No more 6 or 8 core cpu's for $95-120. A new 6 core while it may be a better performer starts at $220 for ryzen and i5's and i7's are still $200-350.

You can get an i7 3770 for around 75 bucks if you look in the right places, while you can get a new FX 8300 Vishera 8-core, "8MB L2" (2 4MB L2 caches) and 8MB L3 cache with a 95W TDP for around 100 bucks, 128USD MSRP. Although it has 4 less cores, the 3770 still crushes it in multi-tasking, with zero issues. Lower TDP, TRUE and proven hyperthreading (which the FX also has, but just doesn't come to snuff) and overall more attestable.

For cheaper.

And, yes, it is also EOL. But that's your multi-core processor for cheaper, better, more efficient, faster, etc. 4 less cores, astoundingly greater performance ratio. :\

That effectively makes the 3770 around the same price as a new Pentium G4560 dual-core, 4-thread platform.

 

[TJ Hooker]

@Atomicdonut17 are you talking about a used or new 3770 for $75, and where are you finding it for that price? And if you look at those same "right places", what can you get an FX 8300 for?

 

[Atomicdonut17]

@Atomicdonut17 are you talking about a used or new 3770 for $75, and where are you finding it for that price? And if you look at those same "right places", what can you get an FX 8300 for?

Ebay, specifically; From there, the lowest price listing of a FX 8300 is around 90 bucks, and the i7 3770 is 75. :| (Used).

But, we're speaking of performance over condition, and as long as the Intel processor is performing at full capacity, it will still easily overtake the FX processor.

 

[Ecky]

$75 in an auction which was just created, has zero bids and 7 days remaining means very little. $150 is about what they're actually selling for.

 

[Atomicdonut17]

$75 in an auction which was just created, has zero bids and 7 days remaining means very little. $150 is about what they're actually selling for.

I don't think you really understand my point- sure, it might sell for 150, but that's just 25 bucks more than what a brand-spanking-new FX 8300 comes for, with no compromises to performance. I used that one as an example admittedly as a standard, which I will admit was wrong, but my point still stands. There's better in that ballpark range that makes FX processors just about obsolete, given you don't already OWN one. For those who do, and it's adequate, fine. They choose their platform. But it just.. isn't.. viable.

 

[Spring1898]

Outside of the US the prices and availability of new and used computer hardware varies upward substantially.
In many middle eastern and Asian countries older hardware remains popular, especially older AMD hardware.
The prices available on Ebay and other locations are mitigated by taxes, shipping, and import fees associated with US based auctions.

 

[Atomicdonut17]

Outside of the US the prices and availability of new and used computer hardware varies upward substantially.
In many middle eastern and Asian countries older hardware remains popular, especially older AMD hardware.
The prices available on Ebay and other locations are mitigated by taxes, shipping, and import fees associated with US based auctions.

That same standard doesn't apply to people who have no choice. If they can't get anything but an FX processor, that's what it is, can't help it. It's for the people with the budget, choice and availability. 😛

 

[TJ Hooker]

I don't think you really understand my point- sure, it might sell for 150, but that's just 25 bucks more than what a brand-spanking-new FX 8300 comes for, with no compromises to performance.

That would be $50 more than an 8300, not $25. Also, you have to consider motherboard availability. You can still readily buy new AM3+ mobos at retail. Can't say the same about LGA 1155, not sure what they're going for on eBay.

 

[Atomicdonut17]

I don't think you really understand my point- sure, it might sell for 150, but that's just 25 bucks more than what a brand-spanking-new FX 8300 comes for, with no compromises to performance.

That would be $50 more than an 8300, not $25. Also, you have to consider motherboard availability. You can still readily buy new AM3+ mobos at retail. Can't say the same about LGA 1155, not sure what they're going for on eBay.

My fault, 50 bucks, and good point. Hadn't thought about that. I suppose the optimal setup would be an LGA1155 board with any older i7 3rd gen, but I could see how getting that would be hard. I don't really support FX still, but I have a new respect for them. 😛

 

[0ldsch00l]

FX was a decent CPU despite the bad mouthing, was much better and OCed better especially compared to faildozer.

In fact now we can see its advantages more due to more multithreaded appz and games. Before ohh yeah cinebench which only matters on HWbot....

For a budget gaming rig you want with 60+ fps in modern games and you can afford a Ryzen? I see 9590s for 150 bucks, not a bad deal, pair it with a 580 and you can do 1440p in ANY game, and thats a fact