Are AMD Cpus Bad?

[pauldavidlozano234]

Are they bad? Like I mean at heat dissipation and performance in games? I am building a new pc soon and want it to last for about 8 years before I replace it

 

[TheMagicalWallaby]

8 years, not a chance that that is possible.

Anyway, AMD has decent CPUs depending on what you are playing and doing, but in general INtel CPUs perform better in games, but that does not make AMD CPUs BAD.

But is the AMD FX-8350 bad? I heard in another forum it overheats...

As I write this I am on a FX-8350 cooled by the Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO, I'm getting ~37 degrees Celsius with Chrome and Skype open and about ~45 (I haven't checked) in games, I haven't overclocked it, however, it is a beast at overclocking, people can get up to 8GHz if you cool it right.
I recall when I rendered videos it was still very cool, the 8 cores render videos very fast.

Bottom line, AMD CPUs are better for entry-level and high-end computers however, Intel is better suited for mid-level and high-end computers.

You can't get 8GHz out of it unless you are using liquid nitrogen. At most one could get and keep it at is around 5GHz.

 

[TheMagicalWallaby]

RAID is a big no no for SSD's; they fail far faster if you RAID them.
Also I don't think RAIDing SSD's is required no matter how much money you have, unless you are a speed freak. SSD's are fast enough as they are.

Depends on the type of RAID.

 

[TheMagicalWallaby]

RAID is a big no no for SSD's; they fail far faster if you RAID them.
Also I don't think RAIDing SSD's is required no matter how much money you have, unless you are a speed freak. SSD's are fast enough as they are.

Depends on the type of RAID.

 

[Supernova1138]

There single core performance is sub par. So, 6 amd cores are about equal to 2 intel cores.Most games use 2-4 cores for gaming. Heat dissipation isn't really an issue until you get into the fx-9370 and fx9590. An intel i7-3 series and above are little bit better than all of Amd's current cpus. Also, I7's have hyperthreading which make it perform like it has 8 cores, instead of 4. I5's are i7's without hyperthreading. An I5 4570 is equal to an fx 8350 in most games. In the end the most future proof option is an i7.

That is not true. A 6 core AMD CPU will outperform Intel dual cores in most things that uses more than 2 cores. Games also generally use up to 6 cores, not 2-4.

Very few games are scaling up to 6 cores right now, the only major titles that seem to be doing that are Battlefield 3 and 4 and Crysis 3, everything else is only using 4 cores at most, even so-called next gen games like Watch Dogs. Most titles are still leaning on one or two cores heavily and maybe only lightly using the 3rd and 4th core. As such, the Core i3s are trouncing all the AMD chips on gaming benchmarks, with Battlefield and Crysis being the only games where AMD's chips are competitive from a performance standpoint.

The only bright spot for AMD's CPUs right now is that they do fare better at multithreaded productivity software, such as video editing programs compared to similarly priced Intel chips. At this point there doesn't seem to be much point in choosing AMD unless you are looking to build a low budget video editing workstation, or you need to build a rig to play Battlefield 4 on a very tight budget.

 

[TheMagicalWallaby]

There single core performance is sub par. So, 6 amd cores are about equal to 2 intel cores.Most games use 2-4 cores for gaming. Heat dissipation isn't really an issue until you get into the fx-9370 and fx9590. An intel i7-3 series and above are little bit better than all of Amd's current cpus. Also, I7's have hyperthreading which make it perform like it has 8 cores, instead of 4. I5's are i7's without hyperthreading. An I5 4570 is equal to an fx 8350 in most games. In the end the most future proof option is an i7.

That is not true. A 6 core AMD CPU will outperform Intel dual cores in most things that uses more than 2 cores. Games also generally use up to 6 cores, not 2-4.

Very few games are scaling up to 6 cores right now, the only major titles that seem to be doing that are Battlefield 3 and 4 and Crysis 3, everything else is only using 4 cores at most, even so-called next gen games like Watch Dogs. Most titles are still leaning on one or two cores heavily and maybe only lightly using the 3rd and 4th core. As such, the Core i3s are trouncing all the AMD chips on gaming benchmarks, with Battlefield and Crysis being the only games where AMD's chips are competitive from a performance standpoint.

The only bright spot for AMD's CPUs right now is that they do fare better at multithreaded productivity software, such as video editing programs compared to similarly priced Intel chips. At this point there doesn't seem to be much point in choosing AMD unless you are looking to build a low budget video editing workstation, or you need to build a rig to play Battlefield 4 on a very tight budget.

Every game I have uses 6 cores (some use up to 8). I have tested this in games ranging from Sims 4, to Rust. They all use more than 4 cores. Now is there any significant in game benefit (besides a potentially higher frame rate) like there is when comparing a dual core to a quad core? No. A quad core, six core, and octo core cpu will do fine in gaming with no in game difference between except an extra core to use.

 

[UltraFireFX]

Besides, you almost never have only 1 program open at once, I have about 10 daemon programs, 1-3 background programs and 1-2 foreground programs at once 95% of the time.

 

[UltraFireFX]

8 years, not a chance that that is possible.

Anyway, AMD has decent CPUs depending on what you are playing and doing, but in general INtel CPUs perform better in games, but that does not make AMD CPUs BAD.

But is the AMD FX-8350 bad? I heard in another forum it overheats...

As I write this I am on a FX-8350 cooled by the Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO, I'm getting ~37 degrees Celsius with Chrome and Skype open and about ~45 (I haven't checked) in games, I haven't overclocked it, however, it is a beast at overclocking, people can get up to 8GHz if you cool it right.
I recall when I rendered videos it was still very cool, the 8 cores render videos very fast.

Bottom line, AMD CPUs are better for entry-level and high-end computers however, Intel is better suited for mid-level and high-end computers.

You can't get 8GHz out of it unless you are using liquid nitrogen. At most one could get and keep it at is around 5GHz.

I didn't say you could do it in a real-world build, but if you did cool it right, if that involves liquid nitrogen or not, it would still get up to 8GHz

 

[spentshells]

That's a very tall order, to last 8 years. What is your budget? Here's a top quality build wasting little money:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i7-5930K 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor ($559.99 @ NCIX US)
CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-U14S 55.0 CFM CPU Cooler ($64.99 @ NCIX US)
Motherboard: ASRock Fatal1ty X99X Killer ATX LGA2011-3 Motherboard ($264.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: Crucial 16GB (4 x 4GB) DDR4-2133 Memory ($199.99 @ Adorama)
Storage: Samsung 840 EVO 1TB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($425.44 @ Amazon)
Storage: Toshiba 3TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($109.00 @ Amazon)
Video Card: MSI GeForce GTX 980 4GB Twin Frozr Video Card ($585.91 @ Newegg)
Case: Rosewill THOR V2-W ATX Full Tower Case ($133.65 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: EVGA SuperNOVA P2 1200W 80+ Platinum Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($214.99 @ NCIX US)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 8.1 (OEM) (64-bit) ($89.98 @ OutletPC)
Total: $2648.93
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-16 04:00 EDT-0400

If you have a 1080P display, a single Nvidia 980 should max it out for years. You can always add another one. For the future, you could go SLI and have the most performance possible with two or even three video cards. I gave a huge 1200W supply in case you go crazy in the future with graphics cards.

Don't get so much memory if your not going to render videos, otherwise, just get 2x4GB, by the time you need more than 8GB there will be cheaper, faster RAM on the market for less than there is now.

The 1200W supply is overkill, you only need 80%-95% of the power to be used to make it efficient, below or over that and you might as well spend the money on extra SSDs or an extra monitor.

And I'd HIGHLY recommend to get 4 250MB SSDs and put them in RAID 0 than get a 1TB SSD, you will save so much money AND get a higher read/write speed in some cases, same with the HDD, just get 3 1TB drives and put them in RAID 0 - or put them in their own partition so you can organize your files better.

4 dimms of ram for quad channel feature of the platform.

The 4 cards will make a slight difference compared to the price increase, just get 2x4GB, you'll never reach that much usage (Unless you want to have a RAM disk or high-quality animation previews) in real-world scenarios.

Also, you will find the faster refresh rate will make a very slight difference in performance but a huge difference in price, I'd suggest the G.Skill Ripjaws/Ares (2x4GB).

Why pay for a major platform feature and not use it? You could dial back on the size of the dimms opt for 4x2GB and get the additional speed.

The speed from having 4 cards instead of 2 is minor, having more cards double the chance of a card being faulty and increases the power consumption, and if they wanted to upgrade, they would not be able to without discarding some cards.
On the other hand, if you were to have 2 cards, you can buy another 2x4GB set to ramp it up if needed.
It depends on your own personal choice - if you want to upgrade (or might even consider it) in a few years and if the 4x2GB is cheaper, ect..

Own a feature that you pay all kinds of extra money to get and not use for as you stated a couple of years? Worrying about having more failure due to more chips is something that needs to be dealt with sooner than later.

 

[jaimelmiel]

If you ask if they generate heat, well, yeah, as any CPU, and depending on the series too, for example the FX-9590 has a TDP of 220W, meaning it would generate a lot of heat, but if you ask if they are bad in quality, no, they are good, just with that little downside.

And even then the is not a big problem if you know how to manage it and do. Many FX 9590 owners like myself will tell you that.

 

[donuts59]

fx 9370 owner and love it, cheap build and does everything a intel would do for me with the same performance!

 

[Novuake]

fx 9370 owner and love it, cheap build and does everything a intel would do for me with the same performance!

Assume you do not pay for electricity? Nor do you care about thermals?

 

[donuts59]

fx 9370 owner and love it, cheap build and does everything a intel would do for me with the same performance!

Assume you do not pay for electricity? Nor do you care about thermals?

Im not going to turn this into a fight with facts and details, im just saying my fx 9370 does everything i need which includes gaming, streaming, work, homework. I got mine cheaper than the retail price, they aren't complete shit like every intel fan boy try's to make them sound.

 

[Novuake]

Im not going to turn this into a fight with facts and details, im just saying my fx 9370 does everything i need which includes gaming, streaming, work, homework. I got mine cheaper than the retail price, they aren't complete shit like every intel fan boy try's to make them sound.

I never said it was,

Its just not worth buying over a standard FX8350 for 3 reasons :

Cost for almost zero extra performance above the 8350.
It requires a higher priced motherboard and substantial cooling.
It also has crazy power spikes that would murder lower quality PSUs.

Simply put, its not a CPU for everyone, but for the power user that KNOWS HOW to use it and how to take care of it.

But even then I would get a decent 990FX motherboard and an FX 8370E and overclock the hell out of it to surpass FX9370 levels ANYWAY...

 

[ImranKhan1992]

AMD is not a bad CPU. If you could get AMD Vishera(FX-8350, FX-8320, FX-6300 and FX-4300) CPU's Provide good value for money.
Coupled with CoolerMaster Hyper 212x, you get worthy CPU performance for money you paid.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested

 

[jaimelmiel]

Im not going to turn this into a fight with facts and details, im just saying my fx 9370 does everything i need which includes gaming, streaming, work, homework. I got mine cheaper than the retail price, they aren't complete shit like every intel fan boy try's to make them sound.

I never said it was,

Its just not worth buying over a standard FX8350 for 3 reasons :

Most of the FX 9370 and Fx 9590 wanted the factory overclock of 4.4 and 4.7 GHZ. It is turn Key with power saving features that others who overclock their Sub 4.4 processors do not get. A 100% Stable overclock. Bota boom, Bot Bing.
I really like my machine and I plan on keeping myFx 9590 as it is a 4.7 Ghz Gaming machine. That said I have some plans to OC an FX 8320e in another machine. But that is no reason to knock the FX 9370 or 9590. I believe your reasoning is flawed.

Cost for almost zero extra performance above the 8350.
It requires a higher priced motherboard and substantial cooling.
It also has crazy power spikes that would murder lower quality PSUs.

Simply put, its not a CPU for everyone, but for the power user that KNOWS HOW to use it and how to take care of it.

But even then I would get a decent 990FX motherboard and an FX 8370E and overclock the hell out of it to surpass FX9370 levels ANYWAY...

First of all I hope you do that and not just talk about it. Then get back to us. I went from an FX 8350 to a FX9590 and My 9590 will do 5.0 GHz to 5.166. But I like it fine @ 4.7. And there was a noticable difference. Most of the FX 9370 and Fx 9590 wanted the factory overclock of 4.4 and 4.7 GHZ. It is turn Key with power saving features that others who overclock their Sub 4.4 processors do not get. A 100% Stable overclock. Bota boom, Bot Bing.
I really like my machine and I plan on keeping myFx 9590 as it is a 4.7 Ghz Gaming machine. That said I have some plans to OC an FX 8320e in another machine. But that is no reason to knock the FX 9370 or FX9590. I believe your reasoning is flawed.

 

[ImranKhan1992]

You wont want to build PC that work for 8years.Thats way to long. Your Hardware will get outdated in 4years.

 

[Novuake]

First of all I hope you do that and not just talk about it. Then get back to us. I went from an FX 8350 to a FX9590 and My 9590 will do 5.0 GHz to 5.166. But I like it fine @ 4.7. And there was a noticable difference. Most of the FX 9370 and Fx 9590 wanted the factory overclock of 4.4 and 4.7 GHZ. It is turn Key with power saving features that others who overclock their Sub 4.4 processors do not get. A 100% Stable overclock. Bota boom, Bot Bing.
I really like my machine and I plan on keeping myFx 9590 as it is a 4.7 Ghz Gaming machine. That said I have some plans to OC an FX 8320e in another machine. But that is no reason to knock the FX 9370 or FX9590. I believe your reasoning is flawed.

And I believe you are a typical consumer that will defend his purchase no matter what.
So I have said my say and I will bid you goodbye.

 

[ImranKhan1992]

This could be your 8year PC, that may compete with Performance of Future Hardware coming 8years later.
[video="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSZseIx5heE"][/video]