Are the amd fx's cpus really that bad???

killer14321

Honorable
Sep 15, 2012
14
0
10,510
0
I dont want to know that they dont beat the i5s i know this intel performence is better but amd is more bang for the buck. what i want to know are they ok for gaming. not for anything else can they run bf3 at 1080 ultra setttings with decent fps?? or should i wait tell piledriver comes out?
 
FX 8 cores actually perform on par with i5s in Battlefield 3. No, its not that theyre "bad", theres just better ones from Intel in similar price ranges, and AMD itself, in the form of their older Phenom IIs. We are close enough to the release of PileDriver, that if you're interested in an AMD system, its at least worth the wait to see what their benches look like.
 

killer14321

Honorable
Sep 15, 2012
14
0
10,510
0
see everybody makes them sound like there horrabile but the bench marks aren't to bad i think now that i can get a 8 core for 160. when do you think piledriver will release?
 
If it were strictly for DX 11 games (like BF3), then the FX-8 cores are worth a look, these games actually play well on FX-8150s. I don't know the technical reasons behind it, but I've seen benches that show the 8150 even slightly edging i7-2600Ks. Problem is, a lot of games aren't there yet.
 

yyk71200

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2010
877
0
19,160
68
Two modules (four cores) are OK for the price, but only if you overclock them a lot since i3s and Pentiums do not overclock. Once you get into i5 pricing area, fx suffer a lot in anything but very heavily theaded applications since even not fully unlocked i5s can be overclocked to their turbo frequencies.
 

PileDriver is slated for release October 2012, next month. You have to keep in mind though that the FX 8 core Bulldozers are 160 through price reductions, its unlikely the PileDriver equivalent will be as cheap. The Bulldozer FX-8150 was originally released at something like $260.


Oopsie...DX 11 games
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1285/pg10/amd-fx-8150-black-edition-8-core-processor-vs-core-i7-2600k-review-deus-ex-human-revolution.html
 

killer14321

Honorable
Sep 15, 2012
14
0
10,510
0
see i knew that the would be released October becase windows 8 is. if there good i dont mind spending money on them casue i like that amds the underdog in this i herd that amd is only 8 percent of the cpu sells now. if piledriver is 10 to 15 percent better then fx then ill buy one with windows 8
 

jay2577

Honorable
Jun 17, 2012
1,852
0
12,460
242
I have an amd fx-4100 clocked at 4.2ghz. i have not had one problem playing any game i own. I came form a dual core amd 5200 at 2.7ghz and i'm more than impressed at the performance i have now.You can always have a look here and see that Battlefield 3 is more GPU dependent than it is CPU dependent

http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-performance/page7.html

My cpu cost £80 which is cheaper than the i3 and mt motherboard is packed with features for just £50. I believe that if you play games like skyrim then the fx might hold you back as it offloads shadow rendering to the cpu. Even still it seems to still play well for me but i don't look at my FPS.
It's your decision but don't listen to fanboys from either side. Yes the intel are quicker but the amd fx are not as bad as people make out.
 

killer14321

Honorable
Sep 15, 2012
14
0
10,510
0
i think ill wait tell the piledrivers come out and then make my choice i dont think the fx are that bad i just think theres to many fanboys from intel who make them seem really really really bad
 
I already have a copy of Windows 8 free from Microsoft Academic Alliance, haven't installed it yet, but just so you know, its already available. I wouldn't expect Win8 to really give Bulldozer/PileDriver much of a bump though. But going forward as more games leave the older technology behind and move to Direct X 11, clearly theres nothing wrong with going AMD, really just depends on your own needs and desires.

But thats what it all boils down to it seems, a lot of games that are console ports and such still running DX 9&10 are where the Bulldozer gets hit by review sites, and not entirely wrongly so. It is pretty dismal that Bulldozer can play one game just fine and dandy, and another just downright awful.

Neither Hardware Heaven or every other tech site (like this one) really give you the whole story, Tom's and AndNTech are showing the older games, and HardwareHeaven only shows the newest "sexy" ones, not putting much emphasis on the fact that largely the Bulldozer architecture for gaming is somewhat "ahead of its time".
 
BTW, have you seen the youtube videos of Windows 8? It looks friggin terrible. I hope to god theirs a "classic view" mode to make it look like Win7. Just from looking at the videos of people using the consumer preview, I'm fairly certain I wont like it.
 


If there is, it won't be easy to get to. http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/windows_8_Review?page=0,0

That’s the real reason why Windows 8 looks and feels like a tablet operating system slapped overtop Windows 7 (with a few tweaks here and there). It is. Users are given no way around it—Microsoft has made sure of that fact.
 

bemused_fred

Honorable
Feb 18, 2012
519
0
11,010
22
They're not terrible. They're completely functional, and not too bad at running what you need them to, but intel's stuff is so much better at all price points that there's no reason to buy them.
 

Mousemonkey

Titan
Moderator

I'm taking the txt speak approach, W8 4 9. :whistle:
 

allanitomwesh

Honorable
Jun 27, 2012
1,610
0
11,960
83

I like the windows 8. preview. Runs light and the metro tiles grow on you. It's also fun having peeps wondering where the desktop is.
 

noob2222

Distinguished
Nov 19, 2007
2,722
0
20,860
40

on BF3 i did some testing. I have my 8120 running at 4.7 ghz without any issues. BF3 loves the 8120 without a doubt. 6970 crossfire im at 120+ fps, with few drops to high 80s in heavy multiplayer action. I cut the thing in half for fun in the bios (41xx) fps dropped to high 80s with dips to 50s. fx61xx (3 modules) was back to 120, but dropped to the 60s quite often. This is all at 1900x1200 ultra maxed settings.

while the 41xx would be fine for a single card, I would not recommend it, I place it equivalent to the I3s in terms of actual cpu, its a dual module with cmt, use those cmt cores and performance drops.

Toms heirchy chart is flawed because they tested dual-core only games. Throw something multi-core friendly into the mix and you get this instead.



*note that these aren't stock settings but all 3.0 ghz instead, but the picture is clear enough, the 41xx is the second worst cpu there.

the problem with benchmarks is 90% just show fps, while amd does suffer slightly, its not necessarily due to just the cpu's raw power. I don't have game that puts my cpu at 100% usage, only one or 2 that do 100% on a single core, in fact diablo III was at ~40% cpu usage. so why does AMD benchmark slower?

SB has the pci-e controller on-die, therefore latency is shorter, and performance is up. check the performance between I7 920 and the I5 750. the 920 is a stronger core, but in games the 750 wins due to the pci-e controller being on the cpu.

AMD hasn't made that move yet, and won't until steamroller. most people don't care why, they just want to see numbers.
 

jaguarskx

Titan
Moderator


I track AMD and Intel stocks. Based on earning releases, AMD has an estimated 15% - 20% share of the CPU market (that desktop, server, and laptop combined). That's only an estimate since neither AMD or Intel release those types of figures. Piledriver will likely hit the 10% mark, as 15% is a bit extreme for them; Intel never achieved that level of performance increase and their Research and Development budget is almost 6x more than AMD's.

If you want to support AMD, then sure go ahead and wait for PileDriver. Hopefully AMD will not price them as high as Intel Ivy Bridge CPUs. AMD made the mistake of selling the FX-8150 for more than a Sandy Bridge Core i5-2500k. They have since dropped the price twice and it's now down to $190 (at least on Amazon/Newegg). If PileDriver can achieve a 10% performance increase then that would basically mean PD will be in the realm of the 1st generation Core i3/i5/i7 performance. Sandy Bridge is 2nd gen and Ivy Bridge is 3rd gen.
 

XXStavrosXX

Honorable
Aug 24, 2012
238
0
10,710
12


+1

BF3 on multiplayer almost demands a quad-core CPU to show its might, so an FX4170 will be a better choice than the equivalent in price Intel Core i3.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY