FX series CPUs and Gaming in 2015 and beyond

cowboy44mag

Guest
Jan 24, 2013
315
0
10,810
I'm posting this and asking the question why do so many "experts" think that FX CPUs can't game?

I have seen many threads of people asking for expert advice and not really getting expert advice so I am posting this to basically ask why. I have seen people who already have a good AMD AM3+ motherboard asking for a good upgrade path and being told to go to i3 Intel. I read that and think what in the world are they thinking??

Lets look at a few facts about PC gaming. Most PC games are developed for console and ported from console to PC as consoles sell vastly more copies of said game than PC does. So for the past 8 years or so games were made for the Xbox 360 and ran on a maximum of 3 cores, however the vast majority of the games made in the last 8 years ran on 2 cores. That made the iCore the legend that it is in the gaming community, as Intel computers have very powerful core per core performance. If Intel has a weakness it is only apparent in heavily multi threaded applications where the i3 and even the i5 struggle a bit.

Now we have wholly new console systems that utilize AMD hardware. The PS4 (most powerful of the consoles) has 8 jaguar cores running at a max of only 2.0Ghz. Developers aren't going to able to just write and code as usual as trying to code for 2 or even 3 cores isn't going to cut it. With the weaker cores at low speeds they are going to have to make highly multi threaded games that spread the workload to as many of the cores as is possible.

In practice we already have a game we can look at that is a true prelude into what video games of the future are going to look like. I am referring to Shadow of Mordor. Minimum requirements Intel i5 quad core or AMD Phenom II 965 quad core Recommended Intel i7 quad core (with 8 threads) or AMD 8320 8 core. Notice that i3 isn't even listed, it can't run the game well enough to be recommended. Yet there are still "experts" recommending people to go to i3 systems for gaming... Really, really bad advice for future gaming.

As games become more and more optimized for the new consoles they are going to be more and more multi threaded. In benchmarks that will test the entire CPU, such as Cinebench R15 the FX series fairs much better than in benchmarks that will only test one or two cores that have dominated the benchmark world for a long time now. In the old standard of benchmarking, where one or two cores are tested even an i3 can out benchmark an FX 8370, but that particular horse has been beat to death for far too long. In Cinebench R15 my FX 8370 @ 4.5Ghz scores 712-725 reported scores of i5 4690k @ 4.5Ghz are in the 690-700 range. So an older socket FX-8370 is outperforming the much newer, more expensive "superior" i5 4690K when more than one or two cores is benchmarked.

Given that games are becoming more and more multi threaded, given that in multi threaded benchmarks the FX 8370 can outperform the i5 4690K, at a better price, why do so many "experts" say that the FX line can't game? Paired with my Sapphire R9 290 there isn't a game out there that my FX 8370 can't play at ultra settings, newer games at really nice FPS. These first round games developed for the new consoles aren't even optimized yet either. Shadow of Mordor never uses more than 6 cores on my FX 8370 and never pushes any core past 60% utilization. Once games can utilize 6-8 cores at 80, 90, 100% utilization things like bottlenecking won't be an issue anymore for the FX line. And how will even the i5 4690K with 4 cores and 4 threads fair in a game optimized for 6, 7, 8 cores and 6-8 threads? I'm sure it will still run the game, but it won't be outperforming a processor with 8 cores 8 threads.

Shadow of Mordor is the writting on wall for future gaming. i3 computers won't game much longer, i5 compters are going to be the minimum required and therefore may not be able to get ultra settings anymore, and i7 computers are going to be the new best gaming system, closely followed by FX 8 core systems (until Broadwell 8+ thread and next gen AMD is released late 2015, 2016).

I think its past time that anyone recommends an i3 as a gaming rig. the much vaunted i5 was the gaming rig of the last generation, this generation its going to be CPUs that can handle 8 threads or more, so your looking at i7 being the very best, for now, with AMD FX 8320+ being the next best choice. Notice I'm not an AMD fanboy, I'm saying that the i7 is going to be the best processor for future games, I'm just pointing out that games are becoming more and more multi threaded and i5s are already being listed as the minimum required. We are going to have at least 6 or 7 more years of game development for the 8 core PS4 before its replaced by the next consoles. In that time we are going to see games utilizing 6+ threads to their full potential.

With that said FX 8370 is a better recommendation than any i3, and will more than likely be a better recommendation than i5. Best budget gamers would have to start with FX 6300.
 
Solution
thing is with AMD fx your buying 4 years in the past today .. how much longer can that keep going on ??? face it its a dead platform unless you never had one then you got to think do I want something that's hanging around for 4+ years or go with something that's more to the day like you get with a intel build ??

Hmmm..

From the perspective of experts, Intel chips are better for gaming. However, they may be focusing on pure performance, which the Intel processors excel at.

On the other hand, I believe that the FX chips are the best bang for your buck (if you're a budget gamer and most people are). Generally, the upgrade path is better for Intel since it leads up to an i7, but really gamers won't need the i7 and it's mainly needed for video editing users.
 
thing is with AMD fx your buying 4 years in the past today .. how much longer can that keep going on ??? face it its a dead platform unless you never had one then you got to think do I want something that's hanging around for 4+ years or go with something that's more to the day like you get with a intel build ??

 
Solution
The part i find funny is that the game he used as an example of why people shouldn't recommend the i3 over the FX series souly based on the minimum requirements listed on the box - when in actual game play the i3 outperforms the 8 core FX @4.7Ghz..
 
Really comes down to the benchmarks and what the individual is going to be playing. FX processors do well in some of the later titles that use a lot of threads, but more often then not that single core performance is what makes the i3/i5 processors out perform FX processors in gaming.

With Intel you get the latest in not just CPU architecture and power efficiency but also motherboard features. M.2, Sata Express, etc. Non-overclocking motherboards are quite inexpensive, need a smaller power supply on the average. So some of the cost advantages even out.

When you bring overclocking into the equation the FX8320 and FX8350 can be a decent platform for less money. An overclocking Intel system costs a lot in comparison. But there is the undeniable performance gap.

FX-9000 chips can't even really be considered in the running. Expense on top of expense makes them a poor choice in comparison to Intel platforms. (Power, Motherboard, Cooling)

Until AMD releases a contemporary platform on a new process node, preferably with DDR4, I don't see much advantage in recommending AMD processors.
 
"http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/shadow-of-mordor-pe...

It shows the i3-3220 beating out the FX-9590 in Shadow Of Mordor... granted it is only slightly but none the less, this is the game you used as the example of how the FX is better than the i3."

I find it funny that Tom's of course get an i3 to post at 1080 with Shadow of Mordor. A friend of mine can't even get Shadow of Mordor to run on his system with an i3 4370 (suffers from constant ctd), of course he doesn't have such a pricey video card either. The fact is if an i3 could run Shadow of Mordor smoothly every time its launched at such great benchmarks then the i3 would have been listed as the minimum required processor. But its not, therefore it must not be able to run the game 100% of the time without problem. I would have to say that that graph is just one I can't believe.

http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=9105&canMyCpuRunIt=Middle-earth:%20Shadow%20of%20Mordor

No i3 meets the minimum requirement. Of course I'm sure if needed they could come up with a graph showing an i3 fully operating an air craft carrier while controlling 1,000 battle drones over Mars. I think that some proof of those benchmarks is needed in this case. I know that they made copies of Shadow of Mordor for the last generation consoles ie Xbox 360, but to make that work they had to disable the Nemesis system. It is possible that to chart the i3 they did something along those lines.

If the i3 was really able to run the game that great then it would have been in the developers best interest to list the i3 as the minimum required so they could sell more copies. The reason they listed the i5 is because the i3 must not be able to consistently run it well.
 
well like I said if you never had a top fx build like a 8350 then you maybe ok with that but after that your moving on to intel cause its over from there with amd as far as fx goes and why do the 220w chip for what little gain from that waste ?? intel try's to go lower and is at like 80w that for the most part blows away amd at 125/220w ?? then to get that 220w you will now be board limited cause just a hand full of boards do 220w chips .. i'll say that my AMD fx days for me is what turned me over to intel for my first time in 14 years - that had to of been a joke , a bad joke

 


Why don't you show some benchmarks supporting your claim rather than basing all of this on what one random company printed as the minimum requirements to ONE game. Your book of text might actually have some meaning at that point.
 
To be clear I truly believe that the best builds possible now are i7s. The single core performance of Intel systems can't be overlooked, it is very impressive. However going forward I think it is fool hardy to recommend a dual core processor over an 8 core processor with games being produced for 8 core processors. I know that for the last 8 years (life run of the Xbox 360) single core execution was really the only deciding factor in gaming, however with the new console systems and development for those systems single core execution is going to be less important than multi threading. Shadow of Mordor was used as an example of things to come, as I said they have only started to develope for and not even begun to optimize the software for the new 8 core hardware yet. When they recommend hardware to run the software they have to be sure it is possible to handle it. The producers decided it wasn't safe to list an i3 as the minimum required, there had to be a reason behind this as they would make way more money listing i3 instead of i5.

I can also see for a new build recommending at minimum i5. There is expansion room to i7, and the socket still has a little life in it. AM3+ is done, its not going to have anymore development. However once Broadwell releases will it be on a new socket? Judging by Intel's past it is likely that when Broadwell launches you will need a new motherboard to upgrade to it, Intel is good at that. Therefore if you build a new FX system or a new Haswell system neither one has much upgrade life left in them.

For anyone who already is on a AM3+ platform recommending a switch to i3 over FX 83xx I don't believe is a good recommendation. Upgrading to i5 may be good for awhile, however if games become highly multi threaded and can take advantage of 6 to 8 cores the i5 may be outperformed by "outdated" "lowly" FX 83xx builds. Nothing currently available will outperform i7, it is king. Considering Intel will be releasing Broadwell soon and AMD "should" be releasing their next high end processors in 2016 anyone currently on AM3+ would be better served to do an intermediary upgrade to FX 83xx and then do a new build on either a new Broadwell or new AMD motherboard and CPU. But given the hardware in the PS4 anyone with FX 83xx, i5 (maybe using lower settings if games optimize 6-8 threads), or i7 and mid to high level GPU will be able to video game for the life span of the current PS4 (probably limiting to medium to high settings by the end of the lifespan).
 
Once again all you give is speculation. I do agree that if someone already has an AM3+ motherboard suggesting a switch to an i3 does not make much sense. But for a new system build - if they have a budget over ~$700-$800 i would not recommend an AMD CPU.
 
To be perfectly honest if I were building a totally new system tomorrow I would more than likely opt to wait for Broadwell and the next AMD platform (if it isn't delayed for a long time), see which one is better and upgrade to it. As I said I'm not a fanboy either way, I just don't see "upgrading" to a dual core over an 8 core as a good option. I also question in a few years of development for 8 core consoles if a quad core computer will run the games as well as an 8 core computer. For a brand new build today if you can afford it i7 is awesome. For the budget minded i5s are pricey compared to FX 83xx and their performance gap isn't as great as it use to be, and in heavily multi threaded benchmards and applications doesn't even exist. Bang for your buck FX 83xx are fine processors, but I also don't disagree with building an i5 system either. I don't think i3s should be recommended for new gamer builds or as an upgrade from AM3+.

I may have gotten a little off course with my original intended argument. If someone is upgrading a computer who already has a quality AM3+ motherboard. To those people I think upgrading to FX 83xx, especially the 8370 is a very good option as you really good multi threaded performance and don't have to buy a new motherboard. Upgrading from a good AM3+ board to i5 could be good, down the road with development for new consoles might have buyers remorse. Upgrading from good AM3+ board to i3 is just bad advice. If a person only has i3 or say FX 8320 in their budget for a gaming PC the FX should be the recommended platform.
 
"I think that is pretty much the advice you will see from anyone on this site, I'm curious where you saw someone recommending someone with an AM3+ motherboard to "upgrade" to an i3."

Believe it or not I have seen guys (and gals) recommending upgrading from AM3+ to i3 gamer platforms. That was the reason why I started this thread. I don't really have an objection to someone recommending building a new i5 system, and anyone looking to build a new i7 system well heck why wouldn't you. Even upgrading from AM3+ to i5 at this point in time its better to wait for Broadwell or the next AMD and if you must do an upgrade as I stated the FX 8370 is a fine processor. May build more heat and use an additional $3 a month in power, but in multi threaded applications it is neck and neck with even the i5 4690K, and it will get you through to the release of the next gen processors from Intel and AMD.
 
well some folks don't have unlimited money for a 325$ i7 when the 209$ i5 staring them in the face -- for me it was my first ever intel build after sticking with AMD from my start so its just a see whats what deal and its not hurting me at all with the i5 but I do look back over that next time for sure its a xeon or i7 -cause I done been down the i5 road
 
"Because that 1 Intel core had the power of 3 of those AMD jaguar cores also the consoles can't use all 8 core for the game 2 are system resved for this is and such for a start"

Unfortunately you can't compare core to core in a console vs PC as you can with PC vs PC. The environment in a console is so highly optimized that those weak jaguar cores are actually much more powerful than one might think. They are still at low operating speed though which is why developers will have to optimize the software to run on as many of the cores as they can. By the end run of the consoles they will probably be tapping into the reserve cores as well. The point I was making is that the games are going to be optimized for multi threading, being AMD tech will probably be highly optimized for Mantle, and will take advantage of at least 6 cores. I'm sure with the hardware constraints developers will also find a way to dip into the reserve cores and may have parts of the 7th and 8th cores utilized in gameplay.
 
I will admit with the fx games that had some issues weather slight or heavy [EA] do way better on this intel to the point I thought it was just buggy software with the AMD .. them games now run smooth as slik on this intel - same hd, memory and card pulled from the 990 board ..
i5 4670 from fx 8350

 
"well some folks don't have unlimited money for a 325$ i7 when the 209$ i5 staring them in the face -- for me it was my first ever intel build after sticking with AMD from my start so its just a see whats what deal and its not hurting me at all with the i5 but I do look back over that next time for sure its a xeon or i7 -cause I done been down the i5 road"

Totally agree with you, most of us are on a tight budget. If I had been upgrading from AM3 I probably would have gone the same route you did. I just upgraded my processor I have been on AM3+ for several years now and upgraded from Phenom II 980 to FX 8370, would never even consider the FX 9xxx series as they are just too power hungry and produce way too much heat. I put some of the money I saved by sticking with the same motherboard towards a hopefully future proofed video card Sapphire R9 290, and I plan on gaming on this system through the lifespan of the PS4. When I bought the FX 8370 I paid $150 for it on sale from MicroCenter and I got my Sapphire R9 290 from newegg when they had it available for $260 after rebates and instant code. Point is $150 for FX 8370 was way too good to pass up.

 
"I will admit with the fx games that had some issues weather slight or heavy [EA] do way better on this intel to the point I thought it was just buggy software with the AMD .. them games now run smooth as slik on this intel - same hd, memory and card pulled from the 990 board ..
i5 4670 from fx 8350"

What you were probably experiencing was the FX 8350 bottlenecking your GPU and slowing the game down to the point it felt buggy. Older games, from 2014 and earlier, can not claim to be well optimized multi threading programs. Even a game as new as Shadow of Mordor isn't very well optimized as most of the time I only have 40-50% activity with peaks of 60% on a maximum of 6 cores. Due to games not utilizing the cores to their full potential the processor will bottleneck the GPU, sometimes slightly, sometimes bad enough to cause issues. At least with Shadow of Mordor it is threaded good enough that the bottlenecks are slight and don't cause any issues. My thinking is as games are actually written and optimized for the AMD hardware the software will take full advantage of multi threading and the AMD architecture. That doesn't mean it won't run well on Intel as well, but for the first time the AMD cores will actually see full load use across 6 or more cores and bottlenecks won't happen making the gameplay super fluid.
 
"You can get i5's from Microcenter for $150, I think microcenter sells pretty much all of their CPUs for about $25-$50 cheaper than anywhere else (and in some cases with the i7's $100 cheaper) I got my i7 4770k for $225 from microcenter."

I love MiroCenter!! When I was there I did price i7s, you got a great deal!! Even the i5 4690K was $200 when I was there about a month ago. Keeping my 990FX motherboard and upgrading to FX 8370 for $150 was hard to beat. If I were to go to Intel it would have taken at least the 4690K and then I would have had to buy a good motherboard capable of overclocking. That was why I was so pleased to see in Cinebench that my FX 8370 was as good as the 4690K, and actually edged it out by 25 pts. I only wish that MicroCenter had a better supply of video cards.