If a System is Meant for Workstation Projects Only, Why Not AMD?

[StormBrew]

Lately, it seem across the Tom's Hardware community, that there is a growing distaste for AMD fx-series CPU's, as they offer fewer benefits than they did over Intel's last generation CPU's. I find that argument understandable, as Intel offers better power efficiency, more board features, better upgrade path, ect. There is one question that I have found little answer for:
If a user's needs are solely around workstation work (for example video editing, rendering, animation, 3D modeling, ect.) then why not purchase an AMD based system?

If we're looking at a system designed for the uses I mentioned above, should we not provide users with the best hardware in their budget? It seems that in multiple video rendering benchmarks, the AMD fx-series CPU's range far above the Skylake i5 CPU's that are competitively priced. With an overclock, this margin would increase as well.

The next logical thought that I had was,
"Well i'm sure the last generation Xeon chips could offer similar features and outperform them easily right?"
Well, not as simple as one might think. I based a system off of Xeon components and found two issues.
1. While I was outperforming the FX-series, I was over budget. The components selected put me out of my competitive price range.
2. Similarly priced components offered fewer features, such as no m.2 support, no USB 3.1, or no USB type-C, which are connectivity forms becoming popular among content creators.

This was the system I made based around an AMD CPU and a workstation graphics card:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-8320E 3.2GHz 8-Core Processor ($118.99 @ SuperBiiz)
CPU Cooler: CRYORIG H7 49.0 CFM CPU Cooler ($37.50)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-990FX-Gaming ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($122.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: Team Elite Plus 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($48.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung SM951 128GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($107.59 @ Amazon)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($47.49 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: PNY Quadro K620 2GB Video Card ($159.99 @ Newegg)
Case: DIYPC Silence-BK ATX Mid Tower Case ($54.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: SeaSonic S12II 430W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($52.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $751.51
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-06-15 21:37 EDT-0400

I've created this post more to provide insight to the community, rather than to answer for my own personal gain. I'm simply wondering, is AMD a better option when the only task being performed is for work, rather than gaming?

Thank you so much if you respond, as I appreciate the time it takes to write these posts.

Hope I see you all in the community!

 

[wildfire707]

The biggest problem most people have with AMD systems is their use of the word "core". Modern AMD CPUs classify a core as an integer only CPU core that is grouped together with another integer only core that shares a floating point core. So floating point operations can only be run on half of the "cores" that are present. Also, the dual integer core groups that share a floating point core do not have independent instruction queues or caches, so programs usually need to be specifically compiled and optimized for AMD processors to be able to use both integer cores simultaneously.

 

[StormBrew]

The biggest problem most people have with AMD systems is their use of the word "core". Modern AMD CPUs classify a core as an integer only CPU core that is grouped together with another integer only core that shares a floating point core. So floating point operations can only be run on half of the "cores" that are present. Also, the dual integer core groups that share a floating point core do not have independent instruction queues or caches, so programs usually need to be specifically compiled and optimized for AMD processors to be able to use both integer cores simultaneously.

Sorry for my lack of knowledge, but could you put this into terms a little more understandable? I understand that AMD cores are less optimized for communication between each other, but I lacked the information about integers. Thanks!

 

[dudeman509]

Depends on the application, I think.

For an application that can brute force all cores of a FX-8320 or above @ overclocked speeds, you just *may* come out above a Sandy/Ivy i7. Drop back to a Haswell/Skylake i5, especially a 4460 or 6400, and I think the FX would have the advantage in conversion/productivity applications that heavily utilize all cores.

I use ArcGIS for a lot of work, which is mostly single-threaded workloads due to stupid programming (c'mon, it's 2016). While my work laptop with a 2-core i7 can edge slightly ahead in running one or even two processes at once, working on the FX, I can split the work up into smaller chunks and run 6-8 of them at once, at which point it's usually bottlenecked by I/O.

 

[Tradesman1]

AMD can have a place, it's hard to find it these days...i.e. Wildfire707 above has a 2600K rig, and it woutperform the 8320E rig you list, and would even with an 8350 (and the 2600K rig is even older than the 8350.

Also if building a new rig for 'work', why build on a dead end platform?

I've got a fairly high end AMD rig in the shop (in sig) and about the only thing it really ever gts used for is occasional rendering (and then only if the only thing being done with it is rendering), where my 4770K rigs will often be used for rendering and other things at the same time and still get the render done much faster than the 8370. Rendering has about been the only strong suit of the upper end FX CPUs going clear back to the original BullDozer CPUs

 

[rhysiam]

I hear where you're coming from, but I don't think the benchmarks or numbers make sense for AMD at all. Even if you present them in their best possible light.

Have a look at this range of benchmarks: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1289?vs=1368
That's essentially the best possible way to present an FX CPU. It's a maxed out 9590 verses a low power 4570S (2.9Ghz). So the AMD has (sort of) "double" the cores and almost double the frequency of the Intel. It's not a fair comparison really. But even so, look at the results. The Intel wins more than it loses, and when it wins it often wins big. Ignore the gaming benchmarks, I'm just talking the productivity benchmarks. Why would you choose a CPU that you have to OC to be competitive? Bear in mind that you're unlikely to get to 9590 performance levels with the cooler and motherboard you've selected, and a comparable Intel build would be faster than the 4570S I picked for the benchmarks. At best you'd have a processor that could match the Intel or in the odd case edge slightly ahead, but in many benchmarks it would lose and lose heavily, despite it being OC'd and ~200W.

Then let's talk value: sure if you only compare the CPU cost the FX looks like a bargain, but you need to OC to be competitive. That means aftermarket cooler and more expensive motherboard... forget trying to OC an FX 8xxx processor on a cheap mobo, it won't end well.
So take your build above - which is a perfect example of the hole AMD CPUs are in at the moment. All you need to do is drop to one of the decent $60-$70 H110 or B150 mobos (saves $50ish), and ditch the cooler. (saves $35). Add that to your CPU budget and all of a sudden you've got yourself to an i5 6500 with no extra investment... in fact it's probably actually $10-15 cheaper.

The i5 performs *at worst* similarly to the OC'd FX processor, and is usually faster, sometimes much, much faster. All that at the same budget (once you account for the components required to OC), with far less power and without the hassle and potential stability issues that come from OCing.

I like AMD, I hope Zen does well, I'm excited about the RX 480, but their CPUs at the moment are extremely difficult to make a case for, even when cast in their best possible light.

 

[StormBrew]

AMD can have a place, it's hard to find it these days...i.e. Wildfire707 above has a 2600K rig, and it woutperform the 8320E rig you list, and would even with an 8350 (and the 2600K rig is even older than the 8350.

Also if building a new rig for 'work', why build on a dead end platform?

I've got a fairly high end AMD rig in the shop (in sig) and about the only thing it really ever gts used for is occasional rendering (and then only if the only thing being done with it is rendering), where my 4770K rigs will often be used for rendering and other things at the same time and still get the render done much faster than the 8370. Rendering has about been the only strong suit of the upper end FX CPUs going clear back to the original BullDozer CPUs

So I guess the overall market for FX series CPU's is if you are under extreme budget constraints for CPU's, but even then, you can make a Xeon system more powerful for $50 more.
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Xeon E3-1231 V3 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($239.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: Asus Z97-E/USB3.1 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($87.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: Team Elite Plus 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($48.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung SM951 128GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($107.59 @ Amazon)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($47.49 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: PNY Quadro K620 2GB Video Card ($159.99 @ Newegg)
Case: DIYPC Silence-BK ATX Mid Tower Case ($54.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: SeaSonic S12II 430W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($52.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $800.01
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-06-15 22:33 EDT-0400

Well, this makes me regret purchasing a 8350 system two years back .

Thanks for the answer, I appreciate the help, as i'm trying to further my knowledge on each processors place within the market.

 

[StormBrew]

I hear where you're coming from, but I don't think the benchmarks or numbers make sense for AMD at all. Even if you present them in their best possible light.

Have a look at this range of benchmarks: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1289?vs=1368
That's essentially the best possible way to present an FX CPU. It's a maxed out 9590 verses a low power 4570S (2.9Ghz). So the AMD has (sort of) "double" the cores and almost double the frequency of the Intel. It's not a fair comparison really. But even so, look at the results. The Intel wins more than it loses, and when it wins it often wins big. Ignore the gaming benchmarks, I'm just talking the productivity benchmarks. Why would you choose a CPU that you have to OC to be competitive? Bear in mind that you're unlikely to get to 9590 performance levels with the cooler and motherboard you've selected, and a comparable Intel build would be faster than the 4570S I picked for the benchmarks. At best you'd have a processor that could match the Intel or in the odd case edge slightly ahead, but in many benchmarks it would lose and lose heavily, despite it being OC'd and ~200W.

Then let's talk value: sure if you only compare the CPU cost the FX looks like a bargain, but you need to OC to be competitive. That means aftermarket cooler and more expensive motherboard... forget trying to OC an FX 8xxx processor on a cheap mobo, it won't end well.
So take your build above - which is a perfect example of the hole AMD CPUs are in at the moment. All you need to do is drop to one of the decent $60-$70 H110 or B150 mobos (saves $50ish), and ditch the cooler. (saves $35). Add that to your CPU budget and all of a sudden you've got yourself to an i5 6500 with no extra investment... in fact it's probably actually $10-15 cheaper.

The i5 performs *at worst* similarly to the OC'd FX processor, and is usually faster, sometimes much, much faster. All that at the same budget (once you account for the components required to OC), with far less power and without the hassle and potential stability issues that come from OCing.

I like AMD, I hope Zen does well, I'm excited about the RX 480, but their CPUs at the moment are extremely difficult to make a case for, even when cast in their best possible light.

I totally understand that viewpoint, and I also am a large advocate of AMD and their products, but as of late it seem they're digging their own grave.

 

[Mark RM]

We all have choices to make, I work heavily with virtualization for the not for profit /charitable space. An 8230 or 8350 offers a significant price/performance advantage over an i3 that's priced in the same area. As OP says, the workload is everything.

For gaming, I pick i5's for the kids -hands down, why even bother with anything else. My workstation though is a loaded quad module AMD where I roll up and deploy VM's. The features and functions I get for a low cost are really superior overall to a similarly priced Intel platform and I've been able to sneak the saved spend into high performance storage - which is my biggest bottleneck with my work.

I'm not saying I get a better performing CPU, I just know I get more of a PLATFORM overall for my money for what I do.

The issue AMD has today is that when my workload is moved to the enterprise and cooling and power are factored in, a xeon is by far the superior spend. The minor savings from acquisition mean nothing in the enterprise. For me however, it's a good savings and the areas I spend those savings (storage mainly) can be migrated to a system from any vendor come upgrade time.

 

[Supermuncher85]

Anyone who is making money off of rendering, is going to spend money to make money, and sorry to say AMD is not it. As good as the $700 price tag looks, if you can do 4x the jobs going with Intel, any smart person will go with Intel.