Is AMD FX Still Viable For a System Build? Rev. 2.0

[Redneck5439]

Or even better for someone who needs 8 cores

Right there is the crux of this thing.

I need to see one single benchmark where 8 cores vs all the other ingredients that determines a processor's performance is the crucial determinant of performance.

It is the one single fable that keeps "high-end" AMD processors on the table - the mistaken belief that "cores" are crucial to some mythical performance advantage.

Again, there is MORE TO COMPUTING THAN JUST VIDEO GAMING. People look at a processor and only think of the "gaming capabilities" of the CPU, not the heavily multi-threaded applications that a lot of people do with their computers. If you are running a ton of internet pages, have several spread sheets open, are word processing and video editing at the same time you need high core count and high core speed. You want one benchmark- look at i5 vs FX 8 core in Cinebench R15 where the full CPU is tested. If you are doing intense multi tasking on your computer high core count and high speed become important. Yes, i7s can do it better, but some cant afford i7s which is where the AMD 8 core processors are really a great value.

 

[Karsten75]

Or even better for someone who needs 8 cores

Right there is the crux of this thing.

I need to see one single benchmark where 8 cores vs all the other ingredients that determines a processor's performance is the crucial determinant of performance.

It is the one single fable that keeps "high-end" AMD processors on the table - the mistaken belief that "cores" are crucial to some mythical performance advantage.

Again, there is MORE TO COMPUTING THAN JUST VIDEO GAMING. People look at a processor and only think of the "gaming capabilities" of the CPU, not the heavily multi-threaded applications that a lot of people do with their computers. If you are running a ton of internet pages, have several spread sheets open, are word processing and video editing at the same time you need high core count and high core speed. You want one benchmark- look at i5 vs FX 8 core in Cinebench R15 where the full CPU is tested. If you are doing intense multi tasking on your computer high core count and high speed become important. Yes, i7s can do it better, but some cant afford i7s which is where the AMD 8 core processors are really a great value.

Point me to where I mentioned the word "game". I didn't say gaming anywhere. Gaming was the furthest thing from my mind. And if you have a benchmark, link it. Not a YouTube video, a benchmark.

Edit: Fixed typo.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

Just running 4 dual core programs can fully utilize 8 cores efficiently.

 

[Karsten75]

Just running 4 dual core programs can fully utilize 8 cores efficiently.

I'm not even going to pretend to understand that. What exactly is a "dual-core program"? Can you name an example?



Even supposing there were such beasts as "dual-core programs", we're not arguing whether they can utilize x number of cores efficiently - we're arguing about the native performance of said cores.

8 crappy cores are no match for 4 efficient cores. The utilization of both may be 100% but that still has no bearing on efficiency.

Efficiency has to be measured in some way, for instance:

- usage of power. Using less power to perform the same task is more efficient.
- good design. Completing a given task in less time is more efficient.

Just driving a core to 100% is NOT efficient.

 

[logainofhades]

FX 8370, decent cooling, and decent board, are not going to save you much, vs a 1231v3 and an h97 board, really. This several hundred you speak of isn't accurate.

If not going for big overclocks, then this would be minimum I would want for an FX rig, with single GPU. If you want to actually do some real overclocking, better cooling, and possibly a better board would be necessary.
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-8370 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($190.95 @ SuperBiiz)
CPU Cooler: CRYORIG H7 49.0 CFM CPU Cooler ($34.50 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($71.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $297.43
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-02-05 15:08 EST-0500

vs

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Xeon E3-1231 V3 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($244.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: ASRock H97 PRO4 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($83.89 @ OutletPC)
Total: $328.88
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-02-05 15:09 EST-0500


No need for expensive cooling, and the power savings would pay for itself. My FX 8320 was always quite the space heater. Kinda helpful in the winter. The summer months, it was expensive to keep things cool.

Who would actually pay that much for an FX 8370? A few quick web shopping searches and:
http://www.microcenter.com/search/search_results.aspx?Ntt=FX+8370

Or even better for someone who needs 8 cores but doesn't have the budget for performance motherboard and cooling:
http://www.microcenter.com/product/437623/FX_8370E_33GHz_AM3_Black_Edition_Boxed_Processor

The FX 8370E is 95W and is a full $100 cheaper than the Xeon. At 95W it won't require aftermarket cooling unless you overclock it, and will overclock even on a mid grade Motherboard. For heavily multi-threaded tasks the FX 8 core processors are still your best bang for the dollar. Better multi tasking capabilities than an i5, very competitive with some i7s and at a price point cheaper than most i5s.

Microcenter prices are in store only, and not everyone is lucky to have one nearby. FX 8370 is 95w, but it is slower than an FX 8320, at its base clock speed.

 

[Redneck5439]

Or even better for someone who needs 8 cores

Right there is the crux of this thing.

I need to see one single benchmark where 8 cores vs all the other ingredients that determines a processor's performance is the crucial determinant of performance.

It is the one single fable that keeps "high-end" AMD processors on the table - the mistaken belief that "cores" are crucial to some mythical performance advantage.

Again, there is MORE TO COMPUTING THAN JUST VIDEO GAMING. People look at a processor and only think of the "gaming capabilities" of the CPU, not the heavily multi-threaded applications that a lot of people do with their computers. If you are running a ton of internet pages, have several spread sheets open, are word processing and video editing at the same time you need high core count and high core speed. You want one benchmark- look at i5 vs FX 8 core in Cinebench R15 where the full CPU is tested. If you are doing intense multi tasking on your computer high core count and high speed become important. Yes, i7s can do it better, but some cant afford i7s which is where the AMD 8 core processors are really a great value.

Point me to where I mentioned the word "game". I didn't say gaming anywhere. Gaming was the furthest thing from my mind. And if you have a benchmark, link it. Not a YouTube video, a benchmark.

Edit: Fixed typo.

I assumed gaming because gaming and other heavily single threaded applications are the only place where the i5 can best the FX 8 core processors. I'm linking a page where extremely high overclocks as well as stock clocks have been benchmarked on Cinebench R15. As you can clearly see with the exception of one outlier (both of aerotracks processors that seem to both be golden processors performing well above everyone elses) the i5 processors are beaten in Cinebench R15 when the full CPU is tested. Yes they have better IPC, but when you run heavily multi-threaded applications and do a lot of multi-tasking the 8 less powerful cores of the FX still outperform 4 more powerful i5 cores. There are some areas and some users who will still get better performance from an FX 8 core processor than an i5 Intel.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1431032/top-cinebench-r15-cpu-scores

 

[Redneck5439]

FX 8370, decent cooling, and decent board, are not going to save you much, vs a 1231v3 and an h97 board, really. This several hundred you speak of isn't accurate.

If not going for big overclocks, then this would be minimum I would want for an FX rig, with single GPU. If you want to actually do some real overclocking, better cooling, and possibly a better board would be necessary.
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-8370 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($190.95 @ SuperBiiz)
CPU Cooler: CRYORIG H7 49.0 CFM CPU Cooler ($34.50 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($71.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $297.43
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-02-05 15:08 EST-0500

vs

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Xeon E3-1231 V3 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($244.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: ASRock H97 PRO4 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($83.89 @ OutletPC)
Total: $328.88
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-02-05 15:09 EST-0500


No need for expensive cooling, and the power savings would pay for itself. My FX 8320 was always quite the space heater. Kinda helpful in the winter. The summer months, it was expensive to keep things cool.

Who would actually pay that much for an FX 8370? A few quick web shopping searches and:
http://www.microcenter.com/search/search_results.aspx?Ntt=FX+8370

Or even better for someone who needs 8 cores but doesn't have the budget for performance motherboard and cooling:
http://www.microcenter.com/product/437623/FX_8370E_33GHz_AM3_Black_Edition_Boxed_Processor

The FX 8370E is 95W and is a full $100 cheaper than the Xeon. At 95W it won't require aftermarket cooling unless you overclock it, and will overclock even on a mid grade Motherboard. For heavily multi-threaded tasks the FX 8 core processors are still your best bang for the dollar. Better multi tasking capabilities than an i5, very competitive with some i7s and at a price point cheaper than most i5s.

Microcenter prices are in store only, and not everyone is lucky to have one nearby. FX 8370 is 95w, but it is slower than an FX 8320, at its base clock speed.

I tend to forget that even though MicroCenter has a "web store" it always states the purchase is in store only. I have to travel over 100mi to get to the nearest MicroCenter, but its totally worth it (just have to wait to have a big enough list to warrant the diesel expended to get there).

The FX 8370E may be stock clocked lower than the FX 8320, but like the FX 8370 it has AMD's best binning. If you look at sites where they have overclocked the FX 8370E (overclock.net not just a random site with a yahoo who doesn't know how to overclock it right), or like me have ever worked with one, you quickly realize how easy it is to overclock at very low Vcore. It can easily be overclocked past the FX 8320 on a stock cooler. With good cooling it can equal the FX 8370, and hit 5Ghz most of the time. With a mid range board and stock cooler you can easily hit the stock clocks of the FX 8320, more than likely without even bumping the Vcore. What people fail to realize is the high end processors in the refresh (FX 8370E, FX 8370) got performance tweaks and have the advantage of having the very best binning AMD has, this leads to better overclocks at lower Vcore, less power, less heat than older FX processors. For heavily multi-threaded applications it is a very good performer, especially if you do a mild overclock on it (ie up to 4Ghz which would be loud on a stock cooler, but doable).

 

[Benjiwenji]

Have y'all not heard of the new wraith cooler shipped with the 8370? You no longer need to buy after market cooler for it.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-wraith-cpu-cooler,4450.html

 

[Karsten75]

I assumed gaming because gaming and other heavily single threaded applications are the only place where the i5 can best the FX 8 core processors. I'm linking a page where extremely high overclocks as well as stock clocks have been benchmarked on Cinebench R15. As you can clearly see with the exception of one outlier (both of aerotracks processors that seem to both be golden processors performing well above everyone elses) the i5 processors are beaten in Cinebench R15 when the full CPU is tested. Yes they have better IPC, but when you run heavily multi-threaded applications and do a lot of multi-tasking the 8 less powerful cores of the FX still outperform 4 more powerful i5 cores. There are some areas and some users who will still get better performance from an FX 8 core processor than an i5 Intel.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1431032/top-cinebench-r15-cpu-scores

I'm still trying to dig through the linked benchmarks to come up with what I'd consider to be a fair shake for the AMD processors (right now it mostly seems as if the Intel processors are on top, but that's because there are many models of Intel that are 8-10 and more- core on that chart).

In the meantime, be a gentleman and help out this poor soul: FPS Drops during Gaming (180 down to 40 FPS): FX8350
TAGS: Gaming Games

 

[GhislainG]

You have already been told that the motherboard's VRM throttles the CPU. An AMD FX-8350 requires a quality motherboard with an 8+2 phase VRM to prevent throttling. See my reply for a temporary solution until you replace the motherboard.

 

[gravesmeister]

I love that people are so down on the AMD FX series. I run a FX 8350 with an R9 290X. I can run every high end game on Ultra settings.

 

[GhislainG]

I love that people are so down on the AMD FX series. I run a FX 8350 with an R9 290X. I can run every high end game on Ultra settings.

They are fine when paired with a quality motherboard; unfortunately too many people buy an inexpensive motherboard because they wrongly believe that an AMD build should be cheap. There's a difference between supporting a CPU and being able to make it run at full speed for hours. You obviously are not using a $50 motherboard; otherwise you'd experience throttling and FPS drops.

 

[gravesmeister]

I love that people are so down on the AMD FX series. I run a FX 8350 with an R9 290X. I can run every high end game on Ultra settings.

They are fine when paired with a quality motherboard; unfortunately too many people buy an inexpensive motherboard because they wrongly believe that an AMD build should be cheap. There's a difference between supporting a CPU and being able to make it run at full speed for hours. You obviously are not using a $50 motherboard; otherwise you'd experience throttling and FPS drops.

Yeah but isn't that true for any CPU? I'm not sure how Intel works but the better the chipset on the mobo the better your overall build runs. I know AMD has several different chipsets that definitely can make or brake your performance. And yes I bought the best rated mobo at the time which was the ASROCK 990 fatality. Rock solid performance with everything I do.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

The motherboard itself does nothing to actual performance (benchmarks are so similar it's not worth comparing) but better motherboards have better VRMs for overclocking, which allows the CPU to improve performance. It's not the motherboard that increases performance, it's the capabilities the motherboard gives the other components.

 

[Karadjgne]

Exactly, sort of. My Asus p8z77-v le shares pcie between x16-2 and x1-1, and as x1-1 is currently in use, if I ever tried to sli, I'd find that the pcie would go from x16/x4 to x16/x2 or if I wanted to use the full x16/x4 I have to disable the x1-1 in bios. My msi z77 mpower has no such restrictions and will run x8/x8 with x1-1 fully supported. This does affect performance greatly.

As far as benchmarks go, there is a difference in high end boards and low end, but not something visible to the user. It only applies to how well the board actually works, and not just for OC and stability. Stock cpus are supposed to be guaranteed stable on any supported board, and this means you aren't going to slap a 125w fx in a 760G chipset. Physically it'll fit, realistically it won't boot, and even hacking the bios won't work as the power phases and other components simply won't accept a cpu of that wattage. There are even boards that with a bios update will handle a stock 8320 at most, mostly 760G and some 970, but will not handle an 8350 or better because components aren't rated for the stock 8350 speeds, and of course the 9 or so 990fx boards that are the only boards rated to handle the 9 series cpus.

So in a sense, you are right, but performance is based solely on ability of the board, be it VRM's, power phases, heatsinks or chipsets.

 

[gravesmeister]

The motherboard itself does nothing to actual performance (benchmarks are so similar it's not worth comparing) but better motherboards have better VRMs for overclocking, which allows the CPU to improve performance. It's not the motherboard that increases performance, it's the capabilities the motherboard gives the other components.

I know exactly what a motherboard does and does not do. The chipset determines what you get out of a motherboard. Don't waste your breath educating someone that does not need to be educated.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

The motherboard itself does nothing to actual performance (benchmarks are so similar it's not worth comparing) but better motherboards have better VRMs for overclocking, which allows the CPU to improve performance. It's not the motherboard that increases performance, it's the capabilities the motherboard gives the other components.

I know exactly what a motherboard does and does not do. The chipset determines what you get out of a motherboard. Don't waste your breath educating someone that does not need to be educated.

You asked for education 3 posts above. And saying "what you get out of a motherboard" is such a generalized statement.

 

[Saga Lout]

Don't let this degenerate into an argument. Asking a question such as "Yeah but isn't that true for any CPU?" is inviting an answer which could turn out to be educational, gravesmeister.

 

[gravesmeister]

The motherboard itself does nothing to actual performance (benchmarks are so similar it's not worth comparing) but better motherboards have better VRMs for overclocking, which allows the CPU to improve performance. It's not the motherboard that increases performance, it's the capabilities the motherboard gives the other components.

I know exactly what a motherboard does and does not do. The chipset determines what you get out of a motherboard. Don't waste your breath educating someone that does not need to be educated.

You asked for education 3 posts above. And saying "what you get out of a motherboard" is such a generalized statement.

I never asked for an education on motherboards. Why would I do that when I've been working with motherboards since 1999?

 

[GhislainG]

gravesmeister you wrote "I love that people are so down on the AMD FX series. I run a FX 8350 with an R9 290X. I can run every high end game on Ultra settings.", but you failed to mention that the main reason why it works well is that you didn't buy the lest expensive motherboard that you could find. Some people may read your reply and then buy the same CPU and GPU along with a $50-60 motherboard and then wonder why they experience FPS drops. Way too many people run into that issue simply because an AMD build is supposed to be cheaper than Intel, but you obviously were knowledgeable enough not to make that mistake. I don't think other members are trying to educate you, but the main goal is to prevent the uninformed reader from making a very common mistake.

 

[Benjiwenji]

The problem is that you have mistaken the concept of 'a quality motherboard' with the idea of 'an expensive motherboard.'

Yes, the Fx 8xxx series requires quality motherboard, however, the idea that it must be costly to purchase a motherboard that can handle the Fx 8xxx CPUs is misleading.

Example,

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-8370 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($190.95 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($61.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $252.93
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-02-07 09:41 EST-0500

$252.93 USD, for example, is a very reasonable price for performance you get. In fact, that costs less than the high end i5s.

 

[GhislainG]

Benjiwenji I presume that you were not replying tome since I recommend the GA-970A-UD3P or the MSI 970 Gaming for an FX-83x0 CPU. However they both cost more than $50.

 

[Benjiwenji]

My apologies in my wording. I meant in general people have mistaken the two ideas. I was simply addressing some of the criticisms on the high costs on mobo for the Fx CPUs.

Nonetheless, I think that no one shall criticize the performance-to-dollar ratio of the $252.93 Fx 8370 combo above.

Update: Mind that $61 isn't far off of $50. Furthermore, even for Intel systems, I wouldn't recommend sub $50 mobo. What you have pointed out previously is the gullibility of uninformed users, those who buys sub par quality parts, rather than actually addressing the performance of the CPU when used properly, which doesn't necessarily have to be costly.

 

[lodders]

I agree with GhislainG the problem with AMD is that they require an expensive motherboard to run a powerful CPU, whereas Intel do not.
e.g. I have a basic motherboard happily running a haswell i5 at above 4GHz (see signature)
According to this review, low cost Gigabyte and Asrock H81 mobo were able to run an i7 at 100% load for 10 mins without VRM overheating....
http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/5949/9/intel-h81-chipset-motherboards-test-8-budget-motherboards-put-to-the-test-vrm-test
(And for those of you thinking that 10 mins is not very long... if a small electronic component has not overheated after 10 mins on full power, it is not going to overheat unless the ambient temperature goes up)

 

[gravesmeister]

gravesmeister you wrote "I love that people are so down on the AMD FX series. I run a FX 8350 with an R9 290X. I can run every high end game on Ultra settings.", but you failed to mention that the main reason why it works well is that you didn't buy the lest expensive motherboard that you could find. Some people may read your reply and then buy the same CPU and GPU along with a $50-60 motherboard and then wonder why they experience FPS drops. Way too many people run into that issue simply because an AMD build is supposed to be cheaper than Intel, but you obviously were knowledgeable enough not to make that mistake. I don't think other members are trying to educate you, but the main goal is to prevent the uninformed reader from making a very common mistake.

Good point. I hadn't thought of that. I just wish more people would realize that Intel and AMD are both good. They have their good and bad points. I see enough people hating on both companies and I think it's ridiculous to hate on a company that makes good products.