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

[Benjiwenji]

Lodders,

So $62 USD is too expensive for a motherboard? I think that's a bit unreasonable.

You did exactly what I said in my previous comments, reference them if you'd like. You mistake AMD's requirement for a quality motherboard with the notion that AMD needs a costly motherboard. Where quality doesn't necessarily entail costly as shown in the GA970A-UD3P's case.

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

 

[Karadjgne]

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-2384024/motherboard-tier-list-970-chipset.html

A good read. There's also a listing of other 990, 990fx boards too, but the Gigabyte 970A ud3p is ranked as tier1, top quality non sli board, which unless you plan on nvidia cards, doesn't mean much.

For sli capability I'd recommend the MSI 970 gaming to open up optins

 

[Karsten75]

(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)

10 minutes really aren't long enough to stress a system.

 

[lodders]

10 minutes are long enough to find out if the VRM on the motherboard are going to overheat..... Assuming that you have adequate case fans that is

 

[Karsten75]

Guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. Heat in the case and components spread rather slowly. Sure. point heat may be instant. Which is why we can't run a processor without a heatsink (see other, ongoing conversations about that). My point is tht the heat of a component will spread out - slowly away from that component into the motherboard, etc.


Just last week I was going a stress-test on a high-end Intel i7-5820K. Temperatures in the cooling system did not stabilize until 40 minutes into the run.

 

[lodders]

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.

gravesmeister, here is a thread in which an OP has an 18month old PC with an 8350 which he wants to upgrade because he has poor FPS. Everybody is saying he should go Intel. Since you can run any game on Ultra, maybe you can help him...
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-2965201/upgrading-month-gaming-rig.html#17462552

 

[Karsten75]

Now this is interesting. ExtremeTech reports on RAM studies done by Digital Foundry and Techspot. Turns out faster RAM does have more of an impact on game performance that one might assume, but there is this interesting caveat in the ET article:

TechSpot has more on this, and their data shows that Intel chips gain more than AMD does from faster DDR3. This actually makes sense — the FX-8350’s L3 and integrated memory controller are clocked at 2.2GHz, and the FX-8350 has other latency issues that will blunt the impact of faster RAM.

 

[Benjiwenji]

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-2384024/motherboard-tier-list-970-chipset.html

A good read. There's also a listing of other 990, 990fx boards too, but the Gigabyte 970A ud3p is ranked as tier1, top quality non sli board, which unless you plan on nvidia cards, doesn't mean much.

For sli capability I'd recommend the MSI 970 gaming to open up optins

Thanks! I am also familiar with that tier list as it is a good reference for anyone looking for a quality board. I own both the UD3P and the M5A97 (non Evo/Le), I would recommend the MSI Gaming and the other two that I mention as the top 970 boards.

An overclocked Fx CPU, quality 970 mobo/PSU, and a single solid GPU (390x) will go a long way for a sub $1000 USD system with a balanced multi-threaded and gaming performance.

Personally, I wouldn't get the 990/fx boards as the biggest advantage being SLI, which is overkill for the Fx series systems.

 

[Redneck5439]

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-2384024/motherboard-tier-list-970-chipset.html

A good read. There's also a listing of other 990, 990fx boards too, but the Gigabyte 970A ud3p is ranked as tier1, top quality non sli board, which unless you plan on nvidia cards, doesn't mean much.

For sli capability I'd recommend the MSI 970 gaming to open up optins

Thanks! I am also familiar with that tier list as it is a good reference for anyone looking for a quality board. I own both the UD3P and the M5A97 (non Evo/Le), I would recommend the MSI Gaming and the other two that I mention as the top 970 boards.

An overclocked Fx CPU, quality 970 mobo/PSU, and a single solid GPU (390x) will go a long way for a sub $1000 USD system with a balanced multi-threaded and gaming performance.

Personally, I wouldn't get the 990/fx boards as the biggest advantage being SLI, which is overkill for the Fx series systems.

Very nice motherboards. I've used a few in different builds and the only "limitation" I have found with the new tier 1 970 boards is you can get higher overclocks (depending on the processor) with a board like the Sabertooth 990FX or Formula V. Of course that also depends on how much of an overclock you can actually get out of the given processor. For "bang for your buck" the new tier one 970 boards can't be beat for FX processors. One of those boards with a FX 8370E processor would make for a very cost effective multi use system. You can easily game the newest AAA titles on Ultra settings (with good GPU) and you can also multi task the heck out it. That is where a system like FX 8370E and tier 1 970 board will really shine vs Intel's offerings. You can get 4.7 - 5Ghz out of the FX 8370E and 970 board and come in far under the cost of an i7 system while having better multi taking performance than an i5 system (while more than likely coming in under the cost of one).

If you are a user like me who has to have several spread sheets going, have a couple windows of MS Word, have a video editor running and have 20-30 windows of Edge and Firefox running all at the same time the FX 8370 is really a great system to have. An i7 would of course be better, but for cost vs performance for heavily multi-threaded applications the FX 8370 can't be beat. As an added bonus it can also handle all the latest games on all Ultra settings @ 1080p.

For some users the FX processors are still a very good option.

 

[Redneck5439]

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.

gravesmeister, here is a thread in which an OP has an 18month old PC with an 8350 which he wants to upgrade because he has poor FPS. Everybody is saying he should go Intel. Since you can run any game on Ultra, maybe you can help him...
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-2965201/upgrading-month-gaming-rig.html#17462552

So many replies and not once did someone ask the poor OP what his bios setting were or the fact that he is running RAM un-optimized for a FX build. All any of the "experts" can do is what they always do when they see someone is running an AMD system - tell him to sink a bunch of money into upgrading to Intel, and that is supposed to be "expert" advice?? Don't try to help him with what he currently has just tell him to spend a bunch of money on an Intel build

I have posted on that thread and hopefully if the OP is still following it and can get his rig set right in bios, get a nice stable overclock and get him gaming 1080p @ 60FPS like his system is capable of. Amazing how many fanboys could only post to switch to Intel instead of actually trying to help

 

[Karadjgne]

If you Google on how to OC, you'll get 1000 answers on how to OC the various Intel generations, and 3 mediocre answers on how to OC amd. It's not that the fanboys don't want to help, its that there are so few who can actually do something with an AMD system and not only does each motherboard OC differently, but each series does too. Big difference in setting jumpers on the mobo and tweaking bios to bumping the multiplier. Intel made it all to easy to add a 1GHz OC, you gotta work to get that outta amd.

 

[Redneck5439]

If you Google on how to OC, you'll get 1000 answers on how to OC the various Intel generations, and 3 mediocre answers on how to OC amd. It's not that the fanboys don't want to help, its that there are so few who can actually do something with an AMD system and not only does each motherboard OC differently, but each series does too. Big difference in setting jumpers on the mobo and tweaking bios to bumping the multiplier. Intel made it all to easy to add a 1GHz OC, you gotta work to get that outta amd.

So basically what you are saying is the "experts" that posted on that thread don't know how to work with AMD, don't know how to tell him to look up an overclock guide (which there are many for FX), in fact there is one that is just for Asus boards and the FX 8350 that I posted on that thread, and basically don't know how to help. And rather than admit their lack of knowledge they just advise an expensive upgrade to Intel to someone who has a top of the line motherboard and FX 8350 and is only looking to be able to game 1080p, ultra settings with 60 FPS? Here's an idea maybe they should have told him he should try to overclock and link some pages to people who actually have the processor, work with the processors all the time and know what they are doing. But that would mean they have to admit that they don't know how to help him other than the old cop out "upgrade to Intel". And that in a nutshell is the biggest problem with Intel fanboy "experts" and why AMD gets a much worse rap than they deserve.

"It's not that the fanboys don't want to help, its that there are so few who can actually do something with an AMD system and not only does each motherboard OC differently, but each series does too." They don't know how to help so their only advise is to upgrade to Intel.... Maybe they should just admit they don't know how to help the OP, post nothing at all and wait for someone who knows what they are doing to try to answer the question. Its like someone saying my Ford needs an oil change what should I do and an "expert" who has no idea how to do an oil change recommends buying a new Chevy.

 

[Saga Lout]

Without wishing to stir up yet another argument in this thread but some folks regard the word "fanboy" as a bit of an insult.

Intel minded folk tend not to need a title because the company and it products stand up to a reputation. AMD does the same (I use their products quite a lot) but being the smaller company, have the support of people who naturally back the underdog. They get the title "fanboy" which is not really deserved and should be used a little less.

 

[Karadjgne]

I've had a couple of amd pc's, both Athlon ii 3200+ on Compaq mobo's so OC wasn't much of an option. But, they did the job I needed at the time, so all was good.

My i5-3570K, 5 minutes and done. Bios moved multiplier to 43, Windows shut down c-states past c-3. Done. So easy a trained monkey coulda done it. Perfectly stable, stepped, 1.208v on auto, temps rarely get passed 55 at full load, 35 at idle. 900MHz OC very easy. With Amd, ya gotta watch the FSB, ram settings, chipset voltages, all kinds of crap, and thats if you can translate 1/2 of what ppl call each setting, there's no standard naming, not even for vcore. So even that Asus tutorial, good as it is, is next to useless for msi or Gigabyte users, other than the General idea.

Don't get me wrong, amd, especially the fx Cpus, OC like a champ, thrive in it, and don't really get close to their potential unless pushing speed limits. It's just a shame that there are not many who invest the time to do it right, and then post more tutorials on their experience.

 

[Redneck5439]

I've had a couple of amd pc's, both Athlon ii 3200+ on Compaq mobo's so OC wasn't much of an option. But, they did the job I needed at the time, so all was good.

My i5-3570K, 5 minutes and done. Bios moved multiplier to 43, Windows shut down c-states past c-3. Done. So easy a trained monkey coulda done it. Perfectly stable, stepped, 1.208v on auto, temps rarely get passed 55 at full load, 35 at idle. 900MHz OC very easy. With Amd, ya gotta watch the FSB, ram settings, chipset voltages, all kinds of crap, and thats if you can translate 1/2 of what ppl call each setting, there's no standard naming, not even for vcore. So even that Asus tutorial, good as it is, is next to useless for msi or Gigabyte users, other than the General idea.

Don't get me wrong, amd, especially the fx Cpus, OC like a champ, thrive in it, and don't really get close to their potential unless pushing speed limits. It's just a shame that there are not many who invest the time to do it right, and then post more tutorials on their experience.

Didn't mean to come across as harsh as I did last night, was late and I just have read so many threads of "experts" who don't know anything more than Intel benchmarks higher than AMD in IPC so Intel has to be better for every situation and I'm an expert for just telling everyone to get Intel even though I don't really know anything about the processors past the dude from 3rd Rock says Intel's good. There are so many "experts" posting that will tell you an i5 will multitask and run heavily multi-threaded applications better than an 8 core FX, proving their extreme lack of knowledge and blind following of Intel has to be better. I will be the first to admit that Intel processors run DX 11 games better than FX processors, however FX processors are still very capable of gaming which is something that is very hard for most Intel guys to admit, acting like a difference of less than 10FPS is going to be absolutely earth shattering.

Yes Intel made their overclocking idiot proof, took all the fun out of it, and you actually have to know a little more to get a good overclock out of an AMD system. Overclocking an FX isn't quite a bad as overclocking the old Athlon or Phenom processors, but it still requires knowledge if you want to get the best overclock and use both fsb and multiplier together to achieve your overclock (which produces the best results). I read everything posted I could find from real experts like Flanker (Flank3rCZ), the Stilt and others to learn how to overclock an FX system properly. These Intel-fan guys read nothing, research nothing and just go on the old reliable "if its AMD it sucks, if its Intel its great". Going on thread after thread calling yourself an expert and offering no help to someone having trouble stabilizing their FX rig other than "it sucks", "time to upgrade", "its a dead socket" (Update for a lot of people - if your not on Skylake your on "dead" socket), "Intel's way better", ect, ect is not offering help to someone trying to get the performance out of their system that others with the same processor have. Offering such "help" only proves an extreme lack of knowledge, anyone can spam on every thread "just switch to Intel" and call themselves an expert.

In the case of the above thread, that I got annoyed with, the OP has an FX 8350, Sabertooth 990FX R2.0, quality RAM, and a good budget aftermarket cooler. He has performance issues that you really shouldn't be having at stock, is running his ram at the wrong frequency (and more than likely the wrong latency), and needs to do a "mild" overclock to ~4.5Ghz to increase his in game performance. Rather than offer him any of that advice everyone there could only tell him he has to scrap that system, invest a large amount of money and upgrade to Intel. Its a perfect example of Intel "experts" not knowing how to resolve the issue but it must be AMD sucks and obviously its time to go to Intel, nothing else will help....

 

[Karadjgne]

I'm not a fanboy of either amd or Intel, I just have a tendency to root for the underdog. Yeah, I lost $10 on the SuperBowl.

 

[Saga Lout]

I empathise - I frequently go for the underhorse as well. 😀

 

[Redneck5439]

I'm not a fanboy of either amd or Intel, I just have a tendency to root for the underdog. Yeah, I lost $10 on the SuperBowl.

Ahh, the SuperBowl... not really fond memories of that, lost more than $10... what the wife doesn't know won't hurt her, but when she finds out will probably hurt me lots..:lol:

 

[Horrace]

You know I used to love everything Intel, then when my chosen profession started the lay off craze, I did not have the money for Intel anymore, well I did, but I need a happy home with the wife, so I had to go lower. To say that if my system lets me still play my games the way I played them with Intel, what does it matter if it is not as fast as or betters than, it is a moot point because my system is buitl so I can play my games, if a title comes out that I need to upgrade, I am only changing out the parts that are holding me back. Right now I have system that I built using a amd a10 6800k. I have not had any problems till I got Project cars, and and ashes of the singularity, so after a bunch of research and forum hopping I know I am close to retirement, so I have to stick to AMD, it will be a 8350 or 8370, my memory is excellent, my video card is great, so it will be a cpu/mobo deal at microcenter, it will suffice for at least five years.

 

[logainofhades]

Why FX 8370, when you can get an i5, for a similar cost?

I am sorry, but if less than $15 is going to break you, then you need to rethink your priorities a bit. The power savings alone would make that up. I don't expect a CPU arch, that is already over 3yrs old, to last 5 more years either.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-8370 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($184.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($85.89 @ OutletPC)
Memory: Mushkin ECO2 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($29.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $300.87
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-03-03 12:56 EST-0500



PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-6500 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($199.89 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: ASRock H170A-X1 ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($78.49 @ SuperBiiz)
Memory: G.Skill NT Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR4-2133 Memory ($33.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $312.37
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-03-03 12:56 EST-0500

 

[Redneck5439]

If motherboard and processor is all that is needed:

http://www.microcenter.com/search/search_results.aspx?Ntt=GIGABYTE+GA-970A-UD3P

http://www.microcenter.com/product/437623/FX_8370E_33GHz_AM3_Black_Edition_Boxed_Processor

Total cost $220 and the FX 8370E can easily hit 4Ghz overclock on stock Vcore and can hit 5Ghz with proper cooling, so its almost as good as its bigger brother the FX 8370 while having lower TDP of only 95W.

 

[jeffredo]

Why FX 8370, when you can get an i5, for a similar cost?

I am sorry, but if less than $15 is going to break you, then you need to rethink your priorities a bit. The power savings alone would make that up. I don't expect a CPU arch, that is already over 3yrs old, to last 5 more years either.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-8370 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($184.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($85.89 @ OutletPC)
Memory: Mushkin ECO2 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($29.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $300.87
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-03-03 12:56 EST-0500



PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-6500 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($199.89 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: ASRock H170A-X1 ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($78.49 @ SuperBiiz)
Memory: G.Skill NT Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR4-2133 Memory ($33.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $312.37
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-03-03 12:56 EST-0500

You can easily get either an FX-8320E or FX-8300 and shave anywhere from $75 to $95 off the cost of the AMD system (Newegg has an FX-8300 retail package for $109.99 today and Microcenter has an FX-8320E in-store for $89.99). You chose the most expensive of the 125W 8-cores and it skews the comparison.

 

[Benjiwenji]

I prefer the Fx-6300, pump it to 5.0 Ghz and get excellent performance that rivals the 8xxx and i5s.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor ($89.99 @ Amazon)
CPU Cooler: CRYORIG R1 Ultimate 76.0 CFM CPU Cooler ($89.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($85.89 @ OutletPC)
Memory: G.Skill Ares Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($36.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $302.86
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-03-03 16:15 EST-0500

At this sub $200, it all comes down to preference. Yes, the i5s are 'better', but that rarely is reflected in real world performance in any noticeable ways. At roughly the same budget, I will prefer AMD for the thrill of overclocking.

With my 290, I don't see a difference in gaming when I play The Witcher 3 in 1080p ultra preset and Gameworks 'features' disabled. I get 50 fps. A solid 60 fps in BF4, SW:BF, and Fallout 4.

On other tasks, such as web browsing, Netflix, PDFs files, word docs... etc. I see even less difference. That's the majority of what people do on a computer. The Fx-6300 covers all these task like a champ but with a lower cost.

If you're a professional and is looking for a workstation, then neither the i5, i7, or Fx will do for you. Go for Xeon.

 

[TechyInAZ]

LOL. Overclocking to 5ghz... I hope that was a joke. (Not meaning to be rude, but it is not very optimal.)

 

[Benjiwenji]

Please expand on your thought.