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

[turkey3_scratch]

I know tons of people in real life just still running old machines from 2005 and are perfectly fine, they are suitable. I still see businesses running XP on ancient machines.

 

[logainofhades]

Yea, those are scary, unless those systems are offline, with regards to XP. I was running Win 10 pro on my X3230 machine, till the ram died. I was given more ram, but never have been able to try it out. I ended up needing other parts from that system, elsewhere.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

I see lots of doctors offices running XP. Probably not smart considering the vulnerabilities. Some have updated to 7, but not all.

 

[mjslakeridge]

Here is my setup:
FX 6300, not overclocked, stock cooler
Gigabyte GA-78LMT-S2P-"free" from Microcenter when i bought the 6300
Using graphics from the motherboard.
2x2 GB of DDR3 1333mhz Ram, dual channel mode
Windows 8 Pro 32 bit, with Windows Media Center
2 monitors, 1 connected DVI, 1 analog
Usually have 6-7 Chrome tabs open, iheart Radio, Tom's forum, Pro Tools forum, Fox News (watch videos), local weather radar, PGA Tour shot tracker (or live feed when available.
Trillian IM program, 2 video feeds from IP cameras, Task Manager, Chrome task Manager, AMD overdrive to monitor temps, 1 or 2 Excel spreadsheets open, sometimes Adobe Acrobat document reader.

Generally record a couple of hours worth of TV per day for later viewing using WMC.
DVD Shrink Program to 'rip' DVD's (not pirating, watch later then erase)

I have it set in AMD overdrive to clock down the CPU frequency when power is not needed, so frequency will fluctuate between 2.6 GHZ and 3.5GHZ.

CPU usage rarely goes above 30-35% (unless testing with WPrime)
System has been rock solid for 3+ years.

So I am proof that a budget AMD system can satisfy for everyday use.

One caveat: NO GAMING

 

[logainofhades]

Yea for everyday use, nobody needs a very powerful system. Typically I recommend APU's though. The 760g's onboard graphics quite old/inferior. The A8 7600, with some decently fast ram, is plenty for most. Ram is so cheap, that going to 1866 or 2133 generally isn't that big of a hit to the budget. I am interested to see how AM4 APU's, with faster clocked DDR4, will perform.

 

[mjslakeridge]

I thought I would need to add a GPU later on due to the crappy MB I have, but even when watching back recorded HD TV programs, the quality is nearly as good as a new LG television I have.

 

[logainofhades]

I had a 760g board, with my Phenom II X2. I used the IGP for awhile, to try it out. I didn't use it very long. My old HD 3870 was better.

 

[Benjiwenji]

He probably is and it certainly does.

That said, he's right inasmuch as 99% of the world's computer using people are perfectly happy with standard systems. Only the tiny minority with little more to do than play games make all this fuss over that extra FPS or sqeezing another Watt out of the electricity supply.

I so hope that doesn't sound insulting.

For the average person, even an old core 2, with 8gb ram is plenty, really. Those types, if needing something new, need little more than an A8 7600, with 8gb ram.

Yes, I understand that, and you're not insulting at all. A display of tact is always appreciated.

I still own a functioning Core 2 duo Dell laptop with 3GB of RAM and running on XP. Don't use it much anymore, but the laptop itself is fine for browsing web and email. However, it wouldn't suffice as a daily driver or the sole system.

 

[freeprince]

I have been using AMD for 5 years+ because for a few simple reasons.
1. I'm a budget gamer and the new i7 processors are usually super expensive.
2. I usually only like to update 1 component at a time and since I previously had an FX 6100, I've stayed with the AM3+ MOBO
3. Price per pound FX does keep up with Intel.
4. The reason I started buying AMD products was because of bugs that I kept running into with intel software and drivers.(4 intels before the 2 AMD I went to and I am sooo HAPPY that I switched. Have never ran into such software flubs in AMD drivers.)
5. If you're not going to shell out 300-600+ dollars on a gfx card or two, over 100 on a psu, over 100 on mobo, 300 on cpu and 300 on a high res monitor, you're going to look into more affordable solutions. I have nothing against those who buy high end systems but not everyone can afford a $1,000-2,000+ rig.

Amd is not the fastest chip ever... I'm pretty sure nobody is trying to argue that it is. But, if you're a gamer and you play competitively and you're not rich you can still be competitive and play with AMD chips no problem. You don't even have to be running NVidia card, regardless of what some people would like you to believe. If you like your intel chips, please enjoy them, but, I'll be an AMD gamer until I decide to invest into a high end machine, until then, I'm happy and my comp is quick enough.

 

[Redneck5439]

He probably is and it certainly does.

That said, he's right inasmuch as 99% of the world's computer using people are perfectly happy with standard systems. Only the tiny minority with little more to do than play games make all this fuss over that extra FPS or sqeezing another Watt out of the electricity supply.

I so hope that doesn't sound insulting.

For the average person, even an old core 2, with 8gb ram is plenty, really. Those types, if needing something new, need little more than an A8 7600, with 8gb ram.

Yes, I understand that, and you're not insulting at all. A display of tact is always appreciated.

I still own a functioning Core 2 duo Dell laptop with 3GB of RAM and running on XP. Don't use it much anymore, but the laptop itself is fine for browsing web and email. However, it wouldn't suffice as a daily driver or the sole system.

+1 My "travel laptop" as it were is pitiful hardware spec wise. I use my desktop system whenever I'm home, and really only use the laptop in the evening when the wife is watching something absolutely horrible on TV (but I still want to be with her on the couch) or when I'm out of town visiting the dreaded mother-in-law. It basically can't do much, but I'm happy with what I've been able to do with it. I got it on a trade in- a kid came to my shop with a "gaming laptop" wanting to upgrade to a desktop. Well his gaming laptop ended up being an Apple MacBook from 2007. I took pity on him and gave him $100 store credit even though it wasn't worth that much. It has a Core 2 Duo 2.4Ghz processor and 2GB of RAM, far from a "gaming laptop", especially considering its a MacBook. First thing I did was try to update to the latest Apple OS, but I quickly found out that compared to Windows Apple's OS really sucks. So I totally formatted it, installed Windows 7 then updated it to Windows 10, I extracted the necessary drivers from Apple's Bootcamp and now have an Apple system running pure Windows 10 (not bootcamped Windows 10 as there is no Apple OS installed). It is actually really nice for simple web browsing, word processing, doing Tom's Hardware Forum... Really a lot of people wouldn't need a more powerful system, however for my needs its a nice portable that just can't play games or video edit, render, ect...

If a Core 2 Duo with only 2GB of RAM is enough for most people out there who want a computer for checking e-mail, surfing the web, light word processing, ect... Then an FX build is definitely powerful enough for the vast majority of people. Thing is for very simple tasks people buying expensive i5, and i7 systems are never going to get their money's worth out of their purchase, however the vast masses of people read FX reviews see a bunch of Intel crowd bad mouthing them right and left and assume they need that i5 or i7 to be able to do those very simple tasks.

As a "standard PC" - a budget build FX will perform just as well as a much more expensive Intel system, because how much power do you need to launch Firefox? In fact a ultra budget APU would be perfect.

As a workstation PC a budget build FX 8370E will far outperform an i5 in video editing and rendering or any other highly multi-threaded application at a price usually under an i5 build. When compared to an i7, the i7 will of course outperform the FX as a workstation, but an i7 processor is usually ~2x as expensive as an FX 8370E or more, so your paying for that performance increase.

As a budget gaming PC targeting 60FPS (for people gaming with 60Hz monitors) your not going to be getting any better gaming performance out of a usually much more expensive Intel gaming system because the monitor can only refresh at 60Hz and anything over 60FPS is totally wasted performance. A budget FX 6300 can usually game high-ultra ~60FPS, an FX 8 core (especially if overclocked properly) can game all modern AAA titles on ultra settings 60FPS+. Therefore if your "locked" at 60FPS a FX budget gaming system is the equal of a more expensive Intel system. If you have a better, more expensive 120Hz+ gaming monitor then the move to Intel makes a lot more sense, but if you adding the extra cost of a 120Hz+ gaming monitor onto the cost of your build your really not targeting budget gaming. The two very best pure gaming budget systems available right now are systems built around the FX 6300 and the i3 6100. Usually my recommendation to customers fluctuates month to month based on how cheaply I can get the component parts in.

In short there are a great many people out there that an FX build is still very viable for and makes an excellent price / performance rig.

 

[logainofhades]

I have been using AMD for 5 years+ because for a few simple reasons.
1. I'm a budget gamer and the new i7 processors are usually super expensive.
2. I usually only like to update 1 component at a time and since I previously had an FX 6100, I've stayed with the AM3+ MOBO
3. Price per pound FX does keep up with Intel.
4. The reason I started buying AMD products was because of bugs that I kept running into with intel software and drivers.(4 intels before the 2 AMD I went to and I am sooo HAPPY that I switched. Have never ran into such software flubs in AMD drivers.)
5. If you're not going to shell out 300-600+ dollars on a gfx card or two, over 100 on a psu, over 100 on mobo, 300 on cpu and 300 on a high res monitor, you're going to look into more affordable solutions. I have nothing against those who buy high end systems but not everyone can afford a $1,000-2,000+ rig.

Amd is not the fastest chip ever... I'm pretty sure nobody is trying to argue that it is. But, if you're a gamer and you play competitively and you're not rich you can still be competitive and play with AMD chips no problem. You don't even have to be running NVidia card, regardless of what some people would like you to believe. If you like your intel chips, please enjoy them, but, I'll be an AMD gamer until I decide to invest into a high end machine, until then, I'm happy and my comp is quick enough.

But an i7 really isn't necessary, for gaming. An i5 is still plenty, and for many budget gamers, an i3 is just fine. If not for folding and my second monitor multitasking, I would probably be fine with my i5. But it has been a good 4yr run on this chip. Thing is AMD has been stagnant in those 4yrs, while Intel keeps making small bumps in performance. Buying FX now, for a new system, just doesn't make any sense to me. Now that C232 boards are starting to show up, it won't be long before I quit recommending 1231v3's to people.

I used AMD for years, myself. It is just hard to keep buying cpus from a company constantly letting you down. Phenom I was a flop, as was Bulldozer. Steamroller/excavator not coming to AM3+, and instead are going to be APU only chips, or another 860k type model. I hope AMD gets their act together with AM4 and Zen.

Only running Nvidia due to deals I got, and my 7970 dying. Couldn't turn down a 780ti, for $230, or the GTX 770 before it for $125. It is probably good I do have Nvidia now, as Blizzard titles are not AMD friendly, unfortunately.

 

[freeprince]

But an i7 really isn't necessary, for gaming. An i5 is still plenty, and for many budget gamers, an i3 is just fine. If not for folding and my second monitor multitasking, I would probably be fine with my i5. But it has been a good 4yr run on this chip. Thing is AMD has been stagnant in those 4yrs, while Intel keeps making small bumps in performance. Buying FX now, for a new system, just doesn't make any sense to me. Now that C232 boards are starting to show up, it won't be long before I quit recommending 1231v3's to people.

I used AMD for years, myself. It is just hard to keep buying cpus from a company constantly letting you down. Phenom I was a flop, as was Bulldozer. Steamroller/excavator not coming to AM3+, and instead are going to be APU only chips, or another 860k type model. I hope AMD gets their act together with AM4 and Zen.

Only running Nvidia due to deals I got, and my 7970 dying. Couldn't turn down a 780ti, for $230, or the GTX 770 before it for $125. It is probably good I do have Nvidia now, as Blizzard titles are not AMD friendly, unfortunately.

I agree that building a full build from scratch it may be wise to go the intel path. The AM3+ socket has it's limitations. The new A-series processors are not very impressive to me. AMD has been updating their earlier series chips though with better performance per watt. For instance I have a 6100 chip(STILL!) and they have made a 6300, and a 6350, that are the same basic chip just running better. My motherboard won't put out enough power for the 9xxx series so if I upgrade I will grab an 8350 and not go the route of a complete build from scratch. In my opinion, it's a good upgrade and a good chip as long as you're not a too hardcore about high speeds. I have moderate overclock on cpu and the option to push my 1866mhz ram to 2133O.C. profile. To me, that's enough breathing room. I never have seen any distinct hardware lag in gaming or anything else. I understand that there are better performing chips, but, as a previous person was explaining... the prices of intel chips has skyrocketed and if you can't afford to get one of the better ones the AM3+ chipset is not horrible.

Fixed Quoting Error.

 

[logainofhades]

Yea, for an existing/compatible AM3+ system running an old Phenom II, or Bulldozer chip, swapping out to a better Piledriver based chip makes perfect sense. That I would consider a cheap upgrade, to get someone by for a little while longer, while they wait for Zen.

 

[Redneck5439]

But an i7 really isn't necessary, for gaming. An i5 is still plenty, and for many budget gamers, an i3 is just fine. If not for folding and my second monitor multitasking, I would probably be fine with my i5. But it has been a good 4yr run on this chip. Thing is AMD has been stagnant in those 4yrs, while Intel keeps making small bumps in performance. Buying FX now, for a new system, just doesn't make any sense to me. Now that C232 boards are starting to show up, it won't be long before I quit recommending 1231v3's to people.

I used AMD for years, myself. It is just hard to keep buying cpus from a company constantly letting you down. Phenom I was a flop, as was Bulldozer. Steamroller/excavator not coming to AM3+, and instead are going to be APU only chips, or another 860k type model. I hope AMD gets their act together with AM4 and Zen.

Only running Nvidia due to deals I got, and my 7970 dying. Couldn't turn down a 780ti, for $230, or the GTX 770 before it for $125. It is probably good I do have Nvidia now, as Blizzard titles are not AMD friendly, unfortunately.

I agree that building a full build from scratch it may be wise to go the intel path. The AM3+ socket has it's limitations. The new A-series processors are not very impressive to me. AMD has been updating their earlier series chips though with better performance per watt. For instance I have a 6100 chip(STILL!) and they have made a 6300, and a 6350, that are the same basic chip just running better. My motherboard won't put out enough power for the 9xxx series so if I upgrade I will grab an 8350 and not go the route of a complete build from scratch. In my opinion, it's a good upgrade and a good chip as long as you're not a too hardcore about high speeds. I have moderate overclock on cpu and the option to push my 1866mhz ram to 2133O.C. profile. To me, that's enough breathing room. I never have seen any distinct hardware lag in gaming or anything else. I understand that there are better performing chips, but, as a previous person was explaining... the prices of intel chips has skyrocketed and if you can't afford to get one of the better ones the AM3+ chipset is not horrible.

Fixed Quoting Error.

One of the best FX chips to look into would be the FX 8370E. It is cheaper than the FX 8370 and has AMDs best binning. At 95W its also more compatible with a wider range of AM3+ motherboards. It would be a great upgrade and is a very good overclocking processor.

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

 

[turkey3_scratch]

I still can never get a good understanding of what AMD CPUs belong to what architectures. You'd think after near 1.5 years on here I'd know, but nope. They release a gazillion Athlons out the wazoo with numbers I cannot possibly keep track of, same with the FX lineup.

And I know if I don't even know this, a lot of new PC builders will have a hard time understanding AMD's lineup and the naming system. Intel is easy.

 

[Karadjgne]

Yep, real easy to tell the difference in a 3770k, 4670k, 4690k, g3258, 4590, 4460 and a 5820k etc, and let's not forget the really simple progression of sockets, 1156 - 1155 - 1150 - 1151. So nice and straightforward.

 

[Benjiwenji]

I still can never get a good understanding of what AMD CPUs belong to what architectures. You'd think after near 1.5 years on here I'd know, but nope. They release a gazillion Athlons out the wazoo with numbers I cannot possibly keep track of, same with the FX lineup.

And I know if I don't even know this, a lot of new PC builders will have a hard time understanding AMD's lineup and the naming system. Intel is easy.

I feel the same. Although I can tell apart AMD's CPU line up, it is a maze of names and numbers to navigate through. I also understand AMD's struggle to just have something on the shelves.

With that said, I can't help but have tremendous respect for AMD, a company with a fraction of Intel's funds and resources, yet arguably trading blows with Intel for decades. I think people often dismisses AMD's innovations, in the past and present. The APUs, for example, are a great innovation that most don't think twice about. The 7850k with 2400mhz RAM can handle BF4 ultra 720p/60. That might not be all that impressive in our circle, but we take lots things for grant now-a-days. Think about what iGPUs were like before APUs, no one even talk about iGPUs then.

AMD bring things to the conversation, though they might not be the one perfecting the idea, they start the process of things that have been hidden right under our nose forever. iGPUs were just 'there' because of necessity before APUs (for the most part), they were things to be disregarded once we can replace them, not unlike the stock CPU heatsinks. Speaking of which, AMD also brought stock heatsinks back to relevance.

Those are things that Intel can easily improve on for the sake of the consumers, given their resources and advantages, yet they have chose not to and only provide the bare minimum. I suppose I have a problem with Intel's business practices more so than their performance.

It's just my two cents and more of an ethical piece than technical, I suppose.

edit: This is just me talking, only the first part is a direct response to Turkey. The rest of it isn't meant to be targeted towards anyone.

 

[Redneck5439]

Yep, real easy to tell the difference in a 3770k, 4670k, 4690k, g3258, 4590, 4460 and a 5820k etc, and let's not forget the really simple progression of sockets, 1156 - 1155 - 1150 - 1151. So nice and straightforward.

:lol: I needed a good laugh :lol: -- Thank you😀

Seriously though both AMD and Intel like to mash numbers around and it gets confusing in both their product lines. One of the most confusing things for customers coming into my shop now is when I talk about the i3 6100 or FX 6300 or i5 6400... Most think I'm talking about the same product line and to a noobie that can be very confusing.

 

[Benjiwenji]

Haha, most people only know about the i3, i5, and i7. I have a friend with a i7 and 980, and I asked him, which i7 do you have? He couldn't tell me. Even less people know about the Xeon 😛

 

[Karadjgne]

Which Xeon? The 2 core, 4 core or 4+ht? Oh, and don't forget the Intel mobile cpus, i7's with 2 cores. Still haven't figured that one out, the difference between a 2 core i3, i5 or i7.

 

[Benjiwenji]

Don't even get me started on mobile chips xD

But don't forget the Celerons.

 

[Benjiwenji]

It wouldnt be for me. Perhaps you should start off with a detailed explanation of how 50 or 70 $ over its lifetime in electricity plus bigger power supply costs and a shorter life span really wont matter because they are getting the leccy bill paid by the landlord and he 'probably' wont notice in the rental span?
😀

I am not sure where you're coming from or how the naming of CPU arrived at the topic of electric bills. No offense.

 

[Benjiwenji]

A bit harsh eh?

 

[Benjiwenji]

No, actually. A guy tells me he runs a biz building pc's and sells stuff that isnt up to muster to people with not huge budgets I dont think its harsh at all.
All the sales twaddle in the world wont alter that.
The numbers on the meter catch up to the rent sooner or later, even if other people have to chip in for it.

What do you think about the video? It is not perfect but will serve as a starting point for a conservation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBeeGHozSY0

Sorry about the humor used in it, just look at the numbers.

 

[Benjiwenji]

Please enlighten me, how did you get to your conclusions? Can you share some meaningful numbers, as well as a calculation, to shed light on this issue?