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

Page 17 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar


Everyone knows what you believe about the electricity used by an FX vs an Intel. EVERYONE knows how totally flawed your math is on the subject and EVERYONE knows you are extremely "biased" for Intel. We can talk about cost of running a stock FX and a stock Intel all day long, but it won't help because that extra under $1 (US currency) a month in the power bill is really going to kick you in the pants ~10 years down the road. Of course by then just about everyone has upgraded or is looking at their next upgrade as parts do wear out.

The newest, best Intel i7 6700K is a 91W chip. The FX 8370 is a 125W chip. The difference in power TDP is 34W, about half that of a 60W light bulb. Would anyone in their right mind not turn on a light bulb because of its horrendous power consumption? You know how asinine you would sound yelling at someone "don't turn that light bulb on, I can't afford the extra power on my electric bill"?

Lets not forget either that be it Intel or AMD the very first thing that people do when they get that shiny new processor is see how far they can overclock it. Will an overclocked processor use more power? Yes. Will an overclocked processor jack your bill over $20 a month? Never, even overclocked a processor doesn't use enough power to really effect your power bill. At most an overclocked processor (be it Intel or AMD) will cost $5 a month more. An overclocked AMD (FX 8 core) will typically use about $1.30 more per month than an Intel for a computer running 5-8 hours a day. The whole idea of a processor using so much power as to not be a good option for a budget minded personal computer user for a home PC is just totally ridiculous, but by all means keep pounding your nonsense view into the dirt as you can't come up with a real answer as to why AMD doesn't make a good budget build.

It is totally obvious that you are trying very hard to start a "flame war" and at this point you are trolling. Calling AMD junk (direct quote "a.m.Dinosaur junk") is trolling, and will only result in yet another flame war that has already happened on forums more times than can be counted.
 
Ok. We all have our own opinions, even our own facts it seems, so let's agree to disagree. Getting heated over this is counter productive.

The question was and is, 'Is the FX still a viable option for a build?' The simple answer is yes. It's viable. It may not be the best, it may have side affects, but it works. Will this change with Zen? Depends on the price. If the price is equitable, Zen should be the far better solution, meaning FX is pretty much regulated to being No, not honestly a viable solution. If Zen is equitable to Intel's pricing, then FX will remain viable as I honestly can't see its prices doing anything but go down as ppl try to get rid of overstock.

Either way, it remains an option, a choice, and I for one prefer having a choice instead of being stuck with either Intel or the A series APU's/FM based cpus.
 


+1 I build both AMD and Intel systems, and have great respect for both product lines. I may not like some of the bad business decisions made on both sides of the ball, but at the end of the day both make good product lines that fit particular niches.

I would never recommend an i7 6700K with a GTX 980Ti for someone on an extremely tight budget who is looking for a computer to get online, check email and is never going to do anything more extreme than play solitaire. Just like I would never recommend an AMD APU for someone who has a sizable budget and wants to play Fallout 4 on their brand new 1440 monitor at the most extreme FPS possible. Both processors have their niche and both do extremely well in that niche.

I defend Intel when an extreme AMD fanboy is trying to say that you won't get any better performance out of an Intel rig as you do out of an AMD rig. I also defend AMD when an extreme Intel fanboy tries to say that an AMD rig will cost you hundreds of dollars more a year to run (in power costs) than an Intel rig. Now there are instances that both fanboy's can be right, and that is something I take into consideration too: Saying you won't get better performance out of an Intel system than an AMD system can be true if the person is gaming at 720p or 1080p @ 60Hz. Both an FX build and an Intel build will get at or better than 60FPS in the vast majority of current AAA titles so the increased performance of the Intel system will go to waste if the buyer is only ever going to use a 60Hz monitor. On the other side of that if a person has a business with over 100 computers running the power savings of going with Intel can pay off. A home owner with one computer is never going to notice the difference in power consumption between an Intel rig and an AMD rig, but someone with 100 computers running will. Businesses also tend to keep their systems longer than private home owners do (a lot of businesses are still running ancient computers on Windows XP, just begging to be the next company hacked) therefore if a business is planning to run those computers for 15 - 20 years the power savings over time by going with Intel can be substantial (however to your everyday PC user who does an upgrade on average of every 10 years is never going to see the cost benefit).

The point is both processor lines are very good and very viable as system builds (in their own niches), as is relevant to this thread. Neither product line, be it Intel or AMD is "junk".
 


+1 my point exactly. There are many reasons why Intel is a better choice than AMD (better IPC, single core execution being #1), and there are many reasons why an AMD build can be a better choice (person to person basis for their individual needs and budget - price / performance), but power consumption isn't one of them. The difference of running an AMD FX compared to an Intel in electric costs is so incredibly small that it is a total non-issue in deciding which processor to go with.
 


For web browsing my recommendation fluctuates based on current prices. A budget AMD APU can sometimes be the cheapest option, and any computer can do simple web browsing. Gaming is a "loaded issue" which is mostly determined by overall budget. If its pure budget gaming its either the i3 6100 or FX 6300, whichever I can give the best deal on (which again fluctuates based on current component prices). If its what I consider mid-grade budget gaming, ie gaming on a monitor at 60Hz, with no plans on changing monitors, then there is a lot more grey area (ie will customer use computer for anything else such as video editing, ect) but an FX build and an Intel build will both have the same relative performance (in the vast majority of AAA titles) as they are both "locked" into 60FPS gaming, however the FX build will be cheaper (in most cases) and therefore a better value (unless the customer is targeting gaming on MMORPGs which heavily favor single core performance then the nod goes to Intel). For high end gaming, ie customer has larger budget and has or will be getting a gaming monitor 120Hz or better, then its Intel all the way, no way I would ever recommend AMD for gaming on a 120Hz+ monitor.

In my area I tend to build more AMD than Intel systems, but that's only because I'm in a rural area where people are targeting budget builds more than high end builds. Most people if they are video editing or rendering are doing so on a tight budget, and a FX 8370(E) build is their best option for performance / cost. Most gamers around here have 1080p 60Hz monitors, have no intention of upgrading to 120Hz at higher cost, and therefore gaming in the vast majority of AAA titles an FX gaming build is just as good as an Intel gaming build. Every so often I get someone in who has a much healthier budget and is looking for a high end gaming system with gaming monitor, or are looking for video editing and rendering with a healthy build budget - those people always walk away with Intel builds. The processors all have their niches, and if matched to the individual customers properly will give the customer the very best performance / price and makes for happy customers and great word of mouth advertising.
 


For a corporation who pays IT guys to literally do everything for them maybe there is more servicing involved for an AMD vs Intel build, I wouldn't know as I'm not an IT guy for a large corporation. For personal builds that goes totally out the window. Other than the normal servicing I show a person how to do (ie clean out their cases with compressed air at least once a month) and reapplying thermal compound every other year (their choice I can either show them or they can just bring their rig to the shop) there really isn't any "maintenance" involved. The normal home user, even a hardcore gamer, using a system 4 hours a day will usually have problem free performance for just about the lifetime of the rig (in home PC market ~ 5 years before upgrading). Most only ever see "performance problems" as their aging rig can no longer handle new AAA titles, and even then upgrading usually means getting a better GPU, not CPU.

A brand new FX build today will give a user at least the next 4+ years of good performance. If the user is rendering, video editing, doing other highly multi-threaded applications an FX 8 core system (FX 8370(E)) will outperform any current i5 available usually at less cost. For gaming FX 6300s are more or less on par with i3 6100 (especially for 60Hz gaming), and FX 8 core systems can deliver over 60FPS in most modern AAA titles. You can of course get better gaming results with an i5 or i7 rig, but your also going to pay for that increased performance and to utilize it you need a 120Hz display or better.

Another thing to keep in mind is games will be stymied by the PS4 and Xbox One that they are developed for. AAA titles will have to be able to run on those consoles for the next ~4 years until the next gen console systems roll out. A FX 6350 with GTX 960 is a far more capable gamer than any console system and will therefore be able to play all AAA titles created for that console with better performance than the console itself. I'm not saying a FX 6350 will be maxing out all games on Ultra, but you will be able to run all the games at high levels through the lifespan of the PS4. Far from a "rotted floorboard" a budget FX build can easily give you good solid performance for at least the next 4 years.

That's not to say Intel doesn't give you better performance , because Intel does, but what you are saying is don't buy a Ford Taurus to get you to work, you need to be driving a Chevy Camaro or you'll never make it. Of course you get better performance and faster speed from the Camaro, but the Taurus will still get you where your going every day, and if your traveling on a 60mph highway they will both get you to your destination at the same time.
 
It's an issue mainly with inexperienced builders who believe they can get away with a cheap motherboard with a poor VRM; then they complain about FPS drops. A quality motherboard with a good and properly cooled VRM usually doesn't have that issue. The stock cooler is noisy, but that can't be considered as an issue and it usually helps cooling the VRM on low quality motherboards.
 


I've been following Tom's Hardware for a very long time, and inexperienced users on both Intel and AMD systems get themselves in trouble for trying to push their systems too hard on stock cooling, or thinking that one exhaust case fan is enough case cooling (inadequate case cooling is a very overlooked issue). AMD also has better cooling available when you purchase their processors now in some cases. The FX 9xxx series is available with water cooling, and with the new Wraith cooler available for the FX 8370 you won't be seeing temperature problems with them, unless the user tries an extreme overclock. For most of the other FX processors most of the time the stock cooler is fine for stock clocks (highly dependent on the overall cooling of the rest of the case, ie how many case fans bringing in cool air and venting the warm air, as well). For an FX processor at stock clocks with the stock cooler and temperature problems most of the time what is needed is better case cooling and the addition of a couple case fans which is great as it helps keep all the other components cooler as well.

Most people getting FX builds are going to be overclocking at some point and there are very good performing budget coolers available which make cooling less of an issue than it use to be. In fact if you follow posts most of the time someone who in previous threads said they were never going to overclock within a couple of months are back asking for overclocking advice. One of the biggest problems with heat related issues on FX processors is you have a lot of people try to overclock on a stock cooler and then come to Toms Hardware because they don't understand the poor performance they are getting due to thermal throttling. . Every computer system needs better cooling if they are going to be overclocked, even Intel systems.
 
WE have already been down this power usage road before and as pointed out by not only me but other people as well AMD systems don't use that much more power than an Intel system does. Your talking at the very most a couple of bucks a month difference, and probably less than that.

Any processor is going to use more power when overclocked over 1Ghz past its stock clock. You overclock a i7 6700K to 4.6Ghz (if it can even overclock that far) and what kind of power usage and extreme heat will it have? An overclocked i5 will use much more power and produce much more heat overclocked than at stock. In fact an overclocked Intel will run much hotter than an overclocked FX - FX have a thermal max of 70C and Intel has a thermal max of 100C. Anytime you overclock anything it will use more power and produce more heat, your smart phone will use more battery and get much hotter if you overclock the processor... It hold true across the board.

I was simply pointing out that some AMD processors known to have heat problems are now available with better stock cooling options from AMD. Most FX processors at stock clocks with the stock cooler will never experience problems. The vast majority of heat issues with the stock cooler are due to inadequate case air flow (cooling) or someone trying to overclock their processors in some way without getting better aftermarket cooling.
 


I hope you're not talking about electricity costs, because those calculations are way off. An AMD CPU vs Intel is about $0.30 savings per month. And the kids wanting to build their rigs don't even pay their own EL bill anyway.
 


I was using a high number, most have put the actual power usage at $.30 to $.50 a month. Even if it is as high as $2 a month (which would basically be running an overclocked computer almost non-stop all month) the cost of an AMD build and the cost of an Intel build may even out after 4, 5 years time, or may take longer. Not everyone has that money up front to sink into an Intel build and the extra incredibly small hit on their electrical bill is a lot easier to budget than a $100+ investment right here right now.

For normal users who have a system running 3 to 4 hours a day the difference is more around $.30 to $.50 a month, that would take ~10 years for the cost difference to pay off by energy savings. No matter how you try to break it down your argument about power efficiency and AMD totally wrecking your electric bill is debunked.
 


Exactly at stock a 60W light bulb consumes more power than the difference between running a FX and an Intel build. As I asked earlier how much would you freak out if someone turned on a light bulb to be able to see in a dark room? Or do you use candles? We have guys in my area like that, they are called Amish... although they have little use for computers.

Your entire argument with power usage has been debunked. There are other arguments that are much more viable, such as IPC. Of course as I've stated before if your gaming on a 60Hz monitor your not going to get performance gains going from FX 6300, FX 8370, i5 6600K or i5 6700K as they are all capable of gaming at or better than 60FPS. Its only when you go to 120Hz gaming monitors that the more expensive Intel builds are truly worth their salt in gaming.
 


I also have no idea where you are getting your figures from, according to my Penelec bill I'm paying 7.34 cents per KWH. So 50W would be .367 cents per hour so it would take nearly 3 hours to use one cent on my power bill. Therefore turkey3_scratch is totally right, 3 hours a day 30 days a month would be $.30 cents a month.
 


Even at 100W more (for overclock) it would be $.60 cents more per month, again totally debunked.
 


In the continental US it ranges between 7 - 17 cents a KWH, in Hawaii your numbers would be more accurate. At any rate, for my customers the whole electrical cost difference isn't an issue in the least.
 


No. https://www.google.com/search?q=average+electric+bill&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=average+electric+cost

"The average price people in the U.S. pay for electricity is about 12 cents per kilowatt-hour."

That's residential. Business cost is lower.

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/10/27/141766341/the-price-of-electricity-in-your-state


The only time the power savings of Intel vs AMD would be a legitimate deciding factor would be for companies buying thousands of machines.
 


And seriously since when is a 1080p 60Hz monitor "cruddy"?:pfff:
 
Well to be fair your "AMD is good enough for 60Hz" argument doesn't factor in higher resolutions or multiplayer games. Most single player games these days are GPU biased and don't care what CPU you have as long as it's somewhat new. I just upgraded from a 2600K to a 6700K and my average FPS went up by about 5 in all the titles I've played so far. But I'm playing at 1440p with a 980 Ti and all settings maxed. An AMD CPU unless it was heavily overclocked would not do as well. That's especially true in large 64+ player multiplayer maps where the CPU actually matters.
 


"Most" people in the US don't live in expensive land. I pay about 11 cents here in Georgia and it's on the high end of the national average.
 


+1. Adjusting for the national average would then put 3 hours a day 30 days a month at $.60 cents a month. Which still proves the power consumption myth is wrong. It is a debunked argument.

At least I found out that I'm getting a good deal on my power compared to the national average😀
 


In a past post I already factored in that for playing MMORPGs Intel processors are far better than AMD. My point is that the most monitors used today are 1080p 60Hz. FX 6300 (and up) processors in most current AAA titles are very capable of gaming at 60FPS. On a 60Hz monitor an Intel i7 6700K and GTX 980Ti pumping out 200+ FPS isn't going to matter as the monitor cant use over 60FPS and at 200FPS would create tearing leading to capping FPS at 60. Now if someone has a i7 6700K and GTX 980Ti they probably have a nice gaming monitor 120Hz+, but I was talking about the viability of budget gaming on FX processors with 1080p 60Hz monitors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom