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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
You can get the i7 4790k for that pricing, I was looking at their bundles quickly. About the cheapest bundle with that cpu and a board is $329. If you go for an 8370 for example, you can get an ASROCK 970 series board with an FX 8370 for 209. So in that case, I'd have to say even with Zen coming out, it's still a good option in my opinion for someone on a strict budget who is willing to trade that performance for a better GPU.
 


http://www.microcenter.com/category/4294966995,4294964566/Intel-Processors all day long
 


I think you hit on a very good example there. There are a lot of people who are trying their best to put together a good all around computer; something they can use for work, home use, and gaming but are on a tight budget. I've helped many people on tight budgets build the best computer they can at their price range, and when it comes to a building a good computer on a budget the turn to company is AMD. I read where its important to stay away from the fanboy ultra bad advice, and while I totally agree, it definitely goes both ways. I've seen AMD fanboys argue till they are blue in the face that their processor is just as good as the Intel,the only problem is the game isn't coded right, ect, ect... and well they may be right that if the game was coded better it would run better the fact still remains the AMD processor has some problems where the Intel doesn't so its not a good arguement and your not going to win. On the flip side I've seen Intel fanboys ridicule and try to embarrass someone to get an Intel processor even though its out of their budget and they would have to sacrifice getting less (slower) RAM, cheaper psu, cheaper GPU to afford the jump to Intel- the end result is they are gaming below a person with an FX and faster (more) RAM, better psu (reliable constant power), and a better GPU (most AAA titles are GPU, not CPU dependent these days).

A lot of people on Toms forget that 1. not everyone is using their system just for gaming 2. not everyone games at the same levels - some don't care that they aren't going to game at 1440 because they don't have a $$$ monitor 3. not everyone has the budget - I see a lot of people ridiculing someone for not throwing another $100 in their system but to some people an extra $20 is not possible. I'm not hurting for money in the least, but if the wife were to see I spent several hundred dollars to upgrade to something like Skylake for no real reason other then to get a few extra FPS on games I could already play on Ultra @ 1080p with my current rig I'm going to be bunking with the horses for awhile.

If someone is really interested in high end gaming and has a good budget of course Intel is the way to go and SHOULD be recommended. But if someone is on a tight budget and looking for the best gaming experience they can get (especially going into 2016 and DX 12 games around the corner) then there is nothing wrong with budgeting a FX with fast RAM (looks like modern titles are going to be needing closer to 16GB now), a good quality psu, and a hearty GPU. Having an Intel processor isn't going to mean much (in gaming) if you have to go cheap on a GPU to afford it.
 
Exactly. And yes the i7 is 250, but when you add in pricing for a motherboard as well its close to 100 dollars more than an amd 8 core. Also, let's say you want to game at 1440, if I remember right, for most titles, as the resolution goes up the game is typically more dependent on the video card, and the cpu does not have to work add hard to keep up because the gpu would be having to work harder to feed frames to the cpu.

Also, I think as more games are created for Xbox one and ps4(which have amd 8 core jaguar cpus), that when they are ported over they theoretically should do better on multi threaded systems. That along with the advent of dx12 may make it to where a cpu only has to be "good enough", and not have to have great single core performance.
 
No one argues that AMD CPUs are as good as the Intel counterparts. That's a silly and relative argument.

However, If your goal is to game on high settings with around 60fps in 1080p, then AMD is still a budget option.

Since y'all brought up Microcenter, then you know that you can get a Fx6300 with the GA970A UD3P for $130 USD. I recently added a Sapphire R9 290 from Newegg for $200 along with the Antec HCG 850m for $70.

It is a $400 rig that handles Fallout4, SW Battlefront, BF4, and many other AAA titles in Ultra settings with avg around 60fps in 1920x1200p.

With the Cryorig h7 ($30), I OC'ed the Fx 6300 to 4.3 easily.

Although I know intel i5s, or arguably even the i3s, are better chips, it would be difficult to achieve the same gaming performance with Intel at my price point.
 
Intel is better but I use AMD ad its cheaper, when I built my system I was tight on cash so I opted for the cheapest. Now that I have money though I am looking around for Intel builds.
 
amd struggles to hold games at 60 fps while the i7 4790k does it with ease. I have gamed on many amd cpus like 8350 and 1100t. The 8350 being the best option for amd and fails to do the job . Its your opinion That you think 6300fx is a playable gaming chip. What im saying is if you are going with a high end amd cpu if micro center is offering a 4790k for 250 bucks amazing. Its the best option out there to have a playable experience along with the i5 4690k. Don't get me wrong I love a good bang for the buck but if you buy crap your going to get crap sorry to say. I hope ZEN offers more than 8350 can because that struggles way to much
 


Most games are ported already and run better on intel. The 4790k has 4 cores 8 threads
 
So, the masses have spoken, in clear non-fanboy fashion. Is AMD Fx a viable solution? The answer is Yes. It may not be the best solution in all instances, nor the perfect solution, but AMD FX IS a viable one, and shouldn't be written off or discredited as such.

I'd like to add my thanks to those who answered with clear and concise opinions and evidence, and much appreciation to the OP for opening this can of worms 😉

Closed this debate should be.
 
I don't see how the fx line could be a solution with zen around the corner just wait and see how zen. Im not a intel fanboy I just like to play my games smooth because its a better experience for me. Everyones experience is diferent what people can call playable. Why would I buy a fx now when it struggles to handle games will only get worse. Im a huge amd fan and would like to see zen do better or equal to a high end i7
 
It is a bit to harsh to say that the Fx line is struggling in games, thus has no place in the market. The fx lines are fine in gaming. In fact, if you are using a sub $300 USD GPU, then the i7 4790k and fx 8xxx are within 5-10% in fps. I think Karadjgne has made a very reasonable point.

Examine the benchmarks below, the fx seems to manage very solid performance for a budget.
metro_1080_sorted.png

civ_1080_sorted.png

sniper3_1080_sorted.png

thief_1080_sorted_0.png

bioshock_1080_sorted.png

mordor_1080_sorted.png


source: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Systems/Quad-Core-Gaming-Roundup-How-Much-CPU-Do-You-Really-Need
 
Zen around the corner? AMD is famous (infamous) for delays, so it may just be 2017 before Zen is available. Can you honestly say 'hold off on buying a pc because another cpu is coming"? That's not just counting on chickens before they are hatched, that's counting on chickens before they are conceived!
 


I just think you cant say amd fx line is still legit gaming cpu because I noticed it struggled in game and didn't offer much more single core performance than the mighty Phenom2 line which I would recommend for a build today
 
With rising complexity and stuff like compressed audio and video eating up resources, games are going to work away from using single thread performance as a basis of performance. The days of the engine used in skyrim are limited. Not many gaming pc's are still using a dual core, and with the widespread availability of quad or higher cores, games will take advantage of that. Games like bf4 are maximising core usage of fx 6 and 8 core cpus and using hyperthreading to advantage. This trend will continue. You are going to see bf5, crysis 4, gta vi etc using multiple cores. Zen may or may not be out, neither dx12 be mainstream. That leaves a huge market in the not so top line, budget units needing decent performance, which amd offers, decent performance. It's not the same level as Intel, but it works. That's all that really matters to most ppl, is it good enough.
 
There is much, much more to computing that just gaming. When you have to do editing, run multiple programs (Microsoft Excel and Word for example), and have several windows of an internet web browser running all at the same time the 8 core FX processors still outperform the quad core i5s.

As far as gaming goes, I think everyone should be able to see the evolution of multithreaded games. Most future AAA titles are going to have to be more and more multithreaded by sheer need. We as computer gamers tend to forget we are all in the same boat of the "master race" of gamers. Console gamers and PC gamers get in the (forgive me for saying it but) p*ssing match of what is better to game on all the time. Console gamers look at PC gamers as totally into eye candy over value and PC gamers look at console gamers and just wonder why would you settle for that low res non moddable version of a good game that could be great. But the one thing we all overlook is console gamers comprise 90% of the total market. For that reason games are not only developed with the consoles in mind, but they are also limited by the consoles unimpressive hardware. When you have to make a AAA game around a Jag 8 core processor running at or below 2Ghz you have some serious limitations and have to utilize every bit of processing power to your advantage. Yes a console environment is much more optimized than a PC can ever be, however the multiple weak cores still means developers are going to have to utilize as many as they possibly can and spread out the work load. Microsoft didn't make DX 12 out of the kindness of their hearts, they did it because they are on AMD hardware and were facing the fact that the PS4 can render certain games at 1080p that the Xbone is stuck on 720p. DX 12 was developed to level the field and allow the Xbone to game at 1080p. DX 12 was mainly developed with AMD hardware in mind that is why they worked in such close conjunction with AMD and used Mantle as a template starting point. The main factor effecting FX processors performance in modern GPU dependent titles is DX 11 (and the inherent bottleneck issues it causes). DX 12 will allow the FX processors to game without fear of bottlenecks, that is what it was created to do. That doesn't mean that older FXs are going to come out and dominate or come even with i7s, but stacked up against i5s they will be much stronger competitors. Keep in mind the FX doesn't have to beat all i5s, just come within 5 FPS on average and with their price to performance ratio will be very attractive. Of course Intel will still hold the advantage of efficiency. If AMD can then release Zen on time they can really be poised with a lineup of processors that can compete in most every segment.

As I previously stated, if you have the budget an Intel i7 build is the top dog and one heck of a system (especially in its 8 core form) and without a doubt the way to go with the current product line. However if you are on a budget, or need your system for more than just gaming - yes the FX processor line is still very much viable and can still do everything a much more expensive system can do (it just may take it a little longer to get there).
 
If you're a professional who makes a living on computer related work, then there is no reason to look at the Fx, or even the i7 and i5, for that matter. Go straight pass the consumer grade CPUs to the Xeon, this thread isn't relevant to the professional group. However, if you're a student, amateur, hobbyist, poor, or just the 90% of the world, then Fx line is very relevant.

The consumerism approach to spend top budget to get top notch products is awful. As consumers, it is important identify and evaluate our needs, and wants, to appropriately set budgets for the systems we'll need. If you're an amateur, then chances are the Fx can fill those needs from gaming, school, office, entertainment and media, and even rendering.

 


Xeon is definantly great for what you said, only bummer now is that Xeon V5 will be taking a massive hit. Skylake Xeon E3-V5 models will only work on C230 series chipsets. 🙁

As for FX, ALL of you have very valid arguments. I agree that FX works well for rendering or as a good workstation, but I still don't believe it's viable for a gaming machine. That is, until DX12 comes out.
 
Well you not believing that does not make you right imo:). I still have my fx 8120 bulldozer at 4ghz and work a 7950 it plays everything I play on high/ultra at 1920x1080. In a couple of years that may not be so, but when you figure I've been on this system for 2 years or so, upgrading the gpu once, I've gotten my money's worth. May even hold on another year.
 
Well as far as gaming goes, if you're running a sub $300 USD GPU, anything up to GTX960 and r9 380, you won't see much of a difference between Fx and i7, with some exceptions of course.

If you have the budget for a fury or 980, then it is uncommon to also buy a $150 cpu to pair it with.
 


That's pretty impressive with piledriver! It just keeps driving forward. 😀
 
Yeah mine is actually bulldozer not piledriver. Running 4ghz stock voltage.

I was running at 4.2 but had trouble with USB ports, so I think I was having trouble maybe had llc turned to high, turned it back to auto and that seems to have fixed it. May try to turn the voltage up a little and see if it's got any overclock room left. But they really aren't bad chips with some overclocking. Wish I would have gotten the piledriver but really this has done well and shod hold out until sometime next year when I can save some $$.
 
The unnamed as of yet elephant in this thread is the reintroduction of BCLK overclocking on all Intel Skylake CPUs.

Then this happens.

http://www.techspot.com/review/1108-intel-locked-skylake-cpu-bclk-overclocking/

Thanks to basically double the IPC the overclocked Skylake i3 easily competes with an 8320 at 4.6Ghz. Now of course that won't hold true in all applications but it's a pretty damn impressive showing from a ~$130 i3.
 
Trying to use the FX8xxx as a "gaming" example is pretty bad, it's a poor-mans workstation CPU that AMD tried to shoehorn into the "gaming" niche. The best gaming CPU from AMD is the FX6350 which is targeted at budget systems, which are decidedly not running high end GPU's. Games are notorious for only using 2~3 threads worth of performance while only two of them will be critical to FPS, so nobody should be surprised that high thread count chips don't perform so well there. Move on to more multi-task orientated work-loads and this changes things. There is a reason I bought an i7 and not an i5. And this isn't even touching the AIO / SFF / LP type setups that cater to the APUs, notably the A8-7600/7650.

Anyhow, AMD is definitely viable as budget platform. You can get decent all purpose performance for a low price. It won't be breaking any records or running super-max-ultra triple screen 4K gaming, but it will get the job done and is imminently disposable.

And as a note to people, planning on "upgrading" is financially the same as taking a pile of money, putting it in a trash can and throwing in a match. Platform technology is changing as such a rapid rate that it's cheaper to change out an entire system every 3~5 years then to try "upgrading" it. MB + CPU and often memory will need to periodically be changed out during system refreshes. Storage devices, PSU's, cases and sometimes GPU's can be kept between builds.
 
This has been a fun discussion to read. I do want to add my two cents in about real world people and AMD. I have waited years to get back into gaming because our family was all pulling together to get my wife through school. When we finally crossed the finish line of schooling being completed, I knew it was time to get a computer that was capable of gaming. The problem that I faced is that I have kids who have grown old enough that they also want to play modern computer games. This meant that I had to figure out a way to stretch computer dollars.

After much research, I realized that AMD was a viable option that would allow me to build not one, but two gaming rigs. Yes by going with AMD I "only" saved $100 dollars; however, this $100 is enough to get two computers now and not have to wait a few more months, and believe me when you have waited years those extra months would have been hard.

What I did do, was get good components that will allow me to start saving again and drop in a new mother board and chip in the next twelve to eighteen months. These will be months that I will be playing games (I will add that part of my decision is based on quite a large back log of slightly older titles that will do just fine on our 900p monitors.)

So in conclusion AMD is viable for my family. Would we love to have two computers rocking I5's? You bet we would, and by the way, that time will come (of course this will also allow us time to see if Zen has anything for Intel). Are we excited by the performance of our AMD's? You be we are because we can play games much better than on our PS4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom