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

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
I should add that we actually saved quite a bit more that $100 because we found great deals on motherboards that I was not able to find for I3 chips.
 
Massive power draw? The fx 8 cores run 125w, Intel runs from 50's to 140, with most stronger cpu's running @88w or so. Not much difference. Overclock an 8350 hard, you'll see upwards of 200w. Overclock an i7 hard, you'll see upwards of 200w. The 8350 runs 8 cores, so when set against a dual core i3 and a quad core i5, of course it draws more power. If you really want to get closer to actual core draws, try equating the 6core 140w 5820k/5930k or even the 8 core 140w 5960x. Core for core, the FX draws less and the cost is definitely in favor of amd.

That article is a joke, really, only really saying that for the same price tag, amd beats Intel in production, just pulls a few more watts from the oversized psu you already use for the oversized gpu.
 


I agree, the power draw won't matter since your overclocking. But if were comparing the i7 directly to the FX, clock for clock, then I'd have to say that the i7 will be a lot faster than the 8350 if both were at 5ghz. But is the i7 worth the additional price for 5ghz over a fx 8350 at 5ghz? that's up to you.
 


+1
I repair and build custom computer systems as a side job that started as just a hobby. The vast majority of people who I deal with are either looking for a basic do it all home computer or "a computer that can match the new consoles". With the former most are just looking to keep track of family finances, surf on the internet, and at best do mild gaming (mostly for their kids, most of which already have a gaming console). I would be a real money grubbing jerk if I were to suggest going to an Intel build for someone like that when they aren't even going to stress an FX build. Will the Intel computer fulfill their needs? Of course, but 90% of its "power" is going to go totally unused (like selling a 85 year old who drives 15mph under the speed limit a muscle car). The later who just is looking for something to "match" the gaming power of the Xbone or PS4, again Intel is going to be overkill. The Xbone can't even render some games at more than 720p, and even at 1080p a mid level gaming computer can far outshine the PS4 or Xbone. A FX 6300, 6350, or FX 83xx with a R9 280 (or GTX counterpart) or better is going to out game either the Xbone or PS4 easily. Again these are gamers that are looking for a gaming experience like the PS4 or Xbone, most of which hook their gaming PC right into their television like a console. The two above examples account for like 85 - 90% of my business and 95% of them are shocked that they don't need to go to an Intel system. They research the processors, see everyone on hardware sites like this bashing AMD right and left, see Intel advertise non-stop on TV with the annoying guy from 3rd Rock, and they think the only option is some form of Intel.

A professional or hardcore gamer looking to max out several 1080p or 1440 large screen monitors and is going to cry about the loss of 5 FPS - those are the people I build Intel systems for. Those are the people who are actually going to need the better performance power of the Intel system, and if I built them an AMD system they would be back within days really ticked off.

I always look at the individual customer's needs and have good "word of mouth" business because I don't rip people off and I don't sell them a system that is totally overkill for their needs. The vast majority of "common Joe" computer users are never going to come close to maxing out the processing power of FX 83xx, let alone going to an expensive Intel build. That is where the FX processors, although aged, still are viable today.
 
Of course it's viable, but then for different people viable means different things.

For most people FX is just fine, because most people do not even need anything much to begin with. If you are balls to the wall hardcore or enthusiast - Intel all the way, but casual gamer/user? FX is fine, but then they can do just fine with alternative Intel solutions like I3s or entry level i5 and these are competitively priced, quality chips.

That said, I do think there is a very little reason to buy FX now, it's basically ancient technology now compared to all the shiny Skylakes of all types and flavors around which come with a huge selection of decent cheapo motherboards of all kinds, tastes and colors. Whatever you save on FX processor, you will simply spend on motherboard and electricity bill.
 
The FX series hangs around for those of us who don't have the money for an i7/Xeon but benefit heavily from the threads. Skylake i5 chips are finally catching up with FX in multithreaded performance, though. On the other hand we are only a year, and maybe less, from a whole new architure 40% more powerful. That will at least maintain FX's position especially with SMT.
 
I know I was tempted looking around already at skylake because I don't feel like waiting on AMD. But then I'm thinking if I upgraded, my budget now might get an i3, which honestly, why bother. I've got an FX 8120 overclocked to 4 ghz, I'll see what Santa brings this year, or I reckon the venerable old 8120 can soldier on till next november. It still plays all my titles along with my 7950, so no reason to rush yet.
 
To best honest most users will never user the power of an FX8 chip. It's why I would recommend an FX6350 on a 970 board for most mainstream "home user" builds with a mid to low range graphics card. AMD really missed the boat by not having mini-ITX 970 boards available around piledriver launch. The FX8 chip is really just for people who want to do workstation style workloads, on a really low budget, which kinda is a super niche segment that might be better served by an Intel offering.
 
Since the AMD fx8350 only has 4 physical cores that they basically cut in half in the micro architecture, why wouldn't they remake them with only four cores so that they would have a lot better performance? I've heard Zen will only have four cores, so could they just basically doing a rebrand but with four cores instead of eight? I mean AMD has a history of hype and them a disappointing release (the r9 300 series for months people said would be a changer, but for the most part it really wasn't). Any ideas or thoughts on the matter? I'm not sure about the nm size of the dye, as I've heard so many things from them skipping 22nm and going straight to 14nm, and I think that I also heard they were going to 20nm? Just kinda confused with all the rumors going around, not trying to sound stupid 😛
 
The fx has 4 modules. Each module has 2 physical cores. The difference between amd and Intel is that while Intel uses resources separately per core, amd uses resources separately per module, so core pairs share. With the fx series, all the architecture is the same, so if a core fails testing, an entire module can be shut off, and you get an fx6300. If 2 separate cores fail, 2 modules can be shut down and you get an fx4300. With Intel, if a core fails there's no choice, either junk the cpu or make it an i3. Saves amd considerable amounts of capital having down steps that Intel doesn't.

If I remember right, Zen will be 20nm, skipping established architecture entirely, so while it's possible that base design might be similar, there's not much chance of a rebrand.
 


I've heard of AMD basically selling those CPU's which were broken out of the factory as CPU's with lower amounts of cores, allowing them to save money, however wouldn't this basically be selling a consumer a damaged CPU? And since it has 4 nodes each basically cut in half, it doesn't even have a real true 8 physical cores like the I7 5960x has, yet it still generates a lot of heat. The Fx 9590 uses 220W of power, and makes a lot of heat, and it's priced at the same price that the i5 4690k was, which used both less power and can outperform it. I would agree with the general consensus of the forum that AMD is killing themselves by not releasing new products every year, however I don't this this has been mentioned but AMD makes a lot of their revenues from console sales. I'm fully aware they are loosing money every year but both the Xbox One and the PS4 have AMD chips in them, and the PS3 and Xbox 360 had AMD chips in them, but what I don't understand is why those are only clocked at like 1.7 ghz or whatever and not at like 3.5 ghz or 4.2 ghz. Is this due to lack of cooling or are these different processors than their normal FX processor line?
 
The consoles aren't making AMD much money as the profit margins on them are razor thin, and cannot make up for the losses being taken by every other part of their business. The consoles use Jaguar APUs, which are basically low powered CPUs aimed more at tablets and low end laptops, they are designed to preserve battery life first and foremost so that's why they are clocked so low. Microsoft and Sony used Jaguar because it was cheap and they could skimp on other things like heatsinks or noisy fans while not having the chip overheat and desolder itself like what happened with the Xbox 360. Sony and Microsoft are paying for this decision though as the latest open world games run terribly on both Xbox One and Playstation 4, and the weak CPUs are very likely to blame for that.
 
The 1.8GHz jaguars were used not only for price concerns, but mainly for heat issues. With such a small form factor, a good sized heatsink was an impossibility, and not wanting the additional noise of a fan, a passive heatsink is used, so cpu power needs to be minimalistic while still being able to do the job. An 8 thread, 1.8GHz unit based on a cpu capable of double that speed is as good as it gets in this instance.

History repeats itself. It's a fact. In this, I believe the game writers themselves are to blame for lousy performance. Everyone knew what the performance limitations of the ps4 and Xbox one are, the consoles aren't new releases. If the game writers had paid attention to amds rush job on the bulldozers, they'd have spent more time optimizing for the consoles, and less time worrying about getting the games on the shelves before Christmas
 
Would anyone else agree that AMDs largest problem is that they do not annually release products or release products near the time when their competitors are releasing their products?
 


The lack of releases is definitely a problem. Intel may not have been advancing much in the past few years, but they are still advancing nonetheless. The Piledriver FX CPUs were at least somewhat competitive in certain workloads back when they first came out 3 years ago and were going up against Ivy Bridge. Now, they are up against Haswell and Skylake, and we're at the point where the i5s are now edging out the 8 core FX CPUs in productivity tasks where the FX CPUs once shone. At this point, price is about the only thing AMD has left going for it, and having to repeatedly slash their prices can't be good for their profits.

If AMD released some high performance CPUs based on Steamroller or Excavator, they might have a more competitive product available to at least tide people over until Zen launches late next year. AMD didn't do that, and now you have people debating between either switching to Intel now as they're effectively the only game in town now if you need serious gaming performance out of your CPU or trying to ride out their old systems for another year in hopes of Zen being something good.
 
AMD's largest problem is that they had about $5.5 Billion in revenue in 2014. Intel had $55.8 billion. Hell Nvidia had $4.1 billion and they only do graphics.

The best thing that could happen to AMD is if Samsung were to buy them and infuse $$$$ into R&D.
 


Zen is slated to be 14nm, and I highly doubt that it will resemble Bulldozer / Piledriver. From what has been leaked out it looks like Zen will be available in different processor types. They will have 4 core 8 thread Zen and I've heard tell of 8 core 16 thread Zen processors. It looks like AMD is basically following the i7 template (if so not a bad idea to follow something that has obviously worked). If Zen comes to the market at their projected IPC of 40% greater than Excavator it will be somewhere between the performance levels of Ivy Bridge and Haswell in its first generation. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised that if Zen is at that performance level that AMD doesn't add more Zen cores to compensate for gap between Zen and Skylake / Kaby Lake in multithreaded applications.
 
Intel has been on 14nm since Broadwell......Skylake can take higher voltages than Haswell so I don't know how that would matter with CPU coolers? You hit voltage limits with Skylake well before thermal limits at least from what I've seen.
 


Yeah I've mentioned that before, they just don't have the R&D budget to compete with Intel. Their modular designs was to let them build and redesign CPU's at a cheaper cost since they can treat CPU components like lego's, but it's still not enough to compete with a 10x discrepancy. It takes years to bring a new uArch to the market and they have been spending all the R&D cash on Zen so that's why there hasn't been a significant CPU refresh in awhile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom