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

[Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163]

Doesn't it make sense though? If people hate on console performance, why don't they hate on weaker PC's, since a weaker PC is going to perform much worse, than a more expensive PC? That never made any sense to me. If someone is happy with how their new shiny game looks, what gives someone else the right to bully someone... If anything, why don't at least these hardcore PC enthusiasts spam online chat boxes in multiplayer games and asking what system they use, rather than hating on forums. It's more of a fun thing, that nobody in reality doesn't take seriously, that's the only way this makes sense to me. :/

 

[turkey3_scratch]

I personally don't care too much if I'm watching a Blu-ray or DVD. If you have concern of how good the show or movie looks, it's probably not that good, and you're probably not engrossed into the story.

 

[Benjiwenji]

Some do. I was reading a piece of article on AMD polaris last week. In the comment section, a user claiming to have i7 4790k + 980ti literally called everyone with AMD GPU / console a "peasant". He is a obviously a troll, but there are many others who truly evaluate other people base on the hardware they game on.

Where does this level ignorance stem from?

 

[Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163]

What ignorance, PCMasterRace? Anyways, since this topic is about AMD, look at the price of the FX4000

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-4300 3.8GHz Quad-Core Processor ($82.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $82.99
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-01-11 23:05 EST-0500

I have mostly only put together builds with FX6300 in the list but it's cool to see that the difference between 6000 and 4000 is so small, I personally own the FX6300, and my gaming laptop's got a Intel N2840 high performance 4k ready, it's pretty new on the market.

Look at the price of the Athlon 860k though, price to performance AMD still wins, who cares about the upgrade path, how many people even upgrade their PC's, even if available?

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD Athlon X4 860K 3.7GHz Quad-Core Processor ($69.99 @ NCIX US)
Total: $69.99
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-01-11 23:07 EST-0500

 

[Benjiwenji]

I was referring to the notion of judging people by their gaming preferences as form of ignorance.

I personally use the Fx 6300 + 290 for gaming and the Athlon 760k + 280 for everything else. The 760k was my only rig throughout college, and it did great on games as well. But the Fx-6300 has gotten so cheap last year, so I decided to pick one up and also found a r9 290 ref for $200 on Newegg, just couldn't resist that price. 😛

I know intel is better, but I have no complaints on any AAA titles @ 1080p with my rig.

 

[ohiou_grad_2006]

The thing I like about the pc is that I can customize it and make it my own. Also the fact that I can upgrade a piece at a time. It's nice to know you can start with s budget of 400 to 500 bucks for a low end system and make it whatever you want.

 

[Benjiwenji]

True, also when rationality is put aside, I am fond of it because it I chose the parts and spent to build it.

However, there are real limitations to PCs too. Take my 760k for example, even at 4.6 ghz, putting a more powerful GPU than the 280 I already have would have a diminished return because of the cpu bottleneck. It is still going to be a fine moderate gaming PC for a couple more years with no possible "upgrade path." Eventually, the same goes for my Fx6300.

 

[ohiou_grad_2006]

Right but consider this. I have an old pc that the board died in with an Athlon ii quad, 8gb of ram etc. Picked up a board cpu combo for 100 bucks at microcenter. Upgraded my system with the cpu and the board is being used to resurrect the old system. I'll sell my old cpu second hand. The other box is a system for my wife's home office.

My old gaming box can go to her as an upgrade when I upgrade again. Then I can part that older system out or repurpose it as a home server and serve up files. So out of a system that's 3-4 years old with a little extra $$ to repair it, I can probably very another 3-4 out of it.

 

[Redneck5439]

True, also when rationality is put aside, I am fond of it because it I chose the parts and spent to build it.

However, there are real limitations to PCs too. Take my 760k for example, even at 4.6 ghz, putting a more powerful GPU than the 280 I already have would have a diminished return because of the cpu bottleneck. It is still going to be a fine moderate gaming PC for a couple more years with no possible "upgrade path." Eventually, the same goes for my Fx6300.

Eventually everything outlives its usefulness. Heck a good buddy of mine has a '66 Mustang, beautiful car and in great shape, but it can hardly be driven. Parts are next to impossible to find, gas mileage is horrible and you have to add a lead additive to it (as gas wasn't unleaded back in the day). Its more of a hassle than its worth to drive it so it sits in a garage looking pretty.

Eventually the PS4 and Xbone are going to be the outdated consoles and Sony and Microsoft will be on to their next gen of consoles. Those next console systems will probably push gaming past what a FX 6300 is capable of, but it won't be for many years to come. We are only about half way though (at best) the life span of the PS4 and a FX 6300 (especially overclocked) system with R9 280X or better GPU has more gaming power than the PS4 or Xbone. There are many games out there that the PS4 can't render at 1080p yet the gaming rig I made for my kids (FX 6300 overclocked with Sapphire R9 290 Tri-X) can render it at 1080p (when tested on my 1080p monitor) with better graphics settings than the PS4. Yes I know that the console systems enjoy optimizations that are impossible for a Windows based PC, yet the fact remains that you can play at better resolutions in all games with a FX 6300 and R9 280X+ GPU. Now guys with Intel i7 systems will always be gaming at a level above what you can get with an AMD FX Piledriver build can do, however if your still able to play all the latest games with better quality than the mainstream gaming consoles those games are made for then you are still ahead. And that is exactly what budget gamers are looking for- a gaming rig that can play all the games ported from the newest console systems at better quality than the consoles can render. As an added bonus you get to mod the heck out of the games sometimes adding double the game play time to a title. Realistically by the time the next consoles are out and the old FX 6300s (and probably 83xx series) can't handle the games any more Zen should be in its second generation. So you keep everything except your processor, more than likely GPU, motherboard, and RAM and upgrade to a ZEN (second generation ZEN) system and your good to game for another 8 years (the average lifespan of the console generations).

 

[ohiou_grad_2006]

As I said above too, the nice thing about the pc is your pc with that 6300 when outdated for gaming, can still make a fine home based server for serving out your music, files, etc. Or can still make a nice pc for a home office or for schoolwork.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

Nintendo is pushing quite fast for a new console. Coming out in October they claim, and they say they won't disclose any information on it because Sony and Microsoft will steal their ideas. I've always been a Nintendo fan, I hope they manage to create a good console.

 

[ohiou_grad_2006]

Nintendo is nice because they've kind of kept it for the kids. We'll see if they go toward a darker side with games like a lot of playstation and xbox games are. If they do, hopefully they still continue to make a lot of kids games like mario, zelda, etc.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

Nintendo is nice because they've kind of kept it for the kids. We'll see if they go toward a darker side with games like a lot of playstation and xbox games are. If they do, hopefully they still continue to make a lot of kids games like mario, zelda, etc.

No, they probably won't. Nintendo always has had some games for older people. I was at Best Buy and there was a Smash Bros tournament going on. Everyone there was in their twenties.

 

[Deleted member 217926]

older people----in their twenties

 

[Karadjgne]

I was just playing CS:GO, and there was a 7th grader playing a new build because his main build had so many medals he was getting tired of the invites. When I was a little older, early twenties, Nintendo was the game to have. Ninja Gaiden, Megaman, Duck Hunt etc was great. Now on the pc I've got 13yr Olds telling me about how to buy and trade statTrak weapons. If Nintendo drops a new console, and 'kids games' are an emphasis, they are going to have to aim at ages 5-9

 

[Supernova1138]

I was just playing CS:GO, and there was a 7th grader playing a new build because his main build had so many medals he was getting tired of the invites. When I was a little older, early twenties, Nintendo was the game to have. Ninja Gaiden, Megaman, Duck Hunt etc was great. Now on the pc I've got 13yr Olds telling me about how to buy and trade statTrak weapons. If Nintendo drops a new console, and 'kids games' are an emphasis, they are going to have to aim at ages 5-9

I think Nintendo has always had to do that ever since the Sega Genesis days. Most of the teenagers outgrew Nintendo's properties and flocked either to Sega or Sony back in the 90s. Nintendo only really had a hold on older gamers back in the late 80s when they were pretty much uncontested with the NES, with the Sega Master System and Atari 7800 not coming anywhere close to making a dent to Nintendo's dominance. Most of the older audience Nintendo has now are pretty much there solely for the nostalgia factor.

 

[Karadjgne]

My teenage girls loved the Dance Party series on the Wii, and I was forbidden to play because sitting on the couch and waving the wand would trump their high scores consistently. Now the only time it's used is when my youngest gets a bug up her ash and goes on a YouTube minecraft video binge fest

 

[turkey3_scratch]

The Wii sold like hotcakes compared to Nintendo's other consoles. Obviously it wasn't for the graphics, but it sold because the whole remote sensor idea was brand new, and I think that's what sold the console. The commercials for it were better than the Wii U commercials, too. Wii U commercials sucked. Point be told, the Wii U did not innovate at all. A controller with a touch screen is nothing special. Nintendo has been patenting a lot of products, a one of them seems to be some form of an external add-on processing unit. Not sure if it's going to be for VR or what, but I don't think it'll necessarily be VR because Nintendo claims the NX is going to be a never-before seen idea.

I guess we'll see at E3. I want Nintendo to succeed badly. Most of their games are only for their console, and it makes them stand out.

 

[TechyInAZ]

I played the Wii at several friends houses when I was younger, the wand was definantly a genious invention. I loved it, my arm was almost dead after playing a few hours of Wii tenis.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

I had most fun with bowling and boxing.

 

[Horrace]

Agreed. In this 'tutorial' you've basically come out and stated that amd fx is pointless, a dead end, I just wanted to point out that it's not quite there yet. AMD Fx might not be generally as strong as Intel, but unless you are aiming for top line performance, the FX on a budget will still hang with mid grade Intel at least

I agree, if all you look at is the performance, but when you thorw in budget, and you understand the true difference between the cpus, prices can kill, I was just doing my research for a system that I can afford, it came down to amd again, I am not looking for the fastest cpu or system, I need something that can play the latest racing sims and some olderl flight sims. If I did not have exprience in building my own, I would be thinking that I need Intel this and intel that, until you see how much a i7 3770k is going for, and you look at a 8350 and find that there is not enough difference for me to pay that much money for the trivial difference in performance, then if I turn around and look at the differrence in price for th I5, but I would have to buy another motherboard that is 100 to two hundred dollars more then a amd motherboard combo from microcenter. I know that all I do is play games so I dont see myself looking at the all that Intel can do, if the price was better maybe, and I think that is where all the Intel nuts and looking at what the test say, I only need a test that stress what I build so that I know that it will last, If I can play my games it is with the least amount of money I need to spend and so far it is not intel!

 

[zoenphlux]

At the end of the day the game just needs to run smooth, and the programs just need to not freeze. Last I checked AMD cpus provided both as well as Intel. The desktop performance ends up being a moot point outside of benchmarks, because your talking about time. Something that eventually you loose track of anyway. I find it funny that in a lot of these massive differences in performance we talk about, we are referring to seconds in most cases. lol

"My i7 zipped those files 15 seconds faster! Ohhhh Boy...just think of what you can do with all those seconds you saved! Everything is awesome!"

How miserable a life we must have that we get worked up so much over seconds, and imperceptible FPS.

 

[NubUser]

At the end of the day the game just needs to run smooth, and the programs just need to not freeze. Last I checked AMD cpus provided both as well as Intel. The desktop performance ends up being a moot point outside of benchmarks, because your talking about time. Something that eventually you loose track of anyway. I find it funny that in a lot of these massive differences in performance we talk about, we are referring to seconds in most cases. lol

"My i7 zipped those files 15 seconds faster! Ohhhh Boy...just think of what you can do with all those seconds you saved! Everything is awesome!"

How miserable a life we must have that we get worked up so much over seconds, and imperceptible FPS.

i agree, i only moved to intel because of power consuption and for emulation purpose

 

[logainofhades]

AMD's problem, other than power consumption, is its poor single threaded performance. It makes gaming performance more inconsistent, from game to game. For instance FX has a reputation of doing well in BF4, but gets beaten, by an i3 6100, in Fallout 4. For those that want to record/stream gameplay, but cannot afford even a Xeon E3 1230/1231v3, FX 8320/8350 still can be a good option. AMD has its place, but the instances where FX makes sense are becoming fewer and fewer. Back when it was competing with Sandy and Ivy, it was a much more viable solution. Problem is FX has become stagnant, while Intel has not. That minor 5-10% adds up after awhile.

 

[ohiou_grad_2006]

Hopefully they will pick the ball back up this coming fall/winter with zen and at least get back in the ballpark.