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

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar


Well aside from the fact that a heavily overclocked AMD CPU is going to put out way more heat and consume way more power than a stock clocked Intel CPU, while at best performing similarly to the stock i5 in most applications with the really high overclock, there is also the fact you aren't guaranteed to get 5GHz out of an AMD CPU. Most of the time 4.5 to 4.6GHz is the maximum practical overclock and getting higher than that tends to require expensive cooling and a pretty high end motherboard to handle the power draw unless you luck out on the silicon lottery.

Point is, it is getting hard to recommend buying a CPU that needs to be overclocked to its absolute limits just to stay relevant in the present, let alone the future. Such a CPU isn't likely to do all that great in the long term unless the way a lot of software is written is radically changed to either offload more work to the GPU or to vastly improve multithreading to benefit from AMD's higher core count. DirectX 12 and Vulkan might do that for games, or it might not, it's hard to say as there's no finished games on the market that uses either API, and honestly by the time those APIs reach mainstream usage, the Piledriver FX CPUs are going to be obsolete at that point.
 
The $89.99 Fx-6300 does not need to be overclocked to perform well on the vast majority of the tasks that everyday users encounters, a point that has been well illustrated in my previous comment. While a solid 5.0 Ghz isn't necessarily possible on every Fx-6300, 4.5 is a very safe overclock for that chip, anything up to 4.7 is very common on overclocker forums. Furthermore, the six cores less demanding on the CPU cooler than its 8 cores counterparts. The popular $30 212 and H7 can adequately cool the 6300 at 4.3-4 Ghz.

As far as gaming goes, I have no problems with the Fx-6300 at 4.3. I am getting either nearly or solid 60 fps on most games, with the exception of the witcher 3 with 50 fps. With the majority of gamers still on the 60hz monitor, explain to me, again, the real world benefits brought by the extra cost from the i5.
 


I absolutely love my FX 8370 and am quite happy with it. For the video editing and multi-threaded applications I run it makes a great workstation at a better value than Intel offerings. I do however fully realize the limitations of the FX Piledriver processors. With my FX 8370 @ 5.05Ghz I can run any AAA title at 1080p all ultra settings 60+FPS. With my 60Hz 1080p monitor that fits perfectly, and your not going to get any performance gain on Intel systems with a 60Hz monitor. You can pit an i5 6600K or i7 6700K and a GTX 980Ti against my system and it will have the same performance that my FX 8370 and R9 290 Vapor X has because of the 60Hz limit of my monitor. Any FPS over 60 goes to waste. As games transition to the DX 12 API I fully expect AAA titles to only get more multi-threaded and the biggest boon for FX processors is DX 12 will eliminate bottlenecking issues. I also believe that DX 12 games will be much more GPU than CPU dependent, which will also breath new life into the FX series (although Intel processors will also get a performance boost as well so will still game better on higher end monitors).

With that said Intel's big performance advantage is in heavily CPU dependent games where an FX is struggling to get 45-50 FPS and the Intel is buzzing along over 60 and of course gamers with higher end 120Hz+ monitors. In the same example above a i5 6600K or i7 6700K and GTX 980Ti against my FX 8370 and R9 290 Vapor X on a 120Hz monitor- my FX 8370 will be crushed in FPS compared to the Intel processors. Intel i5 processors hold the advantage in heavily CPU dependent games and if your gaming on a higher end 120Hz+ monitor. For anyone on a 60Hz monitor (which is what most are still using) your really not going to see a difference between an overclocked FX 6300, FX 8xxx and an i5 or i7 as any FPS over 60 means nothing. However anyone on a 120Hz+ monitor is rightly going to say their i5 or i7 outperforms the FX series as they can actually utilize the better performance / FPS. The guys that tend to annoy me are the ones who have FRAPS running in the background of every game and will boast about 100+FPS and are on a 60Hz monitor as that 100+FPS means absolutely nothing on a 60Hz monitor.
 
Im also running a 8370 @ 5.0 Ghz and it handles everything I throw at it

CPU: AMD 8370 @ 5.0 Ghz
Motherboard: Gigabyte 990FXA - UD5
Cooler: Phanteks PH-TC12DX 120mm
RAM: 2x8 gb GSkill Sniper @ 2133mhz
GPU: 770 GTX
Case: Coolermaster Storm Scout
PSU: Corsair 850W
Main Storage: 2 SDD 512 Mushkin Reactors in Raid 0 925/836 mb's per second
External Storage: 6 tb's
OS: Windows 7 Ultimate 64
Speakers:Logitech 5.1
Monitor: Viewsonic 27"
 
Exactly, the fact that it does the job at a competitive cost, then it is still viable.

I got mine at a Micro Center and Newegg.

Fx 6300 + GA970a-UD3P = $120

Newegg:
R9-290 ref. = $220
Antec HCG 850M =$69.99


Entire system before rebate is around $500 USD. Given it's performance-to-cost ratio, I don't see how it is 'not viable.'

 


The person I replied to specifically posted FX 8350 or 8370.
 


Your recommendation is sound and the i5 6500 would make a good gaming system, however if you are trying to make a good budget build the OP was saying FX 8350 or 8370, that's why I went with the FX 8370E. The FX 8370E can easily be overclocked at stock voltage to 4Ghz and match its bigger brother, with proper cooling it can hit 5Ghz. The FX 8370E is $140 and the GIGABYTE GA-970A-UD3P is $80 (at MicroCenter). The person said he already had quality RAM and the only things he needed is motherboard and processor. For $20 more than just the cost of the i5 6500 he can get both the FX 8370E and GA-970A-UD3P and totally upgrade his system.
 
So add the cooler along with a 8370e, increases the cost even more. For a 5ghz overclock, you are going to need quite the cooler, and a motherboard that can handle an FX 9590, just to be on the safe side.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-8370E 3.3GHz 8-Core Processor ($189.99 @ SuperBiiz)
CPU Cooler: CRYORIG R1 Ultimate 76.0 CFM CPU Cooler ($89.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 R5 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($111.99 @ Directron)
Total: $391.97
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-03-03 22:09 EST-0500


Even clocked, it won't beat this. Don't even need the extra cooling, but added anyway.
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Xeon E3-1231 V3 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($244.99 @ SuperBiiz)
CPU Cooler: RAIJINTEK AIDOS BLACK 48.6 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($19.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-Z97X-SLI ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($113.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $378.97
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-03-03 22:11 EST-0500


That is the problem with AMD, overclocking causes it to quickly lose its value, unless you already have a decent cooler on hand, or already have a decent AM3+ board you are upgrading the CPU in. For a brand new system, AMD, in general, just isn't a sensible solution, unless you are looking at a basic rig, where an APU would suffice. I would like to have an A8 7600 HTPC, to be honest.



 


I believe so, but taxes can sometimes negate much of the savings, depending on the location. The Stl/Brentwood location has this issue.
 


Guy already said he was heading to MicroCenter and the cost of the processor and motherboard is much better there. $140 for the FX 8370E, not $190 and $80 for the GA-970A-UD3P, not $112. Total cost to upgrade $220, total savings from your quoted price $80. If you get $40 off for motherboard and processor combo then your total cost $180 for both the FX 8370E and GA-970A-UD3P at Microcenter - total savings on the processor and motherboard from your quoted price $120. $180 for an upgrade to the FX 8370E is a really great deal and a very good value that would be very hard to match with a similarly priced Intel system- only way I could see to do it would be going to a dual core i3.

I have worked with several of the FX 8370E processors now and with the stock cooler it can overclock at stock voltage to 4Ghz - at 95W they are slightly better with heat than their 125W counterparts. Out of 6 builds that I have done with the FX 8370E they all overclocked to 4Ghz with no bump in Vcore and temps better than the FX 8350 @ stock on the stock cooler, so acceptable. An aftermarket cooler would only be necessary if pushing past 4Ghz, which is why I said it can hit 5Ghz on average but would need aftermarket cooling for that. If the OP just wants to clock it to the same level as the FX 8370 all it requires is a multiplier bump to 20 and he is fine with the stock cooler. To go beyond that then yea you need the extra cost of an aftermarket cooler.
 
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-8370E 3.3GHz 8-Core Processor ($189.99 @ SuperBiiz)
CPU Cooler: CRYORIG R1 Ultimate 76.0 CFM CPU Cooler ($89.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 R5 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($111.99 @ Directron)
Total: $391.97
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-03-03 22:09 EST-0500


"Even clocked, it won't beat this. Don't even need the extra cooling, but added anyway.
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Xeon E3-1231 V3 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($244.99 @ SuperBiiz)
CPU Cooler: RAIJINTEK AIDOS BLACK 48.6 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($19.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-Z97X-SLI ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($113.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $378.97
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-03-03 22:11 EST-0500"

Just wanted to point out that the 8370e and Cyrorig cooler could be substituted with the 8370 and wraith cooler package from newegg, on sale now for $179.99. That brings the AMD build down to $291.78.

CPU: AMD 8370 @ 5.0 Ghz
Motherboard: Gigabyte 990FXA - UD5
Cooler: Phanteks PH-TC12DX 120mm
RAM: 2x8 gb GSkill Sniper @ 2133mhz
GPU: 770 GTX
Case: Coolermaster Storm Scout
PSU: Corsair 850W
Main Storage: 2 SDD 512 Mushkin Reactors in Raid 0 925/836 mb's per second
External Storage: 6 tb's
OS: Windows 7 Ultimate 64
Speakers:Logitech 5.1
Monitor: Viewsonic 27"
 


Thing is the guy who started this little side track said he was going to MicroCenter, no need to quote inflated internet prices from SuperBiz, newegg, or anyone else. At the store he's going to he can get both the FX 8370E and the GA-970A-UD3P motherboard for $220, only $180 with the $40 discount for buying a processor / motherboard combo. If he really wanted the FX 8370 with Wraith cooler its also available for $180 so with motherboard would be $260, after processor motherboard combo discount would be $220 for FX 8370, Wraith cooler and GA-970A-UD3P. That is also a very good deal as with the Wraith combo you can push a good ~4.5Ghz overclock on all 8 cores.

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

http://www.microcenter.com/product/460565/FX_8370_4GHz_Eight_Core_Socket_AM3_Boxed_Processor_with_Wraith_Cooler

http://www.microcenter.com/product/426407/GA-970A-UD3P_Socket_AM3_AMD_ATX_Motherboard
 
If the objective is gaming, you would be better off with an i3 6100. You get more consistent performance, and an upgrade path. If you want a video editing machine, on the cheap, FX 8370e would be a smart buy. If you want an HTPC, A8 7600, with its 45w mode, is a pretty solid choice. The intended use matters a good deal. Microcenter can sweeten the deal, again, depending on taxes. The intel motherboard bundles are not as heavily discounted, so an i3 and the FX 8370e combos would probably be really close in price.

I have been researching i7 6700, and 5820k, components and prices, at MC. If AMD had a viable option, I would consider one. FX would be a downgrade, for me. They do not fold very well, and my heavily CPU dependent games wouldn't run as well either. AMD needs Zen out like last month. I want Zen to be good. Back in the SNB and Ivy days, I often recommended FX 8320's. 4yrs, and a few generation of Intel CPU's later, I can't. If steamroller/excavator would have made their way to AM3+, things would have been different. Global Foundries cannot seem to get their act together.
 


+1 all the way. I do a lot of video editing with my rig, and I upgraded from the Phenom II 965BE, had a FX 8350 that I sold a customer and then upgraded to the FX 8370. I was already running on a Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 so the upgrade to the FX 8350 and later the FX 8370 was a great choice for all the video editing and other multi-media work I end up doing a lot. For gaming I have been happy, I play Witcher 3, Fallout 4, ect on all ultra settings, 1080p 60+FPS. I only have a 1080p 60Hz monitor so for gaming even though the i3 6100 (which is a really good performer for its cost, actually out benchmarking some i5s in gaming) or i5 6600K would be better for gaming it wouldn't really do anything for me as I'm already getting 60FPS and my monitor can only handle 60Hz. I also get better multi-threaded performance for video editing out of my FX 8370 than I would on an i3 or i5.

AMD has nothing that can compete in the i7 high end market. Anyone who needs the power of an i7 CPU would be downgrading to go to AMD. AMD, right now, only competes up to the mid range i5 level CPUs. i5's will game better and more consistently and FX 8 core will get better multi-threaded performance for things such as video editing than an i5. i3's vs FX 6 core is basically the same deal. For people heavy into folding and really pushing their CPU the only choice right now is the i7, hopefully Zen will give people in the high end market a second choice.

I am really looking forward to the release of Zen, and truly hope that AMD gets it out in Q4 this year. Zen really should have released with Skylake, as AMD needs it and it would have gone head to head against Skylake better than head to head against Kaby Lake. Maybe its better that they aren't rushing it though, if they can avoid the problems they had with Bulldozer's launch it will be worth the extra wait. Even though I'm content to stay with my FX 8370 until Zen is in second generation I can't wait to see the benchmarks of a 16 core 32 thread Zen that AMD alluded to😀
 




I'll admit that yes, the FX 6300 is fast enough for a typical users tasks. However, when you can get far better performance from a I3 or I5 for just a little bit more money, it is the the better choice.

For the casual user, even a sandy bridge CPU would be good for them. The reason why all of us recommend the better CPUs is because you can get very good speeds for excellent (most of the time) prices.

BTW...Can you guys take a look at my other thread aswell? http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-2986517/discussion-amd-zen.html

If you could go over it and tell me of anything I might of said wrong, that would be awsome!
 
My main PC has an i7-4790k. I have another PC with an FX-6300. I haven't overclocked it at all, and it's running with a GTX 750 FTW, so it's no where near as good as my main PC, however as much as I hate AMD I do have to admit that at 1080p it is able to run all the games that I play on High-Ultra at 60+FPS.

Point being that I don't necessarily think that AMD is worth buying, if you find a good deal on a used AMD cpu then it might very well be worth at least considering because at least in my experience with AMD it hasn't been trash. That being said I still only buy Intel, just got a good deal on that other PC ($50 for that FX 6300).
 


An FX 6300 uses 95W. An I7 4790k uses 88W. We all know that the AMD Processors use more power but 88W vs 95W isn't a huge deal, and for the type of people you're talking about the FX 6300 is perfectly fine, no need for an i7.
 
1/2 the ppl don't pay their own electric bill, their parents do, or its included in the rent. The other 1/2 who do, honestly wouldn't see any difference as they'll leave lights on all night, run air conditioning or heat, leave water heaters heating water over night that no one uses etc.

So the whole argument about power hungry amd using a few more watts is realistically absurd in a major way.
 
tea urchin-
What on earth are you talking about?

Karadjgne- I completely agree with your point. Most people don't pay their power bills, and how much does the THEORETICAL POWER CONSUMPTION COST actually cost in reality?
 


tea urchin- you really shouldn't post on threads after a very long bender at the pub.:heink:

Power consumption of even a full blown FX 8 core, overclocked isn't going to be much of an impact on an electric bill over an i5 or i7 computer. That has been explained to you in great detail that the power costs is not a good argument but here is a video and maybe you can educate yourself a little:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBeeGHozSY0
video is a little dated but power consumption hasn't improved that much from gen to gen on Intel.

Now I know that you live in some back area of England where AMD processors are much more expensive than Intel counterparts that are magically beamed by Harry Potter to your living room for free. However here in reality, in the USA AMD budget builds can be built much cheaper than an Intel build and will far outperform any console system, which is what most people getting a budget build PC are looking for in the first place. When customers walk into my shop one of the first questions I get is always will it game better than the PS4 and how much more will it be. With a good budget build on a FX 6300 and GTX 960 its about the same cost but with much better performance. If someone is playing it on a 1080p TV with 60Hz then they aren't going to get anything more out of an Intel that can pump out 150+FPS because at 60Hz (the refresh rate most people are using on TVs and monitors) you can't utilize any of that extra performance being pumped out by the Intel rig.

For people who want a budget workstation for rendering, video editing, any other highly multi-threaded application the very best bang for you buck is an FX 8 core processor. For $180 I can go to MicroCenter and get a FX 8370E and GA-970A-UD3P motherboard and have a budget workstation that can outperform an i5 (for less than the cost of just the i5 processor in most cases) and is hugely cheaper than an i7 rig.

AMD is still a very viable system for anyone who is on a budget. If you have a lot of money to throw into a computer system then yes Intel is always the better choice at this point in time, no one in these forums will argue that. If you are fortunate enough to have a 120 or 240Hz gaming monitor 1080p to 1440 then you really should be using a Intel rig for it. It only makes sense as quite a few 1440 monitors cost more than an entire AMD rig. You should spend at the very least more money for the computer than the monitor so it would make no sense to use an AMD rig on a gaming monitor like that.

If you have a large budget then Intel is really the only option that makes sense. If you are on a tight budget- ie your a gamer who wants a system priced close to a PS4 but want something with more power, higher resolution and has games that can be modded there is nothing wrong with a FX 6300 up to FX 8370E rig. If you are a college student pinching every penny you can but need something that can multi-task, render, video edit, do any other highly multi-threaded application then a build centering around a $180 FX 8370E, GA-970A-UD3P combo ($220 if you get FX 8370 (with wraith cooler) and GA-970A-UD3P combo) is a very good rig that will give you better multi-threaded performance than an i5 usually for less money.

We are not talking about enthusiasts with lots to sink into a computer build buying AMD. We are talking about people building budget systems to run what they need at the best cost for their budget. All you do is go from one AMD thread to the next totally trolling AMD telling everyone they are totally worthless and can't do anything, which is completely and totally untrue. If Intel isn't paying you for your "trolling services" they really should be.
 


Oh believe me, I own my house, my barns, my shop, luckily all on the same now 120 acre farm that I also own, so yea I'm paying my own power bills for sure. Most days my FX 8370 @ 5.05Ghz runs all day long, my electric bill for the house (where my computer is) is dwarfed by my bill for my boarding barns, and all that is running in the barns is lights and couple refrigerators. I end up with higher bills for the barns because boarders for some reason won't turn off lights that aren't needed even though I have told them about it many times. I run all GE 5 year "green" energy bulbs yet my power bill is always way more than the bill I have for my house where my overclocked FX 8370 is running under load most days. My "power hungry" FX 8370 isn't jacking my power bills.

The cost difference between running an i5 or an i7 as compared to running a FX 8 core processor look large on paper but in the real world are minuscule. If you running a laptop the power benefits of the newer arch i5 and i7 are undeniable (as your on battery power), but for a desktop the power usage difference is so small as it is a non-issue.
 


The number of home owners in the US has been sadly on a steady decline over the past 10 years due to a turbulent economy and poor "lame duck" government leadership. This has lead to a large upsurge of people who rent. In a lot of rental agreements some utilities such as electricity are included. I'm not saying its half the population but its higher than it ever use to be.
 


As everyone is already vastly aware anytime you test an i5 against an FX in any benchmark that favors single core performance the i5 is going to win. Everyone knows that the "on paper" power tests have Intel out in front. These things aren't news to anyone and have been beaten into the dirt for years.

Its when you can utilize all the cores of an 8 core FX that they outperform an i5. And believe me if I set up a test i5 4690K vs my FX 8370 and have it run the exact same rendering or video editing project, the FX is going to outperform the i5 every time. I've seen it with my own eyes too many times to count.

As for which one is the best value if you can build a FX system for $100, $150, $200+ cheaper than an i5 up front it is a lot easier for people on a strict budget to afford than shelling out more money up front for an Intel build. These budget gamers usually run 720p - 1080p monitors @ 60Hz as the better monitors are again outside of the budget. As quoted by many people the FX 6300 can game near 60FPS in all AAA titles with high to ultra settings. An FX 8370(E) build can game over 60FPS in all AAA tiles at ultra settings. If your on a monitor that only has 60Hz would you care to explain to me why I should try selling a customer on a budget a more expensive, and in some cases much more expensive, i5 or i7 system? Does it matter that your pumping out 100, 150, 200FPS+ in benchmarks and FRAPS if your monitor is only 60Hz? The answer is simple- NO. I don't like ripping off people who don't have a lot of money by telling then that they need to be getting 100FPS+ when they can't even use that extra performance on the monitor they are buying / have.

Again for budget gaming or a budget workstation it is really difficult to get better value than an FX build. I am just now starting to push the i3 6100 as a really good budget gamer as well, but in most cases the FX 6300 still comes in under the cost and the extra FPS don't mean anything if your gaming at 60Hz. As for video editing, rendering, ect... no i5 is going to give you the performance / price or the overall multi-threaded performance of an FX 8 core build. i7s can easily outperform FX 8 core but you are also going to pay more for an Intel i7 or Xeon build. If a customer has the budget for the Intel build I of course try to go that route as they will get better performance, however if a customer is on a tight budget and really can't afford the Intel then an FX 8 core makes a great budget workstation.

Power consumption differences between i5, i7, and FX are so incredibly slim in the real world as its not even something to consider when looking at AMD vs Intel. Your talking a difference at most of around $2 a month (if the computers are run 24/7) in your power bill which again is nothing when comparing the initial build cost between the systems for people on a tight budget.

No matter how you break it down AMD FX processors make fine budget builds for consumers who have a tight budget. For people who have a more flexible budget or have no budget constraints whatsoever no one would recommend an FX system over an Intel build. AMD FX's niche is for budget builds and they perform very well in that niche.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom