What is the best new AMD AM3+ CPU?

[exacier]

What is the best new AMD AM3+ CPU? I am thinking of upgrading and I'm not sure which is the best. I do gaming and livestreaming, recording, video editing/rendering and such. Also which is the best price/performance?

 

[IInuyasha74]

What AM3+ CPU do you currently have?

Unfortunately none of them are new really. The best one overall is the FX-8370E, which offers marginally better performance than the FX-8350. Its bigger benefit over the others with it is that it uses a bit less power and produces less heat. Though really any 8-core AMD CPU will do fine. Just avoid the ones with an number starting with 9, as those have extreme heat and power consumption.

 

[exacier]

I have an fx 6300 @4.5ghz on an MSI 970 Gaming. I might aswell get the 8370E.

 

[exacier]

I get around 70fps in bf4 with my 6300 and r9 280x but at some points when alot of stuff is happening or I in Op locker where everyone just chucks every explosive they got, I get a 10-20fps drop. But I also play games like minecraft which are CPU intensive and using the extra cores should be good for rendering.

 

[IInuyasha74]

I have an fx 6300 @4.5ghz on an MSI 970 Gaming. I might aswell get the 8370E.

If you would like to it wouldn't hurt. Likely that will be the best CPU ever made for AM3+. Don't listen to Link from the future when he says that there won't be any improvement. That gives you another FPU and 2 more threads total. A lot of games are moving to use 6 or more cores and overall will get you some performance increase. It isn't as good as most Intel i5 and i7 offerings but its also a lot cheaper than buying a new motherboard, and for those other tasks you mentioned the extra threads do help to increase performance a fair bit.

 

[exacier]

Also because PC ports of "next gen" console games will probably be better with 8 cores, like the console CPUs.

 

[slyu9213]

as others said. FX 83XX will be the best CPU for that socket but there will be little to no imrovements over the FX 6300 you have. For the problem with low minimum FPS you'll want to/have to switch to an Intel setup. A locked i5/Xeon may be a good suit for you but it all depends on your budget. If you don't have enough budget for a complete change I would recommend saving until then and not get an FX 83XX series CPU

 

[slyu9213]

as others said. FX 83XX will be the best CPU for that socket but there will be little to no imrovements over the FX 6300 you have. For the problem with low minimum FPS you'll want to/have to switch to an Intel setup. A locked i5/Xeon may be a good suit for you but it all depends on your budget. If you don't have enough budget for a complete change I would recommend saving until then and not get an FX 83XX series CPU

This guy is on point.

Well you are too. I am an AMD fan to the bone/core but the truth is the truth. Now there will be improvements going from a FX 63XX to an FX 83XX. Coincidentally the improvements will come in an increase in minimum FPS from CPU bound games and there will be some tiny increases in average FPS too. While going off of Tom's Far Cry 4 review. Going from a 6300 to a 9590 may provide gains up to 11FPS in MIN FPS and 3-5 for the AVG FPS. There are some gains but going with an Intel will provide more. Going with an i5 will get you ~30 FPS boost in MIN FPS and ~10 FPS for AVG. If you think about using money wisely then Intel is the route to go. That doesn't mean people can't stick with AMD. They just need to realize what they will be missing and sacrificing at the end.

 

[IInuyasha74]

as others said. FX 83XX will be the best CPU for that socket but there will be little to no imrovements over the FX 6300 you have. For the problem with low minimum FPS you'll want to/have to switch to an Intel setup. A locked i5/Xeon may be a good suit for you but it all depends on your budget. If you don't have enough budget for a complete change I would recommend saving until then and not get an FX 83XX series CPU

This guy is on point.

Well you are too. I am an AMD fan to the bone/core but the truth is the truth. Now there will be improvements going from a FX 63XX to an FX 83XX. Coincidentally the improvements will come in an increase in minimum FPS from CPU bound games and there will be some tiny increases in average FPS too. While going off of Tom's Far Cry 4 review. Going from a 6300 to a 9590 may provide gains up to 11FPS in MIN FPS and 3-5 for the AVG FPS. There are some gains but going with an Intel will provide more. Going with an i5 will get you ~30 FPS boost in MIN FPS and ~10 FPS for AVG. If you think about using money wisely then Intel is the route to go. That doesn't mean people can't stick with AMD. They just need to realize what they will be missing and sacrificing at the end.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/far-cry-4-benchmark-performance-review,4019-4.html

You are really really far off on everything you are saying. Looking at the very review you are talking about we see 11FPS gain going to the AMD 8-core (The what 9550 is basically a well stock overclocked FX 8350 which consumes way too much power). Going with an i5-4690k used in the review would get you all of 16 minimum FPS increase compared the the 8-core CPU already mentioned but at the cost of at least $290 since you must buy a new motherboard, and likely more to get a decent motherboard. While getting an 8-Core AMD CPU can be had often for around $120 and he is done at less than half the cost.

For max FPS, he only gets 5FPS more for paying well past double what the cost of a CPU upgrade would be. Most of the time its going to run closer to the max than the lowest, which means maintaining Far Cry 4 maxed out settings at 60FPS won't be a problem for any of the AMD 8-cores.

On top of that, he does other things besides gaming and the added cores really help in video editing and rendering. Its a terrible decision financially to think that he should pay $150 more than what he needs to pay for his upgrade just to get 5 little frames more per second.

 

[slyu9213]

as others said. FX 83XX will be the best CPU for that socket but there will be little to no imrovements over the FX 6300 you have. For the problem with low minimum FPS you'll want to/have to switch to an Intel setup. A locked i5/Xeon may be a good suit for you but it all depends on your budget. If you don't have enough budget for a complete change I would recommend saving until then and not get an FX 83XX series CPU

This guy is on point.

Well you are too. I am an AMD fan to the bone/core but the truth is the truth. Now there will be improvements going from a FX 63XX to an FX 83XX. Coincidentally the improvements will come in an increase in minimum FPS from CPU bound games and there will be some tiny increases in average FPS too. While going off of Tom's Far Cry 4 review. Going from a 6300 to a 9590 may provide gains up to 11FPS in MIN FPS and 3-5 for the AVG FPS. There are some gains but going with an Intel will provide more. Going with an i5 will get you ~30 FPS boost in MIN FPS and ~10 FPS for AVG. If you think about using money wisely then Intel is the route to go. That doesn't mean people can't stick with AMD. They just need to realize what they will be missing and sacrificing at the end.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/far-cry-4-benchmark-performance-review,4019-4.html

You are really really far off on everything you are saying. Looking at the very review you are talking about we see 11FPS gain going to the AMD 8-core (The what 9550 is basically a well stock overclocked FX 8350 which consumes way too much power). Going with an i5-4690k used in the review would get you all of 16 minimum FPS increase compared the the 8-core CPU already mentioned but at the cost of at least $290 since you must buy a new motherboard, and likely more to get a decent motherboard. While getting an 8-Core AMD CPU can be had often for around $120 and he is done at less than half the cost.

For max FPS, he only gets 5FPS more for paying well past double what the cost of a CPU upgrade would be. Most of the time its going to run closer to the max than the lowest, which means maintaining Far Cry 4 maxed out settings at 60FPS won't be a problem for any of the AMD 8-cores.

On top of that, he does other things besides gaming and the added cores really help in video editing and rendering. Its a terrible decision financially to think that he should pay $150 more than what he needs to pay for his upgrade just to get 5 little frames more per second.

Maybe I didn't word myself well enough. My bad. I am not 'far off' because my intentions were to compare the FX 6300 (that the OP owns) to the i5 4690K directly. So yes the i5 provides ~30FPS boost from an FX 6300 for minimums while I the ~11 FPS boost is from going to an FX 6300 to an FX 9590. No where in the post did I say that the i5 got a 30FPS boost in minimums compared to the FX 9590 nor FX 8350. Like you said the 11FPS minimum boost is going from a FX 6300 to an FX 9590 (OCed FX 83XX). So with a stock FX 83XX you wouldn't even have that much of a gain compared to the 9590 that would boost up to 5GHz. Remember that the numbers from the benchmark are stock. Meaning that the OP can get a locked i5 4960 or a locked i5 with the same OC as the i5 4690K while the OP would have to get a FX 83XX and OC to 4.7/5GHz to match the 9590. Additional money will be required if the OP has a mediocre 4+1/4+2 Phase motherboard and bad cooller too. I would say if you need to buy a whole new motherboard and cooler (not confirmed) just to overclock a FX 8350 to 9590 speeds then that the OP is better off getting an LGA 115X motherboard and a locked i5.

I will admit I forgot that the OP did livestreaming, video editing/rendering etc. The FX 83XX will have an advantage multitasking. It will all be up to the OPs usage. Is gaming performance more important? Or is the multitasking aspect of other intensive tasks more important.

 

[TheMagicalWallaby]

I have an fx 6300 @4.5ghz on an MSI 970 Gaming. I might aswell get the 8370E.

No for gaming you will not see any benefit a side grade really. Get Intel and be happy cause they are glorious.

He is doing more than gaming

 

[TheMagicalWallaby]

I have an fx 6300 @4.5ghz on an MSI 970 Gaming. I might aswell get the 8370E.

No for gaming you will not see any benefit a side grade really. Get Intel and be happy cause they are glorious.

He is doing more than gaming

Sigh Intel is better for everything.

Depends on the price. For example, an 8350 is a lot better than an i3 for video editing and they are the same price (the 8350 is in the middle of i3 prices).

 

[TheMagicalWallaby]

I have an fx 6300 @4.5ghz on an MSI 970 Gaming. I might aswell get the 8370E.

No for gaming you will not see any benefit a side grade really. Get Intel and be happy cause they are glorious.

He is doing more than gaming

Sigh Intel is better for everything.

Depends on the price. For example, an 8350 is a lot better than an i3 for video editing and they are the same price.

You can get a Haswell Core i3 platform for $177 dollars and then AMD can't compete anywhere else so ? Me does not understands what you are saying.

Honestly I don't feel like going over how AMD is competitive up to the i5 4690k and the i7 4790 when overclocked. It sounds like you "like" Intel so it probably would be a waste of our time anyways

 

[slyu9213]

Me too Link. I wanted to go with a FX 9590 as a AMD fan but at the pricepoint I would be wasting money getting a hot CPU for prices of I5s. On the other hand I just got my hands on a FX 8350 at bargain price ($100) due to a friend not needing his desktop.

Every CPU is good depending on the price. The 8350 will be better for the R9 290 than my 860k

 

[IInuyasha74]

Maybe I didn't word myself well enough. My bad. I am not 'far off' because my intentions were to compare the FX 6300 (that the OP owns) to the i5 4690K directly. So yes the i5 provides ~30FPS boost from an FX 6300 for minimums while I the ~11 FPS boost is from going to an FX 6300 to an FX 9590. No where in the post did I say that the i5 got a 30FPS boost in minimums compared to the FX 9590 nor FX 8350. Like you said the 11FPS minimum boost is going from a FX 6300 to an FX 9590 (OCed FX 83XX). So with a stock FX 83XX you wouldn't even have that much of a gain compared to the 9590 that would boost up to 5GHz. Remember that the numbers from the benchmark are stock. Meaning that the OP can get a locked i5 4960 or a locked i5 with the same OC as the i5 4690K while the OP would have to get a FX 83XX and OC to 4.7/5GHz to match the 9590. Additional money will be required if the OP has a mediocre 4+1/4+2 Phase motherboard and bad cooller too. I would say if you need to buy a whole new motherboard and cooler (not confirmed) just to overclock a FX 8350 to 9590 speeds then that the OP is better off getting an LGA 115X motherboard and a locked i5.

I will admit I forgot that the OP did livestreaming, video editing/rendering etc. The FX 83XX will have an advantage multitasking. It will all be up to the OPs usage. Is gaming performance more important? Or is the multitasking aspect of other intensive tasks more important.

For the FPS fair enough, the results you are stating do closely match a stock FX-6300 to an i5-4690k upgrade. Though he does have an overclock to 4.5Ghz so that differences is weakened a bit. I would think he likely has a good cooler, but you are right about the motherboard I wasn't thinking too much about.

If his motherboard is also not up to the task of handling one of those 8-core FX CPUs and would require upgrading also, I do agree that Intel is the best option without question. The FX-8370E still might be best as it will work on boards only supporting 95w TDP but he woudn't be able to overclock much at all. So maybe that, but otherwise Intel is best if he needs to buy a motherboard also.

I do love the performance and efficiency of Intel CPUs, and I love my i7-3770k. I wouldn't trade it for an AMD system even if you offered me a free GTX 980 on top as a parting gift. I often recommend people to Intel especially for new builds, but I'm just not ready to mark AMD off completely in areas where they have a significant price advantage such as a system upgrade.

 

[VenBaja]

as others said. FX 83XX will be the best CPU for that socket but there will be little to no imrovements over the FX 6300 you have. For the problem with low minimum FPS you'll want to/have to switch to an Intel setup. A locked i5/Xeon may be a good suit for you but it all depends on your budget. If you don't have enough budget for a complete change I would recommend saving until then and not get an FX 83XX series CPU

This guy is on point.

Well you are too. I am an AMD fan to the bone/core but the truth is the truth. Now there will be improvements going from a FX 63XX to an FX 83XX. Coincidentally the improvements will come in an increase in minimum FPS from CPU bound games and there will be some tiny increases in average FPS too. While going off of Tom's Far Cry 4 review. Going from a 6300 to a 9590 may provide gains up to 11FPS in MIN FPS and 3-5 for the AVG FPS. There are some gains but going with an Intel will provide more. Going with an i5 will get you ~30 FPS boost in MIN FPS and ~10 FPS for AVG. If you think about using money wisely then Intel is the route to go. That doesn't mean people can't stick with AMD. They just need to realize what they will be missing and sacrificing at the end.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/far-cry-4-benchmark-performance-review,4019-4.html

You are really really far off on everything you are saying. Looking at the very review you are talking about we see 11FPS gain going to the AMD 8-core (The what 9550 is basically a well stock overclocked FX 8350 which consumes way too much power). Going with an i5-4690k used in the review would get you all of 16 minimum FPS increase compared the the 8-core CPU already mentioned but at the cost of at least $290 since you must buy a new motherboard, and likely more to get a decent motherboard. While getting an 8-Core AMD CPU can be had often for around $120 and he is done at less than half the cost.

For max FPS, he only gets 5FPS more for paying well past double what the cost of a CPU upgrade would be. Most of the time its going to run closer to the max than the lowest, which means maintaining Far Cry 4 maxed out settings at 60FPS won't be a problem for any of the AMD 8-cores.

On top of that, he does other things besides gaming and the added cores really help in video editing and rendering. Its a terrible decision financially to think that he should pay $150 more than what he needs to pay for his upgrade just to get 5 little frames more per second.

That is a singleplayer GPU bound benchmark and therefore, not a good indication of CPU performance. In CPU bound conditions such as multiplayer gaming, there is an huge difference between an FX-6300 and any i5 or greater Intel CPU. If the OP is not interested in any kind of multiplayer games, he might as well stick with the FX-6300, as no CPU change will net more than a few more fps. If he is interested in better performance in multiplayer games, he will benefit greatly from moving to an Intel platform.

 

[Damon Holmes]

YOU IDIOTS! the AMD FX-9590 is the best AMD AM3+ CPU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[slyu9213]

For the FPS fair enough, the results you are stating do closely match a stock FX-6300 to an i5-4690k upgrade. Though he does have an overclock to 4.5Ghz so that differences is weakened a bit. I would think he likely has a good cooler, but you are right about the motherboard I wasn't thinking too much about.

If his motherboard is also not up to the task of handling one of those 8-core FX CPUs and would require upgrading also, I do agree that Intel is the best option without question. The FX-8370E still might be best as it will work on boards only supporting 95w TDP but he woudn't be able to overclock much at all. So maybe that, but otherwise Intel is best if he needs to buy a motherboard also.

I do love the performance and efficiency of Intel CPUs, and I love my i7-3770k. I wouldn't trade it for an AMD system even if you offered me a free GTX 980 on top as a parting gift. I often recommend people to Intel especially for new builds, but I'm just not ready to mark AMD off completely in areas where they have a significant price advantage such as a system upgrade.

@IInuyasha74 - Yeah I didn't notice that he had a 4.5GHz overclock on the FX 6300. Like you said his choice of CPU upgrade will depend on his motherboard but at least the 95W variants of the FX 83XX will work. Meaning FX 8300, 8310, 8320e, and 8370e. I've heard that FX 8370e are more refined now and overclock higher or at least overclock with more efficiency (lower volts). But like you said I agree that a 95W would work with his current mobo, but if it is a weak one then overclocking is out the window making Intel the better choice.

@Damon Holmes - FX 9590 IS the best strongest AM3+ CPU but it is by far not the best when you think about money. If only taking the OP's title into consideration the FX 9590 is correct because it is the strongest at stock and one of the newer models of the FX CPUs. But when you look into the price, the TDP, and what a FX 9590 truly is, it is not the 'best' AM3+ CPU. Pretty much all Vishera 8-Core CPUs will be able to overclock close to or higher than the FX 9590. I don't see the point in paying higher than locked i5s and closer to unlocked i5s for a hot CPU with only a handful of compatible motherboards that can't perform as well as i5s. At least by going with the lower FX 83xx series they will be compatible to work as designed at stock and then OP can overclock if his motherboard/cooler permits.

 

[IInuyasha74]

YOU IDIOTS! the AMD FX-9590 is the best AMD AM3+ CPU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You miss the point where everyone has already achnoledged the FX-9XXX CPUs, and decided that instead of buying a $300 CPU that has a ridiculous 220w TDP, that anyone in their right mind would simply buy a 125w TDP FX-8320 or FX-8350 or FX-8370, or even a 95w TDP FX-8370E, then overclock it to the same speed of the FX-9XXX CPU. Mostly because then if you do this not only did you pay half as much for your CPU, but your voltage and heat production still end up being lower than the FX-9xxx CPUs and so you have a more power efficient system. Why do you think they are viewed as the worst possible CPU to buy by basically everyone in the tech community?

 

[IInuyasha74]

@slyu9213: Yes I think we have came to a consensus on this. Hopefully if the OP is still making his decision he will be able to read our last few posts, determine if he needs a motherboard upgrade or not, and make the appropriate decision between Intel or AMD accordingly.

Lets hope this new year AMD can be competitive again. After 3 years without a real influential release, its to the point that anyone buying a system basically has no choice but to get Intel unless they are just upgrading an old motherboard and can make it work. Even in the low end they have lost their price competitiveness since the Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge CPUs have dropped in price and Haswell i5s are going for like $175. If not then they may only be able to continue as a company in GPUs and SoCs

 

[slyu9213]

Lets hope this new year AMD can be competitive again.

I was not willing to bank on hope for AMD to offer Amazing performance for future game releases like GTA V and judging by how many games currently have performance issues on AMD CPUs it was a no brainer for me to move from AM3+ over to a full fat Intel Z97x LGA 1150 platform.

Yes, it's best to upgrade to what best fits you instead of waiting for the best a few months or year down the road. AMD fans would have to wait until 2016+ for any thing that might contend with Intel. That's 1-2+ years of using AM3+ that came out a few years ago. But if you want to talk about full fat Intel that would be their X99.

 

[slyu9213]

Lets hope this new year AMD can be competitive again.

I was not willing to bank on hope for AMD to offer Amazing performance for future game releases like GTA V and judging by how many games currently have performance issues on AMD CPUs it was a no brainer for me to move from AM3+ over to a full fat Intel Z97x LGA 1150 platform.

Yes, it's best to upgrade to what best fits you instead of waiting for the best a few months or year down the road. AMD fans would have to wait until 2016+ for any thing that might contend with Intel. That's 1-2+ years of using AM3+ that came out a few years ago. But if you want to talk about full fat Intel that would be their X99.

Ya and then get less performance in game. i7 4790K @ 4.8Ghz is the best gaming CPU and second is the i5 4690K @ 4.8Ghz. X99 is more production oriented not gaming. When you OC on X99 you it only OCs one core.

It get's less performance because the limitations of the OC. But your general statement that when you OC on X99 that it only OCs one core is absolutely wrong/doesn't make sense.

Also if you havn't noticed games some of the recent games that are a bit CPU bound perform better with a 6-8 Core Intel compared to an Quad-Core or Quad-Core + HT i7. For example Inquisition needs a 4.5GHz i7 4770K to match a 5960X at 3GHz. 4960X performs better than the i7 4770K on Far Cry 4.

 

[Maxsupertweaker]

as others said. FX 83XX will be the best CPU for that socket but there will be little to no imrovements over the FX 6300 you have. For the problem with low minimum FPS you'll want to/have to switch to an Intel setup. A locked i5/Xeon may be a good suit for you but it all depends on your budget. If you don't have enough budget for a complete change I would recommend saving until then and not get an FX 83XX series CPU

This guy is on point.

Well you are too. I am an AMD fan to the bone/core but the truth is the truth. Now there will be improvements going from a FX 63XX to an FX 83XX. Coincidentally the improvements will come in an increase in minimum FPS from CPU bound games and there will be some tiny increases in average FPS too. While going off of Tom's Far Cry 4 review. Going from a 6300 to a 9590 may provide gains up to 11FPS in MIN FPS and 3-5 for the AVG FPS. There are some gains but going with an Intel will provide more. Going with an i5 will get you ~30 FPS boost in MIN FPS and ~10 FPS for AVG. If you think about using money wisely then Intel is the route to go. That doesn't mean people can't stick with AMD. They just need to realize what they will be missing and sacrificing at the end.

Lets hope this new year AMD can be competitive again.

I was not willing to bank on hope for AMD to offer Amazing performance for future game releases like GTA V and judging by how many games currently have performance issues on AMD CPUs it was a no brainer for me to move from AM3+ over to a full fat Intel Z97x LGA 1150 platform.

Yes, it's best to upgrade to what best fits you instead of waiting for the best a few months or year down the road. AMD fans would have to wait until 2016+ for any thing that might contend with Intel. That's 1-2+ years of using AM3+ that came out a few years ago. But if you want to talk about full fat Intel that would be their X99.

Ya and then get less performance in game. i7 4790K @ 4.8Ghz is the best gaming CPU and second is the i5 4690K @ 4.8Ghz. X99 is more production oriented not gaming. When you OC on X99 you it only OCs one core.

 

[Maxsupertweaker]

The newest (as it were) is the FX-9590. I tried it but found it wasn't any better than my trusty Phenom II 980 Quad BE. So I returned it and kept the SABERTOOTH 990FX R2.0. Nice mobo but you do have to install Ai II Suite to control chassis fan. No biggie really. Glad I have two 980 Phenoms. They are rare.