Why do AMD FX processors suck?

[flossbandit]

Seriously... Everywhere I go I get the same response but no real science or evidence to back it up. Links of reviews, graphs, or videos would be greatly appreciated.

...Particularly the FX 4100 and FX 6100. The numbers look really good on paper and turbo core is definitely a plus.

I have under $200 to spend on a CPU and AMD seems like the right way to go. I'd rather have AMD sports car than an Intel sedan just for the name.


So what should I get for under $200? Intel, AMD, whatever, just tell me why it's better. Also it's definitely for gaming...

 

[Deleted member 217926]

With $200 to spend your best bet is to just add $25 and get an i5 2500K. Best gaming processor for the price. If you have to stick below $200 get the i5 2400. You can still overclock the 2400 but only 4 "bins" over stock. For true overclocking you want a K model.

i5 2500K quad core at stock speed vs 4 core 8 "module" AMD FX 8150 Bulldozer.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=434

But wait.....theres more. AMD vs AMD. Phenom II x4 980 vs FX8150. Ouch, the MUCH older Phenom II wins quite a few of these.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/362?vs=434

These explain why better than I can. The short answer is they failed on making the IPC more efficient and actually made a CPU with a LESS efficient IPC. So single threaded performance took a step backward. They did at least increase clockspeed.

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/100583-analyzing-bulldozers-scaling-single-thread-performance

http://www.overclock.net/t/1155553/does-bulldozer-have-lower-ipc-than-core-2-quad

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-FX-Processor-Review-Can-Bulldozer-Unearth-AMD-Victory/Power-Consumption-and-P

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/13

 

[esrever]

you can get a i5 2400 for less than 200 and every review site had said the same thing regarding the FXs.

the i5 2400 will perform much better than the fx 6100.

 

[de5_Roy]

you should buy whatever you like to buy.
but, if you make decisions based on information, fx cpus won't seem like good decision.
if you must buy an amd fx cpu:
and you don't care about heat, power consumption, power efficiency, cooling costs, money, long term performance, get an fx 8120 or 8150 - overclock it using a liquid cooling system, feed it as much vcore as it wants. you will get decent performance out of either cpu.
fx 4100 and 6100 aren't good for gaming - they're known to bottleneck multi card combo and perform less with single gfx cards compared to their respective intel counterparts.
at $200 budget, a core i5 2400 or at a little higher, a core i5 2500k would be better for gaming.

 

[Spoony]

see now i dont get this post.

why do people look at AMD and say they suck when in fact they dont, NOW before you start posting im a fan boy i think you will find my pc is running the new intel 3930K so sit back and take a chill pill.
AMD are good in there own right for cost and gaming they are excellent i have in a back pc the next FX-8150 and in another the AMD X6 1090T both handle any game out there just aswell as my intel does BUT and this is the BUT at multi tasking other things like apps decoding and other stuff like photoshoop and so on they are not are good as intel as intel has hyperthreading and also a bigger cache which helps them run things better.

oh and most of all dont forget AMD are cheaper and do better warrenty for there parts than intel. intel dont give jack as warrenty AMD will and for price has you actually sat down and TRUELY compaired BANG FOR BUCK price ?

i dont think so the fx6100 will beat the 2400 its fact on all levels and the reviews online are done by companies paid by intel and AMD dont pay nobody jack *** they just put stuff out there and let it work for its self.

ALL ROUND CPU intel

ALL ROUND cheaper save you money CPU AMD

if you want numbers and overclocking then by intel if you want logical choice for standard stuff choose AMD

 

[esrever]

the FX do suck. They are pretty overpriced compared to the phenoms they replaced with less performance so ya...

 

[grumbledook]

As said, intel is far in front when it comes to performance per core. To add insult to injury, a lot of games and programs only use 2 cores, so the intels will get vastly better benchmarks at those. People had very unrealistic expectations for the bulldozer, so when it wasn't all they had hoped they really trashed it to the point where it got ridiculous. It's not a terrible cpu at all, if you have some heavily threaded needs then it will do great, and it will run most things more then good enough (IE there's not much difference between 60 frames per second on it and say 70 on a 2500k in a game, you won't notice it).

It also overclocks extremely well, as evidenced here http://amdfx.blogspot.com/ (the earlier phenom 2 series is much harder to get as high an overclock).

If you can get an intel quadcore you should probably go for that as it will give you better performance, but the 4100 in particular is at a decent price point so that's also quite worth considering.

 

[Spoony]

As said, intel is far in front when it comes to performance per core. To add insult to injury, a lot of games and programs only use 2 cores, so the intels will get vastly better benchmarks at those. People had very unrealistic expectations for the bulldozer, so when it wasn't all they had hoped they really trashed it to the point where it got ridiculous. It's not a terrible cpu at all, if you have some heavily threaded needs then it will do great, and it will run most things more then good enough (IE there's not much difference between 60 frames per second on it and say 70 on a 2500k in a game, you won't notice it).

It also overclocks extremely well, as evidenced here http://amdfx.blogspot.com/ (the earlier phenom 2 series is much harder to get as high an overclock).

If you can get an intel quadcore you should probably go for that as it will give you better performance, but the 4100 in particular is at a decent price point so that's also quite worth considering.

couldnt agree with you more.

BD should have been better but it wasnt and if they had used full cores not 2 cores with extras on them it would have been alot better.

they tried failed but still its not as bad as people make out and thats cos others are Intel Fanboys and the sort of person who buys a car for its Name and Badge to say i have this you dont

 

[gnomio]

No one gets discount for being a dedicated fan we all pay the same price

 

[flossbandit]

Best answer selected by flossbandit.