Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question
Closed

is it true that AMD fx 8350 is just a 4 cores CPU?

Tags:
  • AMD
  • Quad Core
  • CPUs
  • amd fx 8350
Last response: in CPUs
September 11, 2013 1:17:29 PM

some guys says its just 4 cores .
and each one of them has 2 modules or whatever. i dont know what they are saying but i get their point that theyre saying amd fx 8350 is just 4 cores CPU. my question is ... is that true ?
is amd fx 8350 just 4 cores CPU ? thanks

More about : true amd 8350 cores cpu

a b À AMD
a c 154 à CPUs
September 11, 2013 1:25:41 PM

no, 8 cores, 8 threads
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 11, 2013 1:26:15 PM

yes. it is 4 cores, but it has hyperthreading so that means that each core can act as 2. so it has 8 threads(virtual cores) but 4 real cores. however, that is more than enough these days.
Score
0
Related resources
a b à CPUs
September 11, 2013 1:29:00 PM

The AMD FX-8350 has 4 modules with 2 cores in each module. Each 2 cores in the module will share resources. Yes, there are 8 cores in total, but they are not separate, and are not hyper-threading. This is a good cost saver for AMD.
Intel quad-core CPUs will have 4 modules with a core in each module.

Good read: http://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/1e8226/discus...
Score
0
a b À AMD
a c 98 à CPUs
September 11, 2013 1:47:47 PM

Ill take a sec to answer this thread properly. An FX CPU is made up of "modules" that each consist of 2 integer processing units and one floating point unit. So an 8 "core" FX does indeed have 8 processing cores sharing 4 floating point units. This is by far superior to hyperthreading as these are actual real stand alone processing units unlike hyper threading. 4 core = 2 module, 6 core = 3 module, 8 core = 4 module.
Score
1
a b à CPUs
September 11, 2013 1:50:39 PM

dafuqawew said:
some guys says its just 4 cores .
and each one of them has 2 modules or whatever. i dont know what they are saying but i get their point that theyre saying amd fx 8350 is just 4 cores CPU. my question is ... is that true ?
is amd fx 8350 just 4 cores CPU ? thanks


It's, err, well it's kinda both 4 and 8 core. Here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-3.html

Score
0
a c 203 À AMD
a c 638 à CPUs
September 11, 2013 3:36:35 PM

ryan27968 said:
yes. it is 4 cores, but it has hyperthreading so that means that each core can act as 2. so it has 8 threads(virtual cores) but 4 real cores. however, that is more than enough these days.



You are confusing the AMD FX-8350 and the Intel Core i7 (all models) CPUs. There are 8 physical cores in the FX-8350. There are basically two versions of the desktop Core i7 CPUs; quad core and the more expensive 6 core versions. Both have Hyper Threading which means each physical core also has a virtual (or logical) core. Thus Core i7 CPUs are either 4 cores and 8 threads or 6 cores and 12 threads.

The problem with the FX CPUs is that it is a modular design. Every two physical CPUs shares a single FPU (Floating Point Unit). If both CPUs must use the FPU in each module, then one core basically needs to wait and do nothing until the other core is done using the FPU. Therefore, the FPU itself is a performance bottleneck.
Score
0
March 23, 2014 3:29:20 PM

cmi86 said:
Ill take a sec to answer this thread properly. An FX CPU is made up of "modules" that each consist of 2 integer processing units and one floating point unit. So an 8 "core" FX does indeed have 8 processing cores sharing 4 floating point units. This is by far superior to hyperthreading as these are actual real stand alone processing units unlike hyper threading. 4 core = 2 module, 6 core = 3 module, 8 core = 4 module.

Actually hyper-threading is far better because the 2 "modules" in each AMD FX core are bulldozer cores with an absolutely terrible IPC (instructions per-cycle) that's why Intel's processors outperform AMD in almost all benchmarks and real world tests.
Score
0
a c 95 à CPUs
March 24, 2014 2:09:58 AM

No hyper-threading and CMT are not directly competing, as they are in use for different purpose.

Hyperthreading works to increase performance efficiency and increasing throughput.

Where the cluster-architecture(modules) are trying to be space-efficient and tries to cut out many of the redundant parts of a core.

The cluster-architecture are proven to have more performance gain than hyper-threading.

EDIT: I think you got it wrong, it is 2 cores in 1 module.
Score
0
June 9, 2014 7:27:41 AM

ryan27968 said:
yes. it is 4 cores, but it has hyperthreading so that means that each core can act as 2. so it has 8 threads(virtual cores) but 4 real cores. however, that is more than enough these days.


AMD dont use "hyperthreading" thats an intel gimmick
Score
0
a b À AMD
a c 80 à CPUs
August 11, 2014 10:57:16 PM

guitarist367 said:
ryan27968 said:
yes. it is 4 cores, but it has hyperthreading so that means that each core can act as 2. so it has 8 threads(virtual cores) but 4 real cores. however, that is more than enough these days.


AMD dont use "hyperthreading" thats an intel gimmick


It's not a "gimmick" if it actually improves perforrmance.
Score
0
August 11, 2014 11:05:11 PM

Far from a gimmick it is better actually.....While 8350 can have decent performance...
But look at how bad Bulldozer was/is....

First Gen/Bloomfield totally wipes the floor with them xD

Score
0
August 11, 2014 11:18:47 PM

Wait till I get my x5650....then really talk about wiping the floor with that 8350 xD
Score
0
a b À AMD
a c 80 à CPUs
August 12, 2014 12:18:02 AM

JRFET said:
Wait till I get my x5650....then really talk about wiping the floor with that 8350 xD


You mean 5960X?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
August 12, 2014 12:28:27 AM

Everyone that says it is a 4 core CPU is an Intel fanboy / AMD hater.

That processor has 8 cores, so it is an 8 core processor. Yes, 2 cores are sharing 1 FPU, but it still possesses 8 physical cores.

You can only say that it is a 4 FPU CPU, you can not say that it is a 4 core CPU.
Score
0
a c 95 à CPUs
August 12, 2014 12:58:52 AM

Slobodan-888 said:
Everyone that says it is a 4 core CPU is an Intel fanboy / AMD hater.

That processor has 8 cores, so it is an 8 core processor. Yes, 2 cores are sharing 1 FPU, but it still possesses 8 physical cores.

You can only say that it is a 4 FPU CPU, you can not say that it is a 4 core CPU.


CMT is a design to duplicate certain parts of an core. CMT is not two physical cores.
If you look at the dieshot of the FX 8350, you will notice 4 physical cores (one in each corner).
The whole design is to increase the integer throughput with a reasonable floatingpoint performance.

There is nothing fanboyism about discussing these kind of things.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
August 12, 2014 1:10:55 AM

There are no 1 but 2 cores in each corner. They are next to each other so they look like one.

Score
0
August 12, 2014 1:14:59 AM

no....Xeon 6 core Westmere....Oced Slaughter the 8350

or any of old 1366 6 cores will slaughter 8350...
Score
0
a b À AMD
a c 80 à CPUs
August 12, 2014 1:17:43 AM

Slobodan-888 said:
Everyone that says it is a 4 core CPU is an Intel fanboy / AMD hater.

That processor has 8 cores, so it is an 8 core processor. Yes, 2 cores are sharing 1 FPU, but it still possesses 8 physical cores.

You can only say that it is a 4 FPU CPU, you can not say that it is a 4 core CPU.


And who are you? A Intel Hater/AMD fanboy?

Slobodan-888 said:
There are no 1 but 2 cores in each corner. They are next to each other so they look like one.



Because we all know L2 Cache is shared and not per Core?
Score
0

Best solution

a b À AMD
a c 184 à CPUs
August 12, 2014 1:56:04 AM

As far as I know the fx 8xxx series has 4 modules, each of which containing two 128 bit fpu's of which each has 2 integer units which have 2 alus.
Both floating point units will combine to one 256 bit one if heavy single performance is asked.
So yeah, the fx series have 8 cores that are basically the equivalent to 4 intel cores maximum performance wise. Intels hyperthreading is nothing but increasing efficiency and workload on cores.

And amd 'core' is NOT an intel 'core'.

About the amd vs intel debate ongoing:

One module roughly equals one intel core.
Amds bulldozer cores have horrible ips and efficiency values though. Afterall, a 3.5ghz I7 is likely to beat a 4.5ghz 8350.
Share
a c 95 à CPUs
August 12, 2014 2:16:34 AM

Slobodan-888 said:
There are no 1 but 2 cores in each corner. They are next to each other so they look like one.



That is an AMD slide to explain their CMT design. It is easy to misunderstand it.

There are only one physical core in each corner.
Score
0
a c 95 à CPUs
August 12, 2014 2:23:34 AM

DubbleClick said:
As far as I know the fx 8xxx series has 4 modules, each of which containing two 128 bit fpu's of which each has 2 integer units which have 2 alus.
Both floating point units will combine to one 256 bit one if heavy single performance is asked.
So yeah, the fx series have 8 cores that are basically the equivalent to 4 intel cores maximum performance wise. Intels hyperthreading is nothing but increasing efficiency and workload on cores.

And amd 'core' is NOT an intel 'core'.

About the amd vs intel debate ongoing:

One module roughly equals one intel core.
Amds bulldozer cores have horrible ips and efficiency values though. Afterall, a 3.5ghz I7 is likely to beat a 4.5ghz 8350.

More or less correct. A piledriver module contains 2x128bit FMAC units and 2xMMX unit within their SIMD cluster (FPU).
A module also contains two ALU cluster (normal core only contain 1 ALU cluster) with 2 ALUs in each.

In cases like heavy AVX instructions, both FMAC units can combine and do a 256 instruction as you also said.

A core is more than just the ALU cluster. The ALU cluster is a part (and very important part) of a core. Take a car, put a engine in the front and in the end, do you know have two cars? No.
Score
0
a b À AMD
a c 184 à CPUs
August 12, 2014 2:34:35 AM

Didn't know the alus were kept together in a cluster. Nice comparison with the engines in a car, by the way.
Score
0
December 21, 2014 10:45:17 AM

jaguarskx said:
ryan27968 said:
yes. it is 4 cores, but it has hyperthreading so that means that each core can act as 2. so it has 8 threads(virtual cores) but 4 real cores. however, that is more than enough these days.



You are confusing the AMD FX-8350 and the Intel Core i7 (all models) CPUs. There are 8 physical cores in the FX-8350. There are basically two versions of the desktop Core i7 CPUs; quad core and the more expensive 6 core versions. Both have Hyper Threading which means each physical core also has a virtual (or logical) core. Thus Core i7 CPUs are either 4 cores and 8 threads or 6 cores and 12 threads.

The problem with the FX CPUs is that it is a modular design. Every two physical CPUs shares a single FPU (Floating Point Unit). If both CPUs must use the FPU in each module, then one core basically needs to wait and do nothing until the other core is done using the FPU. Therefore, the FPU itself is a performance bottleneck.


You are right about Shared FPU but not right about waiting of a core for the other core to use FPU.
AMD FX 8350 s FPU has Two 128 Bit FMAC in each module so each core uses its own 128 Bit FMAC in 128 Bit Computing but some programs require 256 Bit Compatible FPU so if such program is running in your OS then each 2 core will be one and Both Integer ALUs use the Shared 256(128 + 128) bit FMAC.
But somehow the timings and Latencies in FP Engines are higher than Streamroller because of that AMD A10 7850K is 12% better in Single_Threading than FX 8350 but FX 8350 is 70% faster than A10 7850K in Multi_Threading. but I don't suggest A10 7850K because you can have that 12% more Single Threading Performance by using FX 9590 or an OCed 8350.
Score
0
January 26, 2015 8:41:52 PM

Reading this from my task manager AMD FX 8350
Cores: 4
logical processors:8

"Afterall, a 3.5ghz I7 is likely to beat a 4.5ghz 8350." Yea sure intel is faster but Ive heard of people overclocking the AMD 8350 to 8.0ghz. The FX 8350 has much much more overclocking potential and can take punishment plus its cheap so can be replaced easily.
-peace
Score
0
a b À AMD
a c 98 à CPUs
January 26, 2015 10:27:08 PM

Dane36 said:
Reading this from my task manager AMD FX 8350
Cores: 4
logical processors:8

"Afterall, a 3.5ghz I7 is likely to beat a 4.5ghz 8350." Yea sure intel is faster but Ive heard of people overclocking the AMD 8350 to 8.0ghz. The FX 8350 has much much more overclocking potential and can take punishment plus its cheap so can be replaced easily.
-peace


This thread is so old you really should just let it die in peace. That said taking OC's under Ln2 and comparing them to mid range air cooler OC's is completely irrelevant. Real world OC for FX's is 4.5-4.8, anything more is extremely rare unless more exotic cooling options are used.
Score
0
a b À AMD
a c 80 à CPUs
January 26, 2015 10:30:33 PM

Dane36 said:
Reading this from my task manager AMD FX 8350
Cores: 4
logical processors:8


Dosen't show much either. Whoever makes the task manager decides what to call something.

Dane36 said:

"Afterall, a 3.5ghz I7 is likely to beat a 4.5ghz 8350." Yea sure intel is faster but Ive heard of people overclocking the AMD 8350 to 8.0ghz.


Yeah, maybe with a LN2 system that costs a few thousand... That's what the world record holder on HWBot did at 2V, not that it won't fry your CPU with in a few weeks though. Meanwhile, the record for the 4770k and the 4790k both achieved around 7 GHz, which was achived at 2V and 1.8V respectively. The i7s though, were still around twice as fast.

Dane36 said:

The FX 8350 has much much more overclocking potential and can take punishment plus its cheap so can be replaced easily.


Nope, nope and why would you replace your CPU when you can just not destroy it in the first place?
Score
0
May 3, 2015 8:33:45 PM

No, it's an 8-core CPU.


Edit: sorry for the gravedig.
Score
0
a b À AMD
a c 80 à CPUs
May 4, 2015 1:08:23 AM

Grant56810 said:
No, it's an 8-core CPU.


Edit: sorry for the gravedig.


It's a 8 thread CMT. The definition of core is debatable. I should probably unfollow this thread.
Score
0
May 4, 2015 6:57:08 AM

FX is pretty good against i5. Better at gaming+streaming+rendering simultaneously, not sure why folks compare it to i7 when the i7 is 2-3X the price. Are i7s better, sure but you pay for IPC + Intel marketing. If you want something that does the job most gamers roll with from Intel anyway then you want something that competes with i5, and competes where it counts.

Price, fps, and FPS. The FX is lower than the best i5 chips, and performs better in video rendering than an i5, and heavy multitasking, but you will see higher fps and higher min-fps with the i5. However the difference is 15-40% while the price is always more than the performance difference. You also wont see i5 scale the same way FX will with DX12 or see i5 game+stream+render because it only has 4 cores, while the FX mentioned above have 8, so you could devote 4 to rendering and 4 to gaming and still rock the house. I've even see videos of people streaming, while gaming, and rendering a video with 2 or 4 cores in the background.

Now to me that is plenty of power for the price. I also don't value those 10-20fps at the ass end of 90+fps or 110fps where it would make a difference between FX and i5. Minimum fps to me is more of an issue than average fps, but there is no i5 that see no min frame drops either, just not as drastic.

CPU cores count the most during video rendering and here hyper-threading is a gimmick because it doesn't provide nearly the same performance boost as having additional cores, which is why the FX out performs all i5s in video rendering and competes with some i7s. Pretty good product positioning by AMD I think.
Score
0
a b À AMD
a c 184 à CPUs
May 4, 2015 9:20:34 AM

Jay Stew said:
FX is pretty good against i5. Better at gaming+streaming+rendering simultaneously, not sure why folks compare it to i7 when the i7 is 2-3X the price. Are i7s better, sure but you pay for IPC + Intel marketing. If you want something that does the job most gamers roll with from Intel anyway then you want something that competes with i5, and competes where it counts.


It does not. Not in gaming or any kind of other single threaded tasks, which make out about 95% of a general users work.

Also, an i5 4590 with a b85 board is cheaper than anything you could potentially get with the fx 8350. $20 more on the cpu but $30+++ less on the motherboard and no need for an aftermarket cooler. The fx series has it's use, but it is limited to continuous heavy workloads such as rendering. Anything other, there are better choices.
Score
0
a b À AMD
a c 80 à CPUs
May 4, 2015 7:57:44 PM

Jay Stew said:
FX is pretty good against i5. Better at gaming+streaming+rendering simultaneously, not sure why folks compare it to i7 when the i7 is 2-3X the price. Are i7s better, sure but you pay for IPC + Intel marketing. If you want something that does the job most gamers roll with from Intel anyway then you want something that competes with i5, and competes where it counts.


i7 are analogous in terms of "core count". That is why the comparison was made.

Jay Stew said:
Price, fps, and FPS. The FX is lower than the best i5 chips, and performs better in video rendering than an i5, and heavy multitasking, but you will see higher fps and higher min-fps with the i5. However the difference is 15-40% while the price is always more than the performance difference. You also wont see i5 scale the same way FX will with DX12 or see i5 game+stream+render because it only has 4 cores, while the FX mentioned above have 8, so you could devote 4 to rendering and 4 to gaming and still rock the house. I've even see videos of people streaming, while gaming, and rendering a video with 2 or 4 cores in the background.


The price difference is slightly more than zero. Especially since most of us don't want a cooler that sounds like a jet engine. I doubt you'd be gaming and rendering at the same time. Also, off topic.

Jay Stew said:
Now to me that is plenty of power for the price. I also don't value those 10-20fps at the ass end of 90+fps or 110fps where it would make a difference between FX and i5. Minimum fps to me is more of an issue than average fps, but there is no i5 that see no min frame drops either, just not as drastic.


Sure, usage scenarios matter.

Jay Stew said:
CPU cores count the most during video rendering and here hyper-threading is a gimmick because it doesn't provide nearly the same performance boost as having additional cores, which is why the FX out performs all i5s in video rendering and competes with some i7s. Pretty good product positioning by AMD I think.


You're wrong here. Here, SMT design provides about 30%, while CMT is around 50% if I remember right. SMT does depend (slightly) on cache misses though. Still off topic as we were discussing core count, 2 years ago, I might add.
Score
0
May 5, 2015 6:54:06 AM

DubbleClick said:
Jay Stew said:
FX is pretty good against i5. Better at gaming+streaming+rendering simultaneously, not sure why folks compare it to i7 when the i7 is 2-3X the price. Are i7s better, sure but you pay for IPC + Intel marketing. If you want something that does the job most gamers roll with from Intel anyway then you want something that competes with i5, and competes where it counts.


It does not. Not in gaming or any kind of other single threaded tasks, which make out about 95% of a general users work.

Also, an i5 4590 with a b85 board is cheaper than anything you could potentially get with the fx 8350. $20 more on the cpu but $30+++ less on the motherboard and no need for an aftermarket cooler. The fx series has it's use, but it is limited to continuous heavy workloads such as rendering. Anything other, there are better choices.


FX-8350 is $165, MSI Gaming 970 is $97 = $262
i5 4590 is $201, 64 for the b85 = $265.

Allow me to list the things that particular Intel solution will not do.

It will never overclock. The latest i5 won't fit in that socket so you will not get away with upgrading your cpu without a new mobo. It will not game and stream and render at the same time. It will also not beat the FX when the FX is overclocked. Yep you are right I'll have to spend $25 on an air cooler and tie you i5 at your stock speed single core for single core performance and while I'm still doing stuff your chip cant do.

Later on if I want to I can roll over to water cooling if I want. Meanwhile you are still running at stock because you can't OC and even if you did add better cooling its no a K CPU so you can't OC. I have 8 cores to your 4 so I can render video in shorter times, or simultaneously while gaming, or simultaneously while gaming and streaming, a task the i5 will studder at.

Yes single core for single core perf the i5 will crunch numbers faster because of IPC, and all those unwrar files, you'll open them in 15 seconds instead of 17 seconds. And in terms of fps, you'll get 90 instead of the 85 I get. But I'll be done rendering my video in an hour while you are still rending 90 min later.

If you want to compare the latest i5K series to the FX then yes the i5 is a better value in some certain situations. I reject the argument that in 2015 95% of users are satisfied by stronger single threaded performance. Or that the trend is that in 2017 or 2018 that will be the case as it is not 2000 or even 2005 anymore.
Score
0
May 5, 2015 7:10:29 AM

Alpha3031 said:
Jay Stew said:
FX is pretty good against i5. Better at gaming+streaming+rendering simultaneously, not sure why folks compare it to i7 when the i7 is 2-3X the price. Are i7s better, sure but you pay for IPC + Intel marketing. If you want something that does the job most gamers roll with from Intel anyway then you want something that competes with i5, and competes where it counts.


i7 are analogous in terms of "core count". That is why the comparison was made.

Jay Stew said:
Price, fps, and FPS. The FX is lower than the best i5 chips, and performs better in video rendering than an i5, and heavy multitasking, but you will see higher fps and higher min-fps with the i5. However the difference is 15-40% while the price is always more than the performance difference. You also wont see i5 scale the same way FX will with DX12 or see i5 game+stream+render because it only has 4 cores, while the FX mentioned above have 8, so you could devote 4 to rendering and 4 to gaming and still rock the house. I've even see videos of people streaming, while gaming, and rendering a video with 2 or 4 cores in the background.


The price difference is slightly more than zero. Especially since most of us don't want a cooler that sounds like a jet engine. I doubt you'd be gaming and rendering at the same time. Also, off topic.

Jay Stew said:
Now to me that is plenty of power for the price. I also don't value those 10-20fps at the ass end of 90+fps or 110fps where it would make a difference between FX and i5. Minimum fps to me is more of an issue than average fps, but there is no i5 that see no min frame drops either, just not as drastic.


Sure, usage scenarios matter.

Jay Stew said:
CPU cores count the most during video rendering and here hyper-threading is a gimmick because it doesn't provide nearly the same performance boost as having additional cores, which is why the FX out performs all i5s in video rendering and competes with some i7s. Pretty good product positioning by AMD I think.


You're wrong here. Here, SMT design provides about 30%, while CMT is around 50% if I remember right. SMT does depend (slightly) on cache misses though. Still off topic as we were discussing core count, 2 years ago, I might add.


SMT and CMT?
Score
0
a b À AMD
a c 154 à CPUs
May 5, 2015 8:35:26 AM

a mod should close this almost 2 year old thread please.
Score
0
a b À AMD
a c 184 à CPUs
May 5, 2015 8:41:44 AM

Jay Stew said:
DubbleClick said:
Jay Stew said:
FX is pretty good against i5. Better at gaming+streaming+rendering simultaneously, not sure why folks compare it to i7 when the i7 is 2-3X the price. Are i7s better, sure but you pay for IPC + Intel marketing. If you want something that does the job most gamers roll with from Intel anyway then you want something that competes with i5, and competes where it counts.


It does not. Not in gaming or any kind of other single threaded tasks, which make out about 95% of a general users work.

Also, an i5 4590 with a b85 board is cheaper than anything you could potentially get with the fx 8350. $20 more on the cpu but $30+++ less on the motherboard and no need for an aftermarket cooler. The fx series has it's use, but it is limited to continuous heavy workloads such as rendering. Anything other, there are better choices.


FX-8350 is $165, MSI Gaming 970 is $97 = $262
i5 4590 is $201, 64 for the b85 = $265.

Allow me to list the things that particular Intel solution will not do.

It will never overclock. The latest i5 won't fit in that socket so you will not get away with upgrading your cpu without a new mobo. It will not game and stream and render at the same time. It will also not beat the FX when the FX is overclocked. Yep you are right I'll have to spend $25 on an air cooler and tie you i5 at your stock speed single core for single core performance and while I'm still doing stuff your chip cant do.

Later on if I want to I can roll over to water cooling if I want. Meanwhile you are still running at stock because you can't OC and even if you did add better cooling its no a K CPU so you can't OC. I have 8 cores to your 4 so I can render video in shorter times, or simultaneously while gaming, or simultaneously while gaming and streaming, a task the i5 will studder at.

Yes single core for single core perf the i5 will crunch numbers faster because of IPC, and all those unwrar files, you'll open them in 15 seconds instead of 17 seconds. And in terms of fps, you'll get 90 instead of the 85 I get. But I'll be done rendering my video in an hour while you are still rending 90 min later.

If you want to compare the latest i5K series to the FX then yes the i5 is a better value in some certain situations. I reject the argument that in 2015 95% of users are satisfied by stronger single threaded performance. Or that the trend is that in 2017 or 2018 that will be the case as it is not 2000 or even 2005 anymore.


You seem to have literally no idea at all how cpu's work and what the differences between an i5 and a fx are.
Neither about how cpu's and applications have been changing in the last 10 years (which is when the first 4 core cpu's have had mainstream line releases).
And if you think there is any point in comparing an fx core to an i5 core, I warmly recommend you to read this thread.
Score
0
May 5, 2015 8:56:53 AM

I pose this question:

Is it even fair or valid to compare AMD CPU's to Intel's CPU's?

I say its not...infact, i'll go as far as to say comparing the 2 is like comparing Apples to Oranges.

If you have read about AMD's pushing of HSA, you would know that AMD didn't not include 2 FPU per module because AMD DOES NOT want FPU operations being done on the CPU.

AMD's whole goal with HSA is to push FPU operations on the the GPU via GPGPU which means those operations could be performed many magnitudes fasters then FPU on the CPU die with Radeon GCN Cores, this free up space to accelerate other operations on the CPU such as integer operations.

AMD is trying to innovate, and HSA could be the biggest breakthrough in computers since AMD launched AMD64 if devs would stop holding back progress by listening to overbearing weight of Intel's monopoloy that is standing in the way of progress.

AMD has a big advantage in the GPU depeartment with GCN over Intel, of course AMD wants to use it. AMD is also pushing open standards like OpenCL. AMD entire premise is to move away from "fat cores" and more into parallel processing and number crunching via a combined CPU + GPGPU type of system.

AMD is making headway, in a few years, as long as AMD stick with it, they will break through the ceiling and all of us will be better off for it, just like Mantle made things better for gamers, HSA will make things better for the entire computing ecosystem just like AMD64 did.

I only bring this up because i don't believe it is fair to compare 2 CPU's that clearly have very different end goals...AMD counts on the FX CPU's being paired with GCN GPU's hence why AMD Catalyst includes all the OpenCL and software stuff used as the core of HSA...imagine if devs would actually offload FPU to your R9 290X instead of running them on your CPU, this frees up the cpu for other resources, such as integer operations which the FX cpu's do exceptionally well at..the entire FX line was designed for parallelism, Intel has very different design goals...if AMD HSa could be seen and come to fruiton, I think it would be the best thing to happen to computing since AMD64.
Score
0
May 5, 2015 9:14:16 AM

Since this has turned into an AMD vs Intel debate (as most CPU posts do) I will chime in.

From a purely performance point of view, the newest i5 and i7 quad core CPUs outperform any of the AMD 6 or 8 "core" CPUs as you can see in the hierarchy chart here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...
Score
0
May 5, 2015 9:14:17 AM

DubbleClick said:
Jay Stew said:
DubbleClick said:
Jay Stew said:
FX is pretty good against i5. Better at gaming+streaming+rendering simultaneously, not sure why folks compare it to i7 when the i7 is 2-3X the price. Are i7s better, sure but you pay for IPC + Intel marketing. If you want something that does the job most gamers roll with from Intel anyway then you want something that competes with i5, and competes where it counts.


It does not. Not in gaming or any kind of other single threaded tasks, which make out about 95% of a general users work.

Also, an i5 4590 with a b85 board is cheaper than anything you could potentially get with the fx 8350. $20 more on the cpu but $30+++ less on the motherboard and no need for an aftermarket cooler. The fx series has it's use, but it is limited to continuous heavy workloads such as rendering. Anything other, there are better choices.


FX-8350 is $165, MSI Gaming 970 is $97 = $262
i5 4590 is $201, 64 for the b85 = $265.

Allow me to list the things that particular Intel solution will not do.

It will never overclock. The latest i5 won't fit in that socket so you will not get away with upgrading your cpu without a new mobo. It will not game and stream and render at the same time. It will also not beat the FX when the FX is overclocked. Yep you are right I'll have to spend $25 on an air cooler and tie you i5 at your stock speed single core for single core performance and while I'm still doing stuff your chip cant do.

Later on if I want to I can roll over to water cooling if I want. Meanwhile you are still running at stock because you can't OC and even if you did add better cooling its no a K CPU so you can't OC. I have 8 cores to your 4 so I can render video in shorter times, or simultaneously while gaming, or simultaneously while gaming and streaming, a task the i5 will studder at.

Yes single core for single core perf the i5 will crunch numbers faster because of IPC, and all those unwrar files, you'll open them in 15 seconds instead of 17 seconds. And in terms of fps, you'll get 90 instead of the 85 I get. But I'll be done rendering my video in an hour while you are still rending 90 min later.

If you want to compare the latest i5K series to the FX then yes the i5 is a better value in some certain situations. I reject the argument that in 2015 95% of users are satisfied by stronger single threaded performance. Or that the trend is that in 2017 or 2018 that will be the case as it is not 2000 or even 2005 anymore.


You seem to have literally no idea at all how cpu's work and what the differences between an i5 and a fx are.
Neither about how cpu's and applications have been changing in the last 10 years (which is when the first 4 core cpu's have had mainstream line releases).
And if you think there is any point in comparing an fx core to an i5 core, I warmly recommend you to read this thread.


I have a windows task manager on my computer just like you. I also know how to read. I also know the reasons CPUs have more cores with more threads is so they can multitask more effectively. You don't have to compare the chips directly if it bothers you, compare power consumption, compare performance, and compare price. FX beats or matches the i5 in 2/3.

There are very few programs that are limited to just a single thread all of the time. Most programs diversify a fair amount over 2-4 threads. When you have a game running, and a video rendering and you are streaming your game, that all takes processing power which is better diversified on an FX with more cores than on an i5 with fewer. In fact some programs like MS flight simulator will perform very poorly on an i5 if you try to render a video edit and stream at the same time while the FX is capable of doing this.
Score
0
May 5, 2015 9:17:20 AM

pjstar30 said:
Since this has turned into an AMD vs Intel debate (as most CPU posts do) I will chime in.

From a purely performance point of view, the newest i5 and i7 quad core CPUs outperform any of the AMD 6 or 8 "core" CPUs as you can see in the hierarchy chart here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...


Nobody is disputing this or the single core performance of the Intel product. What I would argue is that the Intel chips in the Tier 1 are all $200+ and the FX-8350 is $165. When overclocked it will narrow the gap with any i5, and perform some tasks better, such as gaming + streaming + rendering a video edit.

Of course if you get a 6 or 8 core i7, for $500+ it will perform better than an FX. But for the money the FX provides as good or better performance than i5 where it counts.

I also disagreed that 95% of users will see the best user case value with the i5 because single core cpu threading isn't the trend of computing. and hasn't been since 2005. Of course we'd all love to see stronger single core performance because in many cases that is what matters most but you can't argue the FX delivers insufficient performance because the FX delivers similar performance for less money in the single core area and it delivers superior performance in the multicore area.
Score
0
a b À AMD
a c 154 à CPUs
May 5, 2015 9:25:15 AM

a $900 build consisting of a 4.5ghz fx 8 core will lose in almost every comparison a $960 4.5ghz i5(sandy bridge or later)… sometimes by a lot. everything in each system is exactly the same down to the hyper 212… only differences is the cpu and mobo. it really comes down to budget. if you really cant afford that extra $60 in the total build cost then yes the fx 8 core is still definitely a very good processor. if you are not gaming and have no need for a $300 gpu then it becomes even more of a better bang for buck. otherwise it is generally not recommended to skimp and get the fx processor over the unlocked i5 in a $800+ build which is about the average cost these days.
Score
0
May 5, 2015 9:32:50 AM

nikoli707 said:
a $900 build consisting of a 4.5ghz fx 8 core will lose in almost every comparison a $960 4.5ghz i5(sandy bridge or later)… sometimes by a lot. everything in each system is exactly the same down to the hyper 212… only differences is the cpu and mobo. it really comes down to budget. if you really cant afford that extra $60 in the total build cost then yes the fx 8 core is still definitely a very good processor. if you are not gaming and have no need for a $300 gpu then it becomes even more of a better bang for buck. otherwise it is generally not recommended to skimp and get the fx processor over the unlocked i5 in a $800+ build which is about the average cost these days.


Conjecture...

Show me an i5 build that is the same price as an FX build but has better maximum performance. I doubt you can find that because I couldn't in February and this was 4 months after they bumped the price on the FX-8350 UP not down.

There are hardly any cases where an i5 has a measurable performance that means anything above the FX when you overclock the FX.
Score
0
May 5, 2015 9:51:59 AM

nikoli707 said:
a $900 build consisting of a 4.5ghz fx 8 core will lose in almost every comparison a $960 4.5ghz i5(sandy bridge or later)… sometimes by a lot. everything in each system is exactly the same down to the hyper 212… only differences is the cpu and mobo. it really comes down to budget. if you really cant afford that extra $60 in the total build cost then yes the fx 8 core is still definitely a very good processor. if you are not gaming and have no need for a $300 gpu then it becomes even more of a better bang for buck. otherwise it is generally not recommended to skimp and get the fx processor over the unlocked i5 in a $800+ build which is about the average cost these days.


Why would you only OC the FX to 4.5? LOL.
Score
0
May 5, 2015 10:18:25 AM

Jay Stew said:
pjstar30 said:
Since this has turned into an AMD vs Intel debate (as most CPU posts do) I will chime in.

From a purely performance point of view, the newest i5 and i7 quad core CPUs outperform any of the AMD 6 or 8 "core" CPUs as you can see in the hierarchy chart here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...


Nobody is disputing this or the single core performance of the Intel product. What I would argue is that the Intel chips in the Tier 1 are all $200+ and the FX-8350 is $165. When overclocked it will narrow the gap with any i5, and perform some tasks better, such as gaming + streaming + rendering a video edit.

Of course if you get a 6 or 8 core i7, for $500+ it will perform better than an FX. But for the money the FX provides as good or better performance than i5 where it counts.

I also disagreed that 95% of users will see the best user case value with the i5 because single core cpu threading isn't the trend of computing. and hasn't been since 2005. Of course we'd all love to see stronger single core performance because in many cases that is what matters most but you can't argue the FX delivers insufficient performance because the FX delivers similar performance for less money in the single core area and it delivers superior performance in the multicore area.


I did say "from a purely performance point of view." I think everyone is aware that AMD CPUs are cheaper. However, why go through the hassle of overclocking, voiding your warranty, etc just to save a few bucks? If you can get the same, or better, performance just by paying a few extra dollars and not having to worry about overclocking, it's more than worth it. I used to be an AMD fan but man they've been playing the "catch up" game for a LONG time.
Score
0
May 5, 2015 11:12:52 AM

pjstar30 said:
Jay Stew said:
pjstar30 said:
Since this has turned into an AMD vs Intel debate (as most CPU posts do) I will chime in.

From a purely performance point of view, the newest i5 and i7 quad core CPUs outperform any of the AMD 6 or 8 "core" CPUs as you can see in the hierarchy chart here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...


Nobody is disputing this or the single core performance of the Intel product. What I would argue is that the Intel chips in the Tier 1 are all $200+ and the FX-8350 is $165. When overclocked it will narrow the gap with any i5, and perform some tasks better, such as gaming + streaming + rendering a video edit.

Of course if you get a 6 or 8 core i7, for $500+ it will perform better than an FX. But for the money the FX provides as good or better performance than i5 where it counts.

I also disagreed that 95% of users will see the best user case value with the i5 because single core cpu threading isn't the trend of computing. and hasn't been since 2005. Of course we'd all love to see stronger single core performance because in many cases that is what matters most but you can't argue the FX delivers insufficient performance because the FX delivers similar performance for less money in the single core area and it delivers superior performance in the multicore area.


I did say "from a purely performance point of view." I think everyone is aware that AMD CPUs are cheaper. However, why go through the hassle of overclocking, voiding your warranty, etc just to save a few bucks? If you can get the same, or better, performance just by paying a few extra dollars and not having to worry about overclocking, it's more than worth it. I used to be an AMD fan but man they've been playing the "catch up" game for a LONG time.


LOL. Like you don't have to OC the i5 to stay ahead of the FX? LOL. $70 is not a few bucks, it got me into a GTX 970.

With the FX OC I will have shorter render times than the i5, ok that is a metric that matters to me. Saving minutes or even the better part of an hour is a Metric that matters.

Metrics that do not matter are the 90 fps you'll get with the i5 vs 85 fps with the FX, because while measurable is not impactful enough to matter. If you say 30fps difference is a thing I'll believe you if we are talking the difference between 30 an 60 fps. I can see that. But 90vs 60fps isn't really a thing my eyes see, or the difference between 120ps and 90 fps. Also of no real consequence is a 15 second time un-wraring a file on the i5 vs the 17 second time I'll get unwraring the same file on the FX.

Video editing is very cpu intensive and takes a lot of time. There are only 168 hours in the week so if I spend 2-4 less on renders and 2-4 on whatever, gaming browsing, whatever I want I'm down for that. If I can do it while also spending less I'm double down for that. FX allows me to do that. All these wild claims of i3 superiority over the FX are based on one benchmark where the OC the i3 and used the "E" versions of the FX which are neutered. Clearly a dual core is not going to beat an oct core at any serious computing.

The debate then is does the FX really have 8 cpu cores or some hyper thread mumbo jumbo. The answer of which is yes it has 8 cores. Then it always goes off to well the single core performance on the FX sucks. Well it actually is less than 40% difference between the best i5 which is much higher priced and the FX at stock. Then the questions becomes why overclock? And really who the hell doesn't overclock AMD? I mean that is where 20-25% of your performance is. Likes saying why use warp drive? I mean really?

It can be safely done and narrow or close the gap between FX and i5 single core performance then why not do it? Especially when you stand to gain other options like hey I can game at 85fps while also rendering a video, can you do that on your i5? No. I can also stream smooth as a baby's ass while gaming and rendering can you do that on an i5? No.

Can you do it on i7? Sure, but you will pay for it to the tune of $150-$200+. So why not just compare i5 to FX, which is fine the late model i5's are incredible chips, power efficient, cool runnings man, and they drive spectacular fps and really good low min fps. i7s add lots of cost but not much more performance so i5 is where it is at if you want to spend the money and you don't have other considerations. If you never stream and game or render video ever, then go i5 if you want to spend more money.

If you want just about all of the same performance, i.e. similar performance, and more flexibility and versatility then pick up an FX for less coin.
Score
0
a b À AMD
a c 184 à CPUs
May 5, 2015 11:40:51 AM

Jay Stew said:

Why would you only OC the FX to 4.5? LOL.


Because for a higher oc, you'll need a 990fx board and a very good cpu cooler that easily get you to more than $100 extra expense compared to leaving it at stock.

Actually, you just seem to be trying to justify your decision of going with the fx to yourself. Nothing wrong with the fx series, but the very limited count of scenarios in which it's a price/performance senseful choice isn't going to matter to a usual customer. All the scenarios you have described except for video rendering perform better on the i5, no matter how high you might oc your fx. With the exception of getting it to 7.2+ghz to compensate for the enormous difference in single core performance.
Your argument of i3 overclocked vs Fx-E is absolutely bullshit, too, as there are no overclockable i3's. I have not actually found any benchmark showing an i3 beating a fx in continuous, well distributed workloads either, though, unless Intel Quick Sync has been used, in which case the i3 might very well be 10x faster than the fx.

Not sure where your magical 5 fps difference come from either, the benchmarks I've seen on average show a fps difference of about 20-30%. Meanwhile the i5 does also seem to win most cpu benchmarks by a fairly large margin.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review...
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review...

And before you tell me that benchmark is focused on devils canyon processors, I advise you to actually take a look at the i5 4690 featured in the benchmarks.

Jay Stew said:

If you want just about all of the same performance, i.e. similar performance, and more flexibility and versatility then pick up an FX for less coin.


Except, for 90% of all tasks and maybe 99% of what's usually performed, you get less performance for more or the same money.

Jay Stew said:
Clearly a dual core is not going to beat an oct core at any serious computing.


Oh come on, it's 2015. You must be trolling, comparing core to core with absolutely different architectures. One i3 core is actually superior to TWO fx cores.
Score
0
a b À AMD
a c 154 à CPUs
May 5, 2015 1:30:06 PM

Jay Stew said:
nikoli707 said:
a $900 build consisting of a 4.5ghz fx 8 core will lose in almost every comparison a $960 4.5ghz i5(sandy bridge or later)… sometimes by a lot. everything in each system is exactly the same down to the hyper 212… only differences is the cpu and mobo. it really comes down to budget. if you really cant afford that extra $60 in the total build cost then yes the fx 8 core is still definitely a very good processor. if you are not gaming and have no need for a $300 gpu then it becomes even more of a better bang for buck. otherwise it is generally not recommended to skimp and get the fx processor over the unlocked i5 in a $800+ build which is about the average cost these days.


Why would you only OC the FX to 4.5? LOL.


because 4.5ghz all a hyper 212 evo will let most fx 8 cores get to before your above 1.45v or 65c, same with 4690k at 1.30v or 80c. obviously each can pick whatever temp or vcore they like but those are the generally assumed safe temps and vcore.
Score
0
a b À AMD
a c 80 à CPUs
May 5, 2015 7:16:40 PM

Jay Stew said:
SMT and CMT?


Please only quote the part you are replying to. Yes, SMT and CMT. SMT is simultaneous multithreading, or Intel's HyperThreading. CMT is clustered multithreading, what AMD uses. Do you want me to explain how they work?

pjstar30 said:
Since this has turned into an AMD vs Intel debate (as most CPU posts do) I will chime in.

From a purely performance point of view, the newest i5 and i7 quad core CPUs outperform any of the AMD 6 or 8 "core" CPUs as you can see in the hierarchy chart here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...


Perfectly sound analysis, but can't you go deeper?

Jay Stew said:
Nobody is disputing this or the single core performance of the Intel product. What I would argue is that the Intel chips in the Tier 1 are all $200+ and the FX-8350 is $165. When overclocked it will narrow the gap with any i5, and perform some tasks better, such as gaming + streaming + rendering a video edit.


Yeah, as it has been said, usage scenarios matter. The price difference narrows a lot when you start OC too.

Jay Stew said:
Of course if you get a 6 or 8 core i7, for $500+ it will perform better than an FX. But for the money the FX provides as good or better performance than i5 where it counts.

I also disagreed that 95% of users will see the best user case value with the i5 because single core cpu threading isn't the trend of computing. and hasn't been since 2005. Of course we'd all love to see stronger single core performance because in many cases that is what matters most but you can't argue the FX delivers insufficient performance because the FX delivers similar performance for less money in the single core area and it delivers superior performance in the multicore area.


We are moving towards multi-core, but I don't really see devs programming for 8 cores when the majority of CPUs in the market are still 2-4 cores.

Jay Stew said:
LOL. Like you don't have to OC the i5 to stay ahead of the FX? LOL. $70 is not a few bucks, it got me into a GTX 970.

With the FX OC I will have shorter render times than the i5, ok that is a metric that matters to me. Saving minutes or even the better part of an hour is a Metric that matters.

Metrics that do not matter are the 90 fps you'll get with the i5 vs 85 fps with the FX, because while measurable is not impactful enough to matter. If you say 30fps difference is a thing I'll believe you if we are talking the difference between 30 an 60 fps. I can see that. But 90vs 60fps isn't really a thing my eyes see, or the difference between 120ps and 90 fps. Also of no real consequence is a 15 second time un-wraring a file on the i5 vs the 17 second time I'll get unwraring the same file on the FX.

Video editing is very cpu intensive and takes a lot of time. There are only 168 hours in the week so if I spend 2-4 less on renders and 2-4 on whatever, gaming browsing, whatever I want I'm down for that. If I can do it while also spending less I'm double down for that. FX allows me to do that. All these wild claims of i3 superiority over the FX are based on one benchmark where the OC the i3 and used the "E" versions of the FX which are neutered. Clearly a dual core is not going to beat an oct core at any serious computing.


Sure, sure, the E versions have lower TDPs (by the way, means less heat and more OC). Dual cores (with hyperthreading) and quad modules (with CMT) are pretty competitive on the 4 thread workloads we see most these days. Yeah, the extra 4 threads help when you have an extra screen to do other stuff on, but, as I've been repeating, usage scenarios matter. And no, the difference is not $70, if you want an OC on the FX (and no, you don't need one on an i5). I'm favoring Xeon/B85 for those multi-thread workloads too.

Jay Stew said:
The debate then is does the FX really have 8 cpu cores or some hyper thread mumbo jumbo. The answer of which is yes it has 8 cores. Then it always goes off to well the single core performance on the FX sucks. Well it actually is less than 40% difference between the best i5 which is much higher priced and the FX at stock. Then the questions becomes why overclock? And really who the hell doesn't overclock AMD? I mean that is where 20-25% of your performance is. Likes saying why use warp drive? I mean really?


The FX has 4 modules containing 2 "cores" each, sharing resources such as L2 and ALU (which I believe is 128+128 bit). Sure, it's better than SMT in terms of throughput, but it's still far from "extra cores". OC requires cooler, which costs money (Cyrorig H7 is a good option IMO, but I digress), which really narrows the price gap.

Jay Stew said:
It can be safely done and narrow or close the gap between FX and i5 single core performance then why not do it? Especially when you stand to gain other options like hey I can game at 85fps while also rendering a video, can you do that on your i5? No. I can also stream smooth as a baby's ass while gaming and rendering can you do that on an i5? No.

Can you do it on i7? Sure, but you will pay for it to the tune of $150-$200+. So why not just compare i5 to FX, which is fine the late model i5's are incredible chips, power efficient, cool runnings man, and they drive spectacular fps and really good low min fps. i7s add lots of cost but not much more performance so i5 is where it is at if you want to spend the money and you don't have other considerations. If you never stream and game or render video ever, then go i5 if you want to spend more money.

If you want just about all of the same performance, i.e. similar performance, and more flexibility and versatility then pick up an FX for less coin.


Or, if you really need a parallel processor, go Xeon. At 4 GHz vs 4.5 GHz, the single core is still superior, and the multi core difference is almost nil. The price difference is also almost nil, if we include the cooler.
Score
0
May 6, 2015 2:47:06 AM

The multicore difference is not almost nil, it is significant time saved when rendering.

The differences in your eyes between modules and cores is not a difference Task Manager makes or a difference rendering video distinguishes either. I also don't care about the underlying technology or who makes it. I care about $/spent to arrive at work done and time it is done in. For $500 yes I could have the work done faster on an 6 core i7 or closer to $1K for the 8 core version or I could have the AMD rig do it, in almost the same time and for $165.

Xeons are great too.

I dont' see how it becomes a more expensive chip to OC? Power requirements are still only a tiny fraction of the cost of the cpu. I don't think $70 of power purchased over 3-4 years is a legit argument for going i5 either. In 3-4 years I'll have upgraded likely, especially if a 12 core cpu becomes available that is reasonably priced. You can achieve high overclocks on water cooling for about the same price as i5, which would give you superior performance in renders with the FX so I don't know where you are going there.
Score
0
May 6, 2015 2:50:16 AM

DubbleClick said:
Jay Stew said:

Why would you only OC the FX to 4.5? LOL.


Because for a higher oc, you'll need a 990fx board and a very good cpu cooler that easily get you to more than $100 extra expense compared to leaving it at stock.

Actually, you just seem to be trying to justify your decision of going with the fx to yourself. Nothing wrong with the fx series, but the very limited count of scenarios in which it's a price/performance senseful choice isn't going to matter to a usual customer. All the scenarios you have described except for video rendering perform better on the i5, no matter how high you might oc your fx. With the exception of getting it to 7.2+ghz to compensate for the enormous difference in single core performance.
Your argument of i3 overclocked vs Fx-E is absolutely bullshit, too, as there are no overclockable i3's. I have not actually found any benchmark showing an i3 beating a fx in continuous, well distributed workloads either, though, unless Intel Quick Sync has been used, in which case the i3 might very well be 10x faster than the fx.

Not sure where your magical 5 fps difference come from either, the benchmarks I've seen on average show a fps difference of about 20-30%. Meanwhile the i5 does also seem to win most cpu benchmarks by a fairly large margin.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review...
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review...

And before you tell me that benchmark is focused on devils canyon processors, I advise you to actually take a look at the i5 4690 featured in the benchmarks.

Jay Stew said:

If you want just about all of the same performance, i.e. similar performance, and more flexibility and versatility then pick up an FX for less coin.


Except, for 90% of all tasks and maybe 99% of what's usually performed, you get less performance for more or the same money.

Jay Stew said:
Clearly a dual core is not going to beat an oct core at any serious computing.


Oh come on, it's 2015. You must be trolling, comparing core to core with absolutely different architectures. One i3 core is actually superior to TWO fx cores.


They don't sell em by the core they sell em by the chip. No Dual core cpu is is going to do more computing than a octcore cpu. Your benches are comparing stock clocks. But you can get 20-25% more performance from the FX, and the price is still a sweet $165.
Score
0
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest