AMD latest FX CPU or PHENOM II x6 for my AMD3+ motherboard

lendbz · Jul 30, 2014

Hi,

I want to upgrade my CPU on my amd3+ motherboard before it breath its last breath. how does the new AMD FX CPU compared with the older phenom II line?

In terms of performance, does the FX beat out the phenom II at the same clock speed?

If the FX is inferior to phenom II x6, which FX cpu equal the performance of the Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition?

I heard someone say over 4 cores is not important for gaming, if that is the case, which FX CPU equal the performance of Phenom II X4 980 Black Edition?

thanks

rdizz81 · Jul 30, 2014

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

KyleADunn · Jul 30, 2014

Core for core, the Phenom wins out. However, the FX (depending on which one) has more cores, thus has better performance over all (assuming similar or higher clock speeds).

But you should post your mobo, so that we may suggest the best pair-up. TDP matters quite the lot, and an older AM3+ motherboard might not handle a higher TDP CPU.

ak47jar3d · Jul 30, 2014

FX > Phenom 2. Fx 8350 would do better than x4 processors in gaming.

Dark Lord of Tech · Jul 30, 2014

Best value FX8320.

mouse24 · Jul 30, 2014

I wouldn't bother upgrading to the FX lineup if you already have a phenom 2 x4 or x6. Not worth the money, just save up for an i5. Not to mention the AM3+ socket is dead.

sincreator · Jul 30, 2014

mouse24 :

I agree 100%. That is the reason I'm still on my old X6 PH II. Overclocked of course, lol.

lendbz · Jul 30, 2014

I have the Phenom II X3 740 black edition, I tried enabling the 4th core but I am one of the unlucky one to get a defective core and my OS was unstable when I activated the 4th core. So you guys think I shouldn't bother upgrading to the FX line from my phenom II x3 740 BE?

chazus · Jul 30, 2014

Don't bother.

FX-8350 = $180
i3-4150 + Board = $200
i3-4130 + Board = $160
For $20 more, you can get a cpu thats a good 30% more powerful
For $20 less, you can get a cpu thats about 20-25% more powerful

ak47jar3d · Jul 30, 2014

lendbz :

I would. Very few people need more power than what the 8000 series FX deliver at the moment.

mouse24 · Jul 30, 2014

lendbz :

I suppose it depends more on how often you get paid. If you only have to wait a couple weeks or even a whole month to get an i5 > an FX then I'd wait. But if its gonna be a couple months or something then get the FX.

lendbz · Jul 30, 2014

so i am lookin at this ranking page someone gave me as an answer:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

the fx-8350 has a Passmark CPU Mark of 9029
while the Phenom II X4 980 has a mark of 4657

How does the score read or how does it translate it real world? the fx-8350 has double the score of the II x4, does that mean the fx-8350 perform twice as fast since it has double the score of the phenom II x4 980?

chazus · Jul 30, 2014

How does the score read or how does it translate it real world?

It doesn't translate almost at all.

Single thread performance is what you should be looking at, since most games don't handle more than 1-2 threads.

Phenom scores ~1200
FX Scores ~1500
i3 scores ~2000

ak47jar3d · Jul 30, 2014

lendbz :

Yes, but that is assuming all threads get used to there max potential which is very unlikely in games.

lendbz · Jul 30, 2014

hmmm.. what does a score of 9029 for the fx8350 and a score of 4657 for phenomII x4 980 means when I play a game such as skyrim? then those score i saw on that page is meaningless? :X

lendbz · Jul 30, 2014

by threads you mean cores?

rdizz81 · Jul 30, 2014

Bench marks are hard to translate into real world. but it gives you an idea of each cpu's potential really.

chazus · Jul 30, 2014

Threads and Cores are different things, but function similar. Regardless, most games don't use more than 2 threads or cores. And yes, those benchmarks are largely useless outside of well threaded applications (design software) and a small handful of games.

I wouldn't say it 'gives you an idea', especially when that translation is completely wrong.

ak47jar3d · Jul 30, 2014

lendbz :

Cores are not necessary threads. It hard to count fx 8350 as a true 8 core processor as its more like 4 cores with 2 two threads per simultaneous core.

for more on cores:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-1711355/quick-core-question-amd-8350.html

oxiide · Jul 30, 2014

ak47jar3d :

We need to be a bit more nuanced than this. What you've described is basically Hyperthreading. Piledriver modules don't share all of their resources, so in terms of multithreaded performance it's a bit better than Hyperthreading. Eight physical cores > 4 Piledriver modules > four Hyperthreaded cores > four physical cores.

Bear in mind I am not claiming an FX-8350 is ever faster than a Core i7, just that its multithreading technology is more efficient than Hyperthreading. It falls behind overall for other reasons.

lendbz :

Back when Bulldozer (FX-8150) was the most recent, there was an argument for sticking with the Phenom II's for generally better gaming performance. The FX-8350 is a lot easier to recommend, especially at its current price, and I don't think there's any point in going with an old Phenom II processor anymore.

Dark Lord of Tech · Jul 30, 2014

I own 2 FX8350 setups , 1 4670K setup , 1 4790k setup , and the i7 buries the others.

chazus · Jul 30, 2014

Hyperthreading and multithreading, at the end of the day, perform very similar, and can be considered as such. When it comes down to it, the power of the cores, regardless of how many, is the deciding factor. The FX CPU's simply don't perform better in almost every situation, except like.. BF4.

ak47jar3d · Jul 30, 2014

oxiide :

ak47jar3d :

We need to be a bit more nuanced than this. What you've described is basically Hyperthreading. Piledriver modules don't share all of their resources, so in terms of multithreaded performance it's a bit better than Hyperthreading. Eight physical cores > 4 Piledriver modules > four Hyperthreaded cores > four physical cores.

Bear in mind I am not claiming an FX-8350 is ever faster than a Core i7, just that its multithreading technology is more efficient than Hyperthreading. It falls behind overall for other reasons.

True. For the sake of keeping it simple, I made it sound like hypethreading even thou its not. To correct myself, hypethreading and multithreading are not the same.

AMD latest FX CPU or PHENOM II x6 for my AMD3+ motherboard

Reputable

Distinguished

Honorable

Champion

Retired Moderator

Splendid

Splendid

Reputable

Distinguished

Champion

Splendid

Reputable

Distinguished

Champion

Reputable

Reputable

Distinguished

Distinguished

Champion

Distinguished

Retired Moderator

Distinguished

Champion

Share this page