- Sep 6, 2014
- 74
- 0
- 4,660
AMD CPUs Worth Nowadays
- Thread starter Blaze Blazer
- Start date
Solution
lucas_7_94
Admirable
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,898
- 1
- 7,960
FX 8350 is the average amd build for any user, and almost it get bottlenecked, mainly for the lowest performance in each core.
If i'm going to make a AMD build, i would wait Zen + AM4.
If i'm going to make a AMD build, i would wait Zen + AM4.
Snipergod87
Splendid
- May 26, 2009
- 5,585
- 2
- 29,965
No, their last "new" desktop cpu was released in 2012, even then they didn't compete against Intel. People who buy AMD PC's tend to be on a budget.
- Nov 19, 2010
- 20,935
- 5,146
- 106,640
For workstation-type purposes, the FX-8350 has held up fairly well. Not amazingly -- it's not new technology -- but a low-cost work PC with highly parallelized tasks, is still a place where the AMD FX chips, while far from an obvious choice, still show their strengths. The APUs are also just fine for extremely low-budget, light gaming rigs.
Other than that though, the AMD CPUs are showing their age. The wide disparity in instructions per clock between enthusiast Intel and AMD CPUs has left the latter without the ability to brute force their way to parity with lower and lower-end Intel CPUs with each successive generation. I'm crossing my fingers for Zen. AMD has had some terrific CPUs in the past -- the original Athlon 64s are legendary and the Phenom II Blacks were great fun -- but for any gaming rig above the most entry-level tier, I'm finding AMD CPUs almost unrecommendable these days.
- May 18, 2007
- 23,815
- 5,265
- 108,890
The only thing legendary about the Athlon 64 is that it came out at a time where Intel's Netburst/Pentium 4 was spectacularly failing to deliver the expected performance scaling on the desktop. In the laptop market, Intel maintained its lead with the Pentium 3 which continued to evolve under the Pentium M and Core brands. When Intel decided to give up on the Pentium 4 and merge what it learned from Netburst with Core to create the Core 2, the result decimated AMD's desktop lead.
The only reason for AMD's "legendary success" with the Athlon 64 is Intel's legendary failures with the Pentium 4.
- Aug 23, 2011
- 4,428
- 250
- 33,740
AMD use to have a huge performance lead in the Server business but in gaming only the Athlon 64 FX line and the first Phenom II X4's were really impressive. Current AMD chips are good for budget builds and HTPC but not quite strong enough for current AAA titles with Ultra settings and 60+ FPS in mind. There is a quite large performance gap now per core when you compare Intel and AMD, it's in the range of nearly 30% which is the worst it has even been. AMD vows with the Zen design it would close the gap and become more competitive but I doubt it with the Bulldozer over hyped fiasco which made the same claims.
- Sep 6, 2014
- 74
- 0
- 4,660
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
News Firefox user loses 7,470 opened tabs saved over two years after they can’t restore browsing session- Started by Admin
- Replies: 58
-
News Apple debuts M4 processor in new iPad Pros with 38 TOPS on neural engine
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 80
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram