Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Why Do People Say AMD FX Is Bad?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2012 3:17:43 AM

I got a AMD FX prosseser in a computer i made a few days ago and people said Intel is way better then AMD whats the difference beacause AMD sells at cheap prices and these were my choices,
Intel I5 2500k (quad core)
AMD FX-8120 (Eight-Core)
i chose AMD due to both were about $200 i dont see why Intel? Intel has NOTHING better then AMD i compared with L2, L3, Number Of Cores And Speed AMD was a much better deal and so far even extreme multitasking with the most prosseser using programs it works great, AMD only has duel channel what nothing has been slow and so i dont care about that my point is whats so bad about AMD it never failed me yet!

Also When I Bought My Motherboard From newegg.com It Said "FSB 2600MHz Hyper Transport 3" Is That Good Or Bad?

More about : people amd bad

a c 218 à CPUs
a c 104 À AMD
a c 130 å Intel
January 3, 2012 3:35:41 AM

The Sandy Bridge will beat the bulldozer in any benchmark you care to run and it has been known and shown for a long time now that Sandy Bridge processors are better at gaming than AMD processors. That is why AMD finally gave up trying to compete head to head with Intel and is not going to br producing highend processors any more just main stream.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2012 3:36:45 AM

I don't want you to be offended, as I know how it feels to buy something and shortly thereafter find out that perhaps I could have done better. With that said I also want to state that there's nothing wrong with the cpu you chose and it'll serve you very well outside of most artificial benchmarks.

The question however is why people say Intel is better. The simple fact is, because Intel is better. At virtually every aspect the Intel 2500k will pull away from the FX8250 especially in games where the difference is vast.

The one area in which the 8250 has an advantage (and it's not by much, and in some cases slower than the 2500K) is in content creation software that utilizes all 8 cores of the FX while the 2500K doesn't even have the benefit of Hyperthreading. If you use programs like Blender or CSS as your main programs then the purchase is wise.

Looking at the specs of a processor is no longer (and never really was tbh) a good way to determine how that processor is going to behave in the real world. The main reason Sandy Bridge is such a great performer over Bulldozer has very little to do with any given chip, and much more to do with the microarchitecure decisions made by each company.

Intel implemented an on-die memory controller and pci-e bus so that transfers between these systems are exceptionally efficient. This advantage alone give Intel a huge edge over any AMD offering that is still using independent buses to transfer this information. AMD has also created a monster in Bulldozer that while it can be overclocked significantly, it only comes at the cost of massive power draw and tdp. Intel's ability to overclock, while just as strong, consumes a fractional amount in comparison.

There are plenty of reviews in the Articles/CPU section in which you can see the disappointment the the FX series represents as a whole. I honestly believe the failure that this chipset has represented is directly responsible for AMD recently admitting to no longer competing with Intel in this segment.

Now... with all of that being said, and while I'm sure you feel little knot in your stomach, don't fret it. You have a modern day cpu that is going to do everything you ask of. Who cares what the benchmarks say if you're happy and satisfied with the build.

Score
0
Related resources
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2012 3:42:30 AM

inzone said:
The Sandy Bridge will beat the bulldozer in any benchmark you care to run and it has been known and shown for a long time now that Sandy Bridge processors are better at gaming than AMD processors. That is why AMD finally gave up trying to compete head to head with Intel and is not going to br producing highend processors any more just main stream.

You dont get it "Benchmark"... Benchmarking is a cheap way to test a cpu it depends on hardware and so how do you know if its not the hardware i have the worlds cheapest graphics card (which im going to get a new one) and i can play games like no other 3d games with the highest setting causes slight lagging sometimes but lowering some things will help.

You Are A Intel Fan You Know I Use Intel For My Laptop I Dont Care What CPU I Use Finnal Awnser AMD FX-8120 Beats Intel I5 2500k I Have Used Intel CPUs Many Times Before And Never I Have Seen Such An Expensive Looking Failure Of A CPU!
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2012 3:43:14 AM

the bulldozer processors are good processors, but they are mostly bashed because of what they were supposed to be, but wernt, amd kept hinting at an intel killer, and proceeded to release widely exagerated false benchmark numbers, as well as the fact that the 8150 only slightly surpasses the 1100t in many benchmarks,

some even say that they should have just stuck k10.5 and just shrunk it to 32nm to save power or increase clock

hyper transport is just the link between the cpu and the chipset, so the faster it is, the faster your peripherals can talk to the cpu
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2012 3:47:48 AM

a4mula said:
I don't want you to be offended, as I know how it feels to buy something and shortly thereafter find out that perhaps I could have done better. With that said I also want to state that there's nothing wrong with the cpu you chose and it'll serve you very well outside of most artificial benchmarks.

The question however is why people say Intel is better. The simple fact is, because Intel is better. At virtually every aspect the Intel 2500k will pull away from the FX8250 especially in games where the difference is vast.

The one area in which the 8250 has an advantage (and it's not by much, and in some cases slower than the 2500K) is in content creation software that utilizes all 8 cores of the FX while the 2500K doesn't even have the benefit of Hyperthreading. If you use programs like Blender or CSS as your main programs then the purchase is wise.

Looking at the specs of a processor is no longer (and never really was tbh) a good way to determine how that processor is going to behave in the real world. The main reason Sandy Bridge is such a great performer over Bulldozer has very little to do with any given chip, and much more to do with the microarchitecure decisions made by each company.

Intel implemented an on-die memory controller and pci-e bus so that transfers between these systems are exceptionally efficient. This advantage alone give Intel a huge edge over any AMD offering that is still using independent buses to transfer this information. AMD has also created a monster in Bulldozer that while it can be overclocked significantly, it only comes at the cost of massive power draw and tdp. Intel's ability to overclock, while just as strong, consumes a fractional amount in comparison.

There are plenty of reviews in the Articles/CPU section in which you can see the disappointment the the FX series represents as a whole. I honestly believe the failure that this chipset has represented is directly responsible for AMD recently admitting to no longer competing with Intel in this segment.

Now... with all of that being said, and while I'm sure you feel little knot in your stomach, don't fret it. You have a modern day cpu that is going to do everything you ask of. Who cares what the benchmarks say if you're happy and satisfied with the build.


Yes, But I Bought A AMD 8-Core CPU To Multitask And Thats What I Mean Intel Might Have A Advantage Over Games That Use Less Then 4-cores If A Game Could Take Advantage Of All 8 Cores I Think AMD Would Have A Much Better Advantage Im Planning On Using A Program Called Blender To Make And Render 3D Objects So Hopefully AMD Did Not Fail Me!
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2012 12:20:39 PM

melikepie said:
Yes, But I Bought A AMD 8-Core CPU To Multitask And Thats What I Mean Intel Might Have A Advantage Over Games That Use Less Then 4-cores If A Game Could Take Advantage Of All 8 Cores I Think AMD Would Have A Much Better Advantage Im Planning On Using A Program Called Blender To Make And Render 3D Objects So Hopefully AMD Did Not Fail Me!


Intel is still faster. It doesn't matter how many cores you have; if they are weak, you have slower performance. Its really that simple.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2012 12:40:05 PM

xaira said:
the bulldozer processors are good processors, but they are mostly bashed because of what they were supposed to be, but wernt, amd kept hinting at an intel killer, and proceeded to release widely exagerated false benchmark numbers, as well as the fact that the 8150 only slightly surpasses the 1100t in many benchmarks,

some even say that they should have just stuck k10.5 and just shrunk it to 32nm to save power or increase clock

hyper transport is just the link between the cpu and the chipset, so the faster it is, the faster your peripherals can talk to the cpu


32nm Stars overclocks like a bat out of Hell when one has gotten a good sample. The problem is AMD keeps making bad decisions at almost every turn. They screwed up the desktop Llano platform by leaving the gpu to be overclocked when not wanted and holds back cpu overclocks. While the mobile does enjoy fairly decent overclocking but many are low clocked and get creamed almost every time when against intel in cpu tasks. Hell on my a8 3530mx not only did I undervolt I still managed to overclock it to 2.1ghz on only around 0.835v! Then again still manged to get it stable enough to play wow and crysis at 3.6ghz on a lower voltage than was stock for the turbo. While the desktop struggles to even get passed 3.4-3.6ghz.

32nm stars on am3+ could have given intel enough competition for them to have dropped their prices slightly but wouldn't have beaten them.
Score
0
a c 79 à CPUs
January 3, 2012 1:03:25 PM

melikepie said:
Yes, But I Bought A AMD 8-Core CPU To Multitask And Thats What I Mean Intel Might Have A Advantage Over Games That Use Less Then 4-cores If A Game Could Take Advantage Of All 8 Cores I Think AMD Would Have A Much Better Advantage Im Planning On Using A Program Called Blender To Make And Render 3D Objects So Hopefully AMD Did Not Fail Me!


You are starting to sound like a fanboi and a troll, sorry if you are not, but thats what you sound like.

The facts are that the 2500K will beat your chip in like for like benchmarking tests in most of those tests. Thats it, end of story. I was hoping BD would be good, its just OK.

You way that benchmarking can be affected by that hardware, thats precisely the point you are testing hardware, it will be affected by software, again thats the point of the test to determine how sets of hardware peform compared to each other when using different software. There are those that say that the amd chips will work better with a different version of windows, well i've got a lump of cheese that is a brilliant organic computer, but no-one has written the software for it.

What you have is a good chip, there are better chips, if you had brought the 2500K there is the 2600K and the 2700K, then there is ivybridge.

Well done to a4mula for a well paced and well rounded discussion.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2012 2:06:39 PM

nforce4max said:
32nm Stars overclocks like a bat out of Hell when one has gotten a good sample. The problem is AMD keeps making bad decisions at almost every turn. They screwed up the desktop Llano platform by leaving the gpu to be overclocked when not wanted and holds back cpu overclocks. While the mobile does enjoy fairly decent overclocking but many are low clocked and get creamed almost every time when against intel in cpu tasks. Hell on my a8 3530mx not only did I undervolt I still managed to overclock it to 2.1ghz on only around 0.835v! Then again still manged to get it stable enough to play wow and crysis at 3.6ghz on a lower voltage than was stock for the turbo. While the desktop struggles to even get passed 3.4-3.6ghz.

32nm stars on am3+ could have given intel enough competition for them to have dropped their prices slightly but wouldn't have beaten them.


The problem is Stars is an aging design, and there really wasn't too much more AMD could have done with it. All you would have gotten is a faster stock chip, thats about it. AMD had to go with a new design, but they apparently missed the lessons Intel learned from the Pentium 4 era.

Though I do continue to find it ironic AMD went for the highly clocked, low efficency processor, after they came to be basically because the lower clocked highly efficent Athlon kicked the pants out of the Pentium 4.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2012 2:43:41 PM

gamerk316 said:
The problem is Stars is an aging design, and there really wasn't too much more AMD could have done with it. All you would have gotten is a faster stock chip, thats about it. AMD had to go with a new design, but they apparently missed the lessons Intel learned from the Pentium 4 era.

Though I do continue to find it ironic AMD went for the highly clocked, low efficency processor, after they came to be basically because the lower clocked highly efficent Athlon kicked the pants out of the Pentium 4.


True and 32nm Stars would have only bought them 6 months to a year max but would have still been better than what they put out now with BD. I am very doubtful they are going to have any thing decent out that can be a worthy upgrade over phenom while giving some sort of competition for a few years.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2012 4:18:52 PM

^^ Remember, AMD sunk a LOT of money into BD, and AMD isn't exactly overflowing with cash. They needed money, and lets face it, with BD in the wings, no one would have been happy to settle for a PIII chip that was still slower then SB.

AMD simply made the wrong design decisions. And I honestly don't know if they have the cash to recover from it.
Score
0
a c 172 à CPUs
a b å Intel
January 3, 2012 5:06:38 PM

melikepie said:
Yes, But I Bought A AMD 8-Core CPU ...

Bulldozer is not a true 8 core design. It is really a 4 core design with each core having 2 integer units.

And as xaira said, it failed to live up to its hype.
Score
0
January 3, 2012 5:30:54 PM

right i will put in my moneys worth on this for those who are fan boys of intel or AMD or haters or lovers you cant comment unless you owned both AMD FX Phenom AND Sandybridge E 3930K or 2600k

i have the follwoing and cpu-z to prove it with my account

1 FX-8150
1 X6 1090T
1 Phenom II 955BE
1 i7 2600K
1 3930K

the best is the new 2011 3930K next is the 2600k 3rd is the 1090T 4th is the 955BE 5th is the FX 8150.

NOW this is by no means the way of Bulldozer being crap its to do with bang for buck and what works FULLY and in games without glitches.

Dozer is good dont let anybody fool you but its not good enough thats for dam sure and im a fanboy of AMD but i have got pissed with them over the lack of Dozers quality and i now am a proud owner of the new 3930K and its AWESOME on the new Asus ROG rampage 4 extreme. cost a fair bit but worth it and i wont sell my 955be or the 1090t but i would gladly sell my FX chip as its just not worth jack im gutted to say :( 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2012 6:34:27 PM

We should re-open the 10,000 post BD roumer thread at this rate...

Seriously, was that on purpose? Locking @10,000 posts?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2012 7:32:38 PM

melikepie you bought a good CPU, so don't worry. I am not a fanboi of any company (though actually if I was, I'd be an AMD fanboi - it was a fabulous time when AMD chips were knocking seven bells out of Intel's finest in the early 2000s). Today, one just has to admit that Intel chips are better. I buy them for this reason and this reason alone. On just about any measure you make, Intel beats AMD. Looking at the spec sheet tells you nothing at all when you are comparing between architectures - it is only any use when comparing two chips of similar architecture.

AMD's finest is priced to compete with Intel's Core i7 2600k, but in almost every benchmark it gets embarrassingly thrashed not only by the 2600k, but by chips far below it in the price range, particularly the 2500k. In some content creation tasks it performs better and in a very few cases it takes a narrow lead over the competition, but overall, it's an unbalanced and inconsistent record. If you're a type of user who only cares about the applications in which Bulldozer performs well then it's a perfectly acceptable choice.

See here http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bul...

It's a good performer, no question about that, but it completely failed to take the game to Intel as many people hoped.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2012 7:57:34 PM

melikepie said:
Yes, But I Bought A AMD 8-Core CPU To Multitask And Thats What I Mean Intel Might Have A Advantage Over Games That Use Less Then 4-cores If A Game Could Take Advantage Of All 8 Cores I Think AMD Would Have A Much Better Advantage Im Planning On Using A Program Called Blender To Make And Render 3D Objects So Hopefully AMD Did Not Fail Me!




Seeing this from Xbitlabs: AMD FX-8120, AMD FX-6100 and AMD FX-4100 CPUs Review, maybe this time "AMD will fail you"

And a hint for you. ONLY, I repeat. ONLY compare caches, speed, number of cores when you talking about similar CPU architectures. Even inside Intel there is significant differences, when comparing Nehalem vs Sandy Bridge. This comparative isn't direct and obvious. You can't predict the CPU internals to say that a higher specs from a brand is better than the competitors CPU.
Score
0
January 3, 2012 8:00:44 PM

If you're happy with your system, then it is the right system for you...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2012 8:07:47 PM

pat said:
If you're happy with your system, then it is the right system for you...


If he's happy? I think yes.
If he could be happier? For his declared usage, I think it's a yes too sir..
Score
0
January 3, 2012 8:16:40 PM

vitornob said:
If he's happy? I think yes.
If he could be happier? For his declared usage, I think it's a yes too sir..


Precisely!

My first build (and the computer I'm typing on) was centered around BD. I waited twice after it was delayed, borrowed a friend's phenom chip so I could update the bios on my motherboard, and shelled out the money for... a relatively bad CPU.

I am not dissatisfied with its performance at all, and it handles everything I can throw at it. But sandy bridge chips are cheaper, faster, and much more efficient. Unless AMD pulls a complete u-turn with piledriver my next build is a guaranteed intel.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2012 9:18:33 PM

melikepie said:
You dont get it "Benchmark"... Benchmarking is a cheap way to test a cpu it depends on hardware and so how do you know if its not the hardware i have the worlds cheapest graphics card (which im going to get a new one) and i can play games like no other 3d games with the highest setting causes slight lagging sometimes but lowering some things will help.

You Are A Intel Fan You Know I Use Intel For My Laptop I Dont Care What CPU I Use Finnal Awnser AMD FX-8120 Beats Intel I5 2500k I Have Used Intel CPUs Many Times Before And Never I Have Seen Such An Expensive Looking Failure Of A CPU!

This is the biggest issue with benchmarking nowdays. benchmark the cpu and not the hardware thats supported by it. Intel works friggin awesome on 1333mhz memory and shows ~1% gain for going to 1866.

So benchmarkers want you to assume that AMD is the same ... WRONG, period.

It has been shown that just going from 1333 to 1866 on BD jumps 5-10%. Very few websites want to do a proper hardware review, they just want to simple test the cpu and nothing else. Even their overclocking methods are flawed. Up the cpu voltage and crank the multiplier. What does that get you? more power draw. Properly tuning a sytem will net you a much greater performance than just upping the power draw to show you how bad it can be.

Case in point for hardware, look at toms $1200 SBM ... 8.5gb/s memory ... ya ... the 4100 does 10.5-11.1, fix the hardware before blaming the cpu.
Score
0
a c 83 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 3, 2012 10:11:20 PM

melikepie said:
Yes, But I Bought A AMD 8-Core CPU To Multitask And Thats What I Mean Intel Might Have A Advantage Over Games That Use Less Then 4-cores If A Game Could Take Advantage Of All 8 Cores I Think AMD Would Have A Much Better Advantage Im Planning On Using A Program Called Blender To Make And Render 3D Objects So Hopefully AMD Did Not Fail Me!


Intel is better because they have a superior architecture, clock speeds, cache, core count, none of that matters much when comparing 2 different architectures. By the way an I5 2500K is noticeably faster in blender than FX 8120, so is Phenom II X6. Actually in this case Intel's dual core I3 can match the FX 8120 in performance, so much for 8 cores. :lol: 

"And even though Blender, just like 3ds max 2011, is quite good at splitting the load into multiple threads, FX-8150 loses to quad-core Core i5, and FX-8120 and FX-6100 yield to the dual-core Core i3."
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8120-6100-4100_7.html#sect0

I would actually take a look at that whole article if I were you, FX is slower than Phenom II X6 and Core I5 in the majority of tests. That is why people call it fail. It looks good on paper, and performs like crap for what it is.
Score
0
January 3, 2012 10:46:24 PM

melikepie said:
You dont get it "Benchmark"... Benchmarking is a cheap way to test a cpu it depends on hardware and so how do you know if its not the hardware i have the worlds cheapest graphics card (which im going to get a new one) and i can play games like no other 3d games with the highest setting causes slight lagging sometimes but lowering some things will help.

You Are A Intel Fan You Know I Use Intel For My Laptop I Dont Care What CPU I Use Finnal Awnser AMD FX-8120 Beats Intel I5 2500k I Have Used Intel CPUs Many Times Before And Never I Have Seen Such An Expensive Looking Failure Of A CPU!


I lol'd at this.
Score
0
January 3, 2012 11:22:35 PM

It's bad because it lacks any reason to buy it as an upgrade to AMD's previous lineup of PhenomII. Price performance wise, Intel's current offerings are better in every aspect.
Score
0
!