Solved

Fusion or FX?

Hi!
i am building a new budget gaming pc, and was debating between the FX-4170 or A8-3870k. Which would perform better in the long run? The bulldozer can clock much higher, but the fusion Matx mobo is much nicer than the fx Matx board.

Oh, I dont want to hear anything about intel, thanks
56 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about fusion
  1. Well a simple i3-2100 would destroy both cpu performance wise and use a lot less power, but you don't want to hear about that.

    The A8 would be the best and has integrated graphics.
  2. how about researching amd's performance if you are so in love with them. If I were dead set on AMD then I know what i'd do
  3. TheinsanegamerN said:
    Hi!
    i am building a new budget gaming pc, and was debating between the FX-4170 or A8-3870k. Which would perform better in the long run? The bulldozer can clock much higher, but the fusion Matx mobo is much nicer than the fx Matx board.

    Oh, I dont want to hear anything about intel, thanks

    it depends what your going to do but the apu still is great although you should get the FX 4100 beacause the 4100 and the 4170 are the same thing exept the 4170 is pre overclocked but that depends if you can overclock by yourself without destroying anything lol. I say you should get the 4100 + 6670
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150540 6670
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103996 4100
    although people say the i3 2100 is better then the FX 4100 or FX 4170 but thats mainly beacause they use 3d benchmarking tests which use floating point operations (basicly vectors like 30.20.85) for rendering which on bulldozer it acts like a 2 core but still i say 4100 + 6670 but if your only picking those i say for best price for a gaming pc the A8 or 20%-30% better cpu the 4170.
  4. Hi :)

    If you can find one...buy an AMD 6 core 1100T ...which incidentally will "destroy" any i3...

    All the best Brett :)
  5. Hmm. Wish i could get 1100t, but they are out of stock everywhere. the gpu will be an amd hd 7850, so i'm only concerned about cpu performance. would the fx outperform the APU? and I agree about getting the 4100 instead of the 4170, but they have no good micro atx boards for amd fx...
  6. 13thmonkey said:
    how about researching amd's performance if you are so in love with them. If I were dead set on AMD then I know what i'd do

    If you are not going to be helpful, kindly go away. I did look up benchmarks, and the 4170 can keep up with the 2500k, usually the gpu is the botleneck. nobody seems to have benchmarks of just cpu performance with APU's, always with integrated graphics.
    also, im not in love with amd all my past machines were intel, (pentium mmx @233 MHz, 1.4 GHz tualatin pentium 3, 3.0 GHz northwood, 2.2 GHz core 2 duo, Pentum G850)
  7. how would a phenom 2 980 hold up?
  8. AMD FX is just a flop so is AMD APU CPU's why are you soo up and bent over AMD? whats wrong with Intel? but FX and APU are same in performance so just get w.e is cheaper and what you prefer

    i think FX get better motherboards
  9. bowzef said:
    AMD FX is just a flop so is AMD APU CPU's why are you soo up and bent over AMD? whats wrong with Intel? but FX and APU are same in performance so just get w.e is cheaper and what you prefer

    i think FX get better motherboards


    Because it's called fanboyism. Out of those two I would say get the Fusion but really both lack in performance. I agree with geek I would forget both and get a cheap Z68 board and an I3.
  10. TheinsanegamerN said:
    how would a phenom 2 980 hold up?

    If you can get one, its the better of the cpus talked about, its a true quad core compared to the 4100 being mostly a quad. It also has l3 cache that the 3870 doesn't wich helps a ton for games.
  11. If you could find a 980 it would be better than both the Bulldozer and Fusion.
  12. i3 simply due to power usage and you'll actually have an upgrade path worth something on that socket...
  13. why not an 8120 and overclock it?
  14. tcfraz said:
    why not an 8120 and overclock it?


    Because that is a horrible investment for gaming.
  15. Raidur said:
    Because that is a horrible investment for gaming.


    actually, the 8120 can keep up with core i5, as most games are gpu bound. those that are cpu bound can usually use more than 4 cores. i dont want to use the 8120 series, as at that price point, i could just get a core i5 2500k for another 20 bucks. and, Raidur, didn't you read the original post? NOTHING about intel. also, bulldozer's replacement will continue to use socket AM3+, so it DOES have an upgrade path.
  16. bowzef said:
    AMD FX is just a flop so is AMD APU CPU's why are you soo up and bent over AMD? whats wrong with Intel? but FX and APU are same in performance so just get w.e is cheaper and what you prefer

    i think FX get better motherboards


    i don't want Intel because all the cpus are locked, except the most expensive models. I like to tweak my machine, and a locked CPU just doesn't do it.
    and you're right. FX does get better motherboards. In standard ATX. they technically don't even have any micro boards, the're just am3 boards that have bios updates. all of them are 760 or 880g chip-sets, no 900 series.
  17. Anything with a "k" in the name is an unlocked processors. For Sandy Bridges that would be the I5 2500k and I7 26000K. The I5 isn't the most expensive it's right in the middle and gives you the best price to performance. FX has better motherboards, I would love to hear how.
  18. Just get the Phenom II X4 965 & call it a day. Costs 125$, is as good or better than i3 when OC to around 3.8Ghz.
  19. Thats great but the question is still can he get his hands on one. AMD has canceled making Phenom II and Athelon II's and it's getting harder and harder to find Phenom II's in stock. We have to hear back from him if he can even get a Phenom II where he lives.
  20. TheinsanegamerN said:
    Hi!
    i am building a new budget gaming pc, and was debating between the FX-4170 or A8-3870k. Which would perform better in the long run? The bulldozer can clock much higher, but the fusion Matx mobo is much nicer than the fx Matx board.

    Oh, I dont want to hear anything about intel, thanks

    okay, nothing about intel, got it. your decision anyway.
    for amd: llano right now, is a dead end platform. there have been many rumors/semi-confirmations that upcoming trinity 32nm apus will use socket fm2 which is incompatible with socket fm1 (llano). if you want a cheapo cpu with discreet class igpu, you should wait and see how trinity turns out. some people even theorized that amd will keep socket am3+ in the backseat and move forward with socket fm2.
    am3+ will still have support as amd is rumored to support it for the forseeable future (may be until ddr4 ram comes out).
    if you're gonna build an amd gaming machine, i'd suggest an fx 6200. threaded games like bf3 mp can take advantage of more cores when needed. windows 8 might improve performance. but i would not team it up with a 7850. at most, a 7770 or older 6850/gtx 460.
    imo amd's shot at gaming cpu will come with upcoming piledriver cpus. current ones are no good. even amd themselves have moved on to competing in the mobile sector with their capable apus.
  21. TheinsanegamerN said:
    actually, the 8120 can keep up with core i5, as most games are gpu bound. those that are cpu bound can usually use more than 4 cores. i dont want to use the 8120 series, as at that price point, i could just get a core i5 2500k for another 20 bucks. and, Raidur, didn't you read the original post? NOTHING about intel. also, bulldozer's replacement will continue to use socket AM3+, so it DOES have an upgrade path.


    You haven't seen benchmarks using high-end multiple GPUs then. :)

    Yeah I see now. Just saw people talking about the i3 so I guess I read wrong...
  22. TheinsanegamerN said:
    If you are not going to be helpful, kindly go away. I did look up benchmarks, and the 4170 can keep up with the 2500k, usually the gpu is the botleneck. nobody seems to have benchmarks of just cpu performance with APU's, always with integrated graphics.
    also, im not in love with amd all my past machines were intel, (pentium mmx @233 MHz, 1.4 GHz tualatin pentium 3, 3.0 GHz northwood, 2.2 GHz core 2 duo, Pentum G850)


    try doing the research comparing say for instance phenom II to FX, the apu's are well out of the ball park. You'll find that PhenomII is better. There you go, being helpful.

    Your basis for choosing against intel is wrong, K's are unlocked and OC easily, unless you want a challenging OC in which case get an cryix133 and Oc it to 266. Now if you already have an Fx capable mobo, then thats a real reason for excluding intel.
  23. Definitely het a Phenom II if you can find one say a 965 or alternatively the 960T which seems to be readily available, this is AMDs best bang for buck at the moment, i have one myself unlocked to 6 cores and OCd to 4ghz, and if its micro atx you want do not overlook the asus 880 evo boards again i have one which has enabled that amazing unlock and OC, by the way which country do you live in as that will enable us to help you find the hardware.
  24. Don't go Fusion, it's no future proof/upgradable socket. To less CPUs to choose from. And you probably won't even use the integrated GPU.

    FX offers quite a few more options and new AMD CPUs will still use the socket, so if they happen to improve their architecture at some point, they probably still use that socket.

    I'd get an Phenom II 965+. There's a 980 on newegg for 150bucks. It's a steal for that money.
  25. Raidur said:
    Because that is a horrible investment for gaming.


    why is it a horrible investment? Its cheaper and it only get like a few fps under the 2500k. Also if windows and amd ever get on the same page performance will only increase. I notice no differenct between my 8120 and my friends 2500k in gaming and the rigs are very similar except for the cpu's.
  26. Fusion is a waste of money if your buying a high end discrete card, your paying for an IGP that you won't be using. There are cheaper AMD processors from Athlon II/Phenom II/ and even FX that out perform them CPU wise. To add to that socket FM1 is a dead end, no future upgrades, and even the A8 3870K is slower than a 3 year old Phenom II 955 even with both overclocked.

    FX is decent if you don't mind overclocking to the limit and hitting insane power consumption, which also requires a good motherboard so you don't kill it in the process, I wouldn't push one very hard on a cheap board.

    Phenom II is probably your best bet if you can find one and refuse to go Intel.
  27. tcfraz said:
    why is it a horrible investment? Its cheaper and it only get like a few fps under the 2500k. Also if windows and amd ever get on the same page performance will only increase. I notice no differenct between my 8120 and my friends 2500k in gaming and the rigs are very similar except for the cpu's.


    In games it is. Throw a 2nd high-end GPU in your system and it'll be bottlenecking the crap out of it. It may be good enough now, give it a couple years when single GPUs get stronger and you'll start seeing it fail in all reviews instead of just those with dual cards.

    Another thing, that "windows software" issue is only going to help a max of 10%. That will get it right under or on Phenom II IPC. Which is still less than Core2Quad IPC....
  28. Brett928S2 said:
    Hi :)

    If you can find one...buy an AMD 6 core 1100T ...which incidentally will "destroy" any i3...

    All the best Brett :)


    Not in gaming it won't......it also costs a lot more and uses 4x the electricity.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-9.html
  29. TheinsanegamerN said:
    If you are not going to be helpful, kindly go away. I did look up benchmarks, and the 4170 can keep up with the 2500k, usually the gpu is the botleneck. nobody seems to have benchmarks of just cpu performance with APU's, always with integrated graphics.
    also, im not in love with amd all my past machines were intel, (pentium mmx @233 MHz, 1.4 GHz tualatin pentium 3, 3.0 GHz northwood, 2.2 GHz core 2 duo, Pentum G850)


    A 4170 can't even keep up with a i3-2100, how could it possibly keep up with a 2500K??? :sleep:

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-9.html
  30. TheinsanegamerN said:
    actually, the 8120 can keep up with core i5, as most games are gpu bound. those that are cpu bound can usually use more than 4 cores. i dont want to use the 8120 series, as at that price point, i could just get a core i5 2500k for another 20 bucks. and, Raidur, didn't you read the original post? NOTHING about intel. also, bulldozer's replacement will continue to use socket AM3+, so it DOES have an upgrade path.


    Wrong again...Where are you coming up with these ridiculous statements?

    Just go with the i3 or PII X4, forget FX and Fusion.
  31. TheinsanegamerN said:
    Hi!
    i am building a new budget gaming pc, and was debating between the FX-4170 or A8-3870k. Which would perform better in the long run? The bulldozer can clock much higher, but the fusion Matx mobo is much nicer than the fx Matx board.

    Oh, I dont want to hear anything about intel, thanks



    wait for amd trinity. it will release in less than 1 and a half months and the gpu performance will be 56% better than llanos and the cu performance will be 30% better than llanos.
  32. TheinsanegamerN said:
    Hi!
    i am building a new budget gaming pc, and was debating between the FX-4170 or A8-3870k. Which would perform better in the long run? The bulldozer can clock much higher, but the fusion Matx mobo is much nicer than the fx Matx board.

    Oh, I dont want to hear anything about intel, thanks


    I would just OC the 4100 to 4170 levels since they are the same chip at a different clock. And socket AM3+ is the better MB choice because the fusion stuff is targeted at the OEM market, not the enthusiast market. AM3+ also gives you a potential upgrade path as AM3 will likely support at least two more rounds of cpu and maybe more.

    And I really don't understand why people ignore your decision to not include Intel in this discussion. Its not their business. They should respect your wished on the matter.
  33. Raidur said:
    In games it is. Throw a 2nd high-end GPU in your system and it'll be bottlenecking the crap out of it. It may be good enough now, give it a couple years when single GPUs get stronger and you'll start seeing it fail in all reviews instead of just those with dual cards.

    Another thing, that "windows software" issue is only going to help a max of 10%. That will get it right under or on Phenom II IPC. Which is still less than Core2Quad IPC....


    Can you give me a link to what your saying about bottlenecking 2 high end gpu's please. It dosent bottleneck my 2 6870's but i know they arent high end. I havent been keeping up that well with the future upgrades of either company but dont both sockets have better cpu's comming out for their respective sockets that would serve as an upgrade path?
  34. It will likely bottleneck 2 6870s as they perform to 5870s in crossfire. However not super significant.



    High settings, 4xAA. GPU-binding settings.

    http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=22167&page=12

    You see with a single GPU they look similar. Bump it up and things change. :) If Deneb bottlenecks, Bulldozer does. (except in a very select few games that benefit from 8 threads, and even then the benefit is usually small)





    That's a 3.8ghz Nehalem vs 4.3ghz Deneb (Deneb is my favorite from AMD atm).

    And the 3 card scaling seems to be absolutely horrible in most of the games with the FX, showing bottlenecks (in games that actaully benefit from 3 that is).
  35. Raidur, while what you say is indeed plausible, but i would like to point out something similar. Lets wind back to the days of 5870. Single card, no probs for AMD cpus, but cfx, they struggled. A single 7970 today is almost as good as 2 5870s. Are the AMD cpus struggling with a single 7970. No way. So, i guess, it doesnt always equate down to the strength of CFX. The technology is just not meant for AMD cpus right now. I do not mean to say you are wrong or you are lying, just throwing in as to say, its really not crystal clear if amd cpus will really struggle with future single cards.
  36. I am convinced people don't read the OP questions at all, expressly stated that he/she doesn't want to talk at all about intel chips. Que the normal intel circle jerk that follows.

    As a member of a HWBot OC team and having benched off both platforms the real world experience is not noticable at all, benchmarks are where the difference is seen but that comes down to how much you attribute to benchmarks, synthetics never tell the true story.
  37. sarinaide said:
    I am convinced people don't read the OP questions at all, expressly stated that he/she doesn't want to talk at all about intel chips. Que the normal intel circle jerk that follows.

    As a member of a HWBot OC team and having benched off both platforms the real world experience is not noticable at all, benchmarks are where the difference is seen but that comes down to how much you attribute to benchmarks, synthetics never tell the true story.


    Maybe there is no noticable difference but who wants to spend MORE money on a processor that runs hotter, slower, and has less performance than both AMD's own compation and Intel.
  38. That article should be re-titled, Wich games favor Intel cpus. Same can be said about the alienbabeltech review. Note how some games don't care what cpu you have but others only work well on Intel? Here is a hint to see what games those are

    http://game-on.intel.com/eng/games/default.aspx

    Wow, imagine that, Crysis ...

    Ill run any game you want that I have on my 8120 with CF 6970s and see if the cpu stays anywhere near 100% usage and not the video cards.

    I will say that there seem to be some odd issues with some games (Civ V) where CF only works part of the time (note how Civ V drops in FPS from single to CF). That only does it in the benchmark mode or when zoomed all the way out on the map. Zoom in and all of a sudden instead of one card running at 100%, you have 2 at 100% and fps goes from 109 to 210 in game. Strange anomaly in that game, affects ALL AMD chips (probably a chipset driver issue.)

    BF3 on the other hand is absolutely flawless even maxed out 1900x1200 ultra 4xaa on a 64 player map.
  39. O please give it up already with the Intel conspiracy BS. Face it the Bulldozer is inferior in all but a few programs especially when it comes to gaming.
  40. what conspiracy, is that the only arguement people have that Intel compilers won't fully utilize an AMD cpu? only BS is idiots who walk around with blinders on who try to insult anyone that doesn't praise Intel for being gods.

    If intel co-developed the game, they most likely used the Intel compiler that doesn't fully support AMD cpus. Its their software, they don't have to support AMD. Its common BUSINESS sense not a conspiracy.
  41. noob2222 said:
    what conspiracy, is that the only arguement people have that Intel compilers won't fully utilize an AMD cpu? only BS is idiots who walk around with blinders on who try to insult anyone that doesn't praise Intel for being gods.

    If intel co-developed the game, they most likely used the Intel compiler that doesn't fully support AMD cpus. Its their software, they don't have to support AMD. Its common BUSINESS sense not a conspiracy.


    I think someone needs to take off their AMD Fanboy blinds and wake up to reality. I also think you need to stop trying to justify buying inferior garbage by putting out starry eyed fanatical fanboy lies and propaganda.
  42. so your trying to say that if someone uses the Intel compiler software that Intel has designed it to fully utilize thier competition's cpus? Does that even make sense.

    Truth is there is a very specific set of games that favor Intel. Every single one of them is "optomized for Intel i series CPUs". Coincidence or conspiracy?

    Care to put my garbage cpu to the test against your system? or are you just talking trash that you can't back up.
  43. Anonymous_26 said:
    Maybe there is no noticable difference but who wants to spend MORE money on a processor that runs hotter, slower, and has less performance than both AMD's own compation and Intel.


    That is not your business. The OP said NO INTEL. Respect his wishes.
  44. Anonymous_26 said:
    I think someone needs to take off their AMD Fanboy blinds and wake up to reality. I also think you need to stop trying to justify buying inferior garbage by putting out starry eyed fanatical fanboy lies and propaganda.


    I have to disagree.

    I have seen tests run inassembly that support the arguement that part of the intel advange is compiler handling. In the assembly language tests, AMD actually had the fastest part by a comfortable margin.

    Now, there are other factors to consider, but it was a powerful argument. Enough to make me reconsider it being strictly a fanboy argument.
  45. noob2222 said:
    so your trying to say that if someone uses the Intel compiler software that Intel has designed it to fully utilize thier competition's cpus? Does that even make sense.

    Truth is there is a very specific set of games that favor Intel. Every single one of them is "optomized for Intel i series CPUs". Coincidence or conspiracy?

    Care to put my garbage cpu to the test against your system? or are you just talking trash that you can't back up.


    Lol your name fits you peferctly. To quote looniam

    Anonymous said:
    you intel hating amd fanboyism post is completely irrelevant, off topic from the post and needs to go somewhere else.

    your drivel use to be humorous now it irritating.


    Everything you mentioned above is irrelevant. There is no conspiracy you're just making a fool of yourself. Sure I'll put my computer against you garabage Bulldozer computer but there really is no point. It's been done over and over again in benchmarks and the I3, I5, and I7 beats out the Bulldozer in all but a few games.
  46. FALC0N said:
    That is not your business. The OP said NO INTEL. Respect his wishes.


    And if you went back a read from the beginning you would see I clearly said:

    Anonymous_26 said:
    If you could find a 980 it would be better than both the Bulldozer and Fusion.
  47. Best answer
    You no, im sitting here reading this argument, and i cant help thinking to myself that regardless of whos wrong and whos right, why is it that people can not respect and accept the wishes of others, the poster clearly stated no intel. I no intel has a better cpu performance wise for what ever reason at the moment, as im sure the poster does too, but he wants AMD, so let him be and have AMD.. ITS HIS CHOICE. END OF ARGUMENT. LETS GET BACK ON HIS TOPIC.. PLEASE >>>>
  48. Anonymous_26 said:
    Lol your name fits you peferctly. To quote looniam



    Very specific games that favor Intel...yea ok. Almost all games but those that actually make use of more threads favor Intel CPU. Everything you mentioned above is irrelevant. There is no conspiracy you're just making a fool of yourself. Sure I'll put my computer against you garabage Bulldozer computer but there really is no point. It's been done over and over again in benchmarks and the I3, I5, and I7 beats out the Bulldozer in all but a few games.

    all but 1 and a half game? http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4350/amd_fx_8150_bulldozer_gaming_performance_analysis/index.html

    farcry 2 and hawx 2 to a lesser extent loses to a faster clocked I7, all the rest are 1-3 fps.

    Did you even look at Raidur's Alienbabeltech charts? 8 of the 20 games favored Intel (more than 2 fps)... yep thats almost all of them ... wait, isn't that less than half?

    who looks like the fool now?
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Gaming Fusion Product