Are the amd fx's cpus really that bad???

FX 8 cores actually perform on par with i5s in Battlefield 3. No, its not that theyre "bad", theres just better ones from Intel in similar price ranges, and AMD itself, in the form of their older Phenom IIs. We are close enough to the release of PileDriver, that if you're interested in an AMD system, its at least worth the wait to see what their benches look like.

The 8 core Zambezi will run games fine,but I wouldn't go higher than a quad core FX 4170 if gaming is all you do.

see everybody makes them sound like there horrabile but the bench marks aren't to bad i think now that i can get a 8 core for 160. when do you think piledriver will release?

If it were strictly for DX 11 games (like BF3), then the FX-8 cores are worth a look, these games actually play well on FX-8150s. I don't know the technical reasons behind it, but I've seen benches that show the 8150 even slightly edging i7-2600Ks. Problem is, a lot of games aren't there yet.

Two modules (four cores) are OK for the price, but only if you overclock them a lot since i3s and Pentiums do not overclock. Once you get into i5 pricing area, fx suffer a lot in anything but very heavily theaded applications since even not fully unlocked i5s can be overclocked to their turbo frequencies.

PileDriver is slated for release October 2012, next month. You have to keep in mind though that the FX 8 core Bulldozers are 160 through price reductions, its unlikely the PileDriver equivalent will be as cheap. The Bulldozer FX-8150 was originally released at something like $260.


Oopsie...DX 11 games
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1285/pg10/amd-fx-...

see i knew that the would be released October becase windows 8 is. if there good i dont mind spending money on them casue i like that amds the underdog in this i herd that amd is only 8 percent of the cpu sells now. if piledriver is 10 to 15 percent better then fx then ill buy one with windows 8

I have an amd fx-4100 clocked at 4.2ghz. i have not had one problem playing any game i own. I came form a dual core amd 5200 at 2.7ghz and i'm more than impressed at the performance i have now.You can always have a look here and see that Battlefield 3 is more GPU dependent than it is CPU dependent

http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-perfor...

My cpu cost £80 which is cheaper than the i3 and mt motherboard is packed with features for just £50. I believe that if you play games like skyrim then the fx might hold you back as it offloads shadow rendering to the cpu. Even still it seems to still play well for me but i don't look at my FPS.
It's your decision but don't listen to fanboys from either side. Yes the intel are quicker but the amd fx are not as bad as people make out.

i think ill wait tell the piledrivers come out and then make my choice i dont think the fx are that bad i just think theres to many fanboys from intel who make them seem really really really bad

I already have a copy of Windows 8 free from Microsoft Academic Alliance, haven't installed it yet, but just so you know, its already available. I wouldn't expect Win8 to really give Bulldozer/PileDriver much of a bump though. But going forward as more games leave the older technology behind and move to Direct X 11, clearly theres nothing wrong with going AMD, really just depends on your own needs and desires.

But thats what it all boils down to it seems, a lot of games that are console ports and such still running DX 9&10 are where the Bulldozer gets hit by review sites, and not entirely wrongly so. It is pretty dismal that Bulldozer can play one game just fine and dandy, and another just downright awful.

Neither Hardware Heaven or every other tech site (like this one) really give you the whole story, Tom's and AndNTech are showing the older games, and HardwareHeaven only shows the newest "sexy" ones, not putting much emphasis on the fact that largely the Bulldozer architecture for gaming is somewhat "ahead of its time".

BTW, have you seen the youtube videos of Windows 8? It looks friggin terrible. I hope to god theirs a "classic view" mode to make it look like Win7. Just from looking at the videos of people using the consumer preview, I'm fairly certain I wont like it.

If there is, it won't be easy to get to. http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/windows_8_Rev...

They're not terrible. They're completely functional, and not too bad at running what you need them to, but intel's stuff is so much better at all price points that there's no reason to buy them.

I'm taking the txt speak approach, W8 4 9.  

is it true tht the pd in coming on the 27th of this month ?

I like the windows 8. preview. Runs light and the metro tiles grow on you. It's also fun having peeps wondering where the desktop is.

on BF3 i did some testing. I have my 8120 running at 4.7 ghz without any issues. BF3 loves the 8120 without a doubt. 6970 crossfire im at 120+ fps, with few drops to high 80s in heavy multiplayer action. I cut the thing in half for fun in the bios (41xx) fps dropped to high 80s with dips to 50s. fx61xx (3 modules) was back to 120, but dropped to the 60s quite often. This is all at 1900x1200 ultra maxed settings.

while the 41xx would be fine for a single card, I would not recommend it, I place it equivalent to the I3s in terms of actual cpu, its a dual module with cmt, use those cmt cores and performance drops.

Toms heirchy chart is flawed because they tested dual-core only games. Throw something multi-core friendly into the mix and you get this instead.



*note that these aren't stock settings but all 3.0 ghz instead, but the picture is clear enough, the 41xx is the second worst cpu there.

the problem with benchmarks is 90% just show fps, while amd does suffer slightly, its not necessarily due to just the cpu's raw power. I don't have game that puts my cpu at 100% usage, only one or 2 that do 100% on a single core, in fact diablo III was at ~40% cpu usage. so why does AMD benchmark slower?

SB has the pci-e controller on-die, therefore latency is shorter, and performance is up. check the performance between I7 920 and the I5 750. the 920 is a stronger core, but in games the 750 wins due to the pci-e controller being on the cpu.

AMD hasn't made that move yet, and won't until steamroller. most people don't care why, they just want to see numbers.

P.S. with the windows update, the FX chips are now = HT. windows will load 4 cores before loading CMT cores. when that happens, FX-8 >> FX - 4

Skyrim or example

i dont know whitch one i should get!!!!!!!

i would wait for pd cpus

FX4170 as you wait for piledriver. Or just plain wait.

hold out for pd, should be here by next month. As for motherboards, ASUS >>> gigabyte, ive tried both.

If anything, if its too hard to find, it should lower the 8120 price even more.

I track AMD and Intel stocks. Based on earning releases, AMD has an estimated 15% - 20% share of the CPU market (that desktop, server, and laptop combined). That's only an estimate since neither AMD or Intel release those types of figures. Piledriver will likely hit the 10% mark, as 15% is a bit extreme for them; Intel never achieved that level of performance increase and their Research and Development budget is almost 6x more than AMD's.

If you want to support AMD, then sure go ahead and wait for PileDriver. Hopefully AMD will not price them as high as Intel Ivy Bridge CPUs. AMD made the mistake of selling the FX-8150 for more than a Sandy Bridge Core i5-2500k. They have since dropped the price twice and it's now down to $190 (at least on Amazon/Newegg). If PileDriver can achieve a 10% performance increase then that would basically mean PD will be in the realm of the 1st generation Core i3/i5/i7 performance. Sandy Bridge is 2nd gen and Ivy Bridge is 3rd gen.

+1

BF3 on multiplayer almost demands a quad-core CPU to show its might, so an FX4170 will be a better choice than the equivalent in price Intel Core i3.

im going to wait for pd to release not getting windows 8 cause it looks like crap its made for tablets not for pc and its going to flop like windows vista did. any sugstions on a good graphics card?

The absolute best you can afford. But bare minimum, for a 1080p gaming system today I'd want something on the 660 TI/7870 level. Although 7850 GTX 570/560 TIs, will get the job done too, you still want to go as high as you can afford.

And yea, I don't expect Windows 8 is going to be that successful either. A lot of people share our sentiment about the new Metro interface, while there seem to be workarounds to restore it to something resembling a classic mode, is going to result in a Vista-like embarrassment for Microsoft.

I found this:
http://www.howtogeek.com/107711/how-to-get-the-classic-...

Basically you have to build your own classic mode. Its more work than should be necessary.

There is nothing wrong with the FX, sure there are things to iron out with the modular architecture, but nobody should expect step 1 in a 4 part release to be perfecta.

ima stick with windows 7 cause its boss. and i just got my first part time job and i make 600 a month so im trying to keep the tower under 600 hundred and i need a new monter so trying to keep it under 800

Hey, just for the sake of discussion, and because I don't have any friends nerdy enough to care, I'll share here. Now I know everyone always talks about how "bad" AMD is for video card drivers, Nvidia released an update the other day version
306.23. Its causing annoying problems! Every time I use the onscreen magnifier build into Win7, my monitors start flickering and crap.. I'm gonna have to do a rollback.  

Hell, I'm still using 295.73. I'm not a hardcore gamer anyway, so I just haven't had a reason to update, but from what I understand, the 29x.xx drivers were some of the best recent drivers from Nvidia, so I'll stick with what I have until I'm absolutely forced to update.

Yea, well I never followed driver stuff that much, but I figured may as well keep the most up to date drivers, the thing automatically checks anyway, thats the only automatic update feature I haven't turned off in Win7, but I may have to revisit that policy after that BS. Rolled back and rebooted, sho'nuff, the magnifier works properly again.

I probably will turn off the update thing, but I'm droppin a 7870 in here shortly, so the point is moot.

7850 1gb is boss for poor man's card @1080p. I agree he should throw as much as he can into the card,crossfire / sli configurations are just a hassle.

hey i just asking it been a upgrade if i change my cpu to a fx pd froma phemonx 4 840

Yes it would, but I'd wait for benchmarks.

ok thanks

whats a good gpu for 160 dollars

6870s, but they're not ideal for 1080p gaming, a lot of games they frankly will not do it. I'd save more.

cpu:
fx 4170 or fx 6100
120
Graphics card:
160
Case:
RAIDMAX Super Hurricane ATX-248NWU Black / Blue Steel / Plastic ATX Mid Tower Computer Case
45
Psu:
RAIDMAX HYBRID 2 RX-630SS 630W ATX12V V2.2/ EPS12V SLI Ready CrossFire Ready Modular Power Supply
50
Ram:
Kingston HyperX 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1866
55
Hard drive:
Western Digital Caviar Green WD5000AZRX 500GB IntelliPower 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive
70
Optical drive:
20
Motherboard:
GIGABYTE GA-970A-UD3 AM3+ AMD 970 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard
115
key board mouse:
25
monter:
Acer S220HQLAbd Black 21.5" 5ms LED Backlight Widescreen LCD Monitor 250 cd/m2 ACM 100,000,000:1 (1000:1)
130
790
thats just most the things ima wait a couple months for piledriver to see how good they are

Get a different power supply than a raidmax. They're junk. I'd look at a Corsair CX500v2 if you're on a tight budget, or a Corsair TX650v2 ideally.

Look at Caviar Blue hard drives if you want a WDC Hard drive.

I'd go Asus M5A97-970 over the Gigabyte one.. Reason.. brand preference purely to be fair.

Phenom II 965 over the FX-4170 or 6100 in my opinion.

Don't get more than 1600mhz rated RAM, 1866 isn't necessary.

I (and many others) don't use the magnifier but I'm sorry to hear you have an issue.

Lol, well.. I dunno if there were any problems other than that, mainly because I haven't really gamed since my 550 TI hit a wall of unacceptability with Skyrim (I decided to just upgrade the graphics card and not get bored with the games I have playing at unfavorable details). But, I use the magnifier a lot, its easier if I'm watching a movie or TV show I torrented to use change the episode or, its the poor mans remote control, so I don't have to get up and walk over to the computer, lol. I'm kinda blind without my glasses at a distance, they broke a couple months ago, thats another issue entirely that gets fixed when my Stafford loan pays out in about 2 weeks.

I rolled back the Nvidia drivers, that definitely was the problem.

7770 or 6850 push the same fps, way better than the 650, all 3 priced at $150 on egg

next step is the 6870, considerably better than the 336 core 560s $170

http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-perfor...

aside from that, if your overclocking, 965= 6100 >> 4170, but all 3 will be bottlenecked at the gpu. If your not overclocking, knock the 6100 off and go with the 965.

Battlefield loves core count up to the gpu bottleneck.

wait the gpu will be bottled necked buy the cpus. or the cpus will be bottled necked by the gpu?

cpu:
fx 4170 or fx 6100
120
Graphics card:
SAPPHIRE 11188-22-20G Radeon HD 6950 2GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.1 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card (OC Edition)
200
Case:
RAIDMAX Super Hurricane ATX-248NWU Black / Blue Steel / Plastic ATX Mid Tower Computer Case
45
Psu:
Rosewill Green Series RG630-S12 630W Continuous @40°C,80 PLUS Certified,
60
Ram:
Patriot Viper 3 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600
41
Hard drive:
Western Digital Caviar Green WD5000AZRX 500GB IntelliPower 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive
70
Optical drive:
20
Motherboard:
ASRock 970 EXTREME3 AM3+ AMD 970 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard
90
776

I would suggest moving up from the caviar green and move onto a caviar blue. Green will save you more energy but is slower than the blue.

Get HD 7850 if your GPU budget is ~$200, better performance, lower consumption, better all around card for the same price.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

6950 and 7850 are near identical, it its the same price, go with the new.

is the SAPPHIRE 100355L Radeon HD 7850 a good card and is it crossfire comptable? and will the fx 4170 fx 6100 bottleneck this gpu?

i think ima go with this card HIS IceQ X H785QN2G2M Radeon HD 7850

They're all crossfire compatible, why not a Phenom II?