Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD Updates Desktop FX Processor Line With Three New CPUs, Price Cuts

Tags:
  • AMD
  • CPUs
  • Components
  • Processors
Last response: in News comments
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 2, 2014 4:56:00 AM

AMD Now Offers Eight-Core Processors For 95-Watt Motherboards, providing a low-budget upgrade path to respectable multi-threading performance. In addition, the new FX-8370 processor has arrived, and prices have been cut across the board.

AMD Updates Desktop FX Processor Line With Three New CPUs, Price Cuts : Read more

More about : amd updates desktop processor line cpus price cuts

a b à CPUs
September 2, 2014 5:29:28 AM

I smell some old dead tech. i have fear to get an amd product right now and it get discontinued. with the price combo of amd i can get a Nice z97 motherboard and a i5
m
-6
l
September 2, 2014 5:45:25 AM

8 core precessors are great if you want a virtualization infrastructure for testings. 125W was to high for me, but 95W seams more resonable and i will buy one.
m
6
l
Related resources
September 2, 2014 6:04:26 AM

I'm wondering if there's a typo by the author. In the paragraph just under 'the chart', which begins...

"Price reductions are always welcome...", he writes

"There are few low-cost AMD boards out there..."

I wonder if he meant to type "There are A few..."
m
-1
l
a b à CPUs
September 2, 2014 6:15:35 AM

This is disappointing. The base clocks on the 8370E and 8320E are lower than the numbers release a few weeks ago. The "new" cpus are nothing more then underclocked versions of the previous FX line.
m
2
l
September 2, 2014 6:18:24 AM

I do remain hopeful that AMD will rescind a 3-year-old 'surrender' and re-energize Computing Cores at some point. The computing world NEEDS that valid competition.
m
11
l
a b À AMD
a b à CPUs
September 2, 2014 6:33:45 AM

Oh AMD, why? I don't think I'm offending anyone when I say this isn't optimal for AMD's desktop CPUs... at least not for the consumers who like them. Until I see some Steamroller desktop cores equipped with L3 cache, I'm sorry to say that I have to stick with camp Intel.
m
10
l
September 2, 2014 6:46:36 AM

We'll all stick with our intels, but these CPU's are geared towards people that fall in a lower income bracket. Which is a larger portion of the buyers market. People buy cheap laptops and tablets because they can't afford big flashy expensive i7 rigs which at the cheapest are $1200+.
I built an FX8320 system for a relative and he can play sniper elite 3 on ultra with his radion card, and i built that system inlcluding the OS for 800 bucks. Mine costed me $2500 and I love it.
In order to steal more people from the 500 dollar laptop market and 500 dollar consol market, we need cheaper CPU's like AMD's lineup. I just wish they'd work on single core and wattage a little more.
m
11
l
a b à CPUs
September 2, 2014 6:49:33 AM

Can we hope for a review, perhaps tomorrow?
m
1
l
a b à CPUs
September 2, 2014 7:20:18 AM

anandtech has the review of this cpu the new 7850k kicks on these cpu!
m
1
l
a b à CPUs
September 2, 2014 7:24:25 AM

The 95W's version I hope are released to channels, such as Newegg, unlike the previous FX-8300. A 95W 8-core for under $200 is great for those of us who want to build a cheap VM system.
m
1
l
September 2, 2014 7:27:43 AM

How about this new concept: "Let's wait for a review before passing judgement.."?

Seems to me, too many out there too readily pass judgement of AMD, due to their pass misgivings. we don't know if they simply found a way to lower the TDP or actually improved the process.

All we're seeing is what these chips are supposed to do by a chart. If it were that easy, we wouldn't need websites such as The Tech Report, Tom's or Hardware Secret, etc...to tell us if these chips are worth it or not.
m
4
l
September 2, 2014 7:28:15 AM

I'm using a Phenom x6 @ 4.2GHz. Still waiting for something to upgrade to from AMD LOL
m
7
l
September 2, 2014 7:46:20 AM

Well looks like the 8370E turns out to be a dud for my needs/wants. It's only 95W but they sacrifice a bit off the base speed to do it, and the standard 8370 isn't really much of an improvement over the 8350.

Unless somehow they improved the single thread/core performance in the 8370 I can't see it being worth the $200 to upgrade from my 6300, and I feel like the 8730E would practically be a downgrade despite gaining 2 cores!
m
1
l
September 2, 2014 8:35:02 AM

For the performance per money, FX6300 and FX8320/E are still the best buys on the market. Buy these beauties, OC them a little and they'll wipe the floor with i3s and some lower end i5s selling for the same money.
m
1
l
September 2, 2014 8:45:02 AM

Just read the review from The Tech Report...It's best for AMD to simply move on.

The problem here is these chips are too far behind to be compared to anything Intel is doing right now, and it shows. These chips were being designed during a time Intel was going through Sandy Bridge, and were being redesigned during a turnover period. By that time, Intel was already thinking Haswell.

But we know they won't do that. They'll drag this thing out until they're ready. They may as well cancel Steamroller, it should have been out two years ago. But they put it off while turning off power users for focusing on Kaveri...
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 185 à CPUs
September 2, 2014 8:48:55 AM

Quote:
How about this new concept: "Let's wait for a review before passing judgement.."?

Seems to me, too many out there too readily pass judgement of AMD, due to their pass misgivings. we don't know if they simply found a way to lower the TDP or actually improved the process.

All we're seeing is what these chips are supposed to do by a chart. If it were that easy, we wouldn't need websites such as The Tech Report, Tom's or Hardware Secret, etc...to tell us if these chips are worth it or not.


We already know exactly what the performance will be. It's using the same architecture but has a frequency cap to limit power for 95W sockets.

If AMD had a new CPU that would not only be HUGE news but it would have a completely different name.
m
6
l
a b à CPUs
September 2, 2014 8:52:53 AM

Yeah, I'm not sure we can call these "new" CPUs.
m
1
l
September 2, 2014 9:06:18 AM

I'm really more concerned about AMD's motherboard chipsets. They seem to maintain the sale of a Lesser Version for older chipsets. The 785 was a great chipset but when those motherboards were sold, all we can find now is the 760s.

Then, it was the 890FXs that were hot commodities, but then they only sold the 870s after that first year.

Those were replaced by the 990s and 970s, but there are more 970-laden motherboards for sale than the 990FXs now.

I don't understand why AMD is pushing the lowest-common denominator for a motherboard chipset rather than maintaining the Last Best Version.

Three years ago, AMD said they were throwing in the competitive towel over CPU performance and were going to focus on APUs. Fine. But here again, we see this odd sidetracking/ backtracking status. "What's the matter, folks? Slow day at the office? Someone ask what the engineers were doing lately?"

Of course, if they want to REALLY drop prices, fine. Slash 'em in half. And get RAM halved, and storage, too. If they want to gain low-end market, REALLY DO IT.

As for Sess's "wait and see", nawww... heck, what am I supposed to do with all this tar and all those feathers I've already unpacked?
m
1
l
a b à CPUs
September 2, 2014 10:27:22 AM

All they have to do is make an FX-9590E for $250 to create a viable i7 competitor. 5 GHz for 150w would be perfectly acceptable. MAKE IT HAPPEN AMD!
m
0
l
September 2, 2014 10:27:51 AM

For the price of 1 Intel 8 core, 4.0+ghz base you are looking at near 1000 bucks. JUST for the processor. I'll take AMD anyday. Hell Ic an buy 5 of these chips for the 1 intel is charging. If you think Intel is worth the price, you are just as brainwashed as Apple product buyers. The truth hurts. Value for price, AMD is unbeatable.
m
-7
l
a b à CPUs
September 2, 2014 10:32:06 AM

Quote:
I'm using a Phenom x6 @ 4.2GHz. Still waiting for something to upgrade to from AMD LOL


Well it's kinda the same story for the people who have i7-9xx as well. I mean sure the new Haswell CPU's are noticeably stronger, but what's the point when no game will benefit from the upgrade?

Both your Phenom II x6 and those old i7's have at least 2 years of more life in em'.
m
6
l
September 2, 2014 10:32:47 AM

Buying a unlocked processor & not OCing it is plane stupid. Problem with fx8xxx & OCing is significant power drove that then forces you to bay a 80+ 700W so that you can go with descent budget gaming GPU R9 280(X) (250W). Still & decent motherboard for AMD FX costs more. Considering all of this you really can bay an unlocked i5 with good board & 600W (good quality non 80+) power supply unit with for just a little more money & still save a 100W/h. In last build I did I did go with:
MSI Z97S SLI PLUS 53.43€
i5-4670K 3.4GHz. 197.20€
Prices are where I live including taxes.
This is at least for gaming & usual light work tasks much better combo & saving on per year electrical bill is not so small, enough to pay starting price difference definitely.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 2, 2014 10:39:44 AM

Quote:
For the price of 1 Intel 8 core, 4.0+ghz base you are looking at near 1000 bucks. JUST for the processor. I'll take AMD anyday. Hell Ic an buy 5 of these chips for the 1 intel is charging. If you think Intel is worth the price, you are just as brainwashed as Apple product buyers. The truth hurts. Value for price, AMD is unbeatable.


I agree that AMD generally has better price/performance than Intel, but it isn't as clear cut as you are making it. That 8-Core from Intel has 16 threads (Which do add 30-50% to the overall performance), and it will also fit into quality micro-atx motherboards with better RAM support.

AMD needs a new architecture badly, and they know it.
m
5
l
September 2, 2014 10:53:13 AM

Quote:
This is disappointing. The base clocks on the 8370E and 8320E are lower than the numbers release a few weeks ago. The "new" cpus are nothing more then underclocked versions of the previous FX line.

Leaked and obviously slightly inaccurate numbers, I might add.

Also, the base and max clocks for the 9370 and 9590 are switched around the wrong way in the chart... a little sloppy by AMD there.
m
1
l
September 2, 2014 10:58:02 AM

Quote:
We'll all stick with our intels, but these CPU's are geared towards people that fall in a lower income bracket. Which is a larger portion of the buyers market. People buy cheap laptops and tablets because they can't afford big flashy expensive i7 rigs which at the cheapest are $1200+.
I built an FX8320 system for a relative and he can play sniper elite 3 on ultra with his radion card, and i built that system inlcluding the OS for 800 bucks. Mine costed me $2500 and I love it.
In order to steal more people from the 500 dollar laptop market and 500 dollar consol market, we need cheaper CPU's like AMD's lineup. I just wish they'd work on single core and wattage a little more.

I wont stick with Intel. In fact I'm sticking with AMD and my 8350. Intel will have to change there ( i ) marketing before I even consider them. Im so tired of everyone following apples lead. It makes me sick. It doesn't matter who was first on the I thing I just want it to stop. It isn't always about money.
m
-4
l
September 2, 2014 11:25:06 AM

Very disappointed in what we hoped the 8370 E would be. My phenom 980 is staying put.
m
2
l
September 2, 2014 11:25:42 AM

i still remember back in march 2000 when 1GHz AMD Athlons were priced at $1299 which was a premium price. In contrast the 1GHz Intel Pentium III cost a mere $990 .
now Intel has the upper hand ...Huh....ironic .
m
2
l
a b à CPUs
September 2, 2014 11:34:14 AM

hardcore_player said:
i still remember back in march 2000 when 1GHz AMD Athlons were priced at $1299 which was a premium price. In contrast the 1GHz Intel Pentium III cost a mere $990 .
now Intel has the upper hand ...Huh....ironic .

I find it even more ironic that back then, AMD was going for the efficiency route with their Thoroughbred design while Intel was chasing the clock rates with Netburst. Considering the success they had with the Athlon XP, I'm not sure why AMD allowed that paradigm to flip-flop.
m
3
l
a b à CPUs
September 2, 2014 12:54:38 PM

how much more can they beat this dead horse ? as stated above its not just the chips its also no chipset nothing same ol same ol but with a new number and revision change to the board but nothing fresh- they can put usb 3 native or pci-e 3 on a new chipset and make things more apparent to some one whos looking to upgrade its like I got this when AM3+ first came out and did a chip upgrade for what little it was worth in the end but when it was time to do a new build it had to be intel cause all I seen with amd was rebuying the past all over today .. that's just a wast and silly and seeing I never did a intel build at least it was refreshing and new and not old hat been there done that ho hum
m
1
l
September 2, 2014 2:53:07 PM

"All they have to do is make an FX-9590E for $250 to create a viable i7 competitor. 5 GHz for 150w would be perfectly acceptable. "

I have both a 9590 and a 2600K (95W)---in almost all situations the 2600K is as fast or slightly faster. Even if AMD was somehow able to get the FX series stable at 4.7/5.0 (TURBO) with 150W TDP, it would still be consuming much more power than the 2600K, which is 3 year old Intel technology. And its highly unlikely they would be able to get very many FX chips that bin well enough to achieve such a feat.

I mean, the 9590 is just a "golden binned" sample of the 8350, that AMD has tested to be be stable a 4.7/5.0 (turbo) with 1.5+ Vcore (220W).
m
1
l
September 2, 2014 2:57:12 PM

Quote:
For the price of 1 Intel 8 core, 4.0+ghz base you are looking at near 1000 bucks. JUST for the processor. I'll take AMD anyday. Hell Ic an buy 5 of these chips for the 1 intel is charging. If you think Intel is worth the price, you are just as brainwashed as Apple product buyers. The truth hurts. Value for price, AMD is unbeatable.


Sigh...in most cases, a 4 core 95W Sandy Bridge is about the equivalent of the power-hungry super-top-of the line 8 core 9590. Neither the 9590 nor the 2600K are true 8 cores---Intel has zero physical cores beyond 4, and AMD's doesnt have 4 full extra cores.

The new top of the line Haswell-E is the first Intel consumer desktop (full) 8 core CPU. It doesnt share FPUs like the FX series does, PLUS it has hyperthreading.
m
0
l
September 2, 2014 4:00:33 PM

I'm an old man and built AMD K systems, Intel Pentium, and Cyrix back in the day.
They were all networked and running SETI, still drink my coffee from an AMD K6 mug, still have all my computers and software.
Something happened along the way and I got a life that did not involve computers.
The urge hit me last year to get back into the scene, so I started researching again, built a Intel 4770K system that has been folding with a GTX 770 at 100 percent load on all 8 threads 24/7. Gaming is the only thing that will shut FAH down.
I'll stop blowing wind now and get to the point, why do people spend money on a inferior system, the cost is not it. The AMD system built to specs can't compete because of a long toothchip set whos' memory controller and the processor itself can't keep up even at higher clock rates.What has Intel done to the clock rate on the Haswell-E,did stock performance suffer... no.
I'll built my next AMD system when they can truly compete with Intel for my money.
m
1
l
a b à CPUs
September 2, 2014 7:39:19 PM

Changing clock speeds does not make a new product, lets see something new?
We need some competition in the CPU market, while amd refuses to add steamroller cores to the fx line.
m
1
l
a b À AMD
a c 94 à CPUs
September 2, 2014 8:04:41 PM

cpu's from 2012 with slightly different clock speeds...... i wouldnt say "new"
m
1
l
a b À AMD
a b à CPUs
September 2, 2014 9:05:57 PM

Quote:
We'll all stick with our intels, but these CPU's are geared towards people that fall in a lower income bracket. Which is a larger portion of the buyers market. People buy cheap laptops and tablets because they can't afford big flashy expensive i7 rigs which at the cheapest are $1200+.
I built an FX8320 system for a relative and he can play sniper elite 3 on ultra with his radion card, and i built that system inlcluding the OS for 800 bucks. Mine costed me $2500 and I love it.
In order to steal more people from the 500 dollar laptop market and 500 dollar consol market, we need cheaper CPU's like AMD's lineup. I just wish they'd work on single core and wattage a little more.


The prices on Intel are just as cheap as AMD. An FX-8320E costs $150, but what does that get you? It gets you a CPU that can't even compete with Intel in single-threaded performance, even at 4.5 GHz it lags behind Haswell stock clocks immensely... and with Broadwell it's only going to get worse. For that same $150 you can score an i3-4330 which at 3.5 GHz absolutely demolishes an FX-9590 at a whopping 4.7 GHz (source) when it comes to single-threaded performance. Sure AMD makes sense when you need to work on a program that's heavily multithreaded in the ALU department and you don't want to spend $1,000 on an 8 core i7, but that's not gaming. Games are superbly single-threaded. Most will continue to use about 2 cores and that's it, with extremely heavy reliance on the first core. Only the biggest budget titles with fantastic engines like the Frostbite 3.0 engine actually use 4 cores (thank God for DICE, amiright?) but typically multithreading is really hard to program for a game and while things like mantle will certainly help with some of that from what I hear, there's still always going to be a need for brute force processing when the optimization just isn't there -- and considering that the games industry is a place where huge numbers of PC titles are poorly optimized ports, multithreading just can't be expected for each game. Take AC4 for example. On my i5-4690k I disabled 2 cores leaving me with 2 cores overall and my frame rates didn't change at all in AC4 -- still a consistent 60. Then I disabled 3 cores, leaving me with only 1 active core and on AC4 my frame rate only dropped to 45... that's on a single core! When it comes to gaming, there's a massive reliance on single-threaded efficiency and piledriver absolutely does not have that.
m
1
l
September 2, 2014 11:49:14 PM

Yet still no competitive x86 performance in AMD's mobile APU/CPU lineup.
m
1
l
September 3, 2014 12:50:09 AM

If you don't class the FX-7600P as competitive, that is.
m
1
l
a b à CPUs
September 3, 2014 6:27:48 AM


Quote:
Quote:
I'm using a Phenom x6 @ 4.2GHz. Still waiting for something to upgrade to from AMD LOL


Well it's kinda the same story for the people who have i7-9xx as well. I mean sure the new Haswell CPU's are noticeably stronger, but what's the point when no game will benefit from the upgrade?

Both your Phenom II x6 and those old i7's have at least 2 years of more life in em'.


That is worst case scenario, I see no reason why anyone with a Phenom II x4 or intel Q9XXX needs a CPU upgrade for gaming unless of course you buy the fanboy response of "windows 7 will finally use all those AMD cores...i mean windows 8....i mean windows 9....." or my personally favorite of "eventually games will need more cores like when the PS3 launches....i mean PS4....I mean PS5....."
m
0
l
September 3, 2014 6:30:14 AM

Dirty, it's hard to fathom why anyone spends money on something that doesn't make them money back.
m
-1
l
a b à CPUs
September 3, 2014 11:14:18 AM

christinebcw said:
Dirty, it's hard to fathom why anyone spends money on something that doesn't make them money back.

Because no one wants to pay for leisure activities?
m
1
l
September 3, 2014 11:31:10 AM

At the end of the day I think what is going to hurt AMD the most is the fact that they are allowing the FX line to stagnate right now. We need 2 things from AMD right now

1) If you're going to revise an old chip give us a revision worth investing in: The 8350 with the same specs but cut down to 95W and/or enhanced single core performance. 8350 is pretty much the workhorse of the FX line and it is easy to see why. An updated version would get some attention.

2) FX AM4 slot, and the appropriate chipsets. The obvious specs here, USB 3 support, PCI-E 3, cpu would work on AM3+ and AM4 boards (Like early AM3), Support for both DDR3 and DDR4 ram.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b à CPUs
September 3, 2014 11:41:05 AM

dirtyferret said:

Quote:
Quote:
I'm using a Phenom x6 @ 4.2GHz. Still waiting for something to upgrade to from AMD LOL


Well it's kinda the same story for the people who have i7-9xx as well. I mean sure the new Haswell CPU's are noticeably stronger, but what's the point when no game will benefit from the upgrade?

Both your Phenom II x6 and those old i7's have at least 2 years of more life in em'.


That is worst case scenario, I see no reason why anyone with a Phenom II x4 or intel Q9XXX needs a CPU upgrade for gaming unless of course you buy the fanboy response of "windows 7 will finally use all those AMD cores...i mean windows 8....i mean windows 9....." or my personally favorite of "eventually games will need more cores like when the PS3 launches....i mean PS4....I mean PS5....."


Actually a good number of games do benefit from the upgrade. Per clock cycle Haswell is about 30% faster than Baytrail, and almost 70% faster overall when you consider the general discrepancy in clock speeds. But anyway, a lot of games actually do benefit from Haswell's stronger performance as compared to Baytrail. My previous FX-6300 which according to most benchmarks is more powerful in single-threaded performance than an i7-920 (mostly due to the clock speed differences) bottlenecked my GTX 770 in a lot of games (Crysis 1, AC4, Borderlands 2, many others). This was even after I had overclocked my FX-6300 to 4.5 GHz. When I upgraded to an i5-4690k, my frame rates in games had a massive increase -- most hitting 60 at the stock 3.5 GHz when my FX-6300 at 4.5 GHz could only hit 45.
m
0
l
September 3, 2014 2:25:11 PM

Quote:
If you don't class the FX-7600P as competitive, that is.

I don't. low end i5 equivalent basically.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 3, 2014 2:52:03 PM

dirtyferret said:

Quote:
Quote:
I'm using a Phenom x6 @ 4.2GHz. Still waiting for something to upgrade to from AMD LOL


Well it's kinda the same story for the people who have i7-9xx as well. I mean sure the new Haswell CPU's are noticeably stronger, but what's the point when no game will benefit from the upgrade?

Both your Phenom II x6 and those old i7's have at least 2 years of more life in em'.


That is worst case scenario, I see no reason why anyone with a Phenom II x4 or intel Q9XXX needs a CPU upgrade for gaming unless of course you buy the fanboy response of "windows 7 will finally use all those AMD cores...i mean windows 8....i mean windows 9....." or my personally favorite of "eventually games will need more cores like when the PS3 launches....i mean PS4....I mean PS5....."


To be fair, my brother went from a Phenom II x4 @ 4 GHz to an FX-8320 @ 4.2 GHz and his framerates doubled in some games (HD 7950). Now if you have a GPU weaker than that, yeah you are fine.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 3, 2014 2:55:12 PM

Deus Gladiorum said:
dirtyferret said:

Quote:
Quote:
I'm using a Phenom x6 @ 4.2GHz. Still waiting for something to upgrade to from AMD LOL


Well it's kinda the same story for the people who have i7-9xx as well. I mean sure the new Haswell CPU's are noticeably stronger, but what's the point when no game will benefit from the upgrade?

Both your Phenom II x6 and those old i7's have at least 2 years of more life in em'.


That is worst case scenario, I see no reason why anyone with a Phenom II x4 or intel Q9XXX needs a CPU upgrade for gaming unless of course you buy the fanboy response of "windows 7 will finally use all those AMD cores...i mean windows 8....i mean windows 9....." or my personally favorite of "eventually games will need more cores like when the PS3 launches....i mean PS4....I mean PS5....."


Actually a good number of games do benefit from the upgrade. Per clock cycle Haswell is about 30% faster than Baytrail, and almost 70% faster overall when you consider the general discrepancy in clock speeds. But anyway, a lot of games actually do benefit from Haswell's stronger performance as compared to Baytrail. My previous FX-6300 which according to most benchmarks is more powerful in single-threaded performance than an i7-920 (mostly due to the clock speed differences) bottlenecked my GTX 770 in a lot of games (Crysis 1, AC4, Borderlands 2, many others). This was even after I had overclocked my FX-6300 to 4.5 GHz. When I upgraded to an i5-4690k, my frame rates in games had a massive increase -- most hitting 60 at the stock 3.5 GHz when my FX-6300 at 4.5 GHz could only hit 45.


I find that kind of funny. I guess it really depends on if you play the latest games or not. The games you listed only use 4 cores, but in games like BF4 the FX-6300 is practically as strong as lesser i5's...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 3, 2014 2:55:16 PM

Deus Gladiorum said:
dirtyferret said:

Quote:
Quote:
I'm using a Phenom x6 @ 4.2GHz. Still waiting for something to upgrade to from AMD LOL


Well it's kinda the same story for the people who have i7-9xx as well. I mean sure the new Haswell CPU's are noticeably stronger, but what's the point when no game will benefit from the upgrade?

Both your Phenom II x6 and those old i7's have at least 2 years of more life in em'.


That is worst case scenario, I see no reason why anyone with a Phenom II x4 or intel Q9XXX needs a CPU upgrade for gaming unless of course you buy the fanboy response of "windows 7 will finally use all those AMD cores...i mean windows 8....i mean windows 9....." or my personally favorite of "eventually games will need more cores like when the PS3 launches....i mean PS4....I mean PS5....."


Actually a good number of games do benefit from the upgrade. Per clock cycle Haswell is about 30% faster than Baytrail, and almost 70% faster overall when you consider the general discrepancy in clock speeds. But anyway, a lot of games actually do benefit from Haswell's stronger performance as compared to Baytrail. My previous FX-6300 which according to most benchmarks is more powerful in single-threaded performance than an i7-920 (mostly due to the clock speed differences) bottlenecked my GTX 770 in a lot of games (Crysis 1, AC4, Borderlands 2, many others). This was even after I had overclocked my FX-6300 to 4.5 GHz. When I upgraded to an i5-4690k, my frame rates in games had a massive increase -- most hitting 60 at the stock 3.5 GHz when my FX-6300 at 4.5 GHz could only hit 45.


I find that kind of funny. I guess it really depends on if you play the latest games or not. The games you listed only use 4 cores, but in games like BF4 the FX-6300 is practically as strong as lesser i5's...
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 94 à CPUs
September 3, 2014 5:57:20 PM

CaptainTom said:


I find that kind of funny. I guess it really depends on if you play the latest games or not. The games you listed only use 4 cores, but in games like BF4 the FX-6300 is practically as strong as lesser i5's...


but when your a gamer, you want all games to run well, not just bf4. an intel i5 will play better, across more games, than an fx63xx or 83xx period. even the latest haswell i3's would probably trump similarly priced AMD cpu's on an fps average over all games released in the last 3 years, if your not cherry picking
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 3, 2014 9:28:17 PM

iam2thecrowe said:
CaptainTom said:


I find that kind of funny. I guess it really depends on if you play the latest games or not. The games you listed only use 4 cores, but in games like BF4 the FX-6300 is practically as strong as lesser i5's...


but when your a gamer, you want all games to run well, not just bf4. an intel i5 will play better, across more games, than an fx63xx or 83xx period. even the latest haswell i3's would probably trump similarly priced AMD cpu's on an fps average over all games released in the last 3 years, if your not cherry picking


Well for now it will on average, but in the future the FX-83xx will pull ahead of the i5's. It already outperforms them in BF4, Watchdogs, and Crysis 3. FYI that's not cherry picking, those are the most demanding AAA games out now.

Also keep in mind that the FX-6300 is bloody $110, and the FX-8320 is $150. Yeah you may sacrifice performance in some games now, but in the future it will more than earn its worth.
m
0
l
September 3, 2014 10:34:37 PM

vdraconus said:
At the end of the day I think what is going to hurt AMD the most is the fact that they are allowing the FX line to stagnate right now. We need 2 things from AMD right now

1) If you're going to revise an old chip give us a revision worth investing in: The 8350 with the same specs but cut down to 95W and/or enhanced single core performance. 8350 is pretty much the workhorse of the FX line and it is easy to see why. An updated version would get some attention.

2) FX AM4 slot, and the appropriate chipsets. The obvious specs here, USB 3 support, PCI-E 3, cpu would work on AM3+ and AM4 boards (Like early AM3), Support for both DDR3 and DDR4 ram.


But it's the same old, same old, with AMD. I was hoping they'd learn from their mistakes from the Phenom line, even seeking to give them the benefit of a doubt, but here we are again. Slow to move, little to improve, and builders not enthused.
m
0
l
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!