Here is the updated version of my original tutorial about this topic on Tom's Hardware. However, I rushed myself way to much in my previous revision on this topic. So in this revision, I've made grammar corrections and a few key redos in my paragraphs. I hope you enjoy. (AND PLEASE! Holar out if I made any more mistakes. Thank you!)
Part 1:
It's been almost 4 years now since AMD released it's last iteration of AMD FX, known as Piledriver. During it’s glory days in 2012-2013, the FX 8350 was a smart buy as it offered decent gaming performance as well as superb rendering performance which competed well against the $320 I7 2600K. However, now that the very popular FX lineup is showing its age, is it still viable as a good platform for 2015-2016?
Unfortunately, when a CPU is old, it’s OLD. If we compare the FX CPUs using Piledriver against haswell and skylake, AMD FX falls short in most categories by a significant margin. It’s so bad now that in a lot of PC games, the Intel core I3 4360 can beat the FX 8320!
AMD did try to keep the speed of the FX CPUs high by producing the FX 9370 and FX 9590. While these CPUs are the fastest CPUs AMD has ever created, Intel’s mainstreaming Core I5 and high end Core I7s are still able to out perform these CPUs. Not to mention the insane 220W TDP of these 9xxx series CPUs.
Another area where the AMD Piledriver architecture falls short is in power management and power savings. Piledriver consumes 2x or more power than it’s newer Intel competition. Making these CPUs really hot which can heat up your room if you do overclock the CPUs.
Motherboards are also lacking in features. No USB 3.1/C support, no M.2 ports, and probably the worst of it all, no mini itx form factor. However with motherboards you can be more lenient than with CPUs, since they aren’t as important. However if you do want to add in high speed devices like M.2. Your going to need a lot of PCIE cards.
The only real benefit AMD has going for it right now would be extremely well threaded rendering/compression applications like winrar. So if your going for the cheapest rendering machine possible, FX is still a good platform for non gaming purposes.
Here is some benchmarks to prove my point:
The only time FX actually beats the i5 is in select programs like winrar and a couple other rendering programs:
Gaming Benchmarks:
It's specifically in the gaming arena that the FX lineup has no equal compared to Intel. The reason why most of our CPU experts will say that the FX lineup is bad is because we all assume it's for gaming (since 90% of you all ask for a gaming PC on the forums). This is because games require strong single threaded performance over weaker multi threaded performance. This is because the APIs that we use today (ie. DX11) are optimized for single threaded CPUs. It won’t be until the arival of DX12 that we will see good multi threaded performance.
So to sum up, the AMD FX CPUs are only good for the small portion of you people who use your PCs for rendering. While the vast majority of you PC users that game on your rigs should go with Intel for CPUs.
Part 2: Fanboys
Sigh, this is the part that gets messy. Extremely hardcore AMD fanboys are some of the toughest people to reason with in regards to CPUs. Typically they will try to get AMD into your personal rig, no matter the cost, so to speak.
The good part about these fanboys is that they will still correct Intel fanboys when they are wrong, and still recommend AMD when it’s appropriate. The only issue for these fanboys is that the FX CPUs are so old right now that it’s hard to recommend them for the vast majority of PC users.
The bad part about most AMD fanboys is that they will get so overzealous about AMD that it seems to cloud their judgment on what is truthfully faster and what is not. They will always try to say that an FX 6300 is better than a haswell I3 or even sometimes an I5 4430. But, we all know from benchmarks that this is completely false (except for some very few exceptions). Sure, they will defend by saying that overclocking will help. And don’t get me wrong, it does help a lot. However even when overclocked, the AMD CPUs still can’t keep up with most Intel CPUs.
This where I recommend you non-biased readers to ignore AMD fanboys for now. I do like their loyalty to AMD, however when they are flat out lying, then that’s where you have to use your own judgment.
Now, keep in mind! I AM NOT SAYING ALL AMD FANBOYS ARE LIKE THIS! Fortunately there are still a bunch of AMD fanboys that don’t get over zealous about trying to get AMD into your system. Rather they will still recommend Intel when needed, and recommend AMD when it’s appropriate. I appreciate these guys the most, and we need more of them.
While it seems that AMD fanboys only have this problem, Intel fanboys also have these issues as well, but it’s more hidden because it’s incredibly easy right now to recommend Intel CPUs. The issue with Intel fanboys that’s most noticeable for now, and that I absolutely hate, is they will get all worked up on an AMD fanboy just because he says an FX CPU is better than an Intel I3/i5. Ok, so he might be wrong, but don’t go crazy on him.
Conclusion:
This is my review on AMD in it’s current position, as well as on how to deal with fanboys. I personally am not biased for one or the other. Sure, I’ve never built an AMD system in my entire DIY career, but I don’t stop recommending AMD when they should be recommended.
For example, I am currently looking to buy an AMD A8-7600 with a cheap FM2+ mini itx mobo for my HTPC. This is because the a8-7600 offers the best price to performance ratio in it’s price segment. The only CPUs I love from AMD are it’s APUs, since they consistently keep them up to date with the latest tech.
I hope all of you readers understand that I’m trying my best not to be biased towards one side, sure I probably am biased against AMD. However, I’m doing my best not to. They are just two companies competing in a capitalist marketplace. What I don’t want to see is a monopoly with either AMD or Intel on top.
Anyways, that's my 2 cents on this topic. What are your thoughts on this issue?
Part 1:
It's been almost 4 years now since AMD released it's last iteration of AMD FX, known as Piledriver. During it’s glory days in 2012-2013, the FX 8350 was a smart buy as it offered decent gaming performance as well as superb rendering performance which competed well against the $320 I7 2600K. However, now that the very popular FX lineup is showing its age, is it still viable as a good platform for 2015-2016?
Unfortunately, when a CPU is old, it’s OLD. If we compare the FX CPUs using Piledriver against haswell and skylake, AMD FX falls short in most categories by a significant margin. It’s so bad now that in a lot of PC games, the Intel core I3 4360 can beat the FX 8320!
AMD did try to keep the speed of the FX CPUs high by producing the FX 9370 and FX 9590. While these CPUs are the fastest CPUs AMD has ever created, Intel’s mainstreaming Core I5 and high end Core I7s are still able to out perform these CPUs. Not to mention the insane 220W TDP of these 9xxx series CPUs.
Another area where the AMD Piledriver architecture falls short is in power management and power savings. Piledriver consumes 2x or more power than it’s newer Intel competition. Making these CPUs really hot which can heat up your room if you do overclock the CPUs.
Motherboards are also lacking in features. No USB 3.1/C support, no M.2 ports, and probably the worst of it all, no mini itx form factor. However with motherboards you can be more lenient than with CPUs, since they aren’t as important. However if you do want to add in high speed devices like M.2. Your going to need a lot of PCIE cards.
The only real benefit AMD has going for it right now would be extremely well threaded rendering/compression applications like winrar. So if your going for the cheapest rendering machine possible, FX is still a good platform for non gaming purposes.
Here is some benchmarks to prove my point:
The only time FX actually beats the i5 is in select programs like winrar and a couple other rendering programs:
Gaming Benchmarks:
It's specifically in the gaming arena that the FX lineup has no equal compared to Intel. The reason why most of our CPU experts will say that the FX lineup is bad is because we all assume it's for gaming (since 90% of you all ask for a gaming PC on the forums). This is because games require strong single threaded performance over weaker multi threaded performance. This is because the APIs that we use today (ie. DX11) are optimized for single threaded CPUs. It won’t be until the arival of DX12 that we will see good multi threaded performance.
So to sum up, the AMD FX CPUs are only good for the small portion of you people who use your PCs for rendering. While the vast majority of you PC users that game on your rigs should go with Intel for CPUs.
Part 2: Fanboys
Sigh, this is the part that gets messy. Extremely hardcore AMD fanboys are some of the toughest people to reason with in regards to CPUs. Typically they will try to get AMD into your personal rig, no matter the cost, so to speak.
The good part about these fanboys is that they will still correct Intel fanboys when they are wrong, and still recommend AMD when it’s appropriate. The only issue for these fanboys is that the FX CPUs are so old right now that it’s hard to recommend them for the vast majority of PC users.
The bad part about most AMD fanboys is that they will get so overzealous about AMD that it seems to cloud their judgment on what is truthfully faster and what is not. They will always try to say that an FX 6300 is better than a haswell I3 or even sometimes an I5 4430. But, we all know from benchmarks that this is completely false (except for some very few exceptions). Sure, they will defend by saying that overclocking will help. And don’t get me wrong, it does help a lot. However even when overclocked, the AMD CPUs still can’t keep up with most Intel CPUs.
This where I recommend you non-biased readers to ignore AMD fanboys for now. I do like their loyalty to AMD, however when they are flat out lying, then that’s where you have to use your own judgment.
Now, keep in mind! I AM NOT SAYING ALL AMD FANBOYS ARE LIKE THIS! Fortunately there are still a bunch of AMD fanboys that don’t get over zealous about trying to get AMD into your system. Rather they will still recommend Intel when needed, and recommend AMD when it’s appropriate. I appreciate these guys the most, and we need more of them.
While it seems that AMD fanboys only have this problem, Intel fanboys also have these issues as well, but it’s more hidden because it’s incredibly easy right now to recommend Intel CPUs. The issue with Intel fanboys that’s most noticeable for now, and that I absolutely hate, is they will get all worked up on an AMD fanboy just because he says an FX CPU is better than an Intel I3/i5. Ok, so he might be wrong, but don’t go crazy on him.
Conclusion:
This is my review on AMD in it’s current position, as well as on how to deal with fanboys. I personally am not biased for one or the other. Sure, I’ve never built an AMD system in my entire DIY career, but I don’t stop recommending AMD when they should be recommended.
For example, I am currently looking to buy an AMD A8-7600 with a cheap FM2+ mini itx mobo for my HTPC. This is because the a8-7600 offers the best price to performance ratio in it’s price segment. The only CPUs I love from AMD are it’s APUs, since they consistently keep them up to date with the latest tech.
I hope all of you readers understand that I’m trying my best not to be biased towards one side, sure I probably am biased against AMD. However, I’m doing my best not to. They are just two companies competing in a capitalist marketplace. What I don’t want to see is a monopoly with either AMD or Intel on top.
Anyways, that's my 2 cents on this topic. What are your thoughts on this issue?