Is AMD FX Still Viable For a System Build? Rev. 2.0

[TechyInAZ]

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?

 

[Karadjgne]

According to this benchmark, the 6300 tops an i7 4770k with a nvidia card and still does damned good with an AMD card. Yes bf4 uses all of the fx cores, and it varies with HT for some odd reason. Seems the Haswell-E uses all 6 cores but only the HT from core 1, 2-4 aren't used at all.

I guess the question remains though, is this going to be more widespread in upcoming titles, or is bf4 a one-of-a-kind fluke?

 

[Supernova1138]

According to this benchmark, the 6300 tops an i7 4770k with a nvidia card and still does damned good with an AMD card. Yes bf4 uses all of the fx cores, and it varies with HT for some odd reason. Seems the Haswell-E uses all 6 cores but only the HT from core 1, 2-4 aren't used at all.

I guess the question remains though, is this going to be more widespread in upcoming titles, or is bf4 a one-of-a-kind fluke?

Those benchmarks aren't the greatest indicator of CPU gaming performance, because they only use midrange GPUs from 2012. You're entirely GPU bound in every scenario with only minor variations between CPUs. Even in this GPU bound environment, the i5 4670k does offer a slightly better minimum framerate than any of the FX CPUs, at least under Windows 7, the gap seems to close in Windows 8. The fact this test shows the i7 being slower than the i5 seems to indicate that the game has some kind of problem with hyperthreading, especially in Windows 7.

If this benchmark were done today with current high end cards, I would expect that there would be a larger gap between the Intel and AMD CPUs. All that benchmark really shows is if you're playing Battlefield 4, an AMD FX CPU is still 'good enough' if you're looking to get an entry level to lower midrange graphics card.

 

[GhislainG]

BF4 performs the same on most processors; the above proves that, but it doesn't prove anything else. http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html provides the results with a much faster GPU. In other words, if all one plays is BF4, then any 4 cores/threads CPU meets the requirements. GTA V is quite different when the GPU isn't the bottleneck: http://www.techspot.com/review/991-gta-5-pc-benchmarks/page6.html As you can see, an FX-6350 isn't as fast as an i7-4770K. The trick is to find a benchmark that proves something one way or the other.

 

[TechyInAZ]

I agree with supernova 1138. You need to use a top tier GPU like a GTX 980/980 ti to see how the CPUs are really affected.

 

[Karadjgne]

I disagree. All of the posts for 'can my budget build run bf4 etc' are not using a 980 or 980ti. Very few actually have those cards and definitely not in a budget type build where amd cpus fill the largest niche. You are not going to pair a fx6300 with a 980ti, and even some are hard pressed to justify a 980ti with an 8350. Majority of these cpus are using a r9 390 at best, with strong showings from the 660-960 and 270-380.

 

[TechyInAZ]

I disagree. All of the posts for 'can my budget build run bf4 etc' are not using a 980 or 980ti. Very few actually have those cards and definitely not in a budget type build where amd cpus fill the largest niche. You are not going to pair a fx6300 with a 980ti, and even some are hard pressed to justify a 980ti with an 8350. Majority of these cpus are using a r9 390 at best, with strong showings from the 660-960 and 270-380.

Sure, I see your point if you mean just a casual gaming machine. I thought you were strictly talking about CPU vs CPU in gaming benchmarks only.

However, why would you buy AMD anyways for a gaming machine? Sure, it works good for systems with mid to low range cards, however why limit yourself from future upgrades (like a graphics card) without replacing the CPU? If you buy an intel core i5 6500 lets say, you can put in a regular GTX 960, then when you want to say more to a more powerful pascal card down the road, you don't have to replace the CPU in order to get the most out of your new GPU.

Another problem to think about aswell is that most gamers play an extremely wide array of games. Which guarantees that at least some of those games will not be totally optimized for the vast majority of multi threaded CPUs. If were talking about real world scenarios, then we also have to consider what a real world gamer would play. (Not just BF4.)

But like I've said before, if you can find a good deal on a high end AMD FX CPU and build a PC around that CPU, and it's still cheaper than even a good quality Core i3 build, then I can see an FX 8320 or maybe a FX 6350 being a good choice. But if your getting an AMD FX system for the same budget as a nice Core i5 6600K system, then going with Intel is a no brainer.

 

[Karadjgne]

Agreed. In this 'tutorial' you've basically come out and stated that amd fx is pointless, a dead end, I just wanted to point out that it's not quite there yet. AMD Fx might not be generally as strong as Intel, but unless you are aiming for top line performance, the FX on a budget will still hang with mid grade Intel at least

 

[TechyInAZ]

Agreed. In this 'tutorial' you've basically come out and stated that amd fx is pointless, a dead end, I just wanted to point out that it's not quite there yet. AMD Fx might not be generally as strong as Intel, but unless you are aiming for top line performance, the FX on a budget will still hang with mid grade Intel at least

Thank you! Yes, I did come out a bit harsh towards FX, though I did say a few times in my "article" (it's no longer a tutorial...) that FX still had some strengths. Maybe I should of added more Pros for FX CPUs in my post?

But my primary concern right now is the AMD fanboys who think that AMD is still equal to Intel in the majority of games and applications, even though the benchmarks are right in front of them.

 

[ohiou_grad_2006]

Thing is for most people, I don't think many people see a difference that they can perceive. What it comes down to for me personally, is with AMD I can stretch my money further and put the money saved toward a better GPU, etc.

 

[mjslakeridge]

I'm not an AMD Fanboy, having used multiple Intel and AMD processors over the years. Now, I am not a gamer, but use my FX6300 machine for ripping DVDs, some video editing, watching recorded tv and movies and general internet browsing (5-10 Chrome tabs) on two monitors using the iGPU on the 6300. Rock solid for the 3 years I have had it with 12+ hours of up time each day.

On my other main computer, which is used for ProTools audio recording software, I am running a PhenomII 1045t, and I basically can not max out the CPU resources in any real world situations (48 tracks simultaneously, 5 plugins on each track, etc.) The previous ProTools setup was using an Intel Core2Duo (not sure of the exact specs, it is in my "spare" computer in the closet), but the PhenomII outperforms the Core2Duo by a wide margin in ProTools.

I know I am comparing one older processor to another, but the point is, there is still a place for FX series processors in budget builds (as stated already above).

 

[Karadjgne]

You realize that buying components based on upgradability status is almost a moot point, right? It's seldom done other than a gpu or cpu cooler. My pc is a 3770k, gtx970, 550w G2 and it's going to stay that way, barring any deaths, for the next 4 to 5 years. 2 years ago, many were touting the fact you had to have a Z mobo, simply because you can sli/CF and OC. Maxwell gpus threw that in the crapper. Unless you have to have OC and/or plan on 4k gaming, sli/CF is pointless waste of cash. Better off with a single 970 or even a 390 and a simple b or H board. Cheaper. If the cpu is over 60fps capable on the games you play, you don't need an upgrade. No reason to spend cash on skylake if you own anything newer than AM3 or LGA1156 Why? Because that's all 1080p needs for good playability. I can't justify dropping close to $3k just to get that last 10% better looking picture 4k offers over 1080p. The i5-2500k, fx6300 can do 1080p 60Hz at good settings or better in most games, paired with an affordable gpu like a 380 or 960 and will continue to do so until something quits and 1080p becomes no different than an old CRT.

I'm not an AMD fanboy, by any means, although I am a fan of their innovations. AMD may not be the best for gaming, not be the fastest cpu, strongest or even the most power economical (used to be the other way around), but they work for many, because at the end of the day, good enough is simply that, good enough.

 

[TechyInAZ]

You do have a good point karadjgne. I personally always have an upgrade path in mind when i build my PCs, howeve not everybody is like me.

It really is a bummer that Zen is not out yet, I really wish it was releasing today since Intel is struggling to keep i7 skylakes in stock.

 

[Karadjgne]

It's AMD. Personally I'd much rather see a delay than have a half-baked cpu like the bulldozers hit the shelves and further louse up the game. AMD: Another Mf Delay....

 

[Supernova1138]

It's AMD. Personally I'd much rather see a delay than have a half-baked cpu like the bulldozers hit the shelves and further louse up the game. AMD: Another Mf Delay....

Well AMD can't really afford to delay much longer, otherwise people are going to view them as being completely irrelevant or by the time the new CPUs launch, it will be too late to dig AMD out of its deepening financial crater and they will go bankrupt when they need to start paying off their debts.

 

[TechyInAZ]

It's AMD. Personally I'd much rather see a delay than have a half-baked cpu like the bulldozers hit the shelves and further louse up the game. AMD: Another Mf Delay....

Well AMD can't really afford to delay much longer, otherwise people are going to view them as being completely irrelevant or by the time the new CPUs launch, it will be too late to dig AMD out of its deepening financial crater and they will go bankrupt when they need to start paying off their debts.

Good point. Though Karadjgne is right, it will be much better if AMD spends a little more time getting a good CPU created over rushing it and making shortcuts. But your also right, AMD can't wait too long...

 

[plaintuts]

This topic is indeed very interesting.

Please update this thread when Dx12 drops.

But for now, recommending a fx platform on a new build is just silly, mainstream consumer is still largely based on quad-core cpu's.. Which also means, game developers are also foregoing support for dual-core cpu's

 

[TechyInAZ]

This topic is indeed very interesting.

Please update this thread when Dx12 drops.

But for now, recommending a fx platform on a new build is just silly, mainstream consumer is still largely based on quad-core cpu's.. Which also means, game developers are also foregoing support for dual-core cpu's

Yeah, that is actually what I wanted to disscuss a little bit in my article above. However i forgot to add it in.

DX12 will definantly help in gaming for sure, the only problem is that by the time DX12 goes mainstream, the 8xxx FX chips will be obsolete in comparison to newer skylake/kaby lake chips coming out in 2016-2017. But fortunately Zen is coming out by then.

 

[Karadjgne]

Stepping outside of the little world of Tom's Hardware and the interests of a few dedicated gamers and tech junkies, I think AMD isn't as bad off as we seem to think. Head down to your local store, be it Best Buy or Walmart and this is where most computer sales happen. People buying a pc right off the shelf. The general public. Call them blissfully ignorant if you wish, but when the sales rep shows them an AMD system that's cheaper than a comparably equipped Intel, they don't care if it's the latest, greatest, gets @10% better benchmarks than the older generation. They just want something that works good enough not to be needing replaced next year. While those who make it their business to know may feel differently, gamers and professionals are the elite, and not a very large percentage of pc sales, just the reason for the high end market.

It starts with Joe Blo who buys his kid a pc, who then plays some games, then gets online looking for mods or better graphics, and will eventually find us, who then methodically blasts fx as crap compared to Intel. Reality is that fx isn't crap, its just second place, again, but that doesn't mean what pc he's running isn't good enough for general enjoyment.

Part of me wants to support the fanboys, just for hanging in there again all odds, in the face of humiliation and other such niceties. Part of me wishes they'd hush up, so this debate would die and everyone agree that fx is pointless. Point is, the FX may be old, tech ways, but they work good enough for anybody. They'll play any game, run any pro suite, surf any Web. Intel just does it better, mostly, but for better you pay the premium.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

Zen will be very strong if AMD prices it properly. While I wasn't into hardware at the time, weren't FX CPUs then like hundreds of dollars?

 

[Redneck5439]

Zen will be very strong if AMD prices it properly. While I wasn't into hardware at the time, weren't FX CPUs then like hundreds of dollars?

Zen if priced and made properly can bring AMD right into the spotlight again. The FX line, while dated, is still a solid platform with the right supporting hardware. Where it becomes hard to endorse is for a brand new gaming rig, but for an all around do anything rig AMD does give you the best bang for your buck. I max out all the latest titles with my FX 8370 and Sapphire R9 290 @1080p. While I'm sure you can get a few more FPS with an Intel build, I have never had a bottleneck issue with my rig. Now with Zen AMD not only has to price it well, they also will have to stick with "moar cores" at least with first generation Zen.

Zen is slated to give a 40% IPC increase over Excavator. That places Zen's single core performance somewhere between Ivy Bridge and Haswell. Newer Intel processors will still beat Zen in its first generation, however Zen is a huge improvement over FX Piledriver. The only way AMD can make Zen desirable over new generations of Intel (in the high performance market) will be to 1. price them better than Intel 2. have more cores than Intel. DX 12 and games becoming more multithreaded are going to make higher core count processors desirable and pitting a new Kaby Lake i5 against a 4 core 8 thread Zen or a true 8 core Zen will put the Zen on top. If AMD prices the Zen under the i5 then there just may be a new best gaming processor when Zen rolls out.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

I think a major problem is people, especially on Toms and other hardware forums, are all gaming biased. An 8-core AMD can certainly be helpful to a businessman who is running 8 programs that are all processing data. Even if the programs are all single-core, they can be executed on their own core. That's one of the majormost things people seem to forget. You don't need multi-core programs to take advantage of a multi-core processor. You can benefit from a multi-core processor simply by running a bunch of single-core applications.

 

[Redneck5439]

As for the current FX Piledriver processors are concerned it all depends on the individual person's needs. I didn't switch to Intel because I already had an Asus Sabertooth R2.0 motherboard. At the time Haswell was just releasing and it wasn't worth scrapping one of the best AM3+ motherboards and switching to Intel. Instead I upgraded from Phenom II 965BE to FX 8350 and finally to FX 8370. Now for anyone who already has a very good AM3+ board an upgrade to FX 8370 is totally worth it (unless your already on FX 8350, not much of a gain then). I play all the latest AAA titles @ 1080p and always have the settings on Ultra. I've never had a game crash or huge drop in FPS (no bottleneck issues). I regularly have my system overclocked to 4.5Ghz and can crank the overclock to an impressive 5.3Ghz when needed (which is basically just for benchmarking).

Now I would never recommend to a hardcore gamer who is looking to max out upcoming titles @1440 to build an AMD rig. Maybe when Zen releases, but for now a hardcore gamer who wants to max out everything on a big screen 1440 then Intel is the way to go period. At the same time a regular Joe on a budget who is looking to game at mid-high levels @ 720- 1080P isn't going to see (and I mean with the human eye not running Fraps in the background) the difference between a FX 6 or 8 core and an i3 or i5 given a good quality GPU on most AAA game titles. There are some games, such as MMORPGs where the i5 will be better because they tend to be more CPU dependent, however most AAA titles today are GPU dependent and at mid - high settings will run fine on a FX build and cost less. To those people there is nothing wrong with building a FX system even today and they just might get a little bump in overall performance when DX 12 is mainstreamed.

 

[TechyInAZ]

I think a major problem is people, especially on Toms and other hardware forums, are all gaming biased. An 8-core AMD can certainly be helpful to a businessman who is running 8 programs that are all processing data. Even if the programs are all single-core, they can be executed on their own core. That's one of the majormost things people seem to forget. You don't need multi-core programs to take advantage of a multi-core processor. You can benefit from a multi-core processor simply by running a bunch of single-core applications.

I defiantly agree with you here. I personally find it tiring when I see gaming question after gaming question asked in such quick succession.

 

[Deleted member 1560910]

I personally don't think amd is a good choice at this point in time. I believe you can get a i7 4790k for like $250 at microcenter. I do know amd is going to be releasing new chips in 2016.