83 replies to this topic

[alwaysonacoffebreak]

I thought I'd create a topic for people who have an FX-series CPU to talk about what you like about the CPU, what you hate about it and what you are expecting from next generations.

From performance wise I couldn't be happier with mine, haven't clocked it and probably won't as I've yet to see what can cripple this CPU. I mostly game with it, deal with video/photo editing

Altho there's one thing, the stock cooler that came with it, it's loud as hell when the CPU gets some work on it, hopefully next time they'll ship a better cooler with it (or maybe its just me don't know )


Anyway shoot ahead.

[Emn1ty]

So far my favorite thing about my FX 6 core is its ability to multitask. I have yet run into any real performance hits while running multiple applications outside of accidentally running two games simultaneously (which are both graphically demanding).

I really want to try and overclock it but I'm completely alien to it and I'd rather keep it working than risk fudging it up. The only issue I have had with it so far is the mobo firmware problem for Shogun 2. But now that I have a workaround for it the thing runs like a dream. Handles everything I throw at it and more and never hits too high a temperature.

[humanz.]

I wonder if consumers who purchased an FX cpu were a bit clueless about what kind of computer they were building. I don't ask to be sarcastic but there was a lot of willful ignorance on how fast it really was.

[alwaysonacoffebreak]

Emn1ty, on 23 April 2012 - 17:34, said:

So far my favorite thing about my FX 6 core is its ability to multitask. I have yet run into any real performance hits while running multiple applications outside of accidentally running two games simultaneously (which are both graphically demanding).

I really want to try and overclock it but I'm completely alien to it and I'd rather keep it working than risk fudging it up. The only issue I have had with it so far is the mobo firmware problem for Shogun 2. But now that I have a workaround for it the thing runs like a dream. Handles everything I throw at it and more and never hits too high a temperature.

You can try AMD Overdrive for clocking, in most cases it gives you a stable clock and will do it for you

Quote

I wonder if consumers who purchased an FX cpu were a bit clueless about what kind of computer they were building. I don't ask to be sarcastic but there was a lot of willful ignorance on how fast it really was.

Please do enlighten us

[+chconline]

Jerid, on 23 April 2012 - 17:38, said:

I wonder if consumers who purchased an FX cpu were a bit clueless about what kind of computer they were building. I don't ask to be sarcastic but there was a lot of willful ignorance on how fast it really was.

Yep. My Sandy Bridge from over a year ago absolutely blows it out of the water... the i7-3770K Ivy Bridge I have right now just furthers the blow

[threetonesun]

chconline, on 23 April 2012 - 18:21, said:

Yep. My Sandy Bridge from over a year ago absolutely blows it out of the water... the i7-3770K Ivy Bridge I have right now just furthers the blow

Eh, my Ferrari is faster than my VW bug, doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the bug, and it was a lot cheaper.

I'd still get an FX over a Intel processor right now, they're dirt cheap by comparison, and for gaming, they're good enough.

[alwaysonacoffebreak]

Can a moderator maybe keep an eye out for this topic and delete all kinds of "bashing" and/or mine is better then yours posts as this is meant for people who actually have an FX CPU and want to talk along

[Emn1ty]

chconline, on 23 April 2012 - 18:21, said:

Yep. My Sandy Bridge from over a year ago absolutely blows it out of the water... the i7-3770K Ivy Bridge I have right now just furthers the blow

Intel CPU's are great for single, high power applications. But the multitasking power of my AMD is amazing. Its like comparing a Ferrari to an F350. Can you haul 350lbs of luggage, your entire family and the dogs in your Ferrari? While the Ferrari will win in a race, they still have similar power and similar ability to perform.

Not everything is about benchmarks and stress tests. Sometimes its about fulfilling a role. If all you want is for BF3 to run at 60fps on Ultra then by all means get an i7. But if you want to run Photoshop + Illustrator or Premier Pro + After Effects then I'd bet my money an FX will perform better.

PS: Speaking of stress tests and benchmarks. My current setup can run the Unigine benchmark at max settings at an average of 22fps. I think for a budget gaming rig that's pretty darn good.

[Invizibleyez]

For those who think their iwhatever is great, that's great. You should feel good about what you bought, or you shouldn't have bought it. However, http://www.cpubenchm...X-6100+Six-Core

So, please, go home and love what you have. I don't really want to hear about what you think your i-3/5/7 can do that you think my FX can't, because plain and simply, my FX can do it all. Oh yeah, and I can keep some of the money for that needlessly expensive mobo/cpu in my pocket.

Good day to you sir.

I SAID GOOD DAY!

[tsupersonic]

Emn1ty, on 23 April 2012 - 20:16, said:

Intel CPU's are great for single, high power applications. But the multitasking power of my AMD is amazing. Its like comparing a Ferrari to an F350. Can you haul 350lbs of luggage, your entire family and the dogs in your Ferrari? While the Ferrari will win in a race, they still have similar power and similar ability to perform.

Not everything is about benchmarks and stress tests. Sometimes its about fulfilling a role. If all you want is for BF3 to run at 60fps on Ultra then by all means get an i7. But if you want to run Photoshop + Illustrator or Premier Pro + After Effects then I'd bet my money an FX will perform better.

PS: Speaking of stress tests and benchmarks. My current setup can run the Unigine benchmark at max settings at an average of 22fps. I think for a budget gaming rig that's pretty darn good.

Time and time again benchmarks have proven that Intel Core i7 is much faster than AMD's top offerings. Why would you doubt Intel has better multitasking, when it gets beat in performance tests? I'm not trying to troll, because yes, AMD is great value for the money, and Intel comes at a premium. Don't see your logic here...Personally, I'd rather have a Hyperthreaded turbo-boosted hexa core Intel i7.

[+Asik]

Emn1ty, on 23 April 2012 - 20:16, said:

Intel CPU's are great for single, high power applications. But the multitasking power of my AMD is amazing. Its like comparing a Ferrari to an F350. Can you haul 350lbs of luggage, your entire family and the dogs in your Ferrari? While the Ferrari will win in a race, they still have similar power and similar ability to perform.

That used to be true before the Core i5/7. Today Intel CPUs are just faster whatever the scenario.

[CronicHazel]

CPU's don't matter nowadays i guess, buy what you like.

It's all about the SSD, haha

[alwaysonacoffebreak]

Dr_Asik, on 24 April 2012 - 01:42, said:

That used to be true before the Core i5/7. Today Intel CPUs are just faster whatever the scenario.

Really? Whatever the scenario? I got alot of results that say otherweise. As soon as it comes to multithreading AMD's FX will pull ahead, I'm not even going to talk about Linux benchmarks as thats a different story, FX has a whole new life over there.

Whoever was comparing IB to FX (Currently bulldozer) should look up when BD was release and when was IB released.

Anyway to the people who plan to buy Piledriver, there are some big changes.

Quad-channel DDR3
Up to 10 cores
HT
Dynamic scheduling and speculative execution
8 CUs with two cores per a CU.

AMD released a software optimization guide for Piledriver in January. You can read more about it here.

http://support.amd.c...w_opt_guide.pdf

[+Asik]

alwaysonacoffebreak, on 24 April 2012 - 06:49, said:

Really? Whatever the scenario? I got alot of results that say otherweise. As soon as it comes to multithreading AMD's FX will pull ahead

Feel free to share them, because the last time I checked, FX got smoked by the entire Core i5/7 line on nearly every benchmark, including heavily threaded ones, like C++ compilation. I think FX very slightly won on synthetic 7-zip performance, x264 2nd pass and that's basically it. And even there it still loses to the latest 3770k.

Example

[alwaysonacoffebreak]

Dr_Asik, on 24 April 2012 - 07:21, said:

Feel free to share them, because the last time I checked, FX got smoked by the entire Core i5/7 line on nearly every benchmark, including heavily threaded ones, like C++ compilation. I think FX very slightly won on synthetic 7-zip performance, x264 2nd pass and that's basically it. And even there it still loses to the latest 3770k.

Example

First of all, 3770k is a newer CPU then Bulldozer is so I can't understand why do you keep comparing them?

Secondly.








(Keep in mind its as fast as an $1000 Intel CPU whilist the 8150 costs around $200)



Anyway I got tons more but is a pain in my *ss to upload them all here.

I love the fact that when ever FX is better in a benchmark it will be labled syntetic instantly but untill then its the most widley used benchmark. Typical.

Also dear sir, just to finish our d*ck comparing, please do read on the .pdf I linked earlier and please do look up all the changes Piledriver comes with, alot of the software problems are going to be fixed with it so even if it might not be as good as Intel CPU's it'll sure close the gap a bit. Have a good day and please do Your own Intel topic as I'd really like to talk to people who actually have one FX or want one in the future