Jump to content



Photo

Can someone explain why I shouldn't get an AMD FX CPU?


  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

#1 Elliot B.

Elliot B.

    Over 12 years on Neowin

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 16-August 01
  • Location: West Midlands, UK
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S4

Posted 09 February 2013 - 21:02

I was looking for a new CPU, and basing my decision on the performance scores from here and the price.

My current CPU (i5-750) scores 4,373.

These are the currently available CPUs, their scores, and their prices:

i5 2400S	4,857	£148.00
i5 2310		5,539	£142.00
i5 2320		5,681	£142.00
i5 2400		5,849	£148.96
i5 3330		5,851	£139.91
i5 2450P	6,026	£148.49
i5 2500		6,276	£160.49
i5 3450S	6,326	£154.49
i5 2380P	6,358	£141.87
i5 2500K	6,415	£165.07
i5 3450		6,490	£149.50
i5 3470S	6,501	£144.05
i5 3470		6,637	£147.88
i5 3550		6,922	£156.98
i5 3570		7,015	£168.32
i5 3570K	7,139	£175.05

FX-4300		 4,672	£96.22
FX-6200		 6,237	£100.70
FX-6300		 6,601	£101.96
FX-8120		 6,660	£121.00
FX-8150		 7,745	£137.73
FX-8320		 8,256	£126.64
FX-8350		 9,178	£158.60

It appears to me, the AMD FX chips are highly competitive, and much lower priced.

If I were to choose an AMD FX chip, I'd go for one of the bottom three in the chart above.

Should I go the AMD FX route?


#2 Javik

Javik

    Beware the tyrrany of those that wield power

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 09 February 2013 - 21:06

Insanely high power usage. Around 100-150 watts idle, and 300+ at load (and that's without overclocking). And those benchmarks are only based on a single test. I'd recommend looking at an all round review for deciding. From what I can remember they're still way below the Intel CPU's in gaming but about equal for number crunching.

#3 OP Elliot B.

Elliot B.

    Over 12 years on Neowin

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 16-August 01
  • Location: West Midlands, UK
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S4

Posted 09 February 2013 - 21:07

Insanely high power usage. Around 100-150 watts idle, and 300+ at load (and that's without overclocking). And those benchmarks are only based on a single test. I'd recommend looking at an all round review for deciding. From what I can remember they're still way below the Intel CPU's in gaming but about equal for number crunching.

Ah, yeh, I'd be using it for gaming.

I would need some kind of chart, though. Or it's impossible to compare this many CPUs! :(

#4 spacer

spacer

    I'm awesome

  • Joined: 09-November 06
  • Location: Connecticut, USA
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: Nexus 4

Posted 09 February 2013 - 21:09

I would suggest going to http://www.tomshardware.com/ for hardware reviews and benchmarks. And as Javik said, the AMD CPUs are super power hungry.

#5 Detection

Detection

    Detecting stuff...

  • Joined: 30-October 10
  • Location: UK
  • OS: 7 SP1 x64

Posted 09 February 2013 - 21:10

The 8350 has LOT of good things said about it
http://www.ebuyer.co...r-fd8350frhkbox

I have the normal Phenom II 965, and once I have the funds, the 8350 is 1st on my list

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

#6 Javik

Javik

    Beware the tyrrany of those that wield power

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 09 February 2013 - 21:13

http://www.bit-tech....x-8350-review/6

The best I could find, unfortunately I can't remember where I read the original review.

Basically AMD's philosophy is because they simply cannot match the efficiency of Intel's CPU's they are trying to make up the deficit by cramming more cores onto the die and running them at a higher clock speed. It seems to be working when number crunching but not so much for gaming.

#7 hagjohn

hagjohn

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 20-July 03
  • Location: Pennsylvania
  • OS: Windows 8.1, OSX 10.6
  • Phone: Nokia 1020 8.1

Posted 09 February 2013 - 21:15

I have an FX-6300 and I'm very happy. I'm playing Metro 2033 now without any issues. Hardware is in my sig.

#8 OP Elliot B.

Elliot B.

    Over 12 years on Neowin

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 16-August 01
  • Location: West Midlands, UK
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S4

Posted 09 February 2013 - 21:19

Found some gaming benchmarks. I have edited the image to add current prices and the Passmark scores:

eb_sr-cpu2.png

#9 Detection

Detection

    Detecting stuff...

  • Joined: 30-October 10
  • Location: UK
  • OS: 7 SP1 x64

Posted 09 February 2013 - 21:21

Found some gaming benchmarks. I have edited the image to add current prices and the Passmark scores:

eb_sr-cpu2.png


if you already have a 3570k compatible Intel board, then yep go Intel, but if you already have an FX compatible board, 8350 all the way imo

#10 OP Elliot B.

Elliot B.

    Over 12 years on Neowin

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 16-August 01
  • Location: West Midlands, UK
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S4

Posted 09 February 2013 - 21:23

if you already have a 3570k compatible Intel board, then yep go Intel, but if you have an FX compatible board, 8350 all the way imo

I would need a new motherboard if I got a newer Intel CPU, so it's not really a deciding factor.

According to the benchmarks above, the new AMD CPUs hold their weight against the Intel ones, even in gaming.

#11 Detection

Detection

    Detecting stuff...

  • Joined: 30-October 10
  • Location: UK
  • OS: 7 SP1 x64

Posted 09 February 2013 - 21:26

I would need a new motherboard if I got a newer Intel CPU, so it's not really a deciding factor.

According to the benchmarks above, the new AMD CPUs hold their weight against the Intel ones, even in gaming.


Yep that's what I've seen too, I'm in no hurry to drop AMD any more, I was disappointed with bulldozer, but piledriver seem to hold their own very well, I'm sticking AMD for the foreseeable future

#12 OP Elliot B.

Elliot B.

    Over 12 years on Neowin

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 16-August 01
  • Location: West Midlands, UK
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S4

Posted 09 February 2013 - 21:27

Then again, the FX-8350 and 2500K have similar prices, the 8350 has a much higher Passmark but the 2500K beats it by quite a bit in gaming.

HMM! Decisions.

#13 Blackhearted

Blackhearted

    .....

  • Joined: 26-February 04
  • Location: Ohio
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S2 (VM)

Posted 09 February 2013 - 21:30

AMD's fx cpu's only really hold up decently when in heavily multi-threaded loads. Things that aren't heavily threaded can fall behind intel quite a bit. And any game that's cpu bound to any degree with fall noticeably behind an intel chip.

#14 Detection

Detection

    Detecting stuff...

  • Joined: 30-October 10
  • Location: UK
  • OS: 7 SP1 x64

Posted 09 February 2013 - 21:30

Then again, the FX-8350 and 2500K have similar prices, the 8350 has a much higher Passmark but the 2500K beats it by quite a bit in gaming.

HMM! Decisions.


It definitely has come down to choice recently, vs price vs performance as it used to be, personally I like how AMD don't force socket upgrades with each new CPU release, so you can invest in a good AMD board and know you can continue to upgrade CPUs for quite some time before needing a new board

#15 Javik

Javik

    Beware the tyrrany of those that wield power

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 09 February 2013 - 21:33

The i5-3570k only costs about £15 more (£20 more if you go for boxed rather than OEM). It's a faster gaming CPU, and will consume a fraction of the power of an FX-8350, the effect on your electricity bill is something i'd personally advise factoring in. As far as I'm concerned it's simply a far superior choice.

It definitely has come down to choice recently, vs price vs performance as it used to be, personally I like how AMD don't force socket upgrades with each new CPU release, so you can invest in a good AMD board and know you can continue to upgrade CPUs for quite some time before needing a new board


FUD. Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge CPU's and boards are interoperable.



Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!