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

#61 Arceles

Arceles

    Time Craymel

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 28-November 09
  • Location: 4th dimmension.
  • OS: Win 7 Ultimate / Win 8.1 Pro (With Start Menu Start8, otherwise is UNUSABLE) / Android 4.1.2 Jelly Bean
  • Phone: XT890 Motorola RAZRi (x86 processor)

Posted 09 February 2013 - 23:14

Ya know, contrary to what marketing tells you, the fx cpus like the 8000 line technically aren't octa-core cpus.


They are octacores, 8 integer units and 4 FPUs. (and it's better than having hyperthreading, where two threads whould fight for getting one core)


#62 Javik

Javik

    #GamerGate

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

Posted 09 February 2013 - 23:16

Actually, having more cores executing at half the efficiency and fighting for memory bandwidth is less efficient than hyperthreading. And there's no fighting anyway, hyperthreading does actually allow 1 core to process 2 threads.

#63 Arceles

Arceles

    Time Craymel

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 28-November 09
  • Location: 4th dimmension.
  • OS: Win 7 Ultimate / Win 8.1 Pro (With Start Menu Start8, otherwise is UNUSABLE) / Android 4.1.2 Jelly Bean
  • Phone: XT890 Motorola RAZRi (x86 processor)

Posted 09 February 2013 - 23:18

Actually, having more cores executing at half the efficiency and fighting for memory bandwidth is less efficient than hyperthreading. And there's no fighting anyway, hyperthreading does actually allow 1 core to process 2 threads.


Everytime you speak something technical I would like to see your sources, I really doubt you really know of AMD architecture works.

#64 Andre S.

Andre S.

    Asik

  • Tech Issues Solved: 12
  • Joined: 26-October 05

Posted 09 February 2013 - 23:19

Passmark is a synthetic benchmark. The Vishera apparently does well in it, but that could mean any number of things. Video games, like most applications, are mostly bounded by single-threaded performance, and this is where the AMD CPUs fall short. The general consensus is that the AMD CPUs are generally a good deal in the 0-120$ segment approximately, and after that they can be a good choice if your main performance-sensitive scenario is encoding video or such inherently parallel task. Outside of that, it's all Intel.

Check out http://www.tomshardw...clock,3106.html

#65 Javik

Javik

    #GamerGate

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

Posted 09 February 2013 - 23:21

I doubt that you know anything about hardware full stop given that you seem to talk about having half of your CPU cores idling whilst gaming as if it would be a good thing. The AMD CPU's perform at about the same level as their Intel equivalents in price range, yet they have double the cores. Double the cores for the same performance equals half the computing efficiency per core. You don't need to have an advanced understanding of AMD's circuitry to know that, it's basic math.

#66 Luc2k

Luc2k

    Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 16-May 09

Posted 09 February 2013 - 23:49

I doubt that you know anything about hardware full stop given that you seem to talk about having half of your CPU cores idling whilst gaming as if it would be a good thing. The AMD CPU's perform at about the same level as their Intel equivalents in price range, yet they have double the cores. Double the cores for the same performance equals half the computing efficiency per core. You don't need to have an advanced understanding of AMD's circuitry to know that, it's basic math.


I call bull****, I'd like a source with a game that uses all available cores (modules) at 75%+.

#67 Javik

Javik

    #GamerGate

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

Posted 10 February 2013 - 00:00

Pretty much any game that is multithreaded is capable of doing so, but even if it doesn't utilise the cores fully, it's still better to have them utilised than for them to be sitting completely idle. Games ask for resources as they need them so doing heavy CPU stuff in the background would still be a really stupid idea.

#68 Luc2k

Luc2k

    Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 16-May 09

Posted 10 February 2013 - 00:05

Pretty much any game that is multithreaded is capable of doing so, but even if it doesn't utilise the cores fully, it's still better to have them utilised than for them to be sitting completely idle. Games ask for resources as they need them so doing heavy CPU stuff in the background would still be a really stupid idea.


Back your statements with proof please. You said that the performance of an AMD core is half of an Intel one. To get a good reading of performance, it has to be something that actually uses all the resources available. So, you either stop making wild claims or offer proof.

#69 Javik

Javik

    #GamerGate

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

Posted 10 February 2013 - 00:23

I'd wager you actually know nothing about benchmarking either given the rubbish you're spewing. Benchmarking applications like 3D mark are actually specifically designed to use all of the cores at 100% as are most synthetic number crunching benchmarks like CPU queen, so i'd say they're fairly accurate. Also, fact is regardless of how you rationalise it, if a CPU with 8 cores produces the same results as one with 4 cores then logic dictates that it's doing less work per CPU cycle to achieve those results. It's basic logic. Not one test puts the AMD 8 core CPU's above Intel's 4 core CPU's by any significant margin, even in the tests the AMD does win by it's only about 5%. Are all those different numbers really likely to be telling lies?

Over the past decade I have owned the following

Intel Celeron 2.6 GHZ
Intel Pentium 4, 2.8 GHZ
AMD Athlon 64 3000+ (Socket 775)
AMD Athlon 64 3200+ (Socket 939)
AMD Opteron 165
Intel Pentium dual (Conroe)
Q6600
i7-2700K

And the following graphics cards:

nVidia MX440 64MB
nVidia MX400 64MB
ATI 9200 256 MB
ATI 9600 SE 128MB
nVidia 6800 GT 256 MB
nVidia 8600 GT 256 MB
ATI 4850 512 MB
ATI 5770 1GB
ATI 6950 2GB

Now look at that list, look at all the performance reviews that compare the FX 8350 and Intel equivalents, and ask yourself who is really mindlessly obeying their brand loyalty over facts.

Attached Images

  • benchmark.png


#70 psionicinversion

psionicinversion

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 16-June 05

Posted 10 February 2013 - 00:38

Im pretty sure the OP has given up with this topic now from all the bitching and moaning and petty squabbling... your like a bunch of old women sitting around drinking tea, eating cake arguing over what wool is better to make there tea cosies with!

Want a more budget conscious system where you have a long upgrade path through backwards compatibility and doing rendering and stuff... go AMD. Otherwise go intel, atm intel does quite well with gaming with i5 systems, but main thing to consider is a decent gfx card. i7 is overkill for most part just for gaming, i got an i7 and doesnt even touch the sides with games

Also remember the PS4 is going have 6 core AMD cpu i think and think the xbox is running on AMD to?? not sure, so when the next consoles come out there games will be originally optimised for AMD hardware and could close the gap if not overtake intel especially if the ports are crap. Who knows only time will tell.

#71 Javik

Javik

    #GamerGate

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

Posted 10 February 2013 - 00:40

lol, I'm not bitching. I gave the OP correct advice and got accused of being an Intel humper because the facts and numbers don't match up with their love and brand loyalty. It seems to be the way on Neowin these days.

#72 tim_s

tim_s

    Default

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 07-January 13
  • OS: OSX (Macbook Pro i7), Windows 7 (Gaming), Gentoo
  • Phone: iPhone 5s

Posted 10 February 2013 - 00:43

AMD FX are targeted negatively for not performing well but if the goal was to create a low cost high value CPU - they are performing well. I would somewhat agree with the statistics above. The AMD FX sits in the low i5 range but with less cost - can run up to 8 threads where applicable and the potential for over cloaking is decent.

If you can afford an i5 I would say - this is the best choice but for those stuck in the i3 range - it is a nice little bargin.

Remember people are not negatively attacking the AMD FX for what is trying to be - they are attacking it for not comparing to intel products.

#73 Luc2k

Luc2k

    Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 16-May 09

Posted 10 February 2013 - 01:15

I'd wager you actually know nothing about benchmarking either given the rubbish you're spewing. Benchmarking applications like 3D mark are actually specifically designed to use all of the cores at 100% as are most synthetic number crunching benchmarks like CPU queen, so i'd say they're fairly accurate. Also, fact is regardless of how you rationalise it, if a CPU with 8 cores produces the same results as one with 4 cores then logic dictates that it's doing less work per CPU cycle to achieve those results. It's basic logic. Not one test puts the AMD 8 core CPU's above Intel's 4 core CPU's by any significant margin, even in the tests the AMD does win by it's only about 5%. Are all those different numbers really likely to be telling lies?

Now look at that list, look at all the performance reviews that compare the FX 8350 and Intel equivalents, and ask yourself who is really mindlessly obeying their brand loyalty over facts.


First, I can't afford brand royalty when it comes to CPUs because when I buy/recommend one, only performance, price and needs are factors. I've made plenty that go both ways from the Core 2 days. As a matter of fact, I do think the i5K is a better purchase when focusing on games (other types of workloads too) in the ~200$ range. I'm just disappointed that you made so many exaggerations or statements that are not backed by actual facts. This is something somewhat surprising after seeing of what you're capable from various other topics around the forum.

To the point: Exactly what is the rubbish that I've been spewing? I don't trust benchmarks like 3DMark, they've only made one or two low tech games with their engines ever. I asked you for real world proof, an actual game (since this was the criteria for the CPU). I also never made the statement that an 8 core produces the same results as an 4 core, you did. For all I know, the FX might even be weaker if the game uses one architecture more efficiently than the other when utilising all cores. It depends on the game really. I just can't think of one at the moment and want to know if you have something to back your statement. But I guess ignorance is bliss.

Im pretty sure the OP has given up with this topic now from all the bitching and moaning and petty squabbling... your like a bunch of old women sitting around drinking tea, eating cake arguing over what wool is better to make there tea cosies with!


I already know the OP chose the Intel platform and I have no problem with that.

For any mod that may be reading this, maybe splitting this topic would be a good idea.

#74 mrp04

mrp04

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 10-June 04

Posted 10 February 2013 - 02:20

Hahaha this thread is just hilarious. OP asked what to get for Gaming. Javik recommended the right processor (2500K if OP is looking to pay that much). How did this thread make it to 73 posts?

#75 TheExperiment

TheExperiment

    Reality Bomb

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 11-October 03
  • Location: Everywhere
  • OS: 8.1 x64

Posted 10 February 2013 - 02:33

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.

I still find the motherboard costs obscene on Intel boards, the cheaper ones have fewer PCI Express ports and fewer SATA6g ports than most AMD boards. If I was buying today I'd probably go back to AMD even knowing the performance isn't the absolute best.

(holy crap I didn't see all the other pages in here.)