• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

4 GB RAM - BF 4 stuttering a lot.

Joined
Oct 9, 2010
Messages
1,549 (0.31/day)
Location
Kolkata, India
System Name Coffee | Maximus
Processor Intel Core i7 9700K @ 5.2 GHz with AVX, 4.8 GHz cache clock | i7 9700KF @ 5.0 GHz/4.7 GHz cache
Motherboard ASUS Maximus X Formula | ASUS Maximus VIII Ranger (modded BIOS for Coffee Lake)+TPM2.0 module
Cooling Cooler Master ML240 Illusion | Cooler Master ML120L RGB
Memory 2*16 GB (32 GB) Kingston Fury Beast @3600 MHz CL17 | 4*8 GB (32 GB) HyperX Fury @3200 MHz CL14
Video Card(s) Zotac RTX 3070 8 GB Twin Edge | Galax RTX 2060 Super 8 GB
Storage Samsung PM981a 1TB NVMe+480GB SATA SSD+2 TB HDD | Crucial P5 1TB, Crucial P1 500GB+2.5TB HDDs
Display(s) LG OLED 55 G3, 4K 120 Hz, VRR, ALLM, GSync, FreeSync | Samsung 43AU9070 4K TV, VRR, ALLM
Case Corsair Crystal 460X RGB | Lianli Lancool 215
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster Z SE | Realtek ALC1150 (Supreme FX)
Power Supply ASUS ROG Strix 750G (80+ Gold) | Cooler Master MWE 650 V2 (80+ Bronze)
Mouse Cooler Master MM731 19000 DPI gaming mouse
Keyboard Cooler Master CK721 65% mechanical gaming keyboard (tactile)
Software Windows 11 Pro x64 |Windows 11 Pro x64
Benchmark Scores Cinebench R20 MT 4200,ST 547 CPU-Z MT 4871, ST 620 | R20 MT - 4158, ST - 534, CPU-Z MT 4798, ST 603
Might be, but why not just test stuff as you use them? Can you tell the difference in gaming (I imagine that's what you're interested in) between your stock memory and overclocked? If you can't tell the difference, the real life point goes away.

E-peen and group masturbation (or Internet Forums) is a different thing though.

Do you think I just trusted the benchmarks only and overclocked as much as I could?
I can show you how the FPS especially the minimum FPS increases with IMC clock increase and memory bandwidth. Also increasing the CPU/NB clock on AMD CPUs increases L3 cache performance too which IS needed by games and rendering wherever there is high memory use and frequent read/writes. Personally I know a friend who had the same CPU as mine but at absolutely stock and a GTX 460. Most games ran with a more consistent frame rate in my PC than his. He got the highest FPS more than me because he had a better GPU. But he had FPS drop issues in almost all games where I ran and still run everything much more stable and get a better experience than him. So yeah, benchmarks indeed are a reflection of the performance you get. Mind it I used the word reflection.

Also if I can ever get hold of a Phenom II x6 BE, I will overclock it and beat the 8350 black and blue.
 
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
3,427 (0.68/day)
System Name My baby
Processor Athlon II X4 620 @ 3.5GHz, 1.45v, NB @ 2700Mhz, HT @ 2700Mhz - 24hr prime95 stable
Motherboard Asus M4A785TD-V EVO
Cooling Sonic Tower Rev 2 with 120mm Akasa attached, Akasa @ Front, Xilence Red Wing 120mm @ Rear
Memory 8 GB G.Skills 1600Mhz
Video Card(s) ATI ASUS Crossfire 5850
Storage Crucial MX100 SATA 2.5 SSD
Display(s) Lenovo ThinkVision 27" (LEN P27h-10)
Case Antec VSK 2000 Black Tower Case
Audio Device(s) Onkyo TX-SR309 Receiver, 2x Kef Cresta 1, 1x Kef Center 20c
Power Supply OCZ StealthXstream II 600w, 4x12v/18A, 80% efficiency.
Software Windows 10 Professional 64-bit
Do you think I just trusted the benchmarks only and overclocked as much as I could?
I can show you how the FPS especially the minimum FPS increases with IMC clock increase and memory bandwidth. Also increasing the CPU/NB clock on AMD CPUs increases L3 cache performance too which IS needed by games and rendering wherever there is high memory use and frequent read/writes. Personally I know a friend who had the same CPU as mine but at absolutely stock and a GTX 460. Most games ran with a more consistent frame rate in my PC than his. He got the highest FPS more than me because he had a better GPU. But he had FPS drop issues in almost all games where I ran and still run everything much more stable and get a better experience than him. So yeah, benchmarks indeed are a reflection of the performance you get. Mind it I used the word reflection.

Also if I can ever get hold of a Phenom II x6 BE, I will overclock it and beat the 8350 black and blue.

Actually the L3 cache is very slow, its the slowest cache on a CPU and its plagued with high latencies. Look at an Phenom II VS Athlon II review. The Althon II is a Phenom II without L3 cache and it performs virtually the same. 5% difference on average.

Toms hardware:
The result is a 5.8% performance benefit for the Phenom II X4 versus the Athlon II X4 or a 5.5% performance decrease if you use the Phenom II X4 as the basis.
Some benchmarks benefit by 20%; others don’t benefit at all. Yet, the 5% to 6% aggregate performance difference is the number you should remember.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/athlon-l3-cache,2416-9.html



What makes you think a NB OC will overclock will increase performance much? Why would you want to access L3 cache any faster when we are aware L3 does little in the Phenom architecture.

Why would you want to get hold of an Phenom II x6 BE? When you can get hold of an FX X6 which overclocks up to 1GHz further?

What makes you think an overclocked Phenom II x6 BE would beat an FX 8350 black and blue?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 9, 2010
Messages
1,549 (0.31/day)
Location
Kolkata, India
System Name Coffee | Maximus
Processor Intel Core i7 9700K @ 5.2 GHz with AVX, 4.8 GHz cache clock | i7 9700KF @ 5.0 GHz/4.7 GHz cache
Motherboard ASUS Maximus X Formula | ASUS Maximus VIII Ranger (modded BIOS for Coffee Lake)+TPM2.0 module
Cooling Cooler Master ML240 Illusion | Cooler Master ML120L RGB
Memory 2*16 GB (32 GB) Kingston Fury Beast @3600 MHz CL17 | 4*8 GB (32 GB) HyperX Fury @3200 MHz CL14
Video Card(s) Zotac RTX 3070 8 GB Twin Edge | Galax RTX 2060 Super 8 GB
Storage Samsung PM981a 1TB NVMe+480GB SATA SSD+2 TB HDD | Crucial P5 1TB, Crucial P1 500GB+2.5TB HDDs
Display(s) LG OLED 55 G3, 4K 120 Hz, VRR, ALLM, GSync, FreeSync | Samsung 43AU9070 4K TV, VRR, ALLM
Case Corsair Crystal 460X RGB | Lianli Lancool 215
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster Z SE | Realtek ALC1150 (Supreme FX)
Power Supply ASUS ROG Strix 750G (80+ Gold) | Cooler Master MWE 650 V2 (80+ Bronze)
Mouse Cooler Master MM731 19000 DPI gaming mouse
Keyboard Cooler Master CK721 65% mechanical gaming keyboard (tactile)
Software Windows 11 Pro x64 |Windows 11 Pro x64
Benchmark Scores Cinebench R20 MT 4200,ST 547 CPU-Z MT 4871, ST 620 | R20 MT - 4158, ST - 534, CPU-Z MT 4798, ST 603
Actually the L3 cache is very slow, its the slowest cache on a CPU and its plagued with high latencies. Look at an Phenom II VS Athlon II review. The Althon II is a Phenom II without L3 cache and it performs virtually the same. 5% defence on average.

Toms hardware:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/athlon-l3-cache,2416-9.html



What makes you think a NB OC will overclock will increase performance much? Why would you want to access L3 cache any faster when we are aware L3 does little in the Phenom architecture.

Why would you want to get hold of an Phenom II x6 BE? When you can get hold of an FX X6 which overclocks up to 1GHz further?

What makes you think an overclocked Phenom II x6 BE would beat an FX 8350 black and blue?

Agreed die hard to your first point. Phenom II L3 cache is very slow. But what is wrong if I can increase it as much as possible? But talking about the 5% difference, keep in mind both of them are at stock. But when you overclock both, the L3 cache performance increases dramatically whereas there is no L3 cache at all in the Athlon IIs. If you can, try running AIDA 64 cache and memory benchmark in the latest stable release(3.20.2600). This is what I get.



If you search benchmarks, you will find those are awesome scores for a Phenom II and Value RAMs.

A stock Phenom II scores around 4000 points at stock in the 3D Mark 11 physics score. My Phenom II with the above OC scores above 5100 points.

As for the Phenom II X6 and the FX 8150, if you check this:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/203?vs=434

You will see inspite of having two cores less, 300-500 MHz less clock(Turbo clock difference) and without AES, AVX, FMA4 instruction sets, the Phenom II X6 1100T BE CPU performs almost identical to the FX 8150. In most benches, the FX 8150 may win but by a very slight margin.

Now coming to the point, the Phenom II X6s Thubans have a better architecture than the Denebs and their L3 cache is better than that of Denebs. The IMC and L3 cache of the FX is not that good. They don't like to OC above 100-200(max) MHz even with a very high voltage increase. A Phenom II X6 IMC can go as high as 3000-3200 MHz from 2000 MHz. And the X6 also overclocks well on the core clock at least 3.8-4.0 GHz. Now the thing is it is not all about overclocking. But it is a real shame on AMD and the FX lineup. An 8 core CPU developed some years later than that of a 6 core CPU should defeat the 6 core black and blue. Also keep in mind that a FX CPU requires a lot of voltage bump for overclocks. But even a bad Phenom II overclocks atleast 400-500 MHz at stock voltage. Having said all, I would rather keep a better 6 core than a crappy 8 core. The 63x0 and 83x0 are better though but still expected a lot more.
 

de.das.dude

Pro Indian Modder
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
8,756 (1.74/day)
Location
Stuck in a PC. halp.
System Name Monke | Work Thinkpad| Old Monke
Processor Ryzen 5600X | Ryzen 5500U | FX8320
Motherboard ASRock B550 Extreme4 | ? | Asrock 990FX Extreme 4
Cooling 240mm Rad | Not needed | hyper 212 EVO
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3600 Corsair RGB | 16 GB DDR4 3600 | 16GB DDR3 1600
Video Card(s) Sapphire Pulse RX6700XT 12GB | Vega 8 | Sapphire Pulse RX580 8GB
Storage Samsung 980 nvme (Primary) | some samsung SSD
Display(s) Dell 2723DS | Some 14" 1080p 98%sRGB IPS | Dell 2240L
Case Ant Esports Tempered case | Thinkpad | Antec
Audio Device(s) Logitech Z333 | Jabra corpo stuff
Power Supply Corsair RM750e | not needed | Corsair GS 600
Mouse Logitech G400 | nipple
Keyboard Logitech G213 | stock kb is awesome | Logitech K230
VR HMD ;_;
Software Windows 10 Professional x3
Benchmark Scores There are no marks on my bench
Joined
Oct 9, 2010
Messages
1,549 (0.31/day)
Location
Kolkata, India
System Name Coffee | Maximus
Processor Intel Core i7 9700K @ 5.2 GHz with AVX, 4.8 GHz cache clock | i7 9700KF @ 5.0 GHz/4.7 GHz cache
Motherboard ASUS Maximus X Formula | ASUS Maximus VIII Ranger (modded BIOS for Coffee Lake)+TPM2.0 module
Cooling Cooler Master ML240 Illusion | Cooler Master ML120L RGB
Memory 2*16 GB (32 GB) Kingston Fury Beast @3600 MHz CL17 | 4*8 GB (32 GB) HyperX Fury @3200 MHz CL14
Video Card(s) Zotac RTX 3070 8 GB Twin Edge | Galax RTX 2060 Super 8 GB
Storage Samsung PM981a 1TB NVMe+480GB SATA SSD+2 TB HDD | Crucial P5 1TB, Crucial P1 500GB+2.5TB HDDs
Display(s) LG OLED 55 G3, 4K 120 Hz, VRR, ALLM, GSync, FreeSync | Samsung 43AU9070 4K TV, VRR, ALLM
Case Corsair Crystal 460X RGB | Lianli Lancool 215
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster Z SE | Realtek ALC1150 (Supreme FX)
Power Supply ASUS ROG Strix 750G (80+ Gold) | Cooler Master MWE 650 V2 (80+ Bronze)
Mouse Cooler Master MM731 19000 DPI gaming mouse
Keyboard Cooler Master CK721 65% mechanical gaming keyboard (tactile)
Software Windows 11 Pro x64 |Windows 11 Pro x64
Benchmark Scores Cinebench R20 MT 4200,ST 547 CPU-Z MT 4871, ST 620 | R20 MT - 4158, ST - 534, CPU-Z MT 4798, ST 603
Joined
Oct 9, 2010
Messages
1,549 (0.31/day)
Location
Kolkata, India
System Name Coffee | Maximus
Processor Intel Core i7 9700K @ 5.2 GHz with AVX, 4.8 GHz cache clock | i7 9700KF @ 5.0 GHz/4.7 GHz cache
Motherboard ASUS Maximus X Formula | ASUS Maximus VIII Ranger (modded BIOS for Coffee Lake)+TPM2.0 module
Cooling Cooler Master ML240 Illusion | Cooler Master ML120L RGB
Memory 2*16 GB (32 GB) Kingston Fury Beast @3600 MHz CL17 | 4*8 GB (32 GB) HyperX Fury @3200 MHz CL14
Video Card(s) Zotac RTX 3070 8 GB Twin Edge | Galax RTX 2060 Super 8 GB
Storage Samsung PM981a 1TB NVMe+480GB SATA SSD+2 TB HDD | Crucial P5 1TB, Crucial P1 500GB+2.5TB HDDs
Display(s) LG OLED 55 G3, 4K 120 Hz, VRR, ALLM, GSync, FreeSync | Samsung 43AU9070 4K TV, VRR, ALLM
Case Corsair Crystal 460X RGB | Lianli Lancool 215
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster Z SE | Realtek ALC1150 (Supreme FX)
Power Supply ASUS ROG Strix 750G (80+ Gold) | Cooler Master MWE 650 V2 (80+ Bronze)
Mouse Cooler Master MM731 19000 DPI gaming mouse
Keyboard Cooler Master CK721 65% mechanical gaming keyboard (tactile)
Software Windows 11 Pro x64 |Windows 11 Pro x64
Benchmark Scores Cinebench R20 MT 4200,ST 547 CPU-Z MT 4871, ST 620 | R20 MT - 4158, ST - 534, CPU-Z MT 4798, ST 603
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
3,427 (0.68/day)
System Name My baby
Processor Athlon II X4 620 @ 3.5GHz, 1.45v, NB @ 2700Mhz, HT @ 2700Mhz - 24hr prime95 stable
Motherboard Asus M4A785TD-V EVO
Cooling Sonic Tower Rev 2 with 120mm Akasa attached, Akasa @ Front, Xilence Red Wing 120mm @ Rear
Memory 8 GB G.Skills 1600Mhz
Video Card(s) ATI ASUS Crossfire 5850
Storage Crucial MX100 SATA 2.5 SSD
Display(s) Lenovo ThinkVision 27" (LEN P27h-10)
Case Antec VSK 2000 Black Tower Case
Audio Device(s) Onkyo TX-SR309 Receiver, 2x Kef Cresta 1, 1x Kef Center 20c
Power Supply OCZ StealthXstream II 600w, 4x12v/18A, 80% efficiency.
Software Windows 10 Professional 64-bit
Agreed die hard to your first point. Phenom II L3 cache is very slow. But what is wrong if I can increase it as much as possible? But talking about the 5% difference, keep in mind both of them are at stock. But when you overclock both, the L3 cache performance increases dramatically whereas there is no L3 cache at all in the Athlon IIs. If you can, try running AIDA 64 cache and memory benchmark in the latest stable release(3.20.2600). This is what I get.

They both were not running at stock. They down clocked the Phenom II to 2.6GHz to match the Athlon II X4 @ 2.6GHz so only the L3 cache is a factor in the results.


You will see inspite of having two cores less, 300-500 MHz less clock(Turbo clock difference) and without AES, AVX, FMA4 instruction sets, the Phenom II X6 1100T BE CPU performs almost identical to the FX 8150. In most benches, the FX 8150 may win but by a very slight margin.

Now coming to the point, the Phenom II X6s Thubans have a better architecture than the Denebs and their L3 cache is better than that of Denebs. The IMC and L3 cache of the FX is not that good. They don't like to OC above 100-200(max) MHz even with a very high voltage increase. A Phenom II X6 IMC can go as high as 3000-3200 MHz from 2000 MHz. And the X6 also overclocks well on the core clock at least 3.8-4.0 GHz. Now the thing is it is not all about overclocking. But it is a real shame on AMD and the FX lineup. An 8 core CPU developed some years later than that of a 6 core CPU should defeat the 6 core black and blue. Also keep in mind that a FX CPU requires a lot of voltage bump for overclocks. But even a bad Phenom II overclocks atleast 400-500 MHz at stock voltage. Having said all, I would rather keep a better 6 core than a crappy 8 core. The 63x0 and 83x0 are better though but still expected a lot more.

As for the Phenom II X6 and the FX 8150, if you check this:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/203?vs=434

The FX 8350 is the newer Piledriver and FX 8150 is the older Bulldozer, they are different.

That link shows the FX 8150 out beating the Phenom II X6 easily.

Most of the results are time based. "Time in seconds" to complete render, compression or encode. For time based activities the larger the file the longer the gap will be. For example Windows Media Encoder 9 the result was 28 seconds for the Phenom II X6 and 25 seconds for the FX 8150. If you are looking it ignorant eyes you will think that is a small gap of 3 seconds, but for encoding to finish that fast you must be dealing with extremely small video file, maybe 10MB or something unrealistically small. If your job was to convert and encode movie files you could be dealing with high definition files which are 8GB each. Now the Phenom II X6 could be 70 mins slower rather than 3 seconds slower.




Why did you only post 5 pages. The review has many more pages you conveniently left out.

Count how many the FX 8150 won in comparsion to the Phenom II X6. The FX8150 won the majority by a landslide overall, at worst it performed virtually the same, the few tasks which favoured the Phenom II X6 was only by slight margin, whereas the ones which favoured the FX were by a huge margin.

Also I've already explained about how "time based" benchmarks work. The larger the file the greater the distance. I'm not going to explain it again.



This thread started with you being humble and asking genuine questions for knowledge. Now it appears you are only here to validate your Phenom II X4 as being better than the FX. You obviously know better than us so no need to convince us.
 
Last edited:

de.das.dude

Pro Indian Modder
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
8,756 (1.74/day)
Location
Stuck in a PC. halp.
System Name Monke | Work Thinkpad| Old Monke
Processor Ryzen 5600X | Ryzen 5500U | FX8320
Motherboard ASRock B550 Extreme4 | ? | Asrock 990FX Extreme 4
Cooling 240mm Rad | Not needed | hyper 212 EVO
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3600 Corsair RGB | 16 GB DDR4 3600 | 16GB DDR3 1600
Video Card(s) Sapphire Pulse RX6700XT 12GB | Vega 8 | Sapphire Pulse RX580 8GB
Storage Samsung 980 nvme (Primary) | some samsung SSD
Display(s) Dell 2723DS | Some 14" 1080p 98%sRGB IPS | Dell 2240L
Case Ant Esports Tempered case | Thinkpad | Antec
Audio Device(s) Logitech Z333 | Jabra corpo stuff
Power Supply Corsair RM750e | not needed | Corsair GS 600
Mouse Logitech G400 | nipple
Keyboard Logitech G213 | stock kb is awesome | Logitech K230
VR HMD ;_;
Software Windows 10 Professional x3
Benchmark Scores There are no marks on my bench
also whats the use of comparing an 8150. let the dead rest in peace.

and there is a good lot of improvements with the new series.


and benchmarks only tell your "that much".

real world is a lot difference.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2010
Messages
1,549 (0.31/day)
Location
Kolkata, India
System Name Coffee | Maximus
Processor Intel Core i7 9700K @ 5.2 GHz with AVX, 4.8 GHz cache clock | i7 9700KF @ 5.0 GHz/4.7 GHz cache
Motherboard ASUS Maximus X Formula | ASUS Maximus VIII Ranger (modded BIOS for Coffee Lake)+TPM2.0 module
Cooling Cooler Master ML240 Illusion | Cooler Master ML120L RGB
Memory 2*16 GB (32 GB) Kingston Fury Beast @3600 MHz CL17 | 4*8 GB (32 GB) HyperX Fury @3200 MHz CL14
Video Card(s) Zotac RTX 3070 8 GB Twin Edge | Galax RTX 2060 Super 8 GB
Storage Samsung PM981a 1TB NVMe+480GB SATA SSD+2 TB HDD | Crucial P5 1TB, Crucial P1 500GB+2.5TB HDDs
Display(s) LG OLED 55 G3, 4K 120 Hz, VRR, ALLM, GSync, FreeSync | Samsung 43AU9070 4K TV, VRR, ALLM
Case Corsair Crystal 460X RGB | Lianli Lancool 215
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster Z SE | Realtek ALC1150 (Supreme FX)
Power Supply ASUS ROG Strix 750G (80+ Gold) | Cooler Master MWE 650 V2 (80+ Bronze)
Mouse Cooler Master MM731 19000 DPI gaming mouse
Keyboard Cooler Master CK721 65% mechanical gaming keyboard (tactile)
Software Windows 11 Pro x64 |Windows 11 Pro x64
Benchmark Scores Cinebench R20 MT 4200,ST 547 CPU-Z MT 4871, ST 620 | R20 MT - 4158, ST - 534, CPU-Z MT 4798, ST 603
They both were not running at stock. They down clocked the Phenom II to 2.6GHz to match the Athlon II X4 @ 2.6GHz so only the L3 cache is a factor in the results.




The FX 8350 is the newer Piledriver and FX 8150 is the older Bulldozer, they are different.

That link shows the FX 8150 out beating the Phenom II X6 easily.

Most of the results are time based. "Time in seconds" to complete render, compression or encode. For time based activities the larger the file the longer the gap will be. For example Windows Media Encoder 9 the result was 28 seconds for the Phenom II X6 and 25 seconds for the FX 8150. If you are looking it ignorant eyes you will think that is a small gap of 3 seconds, but for encoding to finish that fast you must be dealing with extremely small video file, maybe 10MB or something unrealistically small. If your job was to convert and encode movie files you could be dealing with high definition files which are 8GB each. Now the Phenom II X6 could be 70 mins slower rather than 3 seconds slower.





Why did you only post 5 pages. The review has many more pages you conveniently left out.

Count how many the FX 8150 won in comparsion to the Phenom II X6. The FX8150 won the majority by a landslide overall, at worst it performed virtually the same, the few tasks which favoured the Phenom II X6 was only by slight margin, whereas the ones which favoured the FX were by a huge margin.

Also I've already explained about how "time based" benchmarks work. The larger the file the greater the distance. I'm not going to explain it again.



This thread started with you being humble and asking genuine questions for knowledge. Now it appears you are only here to validate your Phenom II X4 as being better than the FX. You obviously know better than us so no need to convince us.

Ok agreed I am indeed wrong. But compare a FX 4350 to a Phenom II X4. And I am not saying that I am right and I am Mr. Know it all. This is a debate remember and debates are all about arguments.

Coming to the point, all I wanted to say is that I am not convinced with the FX architecture.
If you compare a FX 4300 and a Phenom II X4 980BE, you will see inspite of having a much higher clock rate, newer instruction sets and developed some years later, the FX 4300 looses horribly to the 980BE.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/700?vs=362

This is why I am saying that FX needs a revamp in the architecture and at the present scenario, someone not having a computer but who saw a friend playing on a Phenom II X4 980BE can not buy a CPU at a similar price at what his friend got the Phenom II. And what technology should be like? It should improve even if the cost is kept constant right?

And thanks very much for explaining me the benchmark. I never thought of the file size and time part previously. Thanks a lot.
 

de.das.dude

Pro Indian Modder
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
8,756 (1.74/day)
Location
Stuck in a PC. halp.
System Name Monke | Work Thinkpad| Old Monke
Processor Ryzen 5600X | Ryzen 5500U | FX8320
Motherboard ASRock B550 Extreme4 | ? | Asrock 990FX Extreme 4
Cooling 240mm Rad | Not needed | hyper 212 EVO
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3600 Corsair RGB | 16 GB DDR4 3600 | 16GB DDR3 1600
Video Card(s) Sapphire Pulse RX6700XT 12GB | Vega 8 | Sapphire Pulse RX580 8GB
Storage Samsung 980 nvme (Primary) | some samsung SSD
Display(s) Dell 2723DS | Some 14" 1080p 98%sRGB IPS | Dell 2240L
Case Ant Esports Tempered case | Thinkpad | Antec
Audio Device(s) Logitech Z333 | Jabra corpo stuff
Power Supply Corsair RM750e | not needed | Corsair GS 600
Mouse Logitech G400 | nipple
Keyboard Logitech G213 | stock kb is awesome | Logitech K230
VR HMD ;_;
Software Windows 10 Professional x3
Benchmark Scores There are no marks on my bench
Ok agreed I am indeed wrong. But compare a FX 4350 to a Phenom II X4. And I am not saying that I am right and I am Mr. Know it all. This is a debate remember and debates are all about arguments.

Coming to the point, all I wanted to say is that I am not convinced with the FX architecture.
If you compare a FX 4300 and a Phenom II X4 980BE, you will see inspite of having a much higher clock rate, newer instruction sets and developed some years later, the FX 4300 looses horribly to the 980BE.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/700?vs=362

This is why I am saying that FX needs a revamp in the architecture and at the present scenario, someone not having a computer but who saw a friend playing on a Phenom II X4 980BE can not buy a CPU at a similar price at what his friend got the Phenom II. And what technology should be like? It should improve even if the cost is kept constant right?

And thanks very much for explaining me the benchmark. I never thought of the file size and time part previously. Thanks a lot.

you need to consider the costs of production. money makes everything happen.
if the R9 290X is so much more succesful than the titan, its not because of the money, but because of the fact that it does so at half the costs.

newer generation does not just mean blind performance. its performance for how much.

given an unlimited pricetag anyone can build mammoth processors, but that does not happen because ultimately behind every product you need to consider the price bracket, demand, market, etc...

also AMD has never really wanted to go for performance, they always go for affordable performance.
 
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
3,427 (0.68/day)
System Name My baby
Processor Athlon II X4 620 @ 3.5GHz, 1.45v, NB @ 2700Mhz, HT @ 2700Mhz - 24hr prime95 stable
Motherboard Asus M4A785TD-V EVO
Cooling Sonic Tower Rev 2 with 120mm Akasa attached, Akasa @ Front, Xilence Red Wing 120mm @ Rear
Memory 8 GB G.Skills 1600Mhz
Video Card(s) ATI ASUS Crossfire 5850
Storage Crucial MX100 SATA 2.5 SSD
Display(s) Lenovo ThinkVision 27" (LEN P27h-10)
Case Antec VSK 2000 Black Tower Case
Audio Device(s) Onkyo TX-SR309 Receiver, 2x Kef Cresta 1, 1x Kef Center 20c
Power Supply OCZ StealthXstream II 600w, 4x12v/18A, 80% efficiency.
Software Windows 10 Professional 64-bit
Ok agreed I am indeed wrong. But compare a FX 4350 to a Phenom II X4. And I am not saying that I am right and I am Mr. Know it all. This is a debate remember and debates are all about arguments.

Coming to the point, all I wanted to say is that I am not convinced with the FX architecture.
If you compare a FX 4300 and a Phenom II X4 980BE, you will see inspite of having a much higher clock rate, newer instruction sets and developed some years later, the FX 4300 looses horribly to the 980BE.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/700?vs=362

This is why I am saying that FX needs a revamp in the architecture and at the present scenario, someone not having a computer but who saw a friend playing on a Phenom II X4 980BE can not buy a CPU at a similar price at what his friend got the Phenom II. And what technology should be like? It should improve even if the cost is kept constant right?

And thanks very much for explaining me the benchmark. I never thought of the file size and time part previously. Thanks a lot.


The Phenom II X4 series was marketed as an enthusiast grade components on release, with the Phenom II X2 and X3 being mainstream.

The FX 4xxx series was marketed as mainstream on release. It was never intended for you to upgrade from a Phenom II X4 to a FX 4xxx. No enthusiast would willingly go from a high end product to a low end product.

Also the FX architecture was built with multi threading in mind so it supposed to scale with more modules added, the sharing of data between each modules making distribution of resources efficient. With 3 modules missing on the FX 4xxx its unable to do its primary function and thus yields mediocre both single threading and multi threading performance. But its a low end CPU so who cares?

Your argument like saying why is the new R7 260X slower than a 4 year old 5870. The R7s architecture is obviously better, but for it to be sold as a cheap mainstream product it has to perform as so.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 9, 2010
Messages
1,549 (0.31/day)
Location
Kolkata, India
System Name Coffee | Maximus
Processor Intel Core i7 9700K @ 5.2 GHz with AVX, 4.8 GHz cache clock | i7 9700KF @ 5.0 GHz/4.7 GHz cache
Motherboard ASUS Maximus X Formula | ASUS Maximus VIII Ranger (modded BIOS for Coffee Lake)+TPM2.0 module
Cooling Cooler Master ML240 Illusion | Cooler Master ML120L RGB
Memory 2*16 GB (32 GB) Kingston Fury Beast @3600 MHz CL17 | 4*8 GB (32 GB) HyperX Fury @3200 MHz CL14
Video Card(s) Zotac RTX 3070 8 GB Twin Edge | Galax RTX 2060 Super 8 GB
Storage Samsung PM981a 1TB NVMe+480GB SATA SSD+2 TB HDD | Crucial P5 1TB, Crucial P1 500GB+2.5TB HDDs
Display(s) LG OLED 55 G3, 4K 120 Hz, VRR, ALLM, GSync, FreeSync | Samsung 43AU9070 4K TV, VRR, ALLM
Case Corsair Crystal 460X RGB | Lianli Lancool 215
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster Z SE | Realtek ALC1150 (Supreme FX)
Power Supply ASUS ROG Strix 750G (80+ Gold) | Cooler Master MWE 650 V2 (80+ Bronze)
Mouse Cooler Master MM731 19000 DPI gaming mouse
Keyboard Cooler Master CK721 65% mechanical gaming keyboard (tactile)
Software Windows 11 Pro x64 |Windows 11 Pro x64
Benchmark Scores Cinebench R20 MT 4200,ST 547 CPU-Z MT 4871, ST 620 | R20 MT - 4158, ST - 534, CPU-Z MT 4798, ST 603
you need to consider the costs of production. money makes everything happen.
if the R9 290X is so much more succesful than the titan, its not because of the money, but because of the fact that it does so at half the costs.

newer generation does not just mean blind performance. its performance for how much.

given an unlimited pricetag anyone can build mammoth processors, but that does not happen because ultimately behind every product you need to consider the price bracket, demand, market, etc...

also AMD has never really wanted to go for performance, they always go for affordable performance.

I agree man. Wholeheartedly to all you mentioned. But the thing is here in India where you live too, not everyone can afford 10,000 Rs for the CPU. The thing I am saying is not only me. Some time back, if someone had a budget of around Rs 6500-7000 Rs, he/she would choose a Phenom II X4 9xx over a FX 41xx(same time of the last Phenoms) any day but now they can't because the older Phenom IIs are no longer available. Now talking about cost, they both cost the same initially and people literally bought a Phenom II instead of FX when they were available. But after sometime, they were forced to buy a FX 41xx. 43xx improved a bit but sadly not what anyone should expect.

Coming to the R9 290X, yes they are priced very well and gives excellent performance even when compared to a more expensive part from NVIDIA. That is why they are and will make a good market.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2010
Messages
1,549 (0.31/day)
Location
Kolkata, India
System Name Coffee | Maximus
Processor Intel Core i7 9700K @ 5.2 GHz with AVX, 4.8 GHz cache clock | i7 9700KF @ 5.0 GHz/4.7 GHz cache
Motherboard ASUS Maximus X Formula | ASUS Maximus VIII Ranger (modded BIOS for Coffee Lake)+TPM2.0 module
Cooling Cooler Master ML240 Illusion | Cooler Master ML120L RGB
Memory 2*16 GB (32 GB) Kingston Fury Beast @3600 MHz CL17 | 4*8 GB (32 GB) HyperX Fury @3200 MHz CL14
Video Card(s) Zotac RTX 3070 8 GB Twin Edge | Galax RTX 2060 Super 8 GB
Storage Samsung PM981a 1TB NVMe+480GB SATA SSD+2 TB HDD | Crucial P5 1TB, Crucial P1 500GB+2.5TB HDDs
Display(s) LG OLED 55 G3, 4K 120 Hz, VRR, ALLM, GSync, FreeSync | Samsung 43AU9070 4K TV, VRR, ALLM
Case Corsair Crystal 460X RGB | Lianli Lancool 215
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster Z SE | Realtek ALC1150 (Supreme FX)
Power Supply ASUS ROG Strix 750G (80+ Gold) | Cooler Master MWE 650 V2 (80+ Bronze)
Mouse Cooler Master MM731 19000 DPI gaming mouse
Keyboard Cooler Master CK721 65% mechanical gaming keyboard (tactile)
Software Windows 11 Pro x64 |Windows 11 Pro x64
Benchmark Scores Cinebench R20 MT 4200,ST 547 CPU-Z MT 4871, ST 620 | R20 MT - 4158, ST - 534, CPU-Z MT 4798, ST 603
The Phenom II X4 series was marketed as an enthusiast grade components on release, with the Phenom II X2 and X3 being mainstream.

The FX 4xxx series was marketed as mainstream on release. It was never intended for you to upgrade from a Phenom II X4 to a FX 4xxx. No enthusiast would willingly go from a high end product to a low end product.

Your argument like saying why is the new R7 260X slower than a 4 year old 5870. The R7s architecture is obviously better, but for it to be sold as a cheap mainstream product it has to perform as so.

Kinda true. But ultimately, the Phenoms came down in the price and in sometime, the FX 4100 and the Phenom II costed the same. Yet Phenoms gave better performance.
And coming to GPUs, even when the 5870 was being phased out of the market it was much more expensive than the now priced R 7 260X. And in India, that cost is more pronounced because of the 1$ = 55-60 Rs + value.

Now if you compare a GPU available now at slightly less than the last retail price of 5870, that new GPU will definitely perform better than the 5870.

In one word, I am not happy with the way AMD developed the FX. I think they could have done better in the same cost or even if they raised the cost slightly. I mean look, AMDs best selling CPUs were their Phenom lineup because they performed very well when compared to Intel counterparts at that time.
 
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
3,427 (0.68/day)
System Name My baby
Processor Athlon II X4 620 @ 3.5GHz, 1.45v, NB @ 2700Mhz, HT @ 2700Mhz - 24hr prime95 stable
Motherboard Asus M4A785TD-V EVO
Cooling Sonic Tower Rev 2 with 120mm Akasa attached, Akasa @ Front, Xilence Red Wing 120mm @ Rear
Memory 8 GB G.Skills 1600Mhz
Video Card(s) ATI ASUS Crossfire 5850
Storage Crucial MX100 SATA 2.5 SSD
Display(s) Lenovo ThinkVision 27" (LEN P27h-10)
Case Antec VSK 2000 Black Tower Case
Audio Device(s) Onkyo TX-SR309 Receiver, 2x Kef Cresta 1, 1x Kef Center 20c
Power Supply OCZ StealthXstream II 600w, 4x12v/18A, 80% efficiency.
Software Windows 10 Professional 64-bit
Kinda true. But ultimately, the Phenoms came down in the price and in sometime, the FX 4100 and the Phenom II costed the same. Yet Phenoms gave better performance.
And coming to GPUs, even when the 5870 was being phased out of the market it was much more expensive than the now priced R 7 260X. And in India, that cost is more pronounced because of the 1$ = 55-60 Rs + value.

Now if you compare a GPU available now at slightly less than the last retail price of 5870, that new GPU will definitely perform better than the 5870.

The phenom II only came down in price so they could sell the inventory to ultimately discontinue it to make room for the FX range. having two competing ranges in the market place is bad for business.

What would you rather they up the price of the remaining Phenom II 4x stock? That would make no sense as it'll be priced to similar to the FX 6xxx range which is clearly superior.


The 5870 has to cost more, its was a high end product at one time #1 before the 5970, R7 260X is a midrange product.


In one word, I am not happy with the way AMD developed the FX. I think they could have done better in the same cost or even if they raised the cost slightly. I mean look, AMDs best selling CPUs were their Phenom lineup because they performed very well when compared to Intel counterparts at that time

AMD's best selling processors are their desktop and mobile APUs.

AMD's best performing processors was between 1998-2005 with their Athlon, Duron and Sempron series. They didn't sell very well.

AMD doesn't compete well with Intel? Look back at that Guru of 3D review you posted the FX 8150 is consistently beating the i7 965 and sometimes out performing the 2500k and 2600k. If that isn't competition what is?

Read some reviews the FX 8350 competes with Core i5-3470 and the 3570K in multi threaded tasks for cheaper, and competes with the i3-3225 in single threaded tasks.

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14
 

FreedomEclipse

~Technological Technocrat~
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
23,310 (3.77/day)
Location
London,UK
System Name Codename: Icarus Mk.VI
Processor Intel 8600k@Stock -- pending tuning
Motherboard Asus ROG Strixx Z370-F
Cooling CPU: BeQuiet! Dark Rock Pro 4 {1xCorsair ML120 Pro|5xML140 Pro}
Memory 32GB XPG Gammix D10 {2x16GB}
Video Card(s) ASUS Dual Radeon™ RX 6700 XT OC Edition
Storage Samsung 970 Evo 512GB SSD (Boot)|WD SN770 (Gaming)|2x 3TB Toshiba DT01ACA300|2x 2TB Crucial BX500
Display(s) LG GP850-B
Case Corsair 760T (White)
Audio Device(s) Yamaha RX-V573|Speakers: JBL Control One|Auna 300-CN|Wharfedale Diamond SW150
Power Supply Corsair AX760
Mouse Logitech G900
Keyboard Duckyshine Dead LED(s) III
Software Windows 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores (ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
<snip> I mean look, AMDs best selling CPUs were their Phenom lineup because they performed very well when compared to Intel counterparts at that time.

Not really. a E8400 clocked to 3Ghz will out pace a X4 9550 in most tests and E8400's can hit 4Ghz easily and I can only think how far the gap would be between the 2 CPUs when it is OC'd.

In some tests even the older E6850 performed better

Going by bit-techs massive CPU bench review

Obviously there are tests where a dual core cant compete with a multi-core processor but Intels dual core's really put on a good show and even beat out the Phenoms in a few file compression and encoding tests.

AMD Phenoms used more power than Intels C2D but they were priced very competitively otherwise the only people who would buy them are fan boys.
 
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
3,427 (0.68/day)
System Name My baby
Processor Athlon II X4 620 @ 3.5GHz, 1.45v, NB @ 2700Mhz, HT @ 2700Mhz - 24hr prime95 stable
Motherboard Asus M4A785TD-V EVO
Cooling Sonic Tower Rev 2 with 120mm Akasa attached, Akasa @ Front, Xilence Red Wing 120mm @ Rear
Memory 8 GB G.Skills 1600Mhz
Video Card(s) ATI ASUS Crossfire 5850
Storage Crucial MX100 SATA 2.5 SSD
Display(s) Lenovo ThinkVision 27" (LEN P27h-10)
Case Antec VSK 2000 Black Tower Case
Audio Device(s) Onkyo TX-SR309 Receiver, 2x Kef Cresta 1, 1x Kef Center 20c
Power Supply OCZ StealthXstream II 600w, 4x12v/18A, 80% efficiency.
Software Windows 10 Professional 64-bit
AMDs best selling CPUs were their Phenom lineup because they performed very well when compared to Intel counterparts at that time.


Not really. a E8400 clocked to 3Ghz will out pace a X4 9550 in most tests and E8400's can hit 4Ghz easily and I can only think how far the gap would be between the 2 CPUs when it is OC'd.

In some tests even the older E6850 performed better

Going by bit-techs massive CPU bench review

Obviously there are tests where a dual core cant compete with a multi-core processor but Intels dual core's really put on a good show and even beat out the Phenoms in a few file compression and encoding tests.

AMD Phenoms used more power than Intels C2D but they were priced very competitively otherwise the only people who would buy them are fan boys.

Agreed.

The Phenom Agena couldn't offer much performance competition for the Core 2 series.

It was only when the Pheneom II Deneb with its refinements that it could compete with Core 2 series. i.e. Phenom II X2 5xx vs E8xxx or Phenom II X4 9xxx vs Q9xxx And even then the E8xxx series would outperform Phenom II and Intel's own Q9xxx series because applications just favoured the dual cores. It was only when applications became more intensive naturally we saw the E8xxx begin to trail in benchmarks, but this took a couple of years.
 
Joined
Jan 29, 2012
Messages
6,402 (1.44/day)
Location
Florida
System Name natr0n-PC
Processor Ryzen 5950x/5600x
Motherboard B450 AORUS M
Cooling EK AIO - 6 fan action
Memory Patriot - Viper Steel DDR4 (B-Die)(4x8GB)
Video Card(s) EVGA 3070ti FTW
Storage Various
Display(s) PIXIO IPS 240Hz 1080P
Case Thermaltake Level 20 VT
Audio Device(s) LOXJIE D10 + Kinter Amp + 6 Bookshelf Speakers Sony+JVC+Sony
Power Supply Super Flower Leadex III ARGB 80+ Gold 650W
Software XP/7/8.1/10
Benchmark Scores http://valid.x86.fr/79kuh6
Thread has turned into CPU History 101 .
 
Joined
Dec 6, 2008
Messages
3,014 (0.54/day)
Location
Northampton,UK
System Name Jaffakeik
Processor I9 12900K
Motherboard MSI Pro B660M-A WIFI DDR4
Cooling Arctic Liquid Freezer II High Performance CPU Water cooler- 240mm
Memory Corsair Vengeance LPX Black 32GB (2x16GB) 3600
Video Card(s) 7900XTX gigabyte OC edition
Storage WD Black SN770 1TB SSD M.2 2280 NVME x2
Display(s) TV LG C2
Case Phanteks Enthoo Pro 2 Full Tower Case Tempered
Audio Device(s) Mother board + Sennhiser HD650+ Elgato wave xlr + shure SM7B
Power Supply EVGA 1600w G+
Mouse Glorious Model 0
Keyboard Corsair RBG mini K65 + Steelseries Apex150
Software Windows 11
Benchmark Scores over 9000
BF3 is good with 6gb aswell atleast for my old build it was no problem.Dont know about bf4 never played it.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2010
Messages
1,549 (0.31/day)
Location
Kolkata, India
System Name Coffee | Maximus
Processor Intel Core i7 9700K @ 5.2 GHz with AVX, 4.8 GHz cache clock | i7 9700KF @ 5.0 GHz/4.7 GHz cache
Motherboard ASUS Maximus X Formula | ASUS Maximus VIII Ranger (modded BIOS for Coffee Lake)+TPM2.0 module
Cooling Cooler Master ML240 Illusion | Cooler Master ML120L RGB
Memory 2*16 GB (32 GB) Kingston Fury Beast @3600 MHz CL17 | 4*8 GB (32 GB) HyperX Fury @3200 MHz CL14
Video Card(s) Zotac RTX 3070 8 GB Twin Edge | Galax RTX 2060 Super 8 GB
Storage Samsung PM981a 1TB NVMe+480GB SATA SSD+2 TB HDD | Crucial P5 1TB, Crucial P1 500GB+2.5TB HDDs
Display(s) LG OLED 55 G3, 4K 120 Hz, VRR, ALLM, GSync, FreeSync | Samsung 43AU9070 4K TV, VRR, ALLM
Case Corsair Crystal 460X RGB | Lianli Lancool 215
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster Z SE | Realtek ALC1150 (Supreme FX)
Power Supply ASUS ROG Strix 750G (80+ Gold) | Cooler Master MWE 650 V2 (80+ Bronze)
Mouse Cooler Master MM731 19000 DPI gaming mouse
Keyboard Cooler Master CK721 65% mechanical gaming keyboard (tactile)
Software Windows 11 Pro x64 |Windows 11 Pro x64
Benchmark Scores Cinebench R20 MT 4200,ST 547 CPU-Z MT 4871, ST 620 | R20 MT - 4158, ST - 534, CPU-Z MT 4798, ST 603
The phenom II only came down in price so they could sell the inventory to ultimately discontinue it to make room for the FX range. having two competing ranges in the market place is bad for business.

What would you rather they up the price of the remaining Phenom II 4x stock? That would make no sense as it'll be priced to similar to the FX 6xxx range which is clearly superior.


The 5870 has to cost more, its was a high end product at one time #1 before the 5970, R7 260X is a midrange product.




AMD's best selling processors are their desktop and mobile APUs.

AMD's best performing processors was between 1998-2005 with their Athlon, Duron and Sempron series. They didn't sell very well.

AMD doesn't compete well with Intel? Look back at that Guru of 3D review you posted the FX 8150 is consistently beating the i7 965 and sometimes out performing the 2500k and 2600k. If that isn't competition what is?

Read some reviews the FX 8350 competes with Core i5-3470 and the 3570K in multi threaded tasks for cheaper, and competes with the i3-3225 in single threaded tasks.

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14

You are not getting my point. I wholeheartedly agree with you. But ain't it bad for the customers who had to buy a new yet inferior product? And in the FX lineup, they are playing a number game. More clock speed is not everything. The FX needs serious IPC improvements. And when every manufacturers are reducing power usage in all their products, AMD is coming up with 125W CPUs. I mean if you compare 1st gen and 3rd gen Intel i3, i5, i7 i.e. the same time between the Phenom II X4 and FX 4xxx, the performance increase of Intel is much more pronounced than AMD and that too with a lower power consumption.

True the 8350 "competes" with the Core i5s you mentioned. But if you keep the business aside i.e. forget the cost. Technologically speaking, ain't it bad for AMD that even with 8 cores clocked at a much higher clock rate and using more power, still it can't defeat a much lower clocked Intel quad core which consumes much lower power! Look even if AMD decided to pack some more expected performance to the FX WITH some extra cost and even if the FX 83xx were priced higher than the Intel counterparts, everyone would have bought it without thinking much. Those buying Intels then would have been fanboys.

I think this discussion can be ended now. It is personal preference. I expected much better performance from the FX series.
 
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
3,427 (0.68/day)
System Name My baby
Processor Athlon II X4 620 @ 3.5GHz, 1.45v, NB @ 2700Mhz, HT @ 2700Mhz - 24hr prime95 stable
Motherboard Asus M4A785TD-V EVO
Cooling Sonic Tower Rev 2 with 120mm Akasa attached, Akasa @ Front, Xilence Red Wing 120mm @ Rear
Memory 8 GB G.Skills 1600Mhz
Video Card(s) ATI ASUS Crossfire 5850
Storage Crucial MX100 SATA 2.5 SSD
Display(s) Lenovo ThinkVision 27" (LEN P27h-10)
Case Antec VSK 2000 Black Tower Case
Audio Device(s) Onkyo TX-SR309 Receiver, 2x Kef Cresta 1, 1x Kef Center 20c
Power Supply OCZ StealthXstream II 600w, 4x12v/18A, 80% efficiency.
Software Windows 10 Professional 64-bit
You are not getting my point. I wholeheartedly agree with you. But ain't it bad for the customers who had to buy a new yet inferior product?

Had to buy? Nobody forces you to buy a FX 4xxx. If you don't want an inferior product get the FX 63xxx or FX 8xxx.


And in the FX lineup, they are playing a number game. More clock speed is not everything. The FX needs serious IPC improvements. And when every manufacturers are reducing power usage in all their products, AMD is coming up with 125W CPUs.


What are you talking about? There are 95W FX's



I mean if you compare 1st gen and 3rd gen Intel i3, i5, i7 i.e. the same time between the Phenom II X4 and FX 4xxx, the performance increase of Intel is much more pronounced than AMD and that too with a lower power consumption.

The difference between Ivy Bridge and Haswell was relatively small.

Intel changed sockets like 4 times screwing their customers so they can't upgrade to the latest components.

AMD gave us backward compatibility across all the generations. So you can drop a FX 8xxx in a 2006 AM2+ motherboard.


True the 8350 "competes" with the Core i5s you mentioned. But if you keep the business aside i.e. forget the cost. Technologically speaking, ain't it bad for AMD that even with 8 cores clocked at a much higher clock rate and using more power, still it can't defeat a much lower clocked Intel quad core which consumes much lower power! Look even if AMD decided to pack some more expected performance to the FX WITH some extra cost and even if the FX 83xx were priced higher than the Intel counterparts, everyone would have bought it without thinking much. Those buying Intels then would have been fanboys.

I think this discussion can be ended now. It is personal preference. I expected much better performance from the FX series.


Actually the FX 8350 CAN compete with core i7-3770k and i7-3960x too in multi threaded tasks. You would know this if you read the link I gave.








 

Aquinus

Resident Wat-man
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
13,147 (2.96/day)
Location
Concord, NH, USA
System Name Apollo
Processor Intel Core i9 9880H
Motherboard Some proprietary Apple thing.
Memory 64GB DDR4-2667
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon Pro 5600M, 8GB HBM2
Storage 1TB Apple NVMe, 4TB External
Display(s) Laptop @ 3072x1920 + 2x LG 5k Ultrafine TB3 displays
Case MacBook Pro (16", 2019)
Audio Device(s) AirPods Pro, Sennheiser HD 380s w/ FIIO Alpen 2, or Logitech 2.1 Speakers
Power Supply 96w Power Adapter
Mouse Logitech MX Master 3
Keyboard Logitech G915, GL Clicky
Software MacOS 12.1
AMD gave us backward compatibility across all the generations. So you can drop a FX 8xxx in a 2006 AM2 motherboard.

Don't lie. You need at least an AM3 board for FX CPUs. FX doesn't have a DDR2 controller on it like AM3 chips did.

Intel changed sockets like 4 times screwing their customers so they can't upgrade to the latest components.

Or maybe Intel changes enough on their CPUs that changes to the motherboard were necessary. Haswell's redesigned VRM setup that uses a base voltage going into the CPU where the CPU regulates the rest of the voltages does in fact require changes to the socket and motherboard. Also it's not like they're changing it every year. Skt1155 was out for a while before it was succeeded by 1150 and 2011 is still very much so alive.

I also think the OP is going to be gaming, so why are you showing multi-threaded benchmarks? In reality, it's not the kind of workload he will be putting on the computer.
 

FreedomEclipse

~Technological Technocrat~
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
23,310 (3.77/day)
Location
London,UK
System Name Codename: Icarus Mk.VI
Processor Intel 8600k@Stock -- pending tuning
Motherboard Asus ROG Strixx Z370-F
Cooling CPU: BeQuiet! Dark Rock Pro 4 {1xCorsair ML120 Pro|5xML140 Pro}
Memory 32GB XPG Gammix D10 {2x16GB}
Video Card(s) ASUS Dual Radeon™ RX 6700 XT OC Edition
Storage Samsung 970 Evo 512GB SSD (Boot)|WD SN770 (Gaming)|2x 3TB Toshiba DT01ACA300|2x 2TB Crucial BX500
Display(s) LG GP850-B
Case Corsair 760T (White)
Audio Device(s) Yamaha RX-V573|Speakers: JBL Control One|Auna 300-CN|Wharfedale Diamond SW150
Power Supply Corsair AX760
Mouse Logitech G900
Keyboard Duckyshine Dead LED(s) III
Software Windows 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores (ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
<Snip>

True the 8350 "competes" with the Core i5s you mentioned. But if you keep the business aside i.e. forget the cost. Technologically speaking, ain't it bad for AMD that even with 8 cores clocked at a much higher clock rate and using more power, still it can't defeat a much lower clocked Intel quad core which consumes much lower power! Look even if AMD decided to pack some more expected performance to the FX WITH some extra cost and even if the FX 83xx were priced higher than the Intel counterparts, everyone would have bought it without thinking much. Those buying Intels then would have been fanboys.

I think this discussion can be ended now. It is personal preference. I expected much better performance from the FX series.

This assumption is wrong...



Here we have an intel DC that almost goes toe-to-toe with the 8350, It also costs significantly less. The only real downside is that the i3 cant be overclocked like the 8350 but at stock clocks the i3 is literally 1:1 performance and its about 60-70% more power efficient at doing it.

What you're describing/wishing for just aint gonna happen.... For instance AMD's new 290X GPU. It draws 300w from mains while under load, thats 64w more than the Titan. but it runs faster than the Titan and is priced VERY competitively.

what you are saying is that you want AMD to raise performance and charge more then intel counterparts when the only way AMD are going to be able to do that is raise TDP and their TDP is already higher then most better performing Intel processors. Throw in the price tag - AMD charging more than Intel and the ONLY people that would buy one would definitely the fan boys. What you describe are all negatives and not one positive. In the case of the 290X the power consumption and the 95'c thermals were massively offset by the price otherwise nobody would touch the 290X.

Everything these days are made to be more (power) efficient than the last generation, and doing more for less is always seen as one of the top priorities whether its getting more mileage out of your car on a single tank of gas or heating your house on cold days while keeping the power consumption as low as possible to keep the bills down.

More/marginal performance gain + Higher TDP - which is already much higher then the competitions + Higher price tag = More people buying intel.

The situation with AMD isnt perfect but they are turning a profit by making processors that are sold at a price tag thats competitive as they know they cant compete 1:1 with intel. their APU's are probably one of their best creations in the last decade which has saved them from bankruptcy. Look at the Xbone & PS4 - Both running AMD APUs and those are HUGE contracts for AMD.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2010
Messages
1,549 (0.31/day)
Location
Kolkata, India
System Name Coffee | Maximus
Processor Intel Core i7 9700K @ 5.2 GHz with AVX, 4.8 GHz cache clock | i7 9700KF @ 5.0 GHz/4.7 GHz cache
Motherboard ASUS Maximus X Formula | ASUS Maximus VIII Ranger (modded BIOS for Coffee Lake)+TPM2.0 module
Cooling Cooler Master ML240 Illusion | Cooler Master ML120L RGB
Memory 2*16 GB (32 GB) Kingston Fury Beast @3600 MHz CL17 | 4*8 GB (32 GB) HyperX Fury @3200 MHz CL14
Video Card(s) Zotac RTX 3070 8 GB Twin Edge | Galax RTX 2060 Super 8 GB
Storage Samsung PM981a 1TB NVMe+480GB SATA SSD+2 TB HDD | Crucial P5 1TB, Crucial P1 500GB+2.5TB HDDs
Display(s) LG OLED 55 G3, 4K 120 Hz, VRR, ALLM, GSync, FreeSync | Samsung 43AU9070 4K TV, VRR, ALLM
Case Corsair Crystal 460X RGB | Lianli Lancool 215
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster Z SE | Realtek ALC1150 (Supreme FX)
Power Supply ASUS ROG Strix 750G (80+ Gold) | Cooler Master MWE 650 V2 (80+ Bronze)
Mouse Cooler Master MM731 19000 DPI gaming mouse
Keyboard Cooler Master CK721 65% mechanical gaming keyboard (tactile)
Software Windows 11 Pro x64 |Windows 11 Pro x64
Benchmark Scores Cinebench R20 MT 4200,ST 547 CPU-Z MT 4871, ST 620 | R20 MT - 4158, ST - 534, CPU-Z MT 4798, ST 603
Yeah I am not happy with the current CPU tech of AMD FX. See why would I buy a FX 8350 over an i3? It costs less, has less power consumption and performs more or less same. And another thing, keep the technology in mind not just the price. A dual core performing almost on par with an 8 core. Isn't that horrible?

@Dent1 - Who told you FX supports AM2+? FX doesn't even support AM3. It physically fits but it does not run except a very few AM3 boards which were very high end.
 
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
3,427 (0.68/day)
System Name My baby
Processor Athlon II X4 620 @ 3.5GHz, 1.45v, NB @ 2700Mhz, HT @ 2700Mhz - 24hr prime95 stable
Motherboard Asus M4A785TD-V EVO
Cooling Sonic Tower Rev 2 with 120mm Akasa attached, Akasa @ Front, Xilence Red Wing 120mm @ Rear
Memory 8 GB G.Skills 1600Mhz
Video Card(s) ATI ASUS Crossfire 5850
Storage Crucial MX100 SATA 2.5 SSD
Display(s) Lenovo ThinkVision 27" (LEN P27h-10)
Case Antec VSK 2000 Black Tower Case
Audio Device(s) Onkyo TX-SR309 Receiver, 2x Kef Cresta 1, 1x Kef Center 20c
Power Supply OCZ StealthXstream II 600w, 4x12v/18A, 80% efficiency.
Software Windows 10 Professional 64-bit
Don't lie. You need at least an AM3 board for FX CPUs. FX doesn't have a DDR2 controller on it like AM3 chips did.

Who said anything about DDR2? The GeForce 7025 / nForce 630a chipset which was originally a 2005-2006 chipset fully supports the FX range.


Or maybe Intel changes enough on their CPUs that changes to the motherboard were necessary. Haswell's redesigned VRM setup that uses a base voltage going into the CPU where the CPU regulates the rest of the voltages does in fact require changes to the socket and motherboard. Also it's not like they're changing it every year. Skt1155 was out for a while before it was succeeded by 1150 and 2011 is still very much so alive.

Who cares why. AMD had compromised even greater performance for backward compatibility and it's worked out as a great selling tool.

Not everyone was happy about Intel changing sockets 4 times.


I also think the OP is going to be gaming, so why are you showing multi-threaded benchmarks? In reality, it's not the kind of workload he will be putting on the computer.

OP has already been given advice about his rig. We are off topic. He was saying the FX 8350 didn't compete which was a blanket statement. I've shown him evidence otherwise.

Yeah I am not happy with the current CPU tech of AMD FX.

Then don't buy an FX. Simple.




It costs less, has less power consumption and performs more or less same

What are you talking about??? Since when does the i3 perform the same as the FX 8350. The FX 8350 would spank it, I've already shown you numerous reviews of the of the FX 8350 competing with the core i7-3770k and i7-3960x and you are still talking about the i3.

Heck the FX 6300 is often cheaper than the i3. Oh and faster than the i3 too.



As far as power consumption. You want AMD's high end enthusiast CPU to generate lower power than Intel's budget CPU? - You want a 8 core monster to generate less power than a 2 core insect? What you're saying is illogical. If power consumption is your only issue that's what The AMD Llano Trinity, Richland are for :)


@Dent1 - Who told you FX supports AM2+? FX doesn't even support AM3. It physically fits but it does not run except a very few AM3 boards which were very high end.




itsakjt, you are coming off as a troll now. You thank Aquinus;3009713. But I send you 8 screenshots of the FX 8350 competing with the core i7-3770k and i7-3960x and I get no thanks. I taught you something new. FreedomEclipse posted power consumption stuff and it goes ignored. It's almost like anyone that says the opposite to us gets an automatic thank and fuels your motivation to post again.
 
Last edited:

Aquinus

Resident Wat-man
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
13,147 (2.96/day)
Location
Concord, NH, USA
System Name Apollo
Processor Intel Core i9 9880H
Motherboard Some proprietary Apple thing.
Memory 64GB DDR4-2667
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon Pro 5600M, 8GB HBM2
Storage 1TB Apple NVMe, 4TB External
Display(s) Laptop @ 3072x1920 + 2x LG 5k Ultrafine TB3 displays
Case MacBook Pro (16", 2019)
Audio Device(s) AirPods Pro, Sennheiser HD 380s w/ FIIO Alpen 2, or Logitech 2.1 Speakers
Power Supply 96w Power Adapter
Mouse Logitech MX Master 3
Keyboard Logitech G915, GL Clicky
Software MacOS 12.1
Who said anything about DDR2? The GeForce 7025 / nForce 630a chipset which was originally a 2005-2006 chipset fully supports the FX range.

You did. AM2+ only used DDR2 memory. I don't thank someone for giving information not relevant to the post and I don't give thanks for posts being wrong.

AMD gave us backward compatibility across all the generations. So you can drop a FX 8xxx in a 2006 AM2+ motherboard.

See that? That's what you said, and it's a lie.

Who cares why. AMD had compromised even greater performance for backward compatibility and it's worked out as a great selling tool.

Not everyone was happy about Intel changing sockets 4 times.
Apparently you do, because your making a fuss out of it. If I'm going to be upgrading my computer, replacing the motherboard is always a consideration if you want some newer technology like USB 3.0 or SATA3 built-in. Even if I stuck with AMD, there is no way I would have kept with my AM2+ board from my Phenom 2 940 days...

What are you talking about??? Since when does the i3 perform the same as the FX 8350. The FX 8350 would spank it, I've already shown you numerous reviews of the of the FX 8350 competing with the core i7-3770k and i7-3960x and you are still talking about the i3.

Maybe that's because he is talking about gaming. His "blanket statement" is clearly for what he will be using the PC for.
 
Last edited:
Top