Still playing games at 1080 60fps on the 5 year old FX. I will switch to Ryzen some time in the future but not for the sake of gaining more performance in games because really , I wont , not at that resolution and framerate.
It is a CPU suited for 60 fps, but not anything higher than that. And as the other guy tried to point out: you'd have higher minimum / avg FPS by switching, even playing on 60 FPS only as a target.
Exactly! But seriously, this CPU seems to be quite iconic, because so many people are using it in their gaming rigs and boasting about it like it's some kind of wonder thing! So many people are selling used computers with this CPU having stronger/newer other components, components better suited for faster processors and that just bothers me, because certainly not all of those people understand that this CPU can not keep with video cards faster than GTX970.
People that are still blinded by "cooooaaaars", simply numbers. Typically those people are also AMD fanboys, because nobody else believes the FX to be good. I mean it's not a real 8 core CPU, it's just a real 8 core CPU for specific tasks that only need Integer, but not for games. For games, it is in fact, only a real QUAD core CPU. Now, a Quad core CPU, coupled with low IPC, what's the use of that? Right. Core 1st gen easily had more IPC than Phenom II, Phenom II had more IPC than Bulldozer, but Sandy Bridge has 20% more IPC than Nehalem. So, there's at least a 30-40% IPC disadvantage for FX 8350 here. 30-40%! And that's me being optimistic and only talking about Nehalem and Sandy Bridge.
I was "forcing" this "dogma" to people for a pretty long time
Sometimes people don't want to see the truth, but I guess most smarter people did. That said, FX 8350 was simply a server CPU to me, not at all suited for normal users. Now take Ryzen as a counter example - it is a server CPU originally, but because of its high IPC, real core design with SMT, it is still very good suited for eg. gamers. In the end, what AMD did, they kinda "copied" Intel arch, chopped away some limitations like utterly big monolithic CPU designs, increased core amounts dramatically and still with a very good yield - something Intel put down as being "glued together" because they were too stupid to think of this ingenious design first, which solves the problem of ever growing amounts of cores and downing of yields at the same time. On top of that they added features like, being able to clock the CPU in 25 MHz steps among other things like Neural Network stuffs - and lets not forget its great efficiency that is higher than any Intel product. Ryzen in general is a big success. Now, they maybe need to change something at RTG (in words: fire some people who failed and replace them with better) and they will do better as well. Ryzen is a success because genius people were at work there, I don't see the same at RTG. Either that, or RTG simply lacks money to make up for the competition that is Nvidia. But honestly, what's so complicated about designing a GPU Boost future that has lowest voltage possible in mind? Nvidia has it since 2012, and AMD just now got a turbo function in through Vega, but still lacks the auto voltage tuning ability, which is very important for efficiency and one of the main reasons why Nvidia won every efficiency battle since 2012.