Hardware Unboxed benchmarks: Ryzen 3 vs. Core i5 2500K vs. FX-8370

[Countryside]

At that time you made the logic choice! Now FX-8350 makes no sense for 100 EU, when i see used Core i5 2500K being sold for 60 EU second hand and new Pentium G4560 being sold for 60 EU first hand. Yes, FX-8350 can play all games at 60 FPS with a GTX970/GTX1060, but do not forget the minimal FPS are not guaranteed with it like they would be with Core i5 2500K, even more so with Ryzen 5 1600. And yes, i hate everything AMD put since the beginning of "FX line". And no, i am not Intel fan boy, i loved S939 AMD processors before Core 2 Duo came to town and i do like Ryzen now more than Intel!

Oky yeah but lets stay on point here @that time 2500k did not cost 60eu in fact it was 200+ euros and G4560&Ryzen did not exist and the minimal fps do date dont justify me paying much more at that time.

 

[Vario]

Never said it is future a proof CPU. Even i myself upgraded it to Core i7 3770K in my secondary rig, because i had the chance to earn some money by component sell/trades. All i said was that in games the FX-8350 was a piece of shit CPU compared to Core i5 2500K back in 2012, and it is still now. The mere fact that it looses to Pentium G4560 in 18 games out of 20, with exceptions lilke Mafia 3 and Witcher 3 should tell the whole story how ignorant must one be to have FX-8350 for pure gaming now in 2017, especially since the release of Pentium G4560, and even more now so since AMD Ryzen.

LOL I agree with you I was posing a common techie 2011 argument about how the games of the future will all require more cores and so we should all buy FX8150 instead of 2500K. The other common argument was that 1155 was going to be a dead socket so we should go AMD. Then the argument was that Mantle was coming out and everything was going to be amazing with the FX from here on out.

 

[Vya Domus]

@Artas1984

I honestly find your opinions unreasonable.

No one should be told when to upgrade. Period. You should upgrade when you feel the need to. You can't seriously tell me you lose sleep over the fact that people still uses FX CPUs ?

Are modern CPUs now worth buying over something released 5 years ago ? Yes they are. Who would have thought ! Illuminating !

You need to let go of this , you're hating on something that's half a decade old. Whether you like or not the matter of the fact is people bought during all this time these CPUs and gamed on them just fine because it met their needs. You want more , good for you , buy something faster. You don't , don't let someone tell you the opposite and waste money.

I feel like this thread contains an unnecessary amount of condescending and hateful opinions. In my book this is worse than being a fanboy.

Don't take this personal in any way , it's just an advice on my part to distance yourself from this attitude. It's not healthy in my opinion.

 

[Kanan]

The funny thing about the FX (especially 8 core ones) is, that even if you buy it cheap, for like 100 or even less, the power consumption is so high that it will set you back a lot more over time than a comparable new processor with less cores and a better node.

IMO, the FX was only bought by people that never understood how bad it is / AMD fanboys and finally workstation guys, who made a smart choice buying it. IMO it was never a good gaming processor, but if you intended to use it for more than just that, it was pretty much okay.

 

[Countryside]

The funny thing about the FX (especially 8 core ones) is, that even if you buy it cheap, for like 100 or even less, the power consumption is so high that it will set you back a lot more over time than a comparable new processor with less cores and a better node.

IMO, the FX was only bought by people that never understood how bad it is / AMD fanboys and finally workstation guys, who made a smart choice buying it. IMO it was never a good gaming processor, but if you intended to use it for more than just that, it was pretty much okay.

So lets change one factor in my System to 2500k and now im saving up to 30W in total power consumption now saying that fx power consumption is so high that it will set you back a lot more is as smart as saying

FX was only bought by people that never understood how bad it is.

 

[Kanan]

30 W is the least. You have other downsides as well. Once overclocked (both CPUs) the difference is even higher - both in power consumption AND performance. The i5 2500K is simply on another level performance wise - it's not comparable to a FX 8350, and much less to an 8150. Now if you go with a i7 2600K, it's even worse (long term). Those aged even better. But in what you quoted, I talked specifically about now - now you have the decision to go for an 8350 at a 100 bucks or to get something new with maybe 2 cores (Intel) or 4 cores (AMD Ryzen 3). Those consume less power than a 2500K and stomp the 8350 as well. I'm not talking about the past, because in the past, you couldn't know the FX 8350 would never do really good in games. Fact is, AMD gambled on high core counts way to early. Just now, since 2017 or 2016, high core count CPUs begin to shine. Now is the time to go for 6 Cores+, not before. Fact is, FX 8350, in my books, is not a real 8 core design either. It sacrifices a lot to give you 8 cheap cores, but it doesn't behave like a Intel 6 or 8 core, it rather behaves like a i7 2600K if you're lucky and running highly optimized stuff, hence why I said it's rather a workstation than a gaming CPU. Up until today, there are only a few games where it does very well - those include Crysis 3 (Jungle) and Battlefield series.

 

[Countryside]

30 W is the least. You have other downsides as well. Once overclocked (both CPUs) the difference is even higher - both in power consumption AND performance. The i5 2500K is simply on another level performance wise - it's not comparable to a FX 8350, and much less to an 8150. Now if you go with a i7 2600K, it's even worse (long term). Those aged even better. But in what you quoted, I talked specifically about now - now you have the decision to go for an 8350 at a 100 bucks or to get something new with maybe 2 cores (Intel) or 4 cores (AMD Ryzen 3). Those consume less power than a 2500K and stomp the 8350 as well. I'm not talking about the past, because in the past, you couldn't know the FX 8350 would never do really good in games. Fact is, AMD gambled on high core counts way to early. Just now, since 2017 or 2016, high core count CPUs begin to shine. Now is the time to go for 6 Cores+, not before. Fact is, FX 8350, in my books, is not a real 8 core design anyway. It sacrifices a lot to give you 8 cheap cores, but it doesn't behave like a Intel 6 or 8 core, it rather behaves like a i7 2600K if you're lucky and running highly optimized stuff, hence why I said it's rather a workstation than a gaming CPU.

Not talking about oc because i said 30W like i said before there is no point of ocing 2500k if you but it up against fx8350.

Oky and i was specifically talking about the time it came out because why should you buy it now and who is buying it now.

 

[Kanan]

2500K is one of the best overclocking CPUs of history, there's always a good reason to overclock it.

I'm specifically talking about now - I'm not living in the past either. The CPU is very cheap now, and some users think about buying it - they simply shouldn't. But some people will anyway. I hope those aren't gamers.

 

[Countryside]

2500K is one of the best overclocking CPUs of history, there's always a good reason to overclock it.

I'm specifically talking about now - I'm not living in the past either. The CPU is very cheap now, and some users think about buying it - they simply shouldn't. But some people will anyway. I hope those aren't gamers.

We are getting off track here and I'm not living in the past either but i made a decision @2012 not to pay twice as much knowing that the cpu i bought will get me through 5 years without a problem and it did

so at the end of this year i'm going put together a new pc what will get me through the next 5 years.

PS: 2500k is in the CPU Hall of Fame in my book.

 

[SniperHF]

I don't think the power consumption argument is all that compelling unless you live in an area with unreasonable rates.

If you take a 2500k vs a 8350 and ran them 12 hours a day at load (Using Anandtechs numbers) it's a difference of $315 to $555 @ the national average power cost over the last 5 years if you remove the GPU. But not too many people are putting a load on their CPU 12 hours a day 7 days a week. So $240 over 5 years. It's not nothing, but in a way above average usage model you're effectively getting back the cost of your CPU 5 years later. Yay?

At a more reasonable, load 6 hours a day and idle the other 6 it's $237 vs $380. So a $143 difference, over 5 years? Meh, the most extreme meh one could offer. Hardly something I would worry about over 5 years as someone building a higher end PC.

That's also assuming a flat power rate which isn't accurate, it was probably a bit lower the first couple-three of those years. But napkin math.

 

[Kanan]

Who cares. 143 is 143, nobody cares if it's "meh" for you. It's not meh for me. End of story. And you don't know how much people are using their PCs, so your entire point seems moot to me, because you try to contradict a fact by downplaying it. And this is without environmental issues in mind.

Also who cares anyway, the i5 / i7 are much stronger, the FX 8350 is a no-go on multiple levels. Talking about efficiency FX CPUs got simply smacked by Intel - now, funny enough, it's the opposite, AMD is ahead. A good time to buy CPUs.

 

[SniperHF]

I didn't say the argument was wrong, I said it wasn't compelling. Yes, you should downplay facts if their impact isn't all that substantial.
The performance argument is much more substantial is my point. One you could find out where I landed on if you read my post on the first page

 

[Vario]

The funny thing about the FX (especially 8 core ones) is, that even if you buy it cheap, for like 100 or even less, the power consumption is so high that it will set you back a lot more over time than a comparable new processor with less cores and a better node.

IMO, the FX was only bought by people that never understood how bad it is / AMD fanboys and finally workstation guys, who made a smart choice buying it. IMO it was never a good gaming processor, but if you intended to use it for more than just that, it was pretty much okay.

And you needed an expensive board to run the 6 and 8 core FX because the cheaper boards didn't have enough power phases. That expensive board negated any price difference between the 2500K and the FX. 2500K runs perfectly fine and fast ( albeit with no OC) in a $60 business class econoboard.

 

[Countryside]

And you needed an expensive board to run the 6 and 8 core FX because the cheaper boards didn't have enough power phases. That expensive board negated any price difference between the 2500K and the FX. 2500K runs perfectly fine and fast ( albeit with no OC) in a $60 business class econoboard.

"First get your facts straight then distort them at your leisure"

I could buy a 60eur motherboard witch had 4+1 Phase and run 6 and 8 FX on it.

 

[EarthDog]

At stock... some cant even do that as the vrms get toasty. Yes, even though its on the support list, some have struggled. Particularly those 4+1 without a heatsink...which is what you get for that price. For overclocking heavily (ambient), there are a rare few boards which could handle them without throttling. I wouldnt overclock a hex or octo on a $60 board...fans on vrms may be needed at stock there already...

There is a reason there is a HUGE thread at ocn listing the vrm count and if there are heatsinks and overclockable...

 

[Countryside]

At stock... some cant even do that as the vrms get toasty. Yes, even though its on the support list, some have struggled. Particularly those 4+1 without a heatsink...which is what you get for that price. For overclocking heavily (ambient), there are a rare few boards which could handle them without throttling. I wouldnt overclock a hex or octo on a $60 board...fans on vrms may be needed at stock there already...

There is a reason there is a HUGE thread at ocn listing the vrm count and if there are heatsinks and overclockable...

Point here is that you dont need a $100 mobo to run a stock fx8

And if the failure number was so high meaning that the $60 cant handle them in stock they would have been taken off the market.

 

[EarthDog]

It was a concern, for sure, at that price bracket and setup described. There are plenty of throttling stories with boards like that.

Some boards failed, others throttled.

 

[Vario]

It was a concern, for sure, at that price bracket and setup described. There are plenty of throttling stories with boards like that.

Some boards failed, others throttled.

Can you even run an FX8350 on the stock AMD cooler? I built a few i5 2500 machines for my friends running the stock POS Intel cooler with no throttling or issues playing games. AFAIK they still run these machines.

If not, thats another $25 to spend on heatsink.

 

[Jeffredo]

I doubt the typical FX user has anything greater than something like a GTX 970 or GTX 960. Probably nothing more than a 1080p monitor as well. Given those modest specs they're doing fine, especially since they probably built their rigs (or bought them pre-built) several years ago. If they're not GPU bound they're probably close to it in many games. I know websites like this have an enthusiast bent, but most are not really hurting with an old budget 8-core FX rig that is still more powerful than a new console. Disclaimer: I'm not advocating anyone go out and spend money for a new FX PC in 2017.

My personal take-away from that video was I should have bought an i5-2500k six year ago. Would have been the best hardware investment I could have ever made.

 

[Vario]

I doubt the typical FX user has anything greater than something like a GTX 970 or GTX 960. Probably nothing more than a 1080p monitor as well. Given those modest specs they're doing fine, especially since they probably built their rigs (or bought them pre-built) several years ago. If they're not GPU bound they're probably close to it in many games. I know websites like this have an enthusiast bent, but most are not really hurting with an old budget 8-core FX rig that is still more powerful than a new console. Disclaimer: I'm not advocating anyone go out and spend money for a new FX PC in 2017.

My personal take-away from that video was I should have bought an i5-2500k six year ago. Would have been the best hardware investment I could have ever made.

Or an i7 920 in 2008 lol. Those things are still running strong. Futureproof.

 

[Vya Domus]

If you were careful what you bought there was no issue.

I've got a board with 4+1 phases and I can OC my chip to 4.5 Ghz at 1.45V no problem and the VRM heatsink is warm to the touch at best. My limitation is the chip itself that just needs a lot of voltage.

Sure, I wouldn't be able to push for something like 5 Ghz OC but then again , I don't expect that because I make purchases with sensible expectations.

There were surely some nasty boards out there but you had the internet and common sense at your disposal.

I blame these issues mostly on AMD for not making a different motherboard/chipset for FX with it's own required VRM spec.

 

[Jeffredo]

Seri

Or an i7 920 in 2008 lol. Those things are still running strong. Futureproof.

Seriously. Every time I see a review dust off an old i5-2500k and overclock it to compare to current CPUs I kick myself. Who would have thought they'd get longevity like Sandy Bridge has given?

If you are careful what you buy it's no issue.

I've got a board with 4+1 phases and I can OC my chip to 4.5 Ghz at 1.45V no problem and the VRM heatsink is warm to the touch at best. My limitation is the chip itself that just needs a lot of voltage.

I built a cheapy PC using a lot of used parts for my nephew last summer. He has an FX-8320E on a Gigabyte GA-78LMT-USB3 (rev 6) with an HD 7950. I used an old Xigmatek 120mm tower cooler and his case is fairly well ventilated. Overclocked it to 4.0 Ghz on all cores and he plays CS:GO on it daily. Hasn't given him a single problem with heat or throttling and that motherboard is about as cheap as you can go with an FX 8 core.

 

[EarthDog]

Can you even run an FX8350 on the stock AMD cooler? I built a few i5 2500 machines for my friends running the stock POS Intel cooler with no throttling or issues playing games. AFAIK they still run these machines.

If not, thats another $25 to spend on heatsink.

stock cooler was fine. It was the board vrms causing throttling on some low end 4+1 boards... especially those without heatsinks. I wouldnt overclock a hex or octo on a 60 board.. no way.

Lol, people have common sense...

Link to VRM database.
http://www.overclock.net/t/946407/amd-motherboards-vrm-info-database

 

[eidairaman1]

"First get your facts straight then distort them at your leisure"

I could buy a 60eur motherboard witch had 4+1 Phase and run 6 and 8 FX on it.

@Jeffredo the heat is only extreme at 5.0GHz or higher, under blender or stress testing, Gaming at that speed is fine


It works, its only when pushing them you want a Sabertooth or Crosshair 990FX or GA 990FX UD3/5...

 

[R-T-B]

No, we literally mean they should drop dead.

Genocide for tech choice? Ouch.