I used to have an Fx 6300. When I was a poor student, still able to buy this processor. I could never afford Intel and I love Amd for giving me an accessible alternative. Now, even though I have money, I choose Amd because of its performance. Things can change very quickly.
I remember going to microcenter to buy a FX8350 system, but ivy bridge was on sale since haswell was about to drop, so I walked out with a great deal on a 3770k/Z77 setup. It turned out to be very fortunate, as that OC'ed 3770k performed well enough to stay in my main PC until around 2019.
Similar story here. Didn't upgrade until Zen 2 finally launched. Still love my 3900x Edit: OC'd to 4.4GHz on the 3770k BTW. It was also stable at 4.5GHz but also insanely hotter.
I received I think around $35 for my FX-8230 because of the lawsuit (plus a check for $1 like a year later). With that said, I'd argue that only calling it a 4 core processor isn't quite telling the whole story. I don't think calling it an 8 core is being honest either; it lands somewhere in the middle. I think using the nomenclature of "modules/threads" is being the most fair. e.g. 4 Modules/8 Threads, 3 Modules/6 Threads, etc. The terrible IPC of FX is what really did it in. Even if they never claimed that it had full cores, the terrible IPC still doomed it to fail. Thankfully it was saved by having low prices, especially later on, and allowed for people on a budget to build decent enough rigs without breaking the bank. Plus, the fact that you could OC the crap out of almost every chip made them even better for budget builds. It was great for the right people, but terrible for everyone else.
"It was great for the right people, but terrible for everyone else." - That's fair. Low price, someone who knows how to get the most out of it and understands what it is...that's a win win.
AMD marketed them as though they would compete against them. that’s why this is a fair comparison and frankly, shitty marketing is a huge part of the reason these bulldozer era chips failed so horribly.
8350 won't do better, they are awful in single thread and there was no competition vs intel single thread at the time, the games were not optimized for for more than 6 threads at best and even when the game was optimized for all those 8 threads, and overclocked to the max 8350 would never beat even a locked down 3770
@jims_junk if they cost the same when they launched, then that would be a fair comparison. I don't care what amd shitty marketing team did and what they said, but nobody with something in their head would expect a 130$ cpu to match 300$ cpu.
What's really disappointing is that FX6300 was far from matching even the Phenom II X6. Some analysis suggests that the very narrow Decoder hurts the performance more than the shared FPU design.
sorry but thats just untrue, fx6300 in most cases had slight advantage over phenom II x6 1090T, in gaming and productivity ranging from 5-20% advantage in favor of fx6300.
Simple math. 3M/6C Buldozer had less AGU, ALU units than 6C/6T Phenom. Phenom 6x3= 18, Buldozer 6x2=12 each, that detail was also put on lawsuit because 6C Phenom still had more than "8C" Buldozer - 24 vs 16 - 50% more, even faster clock of Buldozer could not compensate missing elements. And 3M/6C Buldozer had 3 decoders 1 port, while Phenom 6. When it comes to FPU Buldozer had wider FPU but was shared by 2 cores. Phenom had 6 real FPU's any thread had it's own, while Buldozer 3 wider (6x SSE 128bit) but shared max by 3 threads. That decoder issue, was fixed in Piledriver they added ports but it was only able to "pass trough" second thread if it was cached (or something like that). Buldozer IMO was designed as improved Phenom 4ALU, 4AGU, wider 256bit FPU (4x64bit), It was strong as Intel Core in first draft, 32nm gave them room for 2 additional cores, BUT then someone, some genious decided "you know what let's cut that by half and call it modules". So we end up with 30% slower cores, 2ALU, 2AGU, shared decoder, shared fpu. And massive L3 with very wide association added to AMD existing disadvantage of slower memory. When i first saw Buldozer i though someone, some "Intel insider" trolled AMD and designed monster, whoever it was - ZEN was proof to be mistake, they took some ideas from Pentium 4/ Core lineage uops cache. Improved decoder and memory access was comparable to Intel ~45ns instead of 100ns. Put 4 execution units available fully to each thread. And finally made on 14nm. LLano is proof what Phenom 8C could be on 32nm.
@@veryevilpersonfromillumina5893 I was suspecting management. That explanation would be true i Buldozer was 200m2. It was 315mm2 4M vs 250mm2 6C Phenom 45nm that was very strange. Phenom made in 32nm would be 150-200mm2. LLano had even better use of space. All was wasted by L3 cache, wide association. This could be demand of management to have lot of cache purpose of server market. Notice also how Intel used ring bus while AMD used point-to-point. Ring bus reduces complexity of bus but adds some delay. Point to point is very complex. Notice cache compexity i was wrong it was even worse L3 64 ways - that was insane. L2 was 16 and L1 was 4 ways. Comparing to 8 way of L2 Intel used to choose same ever since Pentium III and 4 for L1. Originally probably was decent CPU for desktop. On server market you sell number of cores not performance of running multiple threads but actual number of cores. It's possible they promised physical 8C with all that number of features, that amount of cache, decided to cut each core by half. I can understand that. Probably it was like you said - pressure.
Coming from somebody who HAS a 9590, it's not really worth it TBH. A properly tuned 8350 can OC to 4.7-4.8 and will run modern games surprisingly well. Leaves most 4 core i3's and i5's in the dirt. No I'm not exaggerating. But I would not get one for anything other than tinkering for fun. New Ryzen CPUs are FAR better, and cost less. Go Ryzen if it's for your daily driver.
When considering that the AM3+ FX chips were actually designed to compete with the Nehalem platform they don't look as bad. I'd like to see a FX 8 "core" vs a 900 series i7 and a 3000 series i3, with a mix of old and new games.
No...He's right. The FX 8150 launched the SAME MONTH as the 2700k. And FX was a YEAR LATE at that time. It was supposed to launch & compete with the i7 960, or similar.
Late to the party. But i recently did a 6-game benchmark with my i7 920 OC to 3.8 GHz. And i was shocked that it was marginally (but measurably) faster than my FX 9590. We are talking a couple of percent so not a huge win, but it was consistent.
still rocking a FX6300 in my man cave pc with a £20 Asus tenfiddy, 32gb ddr3 emails and shops on Amazon like a champ, and play youtube videos. all a boy needs in the cave. oh and retro mane games.
"AMD marketed these as having more cores than they actually had." Actually, that statement is factually inaccurate. With the FX6300, you DID get actual 6-cores. The only problem was that each dual-core cluster ("Bulldozer Module") basically had shared Fetch/Decode logic, along with a solo FPU. Then there was the super-deep pipeline, not much unlike Netburst (Pentium 4/D), though AMD did allow the branch predictor to continue future predictions until the queue was full, instead of halting the whole cycle in case of a stall. On paper, Bulldozer was an intriguing "concept" that relied heavily on raw frequency, just like Pentium 4, but Global Foundry's 32nm process got in its way. Plus, AMD also couldn't anticipate Sandy Bridge and its crazy IPC uplift over Nehalem (~20%) and Core 2 (~25%) so these Bulldozer CPUs were - unsurprisingly - pretty much DOA.
It wasn't exactly intriguing "concept", first Zen arch had similar cores to Carizzo cores (last FX gen), but they were on much newer node. First gen Ryzen was essentially FX+.
That's pretty much how I have heard Bulldozer described over the years... as AMD's turn at the Pentium 4/Netburst idea that flopped for Intel. You'd think they would have learned from watching their competitor fail with that idea, right?
@@pennyandrews3292 It was not same, main idea was `bout "modules" in this video stupidly referenced as "cores", idea was that they could make as much cores cpu as they wanted just by ading more modules 2, 4, 6,8 etc, but power consuption has stoped them from goin up from 8 core (4 modules), speed was inportant but accsent was on modules not just speed.
:) Nothing to be ashamed of. I still have one too, as well as an older Thinkpad with one. Hell, I use a netbook for certain things. If it does the job then who cares how old or new it is.
Personally, I would try to find a FX-8320. They are a base 3.4ghz chip that turbo's to 3.7ghz. Would be a closer match to the i7 in terms of clock speed.
@@jims_junk No problem. It was actually the exact CPU I used for several years during college. It worked but I remember being disappointed at the miniscule amount of improvement over the old Phenom II X6 I was using before that.
I always wanted an i7. Finally in 2018 I bought a used one off Amazon for $130 to go with my MSI B75 motherboard I bought in 2013 running an i5-3470. That motherboard and i7-3770 with 16gb of DDR3-1600 ram are still running fine to this day. I'm writing this comment on that system. My daily driver. Stay Strong.
Enjoyed your benchmarks as always, although im not sure why you were so negative on fx6300 while comparing to much much more expansive intel part, i mean i7 3770 was more than twice as expensive
Thanks! Well TBH I've heard even the i5 could kick the snot out of the 6300. The next vid will be an 8300 or 8350 against the i7, but might go back and also bench the 6300 against an i3 or i5 just tosee.
@@jims_junk ah nice, looking forward to more tests, though please keep in mind that $132 price of fx 6300 was really low, i think for that much you could only get get i3 and no i5 was available at that price. For that price you could only get i3 2100/2120 ($117/$138) or i3 3220 ($125) Which would put to interesting comparison, 3 module/6thread fx6300 VS 2 core/4thread i3. I think it would make an interesting video :)
I will also mention that the last series of FX were also better than the first by a good bit, In my experience that 6300 out performs the 8100 in most everything as well. I am curious though as I have the 6300 and benched it against an i5 2500 and used the 6300 instead. I may have to go revisit that to see why as I still have both, I just shelved the i5.
I had an FX6300 for like a week back when Skyline was a thing. I bought it cause it was a cheap upgrade over my ageing Phenom II 955 and since my motherboard was compatible I didn't need to spend more money, plus all I wanted was a better EU4 and GTA experience. The CPU I got was a total dud and never worked properly, ran a number of tests and even bought a brand new motherboard but it didn't help. Fortunately the store agreed with me so I asked for a return of both CPU and mobo, sold my old Phenom and got an i5 6600k. I think I woulda needed to upgrade sooner had the FX I purchased was a good one which woulda mean more money spent. Thanks AMD I guess lol.
From what I understand, the FX CPU cores have their own integer math units, but not their own FPU... and technically, back in the 386 days, the 387 was a separate part that did floating point Math, so if you go by that definition of a CPU, you could understand an FX core as something like having two 386SX cores that share a single 387, meaning it will be able to do lots of integer math in parallel, but slow down a lot when you want floating point performance. I recall that back in the day, the highest end FX CPUs were seen as good for doing lots of server-related tasks in parallel, but not for gaming or anything a home user would want to do due to the poor floating-point performance and latency. But the lower-tier parts were seen as not worthwhile at all, with the best AMD had being only good for massively multithreaded workloads that didn't require an FPU, which is arguably a niche that would have fit the Opteron better than anything a consumer would want. The reputation of the FX CPUs is a part of why I went from being a K6-2 and Athlon XP fan, to sticking with Intel afterwards. Even in retrospect, as reviled as they were, Pentium 4s have aged much better in terms of software continuing to actually work on them (due to SSE2 and all that), and I later learned that part of the reason I had so much trouble building an Athlon XP system is because there are almost no protections for anything on the AMD side... you hook up your CPU fan wrong or set a jumper wrong, your CPU will fry like an egg... but Intel had some failsafes in place that would protect even overclockers from shooting themselves in the foot much earlier in the game. Plus, a lot of stuff is validated against Intel designs and not against AMD, etc, and before you know it, going AMD to save a few bucks is just almost never worth it. I can just straight up tell you that I bought an i7 3770 in 2012, and used it as my main PC until 2021. Didn't even start feeling its age until 2019 or so.
No surprise Buldozer was crap - Phenom had 1 decoder / core, 3 ALU and 3 AGU units while Buldozer ultimately 0.5 decoder, 0.5 FPU, 2ALU, 2AGU, per core that makes it 30% slower or Phenom 50% faster depending how you count. Simple math. 4M/8C Buldozer had less execution units than 6C/6T Phenom. Phenom 6x3= 24, Buldozer 2x8=16 that detail was also put on lawsuit. 4M/8C Buldozer had 4 decoders, while Phenom - 6. Intel Core architecture was if i remember correctly had 3 or 4 execution units/core. It's clocked higher. But you cannot name 32nm Buldozer as 8core CPU if you compare to 45nm Phenom. There are elements missing. LLano on FM1 was 32nm bulk based, based on previous architectures, had faster cache tighter association, but had fewer cores and GPU on board. It was clocked 3.4GHz. Had no AVX had no HT no L3 cache(?) instead that GPU. Designed for laptops. Ultimately architecture saved AMD that lineage of architecture was used in consoles. If AMD could make 8C CPU made of LLAno cores no GPU, and 8C CPU made of Buldozer. Nobody would buy Buldozer for gaming. Literally noone. I bacame huge fan of "fusion" cores. Before AMD fused two lineage SOI based Buldozers and successors and LLAno 28nm bulk. One of their 28nm "low power" CPU actually on paper draw less power than ARM in iPhone. Better performance/mm2. Jaguar used on Xbox was from that lineage. The problem to win mobile market was stand-by, and that was only possible if you have 14nm. And problem was clock. 1 chanell memory too slow to be shared by GPU. Intel introduced turbo so on so forth. - Core architectures had very fast RAM access, tight cache association, 45ns access to RAM comparing to around 70ns Phenom and even worse on Buldozer ~100ns, all these L1,2,3 caches generates delay. RAM itself no cache is 15ns. Core architecture had unique uOps caching it's hard to understand to me how that architecture works, introduced by Pentium 4. Pnenom was caching pure code and data, Core was caching uOps that included rearangement of code "pre processed" by decoder. All of that was introduced by Zen.
FX's were such pieces of shit, i upgraded from an 8320 TO a 3770k. makes zero sense when you think about the timeline, but it was such a colossal difference. that i7 held its own for years too.
The problem isn’t core count- it’s that fpu. FPUs are very important for gaming- look at super socket 7 k6-2 getting spanked by pentium II slot 1 machines in doom. It’s actually weirdly like netburst too in that it has a really long pipeline and needs optimized code
@@MJ-uk6lu this is not entirely true. FPUs become useful depending on new technologies. Usually things that were handled by the FPU get moved to the GPU. An example is early games that used physics, or early 3D games like quake- games initially used the CPU for graphical functions (doom, duke) then the FPU (quake, need for speed) then the GPU (nfs II, quake 2, GLQuake). We saw the same pattern with rolling out games with physics, iirc the og half life used the FPU for physics math, and possibly even hl2 but newer versions of the source engine can do it on the GPU. Sadly when the FX series was a thing physx would only run on either CPU or Nvidia. Although you were able to brute force it once these chips approached 5ghz, that was a worse case scenario for the relatively common 6300+7870 that was so common in this era
@@fenixlolnope361 Or you just didn't use PhysX. Also that doesn't change much, about FPU not being well used in games on CPU. FX FPU was fine enough. Performance deficit for most people were with integer units, which weren't fast.
@@MJ-uk6lu integer units weren’t that bad though.. like yeah Intel was beating them but nehalem and sandy bridge are some FIERCE competition like, they completely destroyed AMDs enterprise business with this architecture, but mainly because of the scaling and AMDs lack of threads and complete tonedeafness in terms of pricing. The single fpu hurt them there for a lot of workloads too, which ran potential customers away from them even further. I will say they do great for database/web server applications and for a NAS but that was it really :/ because they have the capability of running a lot of threads per module (and the shared resources actually benefit us here)
@@fenixlolnope361 AMD had threads, in fact even more than Intel, but they were so slow. FX sucket at single threaded stuff, now imagine loads of FX cores, but running at like ~2GHz. They were so slow that even old Athlon 64 was faster per core. And while FPUs were weak, they weren't all that releveant besides some business applications. It's the integer performance that was badly behind and even more so RAM controllers. They were so bad that they were literally 2.5x slower than Intel's. All things considering its amazing that FX chips didn't suck a lot more, but they were so badly underfed by data. Sure they had bigger caches, but not really 2x bigger and and those caches still have to have data input from RAM. So that was one absolutely massive bottleneck. And now go back to servers and imagine all that in server chip. You most likely have tons of data flows, they need to be as fast as possible and highly parralel. You can compensate that by adding memory channels, but so could Intel. So that was just bad I had FX 6300 myself and I also learned that AMD's stock voltage tuning was very poor. I could easily drop 0.3 volts and chip was perfectly prime95 stable. And wattage dropped dramatically. So AMD was really needlessly pumping them up with volts. Way more than Intel did. Which leads me to think that they most likely left huge safety margins because they just didn't want to test QA as long as Intel did. Which should save them money. So the whole development and release of FX chips was badly botched, not to mention already delayed and to add even more insult to injury Zambezi was buggy and even slower, meanwhile last FX revision (Carizzo) was insanely efficient and as much as 20% faster per clock compared to Vishera and that's with L3 cache disabled. With L3 cache it would have beaten Vishera even more. Possibly 30-40% per core. And Ryzen wasn't all that huge rework of FX under the hood. It did fix some problems, but most performance was gained by moving to 12 nm and thus efficiency as well. Zen 1 was just Carizzo+ with much faster memory support and finally more decent although finicky and buggy initial controllers. AMD botched FX because K10 was disaster for them and they lost a lot of money, also their ATi purchase was costing them dearly and they were forced to sell off a lot of other departments like mobile chip department, which gimped their ability to finance FX RnD, thus FX was launched in highly imperfect state and Intel was stomping it hard.
was very late for the party... i upgraded my Phenom I x4 9950 BE only in 2016... i went for the (almost odd at the time) Fx8350+Asus Sabertooth 990FX R2 at the time... 6th gen Intels and DDR4 was already there and i could build a (legacy) high end rig for about the same price of an i5 6400 with a cheap-o Mobo. I don't really regreated, since i was able to rock with an R7 370 4gb for the first 18months and then switch to Rx 570 4gb up until 2023 in which i switched to an Rx 580 4gb. To be fair Rx580 produced a little bit of bottleneck in many (specially Dx11) games, nevertheless it served me well up until i upgraded in february 2024 to an AM4 platform which started with 1st gen R5 1600 and 2months later was upgraded to R7 5700x. Nevertheless Fx8350 still serves me as a sec. rig at my parent's home... that PC is at a point in which still has more use than the price i could sell it for... so it will stay
I loved mine considering I paid around $150 for a board, cpu, and memory at Microcenter and it was a huge upgrade for the machine it replaced and you could not build anything comparable from Intel at anywhere near that price. I will have to check the passmark scores to see how they match yours. What chipset was on the board you used?
Ok my scores were as follows, CPU Mark: 4439, Memory Mark: 1337.7, and Disk Mark is 2807.0 I left out overall passmark because it is irrelevant given that I have a RX570 as a gpu so score would be higher because of that. So not too far off.
Should have benched that with one of the 3770's cores disabled, as well as disabling hyperthreading. Or go as few cores as you can till the FX 6300 beats it!
Kinda going for stock settings. As in your buddy bought this, and you bought that. Which really was better. The next vid will be an 8300 or 8350 against an i7
The FX-6300 was the first CPU I ever bought on my own for a build. Got through Battlefield 4 with it. 99% sure it was paired with an R9 270X GPU. I later had two 270Xs in Crossfire lol. Didn’t keep it for very long bc I quickly learned there were better options out there, but I’ll always remember it. Had it under a Hyper 212 EVO Cooler :’)
@@zachbeckner FX was AMD going down the pentium path. Using shared resources allowed for higher click speeds (the FX 9950 had a boost clock of 5Ghz), the problem was when you had to share 1 FPU per 2 integer cores you'd get major bottlenecks and end up with a scenario of 4c8t like Intels core i7 line. AMD priorities were click speech not ipc. This is what happens when a philanthropist runs the company over an engineer.
i am using fx 6300 from 2014 . i overclocked my processor upto 4.66ghz with ant esports ice-g612 air cooler. i have not installed any gpu in my pc but my asus m5a75 motherboard has radeon 3000 integrated graphics installed 🙂. i am faceing no issue in any coding related task and browsing. It works perfectly fine.
Assuming that one FX module was like hyperthreaded core, you should have compared 8 core FX with i7. And for curiosity's sake disabled HT and for FX disabled second thread per module to truly see how fast cores actually were. But I wouldn't expect anything too great. FX 6300 was priced at i3 prices, it was much cheaper than even cheapest i5s. FX 8320/8350 was also often cheaper than locked i5s. Still terrible chips due to their high wattage.
I still use 6300 with 8 gb ram and 1650 super.. good for normal task.. gaming good if you are offline gamer.. it can get you 45+ fps in new games too in a medium custom preset... Tweaking your own settings yeah good..
i bought a fx 8320 brand new for 100$ when the 4790k came out i pushed 4.7ghz all core and overclocked the hell out of the hyper transfer overclocking hyper transfer is better than core overclocking with fx even at stock core speeds
Really good video. If you might be interested, I have an FX 8370 and MSI 990FXA Gaming motherboard that work great. If you would be interested let me know. Both work great. I just upgrade to a 5900x.
Is the memory running on the FX in dual channel mode? Cause I just noticed on the y-cruncher run and unigine superposition it says the fx set-up has 12gb of ram
Yes. I know its not fair but I was trying to give the FX the best chance, so I played with ram. Sometimes it ran better in dual channel some single channel..it was weird so i'd mess with each and keep the best score.
I think the bus speed would go to 240-260 Mhz if the motherboard is good enough. The "correct" way to OC is to set the NB frequency and HT link frequency to 2000 mhz and then up the bus speed. Extra voltage needs to be given to the northbridge. The last after everything else is overclocked is the CPU multiplier. The RAM multiplier needs to be correct for the ram also. I have a good Asus Sabertooth 990FX Motherboard so the overclocking is working very good. I like overclocking old cpu:s. I have a Pentium D 945 3.4 Ghz that i overclocked to the max (4.4 Ghz). I had windows 10 LTSC installed and with stock speed when i only closed windows on desktop the closing was stuttery. It went to smooth with 4.4 Ghz. But overall it was still very slow. I had a GTX 1060 in that machine that played the VP9 youtube smooth but using chrome to navigate the web was choppy as hell😁
It's been a long time, but as I recall, price wise it was a dual core Intel vs the FX 6000 series. So you would likely be more correct to compare the AMD cpu you have to and I 3 or maybe and I 5 not an I 7 to be fair. Lastly, there are plenty of Bulldozers still going to work and chugging along today. For office workloads they are still fine, they were actually pretty good at multithreaded workloads, like having a bunch of apps open at the same time.
What we can't forget is the price : sure, the performance wasn't great compared to Intel, but it was so much cheaper. With the 6xxx series, you had something close (a little worse, but still) to an i5 with i3 pricing and with the 8xxx series, you had close to i7 performance (against, a little worse) for i5 pricing (especially if you looked at the 8320, it was only $170 at launch and you could overclock it to make it as fast as the 8350). For budget gaming computers and for cheap video editing, it was a godsend for a while. Problem is, it was fine during the Ivy Bridge era and still had a good price advantage over Haswell for a little while, but AMD did NOTHING to follow through, they kept selling them for like 5 years with little to no upgrade, while Intel was at least making their CPUs more energy-efficient and a little faster with each passing generations (and that was the time when Intel was barely improving). Sure, AMD had the FM2 / FM2+ at the same time (I actually bought an AMD A10-7850k when it was released for my first gaming PC), but they were mostly APUs and low-end CPUs, they didn't compete in the same market at all. If AMD had upgraded the FX line, I'm sure it wouldn't have such a bad reputation, the Ryzen 1 wasn't great either, but Ryzen 2 followed wonderfully and Ryzen is now considered a really good line, even after the initial mediocrity (it wasn't horrible, but it was really temperamental with hardware and still had pretty weak single-core performances).
In the jurisdiction I resided at the time ... the FX-6300 was a $100 to $130 the I7-3000s were anywhere from 300 to 400 depending on K or non K.as a budget conscious buyer yeah you can say the I7 blows it out of the water ... but is it thrice as good ? You be the judge
AMD FX was tragic. I went from having AMD since the K6-2, Athlon, Atlon XP, X2, all the way to the Opteron 185, Phenom II X4 945, and then right to an i7 2600k because the FX was straight trash.
Comparing a fx6300 vs an i7 is weird. When it came out, it had an msrp of 132 dollars, a little bit more than a i3 3200 ( 119 ) and a lot less than an i5 3570 (194)
FX were bad compared to intel 1155 CPU. However, the FX 6300 was 130$ (later less than 100$) and the i7 3770 was over 300$ The i7 should be match against 8350 or 8370. Even then still only 200$ vs 300$ Back in the day, I chose a FX 8320E because for 120$, I could only get a core i3. I overclocked that CPU from 3.2GHz to 4.5GHz and the performance was pretty good for a 120$ part.
I loved my FX8120. It replaced a C26600 and realy felt like a generational leap. I overcloked it so much that the next CPU upgrade (Xeon 1231v3) didn't felt that much more powerfull.
upgradet from athlon x4 640 - to fx6300 - to ryzen 3600 i feel like the narrative is more negative then is has to be when comparing to i7-3770 i know people have already pointed out price differences 2500-2600&3770 to fx series. how i rememberd it people was trying to decide on i3/i5 vs fx6xxx or 8xxx - or pay a little more and go for i7. as i remember a i3 was trading blows with the fx series depending on context. It was not great, and you were aware, but for those with small budgets and those who stuck with it trying to get the best out of it, i dont remember it being that bad. Also i remember a lot of casual overclockers running these at 4.8 - 5.1 on day to day basis, and reporting that the system while being slight behind on the numbers felt more snappy and fluid then their intel system. cant comment on weather thats just placebo speaking, never had the chance myself.
as I said i'll be releasing another video comparing the i7 against an 8 'core' fx. A lot of people use the price argument, however that isn't really something you can go by. There have been many times, if not all times prior that AMD had the cheaper cpu when compared to intel. However many times it came pretty close in performance and sometimes even blew intel away. I'm not an intel or amd fanboy, i go with what works at that given time and appreciate the efforts from both sides. The FX however just seems a bit shady and really reminds me of Intels Pentium D days. As far as feeling snappier...maybe that'll be the case with the 8'core' . I remember my Phenom was that way, as well as the Phenom that I benchmarked in a previous video. It was a bit slower in some benchmarks, but for gaming it took the cake. But the 6300 even fell far behind the i7 in single core testing. But...we'll see what happens with the 8 'core' variant.
I7 3770 here, it is overclocked to 4.1 ghz, best cpu I ever had, if i had bought the I5 counterpart or even worse, the FX-8350, then would have a massive bottleneck in the lastest games that I been playing with this I7 in 2022 and 2023, is paired with 24GB ram and a 1660 Ti
Your computer sounds like a mess lol. Way too weak cpu for modern games (also probably doesn’t have AVX2 which is super important for function and performance) , 6gb of vram doesn’t cut it, 1660 gpu’s were a decent budget GPU for awhile but today they are useless garbage. 24gb of ram means you have a mismatch of size per module, and probably have a mismatch of clocks, timing, voltages, and overall quality of silicon which forces all of the ram to ramp down to the spec of the worst performing module and with that cpu only putting you in the 1000mhz range of DDR3 in the first place and only in dual channel you can’t afford to lose even more bandwidth. If you were at least on x79 you could have close to 2000mhz and dual channel which makes it compete with even the best ddr4 in dual channel but with way better latency. You could build a insanely better pc for even a few hundred dollars.
@@gex581990 Let me explain why I ended having those specs: I have 4 modules Corsair Vengeance 1600 MHz, 2x8 + 2x4, manually set the timings to 10-10-10-27, that was too easy, no performance loss and dual channel working as espected, I was forced to put the 2x4 kit in the mix because needed for UEFN with other game open at the same time, prior the the upgrade the game was crashing due to insuficient RAM, I upgraded to the 1660 Ti in 2019, a very nice upgrade, coming from a GTX 770 that was underperforming really bad, and the AVX2 makes no significant difference when compared to the 4770K sucesor, I have benchmarks in my channel, check it out
@@TheZachMan-09 I was always an AMD user since the day's of k6. I just found the entire FX series under whelming. I remember the first "8" core I got, in fact I still have it and it works. So slow and sluggo I was never impressed but it's to easy to bash old cpu's. That's be like comparing the k6-2 against the pentium II to which there is no comparison simply because the pentium II was faster.
How comes Superposition shows your AMD rig having only 12 Gb of RAM ? Bug, or did you inadvertently mismatch RAM sticks ? That could explain the abysmal RAM scores - also, AMD's dual channel was quite finicky back then, explaining why some people even with matching RAM could have bad scores.
As I said briefly in the video, I messed around with ram to get the best scores on the AMD side. The scores were so low that I tried anything to give it a fighting chance. I know that wasn't fair to the Intel side but as you said amds memory controller was finicky.
I wanted to run CEMU on the FX 6300. The frame rate is disappointing at 15 fps. Even a faster graphics card doesn't help. This CPU is about two generations behind a Intel 3rd generation CPU. Even a Core i7 860 from 2009 is a bit faster.
Possibly. But I'm looking at mostly stock performance. I'm not an intel or amd fanboy, just looking at what was offered on each side at a given time. Back in the 90's and 2000's AMD was the only way to go, the Pentium's sucked. The Athlon x2 vs the Pentium D was a joke..the Athlon was farrrr faster than the D. However when intel came out with the Core2 lineup, well I went that direction. They cost a little more but they overclocked better and all around had better performance. HOWEVER the phenom's were cheaper than then core2quads but had similar stock performance, so it wasn't a bad cpu all around. I'm just having a hard time understanding how people can say these FX's were good when I'm being told that I should have benched it against a 2 year old core i7 900 to make it fair. Thats not fair. That just shows how behind they were in performance. Or being told that well if you overclocked it to 5ghz it would beat the 3ghz intel....again....that's not fair. You and I might do something like that and be perfectly content, but that can't be the official solution from AMD.
@@jims_junk idk man as far as i remember most of the people who had fx cpus overclocked them because it was easy and provided much needed performance uplift
@@zachbeckner yeah but also the fact that they overclocked very well - almost every cpu was cabaple of that - lot of them can even do 5.5 Ghz Im not amd fanboy and i did purchase intel 6 gen i5 tho but one of my friends had fx 8320 at same time and he rarely complained about performance
I'm not sure if comparing an FX3600 against an i7 is a fair test, maybe an i5 would be more realistic.. I had this FX CPU for many years and I never had any issues with it. For it's time it was a good CPU. I still have it with it's motherboard and memory.
i reamber getting my 6600k and even tho my amd 8350x only had ddr3 memory the 6600k made the 8350x look like what the core 2 duo looked like to the 8350x even tho the 6600k only has 4 core and 4 threads it ran at a lower speed then the 8350x i havent touched amd since even in the athlon 64 days im only 23 but i reamber intel kicked ass in league and evrything
i like this type of videos, comparing older CPU performance, although here it's not fair to AMD FX, because it was a cheaper, lower tier processor. It's a consensus these days that the FX series was a disappointment and Intel made faster CPUs at that time.
The method AMD used to double threads is closer to actual cores than Intel's hyperthreading, its just too bad that the rest of the design was so terrible and was really more like putting lipstick on a pig
There's one big mistake in this comparison: the 6300 was meant to compete against the i5 for a fraction of the price, not the i7 from the same gen, you should have compared it either against the i5 or used an FX8300/8350 (Piledriver architecture, not Bulldozer, not sure about the 8300 arch, 8350 is Piledriver for sure, there are several 8000 models, check it out yourself for the test), which was still much cheaper than the i7 and got a similar performance, not about the amount of cores/threads, and that's why they were great. I still run an FX-6300. It runs pretty much everything, most bottlenecking comes from my GPU, I rarely - if ever - get it to 100% load other than in benchmarking. Get your information right before comparing. Yes, the 6300 was meant to be slower than an i7, so it is.
I believe I said that either in the video or maybe it was a post. Did the video just to see how they stacked up. I did another video with an i5 and the i5 still kicked it's ass
I'm not a hater. I'm not an fanboy for either side. I go with what works at that moment. As you say the price was 50% lower, but lets not forget that AMD always released lower priced cpu's. That was their thing. The problem is that those previous cpu's (Athlon, Phenom, etc) all performed about the same if not better in some cases than the Intel offering.
@@jims_junk Price was almost 3x lower. You could buy 3 FX 6300's or one 3770k. And if it performed like 50% worse (less in games) it was actually better bang for a buck. And this was i7. I won't even start with i5's. Thanks to faster single core they were usually better gaming options back then thanks for games being 1-2 threaded but nowadays they aren't worth sh.t, while FX 6300 still is decent CPU. I should know, as I had to choose lately between two computers (I have too much of them). After excessive testing I sold i5 4460 machine as FX 6300 (OC-d to 4,3 ghz) was on par or better in 90% of tests. 10% being 1-2 threaded games, obviously. I need a Win 7 computer and chose FX6300. It has aged WAY better. :)
I saw a few of these in budget "gaming" systems. You know, throw a slightly more modern video card and some leds in an old pc trash. The FX series ran hot, had lower performance, was far from efficient, and due to its power usage usually required beefy motherboards. In a way much like the Nvidia FX series, a rather failed line up. And if I have a choice out of a honest 4 cores 8 threads out of that time, and a 8 threads FX... Intel wins hands down. I don't care how many cores are showing, I know it is all about performance.
Correct. Please don't get me wrong. FX was a train wreck & I'm not a fan of false advertising. I'm glad AMD learned from their mistakes. But... I can say when I built a gaming rig with one of these about a year after release it was the same price as an ivy bridge i3. When factoring in value some of the FX lineup was actually palatable (I think Newegg gave the 8350 a value award). Would I build one from scratch today? No. In terms of second hand markets that value is long gone.
This isn't a good comparison because you're comparing a CPU that sold for $132 (FX-6300) with a CPU that sold for $278, more than DOUBLE the price! While you're at it, are you going to make some other "ingenious" comparisons, like maybe a GTX 1660 Super with an RX 5700 XT? They were also out at the same time. The Intel CPU that would've been a similar price would've been an i3-3220 at $117 and it was more like a Phenom II in performance while the FX-6300 was more like an i5-2500K. This is just as bad as the geniuses who kept comparing the Phenom II X4 940 with the vastly more expensive i7-920.
I did. This video was because its what I had at that moment. Put out a poll asking if I should do a bench anyways just to see the results. They voted yes..so I did it. The video put out after this is an i5 vs the 6300
AMD is struggling enough as it is and you compare it with a CPU more than twice as expensive?😂 It should be competing against an i3 or the weakest i5 at most not an i7. But maybe that’s what you had available. But old i3 or i5 can be had for next to nothing to test with. Other than that, great content.
You're comparing Intel's BEST $320 4 core 8 thread desktop CPU to AMD's MIDRANGE $130 3 module 6 thread model? SMH This is the reason so many people "hated" FX. Most tech tubers are Intel users with little to no expertise overclocking FX. They don't know what to do, and didn't do enough research on how to properly choose parts and tune the platform. When done PROPERLY, an AVERAGE FX 6300 will OC to 4.5-4.6GHz. A GOOD 6300 will OC near 5GHz. And a CHERRY will go past 5GHz. Buildzoid even found a 6300 that hit 5.6GHz on air cooling, VALIDATED. If you want to do a better and more interesting video, get a GOOD 990FX motherboard (The one in this video is NOT), Good PSU, Good cooling, low latency 2133 RAM with tightened timings, and READ the AMD FX Performance Tuning Guide. You'll have a HELL of a lot more fun, and the results will surprise you, and you won't have AMD users pointing out the mistakes you made. 🙂
in the defense. yeah the 8350 would of been more of a pairing for the 3770 as both had 8 threads. however u also got to look at the fx chip price roughly 60% cheaper. plus the intel motherboards were also significantly more expensive. amd may have fallen off since the launch of the t bird or first dual core fx 64 but price to performance they did fit and got the job done for a lot of ppl on a budget. i remember dropping well over 1k for a 4770 ram and motherboard alone
I used to have an Fx 6300. When I was a poor student, still able to buy this processor. I could never afford Intel and I love Amd for giving me an accessible alternative. Now, even though I have money, I choose Amd because of its performance. Things can change very quickly.
@veryevilpersonfromillumina5893 Exactly!
ZEN was AMD's Ivy/Sandy Bridge.
I remember going to microcenter to buy a FX8350 system, but ivy bridge was on sale since haswell was about to drop, so I walked out with a great deal on a 3770k/Z77 setup. It turned out to be very fortunate, as that OC'ed 3770k performed well enough to stay in my main PC until around 2019.
Similar story here. Didn't upgrade until Zen 2 finally launched. Still love my 3900x
Edit: OC'd to 4.4GHz on the 3770k BTW. It was also stable at 4.5GHz but also insanely hotter.
although the FX CPUs were not the fastest, i know a few people who played on these CPUs till 2 years ago and never heard a complaint.
I received I think around $35 for my FX-8230 because of the lawsuit (plus a check for $1 like a year later). With that said, I'd argue that only calling it a 4 core processor isn't quite telling the whole story. I don't think calling it an 8 core is being honest either; it lands somewhere in the middle. I think using the nomenclature of "modules/threads" is being the most fair. e.g. 4 Modules/8 Threads, 3 Modules/6 Threads, etc.
The terrible IPC of FX is what really did it in. Even if they never claimed that it had full cores, the terrible IPC still doomed it to fail. Thankfully it was saved by having low prices, especially later on, and allowed for people on a budget to build decent enough rigs without breaking the bank. Plus, the fact that you could OC the crap out of almost every chip made them even better for budget builds. It was great for the right people, but terrible for everyone else.
"It was great for the right people, but terrible for everyone else." - That's fair. Low price, someone who knows how to get the most out of it and understands what it is...that's a win win.
Good video. Lets not get too excited over a comparison of cpu's from yesterday.. or even today.
Thank you
Who expect a cpu that costs ~130$ to match a cpu that costs over twice as much?
Yeah the Video fails to go over price to performance. Should have compared to an Intel around the same price.
The next video will be an 8300 or 8350 vs the i7
AMD marketed them as though they would compete against them. that’s why this is a fair comparison and frankly, shitty marketing is a huge part of the reason these bulldozer era chips failed so horribly.
8350 won't do better, they are awful in single thread and there was no competition vs intel single thread at the time, the games were not optimized for for more than 6 threads at best and even when the game was optimized for all those 8 threads, and overclocked to the max 8350 would never beat even a locked down 3770
@jims_junk if they cost the same when they launched, then that would be a fair comparison. I don't care what amd shitty marketing team did and what they said, but nobody with something in their head would expect a 130$ cpu to match 300$ cpu.
What's really disappointing is that FX6300 was far from matching even the Phenom II X6. Some analysis suggests that the very narrow Decoder hurts the performance more than the shared FPU design.
sorry but thats just untrue, fx6300 in most cases had slight advantage over phenom II x6 1090T, in gaming and productivity ranging from 5-20% advantage in favor of fx6300.
Simple math. 3M/6C Buldozer had less AGU, ALU units than 6C/6T Phenom.
Phenom 6x3= 18, Buldozer 6x2=12 each, that detail was also put on lawsuit because 6C Phenom still had more than "8C" Buldozer - 24 vs 16 - 50% more, even faster clock of Buldozer could not compensate missing elements. And 3M/6C Buldozer had 3 decoders 1 port, while Phenom 6. When it comes to FPU Buldozer had wider FPU but was shared by 2 cores. Phenom had 6 real FPU's any thread had it's own, while Buldozer 3 wider (6x SSE 128bit) but shared max by 3 threads.
That decoder issue, was fixed in Piledriver they added ports but it was only able to "pass trough" second thread if it was cached (or something like that). Buldozer IMO was designed as improved Phenom 4ALU, 4AGU, wider 256bit FPU (4x64bit), It was strong as Intel Core in first draft, 32nm gave them room for 2 additional cores, BUT then someone, some genious decided "you know what let's cut that by half and call it modules". So we end up with 30% slower cores, 2ALU, 2AGU, shared decoder, shared fpu. And massive L3 with very wide association added to AMD existing disadvantage of slower memory.
When i first saw Buldozer i though someone, some "Intel insider" trolled AMD and designed monster, whoever it was - ZEN was proof to be mistake, they took some ideas from Pentium 4/ Core lineage uops cache. Improved decoder and memory access was comparable to Intel ~45ns instead of 100ns. Put 4 execution units available fully to each thread. And finally made on 14nm.
LLano is proof what Phenom 8C could be on 32nm.
That wasn't true with 6300, but it was true with 6120. Vishera cores were fixed and a bit faster.
@@veryevilpersonfromillumina5893 I was suspecting management. That explanation would be true i Buldozer was 200m2. It was 315mm2 4M vs 250mm2 6C Phenom 45nm that was very strange. Phenom made in 32nm would be 150-200mm2. LLano had even better use of space. All was wasted by L3 cache, wide association. This could be demand of management to have lot of cache purpose of server market. Notice also how Intel used ring bus while AMD used point-to-point. Ring bus reduces complexity of bus but adds some delay. Point to point is very complex. Notice cache compexity i was wrong it was even worse L3 64 ways - that was insane. L2 was 16 and L1 was 4 ways. Comparing to 8 way of L2 Intel used to choose same ever since Pentium III and 4 for L1. Originally probably was decent CPU for desktop. On server market you sell number of cores not performance of running multiple threads but actual number of cores. It's possible they promised physical 8C with all that number of features, that amount of cache, decided to cut each core by half. I can understand that. Probably it was like you said - pressure.
i just buy FX 6300 this month for $9, it's pretty good OC Processor, It can do 4.1Ghz with only 1.3v.
A part of me still wants an FX-9590 tbh.
the hell nah, literally heater in winter and god tier electricity bill
Coming from somebody who HAS a 9590, it's not really worth it TBH. A properly tuned 8350 can OC to 4.7-4.8 and will run modern games surprisingly well. Leaves most 4 core i3's and i5's in the dirt. No I'm not exaggerating. But I would not get one for anything other than tinkering for fun. New Ryzen CPUs are FAR better, and cost less. Go Ryzen if it's for your daily driver.
I have one in my collection. It’s fun to mess around with, but also kinda boring as it’s already running quite on the limit from stock.
Intels "rentable units" that will be their next big innovation for their CPUs are gonna hit about as well as bulldozer did
I remember the FX lineup, was such a dissapointment, I kept my 955 black edition for years longer than I should have, eventually got a 3570k
a couple of weeks ago i found a 955 at a junkyard, pocketed it. maybe i'll find a nice motherboard to go with it as well
When considering that the AM3+ FX chips were actually designed to compete with the Nehalem platform they don't look as bad. I'd like to see a FX 8 "core" vs a 900 series i7 and a 3000 series i3, with a mix of old and new games.
The next video will be an 8300 or 8350 vs the i7. The 900 series from intel was a couple years older than these chips.
your thinking of the phenoms on am3
No...He's right. The FX 8150 launched the SAME MONTH as the 2700k. And FX was a YEAR LATE at that time. It was supposed to launch & compete with the i7 960, or similar.
Late to the party. But i recently did a 6-game benchmark with my i7 920 OC to 3.8 GHz. And i was shocked that it was marginally (but measurably) faster than my FX 9590. We are talking a couple of percent so not a huge win, but it was consistent.
still rocking a FX6300 in my man cave pc with a £20 Asus tenfiddy, 32gb ddr3 emails and shops on Amazon like a champ, and play youtube videos. all a boy needs in the cave. oh and retro mane games.
best way to get fx to perform great is to bump the north bridge and htt as well as not just focusing on multiplier
"AMD marketed these as having more cores than they actually had."
Actually, that statement is factually inaccurate. With the FX6300, you DID get actual 6-cores. The only problem was that each dual-core cluster ("Bulldozer Module") basically had shared Fetch/Decode logic, along with a solo FPU. Then there was the super-deep pipeline, not much unlike Netburst (Pentium 4/D), though AMD did allow the branch predictor to continue future predictions until the queue was full, instead of halting the whole cycle in case of a stall.
On paper, Bulldozer was an intriguing "concept" that relied heavily on raw frequency, just like Pentium 4, but Global Foundry's 32nm process got in its way. Plus, AMD also couldn't anticipate Sandy Bridge and its crazy IPC uplift over Nehalem (~20%) and Core 2 (~25%) so these Bulldozer CPUs were - unsurprisingly - pretty much DOA.
Amin, i don`t get how people can be so stupid and ignorant still claiming that nonsense about FX cpu-s, even autor of this video.
It wasn't exactly intriguing "concept", first Zen arch had similar cores to Carizzo cores (last FX gen), but they were on much newer node. First gen Ryzen was essentially FX+.
That's pretty much how I have heard Bulldozer described over the years... as AMD's turn at the Pentium 4/Netburst idea that flopped for Intel. You'd think they would have learned from watching their competitor fail with that idea, right?
@@pennyandrews3292 It was not same, main idea was `bout "modules" in this video stupidly referenced as "cores", idea was that they could make as much cores cpu as they wanted just by ading more modules 2, 4, 6,8 etc, but power consuption has stoped them from goin up from 8 core (4 modules), speed was inportant but accsent was on modules not just speed.
The FX cpu's did have 6 or 8 cores, but they were Integer cores. They shine doing computational workloads like the World Community Grid.
Oh boy I'm commenting from my main PC that is still running 3770k @4.0ghz.
:) Nothing to be ashamed of. I still have one too, as well as an older Thinkpad with one. Hell, I use a netbook for certain things. If it does the job then who cares how old or new it is.
Personally, I would try to find a FX-8320. They are a base 3.4ghz chip that turbo's to 3.7ghz. Would be a closer match to the i7 in terms of clock speed.
Thanks for the heads up!
@@jims_junk No problem. It was actually the exact CPU I used for several years during college. It worked but I remember being disappointed at the miniscule amount of improvement over the old Phenom II X6 I was using before that.
I always wanted an i7. Finally in 2018 I bought a used one off Amazon for $130 to go with my MSI B75 motherboard I bought in 2013 running an i5-3470. That motherboard and i7-3770 with 16gb of DDR3-1600 ram are still running fine to this day. I'm writing this comment on that system. My daily driver. Stay Strong.
Enjoyed your benchmarks as always, although im not sure why you were so negative on fx6300 while comparing to much much more expansive intel part, i mean i7 3770 was more than twice as expensive
Thanks! Well TBH I've heard even the i5 could kick the snot out of the 6300. The next vid will be an 8300 or 8350 against the i7, but might go back and also bench the 6300 against an i3 or i5 just tosee.
@@jims_junk ah nice, looking forward to more tests, though please keep in mind that $132 price of fx 6300 was really low, i think for that much you could only get get i3 and no i5 was available at that price.
For that price you could only get i3 2100/2120 ($117/$138) or i3 3220 ($125)
Which would put to interesting comparison,
3 module/6thread fx6300 VS
2 core/4thread i3. I think it would make an interesting video :)
I will also mention that the last series of FX were also better than the first by a good bit, In my experience that 6300 out performs the 8100 in most everything as well. I am curious though as I have the 6300 and benched it against an i5 2500 and used the 6300 instead. I may have to go revisit that to see why as I still have both, I just shelved the i5.
The fx 6300 benches a hair higher than an i5 2500 but I remember the i5 being a little short in the pants for some reason.
I had an FX6300 for like a week back when Skyline was a thing. I bought it cause it was a cheap upgrade over my ageing Phenom II 955 and since my motherboard was compatible I didn't need to spend more money, plus all I wanted was a better EU4 and GTA experience.
The CPU I got was a total dud and never worked properly, ran a number of tests and even bought a brand new motherboard but it didn't help. Fortunately the store agreed with me so I asked for a return of both CPU and mobo, sold my old Phenom and got an i5 6600k.
I think I woulda needed to upgrade sooner had the FX I purchased was a good one which woulda mean more money spent. Thanks AMD I guess lol.
From what I understand, the FX CPU cores have their own integer math units, but not their own FPU... and technically, back in the 386 days, the 387 was a separate part that did floating point Math, so if you go by that definition of a CPU, you could understand an FX core as something like having two 386SX cores that share a single 387, meaning it will be able to do lots of integer math in parallel, but slow down a lot when you want floating point performance. I recall that back in the day, the highest end FX CPUs were seen as good for doing lots of server-related tasks in parallel, but not for gaming or anything a home user would want to do due to the poor floating-point performance and latency. But the lower-tier parts were seen as not worthwhile at all, with the best AMD had being only good for massively multithreaded workloads that didn't require an FPU, which is arguably a niche that would have fit the Opteron better than anything a consumer would want. The reputation of the FX CPUs is a part of why I went from being a K6-2 and Athlon XP fan, to sticking with Intel afterwards. Even in retrospect, as reviled as they were, Pentium 4s have aged much better in terms of software continuing to actually work on them (due to SSE2 and all that), and I later learned that part of the reason I had so much trouble building an Athlon XP system is because there are almost no protections for anything on the AMD side... you hook up your CPU fan wrong or set a jumper wrong, your CPU will fry like an egg... but Intel had some failsafes in place that would protect even overclockers from shooting themselves in the foot much earlier in the game. Plus, a lot of stuff is validated against Intel designs and not against AMD, etc, and before you know it, going AMD to save a few bucks is just almost never worth it. I can just straight up tell you that I bought an i7 3770 in 2012, and used it as my main PC until 2021. Didn't even start feeling its age until 2019 or so.
Great video, I picked up a i5 4590s and a AMD A9 7500 for free, The i5 system is a SFF mini pc and the AMD is just the motherboard and cpu/cooler
No surprise Buldozer was crap - Phenom had 1 decoder / core, 3 ALU and 3 AGU units while Buldozer ultimately 0.5 decoder, 0.5 FPU, 2ALU, 2AGU, per core that makes it 30% slower or Phenom 50% faster depending how you count. Simple math. 4M/8C Buldozer had less execution units than 6C/6T Phenom. Phenom 6x3= 24, Buldozer 2x8=16 that detail was also put on lawsuit. 4M/8C Buldozer had 4 decoders, while Phenom - 6. Intel Core architecture was if i remember correctly had 3 or 4 execution units/core. It's clocked higher. But you cannot name 32nm Buldozer as 8core CPU if you compare to 45nm Phenom. There are elements missing.
LLano on FM1 was 32nm bulk based, based on previous architectures, had faster cache tighter association, but had fewer cores and GPU on board. It was clocked 3.4GHz. Had no AVX had no HT no L3 cache(?) instead that GPU. Designed for laptops. Ultimately architecture saved AMD that lineage of architecture was used in consoles. If AMD could make 8C CPU made of LLAno cores no GPU, and 8C CPU made of Buldozer. Nobody would buy Buldozer for gaming. Literally noone.
I bacame huge fan of "fusion" cores. Before AMD fused two lineage SOI based Buldozers and successors and LLAno 28nm bulk. One of their 28nm "low power" CPU actually on paper draw less power than ARM in iPhone. Better performance/mm2. Jaguar used on Xbox was from that lineage. The problem to win mobile market was stand-by, and that was only possible if you have 14nm. And problem was clock. 1 chanell memory too slow to be shared by GPU. Intel introduced turbo so on so forth.
- Core architectures had very fast RAM access, tight cache association, 45ns access to RAM comparing to around 70ns Phenom and even worse on Buldozer ~100ns, all these L1,2,3 caches generates delay. RAM itself no cache is 15ns. Core architecture had unique uOps caching it's hard to understand to me how that architecture works, introduced by Pentium 4. Pnenom was caching pure code and data, Core was caching uOps that included rearangement of code "pre processed" by decoder. All of that was introduced by Zen.
FX's were such pieces of shit, i upgraded from an 8320 TO a 3770k. makes zero sense when you think about the timeline, but it was such a colossal difference. that i7 held its own for years too.
The problem isn’t core count- it’s that fpu. FPUs are very important for gaming- look at super socket 7 k6-2 getting spanked by pentium II slot 1 machines in doom. It’s actually weirdly like netburst too in that it has a really long pipeline and needs optimized code
FPU is very important in gaming, but on GPU. Gaming for CPU is mostly integers.
@@MJ-uk6lu this is not entirely true. FPUs become useful depending on new technologies. Usually things that were handled by the FPU get moved to the GPU. An example is early games that used physics, or early 3D games like quake- games initially used the CPU for graphical functions (doom, duke) then the FPU (quake, need for speed) then the GPU (nfs II, quake 2, GLQuake). We saw the same pattern with rolling out games with physics, iirc the og half life used the FPU for physics math, and possibly even hl2 but newer versions of the source engine can do it on the GPU. Sadly when the FX series was a thing physx would only run on either CPU or Nvidia. Although you were able to brute force it once these chips approached 5ghz, that was a worse case scenario for the relatively common 6300+7870 that was so common in this era
@@fenixlolnope361 Or you just didn't use PhysX. Also that doesn't change much, about FPU not being well used in games on CPU. FX FPU was fine enough. Performance deficit for most people were with integer units, which weren't fast.
@@MJ-uk6lu integer units weren’t that bad though.. like yeah Intel was beating them but nehalem and sandy bridge are some FIERCE competition like, they completely destroyed AMDs enterprise business with this architecture, but mainly because of the scaling and AMDs lack of threads and complete tonedeafness in terms of pricing. The single fpu hurt them there for a lot of workloads too, which ran potential customers away from them even further. I will say they do great for database/web server applications and for a NAS but that was it really :/ because they have the capability of running a lot of threads per module (and the shared resources actually benefit us here)
@@fenixlolnope361 AMD had threads, in fact even more than Intel, but they were so slow. FX sucket at single threaded stuff, now imagine loads of FX cores, but running at like ~2GHz. They were so slow that even old Athlon 64 was faster per core.
And while FPUs were weak, they weren't all that releveant besides some business applications. It's the integer performance that was badly behind and even more so RAM controllers. They were so bad that they were literally 2.5x slower than Intel's. All things considering its amazing that FX chips didn't suck a lot more, but they were so badly underfed by data. Sure they had bigger caches, but not really 2x bigger and and those caches still have to have data input from RAM. So that was one absolutely massive bottleneck.
And now go back to servers and imagine all that in server chip. You most likely have tons of data flows, they need to be as fast as possible and highly parralel. You can compensate that by adding memory channels, but so could Intel. So that was just bad
I had FX 6300 myself and I also learned that AMD's stock voltage tuning was very poor. I could easily drop 0.3 volts and chip was perfectly prime95 stable. And wattage dropped dramatically. So AMD was really needlessly pumping them up with volts. Way more than Intel did. Which leads me to think that they most likely left huge safety margins because they just didn't want to test QA as long as Intel did. Which should save them money.
So the whole development and release of FX chips was badly botched, not to mention already delayed and to add even more insult to injury Zambezi was buggy and even slower, meanwhile last FX revision (Carizzo) was insanely efficient and as much as 20% faster per clock compared to Vishera and that's with L3 cache disabled. With L3 cache it would have beaten Vishera even more. Possibly 30-40% per core.
And Ryzen wasn't all that huge rework of FX under the hood. It did fix some problems, but most performance was gained by moving to 12 nm and thus efficiency as well. Zen 1 was just Carizzo+ with much faster memory support and finally more decent although finicky and buggy initial controllers.
AMD botched FX because K10 was disaster for them and they lost a lot of money, also their ATi purchase was costing them dearly and they were forced to sell off a lot of other departments like mobile chip department, which gimped their ability to finance FX RnD, thus FX was launched in highly imperfect state and Intel was stomping it hard.
Using an AMD GPU would be better with these weak CPUs as their drivers have less CPU overhead.
was very late for the party... i upgraded my Phenom I x4 9950 BE only in 2016... i went for the (almost odd at the time) Fx8350+Asus Sabertooth 990FX R2 at the time... 6th gen Intels and DDR4 was already there and i could build a (legacy) high end rig for about the same price of an i5 6400 with a cheap-o Mobo.
I don't really regreated, since i was able to rock with an R7 370 4gb for the first 18months and then switch to Rx 570 4gb up until 2023 in which i switched to an Rx 580 4gb. To be fair Rx580 produced a little bit of bottleneck in many (specially Dx11) games, nevertheless it served me well up until i upgraded in february 2024 to an AM4 platform which started with 1st gen R5 1600 and 2months later was upgraded to R7 5700x.
Nevertheless Fx8350 still serves me as a sec. rig at my parent's home... that PC is at a point in which still has more use than the price i could sell it for... so it will stay
I loved mine considering I paid around $150 for a board, cpu, and memory at Microcenter and it was a huge upgrade for the machine it replaced and you could not build anything comparable from Intel at anywhere near that price. I will have to check the passmark scores to see how they match yours. What chipset was on the board you used?
Ok my scores were as follows, CPU Mark: 4439, Memory Mark: 1337.7, and Disk Mark is 2807.0 I left out overall passmark because it is irrelevant given that I have a RX570 as a gpu so score would be higher because of that. So not too far off.
Should have benched that with one of the 3770's cores disabled, as well as disabling hyperthreading. Or go as few cores as you can till the FX 6300 beats it!
Kinda going for stock settings. As in your buddy bought this, and you bought that. Which really was better. The next vid will be an 8300 or 8350 against an i7
He kinda did that with the single threaded test and it was still far far behind
I still have a I7 3770 maychwd with a GTX 1050 ti in a media sever running Win 10. It still runs older games great.
The FX-6300 was the first CPU I ever bought on my own for a build. Got through Battlefield 4 with it. 99% sure it was paired with an R9 270X GPU. I later had two 270Xs in Crossfire lol.
Didn’t keep it for very long bc I quickly learned there were better options out there, but I’ll always remember it.
Had it under a Hyper 212 EVO Cooler :’)
the FX line of CPU is AMD's very own Intel Pentium 4 CPU. Hot running and slow
I was thinking the same exact thing, 'didn't this happen before sometime'
@@zachbeckner FX was AMD going down the pentium path. Using shared resources allowed for higher click speeds (the FX 9950 had a boost clock of 5Ghz), the problem was when you had to share 1 FPU per 2 integer cores you'd get major bottlenecks and end up with a scenario of 4c8t like Intels core i7 line. AMD priorities were click speech not ipc. This is what happens when a philanthropist runs the company over an engineer.
i am using fx 6300 from 2014 . i overclocked my processor upto 4.66ghz with ant esports ice-g612 air cooler. i have not installed any gpu in my pc but my asus m5a75 motherboard has radeon 3000 integrated graphics installed 🙂. i am faceing no issue in any coding related task and browsing. It works perfectly fine.
They have 8 cores. 8 integer cores. This is very different than hyper threading, hyper threading doesn’t require them to split an FPU
Also in OC, raise the NB frequency... may need a touch on the CPU NB voltage. 2400MHz NB is required to get optimum performance from 1600 RAM
I have both a 3770k and a 8350 system and yeah, the Intel is just way better. Except in winter - the 8350 is a much better space heater
Far better than the Pentium D, with the 8350 you can keep warm AND get work done.
Assuming that one FX module was like hyperthreaded core, you should have compared 8 core FX with i7. And for curiosity's sake disabled HT and for FX disabled second thread per module to truly see how fast cores actually were. But I wouldn't expect anything too great. FX 6300 was priced at i3 prices, it was much cheaper than even cheapest i5s. FX 8320/8350 was also often cheaper than locked i5s. Still terrible chips due to their high wattage.
Yup. I said that in the video and a post. The next video will be an 8 core fx
I still use 6300 with 8 gb ram and 1650 super.. good for normal task.. gaming good if you are offline gamer.. it can get you 45+ fps in new games too in a medium custom preset... Tweaking your own settings yeah good..
next not competative matchup.. why? FX-6300 at primiere cost ~i3 3220. @JimsJunk cant u do some fair match?
I explained why both in a post and in the video. The next vid will be an 8300 or 8350
i bought a fx 8320 brand new for 100$ when the 4790k came out i pushed 4.7ghz all core and overclocked the hell out of the hyper transfer overclocking hyper transfer is better than core overclocking with fx even at stock core speeds
Really good video. If you might be interested, I have an FX 8370 and MSI 990FXA Gaming motherboard that work great. If you would be interested let me know. Both work great. I just upgrade to a 5900x.
Even with shared stuff it was still 8 physical cores. The hared stuff nerfed them though.
my FX have very bad MC i cant get more that 1700mhz dual channel on FX83xx and if i try faster than MC switch to single channel mode
Is the memory running on the FX in dual channel mode? Cause I just noticed on the y-cruncher run and unigine superposition it says the fx set-up has 12gb of ram
Yes. I know its not fair but I was trying to give the FX the best chance, so I played with ram. Sometimes it ran better in dual channel some single channel..it was weird so i'd mess with each and keep the best score.
im still using a i7 3770 which i overclocked to 4.2ghz (all core) and yes i mean the i7 3770 not the i7 3770k my mainboard can do that for "reasons"
I think the bus speed would go to 240-260 Mhz if the motherboard is good enough. The "correct" way to OC is to set the NB frequency and HT link frequency to 2000 mhz and then up the bus speed. Extra voltage needs to be given to the northbridge. The last after everything else is overclocked is the CPU multiplier. The RAM multiplier needs to be correct for the ram also. I have a good Asus Sabertooth 990FX Motherboard so the overclocking is working very good. I like overclocking old cpu:s. I have a Pentium D 945 3.4 Ghz that i overclocked to the max (4.4 Ghz). I had windows 10 LTSC installed and with stock speed when i only closed windows on desktop the closing was stuttery. It went to smooth with 4.4 Ghz. But overall it was still very slow. I had a GTX 1060 in that machine that played the VP9 youtube smooth but using chrome to navigate the web was choppy as hell😁
It's been a long time, but as I recall, price wise it was a dual core Intel vs the FX 6000 series. So you would likely be more correct to compare the AMD cpu you have to and I 3 or maybe and I 5 not an I 7 to be fair.
Lastly, there are plenty of Bulldozers still going to work and chugging along today. For office workloads they are still fine, they were actually pretty good at multithreaded workloads, like having a bunch of apps open at the same time.
@RJ-vb7gh Thanks for the comment and yes I did.
ruclips.net/video/qJd3FPNrzjw/видео.html
What we can't forget is the price : sure, the performance wasn't great compared to Intel, but it was so much cheaper. With the 6xxx series, you had something close (a little worse, but still) to an i5 with i3 pricing and with the 8xxx series, you had close to i7 performance (against, a little worse) for i5 pricing (especially if you looked at the 8320, it was only $170 at launch and you could overclock it to make it as fast as the 8350). For budget gaming computers and for cheap video editing, it was a godsend for a while.
Problem is, it was fine during the Ivy Bridge era and still had a good price advantage over Haswell for a little while, but AMD did NOTHING to follow through, they kept selling them for like 5 years with little to no upgrade, while Intel was at least making their CPUs more energy-efficient and a little faster with each passing generations (and that was the time when Intel was barely improving). Sure, AMD had the FM2 / FM2+ at the same time (I actually bought an AMD A10-7850k when it was released for my first gaming PC), but they were mostly APUs and low-end CPUs, they didn't compete in the same market at all. If AMD had upgraded the FX line, I'm sure it wouldn't have such a bad reputation, the Ryzen 1 wasn't great either, but Ryzen 2 followed wonderfully and Ryzen is now considered a really good line, even after the initial mediocrity (it wasn't horrible, but it was really temperamental with hardware and still had pretty weak single-core performances).
fx 6300 was more of an i3/i5 competitor if i remember correctly
The next video will be an 8300 or 8350 vs the i7
@jims_junk Nice, looking forward to watching!
ruclips.net/video/qJd3FPNrzjw/видео.html
you are using the 970 le which is a 4phase vrm board so if you do go 8 core stick to 95 watt tdp
txs for the heads up
Bro change the title "Was it that bad? AMD FX 6300 vs Intel i7 7330 Released same time, same performance?"
i7 7330
oh crap...thanks!
Thanks again! Maybe I've had a bit too much allergy meds.
@@jims_junk No problem bro, we make mistakes, it's cool
This comparition is INCORRET!! Because FX 6300 had 40% of cost i7 only! You have to test FX-8350 vs i5-3570 or even lower
ruclips.net/video/F-FMzHLjyuI/видео.html
In the jurisdiction I resided at the time ... the FX-6300 was a $100 to $130 the I7-3000s were anywhere from 300 to 400 depending on K or non K.as a budget conscious buyer yeah you can say the I7 blows it out of the water ... but is it thrice as good ? You be the judge
AMD FX was tragic. I went from having AMD since the K6-2, Athlon, Atlon XP, X2, all the way to the Opteron 185, Phenom II X4 945, and then right to an i7 2600k because the FX was straight trash.
Comparing a fx6300 vs an i7 is weird. When it came out, it had an msrp of 132 dollars, a little bit more than a i3 3200 ( 119 ) and a lot less than an i5 3570 (194)
The next video will be an 8300 or 8350 vs the i7
FX were bad compared to intel 1155 CPU.
However, the FX 6300 was 130$ (later less than 100$) and the i7 3770 was over 300$
The i7 should be match against 8350 or 8370. Even then still only 200$ vs 300$
Back in the day, I chose a FX 8320E because for 120$, I could only get a core i3.
I overclocked that CPU from 3.2GHz to 4.5GHz and the performance was pretty good for a 120$ part.
The next video will be an 8300 or 8350 vs the i7
I loved my FX8120. It replaced a C26600 and realy felt like a generational leap. I overcloked it so much that the next CPU upgrade (Xeon 1231v3) didn't felt that much more powerfull.
upgradet from athlon x4 640 - to fx6300 - to ryzen 3600
i feel like the narrative is more negative then is has to be when comparing to i7-3770
i know people have already pointed out price differences 2500-2600&3770 to fx series.
how i rememberd it people was trying to decide on i3/i5 vs fx6xxx or 8xxx - or pay a little more and go for i7. as i remember a i3 was trading blows with the fx series depending on context.
It was not great, and you were aware, but for those with small budgets and those who stuck with it trying to get the best out of it, i dont remember it being that bad.
Also i remember a lot of casual overclockers running these at 4.8 - 5.1 on day to day basis, and reporting that the system while being slight behind on the numbers felt more snappy and fluid then their intel system. cant comment on weather thats just placebo speaking, never had the chance myself.
as I said i'll be releasing another video comparing the i7 against an 8 'core' fx. A lot of people use the price argument, however that isn't really something you can go by. There have been many times, if not all times prior that AMD had the cheaper cpu when compared to intel. However many times it came pretty close in performance and sometimes even blew intel away. I'm not an intel or amd fanboy, i go with what works at that given time and appreciate the efforts from both sides. The FX however just seems a bit shady and really reminds me of Intels Pentium D days.
As far as feeling snappier...maybe that'll be the case with the 8'core' . I remember my Phenom was that way, as well as the Phenom that I benchmarked in a previous video. It was a bit slower in some benchmarks, but for gaming it took the cake. But the 6300 even fell far behind the i7 in single core testing. But...we'll see what happens with the 8 'core' variant.
I7 3770 here, it is overclocked to 4.1 ghz, best cpu I ever had, if i had bought the I5 counterpart or even worse, the FX-8350, then would have a massive bottleneck in the lastest games that I been playing with this I7 in 2022 and 2023, is paired with 24GB ram and a 1660 Ti
Your computer sounds like a mess lol. Way too weak cpu for modern games (also probably doesn’t have AVX2 which is super important for function and performance) , 6gb of vram doesn’t cut it, 1660 gpu’s were a decent budget GPU for awhile but today they are useless garbage. 24gb of ram means you have a mismatch of size per module, and probably have a mismatch of clocks, timing, voltages, and overall quality of silicon which forces all of the ram to ramp down to the spec of the worst performing module and with that cpu only putting you in the 1000mhz range of DDR3 in the first place and only in dual channel you can’t afford to lose even more bandwidth. If you were at least on x79 you could have close to 2000mhz and dual channel which makes it compete with even the best ddr4 in dual channel but with way better latency. You could build a insanely better pc for even a few hundred dollars.
@@gex581990 Let me explain why I ended having those specs: I have 4 modules Corsair Vengeance 1600 MHz, 2x8 + 2x4, manually set the timings to 10-10-10-27, that was too easy, no performance loss and dual channel working as espected, I was forced to put the 2x4 kit in the mix because needed for UEFN with other game open at the same time, prior the the upgrade the game was crashing due to insuficient RAM, I upgraded to the 1660 Ti in 2019, a very nice upgrade, coming from a GTX 770 that was underperforming really bad, and the AVX2 makes no significant difference when compared to the 4770K sucesor, I have benchmarks in my channel, check it out
I own two FX-8320E and both suck. The performance is comparable to the FX 8350 or the Intel i5 2400 (lol)
Oh you did overclock. But you never went extremeeeee with it~
Now overclock the 6300. I’m a big believer in these chips lmao
Did you mention the i7 uses pcie 3.0 and the old FX uses pcie 2.0? Doesn't seem like an unbiased fair test to me. Of course what do I know.
@@TheZachMan-09 I was always an AMD user since the day's of k6. I just found the entire FX series under whelming. I remember the first "8" core I got, in fact I still have it and it works. So slow and sluggo I was never impressed but it's to easy to bash old cpu's. That's be like comparing the k6-2 against the pentium II to which there is no comparison simply because the pentium II was faster.
Awesome video. Very well explained too. The FX series had fake core counts, which was disappointing at the time.
Thank you
How comes Superposition shows your AMD rig having only 12 Gb of RAM ? Bug, or did you inadvertently mismatch RAM sticks ? That could explain the abysmal RAM scores - also, AMD's dual channel was quite finicky back then, explaining why some people even with matching RAM could have bad scores.
As I said briefly in the video, I messed around with ram to get the best scores on the AMD side. The scores were so low that I tried anything to give it a fighting chance. I know that wasn't fair to the Intel side but as you said amds memory controller was finicky.
I wanted to run CEMU on the FX 6300. The frame rate is disappointing at 15 fps. Even a faster graphics card doesn't help. This CPU is about two generations behind a Intel 3rd generation CPU. Even a Core i7 860 from 2009 is a bit faster.
i saw many of these fx cpus overclocked to 5 Ghz so maybe this would do the trick
Possibly. But I'm looking at mostly stock performance. I'm not an intel or amd fanboy, just looking at what was offered on each side at a given time. Back in the 90's and 2000's AMD was the only way to go, the Pentium's sucked. The Athlon x2 vs the Pentium D was a joke..the Athlon was farrrr faster than the D. However when intel came out with the Core2 lineup, well I went that direction. They cost a little more but they overclocked better and all around had better performance. HOWEVER the phenom's were cheaper than then core2quads but had similar stock performance, so it wasn't a bad cpu all around. I'm just having a hard time understanding how people can say these FX's were good when I'm being told that I should have benched it against a 2 year old core i7 900 to make it fair. Thats not fair. That just shows how behind they were in performance. Or being told that well if you overclocked it to 5ghz it would beat the 3ghz intel....again....that's not fair. You and I might do something like that and be perfectly content, but that can't be the official solution from AMD.
@@jims_junk idk man as far as i remember most of the people who had fx cpus overclocked them because it was easy and provided much needed performance uplift
@@nvidiaplay probably because they had to
@@zachbeckner yeah but also the fact that they overclocked very well - almost every cpu was cabaple of that - lot of them can even do 5.5 Ghz
Im not amd fanboy and i did purchase intel 6 gen i5 tho but one of my friends had fx 8320 at same time and he rarely complained about performance
One of my pc build had an AMD FX 6000, was a decent enough cpu for the time.
I'm not sure if comparing an FX3600 against an i7 is a fair test, maybe an i5 would be more realistic.. I had this FX CPU for many years and I never had any issues with it. For it's time it was a good CPU. I still have it with it's motherboard and memory.
The next video will be an 8300 or 8350 vs the i7
i reamber getting my 6600k and even tho my amd 8350x only had ddr3 memory the 6600k made the 8350x look like what the core 2 duo looked like to the 8350x even tho the 6600k only has 4 core and 4 threads it ran at a lower speed then the 8350x i havent touched amd since even in the athlon 64 days im only 23 but i reamber intel kicked ass in league and evrything
i like this type of videos, comparing older CPU performance, although here it's not fair to AMD FX, because it was a cheaper, lower tier processor. It's a consensus these days that the FX series was a disappointment and Intel made faster CPUs at that time.
The next video will be an 8300 or 8350 vs the i7
fx6300 low frame &smooth
i7 3770 higher frame but lag
The method AMD used to double threads is closer to actual cores than Intel's hyperthreading, its just too bad that the rest of the design was so terrible and was really more like putting lipstick on a pig
There's one big mistake in this comparison: the 6300 was meant to compete against the i5 for a fraction of the price, not the i7 from the same gen, you should have compared it either against the i5 or used an FX8300/8350 (Piledriver architecture, not Bulldozer, not sure about the 8300 arch, 8350 is Piledriver for sure, there are several 8000 models, check it out yourself for the test), which was still much cheaper than the i7 and got a similar performance, not about the amount of cores/threads, and that's why they were great. I still run an FX-6300. It runs pretty much everything, most bottlenecking comes from my GPU, I rarely - if ever - get it to 100% load other than in benchmarking. Get your information right before comparing. Yes, the 6300 was meant to be slower than an i7, so it is.
I believe I said that either in the video or maybe it was a post. Did the video just to see how they stacked up. I did another video with an i5 and the i5 still kicked it's ass
oh and I have done a video with an 8320 against an i5
Lets say it was about 50% slower in productivity tests and bit less in games. Still it did cost almost 3x less. That's what haters tend to forget.
I'm not a hater. I'm not an fanboy for either side. I go with what works at that moment. As you say the price was 50% lower, but lets not forget that AMD always released lower priced cpu's. That was their thing. The problem is that those previous cpu's (Athlon, Phenom, etc) all performed about the same if not better in some cases than the Intel offering.
@@jims_junk Price was almost 3x lower. You could buy 3 FX 6300's or one 3770k. And if it performed like 50% worse (less in games) it was actually better bang for a buck. And this was i7. I won't even start with i5's. Thanks to faster single core they were usually better gaming options back then thanks for games being 1-2 threaded but nowadays they aren't worth sh.t, while FX 6300 still is decent CPU. I should know, as I had to choose lately between two computers (I have too much of them). After excessive testing I sold i5 4460 machine as FX 6300 (OC-d to 4,3 ghz) was on par or better in 90% of tests. 10% being 1-2 threaded games, obviously. I need a Win 7 computer and chose FX6300. It has aged WAY better. :)
no they were 8 cores just cores who shared resources , but still 8
Should have picked an FX8300
@koushiroizumi0 I did in a later video: ruclips.net/video/F-FMzHLjyuI/видео.html
You should compare this to an i5 :v
The next video will be an 8300 or 8350 vs the i7. Maybe after that I can slap in the i5 and redo the 6300.
Lol at all the Stockholm syndrome posts in Here..."I loved my FX CPU".
well its twice the price too
True, however so was most of AMD's lineup prior and they performed as well if not better than intel in some cases.
lol i had 3770k 😂 now i have a 13600K
I saw a few of these in budget "gaming" systems.
You know, throw a slightly more modern video card and some leds in an old pc trash.
The FX series ran hot, had lower performance, was far from efficient, and due to its power usage usually required beefy motherboards. In a way much like the Nvidia FX series, a rather failed line up.
And if I have a choice out of a honest 4 cores 8 threads out of that time, and a 8 threads FX... Intel wins hands down. I don't care how many cores are showing, I know it is all about performance.
So 40% more power at only double the cost. 😂 Who knew?
AMD has always been cheaper than Intel, yet those older cpu's had good performance.
@@jims_junkperformance is important. Value is also important.
@@hellbound83 and part of value is performance
Correct. Please don't get me wrong. FX was a train wreck & I'm not a fan of false advertising. I'm glad AMD learned from their mistakes. But... I can say when I built a gaming rig with one of these about a year after release it was the same price as an ivy bridge i3. When factoring in value some of the FX lineup was actually palatable (I think Newegg gave the 8350 a value award).
Would I build one from scratch today? No. In terms of second hand markets that value is long gone.
FX was probably the worst processor generation ever to exist.
hmm...kinda there with ya, although I'm thinkin the biggest mistake was Intels netburst years.
This isn't a good comparison because you're comparing a CPU that sold for $132 (FX-6300) with a CPU that sold for $278, more than DOUBLE the price!
While you're at it, are you going to make some other "ingenious" comparisons, like maybe a GTX 1660 Super with an RX 5700 XT? They were also out at the same time.
The Intel CPU that would've been a similar price would've been an i3-3220 at $117 and it was more like a Phenom II in performance while the FX-6300 was more like an i5-2500K.
This is just as bad as the geniuses who kept comparing the Phenom II X4 940 with the vastly more expensive i7-920.
Yes, it was that bad.
Give it some fair competition.. an i5 3570 or i5 4570.
I did. This video was because its what I had at that moment. Put out a poll asking if I should do a bench anyways just to see the results. They voted yes..so I did it. The video put out after this is an i5 vs the 6300
AMD is struggling enough as it is and you compare it with a CPU more than twice as expensive?😂 It should be competing against an i3 or the weakest i5 at most not an i7. But maybe that’s what you had available. But old i3 or i5 can be had for next to nothing to test with. Other than that, great content.
The next video will be an 8300 or 8350 vs the i7
These cpus were GARBAGE.
Intel 3rd gen was good for the time they came out
You're comparing Intel's BEST $320 4 core 8 thread desktop CPU to AMD's MIDRANGE $130 3 module 6 thread model? SMH
This is the reason so many people "hated" FX. Most tech tubers are Intel users with little to no expertise overclocking FX. They don't know what to do, and didn't do enough research on how to properly choose parts and tune the platform. When done PROPERLY, an AVERAGE FX 6300 will OC to 4.5-4.6GHz. A GOOD 6300 will OC near 5GHz. And a CHERRY will go past 5GHz. Buildzoid even found a 6300 that hit 5.6GHz on air cooling, VALIDATED.
If you want to do a better and more interesting video, get a GOOD 990FX motherboard (The one in this video is NOT), Good PSU, Good cooling, low latency 2133 RAM with tightened timings, and READ the AMD FX Performance Tuning Guide. You'll have a HELL of a lot more fun, and the results will surprise you, and you won't have AMD users pointing out the mistakes you made. 🙂
Get all that and still stay behind the i7? 🤔
in the defense. yeah the 8350 would of been more of a pairing for the 3770 as both had 8 threads. however u also got to look at the fx chip price roughly 60% cheaper. plus the intel motherboards were also significantly more expensive. amd may have fallen off since the launch of the t bird or first dual core fx 64 but price to performance they did fit and got the job done for a lot of ppl on a budget. i remember dropping well over 1k for a 4770 ram and motherboard alone