My 8320 still chugs away in a media system. It was used for 4 years rendering in 3Ds max paired with v-ray as a rendering engine. Love this CPU. It has stood the test of time.
Bought a FX-6300 back in 2013, it was a great budget computer. Paid only 750ish dollars for a basic setup with a R9 270x. Did everything I wanted to, even if it didn't do great in benchmarks. I was pretty happy with it.
Had my 8350 since 2012. Never had a problem with this thing. While my friends paid 250 bucks for their i7, I managed to get a 8350 for 150 + have extra money for the GPU. I'm happy with the buy. It was and still is serving me well.
did the same lol. FX8150 + AMD HD7970 and guess who has more fps in games? my slow brother spent same money as was I. but he got i7 3770 + GF660... LOL... intel+NV = stupid choice....
Agree. I‘ve a FX-8350 paired with a RX 590 and it’s doing it’s Job very well. No need to upgrade until I REALLY need to. But thats not the case at the moment (April 2019). Just saying you all Intel users need to play games which take advantage from more Cores. I‘m getting 60 FPS in AC Odyssey, Kingdom Come: Deliverance and Witcher 3. All of them are newer games and the recommended (Not Minimum!) setup stated by the publisher is indeed a FX-8350. Bottom line: No need to upgrade until games need a higher recommended system spec. Point and over.
5 years later and how the tables have turned! AMD Zen proved to be a huge step up from Bulldozer (in every way), that was then iterated upon, with significant strides made each generation. The multi-chip platform has proven to be superior to monolithic designs in terms of cost and power efficiency, and can be scaled to insane levels (currently 64 cores per socket, with higher counts soon to be available). Most of the early weaknesses of the multi-chip design have been successfully mitigated, as interconnect bandwidth increased and cache latencies decreased. While OS scheduling initially caused some headaches, it is no longer an issue. If anything, it is now Intel facing such issues, with their adoption of "Big-little" core layouts, with different cores having different capabilities. Simultaneous Multi Threading has been made to work the way it should have from the start, and now outperforms Intel's Hyperthreading technology. 3D fabrication techniques have allowed for large caches to be stacked onto core dies (3x L3 cache size vs non-stacked), which particularly benefits gaming performance. In terms of raw, per core performance, AMD and Intel's desktop offerings are not too far apart today. However, AMD has a very large lead in power efficiency, and this, combined with the ability to scale core counts to levels that are impossible with Intel's monolithic designs, has seen AMD outclassing Intel in the server space. Their market share in server has climbed from
My 8370 is really good for streaming when you offload the encoding to a gpu...those cores do work .. its too bad when AMD tries to take things into new directions they often are ignored .. they over the years have had some really good ideas
I just watched a video on Intel's monopoly practices. It might explain why the FX series is considered as unsuccessful. I have a FX 6300 and it is still doing the job for me. Just.
The happy ending of all this, is that AMD took the modular design they pretended to use in the FX Series and ported to Ryzen Series. Of course, it's a way different design with the Infinity Fabric, but the idea is basecally the same.
Well, i just upgraded from a FX-4300 to a FX-8350 last month and it does all i need. If you are on an extreme Budget like me, the AM3+ platform is still an option to consider. It is well matured, no early adopters bugs, very stable and reliable in my expirience. Sure, it will not hold up to modern i7 or Ryzen Chips, but on the other hand, you can build 2 complete AM3+ PCs for the same price as a top level i7 CPU alone. You will not crush any benchmarks with a FX-CPU, but you can run everything and it's not too bad. I really like my new system, and i think i will stay on that until the next generation of Zen CPUs are out. Still my opinion, if you want a solid, reliable system for a cheap budget, and you care more about everyday expirience then benchmark results, stay one generation behind. That way you can get the full featured well built top tier parts, while still saving a lot of money and headache. After all, i don't want to play beta tester on some new chips that were thrown at the market with severe bugs in them, even paying a premium for doing so. I'd rather take the well tested and matured option and save a lot of $$ on it.
www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/watch_dog_2_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,8.html www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/dishonored_2_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,8.html www.guru3d.com/articles_page...e_warfare_pc_graphics_benchmark_review,8.html www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/battlefield_1_pc_graphics_benchmark_review,9.html www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gears_of_war_4_pc_vga_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,8.html fx cannot game you need i3/i5/i7 to game, reviews from ryzen launch show, ryzen is yet another trash design....clearly.... and serious gamers, game at 1080p or lower for max fps !!!
Asahiwasabi LMAO it stops it? You call 8% a stomp? Also my piledriver chip is faster then your x5660 even in server loads. cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-FX-6300-vs-Intel-Xeon-X5560/1555vsm16614 This is my system: www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/7277493
That would be a valid strategy until a couple of years ago. The sheer IPC uplift of ryzen, current RAM prices, and amount of r1700 2600 + b450 mobos in the used market makes it so AM3+ is too obsolete to be a good performance\price option. Sure, for the 150\200$ you'd spend on one ryzen mobo\cpu am combo could buy 2 AM3+ combos, but that's just because of how worthless they've become. I mean, if you only have 100$ to spend, go for it. But from 150\200 and above, might as well get early AM4, then you get not only a way better experience, but also upgrade paths that will be worth at least for another 3\5 years
Bought my 8350 in 2014. I typed this comment on my 8350 in 2020. Literally years of almost constant use through editing, effect making, encoding, sound development, streaming, and hard gaming shes been the most reliable and most powerful CPU I have ever owned. Literally bought it for $120. Good Job AMD. Price to Performance is still unmatched.
Earlier this month I replaced my 6350FX with GTX750 to a AM4 2400g NVMe and 32GB ram all ebay/second hand beyond motherboard and one thing really noticed was power saving. Can't argue for their value on CPU's.
I had the 8350 for a long time. Just did a Ryzen 2700x build, and gave the 8350 build to my friend. I ran most games in high or Ultra with the fx8350 and a 970 gpu. As a gamer I thought the performance was great. I switched to the Ryzen because I was creating a lot of content for my channel and that’s when the 8350 started to show its age. Still a great gaming processor, especially if you are on a budget.
FX 9590 here, this nuclear reactor still kicking ass in 2017 @ 4.8 Ghz cooled with air!! (Side note: FX 8120 OCed to 4.1 performed pretty good considering it's age!)
I still enjoyed my upgrade from a core 2 duo 3.0ghz to an FX 4100 3.6ghz. All I really remember is that I could not emulate ps2 on my core 2 duo, but my budget 4100 could handle the ps2 emulation. :D Upgrading to a used 8320 kept my gaming rig alive and well through most of 2017! A Ryzen 5 1600 upgrade was just too tempting to pass up though! :D
Got a FX 8300 yesterday for about 65 bucks, new. Quite a bargain. I'm waiting for it to arrive, while I use my FX 4100 for its last days. AMD FX series is so much cheaper than Intel, and even on this 4100 I ran games like witcher 3, settings high, 720p just fine, with about 30 fps. Living in Brazil, I'm no 1080p or 4K enthusiast, because it costs much, and I mean, MUCH more money here.
i'm still running my 8350 (stock right now) and i don't really feel like i need an upgrade yet... Only for a few badly optimized alpha games... i wouldn't mind having the latest intel cpu, but the price... nah i'm good, i grew up with VHS tapes and IBM laptops so 60 fps is ok for me :P
Barry Cooper, not so. OLD games that only use one core yes but not new ones. At the time I had my FX8350 I had my i5 2500K. Swapping my R9 280X from one to the other I compared performance in 7 Days to Die. There was an intersection down from my base where my frame rate just cratered on my 2500K. I swapped the R9 280X over to the FX8350 rig and got better frame rate. I noticed that when playing 7 Days to Die I had two cores showing more or less idle and six cores at 70% - 80%. The 2500K does not do 6 threads, in single core the 2500K smacked the FX8350 down hard, but in that game not so. I replace the 2500K with a 2600K I got on ebay, it could smoke the 8350. Last week I replaced my 2600K system with this R5 1600X based system I finally got all the parts for, and so far I am happy with it. That i7 2600K system in reality still does pretty good, sandy bridge was a big step, I had mine as high as 5.1 GHz but for daily use I ran 4.8GHz. I really only built this one because it has been a while and I wanted to play with a new toy :)
I've had an FX-8320 for 5 years and it served me very well up to this day at 4.6 Ghz, i can still do a lot of stuff on that chip but there's always that moment even if love that computer, still going strong with some more ram and an SSD, it was mostly getting very old so i've bought a Ryzen 7 1700.
I really do! I upgrade every 4-5 years and just like it did back then from an Athlon 64 X2 3800 to the FX-8320, the improvements always give me a big slap in the face!
Everybody compared the bulldozer and piledriver processors to the second and third gens i3's back in the day. Nice to see that all those people are still using their i3's nowadays with decent performance!
im still on a fx chip, probably not gonna upgrade for another year or so, and yes, the bulldozer has just gotten better and better over the years, it really is all about the timing, i bet you in 20 years people will be surprised how well bulldozer runs
Bought the 8150 for 125 USD and 8350 for 145 USD in 2012. They both aged well, i gave them away this year and bought Ryzen 1700. FX was not that bad, only thing i really did not like with the 8150 was the heat.
AMD used the concept of CMT, is similar to SMT/HT but whit use of "Modules" is more like cluster computing, it means that the AMD Opteron's only have 16 Cores and 16 Threads only... -_-
im still here with an FX 8370 Clocked to 4.9 on 50€ Watercooling, running smoothly and cool. No Problems in 1080p 144hz, for example 290 FPS on CS:GO with an R9 390X anyway going to upgrade sometime soon to 2560x1080 240hz and this will most likely require a new PC :) so hello 1800X, DDR4-3200 and Vega
Look what have we got here. An Intel fanboy... No, an old i3 can't get more than 290fps in csgo. Not even my i5 6500 can get more than 250 fps in csgo...
old as if like core i3 550 because i have it and it goes to around 90 avarage with my gtx 1050, if i use a gtx 1070 wich i borrowed from a friend it goes up to 95 or 100 fps so i dont think an i3 can get 290 fps
Piledriver might be one of the most underrated products in recent history. While 8-core Bulldozer parts lost to i5s even in multithreading tasks, the 8300 series performed well in multithreading tasks and gradually gained ground on the Sandy and Ivy Bridge parts in gaming. Also the Athlon X4 860k and 845 were unsung heroes of budget (though power hungry and cooling demanding) quad cores, though now they lose solidly to the G4560 in every test.
2012 AMD vs SB is much different than FX 8350 vs 2500k in 2017 on only new games man. Yes 2500k still leads...by a shred in some titles but in others the fx 8350 creeps ahead. but the gap has closed in general, some people get a cpu and keep it for 10 yrs, and most fx 8350 owners are still happy, most 2500k owners have been suckered into getting another 4 core I5. Either intel or AMD as long as you shop smart your good. I.E. but a R5 1600 or I7 7700k now, dont upgrade it for many years if 60 fps is all your after xD
built a PC with a amd 6350 .. clocked it to 4.6750 @ 1.425v with nb set to 2775.. ish on air it idles at 20 degrees.. on load 46 keeps under 50 .. on air!!
I owned multiple FX Processors and APUs and I loved every single one of them. Those things are beasts and would take on anything you threw at it. I would still be rocking my 9590 had the Ryzen not come out.
@@faudanke4459 Don't forget that the integrated GPU from the A-series APUs beats all the Intel iGPUs (Even those of flagship Core i9s from 10th gen) previous to Xe graphics without costing a kidney like those Core i's with in-die vram, and, to be fair, the A10 7870K could outperform the i3 3xxx's as a whole lineup + GTX 750 on most contemporary games, and that is, considering the A10 7870K downclocks to 3.0GHz when the iGPU is in use. Could you actually game on the built-in Intel HD graphics? I thought so, those CPUs went around the same cost as the APU + MoBo, and that is without accounting the cost of the GPU you would drop in to actually game on that Core i3 based rig, with that cost, you could afford a dual (4x4gb) 8GB 1866MHz kit for the A-series based machine and still have money left for a fancy case and fans.
@@reik019 Alright easy now, most of what you said is correct and i will admit my comment was a bit ignorant and induced by rage due to how shit that dual core a6-7400k was (seriously give it a hit you'll understand why i hate it), quad core apu's might be a different story as since the writing of that comment i've met a handful of others who have a8's, a10's or even a12's for the matter (despite being am4), i myself even considered an upgrade to a a8-7680 if times got desperate. They were fine with it apart from well being unable to run higher titles without a full system overhaul (fm2+ upgradability was ASS). I do agree with you that the igpu's are mad powerful for their time and infact i still have the a6 around running folding@home on it's igpu, it's a bit power hungry but it does it's job. Though my only complain would be (you mentioned it) the dropping of the cpu's clocks whenever the igpu picks up load above idunno 90%??, i understand this is a matter of AMD trying to not cook the entire chip as the process (or even the architecture as of that matter) starts degrading around 70C. But it's still a bummer like for example, you upgrade your cooler to handle the inferno, it also handicaps the gpu a little bit by limiting the tasks it gets from the already crappy cpu that relies a lot on clockspeed. This might hint an equiliburum of some sort AMD is trying to hit but still, you could pump out a few more frames if the limitation wasn't there, and i don't even think it's a power limit or anything it's just in case the people (presumably ones that bought a system with the chip don't have much more to spend for a better cooler). It's something they could've dealt with better and not just a simple what if situation. All in all, forget FX imo, yes there will still be a community around it which enjoy their computers even though Zen is the new rage but it's still a failure regardless especially now compared to Zen AND the attractive new APU's (which imo still beats intel if you take the perf/W advantage, software and features), the damned architecture almost killed AMD but miraculously saved them too because they had no other choice.
@@faudanke4459 I see, those dual core APUs are shit if you do not overclock them (1.5V is OK on dual cores, 1.475V is the maximum for quad cores), as maximum temps are concerned, 70C with extra voltages is OK, 80C is the maximum with stock voltages on these APUs (The FX chips were the ones with 70C max on stock and 61C with max voltages), I had a friend that ran an A6 7400K at 4.9GHz at like 1.475V-1.5V (Can't remember the exact voltage) and it was decent for most shit, unless you needed multi thread performance. I'll tell you the story of that little limiter set in place by AMD, back when FM2 released, Manufacturers rushed to get boards ready for the new platform, including that little shit known as ASRock, and, as the MoBos rolled out, ASRock's mobos were notably known to blow up with A8s, A10s, and A12s, because ASRock was greedy (As always it is) and only used 4 standard CPU phases (Which should be able to handle up to 125W of power delivery) for both the CPU cores and the SoC (iGPU + NorthBridge) instead of the guideline 4 phases for CPU + 2 for SoC as how AMD designed it, the issue was, that A8s and faster models were known for drawing 95W in the CPU cores and 45W (up to 65W on A10s and A12s) on the iGPU and North Bridge, which surpassed by far the power that could be used by the APU at full blast, on a decent board made by other partners like GIGABYTE, it would only had caused the VRM to throttle and nothing else, but as always, ASRock went cheap on the VRM MOSFETs that had lower Tj.Max temps (Around 100C, decent MOSFETs can support up to 150C, and the VRM is programmed to throttle past 115C), pair this with overvoltage caused by a buggy BIOS and you have the recipe for explosive VRMs, giving AMD a bad reputation for MoBos that blew up with their processors, which is actually a good reason to put said soft lock in place, and was the actual reason FM2rv2 (FM2+) got released. You can bypass that lock using AMD Overdrive, just move one slider one step up and move it back down and press ''Apply'' and it should be able to get past that lock, and you can overclock the iGPU from there too, I could squeeze an additional 150MHz overclock from the built-in iGPU from my A10 7870K without raising the voltage a bit. And, in terms of micro architecture, you have to try an Excavator APU (Mobile FX is a good example, they have to be the most powerful and efficient Bulldozer-based CPUs I have seen, running 4 cores at like 3.0GHz with only 35W of heat output, matching my A10 if I run it at 3.5GHz, the iGPU is still light years apart from the desktop A10, but the biggest portion of the heat generation comes from the CPU cores), that should have been the Bulldozer we got in 2011, it had 2/3 of the IPC of the 1st gen Ryzen but still used the module design all Bulldozer derivatives do, but it was sadly only for laptops, a desktop FX 8xxx based in excavator without iGPU and with L3 cache instead would had given Intel a run for it's money like Zen 3 is doing in the modern era.
@@reik019 Gotdamn, excavator's IPC wasn't as bad as i thought and i actually believed the laptops were pure ass since in my experience i knew series was reliant on clockspeeds. Don't think they would be able to slop in some L3 there due to actual size limitations and if they do it would be difficult and send the company into a deeper hole had it been done back then. I did some research and they did release some excavator for fm2+ with carrizo, though with both chips (x4 845 and 7680) being locked (dont know how they would play with OD tho) so not really worth my $40 when i can go ryzen for a bit more lol (in fact i DID! happy with my r5 3600 and my experience with my a6 lead me down here learning hardware). Moving on, don't really believe excavator can do THAT much to compete with intel especially clock by clock, with scheduling although already fixed is probably still ass (correct me on this) and the piss amount of cache, architecture was doomed from the start unless you went linux (made biggggg improvements for my a6 compared to win10). Going back to your suggestion on trying out excavator, i actually might but in the far future, i just spelunked a lot on my ryzen rig and my fm2+ mobo might be on it's last legs as the audio and the ports are becoming crappy, apart from it also being crappy in the first place (a68hm e33 v2, 3+2 power phasing, shit bios oc control and so on) so can't expect much from it and is working hard keeping my a6 breathing which i did overclock! I got mine up to 4.6ghz on the stock cooler with no voltage control at all and it barely broke a sweat and staying below 70C without an igpu load on the stock cooler with stock paste at the time, the damn motherboard pumped 1.55v tho (probably the buggy bioses you mentioned) through the chip and i felt it degrade over months, the whole overclocking experience kinda spoiled me tbh with how big the uplift was compared to stock, i even resulted to delidding the damn thing so i can keep a high overclock (4.4 ghz by that point) without crashing due to temps. The entire time the CPU vrm's were around 63C (soc vrm was not reported by hwinfo) and the power usage for both cpu and igpu well i don't trust what hwinfo says. Now i run the thing at 4.2 ghz on boost not base so it's stable when having an igpu load and when there's no igpu load it can ramp back up. Come to think of it does no motherboard have a workaround for the soft lock? I would love to put an entire Carrizo chip on full redline without having to fire up Overdrive every time.
I'm not defending anything or anyone, but AMD FX processors are on the Top when it comes to price/performance value. That's all I care for now. I still have an old FX6100 , with a little bit OC on hand and there is no game that I can't play quite well to be fair. On the other hand some games are more GPU intense and there's practically no difference if you're with FX6100 or i3 for instance.
2 weeks ago i bought a new fx 8350 WITH wraith cooler for just 57 euros here in greece. The price/performance for those 57 euros WITH REALLY GOOD RGB COOLER is just insane. As far as I see from benchmarks the 8350 has 10%-20% less framerates than top of the end cpus. And in 4k the difference for some reason is even smaller.
Still using an 8350 and giving no fucks. I'm happy with the performance it's provided over time and due to some of the changes that have occurred since I built this rig, it's gotten much better. Once I decide to update to a Ryzen based build, I'll retire this to light duty HTPC work.
Im still rocking the following and still play everything on max settings at over 60fps (bf1,FO4, etc). For 4-5 year old rig, id hardly consider the fx to be bad lol. Nothing like being able to play bf4 in 4k while recording with fraps at around 100fps. Most things cant do that now, a half decade later. Motherboard - Asus Sabertooth 990fx Gen3 R2.0 The Ultimate Force (TUF) Series CPU- AMD FX 8350 4.82ghz OC 8 core Ram - 16gig (2x 8gig) Gskill Ripjaws X series GPU - Radeon R9 290x /w 8% OC SSD - Samsung 840 pro PSU - Coolermaster Silent Pro 850w Case - Coolermaster HAF X
cpu: FX9370@4.7ghz 1.38-1.428v htt2600 motherboard: asus crosshair v formula z Ram: 32gb gskill 2133 gpu: zotac 1070mini psu: evga 1300watt g2 case: CoolerMaster Cosmos Medusa havent found a game yet i cant play at 4k...hell most run at 70+fps...since im on a 60hz monitor....yeah.... sall good :D no ssd 300gb vrap for boot with 6gb primocache(+50gb L2 cache on an ssd) also use 9gb (bit over) for cache on my games drive,thats a 4tb sshd, along with another 50gb ssd cache. another good trick is to grab compressgui and compress your games folder....less data to move from drives to memory=faster load times... ;)
Try running Planetside 2 or Arma with those FX. Even Intel chips dip below 60 fps there. No optimization for many cores, hunger for high IPC and clock will break it's neck there. I'm not saying that AMD makes bad products. Far from it. FX cips were just not in the right market and Ryzen is awesome, but sometimes there just isn't the right workload.
If only AMD skipped the Bulldozer architecture all together and launched Piledriver, they would have like 40% of desktop marketshare. I am still happy with my FX-8350, multitasking and FHD gaming with no issues whatsoever. The Piledriver cpus where as much a breakthrough as was Athlon 64 back in 2003 but due to the epic failure of Bulldozer the year before, they received almost no credit for it and were'nt trusted by the market.
Using FX-8350 @ 4.8GHz with high end air cooling + motherboard quality with VRMs will serve anyone with 8 core needs for gaming etc.. This is what I used for yrs already & benefited by high end DDR3 ram. Only 1 problem today though is power consumption, something Ryzen 5 & 7 series solve well. But yeah, bang for buck value before release of Ryzen. FX series when Overclocked were it.
One of the big problems with Bulldozer isn't that it isn't exactly true eight core. It's somewhere in between hyper-threading and full eight core. (8 integer cores, but each one shares a single floating-point unit.) AMD was ahead with the Athlon X2, but fell behind with Phenom and it's TLB bug, especially spending extra time making a "true quad core" by delaying Phenom rather than doing what Intel did with Core 2 Quad and putting two dual-core CPUs on one die, never mind that Intel Core 2 Duos were faster than AMD dual-core processors as well. AMD just didn't really start to catch up to Intel again until Ryzen. That's being behind for near 11 years, ~2006-2017. In some ways, AMD is lucky to have survived.
actually the major problem isnt the shared resources, its teh slow as balls cache the chips have, they are held back by the fact that the cache is slow as balls....its pathetic but, its a flaw because they used automated design software to design the chips and didnt to much if any hand optimization.... if keller had been brought in to fix FX, he could have, there are some VERY in dept articles on it... and phenom I imho was worse then FX...Phenom II was pretty damn good...still like my fx over my 4ghz 1050t.... even the 8150 i bought for 50bucks(guy got it, then got an 8350 from a friend at amd and sold me the 8150 for the cost of shipping me some other shit he owed me...LOL..) now, you also need to keep in mind, this story somewhat changed over time, www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/watch_dog_2_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,8.html www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/dishonored_2_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,8.html www.guru3d.com/articles_page...e_warfare_pc_graphics_benchmark_review,8.html www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/battlefield_1_pc_graphics_benchmark_review,9.html www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gears_of_war_4_pc_vga_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,8.html due to windows 8.1/10, driver updates, game updates, games in general being made more and more to try and take advantage of the xbx/ps4 hardware...a very slow version of these chips.... really, the last apu's they made in that lineup made up alot of the distance in perf, they just never gave us an am3+ version of those chips... sadly.... amd fucked up, but also....without amd, intel would be fucking us all even harder....without amd...intel wouldnt even have dual core desktop chips.... just very expensive slow...crap.....(look at what happens when they get to powerful for to long....netburst is a good example...or chips that regularly hit 80c...(wtff....80c would melt my chip....)
the pentium-d are soooo horrible, seen sooo many old oem systems running at 90c when they finely get to desktop....fan/heatsink totally compaced with hair/dust/etc... jesus... it is funny...since intel even implied their "glued togather" cpu's where a supperior method to amd's at one point... anyway...they should have brought keller back far sooner, had him work on a new design after he got the FX line's major issues sorted(the worst being cache latancy being utter shite.. dragging the rest of the cpu down..)
Packing multiple dies toether is actually a cost effective method. Design a slamm die, test it and combine similar scaling chips into one product. And Zen has actual interconnect between the dies while the Pentium D had to communicate over the comperably slow FSB.
While I plan on upgrading to Ryzen my old FX 8350 @ 5ghz still runs my games great. I cap my games at 60 fps with a free sync monitor. Many of the games I play are at 2k the older r9 390 still performs well. Key to FX is OC ram and at least 4.7ghz also use core park app that you can just turn off parking even after the patch certain games have micro stutter as it unparks. Also using Radeon Pro to reduce bottlenecks and understanding which settings is cpu or gpu bound. What games use all cores and which ones use only two for example. For example Fxaa/smaa (AA) is gpu bound and old Msaa is cpu bound. If a game is not using all cores the avoid msaa at all costs. Things like flip que size (1-2) can also help reduce stress. If a game is gpu bound then msaa x4 may actually give you more frames. Or flip que size set to 3-4 may give smoother fps. This is why I hate hardware physics (even on nvidia) most gpu's are already maxed playing the game so particles get push to cpu anyway why even nvidia gpu's take a hit with physics. Point is if you say have four theads like an i3 or some i5s which is good for games atm. You cannot off load gpu bottlenecks to the cpu without taking major hits on fps. Or say record in game video as well having the extra threads will make these FX's age better than most people think. Btw I bought the FX because I edit and it stomped the i5 at the time and I couldn't afford an I7. While it is a toaster and inefficient its served me well and I still don't "really" need a Ryzen yet.
Wow, just finished watching your short videos, and am in the processing of watching your long-form history of home microprocessors. Would love to see more content like this, I realize these are all quite old, so, perhaps you're no longer doing this sort of thing (although the microprocessor doc was released only a year ago), but, your manner of presentation does well to keep one's attention focused, and you speak clearly and calmly, and communicate the information well. I would guess you were in high school at the time of these video releases (15-18), which makes it all the more impressive.
Thanks for your kind comment! You'll be glad to hear I'm currently working on a new long-form video which should be out this fall :) I post in the community tab semi regularly so keep an eye on that for updates.
It's 2022 and I am still running my FX8350. It has bee very solid and problem free since I bought it in 2014. I don't run games, so with 16GB of RAM and a couple of WD 500GB SSDs, it has been more than adequate for all my uses. I would only upgrade to a Ryzen if I could run WIN7 on it. I really don't want to upgrade to WIN10 with the crappy, ugly menus, UI and all the data slurping it does. Even if the 8350 dies, I have an FX8370 NIB on the shelf and another in a spare computer.
Can't help but agree that sometimes AMD overhype their products which ultimately is doing more harm than good. We see a similar story with Vega at the moment. Although it will be a good card on its own, it will be regarded as bad as it's impossible for it to match the insane hype surrounding it.
bobsagget823 yeah GCN isn't that good anymore but it's also an architecture from 2011 that's still kicking it with the big boys, albeit whilst consuming more power. Polaris was by no means shit just overhyped like vega, they're both strong performers but they never lived up to the hype... so go be a tard somewhere else
People who think this is a bad chip lack the context. I got one for my brothers first PC because they were about 100 quid versus 240 for the i5 at the time. So you got 75-80% of the performance for less than half of the price.
I used a AMD 8350 and it served ok to good depending on the application. AMD came out with the Ryzen series of processors and AMD is officially Back. I got a 1600X and it performs quite a lot better than the old 8350 in most situations. at least AMD is rising up in level unseen since the K7 and AMD 64 and socket 462 and 939 days.
Check the recent benchmarks on FX8350 vs Sandy Bridge is slightly ahead specially in windows 8 I think they did a misleading marketing, and is because the marketing department was writing articles and they never hear the engineers I believe anyway I think is more a lack of code in that time and also try to innovate.
bulldozer was late to release by over a year or more. If it hit release date, it would have done much better. Intel crushed them with sandy. You will see bulldozer cpus being used in cheap 4k systems in the future. My brother has a 8350 with a 1080 ti. It barely uses 40% of the cpu in most games.
Dude, the level of research you do is insane. Congratulations on a million subscribers in advance. This video was a real turning point in your journey to RUclips stardom.
The real power of the FX core was multi tasking. You can dedicate a core or a couple of cores for each task and run multiple programs simultaneously without worrying about CPU resources. I built a home made DVR/gaming machine/TVBox and I regularly record, transcode and game all at the same time. I could have built an i5 for the same money at the time, but I'd only have had four cores rather than six. They'd have been faster cores, but I couldn't assign two cores to transcoding, two to DVR and two to gaming with the i5. The i5 would have gotten higher benchmark scores, but even the i7 sharing resources with hyperthreading does not multitask as smoothly as two threads are using the same resources on each core and it would have added an additional $150 to my budget at the time. Now I've got a Sandy Bridge i7 2.6GHz, Ivy Bridge Xeon @ 3.8GHz and Skylake i5 @ 2.8GHz beside my FX 6300 @ 3.9GHz with turbo up to 4.3GHz, they all have their strengths, but when using the computers you can only tell the difference with benchmarks. The *only* app where the Intel CPUs dominate for me is the PS2 emulator running Gran Turismo 4. The single core performance is very important and AVX2 support in the Skylake makes a huge difference. The newest release, however, levels the playing field and all of my systems will now play it @ a steady 60fps. The real strength of the FX wasn't really speed, it was load bearing. You could throw a ton of work at the CPU. The i5/i7 could do the same work faster, but it couldn't run three or four apps simultaneously without issue. The FX might only be 80% as fast per core, but I got that 80% over six cores vs 100% over 4. Hyperthreading is awesome if everything falls together properly, however it doesn't have the resources to carry the same load as the FX line could. My Xeon can handle 4 heavy threads and 4 light threads, my FX can handle 6 heavy threads. The FX has done it's job admirably for me though I am looking forward to an 8, 16 or 32 core CPU in the next year or so.
I'm completely torn between a Ryzen 5 six core and going nuts, saving up and grabbing a Threadripper. I'm still happy with my FX, so anything would be above and beyond what I actually need. Might lower my power bill. lol
I ran my FX8350 until last month. A solid 8 years on FX series processors, starting with the FX4300. It worked fine for current gen gaming still with a few games kinda being a little sucktastic at times, but most of the games I really enjoyed worked fine. MGSV Dark Souls 3, space engineers, Monster hunter world. All still run great on it paired with a gtx960. I'm honestly suprised I was able to eek out that long of an existence with that rig.
I had an FX 8150 for 4 years, just upgraded 2 years ago, aaaaaand nope, I remember very well how horrible it was. So many people are talking about Piledriver, FX 8350s, 6300, etc, these were not the first FX processors, and were quite a step up from them. Bulldozer was garbage. My FX 8150 would overheat in some games and every time I tried to render anything, all with an AIO cooler on it, I had to downclock it from stock clocks to stop it lol. Smh they were so bad. All the while we got to watch Intel users with their 2500k or 2600k overclocking up to 5GHz no problem, destroying us in games with the same GPUs.
I still have my fx6100 , clocked @ 4.2ghz, and it does the job. Early on certain games gave it issues, like BF4, yet others ran fantastic on high settings(Witcher 2). The wife confiscated it to work from home, so i dont use it anymore, but it did fairly well for me, especially for the price. I'll be building a Ryzen based system later this year.
No one ever programmed the software to take advantage of FX's architecture. AMD wanted it to run more like a GPU, which focuses on parallel computing, that's why FX has so many cores and shared floating point units. I guess AMD just bet on the wrong horse, AMD thought parallel computing is the future, but people like to stick to the old way.
Its end 2019. Answer for 10:47 Zen 2 with Ryzen and Threadripper 3000 has almost equaled with Intel in single thread performance and overtaken in: - Densely packed transistors with 7 nm - Efficiency - Core count (by far with 16 cores Ryzen 3950 in consumer line) - Scalability of the number of cores by using a chiplet approach - PCI Express 4.0 connectivity - More maximum possible memory - Also allows higher clocked Ram - Reusability of the socket (for Ryzen it is still M4 socket) - Lower price
I don't know where you guys are getting your info about AMD FX 8350. There are people who are using the 8350 and getting 4.7 out of there chips. I am going to stay with my 8350 until threadripper gets stable. You can game on the 8350 even at 1440 I know people who is doing this as I speak.
I just sold a 8320@4.5ghz rig that did doom 4 at ultra setting on 1440p with a gtx 1070. i've sold 4 FX series rigs in the past three months. The support for dual ccx 8 core chips has certainly gotten better over the years. a 980ti is the perfect pair imo
My main purpose is gaming, and the 8350 has served very well. I realize, however, that it will begin to fall behind in performance in the next few years. I recently built a 7700K rig OC to 5GHz, but there is no way I'm retiring the FX-8350. It will be an excellent backup rig.
I do it at 4k in most titles, moving from dual 290x to a 1070mini made a huge dif, the only titles i see drop below 60fps anymore are...mmo's, and then, its mostly dependent on how much is on screen moving around, more players=perf hit in most if not every mmo, reguardless of cpu..(my buddies 5960x system gets the same fps i do in the same areas of for example ESO.. other games....normally im at 70+fps, i do force triple buffer and vsync in alot of titles though, kinda wish i could use a double vsync+tb....since the card can put out over 120fps consistant with this cpu(9370 at stock, though i could lock it at 4.6....in testing, i havent found the need with this board/chip, turbo seems to work well infact....infact....i have on rare occations actually seen it turbo all cores to 4.7...despite the fact it should be 4/8 cores to max turbo ....meh...wish it would consistantly do all of the cores...since when its happened it was never running hot or giving stability issues...(silver arrow extreme sb-e with 3 fans)
I know this is old, but I had loved my 8350 and was glad I purchased it. I remember later, games actually played smoother than my dad's i5 3750k when they were able to take advantage of more cores. I remember configuring skyrim's scheduling in the config to tell where things could be processed per cpu thread. My game could run better and support more followers on my fx 8350. While I no longer use the 8350, it still was an amazing cpu. I loved using virtual machines. I ran a virtual machine to run linux on one monitor and pretty much had secure mode browsing in it and played world of warcraft, skyrim and any other game I liked on the other monitor. This was a huge leap forward from my dual core e8600 cpu. With this large cpu pool, things ran well and I could do my multitasking really well. I remember I purchased a 1080ti back in 2017 and ran it on my cpu i had got back in 2013 i believe? Newegg won't let me see that far back. Before I ran a gtx 680 on it. I know most people cry if they feel a cpu or gpu is bottlenecked, but it certainly ran my games well still. My 8350 was overclocked to 4.7ghz with the ram speeds at 2133mhz. The system felt very fast and responsive none the less. I later upgraded and i'm using a 5950x with the very same 1080ti. I tend to use my components for a long time and that 8350 did a lot for me and it had huge value for me, sure the 3770k could have got me more fps, but I wanted multitasking to run well for me as I use a lot of other things while my games and browsers are open.
Subbed! Good video, interesting perspective; I never knew the FX were so hugely better for productivity, probably because gamers shit on them so much. Power draw aside, I wonder if, as devs move towards utilizing more cores for gaming, we'll see better performance in newer titles than those contemporary to Bulldozer's release.
Thank you! I think the performance will improve but more on the later FX series CPUs (8370 etc) than on Bulldozer. The weak floating point of Bulldozer is probably the largest bottleneck at this point.
I bought an FX8370 band new 5yrs ago along with a ASUS Sabertooth MB and they are both still running strong today. The biggest difference between the FX, and Intel chips that I see is in gaming. I'm just an average power user, and I have yet to lag, or bog this chip down. Under load it can get hot, but liquid cooling keeps it under 50c. I'll run this chip until it dies, and probably buy AMD again because of the price vs performance numbers. I hope AMD digs deeper into Intels market share.
9 minutes of explaining how badly AMD had foreseen the market when designing the Bulldozer.. Then turns around and says, it is not all amds fault, games and windows were not optimized for Bulldozer. You got this the wrong way around, bulldozer was not optimized for the market it launched in.. Btw before i get hate for intel fanboism,. , my 3 latest CPU's has been phenom II X2 (unlocked 4 cores xD ), Phenom II X6 and FX-8320 (piledriver) because they offered superb performance for the price at the time of buying, however the first gen bulldozer was never even worth considering for anyone who owned an X6, X4 or even an X2 for gaming.
Jogeir Hvide yeah sure! so you're basically saying that intel was already optimized when it was created but amd not, that's why one outperforms the other. Sarcasm aside, all hardware needs code optimization, so stop the bs. Software makers favor intel simply cuz it's a multinational that has a monopoly. (Sarcasm on again) So let's keep feeding it. P.S.: One does not need to be a fanboy to be dumb.
@Chazy Intel chips have come out regularly with small incremental changes in technology for a very long time. They've been the leading cpus for a solid decade, barring the present. Yeah, software is usually well optimized for Intel, because their products set a clockwork industry standard. Some new product line pops up from AMD, with vastly less effective IPC and a radically different design from previous CPUs...and you think that wouldn't require greater time, effort and investment to optimize? What are you smoking? Why all of the misplaced sarcasm? Speaking of dumb...hot damn but are you ever slow.
@John Wick You fail to see that this isn't just about FX. AMD is a world's first company, a leading company in innovation. AMD was the first to achieve 1 Ghz processing, brought 64-bit computing to the x86 arch and a lot more including freesync, free stuff/ open source, because AMD cares about innovation and progress instead of just pure performance for profit. Back then, AMD's processors challenged Intel's and little after AMD opened a lawsuit against Intel, surprise... Why does a company like that fall behind the competition? Let me see, are the two equally in economy/resources? I would give you the reason if that were the case, but the truth is that intel abuses its power, like multinationals tends to. You know you can't deny that. And after all that, AMD was able to bring a pretty good (line of) processor, that again, challenges and beats Intel's. Nothing to say about it, huh? "Some new product line pops up from AMD, with vastly less effective IPC and a radically different design from previous CPUs...and you think that wouldn't require greater time, effort and investment to optimize?" Things have to change and evolve in order to improve (that involves being totally different when necessary), so stop the bs.
I can confirm that with each yearly update from famous rockstar games, and other manufacturer games, FX works better and better over time. (I own a gaming LAN, FX rocks solid, Phenom II X4 965 are coffe makers, these last ones I had to set up maximun processor usague to 85% to avoid thermal runs.
I have 3 desktops 1 has a FX 6100(Bulldozer) 2 has a 6300(Vishera/piledriver) 3 has 9590 (Vishera/piledriver) I game on the 6300. I use the other 2 for things like rendering 3d images in 3D Max, and other heavy threaded tasks, I also use them as servers. Under this type of workload, they perform awesome. These CPU's do best when u are running many things at once. I love my FX processors. I will not be upgrading to Ryzen, or switching to Intel. These processors do exactly what I need them too, and they do it efficiently. Can't ask for more.
I don't regret updating to X570 and Ryzen 5 3600. However, my FX8350 paired with a GTX770 served me very well for more than 6 years. Never ran hot, never was at 100% workload and I played everything in fullHD, 75Hz and max details. Heavily modded skyrim, mass effect trilogy, DmC, elex, war thunder in cinematic mode, etc. (I don't like gaming @2k/4k & 144Hz anyway but I do multitasking on 2 or 3 screens parallely) In prime95 it stayed below 65°C @Stock on full load even after 30 minutes with a rather small air cooler. The biggest disadvantages were slow DDR3 RAM, high TDP and, well, it was slightly ahead of its time. Poor singlecore performance, strong in multicore - when hardly any programs utilized more than 4 cores. I'm glad AMD recovered with Zen.
The problem with Bulldozer was the inflated price on the 8150. An Intel i5 2500k was a far better CPU and far less expensive at the time. I remember it well. I had a Phenom II x2 560 that I purchased in the hopes of unlocking it into a quad core. The attempt failed. I was waiting for the new FX chips to come out, and the 8150 sucked so bad and the price was so high that I had to get a Phenom II X4 980 instead. I did not regret it. Kept that for 2 years until the FX 8350 was released. They were finally selling it at the correct price and it could outperform my long in the tooth Phenom II 980. I still have the FX 8350 system overclocked to 4.8ghz to this very day. Almost a 7 year old computer.
The worst thing about Bulldozer was the hype around it, was way over hyped then under delivering which crushes the expectation of many. Second thing would be the motherboard price, the FX 4xxx or 6xxx could be a very good budget CPU had a decent board with low price exist. Just an M-ATX board with 4+1 phase heatsinked priced at 55~70 USD would be a killer combo with the CPU.
And now. The tables have turned. Intel needs all their Lakes and Bridges ,with Coffee flavored Comets to measure up to how AMD has Ryzen from the ashes of defeat!
Intel - Being a champion first, suffers meltdown/spectre exploit later on. I had to disable these patches first before running any single program on it. AMD - 8 physical cores was far ahead from its time, but most media thinking game benchmarks are 1000% more important than multitasking benchmarks. The only live saver were the GPU production and also being a CPU manufacturer for both Sony and M$ consoles where Intel still seeing it as a joke initially while keep making 14nm++++++ CPUs for more than a decade.
Walaupun FX still sampah,tapi dia dah lebih optimised untuk game sekarang sebab game sekarang perlu 6 core (AAA games).Tapi panas & power jelah takleh nak elak
I used an FX6300 and was able to overclock it to 4.0Ghz, best $100 I ever spent on a processer. I upgraded to an FX8370 and noticed about a 25% improvement in FPS and performance but both processors were showing bottlenecks back in 2017 that suggested an upgrade to Ryzen. I made the switch to Ryzen and wow, what an improvement but I still find myself fondly thinking about that little FX6300.
An FX8150 cost about the same as a i7 2600k and the FX6100 was nearly as dear as the i5 2500k which got it off to a bad start. An average AM3+ board hadn't got good enough VRM's to handle the power draw of the 8 core chips which caused throttling even at stock speeds. The quad cores were terrible in all forms and would have been better to have not been released. On a high end board a 6 core (or 8 with 2 turned off in my case) with a good overclock it was pretty good, especially when prices went through the floor overnight for used parts, I paid £85 for my 8120. The previous Phenom II was also a very good CPU and worked on AM3+ so you could get the modern features just by upgrading your board. 2nd gen FX cpu's had a lower power draw, were cheaper on release, cooler, about 10% faster clock for clock and overclocked better. For me FX6300 is as much a budget legend as the i5 2500K is a mainstream gaming ledge. I upgraded to a i5 4670K later on, running at 4.2ghz it was only 10% faster gaming than the FX6300 which I used to use at 4.9ghz with no problems on Sabertooth 990 and a H100.
Another thing that is omitted on the video is that the Front End is shared and can't feed all the cores on the module at the same time, using interleaving by clockspeed intervals to feed one core per cycle at a time, causing underutilization.
6:56 Right there is the proof. Intel where making only 5 an 15% increased over the 8 year period. Where AMD was jumping 50% improved performance EVERY RELEASE! AMD was way ahead of Intel releasing 4,6 and 8 core processors that destroyed Intel`s line up. But you would never hear about it.
I did not buy my Fx cpu to just play games. I used to make tons of videos and encode movies onto dvds. The FX was king for this. Now I am running an FX 8350 for mostly games since I don't encode videos anymore... gotta say, most newer games are multi threaded these days and utilize all the cores quite well. I have saved thousands of dollars by just adding a new GPU, RAM and hard drives to my computer all these years.
Better than i remember???... i still use my :D Also say.. My wife found my old Phenom II in a box a few years back.. and because she hardly had any money at a time, she took it and built a new (ish) computer around it... It preffomrs really good actually, still to this day
dont get how they calll the bulldozer so bad i stil run it cause well i dont earn alot of income so cant upgrade my pc every few years. bulldozer stil rocks cause i can play anygame atm without any problems. it does the job and was a very good buy at that time. so no it is not as bad as i remember cause i stil use it and even do i want to get a ryzen at this moment bulldozer stil does its job ,2 games on 2 screen well then it depens on wich games i play but yeah using 1screen i can run star citizen with no isseu hope after 3.0 that stil be the case and same for conan . and those test they use are so wank i never trust those anyways, and time wil tell that amd wil beat the shit out of intel . i can remember the first amd i got a 1.2ghz my brother the same but from intel (both single cores back in the day ;) ) both same video card. did the benchmark and oepsie what did it say intel was not a 1.2 but a 1.0 performance .after i saw that i never went away from amd cause well fool me once but not twice intel .
I got an 8350 back in 2016 for $80 and before then I had used a 4130 for five years. I've never really had a problem with these processors. I look forward to upgrading to Ryzen whenever I build my next PC, which will be an AM4 PC (obviously).
I sold my pc, FX8350 clocked at 4.5ghz Asus crosshair v formula, 8 GB of Kingston hyper x ram, 1TB of storage, 120GB Samsung pro ssd, Corsair 650 watt psu, swapped my hd7950 made by msi around the time fallout 4 came out to an xfx r9 380. It’s still holding strong in my buddy’s possession. But the phenom II 965BE I had before the FX really didn’t see a huge jump in performance. But I only gamed and browsed. For auto cad the fx8350 with the 380 was a beast, couldn’t complain there. Ready to build a new pc and I’m excited to see how the new ryzen performs. Ram prices suck now. I paid forty bucks for 2x 4 GB 1600 ddr3. Rambling lol have a good day
I use a FX 4350 with a 750ti. It runs good for me in Blender and games. I think my screen is less than 1080p though and was a great step up from the E8400 I had. I guess people build according to their budget and for their resolution. You really gonna get a 1080ti and a 1080p monitor? That would be silly. After 60 fps the eye can barely tell a difference. FYI movies run at 24 fps. :) Oh and 6 cores will be the new main stream soon and the 8 cores of FX won't notice a difference. Can't say that for 2 core chips. FX was way too far ahead of its time I think, but in the end I think it will outlast the main competition of it's time. When the time comes for me to upgrade for not much more I can get ryzen 3 instead of the 8350 and would be silly not to go with it. Best upgrade path for any entry level chip on the market and a performance gain.
Still not nearly as bad as the Pentium 4, where it was left behind by far by even the P3 and even more so the Athlon. I remember seeing tests of a P3 1.1GHz vs a P4 1.4GHz, it was bad but even worse when comparing to the Athlon. But Intel had the cash to push crazy marketing campaigns and bribe/threaten PC manufactures, so a decade later they won a lawsuit and got money to make Zen lol. Can you think that AMD was so strapped for cash they sold there fabs and ARM. For Intel the lawsuit was completely worth it.
I currently am still hanging in there on an fx-8370 clocked at 4.4 GHz. I never exceed 60C under load with my Arctic Freezer 13, and is still awesome for every 1080p title on max settings. Of course there’s way better out there, but I’d say that for budget gaming, FX is... good enough.
I'm the proud owner of an AMD FX-8370 4 Ghz, 8MB L2 and 8 MB L3, OC'ed to 4.4 Ghz, I could easily go 4.7 but I can't afford air cooling equipement right now, pretty much 2x and even 4x my previous AMD Phenom 2 X4 3.4 Ghz 2 MB L2 and 8 MB L3, Win 8.1 64-bit, work faster than with Win 7 64-bit, same MoBo ASUS 970 Pro Gaming/Aura, same RAM 2x4GB DDR-1600
What I miss in this overview is AMDs attempt at fusion, merging CPU and GPU. A GPU mainly does floating point calculations and can execute instructions in parallel. CPUs also do floating point calculations, but with a higher precision and serial. (Note: This does not mean you cannot write algorithms that work multithreaded!) Notice how the Bulldozer architecture cut the floating point operations in half? AMD released a number of SDKs back in the day to get developers to write highly parallel programs that ran on the CPU + GPU (APU). Most programs didn't (and don't) even need the high level of precision a CPU has to over, hence why the sacrifice could make sense when you use the floating point operations on a GPU. AMD had the right idea, but didn't have the software support, infrastructure and execution it required to make this succesful. (Ignoring the fact that Bulldozer had some large flaws when it came to cache latency, Anandtech has some great indepth articles on the topic) A decade into the future, AMD is still building on the same principes that guided them back then. Infinity fabric is an obvious further development from the whole fusion concept and the modularity they built into Bulldozer. Infinity fabric allows multiple different components (CPU dies, GPU dies, FPGAs, HBM stacks, RAM) to be connected via a single interface and make them visible to eachother. This is some powerful stuff that could allow all parts of a system to be utilized to its full potential. A nice read on what AMD was and is doing: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterogeneous_System_Architecture
Hi this is a good video on the AMD FX. I would like to add that the FX was delayed and delayed and then pushed out without all the goodness and refinement that the engineers wanted. That is another reason why it was only a mediocre processor when it was finally released. And having only one floating point per module (every 2 cores) was suicide for gamers when floating point has always been AMD's weakness when compared to Intel chips
Is a Bulldozer module a dual core with shared resources, or is it a single core with duplicated resources to support 2 threads? I used to believe it's the former but now I think the latter makes a bit more sense. Either way, it is what it is. It may not have been a commercial success (it literally sank AMD's server chip business!) and may not be as good as it could have been, but it's nonetheless one of the most interesting and unique CPU architectures ever spawned. I've been using my FX-8350 for 55 months now and I don't have any plans to replace it yet. It's as reliable as anything out there.
Now that I think about it, the laptop I got in 2011 was an efficiency laptop. But still man, I remember getting it on a black friday and the performance was absolutely terrible lol
my 8350@4.5g stock vcore 24/7 has served me well for the last 4 years i want to upgrade just waiting for the prices to stable a bit more might move to a 1700 or 1700x,,all i play is mmo,s now and this pc is still rocking it..
I think part of it as well is how many people were fixated on gaming. I mean the biggest reason Intel has done so well with games is their single core performance and the fact that games were lagging behind being single threaded for years making multi core CPUs somewhat irrelevant. Kind of reminds me of the old Turbo button that used to slow down the CPU clock for better game performance in the early 90s. I think part of the failure is AMD probably expected to start seeing multi threaded games finally a decade after the introduction of multi core and multi processor systems. As for me I am writing this on an FX 4100 as a photography workstation and it works great for my needs on linux. Something else that is helping the FX line now is it supports newer instruction sets making them more viable long term.
I'm using my first FX processor (I know it's older) and there is a massive war going on about it, even after the product reached it's end of lifecycle.
Just checking, but you are aware that passmark isn't a survey, right? I'm not saying that AMD's market share wasn't low, I'm just saying that I don't expect "7%" to be accurate. Other than that, great video!
I'm honestly skeptical of the Steam Hardware Survey's accuracy as well. I doubt that most serious gamers run an Intel 2 Core processor at between 2.3 to 2.7 GHz, other than maybe some of the Dota 2 casual players who play on their laptops, as they account for a large part of Steam's userbase.
a better check would be numbers from steams user survey, though its also only a limited sampling as not all gamers take part and not all gamers use steam, personally, though i hated it early on, steams become my favorite digital platform over the years, its got bugs and lots of flaws but...uplay, origin, etc, are worse.... :/
My FX 8350 is running games in 4k without any lag on ultra settings....it may not be at 120 fps or something but it runs every game at the same fps or better fps then console games. Definitely playable on highest settings. So I don't get all the hate on bulldozer...which is actually why I came looking for a video like this.
Imagine DX 12 and Vulcan properly implemented in games, using all 8 cores .. and imagine Bulldozer on 14nm or 12nm, with 5GHz+ frequency ... it wouldnt be such a failure it was back then ..
Im still running a 990FX / FX 8150 in 2013/2018+. (Asus ROG crosshair V Formula Z). On Windows games like RaceDriver G.R.I.D. , Flatout 2, F.E.A.R, F.E.A.R. 2, Shadow Warrior, ROTT (after all them patches) paired with GFX cards like the GTX 480, GTX 569ti , Radeon HD 7890, r7 260x, Gtx 960 etc and what I can afford (GTX 960 / R7 260x $150AUD vs $300AUD Gtx 1050ti / $480AUD RX570). I don't play many current gen games apart from Doom 2016 and Shadow Warrior 2 (far mor taxing) I can still game unhindered (Wolenstein New Order required hefty overclock disabling half cores [1680x1050 / 720p] [crossfired 2GB r7 260x / single 2GB GTX 960) Most problematic was running 2 instances of Hamdbrake transcoding h.264 1080p Blu Ray to 720p HEVC while out for the day on a ~38°c day with insid ambient rising probably passing 33° hours before O came home and smelled the settled dust burning with a hint of solder joints. Fast forward to 2018 with 3 core pairs ~6 cores still working above stock I still have a little wiggle room.
i love my fx8350 its done well for 10 years old! paired it with a 2060 i can see its over the top i know this cpu is now beyond its limit i need to upgrade it but still handles todays games very well
Who else is watching this in the background of the slaughter in late 2019?
2021.
Blood everywhere.
2023
My 8320 still chugs away in a media system. It was used for 4 years rendering in 3Ds max paired with v-ray as a rendering engine. Love this CPU. It has stood the test of time.
Bought a FX-6300 back in 2013, it was a great budget computer. Paid only 750ish dollars for a basic setup with a R9 270x. Did everything I wanted to, even if it didn't do great in benchmarks. I was pretty happy with it.
it sucks
My FX 8350 is still running strong.
Timothy John Aguilar doing what? Facebook and sponge bob cartoons?
+Tan Tan LOL... you pwned this AMD fanboi so well.
Playing AAA games!
Hey moron, my 8350 runs BF1, farcry 5 and SWBF2 all in ULTRA just fine thank you.
Me too.
Had my 8350 since 2012. Never had a problem with this thing. While my friends paid 250 bucks for their i7, I managed to get a 8350 for 150 + have extra money for the GPU. I'm happy with the buy. It was and still is serving me well.
did the same lol. FX8150 + AMD HD7970 and guess who has more fps in games? my slow brother spent same money as was I. but he got i7 3770 + GF660... LOL... intel+NV = stupid choice....
ruclips.net/video/gmhGQl8052o/видео.html
Agree. I‘ve a FX-8350 paired with a RX 590 and it’s doing it’s Job very well. No need to upgrade until I REALLY need to. But thats not the case at the moment (April 2019).
Just saying you all Intel users need to play games which take advantage from more Cores.
I‘m getting 60 FPS in AC Odyssey, Kingdom Come: Deliverance and Witcher 3. All of them are newer games and the recommended (Not Minimum!) setup stated by the publisher is indeed a FX-8350.
Bottom line: No need to upgrade until games need a higher recommended system spec. Point and over.
5 years later and how the tables have turned!
AMD Zen proved to be a huge step up from Bulldozer (in every way), that was then iterated upon, with significant strides made each generation. The multi-chip platform has proven to be superior to monolithic designs in terms of cost and power efficiency, and can be scaled to insane levels (currently 64 cores per socket, with higher counts soon to be available). Most of the early weaknesses of the multi-chip design have been successfully mitigated, as interconnect bandwidth increased and cache latencies decreased. While OS scheduling initially caused some headaches, it is no longer an issue. If anything, it is now Intel facing such issues, with their adoption of "Big-little" core layouts, with different cores having different capabilities. Simultaneous Multi Threading has been made to work the way it should have from the start, and now outperforms Intel's Hyperthreading technology. 3D fabrication techniques have allowed for large caches to be stacked onto core dies (3x L3 cache size vs non-stacked), which particularly benefits gaming performance.
In terms of raw, per core performance, AMD and Intel's desktop offerings are not too far apart today. However, AMD has a very large lead in power efficiency, and this, combined with the ability to scale core counts to levels that are impossible with Intel's monolithic designs, has seen AMD outclassing Intel in the server space. Their market share in server has climbed from
My 8370 is really good for streaming when you offload the encoding to a gpu...those cores do work .. its too bad when AMD tries to take things into new directions they often are ignored .. they over the years have had some really good ideas
I just watched a video on Intel's monopoly practices. It might explain why the FX series is considered as unsuccessful. I have a FX 6300 and it is still doing the job for me. Just.
I had an i5 from the era and it performs worse than my FX 6300 in modern games.
That was a crap chip. I saw my friend build a brand new pc and was so cpu bottlenecked, Portal 2 lagged.
@@_nom_ I ran Portal 2 on a FX 6300 for years. It ran fine.
@@_nom_ dude, I ran Portal 2 with fx-4100 just fine.
The happy ending of all this, is that AMD took the modular design they pretended to use in the FX Series and ported to Ryzen Series. Of course, it's a way different design with the Infinity Fabric, but the idea is basecally the same.
Well, i just upgraded from a FX-4300 to a FX-8350 last month and it does all i need.
If you are on an extreme Budget like me, the AM3+ platform is still an option to consider. It is well matured, no early adopters bugs, very stable and reliable in my expirience.
Sure, it will not hold up to modern i7 or Ryzen Chips, but on the other hand, you can build 2 complete AM3+ PCs for the same price as a top level i7 CPU alone. You will not crush any benchmarks with a FX-CPU, but you can run everything and it's not too bad. I really like my new system, and i think i will stay on that until the next generation of Zen CPUs are out.
Still my opinion, if you want a solid, reliable system for a cheap budget, and you care more about everyday expirience then benchmark results, stay one generation behind. That way you can get the full featured well built top tier parts, while still saving a lot of money and headache.
After all, i don't want to play beta tester on some new chips that were thrown at the market with severe bugs in them, even paying a premium for doing so. I'd rather take the well tested and matured option and save a lot of $$ on it.
Until the board expires and you can't get a decent replacement.
www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/watch_dog_2_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,8.html
www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/dishonored_2_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,8.html
www.guru3d.com/articles_page...e_warfare_pc_graphics_benchmark_review,8.html
www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/battlefield_1_pc_graphics_benchmark_review,9.html
www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gears_of_war_4_pc_vga_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,8.html
fx cannot game you need i3/i5/i7 to game, reviews from ryzen launch show, ryzen is yet another trash design....clearly....
and serious gamers, game at 1080p or lower for max fps !!!
Asahiwasabi LMAO it stops it? You call 8% a stomp? Also my piledriver chip is faster then your x5660 even in server loads. cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-FX-6300-vs-Intel-Xeon-X5560/1555vsm16614
This is my system: www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/7277493
kitty!
That would be a valid strategy until a couple of years ago. The sheer IPC uplift of ryzen, current RAM prices, and amount of r1700
2600 + b450 mobos in the used market makes it so AM3+ is too obsolete to be a good performance\price option. Sure, for the 150\200$ you'd spend on one ryzen mobo\cpu
am combo could buy 2 AM3+ combos, but that's just because of how worthless they've become.
I mean, if you only have 100$ to spend, go for it. But from 150\200 and above, might as well get early AM4, then you get not only a way better experience, but also upgrade paths that will be worth at least for another 3\5 years
Bought my 8350 in 2014. I typed this comment on my 8350 in 2020. Literally years of almost constant use through editing, effect making, encoding, sound development, streaming, and hard gaming shes been the most reliable and most powerful CPU I have ever owned. Literally bought it for $120. Good Job AMD. Price to Performance is still unmatched.
Earlier this month I replaced my 6350FX with GTX750 to a AM4 2400g NVMe and 32GB ram all ebay/second hand beyond motherboard and one thing really noticed was power saving.
Can't argue for their value on CPU's.
I had the 8350 for a long time. Just did a Ryzen 2700x build, and gave the 8350 build to my friend. I ran most games in high or Ultra with the fx8350 and a 970 gpu. As a gamer I thought the performance was great. I switched to the Ryzen because I was creating a lot of content for my channel and that’s when the 8350 started to show its age. Still a great gaming processor, especially if you are on a budget.
Nah almost all ryzen chipsets outclass the fx chipset, especially with the ram upgrade.
@@MZRFaith when did he even remotely imply that FX are better than Ryzen?
@@CrocoDylianVT he said it’s a great gaming processor on a budget, which isn’t true, any ryzen cpu would be better on a budget.
@@MZRFaith Look how old his comment is lol.
@@MZRFaith you're hella stupid
FX 9590 here, this nuclear reactor still kicking ass in 2017 @ 4.8 Ghz cooled with air!!
(Side note: FX 8120 OCed to 4.1 performed pretty good considering it's age!)
I still enjoyed my upgrade from a core 2 duo 3.0ghz to an FX 4100 3.6ghz. All I really remember is that I could not emulate ps2 on my core 2 duo, but my budget 4100 could handle the ps2 emulation. :D Upgrading to a used 8320 kept my gaming rig alive and well through most of 2017! A Ryzen 5 1600 upgrade was just too tempting to pass up though! :D
Got a FX 8300 yesterday for about 65 bucks, new. Quite a bargain. I'm waiting for it to arrive, while I use my FX 4100 for its last days. AMD FX series is so much cheaper than Intel, and even on this 4100 I ran games like witcher 3, settings high, 720p just fine, with about 30 fps.
Living in Brazil, I'm no 1080p or 4K enthusiast, because it costs much, and I mean, MUCH more money here.
i'm still running my 8350 (stock right now) and i don't really feel like i need an upgrade yet... Only for a few badly optimized alpha games... i wouldn't mind having the latest intel cpu, but the price... nah i'm good, i grew up with VHS tapes and IBM laptops so 60 fps is ok for me :P
An i3 would even be an upgrade from the 8350 if gamings what you do.
Barry Cooper, no.
F. Henriques.....Wow....Something like an 8-core FX-8320e would be a huge upgrade for you, and I think they are only like $79 at Microcenter.
Gotcha...ouch....guess that complicates things a bit.
Barry Cooper, not so. OLD games that only use one core yes but not new ones. At the time I had my FX8350 I had my i5 2500K. Swapping my R9 280X from one to the other I compared performance in 7 Days to Die. There was an intersection down from my base where my frame rate just cratered on my 2500K. I swapped the R9 280X over to the FX8350 rig and got better frame rate. I noticed that when playing 7 Days to Die I had two cores showing more or less idle and six cores at 70% - 80%. The 2500K does not do 6 threads, in single core the 2500K smacked the FX8350 down hard, but in that game not so.
I replace the 2500K with a 2600K I got on ebay, it could smoke the 8350. Last week I replaced my 2600K system with this R5 1600X based system I finally got all the parts for, and so far I am happy with it. That i7 2600K system in reality still does pretty good, sandy bridge was a big step, I had mine as high as 5.1 GHz but for daily use I ran 4.8GHz.
I really only built this one because it has been a while and I wanted to play with a new toy :)
I've had an FX-8320 for 5 years and it served me very well up to this day at 4.6 Ghz, i can still do a lot of stuff on that chip but there's always that moment even if love that computer, still going strong with some more ram and an SSD, it was mostly getting very old so i've bought a Ryzen 7 1700.
Nice, I hope you enjoy your Ryzen system
I really do! I upgrade every 4-5 years and just like it did back then from an Athlon 64 X2 3800 to the FX-8320, the improvements always give me a big slap in the face!
Everybody compared the bulldozer and piledriver processors to the second and third gens i3's back in the day.
Nice to see that all those people are still using their i3's nowadays with decent performance!
im still on a fx chip, probably not gonna upgrade for another year or so, and yes, the bulldozer has just gotten better and better over the years, it really is all about the timing, i bet you in 20 years people will be surprised how well bulldozer runs
PhunkBustA In 20 years we most likely won’t be on x86 architecture. But I agree that it aged really well. 👌🏻
Bought the 8150 for 125 USD and 8350 for 145 USD in 2012. They both aged well, i gave them away this year and bought Ryzen 1700. FX was not that bad, only thing i really did not like with the 8150 was the heat.
The server chips were actually pretty nice. There were Opterins with 16 cores/32 threads that pulled far under 100W with load.
AMD used the concept of CMT, is similar to SMT/HT but whit use of "Modules" is more like cluster computing, it means that the AMD Opteron's only have 16 Cores and 16 Threads only... -_-
the FX processors are great in music production environments, solid and cheap
im still here with an FX 8370 Clocked to 4.9 on 50€ Watercooling, running smoothly and cool.
No Problems in 1080p 144hz, for example 290 FPS on CS:GO with an R9 390X
anyway going to upgrade sometime soon to 2560x1080 240hz and this will most likely require a new PC :) so hello 1800X, DDR4-3200 and Vega
An old i3 gets more than 290fps in csgo. Youll be amazed when you upgrade.
Right, but i'll only upgrade if i need to
290 FPS seems enough, i can even play BF4 on Ultra Settings with 100+ FPS so yeah
★SkillZ★⑲ oof
Look what have we got here. An Intel fanboy... No, an old i3 can't get more than 290fps in csgo. Not even my i5 6500 can get more than 250 fps in csgo...
old as if like core i3 550 because i have it and it goes to around 90 avarage with my gtx 1050, if i use a gtx 1070 wich i borrowed from a friend it goes up to 95 or 100 fps so i dont think an i3 can get 290 fps
Piledriver might be one of the most underrated products in recent history. While 8-core Bulldozer parts lost to i5s even in multithreading tasks, the 8300 series performed well in multithreading tasks and gradually gained ground on the Sandy and Ivy Bridge parts in gaming. Also the Athlon X4 860k and 845 were unsung heroes of budget (though power hungry and cooling demanding) quad cores, though now they lose solidly to the G4560 in every test.
NO MA'AM yeah that's just not true, I had an 8350 at 4.7ghz and well it was just blown away by sandybridge
AdoredTV has at least 2 videos on the subject. Here is one: ylvdSnEbL50. Start around 5 minutes.
2012 AMD vs SB is much different than FX 8350 vs 2500k in 2017 on only new games man. Yes 2500k still leads...by a shred in some titles but in others the fx 8350 creeps ahead. but the gap has closed in general, some people get a cpu and keep it for 10 yrs, and most fx 8350 owners are still happy, most 2500k owners have been suckered into getting another 4 core I5. Either intel or AMD as long as you shop smart your good. I.E. but a R5 1600 or I7 7700k now, dont upgrade it for many years if 60 fps is all your after xD
built a PC with a amd 6350 .. clocked it to 4.6750 @ 1.425v with nb set to 2775.. ish on air it idles at 20 degrees.. on load 46 keeps under 50 .. on air!!
yeah thats a lie lmao
I owned multiple FX Processors and APUs and I loved every single one of them. Those things are beasts and would take on anything you threw at it. I would still be rocking my 9590 had the Ryzen not come out.
god bulldozer apu’s are fucking garbage, i have one from 2014 and it couldn’t handle shit, fucking beaten by 2nd gen intel dual cores
@@faudanke4459 Don't forget that the integrated GPU from the A-series APUs beats all the Intel iGPUs (Even those of flagship Core i9s from 10th gen) previous to Xe graphics without costing a kidney like those Core i's with in-die vram, and, to be fair, the A10 7870K could outperform the i3 3xxx's as a whole lineup + GTX 750 on most contemporary games, and that is, considering the A10 7870K downclocks to 3.0GHz when the iGPU is in use.
Could you actually game on the built-in Intel HD graphics? I thought so, those CPUs went around the same cost as the APU + MoBo, and that is without accounting the cost of the GPU you would drop in to actually game on that Core i3 based rig, with that cost, you could afford a dual (4x4gb) 8GB 1866MHz kit for the A-series based machine and still have money left for a fancy case and fans.
@@reik019 Alright easy now, most of what you said is correct and i will admit my comment was a bit ignorant and induced by rage due to how shit that dual core a6-7400k was (seriously give it a hit you'll understand why i hate it), quad core apu's might be a different story as since the writing of that comment i've met a handful of others who have a8's, a10's or even a12's for the matter (despite being am4), i myself even considered an upgrade to a a8-7680 if times got desperate. They were fine with it apart from well being unable to run higher titles without a full system overhaul (fm2+ upgradability was ASS). I do agree with you that the igpu's are mad powerful for their time and infact i still have the a6 around running folding@home on it's igpu, it's a bit power hungry but it does it's job. Though my only complain would be (you mentioned it) the dropping of the cpu's clocks whenever the igpu picks up load above idunno 90%??, i understand this is a matter of AMD trying to not cook the entire chip as the process (or even the architecture as of that matter) starts degrading around 70C. But it's still a bummer like for example, you upgrade your cooler to handle the inferno, it also handicaps the gpu a little bit by limiting the tasks it gets from the already crappy cpu that relies a lot on clockspeed. This might hint an equiliburum of some sort AMD is trying to hit but still, you could pump out a few more frames if the limitation wasn't there, and i don't even think it's a power limit or anything it's just in case the people (presumably ones that bought a system with the chip don't have much more to spend for a better cooler). It's something they could've dealt with better and not just a simple what if situation. All in all, forget FX imo, yes there will still be a community around it which enjoy their computers even though Zen is the new rage but it's still a failure regardless especially now compared to Zen AND the attractive new APU's (which imo still beats intel if you take the perf/W advantage, software and features), the damned architecture almost killed AMD but miraculously saved them too because they had no other choice.
@@faudanke4459 I see, those dual core APUs are shit if you do not overclock them (1.5V is OK on dual cores, 1.475V is the maximum for quad cores), as maximum temps are concerned, 70C with extra voltages is OK, 80C is the maximum with stock voltages on these APUs (The FX chips were the ones with 70C max on stock and 61C with max voltages), I had a friend that ran an A6 7400K at 4.9GHz at like 1.475V-1.5V (Can't remember the exact voltage) and it was decent for most shit, unless you needed multi thread performance.
I'll tell you the story of that little limiter set in place by AMD, back when FM2 released, Manufacturers rushed to get boards ready for the new platform, including that little shit known as ASRock, and, as the MoBos rolled out, ASRock's mobos were notably known to blow up with A8s, A10s, and A12s, because ASRock was greedy (As always it is) and only used 4 standard CPU phases (Which should be able to handle up to 125W of power delivery) for both the CPU cores and the SoC (iGPU + NorthBridge) instead of the guideline 4 phases for CPU + 2 for SoC as how AMD designed it, the issue was, that A8s and faster models were known for drawing 95W in the CPU cores and 45W (up to 65W on A10s and A12s) on the iGPU and North Bridge, which surpassed by far the power that could be used by the APU at full blast, on a decent board made by other partners like GIGABYTE, it would only had caused the VRM to throttle and nothing else, but as always, ASRock went cheap on the VRM MOSFETs that had lower Tj.Max temps (Around 100C, decent MOSFETs can support up to 150C, and the VRM is programmed to throttle past 115C), pair this with overvoltage caused by a buggy BIOS and you have the recipe for explosive VRMs, giving AMD a bad reputation for MoBos that blew up with their processors, which is actually a good reason to put said soft lock in place, and was the actual reason FM2rv2 (FM2+) got released.
You can bypass that lock using AMD Overdrive, just move one slider one step up and move it back down and press ''Apply'' and it should be able to get past that lock, and you can overclock the iGPU from there too, I could squeeze an additional 150MHz overclock from the built-in iGPU from my A10 7870K without raising the voltage a bit.
And, in terms of micro architecture, you have to try an Excavator APU (Mobile FX is a good example, they have to be the most powerful and efficient Bulldozer-based CPUs I have seen, running 4 cores at like 3.0GHz with only 35W of heat output, matching my A10 if I run it at 3.5GHz, the iGPU is still light years apart from the desktop A10, but the biggest portion of the heat generation comes from the CPU cores), that should have been the Bulldozer we got in 2011, it had 2/3 of the IPC of the 1st gen Ryzen but still used the module design all Bulldozer derivatives do, but it was sadly only for laptops, a desktop FX 8xxx based in excavator without iGPU and with L3 cache instead would had given Intel a run for it's money like Zen 3 is doing in the modern era.
@@reik019 Gotdamn, excavator's IPC wasn't as bad as i thought and i actually believed the laptops were pure ass since in my experience i knew series was reliant on clockspeeds. Don't think they would be able to slop in some L3 there due to actual size limitations and if they do it would be difficult and send the company into a deeper hole had it been done back then. I did some research and they did release some excavator for fm2+ with carrizo, though with both chips (x4 845 and 7680) being locked (dont know how they would play with OD tho) so not really worth my $40 when i can go ryzen for a bit more lol (in fact i DID! happy with my r5 3600 and my experience with my a6 lead me down here learning hardware).
Moving on, don't really believe excavator can do THAT much to compete with intel especially clock by clock, with scheduling although already fixed is probably still ass (correct me on this) and the piss amount of cache, architecture was doomed from the start unless you went linux (made biggggg improvements for my a6 compared to win10).
Going back to your suggestion on trying out excavator, i actually might but in the far future, i just spelunked a lot on my ryzen rig and my fm2+ mobo might be on it's last legs as the audio and the ports are becoming crappy, apart from it also being crappy in the first place (a68hm e33 v2, 3+2 power phasing, shit bios oc control and so on) so can't expect much from it and is working hard keeping my a6 breathing which i did overclock! I got mine up to 4.6ghz on the stock cooler with no voltage control at all and it barely broke a sweat and staying below 70C without an igpu load on the stock cooler with stock paste at the time, the damn motherboard pumped 1.55v tho (probably the buggy bioses you mentioned) through the chip and i felt it degrade over months, the whole overclocking experience kinda spoiled me tbh with how big the uplift was compared to stock, i even resulted to delidding the damn thing so i can keep a high overclock (4.4 ghz by that point) without crashing due to temps. The entire time the CPU vrm's were around 63C (soc vrm was not reported by hwinfo) and the power usage for both cpu and igpu well i don't trust what hwinfo says. Now i run the thing at 4.2 ghz on boost not base so it's stable when having an igpu load and when there's no igpu load it can ramp back up. Come to think of it does no motherboard have a workaround for the soft lock? I would love to put an entire Carrizo chip on full redline without having to fire up Overdrive every time.
I'm not defending anything or anyone, but AMD FX processors are on the Top when it comes to price/performance value. That's all I care for now. I still have an old FX6100 , with a little bit OC on hand and there is no game that I can't play quite well to be fair. On the other hand some games are more GPU intense and there's practically no difference if you're with FX6100 or i3 for instance.
2 weeks ago i bought a new fx 8350 WITH wraith cooler for just 57 euros here in greece. The price/performance for those 57 euros WITH REALLY GOOD RGB COOLER is just insane.
As far as I see from benchmarks the 8350 has 10%-20% less framerates than top of the end cpus. And in 4k the difference for some reason is even smaller.
Reading this on my 9590 and still a member of the 5gh club
Me Too
Still using an 8350 and giving no fucks. I'm happy with the performance it's provided over time and due to some of the changes that have occurred since I built this rig, it's gotten much better.
Once I decide to update to a Ryzen based build, I'll retire this to light duty HTPC work.
Im still rocking the following and still play everything on max settings at over 60fps (bf1,FO4, etc). For 4-5 year old rig, id hardly consider the fx to be bad lol. Nothing like being able to play bf4 in 4k while recording with fraps at around 100fps. Most things cant do that now, a half decade later.
Motherboard - Asus Sabertooth 990fx Gen3 R2.0 The Ultimate Force (TUF) Series
CPU- AMD FX 8350 4.82ghz OC 8 core
Ram - 16gig (2x 8gig) Gskill Ripjaws X series
GPU - Radeon R9 290x /w 8% OC
SSD - Samsung 840 pro
PSU - Coolermaster Silent Pro 850w
Case - Coolermaster HAF X
cpu: FX9370@4.7ghz 1.38-1.428v htt2600
motherboard: asus crosshair v formula z
Ram: 32gb gskill 2133
gpu: zotac 1070mini
psu: evga 1300watt g2
case: CoolerMaster Cosmos Medusa
havent found a game yet i cant play at 4k...hell most run at 70+fps...since im on a 60hz monitor....yeah.... sall good :D
no ssd 300gb vrap for boot with 6gb primocache(+50gb L2 cache on an ssd)
also use 9gb (bit over) for cache on my games drive,thats a 4tb sshd, along with another 50gb ssd cache.
another good trick is to grab compressgui and compress your games folder....less data to move from drives to memory=faster load times... ;)
Try running Planetside 2 or Arma with those FX. Even Intel chips dip below 60 fps there.
No optimization for many cores, hunger for high IPC and clock will break it's neck there.
I'm not saying that AMD makes bad products. Far from it. FX cips were just not in the right market and Ryzen is awesome, but sometimes there just isn't the right workload.
If only AMD skipped the Bulldozer architecture all together and launched Piledriver, they would have like 40% of desktop marketshare. I am still happy with my FX-8350, multitasking and FHD gaming with no issues whatsoever. The Piledriver cpus where as much a breakthrough as was Athlon 64 back in 2003 but due to the epic failure of Bulldozer the year before, they received almost no credit for it and were'nt trusted by the market.
Using FX-8350 @ 4.8GHz with high end air cooling + motherboard quality with VRMs will serve anyone with 8 core needs for gaming etc.. This is what I used for yrs already & benefited by high end DDR3 ram. Only 1 problem today though is power consumption, something Ryzen 5 & 7 series solve well.
But yeah, bang for buck value before release of Ryzen. FX series when Overclocked were it.
Too bad they did not released Excavator for FX series.
One of the big problems with Bulldozer isn't that it isn't exactly true eight core. It's somewhere in between hyper-threading and full eight core. (8 integer cores, but each one shares a single floating-point unit.) AMD was ahead with the Athlon X2, but fell behind with Phenom and it's TLB bug, especially spending extra time making a "true quad core" by delaying Phenom rather than doing what Intel did with Core 2 Quad and putting two dual-core CPUs on one die, never mind that Intel Core 2 Duos were faster than AMD dual-core processors as well. AMD just didn't really start to catch up to Intel again until Ryzen. That's being behind for near 11 years, ~2006-2017. In some ways, AMD is lucky to have survived.
the only reason they survived is because the 8th gen consoles were barely keeping them afloat
What's funny is that Intel bashes Ryzen for being a "glued" cpu but Intel did it first with the Pentium D. Those things had a high failure rate.
actually the major problem isnt the shared resources, its teh slow as balls cache the chips have, they are held back by the fact that the cache is slow as balls....its pathetic but, its a flaw because they used automated design software to design the chips and didnt to much if any hand optimization....
if keller had been brought in to fix FX, he could have, there are some VERY in dept articles on it...
and phenom I imho was worse then FX...Phenom II was pretty damn good...still like my fx over my 4ghz 1050t.... even the 8150 i bought for 50bucks(guy got it, then got an 8350 from a friend at amd and sold me the 8150 for the cost of shipping me some other shit he owed me...LOL..)
now, you also need to keep in mind, this story somewhat changed over time,
www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/watch_dog_2_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,8.html
www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/dishonored_2_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,8.html
www.guru3d.com/articles_page...e_warfare_pc_graphics_benchmark_review,8.html
www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/battlefield_1_pc_graphics_benchmark_review,9.html
www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gears_of_war_4_pc_vga_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,8.html
due to windows 8.1/10, driver updates, game updates, games in general being made more and more to try and take advantage of the xbx/ps4 hardware...a very slow version of these chips....
really, the last apu's they made in that lineup made up alot of the distance in perf, they just never gave us an am3+ version of those chips... sadly....
amd fucked up, but also....without amd, intel would be fucking us all even harder....without amd...intel wouldnt even have dual core desktop chips.... just very expensive slow...crap.....(look at what happens when they get to powerful for to long....netburst is a good example...or chips that regularly hit 80c...(wtff....80c would melt my chip....)
the pentium-d are soooo horrible, seen sooo many old oem systems running at 90c when they finely get to desktop....fan/heatsink totally compaced with hair/dust/etc... jesus...
it is funny...since intel even implied their "glued togather" cpu's where a supperior method to amd's at one point...
anyway...they should have brought keller back far sooner, had him work on a new design after he got the FX line's major issues sorted(the worst being cache latancy being utter shite.. dragging the rest of the cpu down..)
Packing multiple dies toether is actually a cost effective method. Design a slamm die, test it and combine similar scaling chips into one product. And Zen has actual interconnect between the dies while the Pentium D had to communicate over the comperably slow FSB.
While I plan on upgrading to Ryzen my old FX 8350 @ 5ghz still runs my games great. I cap my games at 60 fps with a free sync monitor. Many of the games I play are at 2k the older r9 390 still performs well. Key to FX is OC ram and at least 4.7ghz also use core park app that you can just turn off parking even after the patch certain games have micro stutter as it unparks.
Also using Radeon Pro to reduce bottlenecks and understanding which settings is cpu or gpu bound. What games use all cores and which ones use only two for example. For example Fxaa/smaa (AA) is gpu bound and old Msaa is cpu bound. If a game is not using all cores the avoid msaa at all costs. Things like flip que size (1-2) can also help reduce stress. If a game is gpu bound then msaa x4 may actually give you more frames. Or flip que size set to 3-4 may give smoother fps. This is why I hate hardware physics (even on nvidia) most gpu's are already maxed playing the game so particles get push to cpu anyway why even nvidia gpu's take a hit with physics.
Point is if you say have four theads like an i3 or some i5s which is good for games atm. You cannot off load gpu bottlenecks to the cpu without taking major hits on fps. Or say record in game video as well having the extra threads will make these FX's age better than most people think. Btw I bought the FX because I edit and it stomped the i5 at the time and I couldn't afford an I7. While it is a toaster and inefficient its served me well and I still don't "really" need a Ryzen yet.
Wow, just finished watching your short videos, and am in the processing of watching your long-form history of home microprocessors. Would love to see more content like this, I realize these are all quite old, so, perhaps you're no longer doing this sort of thing (although the microprocessor doc was released only a year ago), but, your manner of presentation does well to keep one's attention focused, and you speak clearly and calmly, and communicate the information well. I would guess you were in high school at the time of these video releases (15-18), which makes it all the more impressive.
Thanks for your kind comment! You'll be glad to hear I'm currently working on a new long-form video which should be out this fall :) I post in the community tab semi regularly so keep an eye on that for updates.
It's 2022 and I am still running my FX8350. It has bee very solid and problem free since I bought it in 2014. I don't run games, so with 16GB of RAM and a couple of WD 500GB SSDs, it has been more than adequate for all my uses. I would only upgrade to a Ryzen if I could run WIN7 on it. I really don't want to upgrade to WIN10 with the crappy, ugly menus, UI and all the data slurping it does. Even if the 8350 dies, I have an FX8370 NIB on the shelf and another in a spare computer.
Can't help but agree that sometimes AMD overhype their products which ultimately is doing more harm than good. We see a similar story with Vega at the moment. Although it will be a good card on its own, it will be regarded as bad as it's impossible for it to match the insane hype surrounding it.
Oh, and one more thing - quite an informative and very well structured video. Keep it up!
nah vega is shit. so is polaris, so is anything else amd is going to make.
I can understand that you are eager to show your stupidity bob, but we are not talking about you, try trolling on the topic instead of yourself. :)
" I know more about technology right now than you ever will have in your entire life" follow by "amd is for poor folk like you"....
kid plis stfu
bobsagget823 yeah GCN isn't that good anymore but it's also an architecture from 2011 that's still kicking it with the big boys, albeit whilst consuming more power. Polaris was by no means shit just overhyped like vega, they're both strong performers but they never lived up to the hype... so go be a tard somewhere else
People who think this is a bad chip lack the context. I got one for my brothers first PC because they were about 100 quid versus 240 for the i5 at the time. So you got 75-80% of the performance for less than half of the price.
I used a AMD 8350 and it served ok to good depending on the application. AMD came out with the Ryzen series of processors and AMD is officially Back. I got a 1600X and it performs quite a lot better than the old 8350 in most situations. at least AMD is rising up in level unseen since the K7 and AMD 64 and socket 462 and 939 days.
Check the recent benchmarks on FX8350 vs Sandy Bridge is slightly ahead specially in windows 8 I think they did a misleading marketing, and is because the marketing department was writing articles and they never hear the engineers I believe anyway I think is more a lack of code in that time and also try to innovate.
No im sorry but the 8350 does not beat sandy bridge, maybe in certain games it matches it but never beats it
... Thats not really true at all. In DX12 titles the FX chip will pull ahead, but in almost any DX11 title the 2500k will win.
bulldozer was late to release by over a year or more. If it hit release date, it would have done much better. Intel crushed them with sandy. You will see bulldozer cpus being used in cheap 4k systems in the future. My brother has a 8350 with a 1080 ti. It barely uses 40% of the cpu in most games.
You're crazy stupid if u think the FX 8xxx series beats the Sandy Bridge
Probably because he's stressing the gpu wayy more than the cpu. If he stressed the Cpu it would probably be a different story.
Dude, the level of research you do is insane. Congratulations on a million subscribers in advance. This video was a real turning point in your journey to RUclips stardom.
The real power of the FX core was multi tasking.
You can dedicate a core or a couple of cores for each task and run multiple programs simultaneously without worrying about CPU resources.
I built a home made DVR/gaming machine/TVBox and I regularly record, transcode and game all at the same time.
I could have built an i5 for the same money at the time, but I'd only have had four cores rather than six. They'd have been faster cores, but I couldn't assign two cores to transcoding, two to DVR and two to gaming with the i5.
The i5 would have gotten higher benchmark scores, but even the i7 sharing resources with hyperthreading does not multitask as smoothly as two threads are using the same resources on each core and it would have added an additional $150 to my budget at the time.
Now I've got a Sandy Bridge i7 2.6GHz, Ivy Bridge Xeon @ 3.8GHz and Skylake i5 @ 2.8GHz beside my FX 6300 @ 3.9GHz with turbo up to 4.3GHz, they all have their strengths, but when using the computers you can only tell the difference with benchmarks. The *only* app where the Intel CPUs dominate for me is the PS2 emulator running Gran Turismo 4. The single core performance is very important and AVX2 support in the Skylake makes a huge difference. The newest release, however, levels the playing field and all of my systems will now play it @ a steady 60fps.
The real strength of the FX wasn't really speed, it was load bearing. You could throw a ton of work at the CPU. The i5/i7 could do the same work faster, but it couldn't run three or four apps simultaneously without issue. The FX might only be 80% as fast per core, but I got that 80% over six cores vs 100% over 4. Hyperthreading is awesome if everything falls together properly, however it doesn't have the resources to carry the same load as the FX line could. My Xeon can handle 4 heavy threads and 4 light threads, my FX can handle 6 heavy threads. The FX has done it's job admirably for me though I am looking forward to an 8, 16 or 32 core CPU in the next year or so.
Glen Waldrop how about a ryzen 7 1700x or 2700x ? 8 cores, 16 threads
Glen Waldrop at 4.5 ghz with oc
I'm completely torn between a Ryzen 5 six core and going nuts, saving up and grabbing a Threadripper.
I'm still happy with my FX, so anything would be above and beyond what I actually need. Might lower my power bill.
lol
Glen Waldrop as soon as you get a ryzen, you don't want to go back.
A r7 1700x is only 170€ used
I ran my FX8350 until last month. A solid 8 years on FX series processors, starting with the FX4300. It worked fine for current gen gaming still with a few games kinda being a little sucktastic at times, but most of the games I really enjoyed worked fine. MGSV Dark Souls 3, space engineers, Monster hunter world. All still run great on it paired with a gtx960. I'm honestly suprised I was able to eek out that long of an existence with that rig.
I had an FX 8150 for 4 years, just upgraded 2 years ago, aaaaaand nope, I remember very well how horrible it was. So many people are talking about Piledriver, FX 8350s, 6300, etc, these were not the first FX processors, and were quite a step up from them. Bulldozer was garbage. My FX 8150 would overheat in some games and every time I tried to render anything, all with an AIO cooler on it, I had to downclock it from stock clocks to stop it lol. Smh they were so bad. All the while we got to watch Intel users with their 2500k or 2600k overclocking up to 5GHz no problem, destroying us in games with the same GPUs.
I still have my fx6100 , clocked @ 4.2ghz, and it does the job. Early on certain games gave it issues, like BF4, yet others ran fantastic on high settings(Witcher 2). The wife confiscated it to work from home, so i dont use it anymore, but it did fairly well for me, especially for the price. I'll be building a Ryzen based system later this year.
No one ever programmed the software to take advantage of FX's architecture. AMD wanted it to run more like a GPU, which focuses on parallel computing, that's why FX has so many cores and shared floating point units. I guess AMD just bet on the wrong horse, AMD thought parallel computing is the future, but people like to stick to the old way.
Its end 2019. Answer for 10:47 Zen 2 with Ryzen and Threadripper 3000 has almost equaled with Intel in single thread performance and overtaken in:
- Densely packed transistors with 7 nm
- Efficiency
- Core count
(by far with 16 cores Ryzen 3950 in consumer line)
- Scalability of the number of cores by using a chiplet approach
- PCI Express 4.0 connectivity
- More maximum possible memory
- Also allows higher clocked Ram
- Reusability of the socket (for Ryzen it is still M4 socket)
- Lower price
Still running an FX 8350 with 32 GB DDR3.
I don't know where you guys are getting your info about AMD FX 8350. There are people who are using the 8350 and getting 4.7 out of there chips. I am going to stay with my 8350 until threadripper gets stable. You can game on the 8350 even at 1440 I know people who is doing this as I speak.
I just sold a 8320@4.5ghz rig that did doom 4 at ultra setting on 1440p with a gtx 1070. i've sold 4 FX series rigs in the past three months. The support for dual ccx 8 core chips has certainly gotten better over the years.
a 980ti is the perfect pair imo
or a 8350 @ 5ghz w/ 1060 6gb ssc... I have one of those on my shelf right now and it games every modern title at 1080p 60-100fps no problem.
All of my rigs game at 60fps or better. 60 fps is my absolute minimum
My main purpose is gaming, and the 8350 has served very well. I realize, however, that it will begin to fall behind in performance in the next few years. I recently built a 7700K rig OC to 5GHz, but there is no way I'm retiring the FX-8350. It will be an excellent backup rig.
I do it at 4k in most titles, moving from dual 290x to a 1070mini made a huge dif, the only titles i see drop below 60fps anymore are...mmo's, and then, its mostly dependent on how much is on screen moving around, more players=perf hit in most if not every mmo, reguardless of cpu..(my buddies 5960x system gets the same fps i do in the same areas of for example ESO..
other games....normally im at 70+fps, i do force triple buffer and vsync in alot of titles though, kinda wish i could use a double vsync+tb....since the card can put out over 120fps consistant with this cpu(9370 at stock, though i could lock it at 4.6....in testing, i havent found the need with this board/chip, turbo seems to work well infact....infact....i have on rare occations actually seen it turbo all cores to 4.7...despite the fact it should be 4/8 cores to max turbo ....meh...wish it would consistantly do all of the cores...since when its happened it was never running hot or giving stability issues...(silver arrow extreme sb-e with 3 fans)
I know this is old, but I had loved my 8350 and was glad I purchased it. I remember later, games actually played smoother than my dad's i5 3750k when they were able to take advantage of more cores. I remember configuring skyrim's scheduling in the config to tell where things could be processed per cpu thread. My game could run better and support more followers on my fx 8350. While I no longer use the 8350, it still was an amazing cpu. I loved using virtual machines. I ran a virtual machine to run linux on one monitor and pretty much had secure mode browsing in it and played world of warcraft, skyrim and any other game I liked on the other monitor. This was a huge leap forward from my dual core e8600 cpu. With this large cpu pool, things ran well and I could do my multitasking really well. I remember I purchased a 1080ti back in 2017 and ran it on my cpu i had got back in 2013 i believe? Newegg won't let me see that far back. Before I ran a gtx 680 on it.
I know most people cry if they feel a cpu or gpu is bottlenecked, but it certainly ran my games well still. My 8350 was overclocked to 4.7ghz with the ram speeds at 2133mhz. The system felt very fast and responsive none the less. I later upgraded and i'm using a 5950x with the very same 1080ti. I tend to use my components for a long time and that 8350 did a lot for me and it had huge value for me, sure the 3770k could have got me more fps, but I wanted multitasking to run well for me as I use a lot of other things while my games and browsers are open.
Nice investigation with main emphasis on the right points.
Informative, reasonably summarized, and :
You talked metal while playing metal.
Subbed.
Subbed! Good video, interesting perspective; I never knew the FX were so hugely better for productivity, probably because gamers shit on them so much. Power draw aside, I wonder if, as devs move towards utilizing more cores for gaming, we'll see better performance in newer titles than those contemporary to Bulldozer's release.
Thank you! I think the performance will improve but more on the later FX series CPUs (8370 etc) than on Bulldozer. The weak floating point of Bulldozer is probably the largest bottleneck at this point.
That's why they delivered THE RYZEN THREADRIPPER.
I bought an FX8370 band new 5yrs ago along with a ASUS Sabertooth MB and they are both still running strong today. The biggest difference between the FX, and Intel chips that I see is in gaming. I'm just an average power user, and I have yet to lag, or bog this chip down. Under load it can get hot, but liquid cooling keeps it under 50c. I'll run this chip until it dies, and probably buy AMD again because of the price vs performance numbers. I hope AMD digs deeper into Intels market share.
9 minutes of explaining how badly AMD had foreseen the market when designing the Bulldozer.. Then turns around and says, it is not all amds fault, games and windows were not optimized for Bulldozer. You got this the wrong way around, bulldozer was not optimized for the market it launched in..
Btw before i get hate for intel fanboism,. , my 3 latest CPU's has been phenom II X2 (unlocked 4 cores xD ), Phenom II X6 and FX-8320 (piledriver) because they offered superb performance for the price at the time of buying, however the first gen bulldozer was never even worth considering for anyone who owned an X6, X4 or even an X2 for gaming.
"Bulldozer was not optimized for the market it launched in"- well said.
I think it's a mixture of both. AMD misjudged the market but also optimisations were slow to take place.
Jogeir Hvide yeah sure! so you're basically saying that intel was already optimized when it was created but amd not, that's why one outperforms the other.
Sarcasm aside, all hardware needs code optimization, so stop the bs. Software makers favor intel simply cuz it's a multinational that has a monopoly. (Sarcasm on again) So let's keep feeding it.
P.S.: One does not need to be a fanboy to be dumb.
@Chazy Intel chips have come out regularly with small incremental changes in technology for a very long time. They've been the leading cpus for a solid decade, barring the present. Yeah, software is usually well optimized for Intel, because their products set a clockwork industry standard.
Some new product line pops up from AMD, with vastly less effective IPC and a radically different design from previous CPUs...and you think that wouldn't require greater time, effort and investment to optimize?
What are you smoking? Why all of the misplaced sarcasm? Speaking of dumb...hot damn but are you ever slow.
@John Wick You fail to see that this isn't just about FX. AMD is a world's first company, a leading company in innovation. AMD was the first to achieve 1 Ghz processing, brought 64-bit computing to the x86 arch and a lot more including freesync, free stuff/ open source, because AMD cares about innovation and progress instead of just pure performance for profit. Back then, AMD's processors challenged Intel's and little after AMD opened a lawsuit against Intel, surprise... Why does a company like that fall behind the competition? Let me see, are the two equally in economy/resources? I would give you the reason if that were the case, but the truth is that intel abuses its power, like multinationals tends to. You know you can't deny that. And after all that, AMD was able to bring a pretty good (line of) processor, that again, challenges and beats Intel's. Nothing to say about it, huh?
"Some new product line pops up from AMD, with vastly less effective IPC
and a radically different design from previous CPUs...and you think that
wouldn't require greater time, effort and investment to optimize?"
Things have to change and evolve in order to improve (that involves being totally different when necessary), so stop the bs.
I can confirm that with each yearly update from famous rockstar games, and other manufacturer games, FX works better and better over time. (I own a gaming LAN, FX rocks solid, Phenom II X4 965 are coffe makers, these last ones I had to set up maximun processor usague to 85% to avoid thermal runs.
i loved my old fx 8150 after 5 years of gaming given the system to my son and still going well today
What happened simply was a case of "the technology was more advanced than the software and hardware at the time permitted"
I have 3 desktops 1 has a FX 6100(Bulldozer) 2 has a 6300(Vishera/piledriver) 3 has 9590 (Vishera/piledriver) I game on the 6300. I use the other 2 for things like rendering 3d images in 3D Max, and other heavy threaded tasks, I also use them as servers. Under this type of workload, they perform awesome. These CPU's do best when u are running many things at once. I love my FX processors. I will not be upgrading to Ryzen, or switching to Intel. These processors do exactly what I need them too, and they do it efficiently. Can't ask for more.
I don't regret updating to X570 and Ryzen 5 3600.
However, my FX8350 paired with a GTX770 served me very well for more than 6 years. Never ran hot, never was at 100% workload and I played everything in fullHD, 75Hz and max details. Heavily modded skyrim, mass effect trilogy, DmC, elex, war thunder in cinematic mode, etc. (I don't like gaming @2k/4k & 144Hz anyway but I do multitasking on 2 or 3 screens parallely)
In prime95 it stayed below 65°C @Stock on full load even after 30 minutes with a rather small air cooler.
The biggest disadvantages were slow DDR3 RAM, high TDP and, well, it was slightly ahead of its time. Poor singlecore performance, strong in multicore - when hardly any programs utilized more than 4 cores.
I'm glad AMD recovered with Zen.
The problem with Bulldozer was the inflated price on the 8150. An Intel i5 2500k was a far better CPU and far less expensive at the time.
I remember it well. I had a Phenom II x2 560 that I purchased in the hopes of unlocking it into a quad core. The attempt failed. I was waiting for the new FX chips to come out, and the 8150 sucked so bad and the price was so high that I had to get a Phenom II X4 980 instead. I did not regret it. Kept that for 2 years until the FX 8350 was released. They were finally selling it at the correct price and it could outperform my long in the tooth Phenom II 980. I still have the FX 8350 system overclocked to 4.8ghz to this very day. Almost a 7 year old computer.
The worst thing about Bulldozer was the hype around it, was way over hyped then under delivering which crushes the expectation of many. Second thing would be the motherboard price, the FX 4xxx or 6xxx could be a very good budget CPU had a decent board with low price exist. Just an M-ATX board with 4+1 phase heatsinked priced at 55~70 USD would be a killer combo with the CPU.
And now.
The tables have turned.
Intel needs all their Lakes and Bridges ,with Coffee flavored Comets to measure up to how AMD has Ryzen from the ashes of defeat!
Well Said!
Meanwhile amd use the glorious and smart artists name to dry up the lake
Amd codename are using artists name
Intel - Being a champion first, suffers meltdown/spectre exploit later on. I had to disable these patches first before running any single program on it.
AMD - 8 physical cores was far ahead from its time, but most media thinking game benchmarks are 1000% more important than multitasking benchmarks. The only live saver were the GPU production and also being a CPU manufacturer for both Sony and M$ consoles where Intel still seeing it as a joke initially while keep making 14nm++++++ CPUs for more than a decade.
Walaupun FX still sampah,tapi dia dah lebih optimised untuk game sekarang sebab game sekarang perlu 6 core (AAA games).Tapi panas & power jelah takleh nak elak
I used an FX6300 and was able to overclock it to 4.0Ghz, best $100 I ever spent on a processer. I upgraded to an FX8370 and noticed about a 25% improvement in FPS and performance but both processors were showing bottlenecks back in 2017 that suggested an upgrade to Ryzen. I made the switch to Ryzen and wow, what an improvement but I still find myself fondly thinking about that little FX6300.
An FX8150 cost about the same as a i7 2600k and the FX6100 was nearly as dear as the i5 2500k which got it off to a bad start. An average AM3+ board hadn't got good enough VRM's to handle the power draw of the 8 core chips which caused throttling even at stock speeds. The quad cores were terrible in all forms and would have been better to have not been released.
On a high end board a 6 core (or 8 with 2 turned off in my case) with a good overclock it was pretty good, especially when prices went through the floor overnight for used parts, I paid £85 for my 8120. The previous Phenom II was also a very good CPU and worked on AM3+ so you could get the modern features just by upgrading your board.
2nd gen FX cpu's had a lower power draw, were cheaper on release, cooler, about 10% faster clock for clock and overclocked better. For me FX6300 is as much a budget legend as the i5 2500K is a mainstream gaming ledge.
I upgraded to a i5 4670K later on, running at 4.2ghz it was only 10% faster gaming than the FX6300 which I used to use at 4.9ghz with no problems on Sabertooth 990 and a H100.
My 9590 still running strong 10 RDP simultaneous users one OS one office lightening fast concurrent Windows
my AMD FX-8350 vishara based system is running great since 2011.thank you AMD. cheers from india.
Another thing that is omitted on the video is that the Front End is shared and can't feed all the cores on the module at the same time, using interleaving by clockspeed intervals to feed one core per cycle at a time, causing underutilization.
6:56 Right there is the proof. Intel where making only 5 an 15% increased over the 8 year period. Where AMD was jumping 50% improved performance EVERY RELEASE! AMD was way ahead of Intel releasing 4,6 and 8 core processors that destroyed Intel`s line up. But you would never hear about it.
And people called me an idiot for buying the 2500K over the 8150.
lol.
The cakewalk for Intel is over. Thank god. AMD has taken 11% market share since Ryzen has been released.
I did not buy my Fx cpu to just play games. I used to make tons of videos and encode movies onto dvds. The FX was king for this.
Now I am running an FX 8350 for mostly games since I don't encode videos anymore... gotta say, most newer games are multi threaded these days and utilize all the cores quite well.
I have saved thousands of dollars by just adding a new GPU, RAM and hard drives to my computer all these years.
Better than i remember???... i still use my :D
Also say.. My wife found my old Phenom II in a box a few years back.. and because she hardly had any money at a time, she took it and built a new (ish) computer around it... It preffomrs really good actually, still to this day
dont get how they calll the bulldozer so bad i stil run it cause well i dont earn alot of income so cant upgrade my pc every few years. bulldozer stil rocks cause i can play anygame atm without any problems. it does the job and was a very good buy at that time. so no it is not as bad as i remember cause i stil use it and even do i want to get a ryzen at this moment bulldozer stil does its job ,2 games on 2 screen well then it depens on wich games i play but yeah using 1screen i can run star citizen with no isseu hope after 3.0 that stil be the case and same for conan . and those test they use are so wank i never trust those anyways, and time wil tell that amd wil beat the shit out of intel . i can remember the first amd i got a 1.2ghz my brother the same but from intel (both single cores back in the day ;) ) both same video card. did the benchmark and oepsie what did it say intel was not a 1.2 but a 1.0 performance .after i saw that i never went away from amd cause well fool me once but not twice intel .
I got an 8350 back in 2016 for $80 and before then I had used a 4130 for five years. I've never really had a problem with these processors. I look forward to upgrading to Ryzen whenever I build my next PC, which will be an AM4 PC (obviously).
I'm proud to be watching this in 2024 on my venerable FX8350@4.6Ghz on an Asus Crossfire 4 Formula with 32GB@2100 and an RX580 8Gb. Hurrah!!
This is a really well made vid from a small-time youtuber. I bid you good fortune, friend. I'll certainly stick around.
Thank you, it means a lot :)
I sold my pc, FX8350 clocked at 4.5ghz
Asus crosshair v formula, 8 GB of Kingston hyper x ram, 1TB of storage, 120GB Samsung pro ssd, Corsair 650 watt psu, swapped my hd7950 made by msi around the time fallout 4 came out to an xfx r9 380. It’s still holding strong in my buddy’s possession. But the phenom II 965BE I had before the FX really didn’t see a huge jump in performance. But I only gamed and browsed. For auto cad the fx8350 with the 380 was a beast, couldn’t complain there. Ready to build a new pc and I’m excited to see how the new ryzen performs. Ram prices suck now. I paid forty bucks for 2x 4 GB 1600 ddr3. Rambling lol have a good day
4:06 It most certainly didn't have a "limited amount" of cache. It had horrible cache latency but 2M of L2$ per core wasn't bad for its time.
I use a FX 4350 with a 750ti. It runs good for me in Blender and games. I think my screen is less than 1080p though and was a great step up from the E8400 I had. I guess people build according to their budget and for their resolution. You really gonna get a 1080ti and a 1080p monitor? That would be silly. After 60 fps the eye can barely tell a difference. FYI movies run at 24 fps. :) Oh and 6 cores will be the new main stream soon and the 8 cores of FX won't notice a difference. Can't say that for 2 core chips. FX was way too far ahead of its time I think, but in the end I think it will outlast the main competition of it's time. When the time comes for me to upgrade for not much more I can get ryzen 3 instead of the 8350 and would be silly not to go with it. Best upgrade path for any entry level chip on the market and a performance gain.
Still not nearly as bad as the Pentium 4, where it was left behind by far by even the P3 and even more so the Athlon. I remember seeing tests of a P3 1.1GHz vs a P4 1.4GHz, it was bad but even worse when comparing to the Athlon. But Intel had the cash to push crazy marketing campaigns and bribe/threaten PC manufactures, so a decade later they won a lawsuit and got money to make Zen lol. Can you think that AMD was so strapped for cash they sold there fabs and ARM. For Intel the lawsuit was completely worth it.
Excellent video man! Keep up the good work you will make a great RUclipsr someday.
I currently am still hanging in there on an fx-8370 clocked at 4.4 GHz. I never exceed 60C under load with my Arctic Freezer 13, and is still awesome for every 1080p title on max settings. Of course there’s way better out there, but I’d say that for budget gaming, FX is... good enough.
I'm the proud owner of an AMD FX-8370 4 Ghz, 8MB L2 and 8 MB L3, OC'ed to 4.4 Ghz, I could easily go 4.7 but I can't afford air cooling equipement right now, pretty much 2x and even 4x my previous AMD Phenom 2 X4 3.4 Ghz 2 MB L2 and 8 MB L3, Win 8.1 64-bit, work faster than with Win 7 64-bit, same MoBo ASUS 970 Pro Gaming/Aura, same RAM 2x4GB DDR-1600
What I miss in this overview is AMDs attempt at fusion, merging CPU and GPU.
A GPU mainly does floating point calculations and can execute instructions in parallel.
CPUs also do floating point calculations, but with a higher precision and serial. (Note: This does not mean you cannot write algorithms that work multithreaded!)
Notice how the Bulldozer architecture cut the floating point operations in half? AMD released a number of SDKs back in the day to get developers to write highly parallel programs that ran on the CPU + GPU (APU). Most programs didn't (and don't) even need the high level of precision a CPU has to over, hence why the sacrifice could make sense when you use the floating point operations on a GPU. AMD had the right idea, but didn't have the software support, infrastructure and execution it required to make this succesful. (Ignoring the fact that Bulldozer had some large flaws when it came to cache latency, Anandtech has some great indepth articles on the topic)
A decade into the future, AMD is still building on the same principes that guided them back then. Infinity fabric is an obvious further development from the whole fusion concept and the modularity they built into Bulldozer. Infinity fabric allows multiple different components (CPU dies, GPU dies, FPGAs, HBM stacks, RAM) to be connected via a single interface and make them visible to eachother. This is some powerful stuff that could allow all parts of a system to be utilized to its full potential.
A nice read on what AMD was and is doing:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterogeneous_System_Architecture
What's the song in the beggining? I've heard it before, but I don't know it's name.
Victor Ohlsson - Headbanger Highway 3
TechKnowledge Video thanks :)
Hi this is a good video on the AMD FX. I would like to add that the FX was delayed and delayed and then pushed out without all the goodness and refinement that the engineers wanted. That is another reason why it was only a mediocre processor when it was finally released. And having only one floating point per module (every 2 cores) was suicide for gamers when floating point has always been AMD's weakness when compared to Intel chips
Is a Bulldozer module a dual core with shared resources, or is it a single core with duplicated resources to support 2 threads? I used to believe it's the former but now I think the latter makes a bit more sense. Either way, it is what it is. It may not have been a commercial success (it literally sank AMD's server chip business!) and may not be as good as it could have been, but it's nonetheless one of the most interesting and unique CPU architectures ever spawned. I've been using my FX-8350 for 55 months now and I don't have any plans to replace it yet. It's as reliable as anything out there.
Now that I think about it, the laptop I got in 2011 was an efficiency laptop. But still man, I remember getting it on a black friday and the performance was absolutely terrible lol
my 8350@4.5g stock vcore 24/7 has served me well for the last 4 years i want to upgrade just waiting for the prices to stable a bit more might move to a 1700 or 1700x,,all i play is mmo,s now and this pc is still rocking it..
I think part of it as well is how many people were fixated on gaming. I mean the biggest reason Intel has done so well with games is their single core performance and the fact that games were lagging behind being single threaded for years making multi core CPUs somewhat irrelevant. Kind of reminds me of the old Turbo button that used to slow down the CPU clock for better game performance in the early 90s. I think part of the failure is AMD probably expected to start seeing multi threaded games finally a decade after the introduction of multi core and multi processor systems. As for me I am writing this on an FX 4100 as a photography workstation and it works great for my needs on linux. Something else that is helping the FX line now is it supports newer instruction sets making them more viable long term.
I'm using my first FX processor (I know it's older) and there is a massive war going on about it, even after the product reached it's end of lifecycle.
Just checking, but you are aware that passmark isn't a survey, right? I'm not saying that AMD's market share wasn't low, I'm just saying that I don't expect "7%" to be accurate.
Other than that, great video!
Yeah, it was used because finding accurate market share numbers is difficult. Thanks for your comment :)
Did you consider using the Steam hardware survey? I probably would have used both to try to get a range of possible percentages...
I'm honestly skeptical of the Steam Hardware Survey's accuracy as well. I doubt that most serious gamers run an Intel 2 Core processor at between 2.3 to 2.7 GHz, other than maybe some of the Dota 2 casual players who play on their laptops, as they account for a large part of Steam's userbase.
A lot of school kids use Steam and log more hours than adults. Most have to manage with a typical dual core processor.
a better check would be numbers from steams user survey, though its also only a limited sampling as not all gamers take part and not all gamers use steam, personally, though i hated it early on, steams become my favorite digital platform over the years, its got bugs and lots of flaws but...uplay, origin, etc, are worse.... :/
My FX 8350 is running games in 4k without any lag on ultra settings....it may not be at 120 fps or something but it runs every game at the same fps or better fps then console games. Definitely playable on highest settings. So I don't get all the hate on bulldozer...which is actually why I came looking for a video like this.
Imagine DX 12 and Vulcan properly implemented in games, using all 8 cores .. and imagine Bulldozer on 14nm or 12nm, with 5GHz+ frequency ... it wouldnt be such a failure it was back then ..
Watching this on my Ryzen system and very happy about it.
Im still running a 990FX / FX 8150 in 2013/2018+. (Asus ROG crosshair V Formula Z).
On Windows games like RaceDriver G.R.I.D. , Flatout 2, F.E.A.R, F.E.A.R. 2, Shadow Warrior, ROTT (after all them patches) paired with GFX cards like the GTX 480, GTX 569ti , Radeon HD 7890, r7 260x, Gtx 960 etc and what I can afford (GTX 960 / R7 260x $150AUD vs $300AUD Gtx 1050ti / $480AUD RX570).
I don't play many current gen games apart from Doom 2016 and Shadow Warrior 2 (far mor taxing) I can still game unhindered (Wolenstein New Order required hefty overclock disabling half cores [1680x1050 / 720p] [crossfired 2GB r7 260x / single 2GB GTX 960)
Most problematic was running 2 instances of Hamdbrake transcoding h.264 1080p Blu Ray to 720p HEVC while out for the day on a ~38°c day with insid ambient rising probably passing 33° hours before O came home and smelled the settled dust burning with a hint of solder joints.
Fast forward to 2018 with 3 core pairs ~6 cores still working above stock I still have a little wiggle room.
If the FX Series Processors aren't delayed then it would have perform pretty well and sold pretty well.
Cant say amd is losing their shit right now..
*COUGH INTEL*
i love my fx8350 its done well for 10 years old! paired it with a 2060 i can see its over the top i know this cpu is now beyond its limit i need to upgrade it but still handles todays games very well
I had an 8350 for like five years and it worked well, just updated to ryzen and I'm never looking back haha