So first off here are my specs of what I am currently using.
CPU-FX-8350 @ 4.7ghrz
GPU-XFX-7970
Ram- 8GB
Bunch of other things.
Anyways. I am wanting to upgrade my GPU which is all fine and dandy. But as I was strolling around the internet I kept on coming across people saying that AMD cpus are the biggest pieces of crap in the world and that there are going to be no more AMD cpus ever made. Then these people go on the say how Intel is gods gift to humans blah blah blah. I have nothing against intel I just don't want to have to buy a new mobo to get a new cpu if I don't have to. I feel like it was just yesterday everyone was saying the fx-8350 and its brothers where the bees knees.
So is AMD really crap and I should upgrade to intel soon? I feel like my CPU is fine for gaming and I only need a new GPU but who knows?
THe AMD FX has poor single core performance. As most games rely on single core performance because they are poorly optimized the FX CPU can bottleneck high end graphics cards in some games that are heavily CPU bound. Most games are fine though and even if there is bottlenecking going on the results usually aren't to drastic. If you feel like your CPU is plenty then thats fine.
I have found that usually once you get an 8350 to around 4.7-5.0Ghz most of the bottleneck is eliminated and you can beat the IPC disadvantage through pure speed.
As of now the FX series is quite old (2012) but still can hold its own especially in tasks that are well optimized for ore threads.
Yes there will be more AMD CPUs made. Xen (AMDs next high performance x86 architecture should debut in 2016 on the 14nm process and should compete well.) And currently new APUs are coming out.
The issue is that AMD bet big on several technologies and lost. They believed that CMT (clustered multithreaded) would be the next big thing and overtake SMT (which Intel uses) but software manufacturers didn't play ball. Then they bet big on HSA and once again software manufacturers didn't play ball. Hopefully this time it will be different.
if you want to upgrade your CPU and can afford ~$950, snag an XFX 295x2. I keep hearing about the 300 series but have yet to see them show up.
I play ArmA 3 ALOT. I am on a i7 4770k. I don't see much improvement over my FX 8120 on ArmA 3. I still have to tweak the hell out of the settings and launch codes on ArmA 3 to get my 60FPS. When it comes to streaming ArmA 3 as well, the AMD chip will blow the nuts off of the Intel Chip hands down.
Fan boys will always trash what they don't buy. I like Logan's philosophy the best "find whatever works best for you at the best price and buy it". The 8350 will be out performed buy some Intel CPUs but for the price/performance ratio its still a good choice. I personally would just spend my money on a really good GPU.
AMD's FX series is getting old I have a 8350 at 4.8Ghz and a 9590 at 5.1Ghz I really enjoy them while single core performace is much less then my i7 4790k I've found the AMD chipsets to be better to overclock and more stable. From a gaming perspective I see very little difference between my i7 (4.8Ghz) and my 9590 CPUs just don't hold back games. Anyway you look at it a 8350 is for the money one of the kings of hill, it won't bottleneck any GPU setup even 3-4 way crossfire and is fast in normal applications. The real downsides to the AM3/AM3+ chipset is the slower Sata connections, lack of support for M.2, Sata express (who cares) and slower Dram speeds. While AMD is slower then Intel for gamers, we will never notice.
Unless you really need the extra power for productivity type work AMD is better for the money, If money is no object Intel is faster. My guess is that the current trends will actually work towards the FX series's advantage with new games having full muit threaded support and mantle and directx12 using more cores at a lower level then before. That being said you will never see a 8350 or even a 9590 beating out an i7 but still. AM3+ will live on, and I would wager it still has 3-5 years of life left before it really starts showing the grey hair.
The company itself I think is WELL on the road to recovery, the console contracts gave them a much needed shovel to help dig themselves out of the toilet, if they don't post a positive net growth on their next financial quarter report then I shall buy a hat and then proceed to eat it.
I think Intel may be getting to the point where they have recognised that they need amd (and their x86 support) in the face of the arm onslaught more than amd needs them, that is what I hope anyway.
If Intel leaves no ground for amd to make a profit on the x86 platform then amd will have no choice except to abandon it and pursue other markets.
amd abandoning the x86 ship and going fully arm (bolting on gcn) would be a big nail in Intels coffin regardless of what spin is put on that probable eventuality.
as for your cpu clocked at 4.7ghz...
I think it will last you another two years at least
Wait a couple of months , grab a new gpu and game on!
Thanks for the info folks. Seems like people here at the Tek are alot more open minded about this stuff. I think ill hold onto it fora while and just upgrade my GPU in a few months. Any GPU bottlenecking stuff I should worry about?
I am still rocking an FX-8150. I have never found the need to upgrade for work or gaming. I have a GTX-970, and unless I plan on running three for a 4k monitor, bottlenecks are non-existent. Furthermore, for many work-related tasks this machine is not that much worse than the Xeon I have in the office.
For gaming it is all about the GPU. If you have a Phenom, well then maybe it is time to upgrade, but most of the FX series is just fine for gaming purposes.
I generally lock the fps at 58fps and get buttery smoothness, I dont really worry about bottlenecking as it just means i wont be getting frames i would never see in the first place.
The only people who need to worry about that crap are people who have high refresh rates and want to know they are getting their full monies worth.
Dont make purchase decisions based around 'bottlenecking', it may take a while but low level api's will make that particular problem go away and unlock that potential that current direct x is cock blocking :D
I am running two r9 290's in crossfire and tis awesome :D
should tide me over for the next three years
290 up is rock solid, so is 970 up (ignore the current storm in a teacup) or wait until what amd are coming up with..
Some options if you want to hear them
Double your ram and set the extra module to an 8gb ram cache...
blows away ssd speeds :D, works wonders with id tech5 based games (virtually no noticable texture streaming)
Not unless you're playing extremely CPU dependent games like SCII. Most games are heavily GPU reliant and only really tax the CPU because the GPU needs to talk with it more and more as it draws more frames. 8350 or my 8320 @4.7 is not going to hold your GPU from crossing 60FPS or even 120FPS outside of CPU reliant games, mostly RTS.
Your GPU isn't even that bad but yes, upgrade that GPU and don't worry about fanboys saying things like "AMD chips are garbage" or when they talk about "CPU bottlenecking the GPU". Your 8350 won't bottleneck anything outside of maybe a 3-5 frame difference. Shit, most Athlons and i3's barely bottleneck GPUs.
AMD FX cpu aren´t bad for gaming, however they do simply fall behind on the current haswell i5´s in gaming. especialy on cpu bound games at 1080p. The reason for this is because the intel haswell cpu´s have much better per core performance, on which allot of games still relay on. especialy MMO´s RPG´s and such cpu bound games.
But there are offcourse also games in which there is not much of a diffrence between amd of intel, those gpu bound like Tombraider for example.
So it depends a bit on the games you play, and how you play them.
But in terms of pure gaming, a 4690k is simple a better allrounder. There is realy nothing to argue about. Also the claim that AMD is cheaper, is something i´m not fully agree with, because if you think about it, you wanne overclock a FX8 core to squeeze more performance out of it, but this basicly means that you gonne need a decent more expensive mobo, and better cooling. if you calculate that in price, then a locked i5 with cheap H97 board for example could even be cheaper. But will perform better in gaming. so an intel setup doesnt have to be more expensive persee.
True, but the biggest impact in games seem to be in the RTS genre with games like SCII and other games that handle AI for each individual unit as this scales up really quickly on your CPU. So if you're a big RTS player, Intel is your winner. Outside of that, performance gains are generally marginal.
Also consider, if he has to replace Mobo and CPU he won't be able to upgrade GPU, or at least will need to get a lesser GPU. 98% use case scenario for gamers would be replacing the GPU with a strong upgrade will have a far better Performance:Price over replacing CPU.
Checking WOW benchmarks shows me that AMD does lose this category but it still has no problems going over 60 fps so gains above that aren't really relevant. MMOs just aren't super taxing games a lot of the time, no matter how many other players you have the strain on the CPU will be far less than RTS games where the position needs to be tracked as well as individual AI.
i would stick with the current setup he is having right now, and save some more money. And then do a bigger upgrade later this year. Because the 7970 is still a damm good gpu for 1080p.
There is some nice stuff arround the corner so, i would wait.
I agree that his current build is still very relevant for 1080p, shit my GTX 570 still hold its own at 1080p, but my recommendation would be to only upgrade once you start running into performance issues. If you can manage 60fps with your current setup with acceptable aesthetics then hold off on upgrading until this no longer becomes the case.
Makes the money you already spent draw out its full value and when you do upgrade you'll be getting better equipment than if you upgraded now.
I agree, I had a 780 Ti hooked to an FX6300 for a few weeks. I wouldn't call it bottlenecked but there were fps gains when I upgraded to an 8350. Nothing I could see with v-sync on though, only in benchmarks. I'm not vouching for AMD but they are cheaper and I'm at a point in my life where I'd rather spend the money on a gpu.
I find myself slapping myself these days for spending the $500 on a mobo, RAM, and CPU just to switch from AMD to Intel. I could have saved an easy $350 by just upgrading to an 8350 from my 8120. I did it because all my friends were like ArmA 2/3/DayZ runs so much better on Intel.....Bullshiet!
I can't reliably stream my gameplay and keep 50-60FPS anymore. My 3D rendering and Video Rendering jobs take twice as long now too.
You must have downgraded the CPU to have made things worse than the 8120.
Yea, the difference between AMD and Intel is only large enough in some very slim use-case scenarios and most people who switch, even from 8350 to 4790k, often regret it since it isn't that miracle massive upgrade they were led to believe it would be.