I just don't get it (amd rant)

 I'm really not trying to start a war over this (although I'm sure thats what will happen.) I just don't get the interest in amd cpu's anymore. I jump though the forums seeing people asking advice on building new gaming machines and everybody seems to select the fx 8350 or refresh cpu's automatically.


 The 8350 is old, and even when it launched a lot of the sandy bridge cpus ran circles around them. I realize that in heavily multicore enviroments  they have an advantage but specifically for gaming they just don't make any sense anymore. 


I agree ... AMD will have to show us something that will compete soon if they plan on staying relevant for more than budget builds.

I don't agree. Gaming on as little as an AMD Athlon or a Pentium Anniversary edition is all you need. AMD CPU's may be old, but so are Intel CPU's at this point, and they're full of bugs and missing features, which is less the case with AMD products.

If you want to complain about something that's old, why don't you complain about gaming software, from the 30 year old stupidly archaic and unsafe software console you run the games on to the badly coded and inefficient underdevloped 32-bit game software...

What in hell would you need more power for than a 8350 can offer, and why the hell would you have to spend more money on hardware that you're going to degrade 20 years back intime by consolizing it with Windows and running 90's tech games on it? Lolz... it's OK that you complain, I want to complain about the state of the gaming industry also, but you have to complain about the right thing.

Gaming does OK on RISC platforms though, look at the Android gaming market, it's huge, Android gamers are outnumbering other platform users by a large amount. They don't have the same problem, and there is no CPU race going on there any more, most devices are at a performance point that offers a good enough experience.

Linux mint/kde with good gpu driver support. I have a dream! Linux to get good gpu driver support!!!!!!!! Make it happen ! So, we all can get off this windows platform. For the betterment of mankind.

Correction: BRING ALL OF OUR GAMES that we already own to Linux...

Ya, stand corrected. Even better.

With the natural progression of software we always need "more power" if it wasn't the case we would all still be running pentiums. My original point was simply that the 8350 is outdated, and I don't get why people are still buying them when they can get better tech for the money for the most part. 

 Yes software sucks, but we deal with it because we have too. 

Hey don't get me wrong I get the idea they are value oriented, but I meant specifically for gaming, they make absolutely no sense. Most average gamers aren't going to run multiple vm's. I guess I opened pandoras box here lol.

For Gaming they make absolute sense and are still are relevant because they are excellent CPU's for the money. They Perform about the Same as an old 3570k which is ALSO still a relevant CPU. it can still use Modern GPU's with no Bottleneck. and Compared to Some of the Competition, are Capable of Doing ALOT. you can run a small server using a FX 8350. you can Run multiple Virtual Machines off of an 8350. try doing that on your 4770k or 4790k. it's not going to perform well. and try finding an Intel Alternative that can do all of that for $180. in gaming scenarios however games are getting less CPU intensive and more GPU Intensive. so that argument about CPU core performance in gaming is almost not going to be relevant soon. what's going to matter is Which GPU you choose. and in this case Nvidia and AMD are going to start a war soon on what will be the best GPU for YOUR Money.

AMD is on the right track... from here on further down the line, the AMD kernel modules will be open source. That means that you can simply use the full featured Catalyst driver without problems.

The only problem is that people expect studios to come up with honest linux ports of games, and that simply is not going to happen. It's better to virtualize the Windows software console and continue to play old games like that, and to not buy Windows games any more, but only real native linux games (so no nerfed crappy linux ports). If everyone would do that, the industry would modernize faster than you can say "I have linux on all my devices" lol.

You should try gaming on a a linux machine. Once you get it working , runs better than windows ever did. Play Star conflict ( for example) My six-core linux runs better, smoother than the same game on my windows 8 core machine. Some would ask, why is that? Zoltan could tell, ya.


Once bare metal api's become more common your choice of cpu for gaming purposes is going to become largely irrelevant :D

I predict crazy mismatched gaming rigs becoming more common place... like dual titans (okay, so I am exaggerating a little...) paired with fm2 cpus :D

Well okay some things. Coming from a person who has an AMD 8350, 6800K, Athlon II X4 630, Intel 4690k, Xeon 1230-V3, and a 4500U in the household and who had a 3570k. So no bias here. Just reporting my findings. 

Yes the amd FX series is old at this point. Why do people still recommend them then? Because they are still competitive. 

A) For gaming they are decent. They do well in a majority of games (maybe not as fast as an Intel in certain titles) but well across the board and they will even beat the i5s in a lot of titles. Especially at higher resolutions or running multiple GPUs. Plus streaming. The 8 cores kill the i5s in streaming. Sorry they do. My wife and I have the same GPUs in our rigs (Asus DCUII R9 290Xs) she has a 4690k and I have an 8350. In games the results are usually similar and the winner goes back and forth with maybe a 1-3 FPS difference. Only in poorly optimized titles like WoW and Day-Z does hers win. In streaming mine wins. Every time. 

B) They do well in productivity. Rendering or in any application that can take advantage of the CMT architecture does well on the 8350. Which, from experience, is about the same as an i7. Rendering my 8350 is the same as my Xeon 1230-V3. The 4690k lags behind both of them. 

C) They overclock well. The AMD FX series are great overclockers. My 8350 runs great at 5.0Ghz and will even hit 5.2 Ghz. Some people, enthusiasts, like pushing their hardware and enjoy overclocking so they are good choices.

D) The 990FX chipset is still a very good platform for most people. You get support for 1866Mhz RAM without an overclock with up to 32GB supported. A good number of PCIE X16 lanes (sorry PCIE 3.0 doesn't matter). All 6GB/s SATA 6. USB 3. Lots of USB 2. 

It has everything you need and nothing you don't. Yes M.2 and Sata-Express would be nice but really IMO you don't need either of them. 

E) Cost. AMD parts are cheap as hell. <$100 for the 6300. $100-150 for the 8 cores. That is cheap. Especially when they compete pretty closely with parts that are >$200. Better tech for the money?  Not really. The 8 cores and particularly the 6300 can't really be touched from a performance perspective especially if you want to be able to OC later on. Really you'd need to go with the 4690k which is more expensive than the AMD and requires a more expensive (generally) motherboard. You can build two rigs that perform about the same. One Intel one AMD. The AMD rig will probably include an SSD and cost around $850. The Intel build will not have an SSD most likely and come in at closer to $1000. 

Despite the two CPUs being similar in performance, most of the time CPU performance isn't even that important anyway. GPUs do most of the lifting these days. I'd much rather save money on the CPU and spend it on a better GPU or SSD. 


Yes AMD is a little behind on their CPUs but I'd argue that is because they tried to innovate but the world wasn't ready. They bet big on CMT. That more smaller cores would be the way of the future. They lost. 

Then they went to APUs and HSA. While this probably will be the way of the future software isn't ready yet so they lost there too. 

Those two events put them behind Intel, whom, for a long time, was getting their ass kicked by AMD in terms of performance. AMD is coming out with new architectures soon. Zen and K12. Which should hopefully level things out again and push both companies to innovate. 

Tbh I'd argue that the Intel parts are "old and outdated" now as well and that buying a Z97 motherboard for "future upgradeability" is stupid. The Haswell parts are not significantly faster than IVB or even SB. More efficient yes. But significantly faster? No. Buy Z97 for future upgradeability? Why? Broadwell will not be much faster than Haswell Just more efficient. So really no reason to upgrade from a gamers perspective. Skylake may see performance increases but that will be on a new socket so you'll need a new motherboard anyway. 

> setup VMs

> Play multiple games at once

board partners like msi and asus need to make good 990fx matx and itx board though, that is where amd is lacking

1. Key problem with OP's rant is the "for gaming" part.... AMD's perfectly fine for gaming...

2. Key problem with DerKreiger's post... all he covered was gaming, streaming, and rendering... which are some of the few things AMD's extra threads actually get used for... though he did note "that take advantage of the CMT architecture" which is the most understated line of the post...

Z97 boards have much better throughput, and more features... BTW... M.2 is amazing... not quite the jump from HDD to SSD... but it's very, very fast...

Where Intel shines is single-threaded high compute (which for some reason people think anything that takes a long time uses all the threads your CPU has to offer, and that's not true.... I'd venture to say... MOST of the time)... For example, CAD/CAM software is all single-threaded and is very noticeable on compute times (such as 3D machining toolpath generation, which I use a lot programming for the CNC machines. My Xeon at work computes about 70% faster)... Photoshop (and most of the rest of CS) is similar...

if you overclock a current i7 or anything on the X99 platform it gets slanted to Intel no matter the task either by small margins or huge ones... and for what the average user does, the i5 will do it faster... point being... it really is you get what you pay for... price=performance for the most part... I don't really like the i3... but I suppose it has a place in some other person's build...

if you find a bench that says an 8350 is faster than a 4790k, in pretty much anything, then the bench is wrong, lol... some have "scores" that were rated when the processor came out, and those same scores have been adjusted years later but the original tests done years ago retained the same scores... it *might* be better running multiple VMs... but whotf? Why would you do that? o.O

regardless... the i5 is so recommended because you don't need 8+ threads for very many things... most people doing those things have a $1600-2000 budget built in for a beefy system, and the i7 will do those things faster...

I'm excited to see AMD's new line, in 2016 is it? ...and AMD CPUs are very capable of gaming... it's still a relevant CPU and the price/performance ratio is there... but I can't think of a case that I'd recommend an 8350 over an i5 unless I had to downgrade a GPU on a gaming system to include it... it all depends on your budget and what you plan to do with it... just my thoughts...

People would be more willing to believe you if you didn't embellish things so much. While I mostly agree with you, what games are you referring to that are 90s tech? GMOD?

Or you can save another week and get an i5 and play whatever games you want without worrying which ones are optimized well or not. Just my opinion. I expect Zoltan to jump my ass any minute.

Make a list of games that are made for single threaded CPUs, and you'll have your answer... it's easier to make a list of games for Windows that are made for multi-threaded CPUs, that list is shorter...

Lots of good feedback here guys, glad I could spark some conversation. I did have to get a chuckle on a review I read on hardware secrets about the 8350 thats over 2 years old and a I5 3470 (ivy bridge) was slapping the 8350 around in every single test including productivity. Fast forward to haswell based i5's and I'm sure that gap is even more. The current i5 4460 which can be had for the same price as the 8350, just makes way more sense.