AMD FX flop, what should i do now?

12 replies [Last post]
Gungrave223
Gungrave223's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/16/2010
Posts: 14

So cliff notes.

Brought Asus Sabertooth 990FX mobo waiting on amd fx cpu

fx cpu release, and completely suck ass

still have mobo, but no cpu to go with it

what should i do? purchase the fx cpu even though it sucks and hope amd release something better soon in the near future that still uses am3+

go with the phenom II x6 1100T since there really isnt that much difference between it and the fx 8150

or rma mobo, and go with an intel mobo + i5 2500k which would be the first time i brought any thing intel in 8 yrs?

Chaosrender
Offline
Joined: 10/05/2011
Posts: 6

I would probably go with the i5 I also was waiting for the new fx chips, but I was having some issues with my old mombo and memory so I went and bought a phenom II x6 1090 8gigs of g skill rip-jaws and a gigabyte 970 am3+ also got a free copy of Deus ex HR. Now I wished I just bought a am3 mombo and saved a few bucks but oh well. I had a AMD Athlon 3800+ x2 so this setup was a huge upgrade for me. all in all I'm very happy with it, I'm just upset that I was waiting so long for a chip that is sometimes better then my chip(well the 1100t almost the same)and not by much. I just hope pile driver will be close to a ivory bridge but something tells me that It won't, so my next build after this one starts showing it's age will be a Intel setup unless of course amd gets back on track.

Cpu: AMD Phenom II 1090 at 3.9ghz Cooled with a Xigmatek SD1283 Mombo : Gigabyte 970a-UD3
Memory: 8 Gb Gskill Ripjaw 1333mhz Video: 9600Gt (Yes i know....) Hard drive: 500gb seagate
Case: Raidmax Smilodon with 530watt ps Screen: 23inch asus 1920x1080 2ms response time.

Allen86
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2008
Posts: 163

If you wait a bit, they may do some bios and windows related updates that will make them perform a bit better, they're having trouble with the way they're handling cache at the moment, or something along those lines. People have been noting better performance when disabling a core per module, but all that jazz is beyond my tech level. You can wait and see if the fix it or just dive into a intel based system, either way you'll be fine :P

At the moment its pretty much a situational CPU, I think once they work on what they have, it could make for a pretty solid cpu that will be competitive, as it stands now though, well I'd like to see some real world guys get ahold of them and see what they can do :P

Q6600 @ 2.4Ghz 4GB DDR2 800Mhz 500GB ATI HD 4850 512mb 22" LCD

Gungrave223
Gungrave223's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/16/2010
Posts: 14

was not aware that they were having cache issue, in that case think ill hang on to my mobo for a bit and see how it plays out, if there is still no fix in 2 weeks ill just buy a phenom ii x6 1100t cpu and call it a day

Chaosrender
Offline
Joined: 10/05/2011
Posts: 6

oh hey i didn't hear that if you wouldn't mind i would like your source so i can read up on it.

Zodiark1593
Zodiark1593's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/25/2011
Posts: 24

There is a small chance that a future bios update can improve performance on those processors, but I'd think it would have to be the software that needs to be designed around the new architecture.

At any rate, the Phenom II series are still considered respectable chips, so a quad or hexa core should serve reasonably well. Alternatively, the Intel Core i5-2500K will be less picky when it comes to single threaded programs as well as being a quad core. There is the price difference to consider, however.

eire1274
eire1274's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/12/2003
Posts: 1154

It's difficult to see people saying the FX Bulldozer architecture sucks, but it really doesn't.

Yes, in single threading, the Sandy Core i7's beat it at the same clock.

Yes, in multi threading, the Sandy Core i7's beat it at the same clock.

Yet, in full 8 core multi core multi threading, it wipes the floor with the Sandy Core. Pretty much because it has extra cores and a much more advanced memory sharing bus on the cache layering system.

The next gen, the Piledriver, will likely be evening the single thread and "hyperthreading"-like aspects up a bit with Intel's Sandy Core, but for the time being, if you need horsepower, the FX Bulldozer is the way to go (rocks in video encoding like nothing I've ever seen), but if you are a gamer, Intel is still a little bit ahead.

Does it suck? No. In fact, I will be picking up an FX 8170 when it releases (early 2012), because I want it's juice for video work. And I will play games on it, too. And my games may be SLIGHTLY less pretty than yours, and I won't care. Eventually games will understand the multi-core thing a bit better, and discussions like this will be a thing of the past (I wish).

Nick McDermott

Chaosrender
Offline
Joined: 10/05/2011
Posts: 6

Yeah i'm going to probably get a pile driver since i here that will be the last of the new chips that will use am3+ from what i hear.

eire1274
eire1274's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/12/2003
Posts: 1154

Of interesting note, Windows 8 Developer's Preview has been showing huge gains in multithreading on the Bulldozer FX cores, as Windows 8 has the new, smarter thread tasking engine that helps keep memory on the appropriate cache banks, which speeds the chip a lot because the cache switch is far less tasked.

Interestingly, where the Bulldozer gains as much as 8% on Windows 8, the Sandy Core drops between 5% to 11% depending on the task. Did AMD just launch before Microsoft was ready for them?

Nick McDermott

Yamcha67
Offline
Joined: 09/04/2010
Posts: 11

It does suck in my opinion, and I think you've illustrated that yourself :P. Look I'm all for AMD, I've always preferred AMD over Intel, but If we look at benchmarks, under most circumstances FX Series perform very poorly, even slower then the Phenom II X6..

I don't see any reason why a gamer or general user would invest money on the Bulldozer (AM3+) platform.. Now unless you heavily rely on multi-threaded applications I don't see any benefit in getting this.

You also have to remember, apart from it performing poorly, it also consumes a lot more power, and the cost is still quite high for a processor that lags behind the 2500K & Phenom II X6 with most benchmarks.. And I think its clear if we'd overclock both the 2500K & FX-8120 you will find that the 2500K will be the one out performing FX 8120..

And so I just don't see any reason to buy a FX Series processor, Even if your are looking to build an AMD system you will be much better off investing your money on the Phenom II X6, you'll not only save a decent chunk of money but you'll get better performance aswell..

FX 8120 $211
2500K $219
Phenom II X6 $174

eire1274
eire1274's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/12/2003
Posts: 1154

Still haven't dissuaded me! Remember, I am candidate number 1 for the Bulldozer:
-I primarily run heavily multithreaded tasks (video production)
-I run Windows 8 DP, and will upgrade to the Beta as it progresses

Two extra cores will push performance beyond what the Sandy Core or PII X6 will be able to do based on total processor performance, as core-to-core relativity will not make any difference to me. Hey, yay, if I bought another chip my games would run faster... but my games run perfectly on my old Brisbane X2, so for God's sake it will be an improvement there, too!

This is one of those cases where we can argue for ever, but the FX 8170 (yes, I'm waiting for it's release in Q1 2012) is anticipated to hit near 6Ghz on fairly simple watercooling, and a combined multithreaded CPU at 48Ghz drowns out what I could expect out of anything else on the market in the desktop platform. http://www.anandtech.com/show/5045/bulldozer-does-it-again-overclocked-to-858ghz

It consumes a lot more power? So what? Comparatively, despite die shrinkage, the transistor count goes up with every generation of every processor type, so we aren't going to see 30W CPUs in the top bracket ever again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CPU_power_dissipation

Again, read carefully. The Phenom II X6 beats the Zambezi FX series solidly CORE TO CORE. The Sandy Bridge also beats it solidly CORE TO CORE. But in all honesty, most of these tasks that are used to benchmark ARE NOT USING ALL EIGHT CORES, NOR ARE THEY USING THEM IN AN ENVIRONMENT THAT PROPERLY TASKS THE EIGHT CORES, CAUSING SLOW CACHE PERFORMACE DUE TO CACHE SWITCH OVERLOAD. For those of us who actually do use all eight cores, are willing to run the next generation of operating systems, and are willing to compensate for the heat of overclocking... Well, you get it.

This is a case where there is no clear winner, and there really never will be, as the variety of software and operating systems cause such a break where you can't go out and buy one chip that leads overall for every function.

To sum up, if you are looking for game performance, a Phenom II X4 or the i5 2500K are better targets for you as even the X6 or i7 Extreme 6-core chips are overkill. For the time being.

Nick McDermott

dhlord64
dhlord64's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/19/2008
Posts: 48

This is very true ^. Many programs have yet to fully make use of 8 cores. When they do, it will outperform many sandy core processors. People don't seem to understand this so they call it terrible. Even some reviewers I have watched don't realize this....which sickens me.

eire1274
eire1274's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/12/2003
Posts: 1154

The problem here is that I am one of those jerks who looks at things from the engineering and technical standpoint rather than at the "this does this and therefore is better" concept. But, hey, I was educated in electronics engineering and computer science, so perhaps we have found my issue!

Yes, the Zambezi FX chips failed to rock the world... initially. But we have to really understand what is possible. Intel is making a Ferrari, OK, I get it, but I need some heavy hauling done here and I want a BIG DIESEL TRUCK that the Sandy Core isn't. Is that making any more sense?

The Bulldozer is excellent as an efficient, amazing, and capable workhorse, when tasked properly. If it didn't work, if it was a failed product line, why is AMD pouring themselves, financially, into it? The simple fact is that AMD beats Intel on technological designs, and does so regularly, and then Intel fine tunes it, streamlines it, and makes their take on a superior design. Welcome to leapfrog competition. AMD couldn't survive without Intel, but the relationship is so strange now that I imagine that Intel would be seeing major development issues without their buddies at AMD spurring them on.

Nick McDermott