How popular are the 390X and 390P ?

pandem0nium · 20 Oct 2015 at 14:44

Dave2150 said:
The problem with AMD FX CPU's is that they are pathetic performance wise compared to Intel Skylake/Haswell-E. Plus they lack many chipset technologies such as PCI-E v3, USB3.1/3.0, M.2, UEFI, native SATA3, Sata Express, to name a few.

This is fairly off-topic, but you can find most of those on decent AM3+ boards.

Sata 3/6gbps and usb 3 definitely.
a lot of the newer boards have uefi bios and some support secure boot.
Usb 3.1 is a feature on the top MSI board.
Sata express I've never cared about but it is on some boards.

There was also a Sabertooth board that claimed to support Pcie gen 3, though it quickly went extinct.

pandem0nium · 20 Oct 2015 at 14:46

humbug said:
Actually the 990FX chips have UEFI, Native USB3, M2, Native SATA3 and SATA Express..... sorry i just had to put that right

Oh and performance is subjective, depends on what you do with it and what you want it for, also cost, not everyone is comfortable paying £300 for an i7.

At their price point they are excellent.

Hah, you're a bit quicker than me

I haven't seen M2 though?

humbug · 20 Oct 2015 at 14:47

You can get them now yes. ^^^^^ seen some ASrock boards with it.

pandem0nium said:
This is fairly off-topic, but you can find most of those on decent AM3+ boards.

Sata 3/6gbps and usb 3 definitely.
a lot of the newer boards have uefi bios and some support secure boot.
Usb 3.1 is a feature on the top MSI board.
Sata express I've never cared about but it is on some boards.

There was also a Sabertooth board that claimed to support Pcie gen 3, though it quickly went extinct.

I have a 4 year old Sabertooth 990FX with all that, and it is Native on the Chip-Set.

Infact i do believe the 990FX Chip-Sets were the first with native SATA3, USB3 and UEFI.

Dave2150 · 20 Oct 2015 at 14:50

humbug said:
Actually the 990FX chips have UEFI, Native USB3, M2, Native SATA3 and SATA Express..... sorry i just had to put that right

Oh and performance is subjective, depends on what you do with it and what you want it for, also cost, not everyone is comfortable paying £300 for an i7.

At their price point they are excellent.

http://www.amd.com/en-us/products/chipsets/9-series

No native USB3, no native sata express, no native PCI-E v3, no M.2

humbug · 20 Oct 2015 at 14:57

Dave2150 said:
http://www.amd.com/en-us/products/chipsets/9-series

No native USB3, no native sata express, no native PCI-E v3, no M.2

Well i'm running an SSD and benching around 500MB/s read and 320MB/s Write, what the SSD is capable of

https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/SABERTOOTH_990FX/specifications/

AMD SB950 controller :
6 x SATA 6Gb/s port(s), brown
Support Raid 0, 1, 5, 10

ASMedia® USB 3.0 controller :
4 x USB 3.0 port(s) (2 at back panel, blue, 2 at mid-board)

- ASUS UEFI BIOS EZ Mode featuring friendly graphics user interface

The Rev-2 of that board has quick boot UEFI.

humbug · 20 Oct 2015 at 15:08

SATA Express and M2 http://www.anandtech.com/show/7580/asrock-to-release-990fx-killer-motherboard-with-m2

Dave2150 · 20 Oct 2015 at 15:09

humbug said:
Well i'm running an SSD and benching around 500MB/s read and 320MB/s Write, what the SSD is capable of

https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/SABERTOOTH_990FX/specifications/

The Rev-2 of that board has quick boot UEFI.

Native being the important word here. Sure the 990FX has native SATA3, though it doesn't have native m.2, USB3, USB3.1, Sata Express to name a few, as you suggested it did.

Also the most important thing being the FX CPU's dreadful performance in the majority of games out there.

Dave2150 · 20 Oct 2015 at 15:11

humbug said:
SATA Express and M2 http://www.anandtech.com/show/7580/asrock-to-release-990fx-killer-motherboard-with-m2

Again not native, using third party chips with a performance penalty.

I can't even see this motherboard for sale anywhere, most likely it was too expensive for these FX budget chips, who wants to spend 150-200 quid on a motherboard for a CPU that performs so badly in games etc.

humbug · 20 Oct 2015 at 15:20

Dave2150 said:
Native being the important word here. Sure the 990FX has native SATA3, though it doesn't have native m.2, USB3, USB3.1, Sata Express to name a few, as you suggested it did.

Also the most important thing being the FX CPU's dreadful performance in the majority of games out there.

The performance is far from dreadful, editing, encoding and rendering the performance is excellent, as good as an i7.

For Gaming i have yet to see it bottleneck my 1500Mhz GTX 970 in anything DX11, i could stick a £300 i7 in here and it would make the blindest bit off difference. if i had 2 970's in SLI and wanted min 140 FPS i no doubt would need an i7 but the fact is the CPU has more than enough performance to drive it. And I don't play World of War Craft.

A new Intel chip-set also isn't going to make my SSD any faster and while i do have USB3 i don't use it, i also have no use for M2 or SATA Express tho if i wanted it on an AMD platform i could get it

Look, i'm not going to throw this thread completely off topic by continuously arguing in snobbery circles with you just because its not an Intel platform and have the gaul to say its a perfectly good platform, I can tell your the sort of guy whose not going to stop until I sing your tune.

Dave2150 · 20 Oct 2015 at 15:26

humbug said:
The performance is far from dreadful, editing, encoding and rendering the performance is excellent, as good as an i7.

For Gaming i have yet to see it bottleneck my 1500Mhz GTX 970 in anything DX11, i could stick a £300 i7 in here and it would make the blindest bit off difference. if i had 2 970's in SLI and wanted min 140 FPS i no doubt would need an i7 but the fact is the CPU has more than enough performance to drive it.

A new Intel chip-set also isn't going to make my SSD any faster and while i do have USB3 i don't use it, i also have no use for M2 or SATA Express tho if i wanted it on an AMD platform i could get it

Look, i'm not going to throw this thread completely off topic by continuously arguing in snobbery circles with you just because its not an Intel platform and have the gaul to say its a perfectly good platform, I can tell your the sort of guy whose not going to stop until I sing your tune.

I could link so many benchmarks where the FX, even clocked at 5Ghz, gets murdered by I3's and I5's of Intel's old generation Haswell CPU's, in modern games. I'm not going to as it's old hat by now.

Best we put this debate to rest as we've already completely been derailed thanks to davedree's idea to compare the 390/390x to an AMD FX CPU.

humbug · 20 Oct 2015 at 15:33

Dave2150 said:
I could link so many benchmarks where the FX, even clocked at 5Ghz, gets murdered by I3's and I5's of Intel's old generation Haswell CPU's, in modern games. I'm not going to as it's old hat by now.

Best we put this debate to rest as we've already completely been derailed thanks to davedree's idea to compare the 390/390x to an AMD FX CPU.

Show me GTX 970 DX11 Benchmarks where an "i3 murders a 5Ghz 9590"

Dave2150 · 20 Oct 2015 at 15:52

humbug said:
Show me GTX 970 DX11 Benchmarks where an "i3 murders a 5Ghz 9590"

Oh, you had to continue this. Oh well, here goes. I didn't state DX11 games, you did, my statement was for all modern games, some of which are not on DX11.

Here's a DX11 game:

I3 at stock right on the heels of a 5Gz 9550. Embarrased by an I5, all of which are older generation i3's and i5's. Imagine the damage a Skylake I5 or I3 would do :eek:

humbug · 20 Oct 2015 at 16:36

Dave2150 said:
Oh, you had to continue this. Oh well, here goes. I didn't state DX11 games, you did, my statement was for all modern games, some of which are not on DX11.

Here's a DX11 game:

I3 at stock right on the heels of a 5Gz 9550. Embarrased by an I5, all of which are older generation i3's and i5's. Imagine the damage a Skylake I5 or I3 would do

Is that the original DX9 version or the DX11 revision because this game is know to have some serious performance issues on DX9, a link to your content would be useful.

Dave2150 · 20 Oct 2015 at 16:54

humbug said:
Is that the original DX9 version or the DX11 revision because this game is know to have some serious performance issues on DX9, a link to your content would be useful.

Really? A quick google would show you that Total War: Attila is a 2015 game, which uses DX11.

It is an 'original' game, released this year. Doesn't have a 'old' version to it at all.

As for the source, the review site is included in the picture. A quick google should let you find the review.

You asked for DX11 game, there you have it. Next you'll move the goalposts again or someshow discredit this game as not being a 'fair' game or something.

I've wasted enough time here, have fun with future posts defending the FX CPU.

humbug · 20 Oct 2015 at 17:07

Dave2150 said:
Really? A quick google would show you that Total War: Attila is a 2015 game, which uses DX11.

It is an 'original' game, released this year. Doesn't have a 'old' version to it at all.

As for the source, the review site is included in the picture. A quick google should let you find the review.

You asked for DX11 game, there you have it. Next you'll move the goalposts again or someshow discredit this game as not being a 'fair' game or something.

I've wasted enough time here, have fun with future posts defending the FX CPU.

You actually made a dedicated thread for this one slide.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18655871

I should have checked your history right from the start, you do spend more than a reasonable amount of energy on your dreadful opinions on AMD.

One game doesn't warrant that opinion and your sweeping statements, it really doesn't. especially one where a £60 FX-4### is comparable to a Haswell i3, even an Athlon, are you not looking at that? Hell they can be overclocked, the i3 can't.

KelDG · 20 Oct 2015 at 17:29

To be fair the total war series are known to be a pile of badly coded balls that thrash CPUs for fun, pretty cherry picked if you ask me.

Davedree · 20 Oct 2015 at 17:49

LoadsaMoney said:
Was no need to flash, once the drivers were modded to work on the 290s, they got the same performance boost from them.

I know hence driver parity. Tell the non believers that.

Kaapstad · 20 Oct 2015 at 17:51

Attila Total War is a terrible game to test anything with.

The Game Devs have made a total mess of it and then to get out of jail they have said it is too demanding to run on any current hardware with max setting.

In reality the game devs can not be bothered to get it optimised and ensure that C/F and SLI work too. This is not something that AMD or NVidia can be blamed for as it is purely down to the game devs.

Exactly the same happened with RTW2 when it launched and the game devs still have not got that sorted entirely either on both brands.

CapitalOne · 20 Oct 2015 at 17:54

I have 2 I7s, 1 I5, 1 8350 and 1 8320. None are unplayable keyrings on any games at 1080, all manage decent benchmark scores and all are fun to tinker with. If you haven't messed about with an AMD combination you have missed a lot of fun. That is all.

Davedree · 20 Oct 2015 at 17:55

KelDG said:
I reckon this thread is just misunderstanding. I hope Davedrees argument is that the 390 and 970 are both slower than they should be in the grand progression of graphics cards, as he has said his 970 would not be worth the price point if be had bought it new now, and said the same about the 390 as we have been similar performance since the 290 was released a long while back now.

In that respect I completely agree as I bought a 290 back in the day (returned cos of the faulty memory), and would feel the pinch a couple of years later paying the same money for similar performance in either AMD or nvidia camp.

These threads degenerate so quickly lol.

Anyway way, that is what I hope has happened.

Why do you get my point exactly as I intended, yet dave 2150 and especially Lokken took it at a totally different face value.?