• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Moving from AMD FX to I5, thoughts?

I have a few mates who run WoW. Intel CPUs do run it better,but interestingly enough,two of my mates have a FX6300 and a FX6350 and they ran the game better, at both stock and overclocked,than a 4GHZ Athlon II X3 or a 3.4GHZ Athlon II X4(they upgraded from the last two CPUs). The FX6300/FX6350 were also faster than a 3GHZ Phenom II X4 or a Phenom II X4 1045T(which Turbos upto 3.3GHZ in lightly threaded games).
 
Last edited:
Drop in a FX6300/FX6350, and use the Asus TPU auto tuning software to give it a boost (not the best way to OC it, but more user friendly than BIOS tweaking)
 
Switched from an overclocked 8320 at 4.5Ghz to a 4690k at 4.7GHz and noticed a difference in BF4 with a single GPU
 
Shanghai is the most CPU derived FPS killer in BF4, in DX with a 290 and a 4.6Ghz 8350 i get FPS that bottom out from bottlenecking in the mid 60's on full 64 Player maps.

A friends 4.6Ghz Ivy i7 also on a 290 bottoms out in the low 70's, about a 10% difference, so i doubt an i5 is any better than an 8350 running at a similar speed.

Turn on Mantle and i bottom out in the mid 80's.
 
Last edited:
I certainly saw a big difference moving from 8320 @ 4Ghz to i7 4770k @ same clocks . And then a little gain to my 5820k @ 4.4 , all in 64player maps . Certainly felt better than each chip I came from , on 780tis and dual 970s
 
Martini1991 said:
Do you have super human perception or something?
Click to expand...

JamesM said:
Switched from an overclocked 8320 at 4.5Ghz to a 4690k at 4.7GHz and noticed a difference in BF4 with a single GPU
Click to expand...

LOL.

Not surprised really, clock speed for clock speed the intel is bound to be faster (in bench marks and ££) however so will an FX vs FX if one is 100mhz faster.. hahaha, joker!
 
Have been a FX-8350@5,0ghz owner switching to an i7 4770k the difference is definitely there but not in the way most likely would think. The averages was about the same(fx@5ghz vs i7@stock) but the dips was much worse on the FX(while also sometimes have roughly 5-10% more on the max fps which resulted in the roughly the same averages but a very uneven experience).

There would also be the occasional game where the fps of the FX would be half the intel(fx@5ghz vs stock i7). Now ofcourse you can contribute this to the way the specific games were programmed(aka unoptimized some most likely would say), MMOs being particular notorius in this department, but it doesnt change the end result one bit. Not saying though you cant play MMO games on an FX cpu cause you definitely can, i did that for a very long time with mostly an okay experience.

I couldnt get the FX over 4.6ghz to begin with, but new cooling and that baby would shine and just give and give in return.. My i7 doesnt care if its watercooled or has some cheapo CM 212 evo cooler on it. It wont go above 4.2 stable and while i can play most games at 4.5 without crashes it takes 1.32volts to get there and i still crash every 2-3 days in some odd scenario so its not stable. Its just a very dull chip and it has almost no give, i mean 10% max for those who are lucky to get the 4,7-4,8ghz(yes 10ish% cause you have to calculate maximum boost speed as part of stock speeds since its in the specifications) its just sad for K chip. The Sandy bridge days were much better in the feeling you got from archieving 4,8-5,0..

I am still to this day more impressed with the 32nm FX-8350 results than the 22nm intel. In terms of manufactoring the fx is just so behind already yet its still valid gaming chip and an awwsome product to play with(and rather cheap one to if you go for the little brother the 8320)

TLDR: So to sum up the i7 is obviously faster than the fx and more interesting than the i5 but its not my favorite chip. That would title would actually go my old fx 8350 due to its nerdiness appeal and price/performance ratio.
 
Last edited:
Dave2150 said:
Check your power bill, you'll see a big difference there :)
Click to expand...

So you think a 3970x @ 4.9ghz is any more power friendly than my AMD?

I strongly, strongly doubt it. My 3970x is in a 12 phase board IIRC. And the phase warning light is always on, even at 4.7ghz.

Just checked. Apparently my board has a 22 phase power delivery.

I would be very surprised if the 3970x used less power than the 8320. Don't forget, the 8320 is Vishera which has heavily revised power delivery.
 
Phixsator said:
Have been a FX-8350@5,0ghz owner switching to an i7 4770k the difference is definitely there but not in the way most likely would think. The averages was about the same(fx@5ghz vs i7@stock) but the dips was much worse on the FX(while also sometimes have roughly 5-10% more on the max fps which resulted in the roughly the same averages but a very uneven experience).

There would also be the occasional game where the fps of the FX would be half the intel(fx@5ghz vs stock i7). Now ofcourse you can contribute this to the way the specific games were programmed(aka unoptimized some most likely would say), MMOs being particular notorius in this department, but it doesnt change the end result one bit. Not saying though you cant play MMO games on an FX cpu cause you definitely can, i did that for a very long time with mostly an okay experience.

I couldnt get the FX over 4.6ghz to begin with, but new cooling and that baby would shine and just give and give in return.. My i7 doesnt care if its watercooled or has some cheapo CM 212 evo cooler on it. It wont go above 4.2 stable and while i can play most games at 4.5 without crashes it takes 1.32volts to get there and i still crash every 2-3 days in some odd scenario so its not stable. Its just a very dull chip and it has almost no give, i mean 10% max for those who are lucky to get the 4,7-4,8ghz(yes 10ish% cause you have to calculate maximum boost speed as part of stock speeds since its in the specifications) its just sad for K chip. The Sandy bridge days were much better in the feeling you got from archieving 4,8-5,0..

I am still to this day more impressed with the 32nm FX-8350 results than the 22nm intel. In terms of manufactoring the fx is just so behind already yet its still valid gaming chip and an awwsome product to play with(and rather cheap one to if you go for the little brother the 8320)

TLDR: So to sum up the i7 is obviously faster than the fx and more interesting than the i5 but its not my favorite chip. That would title would actually go my old fx 8350 due to its nerdiness appeal and price/performance ratio.
Click to expand...

The quote is not disagreeing with your opinion. I would however like to point out that the FX is not a direct competitor with the i7 and is not marketed in this price bracket. You should mention the gulf in price between these chips to cement the value you get from the FX.

Should your comparison have been with an experience switching to an equivelent i5 (which is still not really in the same price region) then it would have been a sensible reflection.

At least most of the posters are being more transparent about their 'upgrades' and not just berating the FX like the red haired step child. ;)
 
ALXAndy said:
So you think a 3970x @ 4.9ghz is any more power friendly than my AMD?

I strongly, strongly doubt it. My 3970x is in a 12 phase board IIRC. And the phase warning light is always on, even at 4.7ghz.

Just checked. Apparently my board has a 22 phase power delivery.

I would be very surprised if the 3970x used less power than the 8320. Don't forget, the 8320 is Vishera which has heavily revised power delivery.
Click to expand...

If you compare similarly priced CPU's, the FX9590 or the 8350 clocked to 5Ghz, they use way more power than the 4790k and give less performance in every application/game. Of course the 8350 is way cheaper than a 4790k, though your not guaranteed a 5Ghz clock on the 8350.

We could compare the enthusiast grade X99 6 and 8 core CPU's power consumption to the FX range, though it's not really fair since the X99/x79 range completely and utterly annihilate the FX cpu's, while costing far more than the FX cpu's, narurally.

Comparing the 5960X (8 core) to a 8350 clocked at 5Ghz , or a 9590 at it's stock clocks, the 5960X still has lower TDP. 140W on the 8 core vs 220 for the 9590 (assume the 8350 uses a similar TDP when clocked at 5Ghz, since it's the same silicon, pre overclocked).

Do you need me to compare the performance of a stock 5960X and the 8350? No, we all know it's like comparing a sundial to an atomic clock.

Of course you could clock a 5960X to an obscene clock which would result in it using more power than any FX cpu - though you'd obviously just increase the already massive performance difference at stock to legendary proportions.

In a few months we'll have broadwell which will further exaggerate any comparison between the FX and i7 range, that should be fun to see.
 
Tuvoc said:
Yes, and you're comparing a £130 CPU to an £800+ CPU.
Click to expand...

Guess you need new glasses, I already said it's not fair to compare them in my post above:

"We could compare the enthusiast grade X99 6 and 8 core CPU's power consumption to the FX range, though it's not really fair since the X99/x79 range completely and utterly annihilate the FX cpu's, while costing far more than the FX cpu's, narurally."

Andy was comparing the TDP of his X79 to the FX junk, was commenting on that.
 
Still a side step IMO. Besides, you can split the price gap further with an FX8320 or an e-series variety which is a further drop of ~ £25-30.

I get you mentionings regarding the 9590 etc being the comparable AMD offering to the 'i7' but this realistically is not tangible considering the 8320/50 clock to 4.5/.8 when paired with a good motherboard. I would expect all members on a site such as this would understand that.

So, as Tuvoc posted above. The £100-35 market with the FX being compared to the £450+ 6 and 8 core i7 's is not a serious statement whatever your preference of bias is!
 
The FX processors are more power hungry then their Intel equivalents, there is a mountain of evidence of that. At stock speeds the difference isn't big, but overclock with extra voltage, and the FX power consumption goes through the roof.
 
Tuvoc said:
The FX processors are more power hungry then their Intel equivalents, there is a mountain of evidence of that. At stock speeds the difference isn't big, but overclock with extra voltage, and the FX power consumption goes through the roof.
Click to expand...

Possibly, however I have measured using a power meter and the exaggeration that gets banded about here is way over the top.

Who runs there system full tilt 24/7 that would make such as difference? Yeah that's right - nobody!

Benchmarking is one thing, running your system at a more conservative overclock is another.

I can push 4.85 out of this cpu. However run it daily at 4.5Ghz as there is no point risking the heat and instability risks for such a small gain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom