Moving from AMD FX to I5, thoughts?

[Tuvoc]

Yes agreed. I run mine at 4.2GHz.

 

[ALXAndy]

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.

As it does on Intel.

As I stated before, my X79 board has 22 power phases. My 3970x will do 4.9ghz bench stable at the temp limits, or, 4.7ghz every day clocks which is what I have it set to now.

And as soon as you overclock stated TDP goes out of the window. Most X58 chips were 140w IIRC, but overclock a 950 to 4ghz and it easily sucked down over 200 watts.

Headroom in Sandybridge was very high, meaning clocks were very high as was voltage. IIRC the 8320 @ 4.9ghz needed around 1.45v, the exact same I'm giving my 3970x for 4.7 and 4.9ghz. More voltage just makes it BSOD and produce lower scores.

 

[Phixsator]

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.

To me its the same thing..The only thing the i7 holds over the i5 is HyperThreading aka thread Count(some would mislabel it core count) and in a lot of cases that wont matter when talking gaming if you are to believe people on these forums. So if you have a recorded experience with a slightly better chip than the i5 vs the FX and it doesnt come out all shiny with a MUST BUY recommendation in the end doesnt that say something about the i5 as well? considering it shares the same IPC performance and pretty much everything else other than thread count?

TBH the FX i had was a fantastic chip, i miss it sometimes when i want to do a small server project for learning new stuff and have to stick to my 8 year old core 2 due laptop which has no power left in it.

 

[Schizoid]

Sorry to hijack the thread rather than starting a new one, I've currently in the same dilema whereas I currently own a FX8320 @ 4.6Ghz on a Sabertooth 990FX and looking to Upgrade???? to possibly a 4690K i5, again is it worth the upgrade as I've just moved from HD7970 to GTX970.

Cheers

 

[Phixsator]

Sorry to hijack the thread rather than starting a new one, I've currently in the same dilema whereas I currently own a FX8320 @ 4.6Ghz on a Sabertooth 990FX and looking to Upgrade???? to possibly a 4690K i5, again is it worth the upgrade as I've just moved from HD7970 to GTX970.

Cheers

If it were me having to make that choice again i would pick up an i7 non K instead. They can still be OCed but perhaps not as much but a bit cheaper. Then again depends on what you want it for i guess. Is it just an itch or do you actually have performance issues with your current setup?

 

[gpuerrilla]

Sorry to hijack the thread rather than starting a new one, I've currently in the same dilema whereas I currently own a FX8320 @ 4.6Ghz on a Sabertooth 990FX and looking to Upgrade???? to possibly a 4690K i5, again is it worth the upgrade as I've just moved from HD7970 to GTX970.

Cheers

If it were me having to make that choice again i would pick up an i7 non K instead. They can still be OCed but perhaps not as much but a bit cheaper. Then again depends on what you want it for i guess. Is it just an itch or do you actually have performance issues with your current setup?

It is a sidegrade whatever way shape or form to go with an i5, not worth the money.

I would go with the i7 option as Phix mentions. However I would wonder how long back you splashed out for the FX build as surely it can hold out for a better step up?

Some people do not seem to plan properly when 'upgrading' these days. I get dropping in another GPU a couple of years later but having to go Mobo+CPU+RAM so often means poor planning IMO.

 

[Schizoid]

No real performance issues as such play mostly BF4, FIFA and Far Cry 4 but looking forward to potentially GTA V.

Do a lot of Vmware stuff also for work, no video encoding or anything like that.

Just got money spare after the Chrimbo and looking to Parts, and just upgraded my monitor to ASUS 144Hz 27" albeit only 1080p.

And if I don't spend it on the computer, wor lass will spend it on home furnishings when she finds out.

Would it be better to hold off for the newer Broadwell CPU's when they come out?

Bought the AMD a couple years back, from a Q6600

 

[humbug]

The fact is AMD CPU's do pretty well in modern well threaded games.

Crysis 3: Welcome to the jungle is the most CPU demanding part of the game, all the CPU Physics driven Geometric grass hammers the CPU.

AMD's 8 core does pretty well in dealing with it.

 

[Toadem]

I'm just grabbing the popcorn, this looks like its going to be another long thread .

At the end of the day figure out your budget and look at what gives you
a: the most bang for your buck,
b: what will future proof your pc for the next few years (or until you can afford your dream upgrade).

Personally I went for the fx8350 not too long ago for the simple reason of "It was the best I could afford at the time".
Have I been happy with it? - yes I have, coming from a phenom 2 x4 yes im happy.
Would I upgrade to an I7 if I could afford it- your damn right I would but at the end of the day I already said, I bought the best I could afford at the time and I am making do with that till I can afford to upgrade again.
Cutting through all the maths and arguments, if you can afford the I5 go for the I5, if you cant go for an fx and overclock it but either way be happy with your choice because you cant send it back in a month just because its not your dream CPU.

On sidenote, I am kinda sorry that I didnt go for the 8320 rather than the 8350, from what I read there isnt a great deal of a difference in the overclock and its a lot cheaper but heyho, I have my 8350 now, can I send it back OCUK lol.

 

[gpuerrilla]

On sidenote, I am kinda sorry that I didnt go for the 8320 rather than the 8350, from what I read there isnt a great deal of a difference in the overclock and its a lot cheaper but heyho, I have my 8350 now, can I send it back OCUK lol.

This also makes a larger margin between 8320 and i5. Clock wise they all hit 4.5Ghz so is a no brainer.

 

[ALXAndy]

I've never seen a 8320 that won't do 4.5ghz. I've owned two, and the worse of the two still managed 4.7.

I can see why people opt for the 8350 though. I guess you think that because it's more expensive it will clock higher and in some cases it will. Problem is that once you step over 4.5ghz you need tip top cooling (min H100) and most people don't want to spend that sort of cash on a cooler.

Which is why so many run theirs at 4.5ghz. It's not an issue though, that's more than fast enough to take care of any game.

 

[humbug]

I've never seen a 8320 that won't do 4.5ghz. I've owned two, and the worse of the two still managed 4.7.

I can see why people opt for the 8350 though. I guess you think that because it's more expensive it will clock higher and in some cases it will. Problem is that once you step over 4.5ghz you need tip top cooling (min H100) and most people don't want to spend that sort of cash on a cooler.

Which is why so many run theirs at 4.5ghz. It's not an issue though, that's more than fast enough to take care of any game.

Binning, the 8350 was thought to be better binned.

Having said that, my 8350 does 4.4Ghz on stock volts. 1.37v, 4.5Ghz requires 1.425v, 4.6Ghz is not stable with anything less than 1.48v.

I can do that, just on my inexpensive Cooler Master Seidon 120V cooler.

The point is from stock to 4.6Ghz requires a huge jump in volts, 110mv.

Its a crap bin.

 

[Tuvoc]

I've never seen a 8320 that won't do 4.5ghz. I've owned two, and the worse of the two still managed 4.7.
.

Depends how much voltage you want to put into them, and how you define stable in terms of what stress test and usage scenarios you choose to run. And how good your cooler is.

For me the 8350 was a no-brainer - 4.0Ghz guaranteed out of the box with all power saving functionality enabled for when it isn't being pushed, instead of 3.5Ghz and doing hours and days of stress testing to get to the right settings and stability for 4.0.

 

[ALXAndy]

Depends how much voltage you want to put into them, and how you define stable in terms of what stress test and usage scenarios you choose to run. And how good your cooler is.

For me the 8350 was a no-brainer - 4.0Ghz guaranteed out of the box with all power saving functionality enabled for when it isn't being pushed, instead of 3.5Ghz and doing hours and days of stress testing to get to the right settings and stability for 4.0.

I ran both of my 8320s on a H100, so cooling was sort of well taken care of.

I don't need hours of stress testing either. Just run Asus Realbench 2.0 which simulates real world heavy multi tasking and it it makes it through that it's stable.

 

[gpuerrilla]

I didn't spend hours and days stress testing as you can game away. Overclocking these days doesn't involve jumpers and modifying components... its beyond easy.

I can get over 4Ghz on stock volts so that's your 8350 right there for £20-30 cheaper.

 

[ALXAndy]

I didn't spend hours and days stress testing as you can game away. Overclocking these days doesn't involve jumpers and modifying components... its beyond easy.

I can get over 4Ghz on stock volts so that's your 8350 right there for £20-30 cheaper.

Yeah, in all honesty the 8350 is a complete waste of money.

AMD are binning for 5ghz chips, I really don't think they're bothering making sure the 8350s are better than the 8320s.

 

[gpuerrilla]

Yeah, in all honesty the 8350 is a complete waste of money.

It baffles me tbh.

Even the pro intel brigade compare to the 8350 in arguments and benches when you could quite aptly use the 8320 and wedge in an extra £xx factor to apply for value.

With the 'E' series now I would say its an even better position for the budget gamer.

Should you have the extra £100 the i5 is the better bet. Depends on the GPU now, the budget should hinge on the best GPU you can afford.

 

[Toadem]

I can see why people opt for the 8350 though. I guess you think that because it's more expensive it will clock higher and in some cases it will.

Exactly why I went for it, and guess what - I'v not clocked it .

I still stand by what I said though, coming from a phenom 2 x4 it was a massive upgrade to me. When it begins to struggle and if I still cant afford an I7 I will then look at overclocking but for now it does what I need it to at stock.

 

[Tuvoc]

I went for the 8350 for the hassle free 4.0Ghz stock vs 3.5 Ghz - and I'm very happy with that decision. And I got £90 back for my X6 1100T on the bay, so very cheap upgrade. Although in some respects it isn't actually an upgrade from the X6, but that is a different story. 8 modular cores vs 6 true cores on the old architecture.

 

[gpuerrilla]

I went for the 8350 for the hassle free 4.0Ghz stock vs 3.5 Ghz - and I'm very happy with that decision.

Exactly why I went for it, and guess what - I'v not clocked it .

When it begins to struggle and if I still cant afford an I7 I will then look at overclocking but for now it does what I need it to at stock.

I went for the 8320 and have run in nearly all its life at 4.5Ghz or above!

Gotta love that free performance for cheaper. Like overclocking used to be!