i3-7100 vs FX-8350 - AMD FX Benchmarks Are Definitely Flawed
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 лип 2024
- You can support my work here: www.buymeacoffee.com/ratechyt
Discord link: / discord
-
Learn more about the T-Force Vulcan SSD:
www.teamgroupinc.com/en/produ...
-
Ryzen 9 7950X
US: amzn.to/3ZNAQHj
UK: amzn.to/41SBV2u
DE: amzn.to/3Ux0JcK
CA: amzn.to/3mweH25
Ryzen 9 7900X
US: amzn.to/3zRA01j
UK: amzn.to/3Jgkstf
DE: amzn.to/3GGBShf
CA: amzn.to/3GHkQzg
Ryzen 7 7800X3D
US: amzn.to/404coRM
UK: amzn.to/415SOpg
DE: amzn.to/3KGP2fo
CA: amzn.to/404cUPI
Ryzen 7 7700X
US: amzn.to/3kO9oKv
UK: amzn.to/3IXpdqi
DE: amzn.to/3MGHXxR
CA: amzn.to/413nt6B
Ryzen 5 7600X
US: amzn.to/3ygeqCL
UK: amzn.to/3ybWwRH
DE: amzn.to/43rPdng
CA: amzn.to/41jXis4
Ryzen 7 5800X3D
US: amzn.to/3GBvWGb
UK: amzn.to/400A60Z
DE: amzn.to/3oc0oAt
CA: amzn.to/41mt9Zl
Ryzen 5 5600X
US: amzn.to/4164qsA
UK: amzn.to/3mt6zQ3
DE: amzn.to/3o0wAXa
CA: amzn.to/3MFW9qR
Ryzen 5 5500
US: amzn.to/3NbXmpF
UK: amzn.to/42mdkSs
DE: amzn.to/43Gke65
CA: amzn.to/42ig2s5
i9 13900K
US: amzn.to/3L5tw5P
UK: amzn.to/3ILZIIk
DE: amzn.to/43salK7
CA: amzn.to/3KXuHDI
i7 13700K
US: amzn.to/3F1z4uh
UK: amzn.to/3kQDrRP
DE: amzn.to/3zUQ1U3
CA: amzn.to/41nBXhr
i5 13600K
US: amzn.to/3YrilXQ
UK: amzn.to/3JeWyyu
DE: amzn.to/3GGqwJM
CA: amzn.to/404iAcb
i5 13400
US: amzn.to/3ocF1yC
UK: amzn.to/3mvSjG9
DE: amzn.to/3KUdmM0
CA: amzn.to/406bcgF
i3 13100
US: amzn.to/3Ael2mh
UK: amzn.to/415VZ0a
DE: amzn.to/3MXNKiT
CA: amzn.to/41nCKPr
i9 12900K
US: amzn.to/400BJvD
UK: amzn.to/3GKbPFJ
DE: amzn.to/3Kr11xm
CA: amzn.to/3KxcuM0
i7 12700K
US: amzn.to/3IUWraA
UK: amzn.to/43mKlPU
DE: amzn.to/3N9pv0y
CA: amzn.to/3WOm7eK
i5 12600K
US: amzn.to/43nAwkB
UK: amzn.to/3NbBk6B
DE: amzn.to/3MPy9Ab
CA: amzn.to/45KfRZw
Amazon US: amzn.to/2q1uWBp
Amazon UK: amzn.to/2q1vI1b
Amazon DE: amzn.to/2pA5djM
Amazon CA: amzn.to/2y7wsKI
Links provided above are affiliate links, using them helps me earn a small commission without any extra cost to you.
Amazon US: amzn.to/2q1uWBp
Amazon UK: amzn.to/2q1vI1b
Amazon DE: amzn.to/2pA5djM
Amazon CA: amzn.to/2y7wsKI
-
The FX-8350 vs Athlon 200GE video from Testing Games:
• FX 8300 OC vs Athlon 2...
Jay's video talking about FX being a better choice:
• I blew up a CPU while ...
Extra info on specs:
- Kingston UV300 SSD (OS Drive), 500 GB T-Force Vulcan SSD + 1 TB 7200 RPM Seagate Barracuda (Game Drives), 1 TB WD Blue (Gameplay Footage)
- The testing was done on a testbed with a single 120mm fan cooling the VRM area
- Latest Windows 10 version was used at the time of upload
- Tests were done using Nvidia's Game Ready 461.40 drivers
- Shadowplay was used to record the gameplay footage (results are the same without recording)
-
Social media:
/ ratechyt
/ ratechyt
/ ratechyt
-
Timestamps:
0:00 - Sponsored Segment
0:51 - Discord
1:01 - Intro
2:45 - Specs
4:05 - Software Benchmarks
6:21 - Gaming Benchmarks
24:01 - Temps & Power Consumption
24:21 - Overclocking the FX-8350
26:28 - Disabling Vulnerability Patches
27:48 - OC'ing RAM to 3200 MHz on the i3
28:30 - Conclusion - Наука та технологія
Thanks for watching! You can support my work here: www.buymeacoffee.com/ratechyt
discord.gg/PFb9cMstZH ▪ instagram.com/ratechyt ▪ twitter.com/ratechyt ▪ facebook.com/ratechyt
fx cpus are not great but i believe that they do a good job and they do not deserve the hate they receive
@@samsonsanthosh
I owned a 6 core. The 3 floating points was complete trash.
RA Tech, have your tried 2400mhz CL10 ram on AMD FX?
it seems that it helps to make the system more responsive, and with slower RAM i was having some issues with increasing my NB/HT above 2200Mhz.
However with 2400MHz CL10-12-12-31-43 CR1 1.65V, for some reason my NB/HT are now running fine on 2400 even 2600MHz.
i put 1.3V(1.35v in load) Regular LLC, on the CPU/NB. but i think it can run with lower voltage.
My System
990FX Asus Crosshair V formula-Z
AMD FX-8350 4.5Ghz 1.4V(in load 1.33-1.344v) Medium LLC.
G.Skill Tridant X CL10-12-12-31 TRC43 and CR1 1.65V.
@@hliasunknown The dual rank Kingston memory that I use in this video doesn't want to go beyond 2100 MHz, at least with this FX-8350. I doubt it would make a massive difference anyways.
@@RATechYT True, there is no performance difference in DDR3 from 1600mhz cl9 and above. and for AMD FX 1866-2133mhz is the sweet spot. Because you don't have to touch NB/HT.
However it seems that the Memory Controller of FX can handle 2400mhz, but for anything above 2400mhz it crashes.. my guess is that the DDR3 controllers where not meant to handle anything above 2400mhz.
2400mhz Runs and it is stable.
2600mhz Runs and its not stable even with lose timings.
2700mhz and above doesn't run at all, because the memory controller crashes.
i didn't try 2500mhz, because i got tired...
I just hope this discussion can continue with respect from now on. It was really awful to see channels I have always looked up to be so hostile towards you without any reason and just dismiss your testing because they hadn't heard of you before. Heck, I hadn't heard of you before myself. But at least I keep an open mind.
Agreed! It was utterly embarrassing to watch.
I actually stopped watching GN after many years as I couldn't take them seriously after their 'response'.
@@ickyconcrete5370 yeah, I completely understand. I still watch some of their videos, but I am no longer subscribed.
They reacted narcissistically
@@chilldudie242 I see on youtube, even with the best channels sometimes, the confusion of celebrity (views/subscriptions) with scientific validation (of self-opinion). Celebrity is social or political and crosses into narcissism easily--especcially here, on youtube, which is often like a secondary school. TechYes, TechDeals, and a few other big names have been pretty good about keeping themselves chill and real and open to (real, as opposed to fan and flame) critical feedback.
RA Tech is well-grounded and very consistent broadcast and I especially like his retro studies on value and performance. It's an important niche.
I just wonder what Win11 is going to do .... I'll probably be taking my older hardware to linux exclusively.
That whole gaggle of lies cost the Steves a lot of respect in my eyes.
You never claimed it was a dual core Intel, you were doing a comparison test, you were open and clear about what you were using. It doesn't *have* to be a specific part in order to prove anything. In your situation the 2C/4T CPU had an *advantage* over the chip they were talking about.
Frankly how they handled that situation showed me that misrepresentation isn't limited to politics, they straight up lied about how you represented the situation so they could attack you for your testing methodology, utter and complete bullshit.
I will note that they deleted a *lot* of their tweets later, after making an ass of themselves over the situation. There was no apology for how they handled it or the lies they told.
That's not even getting to the bug up their ass about the FX line, they intentionally *look* for ways to attack the FX line and they lie about that too, they talk up the Phenom II while dogging the FX *all while the FX is generally faster than the Phenom II.*
You did a lot of tests, that's dedication!
The FX-8xxx where bad at power consumption but had the price-performance advantage, they were priced like an I3 at least since 2014 when I bought it, and it still is very usable today unlike the I3s of the time, and the easy overclock is a nice bonus
True
@@ProcessedDigitally bro in long term usage u would pay the price of i5 of at that time in electricity bills
@@nandhinisr3443 If you had the computer running 24/7 for 10+ years maybe, as it only works out to be a couple of dollars a year diffence even if your power prices are expensive like here in Australia.
@@nandhinisr3443 interesting how the tables have turned.
@@ProcessedDigitally Yep, now it is Intel who have hot and power hungry CPUs to keep up with the competition. History always repeats itself. Intel were at this point back in the early noughties (2000s) with the Pentium 4 and AMD ruled with the Athlon XP and 64. They did a big rethink and bounced back with the Core 2 processors eventually.
Intel will bounce back again, it will just take a bit effort to come up with a new design rethink. Hopefully AMD can stay on equal footing, this time to keep them honest. But I believe AMD have learnt from that era and will not to take the foot off the pedal of innovation this time round. Time will tell though.
Having used an 8350 as my daily driver for almost a decade now, I can honestly say the only true downsides of using the FX line today compared to a budget intel is 1) the cost to power the system, and 2) the total absence of an upgrade path. All the people who tried to make me feel bad about my choices at that time have been forced to dump their i5-2400s and i5-3540s and pay out for something better, and I'm still gaming away on my "inferior" 8350 without dropping an extra dime on it to upgrade (and I payed in the I3 price range at the time I bought it, so I saved twice!!)). Every day, every week, every month since my initial purchase, games got coded to make use of more and more cores, so AMD stayed relevant. If you HAVE an FX, keep using it, you've got a few more years before software eclipses the FX and hardware instruction sets makes it go the way of the Phenom II. If someone GIVES you an FX.... USE IT!!! Free computer is free computer. But if you're thinking of BUYING now, go with Ryzen or something Intel that has a modern-ish socket and DDR4.
Probably a reason why i can buy an i3-2100 for $5 aud and the FX-8350 for $75 aud via the local sellers. Even the i5-2400 can be had for $20. The situation becomes a bit harder on when we factor in the cheap i7s that are now coming down in price. The non K version of 2600 can be had for about the $60aud and the 3770 for $80. At that price point, I would rather take the intel i7 CPU. I until recently have been using the OC 2500K but with an upgrade path to the i7 open and cheap DDR3 memory. You can easily find yourself spending $100 to get a 1st or 2nd gen I7 and 16gb of RAM.
Amdonkey your fx weaker than2 100
@@clenbuterol4989 I don’t really like amd but I’m at least smart enough to know every cpu does different in different scenarios so maybe googling “fx 8350 vs 2100” is a deficient move
@@rustmw2459 yes in some scanarios 2100 better than fx but 2500k never lose to 2100
I keep my old one as a backup tk my ryzen 1700x just incase. I had no issue gaming in vr or doing anything else.
As a fan of your channel, Hardware Unboxed and Gamers Nexus, I was disgusted with not only their reaction to your previous videos, but also a number of their subscribers as well! That’s problem with giving some people information, they only see the info from that perspective and not think about it logically. I too thought in your video disabling the additional cores and converting the cpu to a dual core may have given the dual core aspect a slightly better performance outcome due to the design of cpu architecture which in theory would show a better dual core result. Again, I have no issues with your testing methodology. Love your channel and your doing a great job! Don’t let others dictate their understanding of how things should be done. As long as your consistent with your testing methods your results are comparable 🤯😎👍🎉🥰🥰. Cheers from Australia 🇦🇺 🍻
Appreciate it!
true, subbed to HWU too. But their reactions are just trash
The reason i stay away from all mainstream crap.....unsubbed from all the tech channels......
Anyone remember the hate 8350 got while being mocked on an old process node 32nm....while Intel was making heads turn with 14nm....no s*hit!!
I was here before GN Steve's comment about your unscientific benchmarking
Same
Steve is a intel shill
@@shadowopsairman1583 Steve is such an Intel shill that he always recommends buying amd when it offers better performance or better price/performance over Intel and recommends Intel when it's the other way around.
Only stupid people fanboy to tech companies and Steve isn't stupid.
Link?
Its kinda a shame that this didnt get more views, youve put so much effort into it.
If it was 2014 this would have went through the roof.
Yup, but it's alright. It does take some time for my videos to gain views since I don't upload as frequently and don't have a lot of subscribers. I'll be talking more on this topic in the future so the view count will definitely jump sooner or later.
Do not forget, that all these big "independent and unbiased" YT-channels can serve as the dominant company in the market at the moment, as well as singers and actors serving any government.
Thanks for your work, i appreciate it.
True
FX's had worse cores, but they still were extra cores. That helps a lot on multitasking.
Maybe the high power consumption was what caused FX's downfall, as many people still buy untrustworthy power supplies.
Yes and poorly optimized games that relied heavily on just a few cores
125W is not that bad for a PSU, think there are low consumption cards with that value ...
Intel fanboysm and negative advertising was the real problem. Now look at them how they buy hot and hungry budget Intels with no problem ....
Keep in mind that the fx-8350 had 4 modules and 8 integer threads, while the i3-7100 only has 2 cores with 4 threads. The 8350's 4 modules are still more powerful than the 7100's 2 cores. I suspect 2 cores vs 2 modules would be the opposite but since that wasn't tested I can't prove it definitively
running memory at default rated speeds is the best thing you can do for us, i hate when they use the fastest possible xmp for testing a cpu that will never perform that good on a normal rig with budget in mind.
memory with High xmp speeds arent necessairly expensive. there was Incredibly little difference in price when i built my own 8350 rig back in the day. and even the cheap memory had xmp memory profiles.
@@djmccullough9233 I think what MjKLSimpson was referring to is the fact that most people running budget systems will have a budget board. And while yes they had XMP settings similar to todays on allot of boards, most of those budget boards did not and the ones that did were very picky about these settings. It took some time and knowledge to set them up properly and one wrong setting would lead to severe instability or even not posting. At that point most people running those budget boards would not even mess with those settings or overclocking in the bios for fear of messing it up.
@@davidulmer9774 i run a ryzen 7 2700x on x470 board with 16gb of corsair vengence rgb pro 3200mhz cant get my xmp speed on my board anything beyond 2733mhz and my board crash
Love this! Still running my FX-8350 @ 4.6 now with my RX 580. Just got done playing Outriders and now on to Cyberpunk... would love to see a video that explores the NVIDIA vs. AMD driver overhead with something like a FX-8350 + NVIDIA Card vs FX-8350 + AMD card with the AMD/NVIDIA cards being equivalent models (similar performance) and see how they compare. Thank you for the honest numbers and real-world testing!
As an ex fx9370 owner, I can approve the power of FX as a future proof. I was using the same processor with gtx 560TI SLI, later updated to 5700XT, also with Samsung 860 SSD. The FX was performing really bad at the beginning, but it aged as a fine wine with years. It is still viable technology today. Sadly the heat and power consumption isn't worth keeping it for more so I recently upgraded to 5800X
I had a FX-9590 fix to 4.9GHz running with a silverstone HE-01 heatsink.
Now I have a 5800X with a 360 AIO.
The FX was waaay easier to cool down even tho power consuption was stupidly high. It didnt go over 65ºC in CPU benchmark while sinking more than 220W.
In fact it was way harder to keep the VRM in check. (Gigabyte 990FXA UD3 R5)
I tried to use the same heatsink with the 5800X, 85-90ºC while gaming with little CPU usage.
Even after upgrading to 360 AIO, I still needed to power limit the chip.
Default XFR power states add too much voltage.
As someone who back in the day picked an i3 4150 over the FX, this kinda stings. Wish I could go back and talk some sense into my younger self :D
I don't think it's your fault. I'd blame those who told you to get the i3.
@@RATechYT Seriously. There was a lot of intel shills back during FX's retail life trying to convince people to avoid FX like the plague. And now you have all these Core i3/i5 2nd-4th gen processors flooding ebay for dirt cheap because now they run like hot garbage on modern games and no one wants to be stuck with them.
Yeah, I remember how "specialists" recommended two cores I3s arguing there is no need for more cores and how less means quality.
Back in 2015, I was stuck between choosing an AMD CPU and Intel Pentiums. I lucked out when A8 was out of stock so I went for an FX 4300 because of the quard core feature. Oh, boy I lucked out with it since I'm using it up to date. It may not perform well on modern AAA games, but I don't exactly play those games so this boy still perfoms well enough for my taste.
@@ConfusionDistortion it doesn't matter if you bought a i5 or fx back then, you should either way upgrade. Those processors are to slow.
This is EXACTLY my point. Old games CAN sometimes use multiple cores. Even Crysis 1 actually uses 3 cores, same for Starcraft 2. And those are QUITE old. Other newer games than them can use at least 4, maybe 6 cores. Of course not as well as new games, but still.
The problem for reviewers is that they test in super simple scenes and usually early game where there is less action, fewer NPCs, smaller levels usually.
Wizzard from TechPowerUp actually tests CPUs in the FOREST area of White Orchard for Witcher 3. That is right, he is using the tutorial area and not Novigrad or Beauclair City to test them, but rather the second smallest area in the game and the most remote, NPC-free area. That is so light on the CPU, even a 2/4 will appear good in the game then while in later game areas or areas in the cities the little dual core will basically die.
This BTW is also why reviewers underestimate VRAM usage in games. Reviewers test cutscenes or a 1 minute lightweight scene and say "Well it doesnt use lots of VRAM". Meanwhile here I am in Doom Eternal playing the END-game levels of the title and seeing my old RTX 2080 or a friend's RTX 3070 get stutters every 20-30 seconds because the levels are big and have lots of enemies. So where it matters the most, the game actually wants more VRAM. Even if 8GB is fine for Hell on Earth, a small tutorial level with 5 enemy types, it is just not fine for the actual game.
This is my issue with reviews. Digital Foundry had the right idea - play some of the game and find demanding real CPU-heavy scenes to test the games at and GPU ones for the GPU. But EVEN they then resort to light scenes, canned benchmarks (Far Cry) or loading/cutscenes (Metro, Crysis 3) to test GPus and CPUs so even they dont do as they say they should do.
I get that being a reviewer is hard since you have to go through lots of games and hardware. But... it can be done as shown by some people and some fans. I myself only tested games I knew well when I tested my CPUs (mostly for fun).
Tech deals says the same a lot, VRAM on new Nvidia cards isn't going to cut it for future 4k games, maybe you will be able to run 1440p 60fps, but even 3440x1440 on cyberpunk is too much for a 3070, with just 40fps.
Nope Starcraft 2 uses 4 in modern code. Im the reason AMD CPUs use SSE3 in this game.
You are going off of old benchmarks. The tri core was faster because even with context switching its offloading OS overhead.
Crysis OG uses only 2 cores unless you swap the warhead executable or use a mod placing physics on its own thread.
Digital Foundry is lazy. The best evidence for this is their half life 2 raytracing livestream. Its complete trash.
Youll see in games im cpu bound with a 5950X i provide guides to educate Microsofts brain dead thread scheduler. Digital Foundry wouldn't walk across the street to notice my existence or contribute anything but generic reviews and entertainment to the community.
Im offended John, i think it was gets to run the sort of nonsense in front of a huge audience and no one notices or cares. Alex even complains about the AO not respecting the rasterized sunlight which of course you can fix that using other effects in specific orders of pass.
Who cares.
Thats my problem with tech journalism. It misses shit I the rando hobbyist doesn't. Sometimes its for political motive. Like intels compiler in Starcraft 2.
Tpu will pick a random spot which results in lower performance on Radeons. Biased benchmarking by them.
Right there with you on this. I lost a lot of respect with the Steve's over FX stuff a long time ago it never fit the performance I got from my FX. My old FX machine is still doing great with a buddy's son. Pretty much every I5 machine I work on from the FX era is disappointing to use in comparison to the old FX. I think for what I paid years ago the FX held up damn good.
Yeah, he had me laughing when he lambasted FX running games at max settings when no sane person is gonna max out a modern game on a FX CPU
@@livingthedream915 They love to run the games at 1440P on a 3080 or something, no one is going to run a 3080 with an FX. For one the FX is only PCIe 2.0, the other is no one is going to put a $700 MSRP GPU on a 2013 system.
Run the system with a GPU that most people would use, a 2060, 5700, 1080, 1070, 980, 970, 1060, etc... the differences aren't that big.
Further, the FX is still faster than 99% of the economy OEM boxes that people have.
@@livingthedream915 dude i just saw your comment and I had to say I love your username 😋 imma boot up my old fx 8350 rig tonight when my psu comes in.what are the odds haha.
@@liveyourdreammediaWe're brothers in arms in the fight against reality LMAO
@@glenwaldrop8166 I don't know about "no one", I'd happily put a modern high end AMD RX in my FX9370 rig, to replace my RX470 even given the PCIe 2.0 bandwidth limitation. If I could afford one, that is! What I mean, is if I had the money to spend, it would go on a GPU before considering replacing the whole system. The FX9370 with 16GB 2400MHz DDR3 is okay... well, except for power usage! ;-)
I'm glad you continued this topic, was looking forward to it ever since watching your last video about it
The main issue here is you actually show gameplay and other channel's don't. Other channels just publish their FPS numbers and as you have proven, FPS numbers don't tell the complete story.
It isnt even just that. Reviewers hardly ever actually play the games they test, because honestly, they are too busy doing reviews to take the time to actually game. They pick starting areas that dont paint a realistic picture of how the game will perform in a worse case scenario, for both the average, along with 1 percent lows, and frametimes. The current test methodology in review suites is basically set up for speed testing so people can try to be the first one to crank out a review to get the most views early on, as opposed to someone who takes like two-three weeks to be as thorough as possible so they can provide a more accurate picture as to what performance is in best and worst case scenarios.
Well, I had that fx 8350 and the stuttering was a mess, not to mention that it even bottlenecks a gtx 970, the ipc was really bad, i regret so much buying it instead of a 3770k, but that being said, sure it can run some games at decent fps
@@sreal189 You need to tune your system. My 8320e was a good first CPU and I never really had issues with it. I was happy for the price to performance I got out of it.
@@4m470 i also have a new system now, but sure i agree, price to performance was pretty decent
Just wanted to say thank you for all these FX vids from a long time AMD user, they confirm what many of us suspected from the start......they were far better than given credit for. With the exception of my first AMD CPU, a 750 mhz Athlon Thunderbird system that I sadly gave away, all of the others are still running strong in my house. I currently use a Ryzen 2700, my daughter a 2700X, my other half has my old FX 8350, my old Phenom II 955 now powers our living room media PC, and an Athlon 860K is in a media PC for one of the bedrooms. AMD has always given me more than my money's worth and that's why they continue to get my business when it's time to build.
Lol was amdonkey with fx now get old trash 2700x.Why daughter eats old trash after you?
This is a great follow up my dood, I appreciate the investigative effort you're putting forth.
Thanks for sticking around!
HOW have I not seen this video until now? Best "FX is bad" debunking video ever. Thanks for the effort! Saving this to my "I'm not Crazy" folder as I have had the same experiences with multiple FX CPUs.
Hi. I'm just stopping by to remind you that all your work is absolutely stellar and you got the most honest videos I've ever seen in a testing hardware channel, not to mention all the hard work you put in your videos as well as the technical issues you cover specially in this video to make a conclusion about HU and GN benchmarks. Hope you're doing well and, again, thank you so much!
Appreciate it!
I remember arguing this point with Intel fanboys buying I3's rather than FX Piledriver, and I told them the FX would last way longer and be better overall as a superior computing experience.
intel cpus are like milk they have a natural expire date. all intel experiences iv had were they work for the first year they are released and then next years software sees the intel pegging at 100% tying to struggle to function.
what bugs me most about intel is the pentium 4 lies had friends at odds as some believed intels propaganda and were vieamently defending the propaganda even tho side by side tests vs amd were telling and obvious that intel sold a bag of lies in the amd 64 v pentium 4 era even "Core Series cpus" were actually a Step backward using and altering Pentium 3 mobile architecture abandoning pentium 4s dead end
@@homelessEh I remember exactly what you are describing
@@homelessEh Nvidia is doing the same thing with their 8GB graphics cards, newer games are using more than 8GB Vram, even at 1080p max settings
9:15 love this smart ass comment 😂
Great video! I always knew my good old FX-8320 was and STILL is a gem all these years later, despite what those other guys say about the FX series. I built my pc in early 2014, overclocked right away to 4.2GHz where it has stayed the entire time, and it STILL plays ANY game I've thrown at it today at more than comfortable FPS, maybe not the highest settings, but absolutely playable. I got the CPU for $120 and it still has great performance 7 years later.... I think that's a win.
If you got that thing for $120, that's definitely a win.
@UnityTechFuture That game doesn't run that well on these CPUs. I expect the game to be more unplayable on the i3-7100 though compared to the FX-8350.
8350 wasnt the fastest, it was a workhorse. ran mine old machine for nearly 8 yrs. OC on air. no issues multitasking.
Still got my fx8350 here, been running it underclocked and undervolted for a long time for longevity, occasionally cranking it back up for newer games.
What screwed me over was my penchant to play old shit, i keep playing and modding games which need that strong single core performance, because said games don't even see the other 7 cores the fx8350 has, but then the one core the game sees is a sluggish piece o crap that makes mobile processors look decent.
What's great but also infuriating is that i can play more modern titles just fine with this here FX, like red dead II and the likes, but some of the older bethesda games just chug along and stutter about.
An intel would have server me better for this particular case, but then again, i'd be screwed over anything else!
Great video my friend I will be waiting for the next update
Really hope your channel grows, love your content and respect the fact that u stood your ground amid some of your 'controversial' tests.
Keep it up
I love your videos. You always play devil's advocate for the AMD FX, and it's shown me it's not as bad as everyone used to say. People need to get out of the mentality of "AMD FX IS BAD BECAUSE FX!!!"
Also, I just realized, AMD made the FX-9590 2.0 XD "Ryzen 9 5950X" sure may JUST not get up to 5GHz, but it's super close at 4.9, but it doesn't need it, with how good the IPC is
Faaaaaack I got a heart and I didn't realize until after I edited my comment XD rip me I guess XD
i watched the fx 8350 vs videos and reaction video back when they came out. Really glad to see you follow through man. its sad you haven't uploaded in so long, but understandable. I'm not sure if either Steve has made a sequel or another response, but I hope you guys have been able to reconcile. Keep up the good work
I just found out about this GN/HUB thing and watched your videos about it. I'm definitely on your side. Some months ago I actually ran some games with 2 cores/4 threads on my 1600AF@3.8ghz . This is because I had my other 4 cores/8 threads doing AI image upscaling. The only games that ran well on 2 cores were Codemasters titles, which are very well optimized and run well even on my retired Phenom II X4 955 rig. Every other new-ish(newer than 2015) game I tried with 2 cores was a stuttery disaster. There is simply no way for a 3000G(339 single core Cinebench R20) or G5500(353 single core CB R20) to have a minimum of 30fps when my 3.8ghz 1600AF(393 single core CB R20) running games with 2c/4t was sometimes dipping below 20fps, considering the stuttering I was seeing. I have no idea how Gamers Nexus and Hardware Unboxed tested those 2 core CPUs and the FX CPUs. You got a new sub👌.
Thanks for the feedback!
To be fair, their dual core results are actually fine, it's the FX results that are absolutely terrible.
hey, I've discovered you're channel recently and just came across this serie of videos, and I feel like it's really great work and thanks to show up the actual advantages of fx which really carry a terrible reputation, carry on !
It amazes me that so many channels would discount the FX chip, it isn't the most powerful in single core results, but it doesn't have to be, it has more cores working at the same time on the same computations, what the hell is difficult about understanding that concept!!!
Thanks for the info. Still rocking an FX 8350/980Ti and while the platform is old, i have never had an issue and is smooth in day to day use. Never got this usage out of a cpu, ever.
This makes me wonder if gamers nexus and hardware unboxed actually test all scenarios or just use some data they have to "extrapolate" the results to save time. I feel like they have to be doing that in order to get results that differ this much from results like these. Thank you for these videos. It opened my eyes
I mean this video does show that the 2core intel CPU has in most scenarios near identical performance to the much more powerhungry FX flagship.
Good vid! i appreciate your work!
I glad someone knows how to do their job properly. :)
Can't wait to see fx run some next gen/ps5 titles.
Just commenting before watching the vid, i have joined your discord and i really like your testing on these cpus. In fact i much prefer cpu benchmarks than gpu, since gpu's usually are much more consistent and straight to the point(more predictable), while cpus are entirely different. Core count, per core latency, core cache, core architecture plays huge role on benchmark results. Many games reacts differently to different cpus that is why sometimes we need deeper dive than just bench 20games on 5 different cpus in one video(i know its a lot of work and props to HWU, GM and other similar reviewers).
So yeah after watching the vid basically nothing new since your last investigation on this. Just as i said really like your videos :D just sad they come only every couple of months...
judging that the video card you've selected is a Geforce that has a Software scheduler, it would perform weaker on cpu's that are maxing out. While your data looks pretty definitive, I would suggest running these tests with a Radeon graphics card that had a hardware scheduler, that will let the two cpu's compete a bit more fairly. I agree that the 8350 shoudl run smoother, but since it has more cores that can handle the Graphics card scheduling better than the 2 core cpu could, the GEFORCE is actually introducing some performance imparements.
I owned a 8350 ,first with 2 geforce 970's , and then a 1080Ti. I never understood the hate for the fx cpu. the cpu wasnt the fastest, but it could easily tear through some pretty demanding games. While Ryzen is unsuprisingly superior to fx, FX was like a Literal Bulldozer, it may not go as fast as an Intel "indy car" but when you start putting loads on that indy car, and the bulldozer, the bulldozer didnt slow down.
I wouldn't say that using a Radeon GPU would be a realistic decision, since the majority are using Nvidia graphics cards, though it would definitely be interesting to see what would happen if I used something like an RX 5700 XT. I'm guessing the i3 would perform a bit better with a Radeon GPU in some titles cause it would give it some more breathing room, yet let's not forget that many modern games still care a lot about cores. I'm pretty sure that the frame time inconsistencies would still happen on a 2C/4T processor in Division 2, Apex Legends, Forza Horizon 4, Battlefield 4 etc, even if there's extra CPU headroom.
Great video as always.
Thank you!
Subscribed.
This is well done!
Please show you background tasks aswell tho, so you stay in clear of what is an arguement against what is running in the background
Thanks!
Both systems only had MSI Afterburner & Riva Tuner running in the background for the overlay, both of which don't impact performance at all.
@@RATechYT I know,
But it would keep you in the safezone, as some people might use it as an argument.
Most of FX benchmarks from big UA-cam tech channels I believe is made with non optimized OC settings. I used a FX 6300 with low end Asus M5A78L-M LX mobo, and even with this mobo I extracted good performance from this CPU. If you fine tune the OC settings, like RAM Speed, Uncore (NB and HT) besides CPU clock, you can get the max performance of this CPUs.
Overclocking FX isn't really necessary IMO, even at stock AMD FX isn't that bad.
Edit: Obviously nowadays you want to overclock it as much as possible to be able to play intensive games, but you get the point.
They’re probably done at the behest of the CPU manufacturers themselves to make the competition look bad. Heck, I won’t even be surprised if AMD themselves WANTS the FX lineup look bad so consumers are going to be manipulated to buy the latest Ryzen CPUs. Remember that at the end of the day, these are companies and all they care about is their bottom line.
@@Incubator859 In their comparisons the R5 1400 was matching the i5 2500K, so these were clearly benefiting intel.
Just 11 minutes and holy shît it’s amazing a decade old cpu has no problem running modern games today. I have a fx-8350 and you just convinced me not to upgrade my cpu for a few more years. If a stock fx-8350 can do all these things and beat a modern 2c/4t CPU from intel, imagine if you overclocked that beast. I’m squeezing more out of my cpu and not worry about upgrading for more years to come.
If it does the job for you keep it, unless you find a good deal on some components; better wait for the next generation before upgrading since amd will release a new socket and Intel may actually use a newer silicon processing node instead of adding another plus to the 14nm.
Keep on doing your videos and reviews, they are great at showing the actual potential of these cpus. I had always certain problems seeing suspicious reviews of the FX cpus compared to lower core count cpus from the bigger tech-youtubers. I had way better experiences using the FX 83xx cpus, than what is sometimes shown in certain reviews (like better frametimes in more demanding games and an overall smoother experience, while having other programs running in the background). The people for whom i've build a pc with FX 83xx cpus for cheap never complained about stuttering, while on the other hand people for whom i've build core i5 (4 cores) pcs had issues with more demanding games until they upgraded to an i7 (4c, 8t). Some tips about getting the most performance out of the FX cpus i've got from an russian youtube channel (game one), who compared the FX to certain intel cpus and his results were similar to what you've shown in your videos.
While i watch Hardware Unboxed and GamersNexus from time to time for the tech news, i still distrust their hardware reviews.
I love game one. Wish they kept uploading.
@@RATechYT Yeah, they had honestly reviewed in heavier areas of games to show the differences in frametimes. And their "50 shades of red" was a really helpful to understand on how the FX cpus work (now, that i think of it, i should rewatch it). Would be cool to see another video from them.
Transparent tests and results . Now if we can get more videos it would be appreciated
Nice job, my friend! Nice job!
I enjoy your videos, and that's another nice one. Any chance you could do some benchmarks with an AMD GPU, just to see if the dual core can survive better when not tasked by CPU-heavy GPU drivers?
I'll definitely be doing that in the near future.
Hi, love your video. i have the FX8320 Undervolt 4.5 @1.36 volt using low LLC (load line calibration) with stock cooler. This cpu blow my mind even today....the temp are insanely low... idle 11c and load 40c
If you have ErP in your motherboard turn it on
damn you deserve more follower.
love your channel. I love my fx processor. I'm playing all my games (rdr2.,gta5,forza h4, days gone, etc..) with my fx8320 o. c to 4.3ghz.16gb ram and rx580 8gb.i don't need to upgrade for now for playing at 1080p. I dislike the other youtube rs that tells that fx processor are a total waste as im using mine with better framerate than some of my friends with i5 i7 Intel processors.
yes bro i agree but what about power consuption, thermals and futureproofing. fx cant run windows 11 and it may be ok for 2 to 3 years.
yes bro i agree but what about power consuption, thermals and futureproofing. fx cant run windows 11 and it may be ok for 2 to 3 years.
@@nandhinisr3443 windows 10 will have update to 2025 not a problem
@@nandhinisr3443 there is a way to pass to get windows 11 without the sTpm 2.0
Same here undervolted and oc Rx580 with fx-8350@4.3GHz undervolted cpu core 1.2875V cpu nb 1.35V, NB 2600MHz, HT 2200MHz, DDR3-2133 RAM ,990FX MB, turned off APM, turned off boost, enabled slight LLC. It's solid oc and much better temperatures at high loads with undervolted cpu and the new CPU cooler Vetroo V5. I was going to skip AM4 completely but I got a brand new R5 5600x and B550 Steel Legend well under msrp so it was too hard to pass and also AM5 won't be here till 2022.
SHOTS FIRED
You have gained a lot of respect from me. These are real world test unlike other people I will not mention. I have been using the 8350 since it was released. People wondered why such and old cpu was was almost on par with intel's newer cpus or better then the duel core cpus. It's a very good cpu line other then power consumption but that doesn't really matter much to me. I still use this cpu to this day because it has never failed me.
FX 8350 would only be considered "bad" compared to an anomaly like the Core i7-2600K, my i7-4700MQ is also another anomaly, i can get faster perfomance than the 2600K at stock at less than a half of the power consumption (i7-4700MQ is Haswell, with higher IPC and smaller transistors).
Core i7's back then were so good and they shouldn't exist. Then Skylake happened and we had stagnation.
I suggest asking for TechTubers that actually caters to low budget gamers like TechYes, PhilsComputerLab and RandomGamingHD on what's their take on old FX CPUs versus modern dual core CPUs.
Steve from Hardware Unboxed made another video with the FX included have you checked it out yet? Just curious.
Good on you - stand up and have your voice heard when you know something is not the way someone else says it is. It might "only" be about CPU performance, but it's a good habit to be in. It's a general consensus from most FX-8xxx users that they're holding up well for the most part, if you're happy to drop a few settings when necessary. I don't think those guys really listen to the comments they get, and unfortunate that they also really don't respond well to constructive criticism either.
been following your channel ever since i started learning about pc`s 3 months ago and because of you i started off with the fx series and still use them. as mentioned in the vid them so called tubers are talking nothing but bollocks!!! plain and simple. the comparisons speak for themselves and also games have been utilizing more cores for years but there gimmicky benchmarks arnt as in depth as they should be. think this video has proved a massive point. people should not be afraid to use a amd fx build to game on and these days you can pick them up cheap. would always choose a fx over a dualcore anyday.... keep the videos coming
Wish AMD did not drop the support for the Fury cards, I wanted to get one or two for cheep to make some workstations with them.
They're probably still good for workstation tasks. It really depends on your workload.
Yeah, I bought my Sapphire Fury in 2016 and lost support within 5 years on a FLAGSHIP card
@@livingthedream915 yeah man, seems like AMD is really trying to piss off their user base. I will never buy Radeon GPUs from now on. I have a Fury X and a Fury, both are now essentially EOL.
I cry of happiness, great great video.
I used FX-6200 and only upgraded to ryzen R7 1700 and if you think about it reception of ryzen was the same story as FX.
Would love to see first gen Ryzen 1800x vs 7700k. How well did it age.
Id like this to be redone but vs the Pentium g7400 and newest athlons and then do it with the FX8350 OCd to see the differences.
Good video as ever.
Funny there is one bottleneck on the system - the Nvidia GPU offloading scheduling on the CPUs. And the one that would suffer more from this is... the i3, as it's maxing out everytime.
However retesting with a Radeon GPU to prove the point that FX beats anything with less threads is pointless - you gave us enough proof of this already. Whoever doesn't believe this better sit on their i3s.
Thanks for spending the time to point out what we've been thinking for awhile!
Can't do anything about the GPU for now unfortunately. I'd love to retest using a Radeon graphics card myself.
nvidia scheduling gpu instructions on the cpu is a myth. they dropped the big fermi instruction scheduler because it wasn't necessary (fixed instruction latency from maxwell going forward). compiler just emits latency hints for the hardware, it isn't scheduling instructions. it wouldn't be possible to schedule that many instructions fast enough on the cpu anyway.
Good to see you give the Piledriver based chips some much needed time in the sun, but what about Bulldozer? Think they should be given another look, too?
I'd be interested in FX tests using DXVK if you don't mind.
Thanks for the great vid and all your other FX content. I'm using your 220 fsb over clock settings right now for 4.5 CPU 2000 ram and 2420 CPU NB just wondered what you were running the HT link. Same as CPU NB or multi left at 13 meaning 2860. Thanks in advance
You can set it to the same frequency as the NB.
Great video man. Thanks.
I am curious about video about FX vs. Nehalem Quad-core CPUs (like i7 920 and such).
I'll be getting a first gen core i7 sooner or later.
I know for a fact my i7 920 @3.2ghz performs about the same as FX @5.0ghz
@@itzamedave6242 It isn't.
@@itzamedave6242 That's not true. The i7 920 does have better IPC, because of which at ~3.7 GHz it delivers the same single core as a 4.7 GHz FX-8350, but even with the 8 core FX at stock the 3.7 GHz i7 won't be able to beat it across the board. At 3.2 GHz the Intel processor will only match a *stock* FX-8350 in single core.
@@RATechYT I can't disagree great video
It is what I told them so many times back then but they can't figure out: "it all depends on the testing software, if it does or doesn't need more cores".
Что ж, потанцевал раскрыт, господа!
I have been running a FX-8350 @4.4ghz with a r9 270x 4G since 2013 and it has been a solid performer. And I have been playing GTA V, Hitman 2, Assassin's Creed Origins, and Just Cause 4 without issue. It was mid 2000 that it started to show it's age and I updated to a Ryzen 3700x/6700XT (pre covid market price hits). But I still have the machine running 24/7.
They gripe people have is that it's not a true 8 core with each core having it's own resources, each 2 cores (of 8) share resources between them so theoretically its like a Hybrid 8/4 core, but it all depends on work it's doing, it does straight up integer processing using 8 cores, but any FPU instructions are done with only 4 cores, is the laymans way to explain it. And people felt they were being lied to, and also lead to the lawsuit against AMD.
Would be interesting to see the FX 8350 vs i5 6500, FX 8350 vs i5 7400/7500, FX 8350 vs overclocked 2500K/3570K/4670K/4690K/6600K/7600K, FX 8350 vs i7 2600K/3770K/4770K/4790K/6700K/7700K, FX 8350 vs Ryzen 3 1200.... etc
A few of those are happening for sure.
Happened to use few times a pc with an i5-6600 (not k) 3.3 GHz with boost up to 3.9 and at the time in some workloads, like computational heavy raw image denoise, it performed like my 8320 at 4.2 GHz.
In games like rage 2 and fallout 4 I think it had a slightly higher CPU usage for similar frame rate, but it may also be because of inefficient use of cores (especially for fallout 4, rage 2 may benefit from more than 4 cores)
I had an i5 6400 before and I changed to a fx 8320e which is better performance even if it is an old processor.
@@leoneldeleon6311 The 'E' processors should achieve a very good overclock, and also have an higher safe temperature than the non 'E' serie, 70°C or a bit more vs 61°C, if your cooling capabilities and the motherboard are up to the task 5.0 GHz may be possible
how about a supermicro socket g34 MOBO (since you can overclock them with modded bios) and/or maybe a socket g34 engineering sample vs those other cpu's? it would give us an idea what it might have been like if amd had committed to a HEDT platform back then.
Where can I find the reactions of HWU and GN?
I started watching your content more than 1 year ago. I really appreciate your way of doing it!
PS: you know now what you have to do awful content creator...
As someone who started building computers in about 2004 I learned a long time ago that you can get very skewed results with synthetic benchmarks and the ones you choose to run. So I can understand how running a few benchmarks like that can create an impression that just doesn't line up with real world usage.
So much respect for going about it in a manner that is more reflective of the actual use case of the systems being discussed.
At this very moment I'm watching this video, building a Windows 11 ISO file, and running a number of other apps in the background; my FX8350 isn't even breaking a sweat. If I get around to it, I'll do some game tests...
I’ve had an 8320e and now an 8350 . I’ve gamed on it for years with no issues no complaints I also have an I7 4770 and yes it is stronger but I still enjoy getting on my am3 board and having some fun. , kinda making me want to do some modifications to that pc now lol.
I own an fx9590 , and it runs any game that I put on it. Also handles heavy FL Studio sessions , so I really don't know why people take it so hard trying to prove how bad they are. I'm glad that you proved them wrong. Thanks for your work.
The only bad thing about them is their IPC and efficency.
I have a laptop Intel Core i7-4700MQ and it's a beast between 30 and 45 watts.
It's an emulation monster too in Citra 3DS emulator way below 1080p, single core perfomance is similar to a Ryzen 7 1700, with 400MHz more for the boost clocks, it would be the same. I run this at 3.4GHz almost around 1 volt or 0.9 volts, it's an anomaly of a CPU, more efficient than a i7-2600K.
thats why i always stress that core count does matter and today most games it does, games like shadow of the tomb raider and division 2 is the sweet example and with my 2600 i get bad frametime spike specially at village area unless i lock the fps because once i get use over 80% cpu usages i notice some frametime stutter where 8 core 16 thread will smooth out in those area even a 1800x or 1700x will do better then my ryzen 2600 since i have a 768p monitor which is pretty cpu heavy resolution and i love your test overall, honestly im not a fan of any of them but sometimes i dnt relay on graph rather then gameplay footage
Can you make a comparison of the r5 1600 vs the i3 8100?
When they came out the i3 was considered to be the top dog in gaming.
Today Im not even sure if the quadcore can run games like cyberpunk or RDR2.
Interesting since GN Steve claims his personal PC has an AMD FX in it.
It indeed is interesting, since I've also used an FX-8350 in my personal PC since 2013.
In a recent video, he didn't even know what model of FX he had in that machine..... wonder what that says about his level of understanding of FX is .
I'm currently using a Ryzen 7 7700x but I still have a FX-8300 PC running dual OS (Windows XP and Windows 7) even though I always use it to play some XP era game.
Any chance you could do a comp vs the i7-2600 or similar, maybe tap one of your friends for stats from the i7? The reason being is that there is an 8350 for sale here locally in Australia for about the same price as i7-2600 non-K. Both CPUs are around $75 aud mark. To be honest, I was really surprised that the 8350 outperformed the i5 from the Ivy Bridge series, I really thought that the 4 cores would outdo a pseudo 8 cores. But how about the 4c 8t from 2012?
Quick question, in your original guide for overclocking the 8350 you went for 226 on the fsb but on this video you have it set at 220 - just wondered why, thanks in advance
It's because previously I used different memory sticks. Setting the BCLK to 226 with the current memory that I have makes the system unstable.
I like this guy's channel.
noticed you haven't dropped a video in a while, hope all is well!
All good, thanks!
I like doing tests like this and in my computer graveyard i have a gigabyte gtx 1080sc, 32 gigs kingston hyper x 1866mhz ram, FX-4350 and 8120, with a Asrock 970m pro3 mobo. Question is to use the 4350 or will the 8120 be better with a OC it is a bad chip and not wanting to spend 130$ on a 8370 since it's old tech.
Can you review the A10-6800K please?
I have one paired with a GTX 1050 Ti (Gigabyte G1 Gaming 4G) and 16GB of RAM @ 1866MHz
I used to game on a fx 6300 with i upgraded to a fx 8350 for about 3 years and I loved it. I upgraded my system to a r 5 3600 and realized that the 8350 was enough for my daily gaming and work set up 😅
Vishera 8XXX has had a much longer run as a viable main rig than most of my machines. From the 286, 486, 200 mhz p2, 733 pIII, 2500+ Barton, Fx 55 and dual core opteron 939's most were really handicapping my user experience within 3 to 5 years of purchase. Even with a couple of Ryzen 8 core 16 thread machines in the house, I often find myself on one of my FX machines with no real compelling reason to switch at age 10 .
How big was the leap to R5 3600 in games tho?
@@erikbritz8095 It's nice to have, especially for strategy games where you can't parallelize many of the tasks so single core performance becomes more important. And in other titles you may not hit 60 FPS constantly even at 1080p with 8350 because you are CPU bottlenecked.
Can you test the i7 920 today. overclock it etc
thanks
Which is the best motherboard for i3 7100t
in shadow of tomb raider happen the same with quadcore like i5 4690k ,in the last part of the benchmark
All valid. But - comparison between a top line part against low tier I3. The only saving grace is 'cheap'. The platform issue was really if you have a 4/8 intel part and start the overclock it only has the cheap benefit really. And thats before the juice and heat issue. Its still not bad. I'd take one if I needed a box.
All this being said, X99 with many core xeons + ram are sub 100£ today, so if we want to talk cheap platforms + cores, they are bang on.
good vid
As someone who used an 8xx0 as a daily driver since they became available, and built i5 systems for family and friends for 'reasons', I can easily say the noticeable difference just isn't there unless you're analyzing the minutia. Raw benchmarks aside, day to day multitasking tends to be smoother with more cores, hence my sticking with the higher core count until there was an appreciably placed replacement in the Ryzen series. Most people aren't using the absolute raw throughput of each core, full speed ahead, 24 hours a day. I went from an 8xx0 to a 1700 happily overspun to 3.8, until I gave my 8xx0 to a friend to watch Netflix in his cave with, until this year, when I finally installed a 5800 x3D into my original Ryzen motherboard. Couldn't get that kind of mileage out of Intel, mostly because that jack wagon of a company didn't want one to.
I've had problems with how HU has handled situations in the past. Not to say they don't make quality content and do a great job in a lot of areas, but one area they absolutely are horrendous in is reacting to them being questioned. They should be happy if someone get's different results than them, because that allows them access to additional information. What they should have done is offer to get together and collaborate or at least ask to see all of your data to compare to their own. If I was putting out information that was potentially wrong and misleading, I would want to see where I was possibly wrong and analyze the new data. What they did, instead, is belittle and put down, sounding like the big corporate entities they say they try to keep in check. Keep up the good work!
One item I notice in a lot of comparisons is that often they don't tend to run the game themselves but instead run the game's benchmark test. It appears as if RA Tech actually plays the games.
I do spent some time playing each game that I test to understand how demanding a game can be and which areas need to be tested. That also helps me understand whether the built in benchmark is reliable compared to actually playing the game.
Still rocking my 8350 upgrading to a 8370
How did you play very well even if you benchmark computers?
I like playing games from time to time.
did either of them ever apologize?
I replaced my FX PC last year but still have it up and running for testing. It has an 8320e overclocked to 4.2Ghz, 16GB RAM and a GTX 1650 GDDR6 OC. It is able to run all the new games I have tried on it including the new Spider-Man remastered. The 1650 seems to be well balanced with the processor's performance. It definitely surprises me to see how it performs with modern games.