CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › IT › Hardware › Desktops › FX-8000 series vs. Intel Core i5: Which is better?

FX-8000 series vs. Intel Core i5: Which is better?

Started by Alexander Moore67 · · 👁 5 views · 25 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Alexander Moore67Robert Rodriguez2Kimberly Gomez34fadedorca66Anthony Hayes82Gerald Ward492crimsonstag84Michael Jackson10William Richardson12
Anthony Hayes82 Anthony Hayes82 Member
19 messages
joined Nov 2015
#21 ·
Alexander Moore67 said:How many people asking for buying advice are actually going to drop serious cash? And how much do they even know? In my opinion, less than 5% of those seeking help have any clue what they're talking about. That’s why it’s an Intel Core i5-4460 right now, but once the price on the upcoming Intel Core i5-6500 settles down, it'll be a great move.

Fair point. Maybe us 5% who actually know our stuff should just start a business and charge those people for helping them figure out how to overclock... 😁

Hey, why not? Might be a decent little side hustle. 👏
Michael Jackson10 Michael Jackson10 Active Member
140 messages
joined Feb 2023
#22 ·
Anthony Hayes82 said:
To prevent a pointless debate, I just put both builds together. When people are playing multiplayer, the i5 definitely eats the FX for breakfast.

Hmm, maybe if you're just running everything at stock settings. I have an FX 8300, and from what I've noticed, that CPU basically fights against itself when the BIOS is left on the default settings. For me, Grand Theft Auto V would stutter even on medium settings because of unnecessary CPU throttling. The load was only at 50%, and the gap to Tmax was only about 35°C. And don't even get me started on the voltage—it was hitting 1.4V per core.

After messing around with the BIOS, I managed to bump it up nicely from 3.3GHz to 4.0GHz. I set the voltage to 1.32V, and under load, it even dips down to 1.296V. I ran Prime for an hour, and it stayed perfectly stable. The gameplay improved significantly, giving me about 15 extra FPS, which actually let me turn the graphics settings up a bit. Not to mention the boost in performance during multi-threaded tasks like After Effects.

And speaking of heavy lifting, I can play a multiplayer game and record in 720p simultaneously with the FX without any noticeable FPS drops. I think the FX still holds an advantage with those 8 cores, since roughly 4 are handling the game while the other 4 stay free.

So, it isn't enough to just cram a good processor into a build; you have to know how to squeeze out the best performance possible.

As for the 95W TDP, honestly, at 4GHz and 1.32V, my LC-CC-120 handles it easily, provided the room temperature is around 68°F and the case has decent airflow—which is way more important.

Now, as for whether the actual power draw of the processor hits 125W? I haven't a clue. 🤷

By pure coincidence, I know of one setup running an AMD FX-8300. I'm not sure about the motherboard, but it's likely an ASRock. It’s got 8 GB of RAM, a Kingston Technology SSD (probably HyperX), and some mid-range graphics card. The power supply and case are total overkill, though, because it was originally meant to be some kind of office server: light software, web browsing, and a basic home-grade internal security camera app (which doesn't even work).
Right now, it’s being used as an average office PC. Those programs ran perfectly fine on an Intel Core 2 Duo, and on an i3 build with that same software package, the CPU stays mostly idle or barely breaks a sweat...
But on this AMD FX build, the system sporadically "freezes." Usually, there's just one program open, a browser with 3 or 4 tabs, and occasionally an email client. Everything runs smooth for a while, and then suddenly the whole thing just "freezes" for a second or two, or even the simplest task lags out... The problem is that installing all this business software isn't exactly easy, so there's no room to experiment or try reinstalling everything. There's a chance the initial setup just didn't go perfectly.
The fact remains that the computer works flawlessly most of the time, and then these sporadic "ice ages" happen. It feels more like something you'd see on a single-core processor getting choked by a bunch of threads, yet this chip should have plenty of breathing room. And there's no pattern to it either: "I did this, and then I noticed *this* specific task caused a lag"... It's seriously mysterious...

Anthony Hayes82 said:Fair point. Maybe us 5% who actually know our stuff should just start a business and charge those people for helping them figure out how to overclock... 😁

Hey, why not? Might be a decent little side hustle. 👏

Go for it! In this country, entrepreneurship is practically its own national pastime. You get your small business license for about $190, pay a few bucks in taxes... sounds like a pretty great initiative to me...
Kimberly Gomez34 Kimberly Gomez34 Regular
686 messages
joined Jul 2009
#23 ·
crimsonstag84 said:A buddy of mine was running an MSI 990FXA-GD65 paired with an FX 8120 on an H90. The VRMs were hitting 92°C at 1.35V and 4.3GHz, which caused everything to freeze up just three minutes into a Prime95 test because of some massive vDroop. I guess ASRock and MSI really struggled with their AM3+ boards.

We eventually managed to get it somewhat stable at 4.1GHz, though even that felt like pushing it. He was using an Antec case.

That budget DS3P will absolutely crush it.😁

This experience lines up perfectly with this:

(regarding AM3+ motherboard threads):

Stick with Gigabyte and stay away from MSI. I have their MSI 990 FXA-GD80, which is supposedly their top-tier board, but it’s total garbage. If their flagship is this bad, imagine how much worse the GD65 is. I'm done with MSI...

I owned that junk 990FXA-GD80; the board is stunningly beautiful—honestly maybe one of the best-looking AM3+ boards ever—but the voltage cap is stuck at 1.45, and even if it works at 1.450, it drops to 1.390. Since there's no LLC, I decided to just cut my losses and grab a Gigabyte.

I had a 990FXA-GD80 and it was a disaster... massive vDrop, voltage capped at 1.45 so you can't go any higher, unstable, etc. Just a mountain of bad experiences.

For me, the MSI FXA-UD3 and the ASUS M5A99X EVO have been perfect.

Here is one of the results:

http://valid.canardpc.com/2657011

😵

Look at these ASUS M5A97 EVO R2.0 boards that went for about $110:

View on imgur

More feedback here: click

Check out these MSI boards that are supposed to compete with the DS3P (the G43 and G46).

(Sections include: Phase count, Heatsink?, CPU TDP support, Recommended, Known issues, VRM protection)

image

Stock settings:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/...0-970a-warning



These boards simply aren't high enough quality to handle 125W processors, or even 95W ones. Best to just avoid them entirely.
William Richardson12 William Richardson12 Regular
301 messages
joined Aug 2014
#24 ·
So, I've got an AMD FX-8350 and an ASUS M5A99X running perfectly on a Corsair CX750 😁

All that's left is tackling the overclocking... haven't really felt like getting into it yet. Once that's done, we'll see what this rig can actually do.

Bottom line? I'm pretty damn happy with it.
Kimberly Gomez34 Kimberly Gomez34 Regular
686 messages
joined Jul 2009
#25 ·
Michael Jackson10 said:By pure coincidence, I know of one setup running an AMD FX-8300. I'm not sure about the motherboard, but it's likely an ASRock. It’s got 8 GB of RAM, a Kingston Technology SSD (probably HyperX), and some mid-range graphics card. The power supply and case are total overkill, though, because it was originally meant to be some kind of office server: light software, web browsing, and a basic home-grade internal security camera app (which doesn't even work).
Right now, it’s being used as an average office PC. Those programs ran perfectly fine on an Intel Core 2 Duo, and on an i3 build with that same software package, the CPU stays mostly idle or barely breaks a sweat...
But on this AMD FX build, the system sporadically "freezes." Usually, there's just one program open, a browser with 3 or 4 tabs, and occasionally an email client. Everything runs smooth for a while, and then suddenly the whole thing just "freezes" for a second or two, or even the simplest task lags out... The problem is that installing all this business software isn't exactly easy, so there's no room to experiment or try reinstalling everything. There's a chance the initial setup just didn't go perfectly.
The fact remains that the computer works flawlessly most of the time, and then these sporadic "ice ages" happen. It feels more like something you'd see on a single-core processor getting choked by a bunch of threads, yet this chip should have plenty of breathing room. And there's no pattern to it either: "I did this, and then I noticed *this* specific task caused a lag"... It's seriously mysterious...

Go for it! In this country, entrepreneurship is practically its own national pastime. You get your small business license for about $190, pay a few bucks in taxes... sounds like a pretty great initiative to me...

It could be one of two things:

- Turn off "Cool and Quiet." Sometimes specific RAM modules just don't play nice with certain motherboards. Watch out, this kind of nonsense happens due to compatibility issues.

- If the motherboard is absolute junk, it might be messing with the turbo boost (pushing high voltages unexpectedly).

That's the only thing I can think of regarding potential processor-related issues.
Alexander Moore67 Alexander Moore67 Active MemberOP
137 messages
joined Jun 2013
#26 ·
The processor is half the price, but people just love to make a scene and turn motherboard compatibility issues into some kind of circus.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads