FX-8350

>>61200426
It's future proof. Game devs, software copanies will be focusing on more cores.

Look you history rewriting shit I was calling this mediocre back when it was released.

The price is low for now, but It'll go up after production ceases.

>>61200509
Those hardware review sites are Intel shills.

>>61200426
>lulldozer
Just bury it already.

In gayms the much cheaper g4560 performs way better
If you use something that utilizes coars you're not going to buy this outdated pile of flaming shit, it's much slower even than a 1400

The architecture was just shit, an "8 core" 8150 couldnt even beat the 2600. Stuff is slightly better optimized for it "now" but the single core performance is so bad that you'd be better off of with a 1400.

>>61200426
It isn't. The best value CPU is a tossup between the Intel Pentium G4560 or the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 6 core CPU
The Ryzen takes the lead if you get is under $200 since you would pay less per core than with the Pentium.

>>61200426
No, and it's not even close.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html

>>61201041
Uh, being 13th on a list of the top 100 best value CPUs counts as being close, friend. Especially when two other differently-clocked variants of the exact same chip are in the top ten.

>>61201041
>trashmark

>>61201204
Not an argument.

>>61201258
1800X vs 6900K : very close results http://imgur.com/a/wMm1C

1800X vs 6900K on pissmark : ridiculous amounts of bias http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2966&cmp[]=2794

>>61200426
`no'

>>61201343
You realize benchmark scores don't directly translate to fps differences right?

>>61201699
Who said anything about FPS? There's a lot more results in that link than just games.

Lol fags talking about these cpu's and fps. If you want 60fps max graphics take any ryzen or any 2-7gen core cpu and max graphics card budged, and i guarantee game will look much better than if you spend more than half of your budged on cpu. Honestly 1600 is probably best bang for buck right now for 60-100fps gaming at any resolution. And considering mobo+1600 cost around 300$, its much cheaper than even 7600k, while having +8threads.

Replaced mine with a Ryzen 1700 because of a dying board
But is was a pretty good CPU

>>61201845
>2-7 gen corelet cpu
Away with ye shill

>>61200426
>amdtards are now trying to make faildozer look good
Kill yourself you retarded piece of shit.

>>61200426
Is this one of AMD's famous 8"""core""" CPUs that's really 4 cores?

>>61200426
>Why is the AMD© FX-8350 Black Edition 'Vishera' 8-Core 4.0 GHz (4.2 GHz Turbo) the best value on the market?
The fx-8320 is a better value, since it's exactly the same CPU, except with a lower clockspeed, yet sells for less. It's unlocked so you can just overclock it.

File: 1413377124589.jpg (262KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 600x800px

still rocking fx 6350
with 16gb ram and gtx 660
feels comfy sempai tachi

>>61202719
i specifically write that ryzen is literally the buy, but im the shill? srsly kill yourself stupid fagot

>>61202799
Was wanting to get a fx6350 for 40 bucks.. still doubting if i should tho. Have a x2 250 dual core for like 5 years now

>>61202848
Worth it.

File: Capture32.png (32KB, 698x418px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 698x418px

>>61200426
had mine pretty much since release and I've never had any issues with it.

>>61202828
>amd fanboys are retarded
news at 11

>>61202799

FX-6300 here with 8GB and RX 480. I don't really play AAAs (closest I get is GTA5) so it's more than doing its job still after 4 years now.

>>61202769
Yes

>>61203000
I have same CPU with r9 290x and it runs everything fine so far.

File: photo.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>61202848

id say save money and get ryzen, even 1400 will be much better
but my fx6350 runs 2x1080p monitors and 1x1440p playing games on 1440p without any problems, content consumption, browsing etc...

>>61203201
>lol
kys my man

>>61202769
>>61203040
4 modules each with 2 integer units but only one floating point. So 8 core if integer operations and quad core if floating point. Windows treats it as a quad core with hyperthreading.

File: 7899198-Older-man-having-fun-with-computer-game-smiling-happily--Stock-Photo.jpg (119KB, 866x1300px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 866x1300px

>>61201041
>https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html
TFW still on my FX-6300 which is 4th on the list.

File: 1499106880.png (3KB, 294x13px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 294x13px

>>61203201
>>61203000
>>61202848
>>61202799
Yes

File: 1498685119018.jpg (55KB, 555x555px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 555x555px

>>61200426
>the best value on the market

Only as an upgrade or if you bought it on release

>>61204564
>Only as an upgrade or if you bought it on release
Price has dropped since release.

Any good cooler for it?

File: Liquid_oxygen,_Bagram_Airfield,_Afghanistan_4.jpg (102KB, 1280x852px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1280x852px

>>61204696

>>61202769
8 cores that share some resources like cache, decoding, and FPU.
It's not hyperthreading because in HT, you just have two *states* sharing all resources (which goes beyond just FPUs, Integer units, cache, etc), and just acts on one state when adequate resources aren't available for the other or when prerequisite data isn't ready yet.
BTW: Each module *does* have to FPUs... they're just each 128 bit and end up acting as one FPU when you want to do greater than 128 bit FP (I believe there is some overhead, as it shares a scheduler).
Each module has some of its own branch prediction resources, interfaces to shared cache, some of its own cache, some schedulers, and other stuff I don't understand enough.

It's unfair to say they're not cores, but I understand why they're not "full" cores using conventional meaning of the word. Really, there isn't a better word for marketing them -- maybe some day "modules" might be a marketable term, but in the meantime there isn't a good way to communicate "You get like 80% of the benefit of 8 cores."

the only thing I hate about my fx 6350 is heat, like I have 212 EVO installed and it works perfetly fine, but heat from it has to go somewhere, so it sips right into my room, roasting my balls whenever I do something CPU intensive
waiting on moneys so I can get ryzen 1600

I have a Phenom II X6 1090T + 8gb ram and a piss-weak HD6450, is this still good for general use and web browsing on Linux?

>>61205163
I don't know, does it make you want to rip your hair out? Do you really need validation of the internet to decide if something suits your needs and wants?

File: Untitled.png (675KB, 1794x915px) Image search: [Google]

675KB, 1794x915px

>>61205059
I'm on a FX-6300 and deal with the heat by switching between power settings. In Windows you can use power presets and I have my balanced preset set to 99% of max, which will limit the CPU to 3.0GHz and will cause a pretty serious drop in heat output. When doing something of importance just switch it back to the High Performance preset with the 100% max CPU state. I have an shortcut on the desktop to get to it faster.

>>61205213

thx will try

>>61205195
No, but this is an experience/opinion thread about using non-current AMD processors, maybe you would like another thread better?

>>61205059
Yup, eth mining in July in my room. Thank god I have the 8370 instead of the 8350 for when I'm compiling and shit on top of that.

>>61205213

whats your minimum processor state ?

>>61205475
2% for minimum, so it can drop down to like 1.4GHz when it's doing just about nothing.

Also for my power saver mode set to 80%, which limits it to 2.5GHz and a bit more cooling, but is noticeably worse if I try to game at that.

If I don't want to buy a new motherboard (upgrading from an FX-6100, AM3+ mobo), would an 8350 and a GTX 1060 be an okay combo, or would the 8350 be a bottleneck?

>>61205679

depends on the game, generally it would be just fine, at worst it would bottleneck for 2-5%

>>61205679
For Gaming? I don't think so. Currently, you get a few FPS fewer than Intel, but on the flip side, when some background task kicks in unexpectedly you'll drop 10 FPS instead of 20 FPS. The higher core count also lends to having a more stable framerate.

And as games actually start using Vulkan and DX12 and other modern many-core friendly APIs, the 8-core will keep up, and *maybe* might even pull ahead of Intel for the price.

>>61200426
I'm still using my 8300, but not for a normal reason. I bought the MSI 970 Gaming MoBo for it and the MSI GTX 970 Gaming GPU. I refuse to upgrade my CPU until I get a new GPU first because I'm being a faggot over the matching numbers and A E S T H E T I C

>>61200914
>confusing faildozer with vishera
top kek

the cpu is a flop bcos it's really a 4core (module) cpu with 8 "half core" units divised evenly amongst the modules in what's called module groups
tl;dr the cache is worthless, the "half cores" perform so poorly it's worthless, while the modules themselves are worthless until they're clocked to at least 4.5ghz, and is really only worth using if you can get it to 5ghz
which is rare
and fermi tier power sucking, heat producing piece of junk.

the low power states and undervolts/underclocks are insanely efficient though.

>>61205524
>1.4GHz when it's doing just about nothing.
or web browsing, non intensive games..
pretty much anything.
it barely sucks any power in such a state thanks to parked cores.

File: fx8350-270x.jpg (515KB, 2304x1536px) Image search: [Google]

515KB, 2304x1536px

>>61200426
>pic related
i had one op. had it overclocked to 4.4ghz. was alright. did well when things where able to use all of its pseudo 8 cores. depending on the generation, it matched an i5 or i7 in such scenarios. but its single threaded performance wasn't just lackluster. it was awful. i don't give a shit if i have the fastest single threaded performance. all i care about was habing the best all around processor for the money. but its single threaded performance was so awful it hurt it being a good all around.

so i ended up selling it for a 4790k and now upgraded to a 1800x and i couldn't be happier. hated the 4790k. was a fucking housefire and poor overclocker but really love my 1800x. best processor i've owned since my e6600.

>>61207503
>needs water cooling
>needs TWO 3krpm fans on the vrms
>needs at least 6 chokes or the mobo blows up and gives you cancer from the smoke
literally anyone who produced/shilled this piece of shit needs to die in a fucking fire.

>>61200426

Scrolling down the list on passmark, the 9590 AMD FX 8-core seems like the best deal around right now, if you want a relatively high end processor.

It scores above 10k benchmark and only costs $150 or less.

>>61207777
That chip runs pretty hot.

>>61202799
>>61203000
I'm FX-6300 with GTX 1050Ti
Shit just works, not seeing why I should pay more.

File: A08970A7-47D0-46C3-B3EA-02901F68CAE6-1454-0000024B22C2271C.png (40KB, 810x577px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 810x577px

I've had mine since 2013. It's a good CPU for the price. It runs a bit hot with a 212 evo though. I'd recommend a D14 or a D15 instead. Worth the money. I'm going to keep my setup like this since I don't play AAA games on high settings, and go Ryzen in a couple years.

>>61208386

Have mine clocked at 4.5ghz btw.

>>61208386

whats that BenQ ? GW2765 ?

>>61207777
It's still pretty garbage in any workload that doesn't make use of all eight cores (and some that do), even with the 4.7GHz base speed. Plus it sucks down a ton of power and requires water cooling. The 9590s are leaky, hot, power hungry bins that love voltage.

You're better off buying one of the 95W bins like the 8320E and overclocking it yourself. You might not quite make 5GHz like the 9590, but it'll run a lot cooler and use a lot less power, whilst only being a fraction off in terms of performance.

>>61208406

BL2420PT. Have it vertical. I like it so far, haven't had it very long. Windows 7 recognized it could do 1440 right away, while Windows 10 didn't, and I had to set a custom resolution in the Nvidia control panel and it still seems kind of off for some reason but I can't put my finger on it. Had the latest drivers both times. I don't get it.

>>61205059
I cool 6300 passively and don't go above 60C in stress test. How much did you overclock?

>>61208422
>8320E and overclocking it yourself. You might not quite make 5GHz
you surely wont.
and most likely wont even hit 4.5ghz
they're really really shitty chips. even with a shitton of voltage

>>61208422
The 9590s weren't "Leaky". The entire point of the 9 series of FX CPUs was high clocks while staying under 1.6v.

I had an FX-9370 because at the time of purchase, it was only $20 more than an FX-8350. My buddy's 8350 needed 1.4v to get 4.8ghz stable. My 9370 did the same clock at 1.28v. His clock ceiling was 4.9ghz and nothing more. I was able to ramp mine up to 5.4ghz while staying under 1.55v.

Regardless, why a person would ever consider an FX CPU these days is dumb unless you're buying used for WAY WAY Cheap. I needed a custom liquid loop to keep my stuff from going Chernobyl. Ryzen however can have 8c16t in a 65w package and a great stock cooler.

Ryzen stomps FX in every aspect.

>>61207682
>meanwhile at Intel in 2017...

>>61208489
That's complete bullshit picked straight from your ass though. Go read literally any review of the E chips and you'll find that they overclock very well. 50%+ over stock well in the case of the 8230E.

>>61208505
>The 9590s weren't "Leaky"

Yes they were, and you literally don't understand the meaning of the term or what its implications for frequency are if you think otherwise. Your anecdotal evidence based on a golden 9590 and your buddy's shitty 8350 mean the square root of fuck all, my friend.

>>61202848
Doesn't sound too bad, I got a FX-8320e for $90 + free $60 motherboard and it's been rock solid.
Dontcha just love brick and mortar shops?

>>61200426
It's the fastest botnet-free x86 compatible processor ever made, apart from the FX-9590.

>>61208928
There is FX-8370 and FX-9370 too, anon.

>>61208356
A10-6800K here, similar reasons.

>>61200426
>bulldozer
>>>/trash/

>>61209176
>magma lake

>>61208524
>they tell people not to overclock
at least they're not trying to give people cancer.

>>61208655
>Go read literally any review
yeah because their specially handpicked review cpus are totally trust worthy
meanwhile the three chips i've seen irl can't get past 4.3ghz even with 1.55v

>>61200426
>piledrives
OHOHOHO

>>61200426
It's fucking not. Can't even run dolphin games at a solid 60 fps. Somehow encodes worse than an i5 from the same time period.