Can it keep up? AMD FX 6300 vs Intel i5 3570 - 6 core cpu vs 4 core...who is faster?

[@Berkaykn]

This guy is underrated af

[@jims_junk]

LOL Thanks!

[@DannyDan09]

For real, quick and to the point and good info. Love it!

[@zachbeckner]

I've shared his vids on a couple sites a couple times. Maybe if we all chip in we can get him more subs?

[@jims_junk]

I appreciate the thought, I really do. But please DON'T spam other sites on my behalf. Its rude and also leaves bad feelings.

[@DannyDan09]

Great Vid! As you said its insane that this 6 "core" cpu can't even keep up with intels 4 core i5. I know people also said it should be benched against an i3, that is even more crazy. "yeah bro, my cpu is the best, it benches slightly faster than a cpu with a fraction of the cores"

[@jims_junk]

Exactly!

[@XDymeStarX]

I used an FX for an older homelab server system. with the 6 cores I could theoretically give every vm 1 logical cpu. Sure it was slower, but overall could handle more vm's. Worked well for the time being and the price was attractive too. I also build simple office pc's for older people who don't do that much gaming or heavy work. I remember building those systems for around 300 Euros and it was great for what it was. Intel i5 3470s was a good alternative, cheap and low tdp package, and faster then the FX. Looking forward to that AMD Phenom X4 955 BE vs Intel Core i7 920 video ! Thanks for the content !

[@MidnightGeek99]

Nice job! Back when Intel were the king of the hill! The FX series was ok though, especially the 8xxx, and of course, you can never throw away the price difference!

[@xxtheplague1xx280]

Lol I know FX was pretty bad, but all I could afford was a budget system built around AMDs FM APU line. I actually "upgraded" to a Phenom 960t and unlocked it to a x6 core from a quad on a free mobo I received. Some ppl just couldnt afford Intel PCs.... I was younger and broke sooo theres that.

[@h1tzzYT]

You gave a lot of fair points in this one. I agree that FX lineup was a low point for AMD and i agree that on spec sheet it was trash architecture. But the price changes it completely for an actual costumer. Being able to match a cpu which is 60% more expensive is amazing, sure in games it was mostly behind for majority of its life cycle (until newer games came out like crysis 3, witcher 3, battlefield 4 etc. which utilized more than 4 threads), but it was quite close especially when you gave a small OC. The only real negative was its power consumption. Overall i think intel was much better choice if you could afford it but amd FX was excellent replacement if your budget was tight. Imo amd FX was a failure from engineering standpoint but it made decent budget cpu especially if you intended to keep that chip for 6+ years, which is quite common for a cpu.

[@NikiDaDude]

It was crap, but when I bought my FX6300 it cost as much as an i3-2100 which was a dual core CPU, on a more expensive platform. I just OC'd the FX to 4.6Ghz and ran the memory at 1866Mhz and called it a day for the next few years. Especially back in those days ~2013, running Windows 7 from an SSD, the PC was insanely responsive for daily tasks.

[@jims_junk]

Yeah I bet. Probably almost instant boot times too. Yeah I probably would have done the same. If it works it works. But yeah. The fact that 6 core is only as fast as a dual core (stock) is crazy

[@NikiDaDude]

@@jims_junk Indeed, a 13 second reboot time, yes reboot not just boot. My Ryzen PC can't match that today lol

[@D3M3NT3Dstrang3r]

@@jims_junk I agree with the people who say they overhyped it. Not really paying much attention to advertising as much as research for me and I actually knew what to expect. But looking back I would have been upset if I were to buy on specs alone. Still loved mine regardless, but it did what I asked of it because I knew exactly what I had and that does make a difference.

[@ProcessedDigitally]

Keep up the good work. FX was terrible indeed for specs and power draw. It was cheap though. Give the results in percentage as well as it's better for comparison.

[@jims_junk]

Thanks!

[@amdintelxsniperx]

i had a crosshair v formula z with 9590 . nice settup and was keeping up with my 4770k system in some workloads but it definetly needed tweaking

[@b0ne91]

Good video. However, FX don't really scale with core overclock. You need to absolutely overclock the HT, NB and memory - that's where they struggle and where you need to make a difference. HT doesn't matter *as* much and can be left at 2300-2400 or so (depending on whether you do FSB/multiplier). But pretty much any 1600CL9 DDR3 will do 2133CL11 and every FX6300 or 8350 will do 2600 NB. A stock i7 4770 with 1600CL9 RAM (that's what it's limited to except on Z97) will lose out if you do this right.

[@Aruneh]

If anyone wants to read more about exactly why the FX / Bulldozer is how it is, the Chips and Cheese blog has a 2 part article about it. And many other CPU architectures. Really interesting stuff.

[@DannyDan09]

Do you have a link?

[@Aruneh]

@@DannyDan09 I don't think links are allowed on youtube for spam reasons, but just search for "chips and cheese bulldozer".

[@JasperTedVidalTale]

Good F5IX Video

[@jims_junk]

Thanks!

[@7MBoosted]

I have an 8350 that is going to go to use in a dual boot system with XP and Win7 for my GoG library and my bigbox pc games. It has been running until recently, overclocked to 4.7ghz. I would want a 3770, but I already have the FX on hand. I really love these chips. I had a 6300 running my pfsense machine, and until recently had an 8320E running my home server. I have moved to more modern and power efficient chips, but these FX CPUs will always mean something to me.

[@jxu9053]

Looking back. Because of the bad rep and me not being tech savvy back then, I skipped the FX line and chose i3-4170 for my first build. There were much to be satisfied for that budget build (eg buying a used HD 7950/7970 instead of a less powerful GTX 960 4GB), but that was my biggest mistake

[@goncalomoura9816]

Yeah, it was a bad decision, an overclocked FX 6300 with an overclocked HD 7850 would outperform an i3 + HD 7950 by nearly double the FPS in newer games, while costing a lot less, this combo absolutely destroyed anything Nvidia and Intel had at that price point, but most reviewers recommended getting a dual core i3 + GTX 750 Ti or 650 Ti instead, and years later we found out how terribly those parts aged, specially the Kepler GPU's and dual core i3's...

[@jebreggie4225]

@@goncalomoura9816 the i3 likely has alot better single core performance, and in a lot of games that matters more especially ones that were relevant at the time. the fx 6300 was much better match up against i3 though than the 8000 vs the i5. bulldozer single core performance was terrible but it looks better in hindsight because 8th gen consoles had amd pre zen apus so the fx can still run those games decently.

[@by3eHb]

Everyone in the comments is talking about the low price of the FX, but the irony is that today it is the most expensive in terms of price / performance ratio

[@Revoku]

yea, when you get a 3570k(which is unlocked like the fx6300) and overclock it, it blows the fx 6300 away, and also the fx 8350. I know, I used to own one, and my friend went with the fx 8350, we used to see who could max em run best, his always lost, the fx lineup was a dumpster fire. still have that 3570k, its in my file server

[@jxu9053]

The sandy/ivy bridge CPUs age like fine wine. I have i5-3470, 16GB DDR3 and 256gb SSD for my father's daily PC, and it feels snappy for everyday use.

[@thepirate4095]

my old old old 3570k could be overclocked to 4.5ghz all cores, which was a huge boost compared to stock, the only downside was the fact that it had no ht and some newer games were running much better on the i7

[@Revoku]

@@thepirate4095 same with mine, the lack o ht/cores finally got it

[@MDFGamingVideo]

Pretty decent revisit. I enjoyed this. Here's a few things I'd like to add: - Faster RAM with tighter timings works well with FX CPUs. This may help the memory score. AND since the CPU cost less at the time, you could afford better RAM. - ALL FX CPU and Motherboard combos were unlocked and overclocking / tuning really wakes them up when done properly. You had to spend MUCH more to OC with the Intel platform. - Just increasing CPU clock is NOT a proper OC for FX. Read the 2011 Scorpius Platform / AMD Tuning guide for more info. Most tech KZbinrs know Intel, but did NOT read this guide and as a result they had no idea what to do with AMD. - Real world testing, especially in games showing frame times, and side-by-side testing in modern games, shows some i5 CPUs struggle, stutter, and sometimes do not even render the full scene under high loads. FX did not have these issues. So, FX may have been a bit slower per core, but those extra cores and larger cache had a real world benefit. - The 3000 series Intel CPUs are a generation newer than FX, which released LATE, and was originally intended to compete with the 2000 series. This is 100% where AMD dropped the ball. Had the FX line released on time, it would have been more competitive...even with the Intel compiler shenanigans of the time.

[@agostonpalatinus1513]

yes. Also, you can see the struggle on line at the Intel. Ofc it has more fps, but more stuttering while for example, the FX stays smooth, but low fps.

[@10WA]

I had a FX6300 and FX8320. Both ran daily at 5.1ghz which was so cool. BUT my cousins i5 4670k beat them in most games still and when overclocked to 4.5ghz it really smoked them. My next CPU was the i7 4790k, huge upgrade.

[@syntehk]

Ahh the era in which I wish I had purchased stock in AMD at around a dollar a share

[@burntoutelectronics]

I recently upgraded a older system to give a bit of a speed boost, it went from at i5 2320 to a i7 3770. Definitely a nice bump having the hyperthreading. AMD of this era just really did suck, I wouldn’t have been surprised if they didn’t make it into the 2020’s as a intel competitor if it wasn’t for their Ryzen line saving them.

[@AliceC993]

It's somewhat ironic that their acquisition of ATi happened when it did, as that's right about the time their CPU division really began to struggle as the Athlon 64 and, later, Phenom (II) and FX chips slowly but surely fell behind Intel's offerings.

[@TheFalseProdigy]

Overclocking those FX chips was a breeze back in the day, all you had to do was throw multiplier (or base clock frequency) and voltage at the problem and make sure it didn’t catch fire. Never won’t the silicon lottery but a friend of mine had a 8150 he got to 4.7 ghz. I eventually just bought my silicon lottery with a 9590, since I already went and bought the nice ASUS mobo, 240mm AIO, and 750w power supply for overclocking

[@Nick_R_]

I've had two fx chips in use since forever. Fx8350 @4.6ghz, for gaming. Fx6300 @ stock, for general computing and work. Both have served me well and still do. I built a new PC last year based on a Ryzen 5800x3D. It's obviously faster, but I can't say it's as big a difference as SSDs vs mechanical HDs.

[@Matt08719801]

im a big fan of the phenom II X4 965 still have one , its by far one of the most reliable amd cpus to come out , its rock solid and is not picky with memory either which makes it a great workhorse in retro operating systems

[@stefannilsson2406]

One of the reasons the FX cpu's under performed so much compared to their intel counterparts is partly due to the low amount of instructions per clock. Also, their cores are working together in pairs, sharing resources, like cash. There was a massive lawsuit that cost AMD quite a lot of money for misleading marketing. Due to the design of the chips, they don't perform as if they have the stated number of cores. Windows task manager detects the 6300 as having 3 cores 6 threads and not 6 cores 6 threads because that's basically how the cores work. They don't work as independent full cores. Each pair of cores work as one with 2 threads.

[@jims_junk]

Exactly. I made the mistake of stating that it was closer to a tri-core cpu in my last video and the comments blew up saying I was a hater. Lol

[@stefannilsson2406]

@@jims_junk it do be like that sometimes 🤣

[@7MBoosted]

Yeah the chip design had each "core" with its own integer unit, and a shared floating point unit in each "module". When you squint and look really hard, you can see, that even though FX was a commercial failure, the phenom x6 and FX lineup bet the farm on a multi-threaded future we are just now really seeing come to life. I argue that by giving threads, albeit weak ones, to a huge part of the enthusiast segment gave them the confidence to double down on that concept to bring us Ryzen.

[@BigBadZig1980]

hi jim, without knowing the details on your oc method, tmk the fx series oc really starts to shine when you also oc the northbridge (and keep an eye on the memory-divider). fellow youtuber "RA Tech" has here a sophisticated guide... perhaps this would be a fun video for you (or the 8000er series)? in my opinion the intel certainly has the far superior architecture (and that the common user wont oc anything), but as the fx is capable of doing so (and the intel one not) it would be interesting to see what effect a maxed out fx would have on performance itself and the price/performance ratio in particular.... thx and keep up your good work

[@patrickc8007]

You still needed a expensive high-end motherboard to overclock the FX and the outcome in terrms of price and performance wasnt that great anyways, you simply just couldnt touch the single core performance of even a locked intel cpu that could run on the cheapest motherborad out there. Sure now you can close the gap by a little bit in newer games that are better optimized, but at this point those cpus are irrelevant anyways, FX lineup was a disaster for AMD.

[@BigBadZig1980]

@@patrickc8007 exactly, that's why i wrote that the intel architecture is wayyyy better. point is that when you dare to oc the fx chip, then go the full mile and also oc the nb and keep an eye on a favourable mem multiplier to get the full potential (only oc the cpu just gets you more of a heater and you let much potetnial on the road). that also works with a midrange mainboard quite well. (for the last 15% you need the expensive 990-series mb, not worth the money.) but at midrange WAS (long gone) imho some price/performance potential, but never did some numbercrunching myself ... and right, absolutely irrelevant today, but surely a nice video

[@alexmihai22]

In the past I "upgraded" from FX-8350 to i5 3570. Unfortunately, the i5 was slower, it presented stuttering in games, and was slower on loading web pages, something that everyone is using daily. The i5 could have better fps, but with glitches and lower 0.1% for sure. Even the i3 2120 may have higher fps overall, but looking to 0.1% you realize the gameplay experience is bad. On the FX8350 for sure and I think on FX6300 too, the gameplay despite having a lower fps overall, it offers a smoother experience than the i5.

[@blakedmc1989RaveHD]

tha whole FX line is only worth it for Windows XP retro gaming PC

[@geovede]

The FX gives me Pentium D vibes

[@jims_junk]

Right!

[@chazbotic]

it would be interesting to see the FX_6350 and if piledriver fixed the shortcomings of bulldozer

[@thlsikbtr]

can you do i5 3570 vs i7 3770 without hyperthreading?

[@jims_junk]

I can add it to the list ..sure.

[@jims_junk]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/kInJgYOagaqUaNU

[@jims_junk]

Sorry forgot the non hyperthreaded part..my bad. There is one test with single core though.

[@AvroBellow]

AMD did drop the ball with FX but there are no bad products, only bad prices and AMD did offer fantastic value with the FX's pricing. I bought an FX-8350 in 2012 for $170CAD and it lasted me until 2017. From a value standpoint, it's BY FAR the best CPU that I've ever owned. I didn't care if it matched the myriad of overpriced Intel CPUs, I only cared whether or not it did what I wanted it to and it delivered that in spades! This is what Intel fanboys are unable to wrap their tiny brains around. It was the best I could get at the time with the money I had. If I had spent $170CAD on an Intel CPU, with the extra cost of an Intel-based motherboard, I'd have had to buy an i3. For gamers and non-rich folk, piledriver was SEVERELY underrated.

[@RetroTinkerer]

That CPU was priced closer to an i3 than to that i5 what people really expected? That was a huge price gap for an entry level system and enough to got you a much better perfoming video card.

[@LEPPPERR]

I told you Fx x6 it s week

[@thepcenthusiastchannel2300]

I have some older videos of an FX 8350 vs an i5 3470 and I overclocked the FX by quite a bit. Only then was it competitive in games. The FX lineup was not a good lineup.

[@psikogeek]

Wow, I've found the latest computer news. This will shape my buying decision.

[@filenotfound__3871]

Lol I still use an FX6300

[@jims_junk]

Hey if it still gets the job done, then there's nothin wrong with that.

[@gastonhitw720]

but it was quite a lot cheaper and performed similar, so it was kinda good

[@attel2091]

Sometimes the Phenom II X6 was faster than FX 8xxx. Not every time but still

[@AshtonCoolman]

Yes, the FX was trash. It made me, a long time AMD user, change to Intel. I had a 2600k, 8700k, and 9900k. I'm finally back on AMD with a 5600X and 7700X+4090 build.