FX-8350 vs i5-3470 - Here's What Other Reviewers Don't Tell You About AMD FX

You can support my work here: www.buymeacoffee.com/ratechyt
-
Learn more about Teamgroup's Xtreem ARGB Memory:
www.teamgroupinc.com/en/produ...
Buy Xtreem ARGB on Amazon:
US: amzn.to/34EM5Yx
UK: amzn.to/37GXRDx
DE: amzn.to/37LS2Vv
CA: amzn.to/2KRvE3I
-
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.
-
Social media:
/ ratechyt
/ ratechyt
/ ratechyt
- Timestamps -
0:00 - Intro
1:38 - Specs
2:24 - Software Benchmarks
4:09 - Gaming Benchmarks
18:36 - Temperatures
19:25 - Power Consumption
19:54 - Overclocking
21:50 - Conclusion

[@RATechYT]

Sorry it took so long! Had to triple check all the results, and wanted to include as much information as possible. *EDIT:* To people who keep saying that you can overclock a locked Intel processor - yes, that is true. But unfortunately it's not possible on *every* motherboard model & chipset, it is *very* limited and apparently can be problematic. There's no such issues on the AMD side, all FX CPUs are officially unlocked, just like the motherboards. Basically for the best overclocking experience with all the bells and whistles you want an unlocked CPU such as the 3570k with a Z-series motherboard. 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

[@swinoob616]

you did an amazing job here!!! so many games tested, thank you!

[@RATechYT]

@@swinoob616 Appreciate it!

[@lukatosic4447]

keep it going. I really like these benchmarks, they are very informative regarding aplication, and not just paper stats.

[@TheImpartialTruth55]

Thank you so much for your honesty.

[@YTSZAZU]

Low end motherboard with fx 8300 - VRMs hit 75 celcius at 4.2 Ghz, one core per module enabled, with 4 threads only at prime95. If 8 cores, I only dare to hit 3.6 - 3.8 ghz. Hopes it is useful for the low threaded games.

[@glenwaldrop8166]

At the time I could get an FX 8350 for $199, FX 6300 for $159 or an i5 for $229 and the motherboard was more expensive as well. I got the FX 6300 and I'm still happy with that purchase even after getting a Xeon 1230v2 later on. Țhe FX wasn't as bad as people say.

[@sliptap]

Great video! I remember when the FX 8350 (and FX series in general) launched, the catch was "FX series are better for multi threading, which no one knows when that time will come." That time is finally here and it's hilarious to see it pull ahead in games nowadays.

[@thudtheace]

Glad I still have my FX-8350 and even older FX-8150, if not I don't know what would do in this strange new world that some call the "Future"

[@budgetking2591]

it lost in most games lol

[@BonusCrook]

Too little too late unfortunately

[@manh7897]

It's always been trash in games, worse than a 65W 6 core 1600 lmao

[@Swattii]

@@thudtheace Upgrade? Literally anything is better than the FX chips at this point. AMD is king now when it comes to gaming where as Intel has switched gears to more of a production king. Literally used to be the other way around back then, lmao.

[@livingthedream915]

These results aren't too surprising, it was predicted that the gap between these CPUs would close as games became more multithreaded, and it certainly seems to be the case in my experience. I definitely appreciate that you're taking the time to benchmark these CPUs instead of just dumpstering them.

[@RATechYT]

Well, some people deny that for some reason.

[@livingthedream915]

@@RATechYT It's easy to understand why, making fun of FX CPUs kind of became a running meme that just refuses to die even though they were never meant to be compared to i7s post Bulldozer thanks to the price cuts. I personally say that all the FX builds I've assembled aged EXTREMELY well compared to similarly priced i3 systems (especially with heavy discounts on good OC motherboards)

[@livingthedream915]

Oh yeah, I wanted to mention that my OCed (4.2ghz) 8150 can handle playing VR games and streaming, something that my friend's 4670k can't do at ALL, much to his displeasure LMAO. Oh, and keep in mind that windows 10 + modern graphics APIs like DX12/Vulkan actually make good use of those extra cores, something that only existed as Mantle for most of FX's heyday.

[@asysjr]

this changes nothing. A CPU needs both good multithread and single thread performance, and FX fails miserable in the last. If you make a good multithread CPU, but with crap single thread performance, it can take several years to this multi becomes useful, and when it comes, the CPU is already outdated. What makes Ryzen great now, is not the multithread performance, but a good balance between single and mult.

[@gabrielfunez3863]

@@asysjr AMD was betting on multithreading software becoming the norm sooner. They literally said that more cores were the future if I remember correctly.

[@LucasBortoliniKuhn]

Something people don't think about when making these sorts of reviews is that CPUs and GPUs are a global market, and in most places outside of the US, availability is not the same, which means best performing parts get WAY overpriced. In Brazil, I bought the FX 8320 (same chip, running at 4.45GhZ since purchase in dec/2013) by about less than half the price of the i5 4th gen, or, 60% of the price of a i5 3470. The same happens now, but on the other way: Ryzen 3600 is priced almost 30~40% above the 9400f, which outperforms it for most gamers, and their mobos run almost twice the price of an Intel mobo. People used to doubt and laugh at the "future proof" arguments from FX users, but, to be honest, I've seen them already forced to upgrade from their 3rd gen Intel (one friend went for 7th gen couple years back and another went to Ryzen) while I still play the same games on my FX, stream, work on AfterFX, Reaper, FL Studio and other workloads without any pressure to upgrade. FX was a choice so good that it will keep me from this gen entirely. Comfortably waiting for AM5 and DDR5, and playing any title I want with comfortable settings and smooth experience in my FX.

[@Swattii]

It really depends. No one is forced to upgrade. Those older i7's can still kick ass but if you're a "professional gamer", then yeah, you would want the best of the best right?

[@Spicysauced]

As usual. The more modern a software is, the better it scales with the FX.

[@BonusCrook]

The fx 8350 seems to do better than most people think but neither the fx or i5 seems to do very well, unfortunately gamers looking for a decent high refresh experience were likely forced to get an i7 3770K and oc it to 4.6ghz or so if they wanted a 100hz+ 1080p experience

[@Spicysauced]

@@BonusCrook Yeah if you wanted to play Counter Strike with a million FPS in 2012 you had to buy an i7. For everyone else an FX was more than enough. I just recently sold my old 9590, couple weeks ago actually, for 140 bucks :)

[@BonusCrook]

@@Spicysauced not even cs, getting a good high refresh rate experience with the chips in this video shows to be hard

[@Spicysauced]

@@BonusCrook Never mattered to me. My monitor back then had 60 hz, VSync was on, Free or Gsync wasnt a thing back then, and Im not a competitive gamer, everything over 60 fps was literally burnt/wasted energy. Also youre replying to an almost 2 years old comment :)

[@Toxic2T]

@@Spicysauced Based. Why would anyone else need to much refresh rate lmao

[@MirelRC]

It looks like that the FX 8350 wins in most new games that can take advantage of 8 threads.

[@AbuHajarAlBugatti]

????¿¿¿¿ 4 cores > 8 threads 8 Cores > 16 threads

[@MirelRC]

@@AbuHajarAlBugatti explain what you want to say.

[@rwbimbie5854]

This vid should really be using an Overlay with ALL CORE %s shown, not just one overall CPU %. Those old games were leaving fx8350 threads unused gathering dust while you play. Modern games way better optimized to use a lot more threads, so we dont see fx8350 threads left dusty while gaming. Old games only used half the potential of fx8350, new games use the whole chip

[@MirelRC]

@@rwbimbie5854 same thing happens with all high core/threads count CPU's. That was the technology back then.

[@nikoladamnjanovic4435]

@@rwbimbie5854 There is something else.... While fx has 8 core, cpu instruction on fx series are crap... truth,fx is still best overclockable cpu,but engineering..just not as it should be. AMD obviously learn from that mistake,and now we have Ryzen series. Extremely well done line of CPU's!

[@RyugaHidekiOrRyuzaki]

The FX Evangelist! Happy to see another one of these, keep up the good work

[@RATechYT]

Thank you!

[@error4159]

What's the point?

[@willy1216XD]

@@error4159 thi " . "

[@tonyvelasquez863]

I still remember back in the day this 8350 were like $150 @microcenter and motherboards were so cheap around 80 to 100$ for the high end chipset with SATA 3 and USB 3.0 plus USB.30 header for the case. Most of the intel Mobo were so expensive to get all these features let alone the fact that the i5 were more expensive too .

[@jooch_exe]

Don't forget that an FX-8350 has a ton of options to configure whereas the i5-3470 is very limited. With a bit of tweaking you could make the FX outperform the i5, albeit at the cost of much higher power consumption.

[@TheScure]

I can see the days of working put into this video. Nice job.

[@RATechYT]

Thanks!

[@lukatosic4447]

FX never was top of the line, but it was never bottom of the barrel either. In my country Intel was always a lot more expensive than AMD so FX was always a beter price to performance. I just hope we get some good cheap CPUs in the new gen. The 6300 is starting to lag behind a bit.

[@RATechYT]

I agree.

[@XX-121]

yeah the 8 core FX's were what you wanted though. was the only way to get better performance than the 6 core PII's. really was more like a quad core w/ hardware hyper-threading. which was a theory that they were talking about in the athlon days and hoped it would work in practice, which it might have, but nobody was programing for it because everything still mostly ran on one or two threads back then and intel had better single core perforfmance. but if intel would have taken security seriously into account when designing their chips, they wouldn't have had as much of a lead. they cheated. so i'm still proud to say i haven't ran an intel processor in my personal rig since pentium 2. :) (others requested them for builds i've done though)

[@lukatosic4447]

@@XX-121I dont know details about the safety and the design. I have heard the architecture was particularly weird. Do you know where I can read something up on it?

[@XX-121]

@@lukatosic4447 well the major intel/core architecture vulnerabilities are: spectre meltdown zombieLoad RIDL Fallout SWAPGS Attack LVI Foreshadow Snoop PortSmash LazyFP BranchScope Spoiler NetCAT SgxPectre SpectreRSB TPM-Fail Plundervolt Platypus but there are way more. if you want to look at all of them go here www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-238/Intel.html i'm sure if you google any one of those and maybe put intel in with it you can read up on them. they didn't all come out the same day. and i think some of them even affect old pentium 3&4's ...

[@XX-121]

may even be back doors they left in under government contract?? and some of them were def left for the performance boost because they thought nobody would ever be smart enough to figure the sh*t out or by then they would be obsolete because back 10-20 yrs ago, computing tech advancements were coming WAY faster than they are today! and also at the time they were having their ass handed to them by AMD and they had to do something fast because their stock prices were dropping because everyone was on the AMD train. but see, moore's law is basically now been dead for a while. and while amd screwed around w/ hardware hyperthreading and their acquisition of ATI, intel basically didn't have to do shit and got lazy and sloppy from all their ill gotten gains... and so we get what we have here... AMD back on top! and for good reason. Intel doesn't give a sh*t about ANYTHING but money. where as AMD has made mad contributions to the scene and just computing technology in general. (which intel continues to copy)

[@FernandoCastillo-og7ze]

So complete and excellent comparative between these two cpu's warriors! Thank you for the hard work, I know that your videos have a lot of quality. Congrats (:

[@RATechYT]

Thank you!

[@damasterpiece08]

To quote Tech Jesus on frametimes: "lower is better but more consistent is best" :D

[@XX-121]

and i agree, and if you paused a bunch you could see AMD had better consistency. but, hey click back to this video and check out the comment i left about GN, if you got time.

[@PCFACTORYRD]

Shouldn't it be, higher is better but more consistent is best?

[@ThatSneakyPickle]

@@PCFACTORYRD Higher in this case would mean more stuttering/delay

[@PCFACTORYRD]

@@ThatSneakyPickle higher frame rate? Are you out of your mind 🤣

[@ThatSneakyPickle]

@@PCFACTORYRD if you read what the topic is about it's frametimes not framerates

[@andyred1040]

nice video. A lot of work with all those benchmarks. Nice to see the old FX CPU doing so well. Keep up the good work

[@RATechYT]

Thank you!

[@misterPAINMAKER]

So the FX 8350 was very futureproof. Too bad that when the cpu was released , there were not any games that can utilize 8 cores.

[@gonzaloolivera1995]

solo trae 4 nucleos y 8 hilos

[@sha8608]

Yep, at least until Unreal Engine 4 came around (or electricity bills)

[@Trick-Framed]

In 2013, when they released fx 9590, the first games using multiple threads were out. Especially console ports. 2013 was the year PS4 and XBOX One were released and programmers had been working on engines to take advantage of the 8 cores in the consoles as early as 2011 when FX was originally launched. It's why I bought an FX to begin with. I was expecting console ports to become a thing with AMD being inside them.

[@bestopinion9257]

@@sha8608 I bet you have nothing to say about electricity bills and last Nvidia monsters up to 650w

[@sha8608]

@@bestopinion9257 That's why I got myself a 1650 a few months ago lol 75W and still good enough for 1080p. Insane how much GPUs started to take

[@herbertvonsauerkrautunterh2513]

I just recently upgraded to R5 3700 but I still have 2 FX builds. 8300 on 970 and 8350 on 990.. still great value.. today..

[@mathiasgustafsson9224]

Great as always, you are up there with digitalfoundry in quality! I myself is quite happy with my 4.7ghz 8350!

[@RATechYT]

Thank you!

[@bertberto5671]

I ogt an 8370e @ 4.7 on a 990fx fatality + hyper 212x. epic cheap build.

[@indigomontari9022]

The main reason I liked my old FX back in the day was the ability of the CPU to multi task better the the Intel CPU at the time- game, discord, KZbin and surf all at the same time

[@Trick-Framed]

That was something to enjoy. Tabs in chrome limited to how much RAM was there. I had 16GB at the time and it was a great experience.

[@jcobiltc]

Thank you very much, you are the only one I found who analyzed the microprocessor not only with games, you analyzed applications that one is interested in being analyzed, thank you very much for your expertise !!!

[@ryanlin1299]

I have an FX-8370 CPU. In the current 2020-2021 new games, it always gives satisfactory performance. Equipped with a GTX1650 graphics card, it can maximize the performance of FX-8370 without overclocking!

[@Filip1998ism]

no it can't, overclocking brings you 10-20% performance boost. dont say stuped things linke that...

[@Toxic2T]

@@Filip1998ism cope harder.

[@Xesh001]

I've had my FX-8350 since 2013 and am only now upgrading to a Ryzen 9! I've never had any issues with it when playing games and, I believe, that frame rates aren't the be all and end all of gaming performance. As said before consistency is just as important, as is CPU usage. If your CPU is maxed out then using stuff like teamspeak and discord will impact game performance, when processing power is diverted to the other programs.

[@bluemarble4051]

Awesome test, appreciate the time & effort you've put to make this. Thanks

[@newkie2008]

Much love to your work m8, keep it up!

[@ssbj144]

nice video. had this beast fx 8350 for 6years and i must say im glad i did. i learned alot with it and literally maximized its use and potential. now a happy owner of ryzen tho and not missing fx's temps :)

[@YTSZAZU]

Very detailed video. Thank you for your hard work. I was roughly able to guess how much cores/threads each game can use.

[@RATechYT]

Thank you!

[@perna002]

Awesome video !!!! Thanks for your time and pacient, i liked so much this comparison with FX.. Really Nice Job on this Video!! Sorry for my bad English, Brazilian Sub here..

[@RATechYT]

Appreciate it!

[@clear9104]

such a high quality and long vid, tyvm

[@gandharvmohan9572]

Dude great video ! We can clearly see that in latest games, more core makes a difference now. That is where AMD8XXX shines. Insta sub !

[@JustAGuy85]

I love to see the FX-8350 still being talked about. I just sold mine on ebay a week ago for $110. It was hard to sell lol.. I seriously felt a bond to that rig. It was a combination of some life events that happened throughout the years of owning it and the hate that CPU received despite it performing better and better as time passed and games took advantage of the cores. It was hard to cool with a slight 4.4ghz overclock sitting under a Hyper 212 Evo. Ended up just running it at 4.2ghz for a long time and then, eventually, putting the clockspeeds back to default and letting it boost to 4.1ghz/4.2ghz on its own. Still kept the HT and NB overclocked, though. Had 16GB DDR3 1866mhz RAM. It was paired with an Asus STRIX RX480 8GB for the last 4+ years. I was into ETH mining and had another rig with a Pentium G4560 3.5ghz (2c/4t)/16GB DDR4 3000mhz. Started playing on it a bit when it wasn't mining. Comparable to the FX-8350 in a lot of games due to the 7th gen Intel IPC that it had. 2c/4t still got overwhelmed in the majority of games that I play. Nonetheless, quite impressive for a dual core CPU, no doubt. Tomorrow my Ryzen 3600 + mobo should arrive in the mail. I can't believe I almost bought a 7700k for that Z270 board because I didn't want to deal with swapping out mobos and messing around with Windows. I just knew I'd be kicking myself in the ass if I paid that much for a 7700k when it costs the same to buy a 3600 + mobo and sell the Z270 board + G4560. Still stuck with RX480 8GB's until GPU prices come down, though. I refuse to pay 3x the MSRP for anything.

[@JustAGuy85]

Oh, cool, just made it to the end of the video and you're talking about the Pentium 2c/4t vs FX-8350 benchmarks floating around out there. I can tell ya that there's hardly any modern games that the G4560 did better in. Not BF5, BF1, Metro Exodus, etc. It can come close or tie, but it never did better than the 8350. I expected the G4560 to do great in Arma 3 but, as I came to find out, those benchmarks online are set up particularly to make the G4560 look good by lowering view distances nearly all the way. As soon as you move your view distance sliders about 30% of the way up.. you're GPU bottlenecked in Arma 3. And it doesn't utilize the GPU good at all. I had equal performance in Arma 3 between the G4560 and FX-8350. Equally shit performance. The G4560 was brought to a crawl just like the FX-8350 in my custom made missions with, I guess, "too many" units on the map. Detroit: Become Human does perform BAD on the FX-8350 for some reason. LOTS of stuttering while the G4560 plays it 100% smoothly. There's that game called Anthem that pushes the FX-8350 to around 100% and performs terribly and stutters a lot. It also pushes the G4560 to 100% and performs badly.. but does NOT stutter like the FX-8350 for some reason. But all in all.. the majority of AAA titles released in the last 3-4 years perform very close between the G4560 and FX-8350, with the FX-8350 getting the upper hand by 5-10 fps in some instances. Both rigs with RX480 8GB's @ 1310mhz/2000mhz core/mem. But if you want to bring up the Origin Overlay or Steam Overlay or have task manager running in the background, that kind of stuff does much better in these newer AAA titles with the FX-8350 rig. I can't even get a webpage to load in the Origin Overlay while playing BF5 on the G4560 rig. The CPU is already at 100% in BF5. The FX-8350 never really seemed to get pegged @ 100% in any game. At most, it'd average 95% or something in Anthem. In other games, at most it'd bounce around 90-95%.. leaving enough room to have other background apps running and use them without any issues. The G4560 does have great IPC and, in my eyes, does tend to "Bulldoze" its way through things in a brute force style but... yeah. I'll shut up now.

[@JustAGuy85]

You're right, though, Hardware Unboxed results are not correct. I will say that this G4560 doesn't stutter like your i5 did in some of those games. When it's at 100%, things still run smoothly, I can just see that the GPU is usually only getting pushed to 50-60%. It doesn't really stutter though. It also tends to run at 80-90% in Apex Legends. It only hits 100% on the drop in part at the beginning. It does stutter in Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order, though. That's the only one I can think of that I get stuttering in at 100% CPU usage. Is it an improved memory controller along with the DDR4 RAM? Some chipset enhancements? Simply the improved IPC? I dunno. Of course, I don't have a GTX 1070. That might push it to 100% non-stop in Apex Legends whereas the RX480 8GB can't? I dunno, I dunno... Anyways... I am DONE. Done blabbing. Got a 3600 coming tomorrow and I don't have to worry about this shit anymore lol.

[@JustAGuy85]

lol.. I hate when I end up typing a novel on some random shit.

[@RATechYT]

@@JustAGuy85 Thanks for sharing your own experience.

[@JustAGuy85]

@@RATechYT Whew.. I was chatty, huh? Sitting around, reminiscing about the two CPU's I just had as I awaited my 3600. And now... I'm typing from my PC with the Ryzen 5 3600 :-D I felt like I was walking around, "big dick swinging"... then I tested out BF5. Yes, it performs flawlessly, but it's weird to see a game push this 12 thread CPU that felt like some figment of my imagination to 85% haha. Dick not so big :-(

[@SYAKGames90]

So those popular youtubers are comparing 6th and 7th Intel's CPUs from 3 ~ 4 years ago against a 9 years old FX, and they think IS FAIR? -_-"

[@EvelynRoods]

the problem was that when skylake (6th gen intel) was released, all AMD had were the FX CPUs and the FM2+ platform. All AMD did to "compete" was crank up the clock speeds in hopes that they'd keep up, which they didn't. AMD did it to themselves unfortunately. For reference, the i5 6600k and FX 9590 (AMD's flagship at the time the 6600k came out) were around the same price when the i5 released (the i5 released at $240 roughly and the 9590 was around $230 when skylake launched). The intel chip mopped the floor with the 9590.

[@fuckyouleftube]

life is not fair cry more snowflake

[@chumps1941]

@@fuckyouleftube You're the one crying loser

[@purplehz97]

@@EvelynRoods Exactly. This has already been covered by pretty much everyone and it should be common knowledge at this point. FX processors could not match the performance of their intel counterparts. They just couldn't. You bought these because they were cheap and you could overclock them, not to beat intel. Ryzen is what finally changed the game.

[@GeraldTags]

@@purplehz97 exactly

[@ficklefingeroffate]

I ran an FX-8350 up until spring of 2020. I found it to be a fairly decent CPU.

[@felixokeefe]

Interesting so AMD was again ahead of their time with CPU features. While software lagged behind relying more on single core performance than properly leveraging multi-threading

[@shadowopsairman1583]

Being paid off by intel

[@sga6622]

Yeah, FX 8350 was even with the 3770 when it came to playing high end multicore games as the time. And it was by far better when it came to streaming games than the 3570, It also ran much cooler.

[@patrickc8007]

What features? Its just a bunch of slow cores stacked together, while Intel was ahead in istruction sets and hyperthreading.

[@patrickc8007]

@@sga6622 8350 was a fucking furnace so i dont know what youre talking about.

[@skorpers]

@@patrickc8007 Absolutely was not, it was a solid 20C cooler than the i7's of the time. I laugh at the technical incompetence of the people who say that.

[@rossmclaughlin7158]

I found my experience similar for The most part from owning a 4th gen i5 and a fx 8350 pc at the time and your results are also what I found and story gets worse for i5 with discord Spotify and likes open at same time as gaming so much so I hated gaming on i5 pc in living room vs my main rig (fx pc) in my bed room games and apps ran so much better on the old 8 core fx 👍

[@RATechYT]

Thanks for sharing your experience!

[@effexon]

I never understood flak FX-series got over i5. i5 was unanimously celebrated gaming cpu at that time. Compared to price fx-8350 wins.

[@hunterbear2421]

i think the diffence for intel vs amd if it is single threaded or minit threaded because in some games the old fx 8350 can kick ass on new aaa games but on some older games it can't even get past 40fps

[@eivis13]

@@effexon fx cores weren't used as well back in the day. We started to use more cores only in 2016-2017. So yeah, the fx series probably had that "fine wine" phenomena.

[@effexon]

@@eivis13 isnt it ironic intel beat amd past athlon with dualcore, yet ryzen did same trick with 4+ cores and finally in IPC also 5000 series. TBH i5 at some point was way overpriced, around haswell to 7000 series, costing close to 350euro for 4core i5 cpu.

[@GeraldTags]

Back when single threaded still rocking with intel cpu, but having more cores in FX enables to process more workloads

[@bertberto5671]

Ive had 5 FX cpu's loved them all, never let me down. Sold 4 as part or full pc's and all owners love'em to bits, does everything most people needs.

[@primus711]

Been running my fx-8320@5ghz for many years with 2 290x's

[@txic.4818]

I'm looking at getting an fx-8320 for my brother's budget build, and your videos have been a huge help in deciphering old reviews. Thank you! edit: Thanks for all the replies!

[@RATechYT]

Glad I can help!

[@sunnohh]

Get an old ryzen or intel, my ole xeon 5790 gets like 1200 in cinebench and isnt much slower than my i7 6800x, shit those are dirt cheap now

[@txic.4818]

@@sunnohh believe me i triedddd. The motherboard prices on compatible lga2011 cards are actually insane. The cpus are cheap but the motherboard makes up for it

[@SFox63]

@@txic.4818 use pcpartspicker.com you can get a ryzen 5 3600 and an am4 motherboard for less than 300. add another 60-70 for cheap ddr4 and you've got a pretty substantial upgrade. You could also go previous gen ryzen with the 2700, and a cheap micro atx motherboard for around 50 bucks less. I always use this website to find the best prices, and it searches multiple sources.

[@kevinpatriarch6719]

Or a first gen ryzen

[@thepro3729]

Good stuff RA tech. Good stuff! Happy holidays all!

[@RATechYT]

Happy holidays!

[@thegrimmtv3532]

Nice in-depth review/benchmark. I love watching this kind of content.

[@RATechYT]

Thank you!

[@twithnell]

My wife is still running my old FX9590, which still runs great. Keeping it cool is a nightmare though. Also had to undervolt it to be stable, but it sits at 5Ghz.

[@jamezxh]

They boost to 5ghz . they don't run at 5ghz . I have one water cooled still a good rig

[@sovo1212]

14:50 DX12 or Vulkan will be always better with more cores. It would be nice to see another comparison between these CPUs, but focusing on DX12 vs DX11 and OpenGL vs Vulkan. I'm curious to see how much the 8350 would benefit from Vulkan on newest games, especially compared to the Intel alternative.

[@HitmonleeDeluxe]

I had many great years of gaming on my FX-8350 paired with my Asus Crosshair V Formula-Z and a gtx 980. Its only in recent years that I started to be dissatisfied with it and finally upgraded to a Ryzen CPU. Now it still serves me as a dedicated winxp machine and a backup if my new computer ever craps the bed. :)

[@Vantud391]

Good to see you return. Are you interested in making video about X58 platform with xeon cpus?

[@RATechYT]

That's definitely something I'll be checking out sooner or later. CPUs are actually always cheap and easy to find, though motherboards are the exact opposite unfortunately.

[@user-qc6pg6ef6h]

Nice video but I hope we could finally move on to Zen vs Kaby Lake comparisons ;))

[@RATechYT]

That will happen eventually!

[@turkovich530]

It seems to all depend on how the software is written to take advantage of extra cores. I'm really impressed with the longevity of the FX. Was your power consumption test the total system power? Or just the CPU?

[@RATechYT]

It's total system power consumption.

[@zanemcelroy7910]

Just upgraded my 8350fx system on m5a99fx pro r2 motherboard, with massive noctua cooler, with a PCI express m.2 drive. Rx580 red devil graphics card. Greatly improved day to day use and made it much more peppy. Running at 4.5ghz all cores with 2133 overclock ram.

[@zanemcelroy7910]

Doesn't quite perform like my daughter's Ryzen 7 system with 5600xt... But she uses for VR... I've found that my setup performs only 15-20% slower at 1080p. When mining Ethereum as a test the hashrates on the fx system were about 38mh/s where the Ryzen system peaks at about 52mh/s. Bottlenecks aside. The fx series of chips are still perfectly viable for 1080 gaming and entertainment system use. Really wish those fancy fx9590s were not so overpriced at the moment. I'd love to see the comparison with the top of the line from the series firsthand.

[@ahmedelshazly433]

I got myself an FX 8320 after running my 6300 for 1 year and im rewatching this video to make myself satisfied 😁❤️❤️ was going to upgrade but economy is not getting well in my country and every next gen part's price is doubled so I searched out an FX 8 core processor to get me pass these hard times. was not lucky with silicon lottery as I could only overclock my cpu to 4.2 ghz with 1.43 volts, but im confident that it can get higher with better motherboard. Thanks for your great videos ❤️❤️

[@JoIs033]

Yes, the time has given amd the reason core count really matters, I was expecting that newer games gave a second breath to my fx8320e and was right, if the industry had given this much importance to core count back in the day AMD's cpu wouldn't have been labeled as bad as they were, but I'm happy cause can squeeze a bit more this cpu (I'm giving it to my nephew)

[@downundergarage6968]

You probably want to keep an eye on the individual CPU core vs the overall CPU usage. Some games will only utilise say 4 cores and will only light touch the others.

[@stefanpastravanu1493]

I started watching these since I got an fx 8370 for my gf alongside a Gigabyte Ga990x Gaming for $25. Very informative, and after using the CPU, it works out pretty nice. VRM's heat up a bit sometimes , so I'm keeping it at 4.2 all cores. But for the money I spent for it, it absolutely flies. I left my own pc off for a while just to test out different games on the fx. Apart from csgo , where it's kinda bad to be dropping to 80 fps (still, that game can't use all cores) I had so much fun with it

[@sovo1212]

22:58 You didn't mentioned it, but a crucial factor for opting for the 8350 was how easy was to upgrade from an older motherboard, a long standing tradition with AMD. In my case, this was the very reason I opted to go for the 8350 instead of jumping to Intel. In all fairness though, I had to add some extra cooling to the VRMs, otherwise they ran too hot and caused system hangups. This was an issue with several AM3 motherboards, not properly designed for such a beast.

[@elitepauper7400]

Luckily never experienced vrm heating issues on the ASRock pro3

[@justusstern9125]

I`m quite happy with my AMD FX-8370E ! Even Cyberpunk 2077 runs smooth at medium settings !

[@jotabe1984]

Fx CPU lagged behind in gaming performance back in 2012... yes.. because old Dx11 (or older) games mainly used 2 cores... and old communication software like TS2 wasn't taxing at all compared to discord to be fair, and streaming was a 2nd PC issue, not like nowadays that a single computer handles everything. So having faster cores maked a better purchase back in the day... even some productivity software didn't relied that much on multicores, and Intel CPUs performance was on pair with larger core-count Fx cpus... But the gap between brands and products came out of testbench that didn't really used the PCs the same way the users would... and having extra cores gave Fx users a lot more room to multitask in an era that this was a luxury for Intel builds (considering i5 able to multitask back in the day, but at a price greater than Fx8350, while Fx6300 allowed multitasking on a price tag in which i3 couldn't really deliver). We, the minority using Fx CPUs, knew already back then that an Fx4300 was quite better purchase than a 2 core Celeron, an Fx6300 was a better purchase than 2 core 4 thread i3, and an Fx8350 was quite better purchase than an i5 and almost as good of a purchase as an i7 2600 or 3770 for a lot less money... Of course, best CPU back in the day (excluding x79 and x99 platforms) were Intels i7, but they came at such large prize that wasn't really allowed for the average joe (and i'm from 3rd world, so the effort was even greater). Back to gaming... once Mantle > Vulkan became popular and then Dx12 came out, the gaming performance of the Fx CPUs was really boosted. The Ryzen lineup ended up the Intel's 'bully practice' of keeping things 2/4 cores for the mainstream, so once Intel was forced to embrace more core count, the developers across the world needed to redesign their soft to use more and more threads, that only boosted Fx performance, despite older slower cores... and Back to the intended use... now multitasking between heavy apps is an everyday requirement for any prouser, and in this case-scenario an old Fx6300 outperforms even i3 from 7th gen, while Fx8350 outperforms i5 up to 7th gen. since core speed will mainly improve a single app performance, but won't be able to keep a decent performance across many apps. Productivity wise... Fx platform were a great bang for the buck... even in soft who liked more the Intel CPUs, the Fx core count allowed for multiple soft to be managed at the same time (photoshop / illustrator for designers; Photoshop / camera raw for photographers; Premiere / After Effects for videomakers and every combination of these, or alternate software avaiable). Even in 2023 i would suggest an Fx8350 w/32gb of 1600mhz DDR3 for any starter productivity build (except for 4K video) ------- We are in 2023 now... Well, for this time period... i would suggest to anyone forced to purchase a 2nd hand DDR3 platform, to aim for an Fx 8 core... to be fair, Fx6300 is falling short for many task, and won't be able to really push any gpu above GTX 1050Ti without bottleneck, and productivity wise, it will struggle with 1080p video edition. But Fx8350 will run smoothly an Rx580 and be decent in 1080p edition. Fx8300/8320e might be better with an Rx570 but they will be a good editing platform. Intel's i5 and i3 are going to struggle heavily with modern games and might even be more expensive than Fx counterparts. While i7 from the past might still be a good purchase, they need to be a good deal, something not as usual as with 8 core Fx

[@camiarmandav3ng3r-40]

nice review . and for the i5-3470 what is the ideal grafic card on it..

[@Onmybutt077]

i have that mobo and fx cpu, been running it for years :-) just recently tried sli with 2 gtx 970's and man i should have tried it sooner lol ! great vid

[@AshenTechDotCom]

sli works great these days... sadly now that its mature and working great, its a dead tech....sadpanda...

[@jacknewman7873]

I would liked to have seen the 8350 go up against a i5 3570k so both can be overclocked

[@AsianPersuation24x7]

I have no experience to say the FX chip would do much better multitasking but look at the CPU usage... quite a bit lower on the FX so I imagine it can run music or discord in the background without a game performance hit but I bet the intel chip would have a decent performance hit.

[@PearComputingDevices]

If your using a pre-built such as my daughter's Precision t1650 with an i5 3470 I didn't find it too bad. I mean yes these comparisons seem to be fairly spot on, but I paid under $150 bucks last year for the unit. Slapped in a GT 1050ti since no extra power is needed, and a 250gb ssd... my 8 year old games on it like nothing. Sure, it's nothing next tp my more modern 8 core Xeon, but it was dirt cheap. Did I mention these system still look pretty neat with their mesh front plates? Decent stuff.

[@remynisce33]

Wow this is really a good review. Thanks man!

[@kjcolewelle]

I guess it’s down to cost-to-performance ratio. 1155 motherboards where I am are overpriced compared to AM3+ ones, and electricity is relatively cheap. Getting USB 3.0 and the ability to use faster DDR3 memory on the AM3+ platform out of the box is also cheaper. I have systems running both platforms and I am happy to say they both give me a lot of pleasure to use. At this point I would still get more performance out of upgrading my GPU than investing in a whole new generation of computing (I.e using DDR4). PS Groovy Christmas jumper, by the way :)

[@RATechYT]

Glad you like it!

[@RossBoss90]

Not sure why everyone shits on the old fx processors, still rocking a fx8350 4.5ghz from 2013, with a rx590 8gb. Runs doom 2016 ultra settings max AA all day. Cinebench 23 score 3700, 12700 on ultrafire. Max temps 59C. Looking into overclocking the ram now.

[@theministryofnonsense]

You deserve my subscription sir, great work :)

[@DanielGT_93]

I'm playing with an FX8120 and it can get easy to 5Ghz with good cooling. About the pentium G5500 and new cpu's, there is one important thing you're missing: AVX 2.0. Most if not all of games from 2015 to today can use AVX2 and The FX (and also Sandy and Ivy bridge) only have AVX1, witch is a lot slower. But i still think that 8 cores with avx1 will beat 2/4 cores with avx2.

[@sanitylogic4611]

Frame timing is very important, especially when in a competitive game. A stutter can mean the difference from getting the winning round, or losing it all.

[@jpeg3933]

These FX videos is always giving me a reason not to upgrade to a Ryzen because FX is still a good enough cpu in 2020

[@RATechYT]

Obviously almost any Ryzen CPU is going to be an upgrade in one way or another over even the highest clocked FX-9590. But at the same time, if your current processor still performs just fine and does the job for you, then there's no reason to hurry.

[@VikingDudee]

I wouldn't bother if your happy with it. I'm going to probably be the same with my threadripper 1950x in 2030.

[@Dave6i9]

Well, i share the same opinion, got fx @ crosshairV, g.skill 2400 and r5700, i love this setup, spent many years with different settings, overclocking and so on but i still fell that its bit weak (yes i expect bit more) ;) -Dave

[@allothernamesbutthis]

@@VikingDudee windows coding will make sure you need 128GB ram, 12TB PCIe 7 SSD, 1TB GPU and thats just to run windows!

[@azz09444]

Unless you got a gpu that came out after 2015 or 2016 you dont need to upgrade, every gpu after that will be bottlenecked by the fx cpu

[@goatslayerwp]

My son is still running a FX 9370 and a GTX 1080. Runs everything at pretty high settings just fine.

[@AuroraGameworks]

for both cpu's where most of the games tested tend to hover around 70-90fps, capping the fps to 60hz would result in a much more stable experience, use less power, lower temps, processing headroom for background tasks and things like discord

[@MTUShadow]

Used to have both FX6300 and FX8350 and can confirm, that it never felt slow (4,6ghz under watercooler) nor lagging behind much more expensive intel alternatives. Yeah, sure, it had it´s issues, but for mid tier gaming PC on a budget, it was the perfect choice (if you had solid air flow and cooling solution). I can still remeber the face my friend who had intel i5 3470k build with the same graphics (GTX770) made, when he saw how much smoother witcher 3 runs on my PC with CPU half the price of his :D Priceless. If you didn´t mind the extra power consumption (and therefore the extra heat), it was easily a better pick than i5. I never understood the hate it got after having it for years... Maybe fx based laptops casued all the hate? I can see an FX based laptop overheat in matter of minutes being quite the problem.

[@sesu5543]

FX based laptops in my opinion having owned the FX-9830P are not hot around 70°c but because of its multicore score being only a 4c 4t cpu sucks and compared to even a mobile 3rd gen i5, the 2c 4t of the i5 still beats the FX but then again its not like we can put a 125w chip in a laptop back then

[@saintwalter3328]

Thank you so much for checking out the FX-8350, ive always thought in my mind that some reviewers don't give the FX series much of a chance, This really puts the FX up to its competition. FX is amazing for budget builds!.

[@evers6214]

Fx was amazing when it was cheap. i once bought an fx8300 for $89 brand new. Now they are hard to find at good prices. Meanwhile tons of businesses and schools are dumping their old i5 machines for next to nothing. Ive had much better success putting together cheap budget machines with these readily available parts.

[@8bvg300]

I chose a 8300 due to doing rndering as part of my personal projects. Still rocking it to this day and haven't hit anything yet that has made me feel i NEED to upgrade

[@Adam-bw4lw]

Same here i paired my fx8300 whit an rx5500xt gpu 😂👍

[@SSchithFoo]

I ve been using an FX8350 base clock with a Radeon 7 for 1.5 years now. I play every game in 4k/UHD with everything maxed out normally without AA coz I don't need it with a 32 inch 4k screen most of the time. I get 50+ fps in most games and even my DDR3 ram is running at 1066-1333. I only found frame lag issues in Hitman 1 when there are too many people on the screen at once. It is good enough for me for now and I might upgrade to the new Ryzen 5000 series if prices go down as it seems like a worthy CPU to upgrade to.

[@eightyd2554]

You can overclock any locked 1155 i5 and i7 by +4 multiplier to turbo clocks on a P or Z board +bclk, and also locking to single core turbo if you have a Z77 with multi core enhancement. 3470 would top out at 4.1 ghz all core with mce board and 102.5bclk. Search up intel limited unlock

[@RATechYT]

I am aware of that, yet there have been reports that overclocking is only possible on select models, not all P & Z motherboards are capable of overclocking a locked processor.

[@eightyd2554]

@@RATechYT I have used ECS, MSI, Asus and Gigabyte.P and Z. All were able to do +4 to turbo. Only select Asus Giga and MSI Z77 boards have multicore enhancement and it doesn't work with e3 xeons or i3s. Good work on the video I gave it a like.

[@Kanivalos80]

@@RATechYT yeah only Z77,P have that turbocore or something feature. i run my i5 2400 at 3.7ghz all cores with less than 1.2V.I thought about adding a I7 3770k or a i7 2600k but F it... Saving for Ryzen build when prices get normalized.

[@gordon3002]

I had an FX 4300 in my system that I recently upgraded to an i5 3470. But seeing this I start to think it might’ve been a better idea getting an FX 8300 (because my FX motherboard only supported 95W CPUs).

[@RATechYT]

Which board did you have?

[@gordon3002]

@@RATechYT Asrock 960GC-GS FX

[@RATechYT]

@@gordon3002 That's a low end motherboard, you'd definitely need to upgrade to a better one before getting an 8 core FX CPU - even if you went for the 95W model. Either way - yes, getting an 8 core FX would've been a better decision, especially if you tend to multi task and play latest games.

[@pauls4522]

I love how over 10 years later, the rollercoaster which is the internet culture between the FX series and the intel ivy bridge series is still sees so much drama. The argument I made back in January 2013 when i built my FX8350 system, and today is still the same. While my previous pc to the FX8350 was an Athlon II x3 and an AMD chip for that matter, I did consider intel at the time because I new bulldozer was an absolute disaster. Then piledriver came out and had good improvements over bulldozer. The nail on the coffin though that mattered in my decision though, was pricing. Upon Piledrivers release, when I purchased my fx8350 in late 2012 I did a lot of research. As a poor college student I went with FX because the 8350 was 30$ cheaper than the I5, and the motherboards were a good amount cheaper too. I probably saved close to 100$ with that decision and as a college student every penny counts. If I were in the financial situation im in today back in December 2012, I would have likely focused on semi-near high-end and would have ended up with i7, but once again I emphasize, ones current financial situation.

[@opinadorrj4337]

I keep asking ... Are you sure the FX is bad? I was very suspicious about some youtubers who claim that FX is an outdated processor. I'm with my 8300, with no idea when I'm going to change it. Excellent video. As it says here in Brazil: you killed the snake and showed the stick. You showed by A + B what I have said since 2012 at least. FX was more of an advantage at that time than buying a core i.

[@Pis1989]

Proud owner of AMD FX-8350 here. Still using it with GTX 1080.

[@TheOrganicPharmer]

My fx8350 is still great. I'll be waiting until a new chipset is out.

[@andreawars]

You do have a xpredatorx1 case. Same as mine with the fx8350

[@Obyss682]

Would be good to see vs i7 from 2nd gen intel. Back in the day the 8350 blew the i5 out if the water. Its disappointing that the reviews dont take into consideration that the 8350 cost the same as the base i5

[@gamecomparisons]

My FX 8150 HTPC is still running strong at 4.4Ghz and regularly tests in Cinebench R15 within 15 to 30 points of the i5-3770 (not a typo). That's 635-640 on my FX 8150 to the 3770's 662. The FX line just loves it above 4.2 Ghz and without Turbo boost, it is only a matter of keeping those VRMs cool. I find it interesting in your videos that the i5 is running 100% maxed out so frequently while the FX is down in the 60% range, or at most up in the 90% range. I'm glad you pointed that out too, 100% CPU usage means it is time for an upgrade. I am very glad I sprung for the FX-8150 in 2012 rather than the Phenom II X4 Black edition literally every website told me to get instead. When I compared the FX total system cost to an Intel i5 system it wasn't even close either. I do think all of this turned around because AMD is finally getting better support from software developers than they would have if the not-a-consoles hadn't gone the AMD route. But still, those eight cores just keep getting better and better with time.

[@newworld9133]

I still have 4 machines in my house that have FX cpus.

[@icalexander]

I've still got an FX6300 machine with an R9 280x that's holding up surprisingly well.

[@newworld9133]

@@icalexander Nice. These CPUs are good, they are just a little too power hungry. I bought my 8350 the day it was released and that machine is still running strong.

[@besomewheredosomething]

I still have in my possession an FX 9590, but decided to retire her when the VRMs on a 220-watt mobo went up in blue fire while my son played Fortnite.

[@newworld9133]

@@besomewheredosomething The 9590 needed super solid VRM . I have 2 Asus Sabertooth 990 V2 motherboards here. One still has a 9590 cooled by a Noctua D-15.

[@sebastianramos6137]

Sounds like you don’t need a heater this winter

[@TheScure]

Btw the problem with the stock cooler is the noise. It can go up to 4000RPM which can cool it down, but it's loud AF.

[@RATechYT]

It is definitely noisier than the intel stock cooler, but there were plenty of people that also complained about high temps with the stock FX heatsink.

[@jimtopbloke6432]

I've got both of these chips and I honestly prefer the FX over the i5 for everyday use so I lent my i5 out on so someone else can get some use out of it.. whatever you do you must get an SSD for the OS as it's night and day

[@abijithng6302]

@RA Tech, OMG Adam! It is finally Out!

[@RATechYT]

Thanks a lot!

[@arisaffandy]

Both are made in Malaysia at that time. 😊

[@bok..]

lots of nostalgia for the 3470. it was my first course for the first good computer I ever had. paired with a gtx 660

[@Voidsworn]

Great. I've got a bunch of fx CPUs here (4100, 4130, 4300, 6200, 8320e) and two Asrock 970m boards. Wonder how well they can do with proper oc and other tweaks.

[@rodrigomendes3327]

Relly good review, using old and new games. Showing us that every engine will react differently, even modern ones. I would say that FX is a better CPU for modern games in general.

[@fx8350R]

FX 8350 was probably the most underrated CPU of all time. It really underperforms only if paired with an Nvidia high end GPUs and older single thread DX11 games, because of the overhead. Using an AMD GPUs, the FX gains performance, and runs very well with DX12 and Vulkan games ( I did some amateur videos in the past, I paired with a 5700XT kzbin.info/www/bejne/aYfYg52AoquZq7s ). The FX needs the 990 chipset. "Blazoned" reviewers still omit to the test heavy multitasking activity (that wrecks any Intel dual cores) but this guy did it in 2014 and it's still amazing today. kzbin.info/www/bejne/roTKoZahh6-fppY Or they test the FX in the worst case scenarios, just to tell it sucked and still sucks. It is still a good CPU for 60FPS at 1080p or higher resolution. You did a very good job! You deserve much more visibility.

[@Trick-Framed]

Umm. Not completely. My wife got me an RX 480 8GB as a present in January 2017 as they were out of stock prior. I then got myself a GTX 1080 FE In February. The GTX 1080 made it possible to play in 4K. It also made many games MUCH better. Sure the FX was the bottleneck. But it was what led to figure out how to get the most from an FX CPU and fact is, you need to know what you are doing to do so. You can get Ivy Bridge single core IPC (i5 3470) and Haswell multi-core IPC (i7 4770) from a 4.7 Ghz all core OC. In order to get that you need the 990 chipset. Preferably 990fx but the 990x will do as well as long as the board has a good VRM and cooling system. You'll need a quality cooler like a Noctua or Cryorig H7. I tend to shy away from water cooling of FX due to the nature of the heat they generate keeping a rad warmer than average. However a good custom loop will work as well. You need a full size and well ventilated ATX case and you need the fastest memory you can get for it. You want 16GB or more and it needs to be at least 1866 although I recommend DDR3 2400. Once you have all this in place, a layman's OC will get you to 4.5-4.6 ghz just by adjusting the multipliers. From there, if you took the time to liquid metal the chipset and put a new strip of thermal pad where and if needed under your VRM cooler and you are ready to OC the hypertransport bus. Once you OC that and the system is moving more data around, you can try to get the max multiplier OC you can. I've gotten 4.8 Ghz all core. And it nets me the above mentioned IPC. I get the single core of a Mid Range Ivy Bridge chip and the multi core of an i7 4770. At this point even my GTX 1080 wasn't bottlenecked much but I built it to be an XBOX One X killer, so I added an RX 570 4GB. And I am keeping it for nostalgia. That chip ran from 2014 to 2017 without a hiccup on a Gigabyte 970 board. No memory OC, 16GB DDR3 1600 at the time and it was fine with the GTX 1080 but bottlenecked. I unleashed the beast and it kills now. Fun fact, even CEMU runs Mario Kart 8 in widescreen correction applied, in 4K. For up to 3 people. Once you add a 4th is starts to drop frames into the 45 FPS area. This is an amazing bit of FineWineTM AMD pulled here. And anyone that made fun of the FX 8xxx series was misinformed or stuck in the past. Even when I first got it and had an HD 7850 2GB paired with it, no OC and stock cooler it still did 1080p 60 med-high in most titles that didn't need more VRAM at the time. I am not an AMD fanboi. I lean toward Intel as far as shilling is concerned, I've been fascinated with them since the 8 Bit days. Back when they were heavily linked to IBM. Before clones. And I STILL have to give the FX it's props. Sure, CMT never took off. Forcing two cores to share an FPU was not the way to go for a truly future proofed chip, but they couldn't have known back then and if they did it was purely financial as removing that bit killed performance on the second core of each CCX so badly FX became a meme. And a funny one at that. Funny or not, however, AMD banked correctly on the future and here we are. And anyone with an FX 8xxx chip won't give it up easily if they know what it's worth. They still go for north of $100 and the boards are as expensive and more elusive to find. Now imagine they actually had a second FPU in each cluster? Right now we wouldn't be talking about this at all. Edit: Almost forgot. The Achilles heal in FX 8350 for a few years now has been it's PCIe 2.0 Interface. And It's where AMD messed up. They should have gotten PCIe 3.0 out before Intel and didn't. FX would be MORE than relevant today if they had.

[@BREEZYM6015]

Still gaming on an FX8320 in 2022.

[@doghunter4097]

I still use AMD FX8320 OC4.0. In the latest and most demanding games, all eight cores are constantly in action. There is no bottleneck My opinion is that: it is an 8C / 4T processor.

[@ysnyldrm73]

More or more games keep getting better multi thread support old fx cpu's still can be played with. "The years they come out" they were really future proof for games.

[@saricubra2867]

Depends, they have 4 cores and 8 threads and everything with 8 threads will hold up pretty well, but, in singlethread speed, Bulldozer and Piledriver were pretty bad at the time with Sandy Bridge in the same year.

[@ysnyldrm73]

@@saricubra2867 If you're talking about fx, they dont have 4 core 8 threads. All of them are cores. Cinebench missleading.

[@monkeslayer-km5ho]

Thanks to ryzen ccx/ccd architecture

[@Just_a_Lad]

I have an i5 6400 , I wonder how would this CPU compare to FX8350 in both older and new games

[@greenbassboosts8872]

Were the intel processors you checked secured from the Inspector Meltdown

[@wishusknight3009]

The places where you found the I5 being unstable in its frame pacing or very "jumpy" is something that Hyperthreading was really able to help smooth out, and I think mostly due to running minor threads on the the same core and not having to jump to the next core l2 caches constantly. The FX with its siameised integer pipes would shine here, even if that advantage was eroded by its lower IPC. L3 cache size may also play a small part, but from other deepdives I have read in the past, it seems to be due to cache coherency and snooping latency. Which is why sometimes the 4 thread i3 dual cores made great gamer cpus for the money. By the way, that I5 can overclock.. Ivybridge quads with turbo could push 4 bins past max turbo at all levels. That was removed with haswell. But in all honesty, your studdering on the I5 platform seems really off. As I never experienced stuff like that on systems I built, and I suspect something may be amis in the setup.. You may have an optimization issue going on there which is giving the computer heartburn sadly.

[@RATechYT]

I explain why I didn't overclock the i5 in the pinned comment. It is pretty much a fresh install of Windows, and all the results were triple checked. I also tried testing the same areas using a Ryzen 5 1600 AF that I disabled 2 cores and SMT on, and the results were *very* identical. In case you have any suspicions you can always build the same PCs and compare them yourself, I'm very confident that results are not going to be right in line with what I got.

[@wishusknight3009]

@@RATechYT HM, I will have to walk back my comments a bit. My son's computer is a 2600K and I was able to peal him off of it long enough for a fun experiment. I should have clarified that the stuttering you showed seemed much worse than what I experienced on i5 builds in the past. And indeed it is, but that i5's were still capable in MT games. One of the titles I tried was shadow of the tomb raider, and it did exhibit much better smoothness with HT enabled vs off. It was very noticeable, but the game still seemed to load properly without sound cutting out with only 4 threads. I would say its playable but it is certainly jittery. Small factors that can contribute to the difference to your experience could be the slightly larger (8mb) L3 cache and his GTX980 graphics card which is going to bottleneck him a bit more. He also uses an X-Fi PCI soundboard which possibly has much less cpu overhead. His windows 10 is also mercilessly de-bloated. His CPU is clocked at 4 ghz max. But lowering clock rates to 3.2 doesn't make much difference to rather or not it stuttered, it seemed to be about the same but with a lower fps. Enabling vsync solved a lot of issues. Next game I have tried was The Division 2 as it gave very stark results for you, and to us it was similar to Tomb Raider in difference. But his frame rates with HT on are much the same you are showing with the i5 chip and the frame times are sort of flat but not quite as flat as the FX chip. With HT Off it shows a slightly higher frame rate oddly, but frame times are all over the place and it is quite jumpy but never freezing. My son would deem it unplayable. Turning on 60hz V-Sync with triple buffering solved the problem and made frame times ruler flat. This is most likely the thing I did in the past which made my i5 experiences better than what they would be with more modern titles.. My son didn't notice any difference in lag with vs vsync off and HT on. Call of Duty warzone give a perfect experience with HT on, and a very choppy one with HT off. It does stutter the worst of the 3 games tried but doesn't seem to have the same momentary pauses. This again could be probably do to this particular computers software and hardware configuration which would favor a smoother experience and wouldn't be typical for an i5. I don't have one on hand to test that, but the only difference would be the l3 cache size. Enabling vsync helps quite a lot but the frame rates are really low and my son still deems it unplayable. I suppose I could also transplant the video board with my 5700XT but I don't care to play around with driver's on his machine. And a video board with higher headroom could contribute to a worse experience with the game freezing.. I also for giggles tried CoDW with HT on but with 2 cores only. And was shocked to find it was better than 4cores no HT, albeit lower FPS., This kind of confirms what others have found with game threads not having to jump to neighboring cpu's private l2 caches so much. And is probably part of the FX cpu's success here. I suspect that an i3 with 3mb of cahce though is not going to fare as well as one with 8mb of cache, though it cant be that big of a difference.. I would guess 10% perhaps. What does this tell me? well, not alot. But it was a quality couple of hours with my son anyhow. That and if you have an i5 be prepared to use vsync and increase input lag. Or its time to get a new computer. I always advocated people move upto the I7 in the past due to longevity. As it price premium was always worth it.

[@euX222X]

A friend of mine still have his FX 8300, playing almost all the actual games at 4K 30FPS with his RTX 2060 (the GPU bottlenecks in some 4K games), and he want to buy a 3060Ti or equivalent without raytracing from the new GPUs, but do not want to change his CPU/motherboard kit, mainly because he have 32GB 1866...

[@melonter7994]

what a way to waste that 3060ti, even 2060 is wasting performance bc that cpu is heavy bottlenecking that card

[@ihatelols]

he should get the i7 3930k with good mobo as an upgrade. Performs identically to my 8700k @4k resolution and even comparable at 1440p when it's overclocked to 4.4 ghz. Massive upgrade from the fx tho.

[@euX222X]

@@melonter7994 Maybe, but he want to play at 4K Ultra with at least 30 frames per second, and in some games not even the RTX 2060 can handle that level of "gameplay", for example, in AC Valhalla that RTX 2060 only goes at 1440p ~40FPS in Ultra config, the GPU are "bottlenecking" the FX 8300.

[@isaiaslafon9329]

Nice comparison! really similar, even thi if you want to use it to emulate PS2 u had to ditch teh FX, I have the FX-8350 and PUBG really slow downs constantly, even with all in the lower setting, maybe is my GPU (R9 270x 2gb) even it crash at times. I have 2x8GB 1866mhz, dual channel with xmp profile for AMD.

[@illaudatus]

I've upgraded my FX8350 / RX580 8GB / 16GB DDR3 1600 2 years ago. It was the best build i ever had. Now i work with a Ryzen 5600X / RX6700XT / 16GB DDR4 3600MHz. I don't upgrade until my 1080p games drop below 60fps on high settings.

[@DrEvilTag]

The FX-8350 & Intel i5 3470 , when these processors released, the Intel i5 was a no brainer to buy but as games started using more threads then 4 starting in like 2015, we see the FX-8350 age much better hence that’s why in 2020, the 8350 is better which was not the case back in 2013. Either way don’t buy either in 2020, go straight to a Ryzen build

[@likeclockwork64butbetter58]

Not really. The majority of games function with a master and slave cores. The FX's poor single core ipc becomes a bottleneck when the slave cores cannot take enough load off that master core. This is why the i7 is aging better than the i5. Hyperthreading takes the added strain off the master core. Same with the i3 9100f vs the i3 10100f or the Ryzen 3 1200 vs the Ryzen 3 3100. Later i5's have far faster stock clocks and modern Intel processors have about 20% better ipc than Sandy and Ivy. The majority of games prior to 2017 will run poorer on the FX 8350 than an i5. Vulkan really helps the FX chips but the titles using it came half a decade too late. I'm not an Intel fanboy either, I saw what Vulkan and Mantle did for FX processors, really did massively increase their potential. In Doom 2016 I saw my FX 6300 and R9 Fury double their minimum frame rates going from OpenGL to Vulkan. Mantle in Battlefield 4 saw boosts in average fps from frequent drops to 40 fps to near constant 70fps and 80fps on FX systems running AMD GPUs.

[@basadake]

maybe. but try both cpu in the cheapest compatible motherboard and stock coolers.

[@likeclockwork64butbetter58]

@@basadake Never use a platform's best processor on the cheapest motherboard and throw those stock coolers in the trash and get a decent Thermalright or Noctua solution.

[@basadake]

@@likeclockwork64butbetter58 you dont understand. the 3470 is totally fine with the cheapest h61 board and a stock intel cooler. Try the the 8350 with stock amd fan and a h61 priced am3+ board . good luck :D

[@likeclockwork64butbetter58]

@@basadake There's a similar situation with memory between Ryzen and Intel processors. If you run a R3 3100 with 2400mhz ram it will lose badly to a i3 10100f running the same memory because the Ryzen is very memory dependent for core to core communication.