Viability of the AM3+

[Thelosouvlakia]

The AM3+ has been around for many years, it may not be that relevant in reviewer's videos because of course there isn't anything new to add and because Intel has punched amd in the guts with both the chips of their "current" sockets beating the FX lineup in almost every performance wise perspective.

So the question that I want to ask. Is the FX(AM3+) platform worth going for? I'm asking because, the intel chips are too expensive for some people (including me) and I don't know if they are surely worth the extra 100Euros.

We all know (and hope that accept) the fact that the Intel has the best IPC right now, which is what singlethreaded applications need. Only case that I know that AMD can keep the performance delta to a minimum is when you are dealing with creative utilities like Photoshop, Premier etc My concern willl be mostly gaming: Can an AMD chip compete with the Intel "counterpart" and is that difference always going to show between the two chips? Will the FX be able to keep running games well for the next couple of years?


[Guys I'm in a great dillema, I want to go 1150 socket because the chips are superb but next year when I go to university I'm going to start using programs that do rendering or compiling and generally things that are CPU core hungry. If I wanted the "just gaming" experience I would go for the latest i5 but since I'm a multitasking freak myself, simply put I'm afraid to go i5. So I don't think I would be "comfortable" with an i5. I would settle for an 4770k but the price hasn't dropped yet it seems. I don't know ]

 

[barnsley]

They've pretty much stopped selling the 9590.

I think you'll be fine performance wise for the next three years. Games are becoming more threaded rather than less threaded, if that makes any sense. My friend has had his for over a year now and he has been fine with it. All the changes that have been made to that rig was to do a tek syndicate and swap the AIO out for a NH14 as it is quieter and still keeps it cool.

Its still a respectable chip if you're not fussed about single threaded performance (although, its not as bad as you'd think...). Professional usage wise, they're great for doing stuff like running virtual machines and I believe they even support ECC ram, if you end up going down that route. All you have to do is to make sure you've got windows 8.1/10 and it'll be fine. I'd still use my 8320 as my main rig if I didn't end up needing strong single cores/ I wanted a nice looking pc.

TLDR: Its not a bad chip. Unless you are restricted by electricity bills and hate heat. The i5 is better for gaming though.

 

[Zoot]

So the question that I want to ask. Is the FX(AM3+) platform worth going for?

Only if you're budget constrained.

 

[WYP]

I'd say the only good option on the FX CPU lineup is the FX 8320 series. It costs about i3 money has 8 cores and overclocks well.

 

[Thelosouvlakia]

I'm between the 9590 and the 8350... :/

 

[TPC]

what about the new 83XX E versions which consume less power and I guess OC as good as the others?

 

[barnsley]

I'm between the 9590 and the 8350... :/

9370 or 8370. Thats the ones to look at currently.

 

[Thelosouvlakia]

what about the new 83XX E versions which consume less power and I guess OC as good as the others?

They consume less power because they have been undervolted the 8370E is @ 3.3Ghz the 8370 is @4.0 Ghz The 8350 is also at 4.0 Ghz but the 8370s cost 209 euros and the 8350 costs 175Euros Since they are the same architecture I believe that the difference in performance between the 8370 and 8350 is non existant.

Also sidenote. If I'm going to get the DT990 I'm going to need an amp. I wanted to go 9590+crosshair V, nowhere on asus website is mentioned that this board has a built in amp with that SupremeFXIII audio implementation, neither does any other board that supports the 9590 (I think). The Asrock 990FX killer has an amp that will support up to 600Ohm (can't be compared to something like an O2 I know) but it's a nice feature. However the asrock board doesn't support the 9590 and I don't know why since the extreme 6 board which to me seems to be identical in terms of specs actually does support...

Edit-@barnsley The 9370 is a 9590 that it was not meant to be.. And it also requires the beefiest motherboards

 

[barnsley]

Asrock have released some 990/970 motherboards recently and are quite decent. Their 990FX killer was the first motherboard that was made for the 9590, as opposed to just being a very strong motherboard.

Oh and asrock also recently released a 970 motherboard that supports the 9590. The only one apparently. Hrm I wonder why that could be ...

 

[Thelosouvlakia]

OHMYGOD WHERE?! 970 that support the 9xxx?!?!?! I can't find it in greece whyyyyyyyyyyyy T_T
Also the 990FX fatal1ty killer doesn't support the 9xxx i just checked it

 

[barnsley]

Also the 990FX fatal1ty killer doesn't support the 9xxx i just checked it

Oh.
Maybe its the other one they do.

also that 970 board is really new. I've not seen it overhere either.

 

[iBeInspire]

The good thing about the FX series is that you can pick them up for very cheap, and they overclock quite well. As long as you don't have to worry about electricity bills (uni accommodation ect.) then the FX are actually viable for a budget build. However, if you do have the money to spend, i5s just destory anything AMD have to offer, especially once overclocked

 

[agent_x007]

Also the 990FX fatal1ty killer doesn't support the 9xxx i just checked it

Because AMD surprized not only it's clients, but MB makers as well with FX-9590 CPU
Manufacturers can't make MB's with at least 100% beefier VRM (and power distribution) in just few weeks/months time.
And of course, they can't add more phases to boards that was already sold

This is 'lil old list (no 970FX's) - but still valid, it contains motherboards compatibile with FX-9590 (TDP 220W) :

ASRock 990FX Extreme9
ASRock 990FX Extreme6
Asus Crosshair V Formula-Z
Asus M5A99FX PRO R2.0
Asus Sabertooth 990FX R2.0
Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 R4.0
Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5 R3.0
Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD7 R3.0
MSI 990FXA-GD80V2

Rx.x = revision of motherboard (when support was added later).

 

[WYP]

i'd check if the new msi 970 chipset board works, it is pretty good.

I'm checking now, as it is working awesome for me atm for my testing, I don't know is it supports a 220W CPU though.

 

[Thelosouvlakia]

The msi board doesn't support the 220W chips sadly.
Comparing just the looks of the 970 Asrock board and the 990fx ones that support the 220W chips, a huge question is raised. How is that tiny VRM cooler on the asrock motherboard is going to compete with the others especially when when we know that those chips tend to get everything to hellish temperatures.

 

[Dicehunter]

Save your money, Save up for a while longer and go intel, Honestly AMD is not worth it at this moment in time even if on a budget, You would be better served waiting until you have enough funds to go Intel.

Even in multi threaded apps an i5 clocked to 3.5GHZ walks all over an 8350 clocked at 4.50GHZ, Single threaded applications is even worse for AMD.

I have an 8350 rig and I'm using it as a media server, If it was worthwhile it would be in my main rig but it is not.

 

[Thelosouvlakia]

Save your money, Save up for a while longer and go intel, Honestly AMD is not worth it at this moment in time even if on a budget, you would be better served waiting until you have enough funds to go Intel.

You've told me that again Dice. I'm telling you if I could do something like that, (I mean waiting, I would wait, problem is that if by the end of summer I don't have the money for the build I will be left without a PC because I'll be moving to another town because of university.
I'm going to see how much funding I could get, and AM3+ is the last (but most probable) option I have planned.
Else things are quite easy. My plan is i7 4790k on the RoG z97 Ranger

 

[barnsley]

Even in multi threaded apps an i5 clocked to 3.5GHZ walks all over an 8350 clocked at 4.50GHZ, Single threaded applications is even worse for AMD.

Sorry, but thats not true if its properly multithreaded. Ofcourse it'll walk all over it if its only using four AMD cores (as is the case with most multithreaded games) but as soon as it uses all 8 cpu cores it is fine.

My old 8320 beats the crap out of a 4670 (non k) for streaming games as streaming software actively uses all 8 cpu cores. This is based on streaming Arma 3 at 720p, 1080p causes the i5 to run at about .5fps and the 8 core to hit 99% on all 8 cores but get a decent ish (haha) 10fps.

-edit- this is arma 3 single player on sandbox (altis) using OBS 64bit.

The 8 core cpus are still fine for budget stuff. Heck, I'd still go for a 6300 over a low end i3 anyday if budget came down to it.

Intel have the £140+ market no argument. Lower then that and it gets more interesting.

 

[Thelosouvlakia]

This build is going to be an one-out. My parent's won't give me another 350 euros for the i7 if I decide to go with the pentiumK until I get the money. That's not going to happen

 

[WYP]

This build is going to be an one-out. My parent's won't give me another 350 euros for the i7 if I decide to go with the pentiumK until I get the money. That's not going to happen

I'll be honest, I'd go for a 8320 or 8320e, it overclocks just the same, sure it isn't 5GHz, but 4.6 ain't bad (which is what I got my 8320e to).

I'd buy a 8320 and put more money towards other parts, or just buy the i5 and overclock that.

I don't see the point going above the 8320/8320e. They are just the same parts with an overclock.

I don't know if I'm allowed to really say this but we will have a AM3+ review on the site in a few days, on the MSI board I mentioned.