Which is the better Socket AM3+ CPU, the Phenom II or the FX?

Which is the better Socket AM3+ CPU, the Phenom II or the FX?

Attached: amd fx.png (1260x709, 177K)

FX

This, If your OS supports core parking when 4 or less threads are being used, the old is a little better than phenom and it's clocked higher.

>the old
The ipc***

does it do better in games?

Nowadays it does because the game use 8 threads

Piledriver has slightly better IPC (Bulldozer technically had the same or worse) than Phenom II and can be clocked higher. Multi of 8350 should be better than even a Phenom II x6.Also instruction set, Phenom II and Core 2 stumble in some tasks simply;y because they're too old.

Stop meming dumb shill you never owned one and dont know the pain of using an fx cpu for gaming. I just got rid of mine last year and it got worse not better

>you never owned one
I'm on my phone right now and all I have is this picture of my sexy ass board's io panel but it's an fx8350 rig.


It can still game fine with a 1060 card, wouldn't recommend people go out and Bill FX rigs unless it's dirt cheap, but it can game.

Attached: 20171105_190905.jpg (2576x1932, 2.11M)

Oh wait I did have a pic, neato.

The denial is real

I'm not denying much, any game I have that's single threaded doesn't bottleneck it because it's old as fuck and the clock speed is high.

FX is patrician taste CPU

Attached: 12312415.png (953x728, 72K)

AMD patched spectre for FX in microcode. For Phenoms Redhat/Fedora did a patch disabling indirect branch prediction entirely by chicken bits but it's not in mainline yet.

Attached: spectre.png (722x1458, 250K)

Except that support for fx is pretty dead.

phenoms are better than bulldozers but worse than piledrivers

Games still list FX 8300 as minimum requirements a lot of times, so at least companies stil remeber it exists. Meanwhile some games are broken on Phenom II due to no SSE 4.1/4.2 and they have to patch it to work only if there's enough whining in the forums.

Buy a ryzen dude, what the fuck.
Why Jow Forums keeps telling anons to buy that shitshow that was the bulldozer (and it's siblings)?
This is one of the reasons people shit on AMD to begin with, they hear from some autist that this is the most powerful cpu in the planet with muh 8 cores and out of nowhere find out it performs worse than a fucking first gen i7.

I FUCKING REPEAT DO NOT BUY THIS OP, BUY A FUCKING RYZEN IF YOU WANT SOMETHING FROM AMD SO MUCH.

FX have i3 performance and price, nowdays.

FX still rock hard on office applications. I can't believe my i7 sometime freezes on excel sheets and multiple browser windows, while the FX-8350 never even flinches. On gaming performances, Intel rolfstomps any FX.

Seconding this. Unless you want that ol' win7 flavor, with DDR3 and any 1060 or sub card.

The hexa-core Thubans perform better than the "octa-core" Visheras in games clock for clock (especially when you overclock the CPU-NB too), but you can easily make up that difference by overclocking the latter further than the Thubans can realistically go.

The 990FX motherboards are patrician taste.

Attached: 041.jpg (1024x683, 198K)

you fucks are delusional

It wasn't obvious when first Bulldozers came out, but nowadays
Is unarguably true as software is being more threaded and optimized to use instruction extensions that FX has and Phenom hasn't.

so FX is so bad that its only saving grace compared to Phenom is having SSE4.x?

Phenoms also don't have SSSE 3 and AVX. eg They aren't much good for ffmpeg/video decoding in 4k.

There's more than SSE4.x, Phenom was really behind in extensions if you consider when the last phenoms (thubans and zosmas) were released. But yeah, IPC-wise FX isn't much of an improvement, but it can clock much higher and has the extra instructions

Not to mention an FX 8350 in one core per module mode at 4.5 is faster than a 1055t thuban.

why are you so mad? it has a market out there for cheap cores / multitasking + threading
for i3 prices you get i3 perfomance in gaymes and i7 4xxx perfomance in multithread

Worst period of amd CPU history
Am4 shits over it

Finally someone who gets my draw to this cheap cpu, the overall compute power of it is really good.

You don't understand. Yeah depending on new game in question FX is good. However older single core only games (which a lot of people still play cause they're damn good) FX sucked compared to Phenom II due to how the FX chip was designed. So you had to pick which option you wanted more: Give up playing your older games yet gaining (reducing) time it took to do say video encoding jobs or going with Phenom II, keep playing your games fine and still do your video jobs with the only thing being that it took maybe 15 - 30 min extra to do that video job. To me, 30 min more ain't that big a thing, being able to play all my games fine and still do my other stuff is.

FX does have a good thing going for it though; long as you don't play games it's fine, so makes a nice server/workstation chip

It's straight up garbage, you can get a Ryzen 3 for the same price which will destroy it in everything.
>but muh multi!
Are you people retarded? Any money you save will be lost because of its horrendous power consumption. If FX was so good at multithreading why did Bulldozer-based Opterons never take off in servers? Because it's hot as fuck.

This is the thing that FX shills on Jow Forums don't get. FX 83xx and varients are NOT budget CPUs. You need a relatively high end AM3+ board to push the overclock, you need a higher end PSU than it's Intel competitor, you need a better cooler, and your power draw and heat output will be twice as high as Intel or Ryzen. FX makes NO sense, it didn't back when it was against the 2600K, and it especially doesn't make sense now. There is no viable use case for FX, it would have only been a decent budget CPU if it had better power draw.

>However older single core only games (which a lot of people still play cause they're damn good) FX sucked compared to Phenom II due to how the FX chip was designed.
But that is not true. FX (Bulldozer) has comparable or just slightly worse IPC than a Phenom II, but at the same time it has significantly higher clocks, so it still wins in single core tasks. Piledriver FX is even better in that matter.

That issue was fixed all the way back in Windows 7 days with core parking retard. FX should at least match Phenom II in any game, Phenom II slightly edges out Bulldozer in IPC but it makes up for it by clocking a little higher. Piledriver is better than Phenom II in every way.

This, but it IS reasonable to buy an FX if you are already on the AM3+ platform and want to upgrade cheaply. I am on a similar situation with my i3 6100, and would be buying a used 7700k once they go for cheap.

If you can find a cheap fx+mobo combo, it can be an option to up your core 2 system and recycle your old ddr3 sticks. Other than that there isn't any point left for fx.

Well the FX 8300 has a tdp of 95w. Same as a Phenom II x4 955 (yes some variants of this chip did have 95w tdp vs 125w black edition). So for same 95w power draw you gain 4 more cores w each core stock at 3.30Ghz. The turbo mode pushes that to 4.0 ghz (I think). But again it depends on use. You look at the specs and think; shit the FX 8300 will totally dominate the Phenom II x4 955. Wrong. Your single core gaming will be so much worse in FX. I know first hand. As a test I swapped out a Phenom II x4 955 for an FX 8300. Kept rest of hardware the same. Single core game play all sucked ass compared to phenom II. Replaced the Phenom II, gameplay was butter smooth again.

fx 8300 has a turbo of 4.2 but it doesn't hold for more than 15 secs, you are basically using it at base clocks all the time. If you give it like 1.4v you can use it all core 4.0ghz

my FX6350 runs 1.27 vcore at 4.0GHz

Attached: 2018-05-31_125355.png (404x402, 41K)

Attached: 2018-05-31_125550.png (405x405, 43K)

fx 8300 is bottom of the barrel chips they need more voltage than a comparable 8350 which is ~1.38v stock like this user posted

Yeah that board I had previously only defaulted to 1.384 to achieve it's 4.2GHz MSI OC Genie nonsense, the real VID is 1.350v on the much better gigabyte board I got, and that thing will hit 4.4 prime stable on 1.38125v.

Also I think alot of the hate from FX is people buying crappy boards and getting mad that it needs lots of voltage to OC and runs hot, a clean 8 phase VRM with an Fx 8350 clocks really well.

Old MSI board was 6+2 phase and it was terrible.

Attached: OC.png (422x414, 58K)

>1.44v
Fuck that dude

That's absolutely nothing for an FX CPU,the FX 9000 chips are cut from the same wafers and have a default vcore of 1.53v, the 8350 even turbos up to 1.44 as one of it's power states when I have my bios set to defaults

Im aware i had a fx 6300 and like 4.1v and needless say my 50 dollar matx msi 970 mobo didnt last super long. Did pretty well for a super cheap 4 phase though

MSI boards are pretty durable, when I had my 990FXA GAMING 6+2 phase, that thing was pushing 115C on the VRM and I just kept pushing it without any issue, It worked when I sold it to get this bad boi.

Attached: AB50837_1.jpg (858x1000, 907K)

1. Replace your AM3+ mobo with a refurbished 1155 one
2. Buy a Core i5
3. Keep your RAM
4. ???
5. PROFIT!

>Buying a refurbished mobo when you have full functioning AM3+ equipment
>sidegrading ever
Better just to buy Ryzen if you're wanting to spend money.