2 0 0 6

based

Muh UD3 tho

Attached: ayymdeee.png (777x818, 54K)

What the fuck? Did we just teleport back to 2015? Is this the Berenstein timeline?

>buying old and shit housefires
there's a reason AMD is sweeping FX under the rug user

Attached: ipc.png (674x800, 53K)

bought my 8350 for $150 in a flash sale 5 years ago, waiting for zen 2

it's been a good cpu for what i paid for it

Even though I undervolted it, it's still raises my room ambient temp which causes me to suffer in this already horrible heat wave
Can't wait for Zen2

other than that it is a CPU, it works yes

Attached: 12313145515.png (1043x862, 83K)

your specs are basically mine from 2013
still using same cpu today though sadly

Attached: speccypic.png (686x495, 72K)

4.5 GHz on an air cooler that's how

we all gonna make it user
just wait for Zen2

Attached: 1528249174689.jpg (1000x1000, 81K)

wtf is that monitor setup
portrait 1080, landscape 1080 and a 1440? all at 60hz too jeez

Only retards bought FXs and only extremely poor and retarded fags are still using them. They only defend it because Ryzen was a massive success and basically brought AMD from ashes, so they too wanna ride into the hype too. Pure delusion.

yeah, no point buying 144hz with my specs and I don't gayem anyway
otherwise it's great setup, very comfy

Why not Zen+?

yeah i figured you didn't game with that build, the resolutions are just weird to me but if it works more power to ya

Pretty sure all the Ryzen shilling and anti-Intel threads are FX owners who stuck with AMD out of sheer blind fanboyism when they're clearly the inferior brand.

They're also the reason why Vega is being shilled here too despite being absolutely inferior to Nvidia.

Anyone shilling Vega is either dumb or has buyer's remorse. However, Ryzen is undeniably competitive with Intel and often at a lower price, and Intel has definitely done some shitty things over the last decade because they've had absolutely no one to threaten their virtual monopoly.

>Why not Zen+?

I would really want as cold CPU as possible after nuclear reactor tier heat producing FX
so I'm waiting for 7nm Zen2

Attached: 1507824574928.jpg (691x771, 112K)

clean the dust out of your heat sync, it usually runs cool even under load in my experience. maybe your case has shit airflow or something

I still run an athlon 64 x2 with ddr400 ram and agp gpu, fight me faggots.

>who the fuck defends it?
That one user who bought pallets full to offload on ebay not to long ago does.

Did everything, I'm experienced user
Yes my case airflow is non existent, yet my friends PC has the same case with same single fan position, not only that but also sitting in the wooden box under the table with only the front being open, while my pc is not enclosed in anything
and his PC is ice cold while my is a nuclear reactor, I could cook on it
he's rocking i5 6600 with STOCK intel fan
and I'm FX 6350 with Zalman CNPS10X Performa

FX is a HOT CPU coming from an FX USER

Attached: 1532728138924.png (1000x1000, 648K)

Never got the housefire meme, got an 8350 and never goes past 45C under high load

ALSO I undervolted from w/e the fuck 1.3+ to pic related
wouldn't go lower with 4GHz

Attached: 1234145515.png (412x411, 48K)

I had an 8350 and found it to be warm and slow.

Intel at 3.2ghz+ has better ipc than the fx 9590.

You can beat your ass some amd shills are just autistic individuals living on mom's basement with old CPUs who got tired of being made fun of.

t.

Attached: 1520397820096.png (2000x1525, 759K)

It's a shitty trolling tactic by Intel fanboys to distract from the thermal paste misery their favourite company has been inflicting on them for the past half a decade.

Tell me you are not one of those retards who though their CPU was hot shit because it could get temps under room temperature with air cooling and measured that with AMD Overdrive.

you got a bitcoin mining virus or something? mine runs idle at like 25 - 30c in my warm ass bedroom, and under load it tops about 55 - 60c. i know its hotter than other cpus in general but something seems off about it being that hot constantly

>Intel at 3.2ghz+ has better ipc than the fx 9590.
Can we let this sink in please.

Attached: 1499013722218.jpg (1024x1276, 132K)

9590 is a meme processor

>2002y sempron
OH NO NO NO AHAHAHA

>9590 is a meme processor
It's the meme cpu with the highest ipc of the product line.

if it's bitcoin mining virus then it sure doesn't use any CPU power
it's just hot and that's it
maybe my room ambient temp is even higher than yours
I'm not even Intel shill, waiting for Zen2 to buy it straight up, but boy oh boy I won't miss my FX that's for sure

Attached: 123135151.png (391x400, 17K)

This. Any 2010/2011 sandy bridge cpu could beat that abomination called FX. It's not even fun. AMD should have just kept Phenom instead of wasting money on such shit arch.

Is that /v/? I'd expect better from this board than to make fun of people for uaing old hardware but who knows nowadays.

He was shilling for amd in a ryzen thread, just search the archives.

ill probably be switching to intel, i feel like an i7 8700k would still be better than a Ryzen at the same price

Bulldozer was Netburst tier.

Attached: cinebench-cpu.jpg (626x621, 227K)

If you mean now then yes 8700k is a good buy, but in a few month 7nm Zen2 will be in my books cooler than Intel

The 8700k is fine as a CPU, but I would fear not being able to update my shit in the future due new sockets and shit. But if you got money to spare, go for it.

I cant understand why people bought FX, why would you even torture yourself like that?

People bought Pentium 4 when Athlon was better in every conceivable way.

Pentium 4 was cheap and people usually bought it (at least companies) when Core2 was around to save costs.

still using fx8370
i can't imagine replacing this cpu to gain more speed, its already doing everything i need fast enough to never think about replacing it

>netburst tier
Even worse. Especially for the time period that it was active.
>scheduling issues
>fluctuating latencies
>pcie lanes
It was a huge step back from phenom II, and they kept it for 3-4 iterations.

You can plax bf1 mp on a 8300 wheres a i5 7500 can't

don't remind me
made a bad decision after watching some youtube reviews 6 years ago while being new to tech

Attached: 1532112794794.png (1920x1590, 2.43M)

Play a game that isn't from 2008, try to watch a YouTube video above 1080p 30fps.

Sure thing lmao
youtube.com/watch?v=pZMESDv6bGs

Nah, it was just as bad, Netburst was a fucking retarded expensive furnace at 3.2-3.4 GHz and it was destroyed by Athlon at 2GHz while Tom's Hardware was sucking Intel's dick and STILL recommending that retarded abortion. Never4get.

I have a FX-6350, and I agree that it's a poor CPU, but I can still play most games with it, and youtube videos are never an issue at any resolution or framerate.

Because it was by far the best option if you couldn't afford a 3750k.

I bought one because it was so cheap, and I didn't need much at the time. It wasnt really an upgrade to my phenom II, but I liked seeing the extra cores, and I was too lazy to switch back since it performed about the same.

alright
youtube.com/watch?v=_1jIjqhUlVg

FX was worse, because of how long it was on the market.

lol

Attached: file.png (1289x728, 1.32M)

AMD is at fault for all these years with shitty CPUs, fuck them.

You keep using that word "ipc"
That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
IPC is NOT a relevant measure of performance.
Bulldozer failed as hard as it did because the fabs didn't deliver so it could never reach it's designed clocks on air. Also it was ahead of its time and very few things were built to use its 8 "cores". Bulldozer is designed to be what is known in the chip industry as a "speed demon". This shows in it's overclocking records.

rose-hulman.edu/class/ee/yoder/ece332/Papers/04 Brainiacs,SpeedDemons.pdf

Yes Bulldozer was a failure and had its share of issues. No it was not all AMD's fault. Also of note Bulldozer was the last CPU architecture to be laid out by hand.

Attached: 1457574344723.png (359x414, 150K)

Not gonna watch this shit
Enjoy your micro lags kike

Attached: 1515074109232.jpg (568x612, 66K)

Netburst was infinitely worse because it was forced down people's throats by Intel's defense force shills and endless bribes just so that Athlon doesn't get more sales. The single worst CPU era in the history of humanity, it showed how much of a piece of shit scum company Intel can be.

Yeah it has nothing to do with Intel bleeding AMD's RND budget dry with shady (illegal) market tactics when they were VERY competitive during the Athlon-Phenom erra.

Sir delet

Attached: rypoo.png (882x758, 316K)

>That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
The word isn't going to change, because it hurts your feelings user.
The fx cpu line had shitty single core performance, and it was active during a time period where software took advantage of the power of the main core.
>No it was not all AMD's fault.
It was everybody else's fault I guess.

Allso the criplling hit that shitshow had on AMD's RND budget probably had a pretty big hand in causing the FX shitshow to begin with.

>The single worst CPU era in the history of humanity
>was before FX cpus came out
And I'm in no way defending netburst. I think it was shit, and I think the fx line was shit. Anyone who defends either is a true shill.

It's hard to fight against a corrupt to the core corporation who's rather set the planet on fire than let AMD win

No wonder they shill price/performance too much, they're literally poorfags.

>I think the fx line was shit
It's not an opinion on how awful FX was

Netburst was great but no one meaningfully optimized software to take advantage of the new architecture.

been running an FX9590 for over four years and still running strong

>It's not an opinion on how awful FX was
It's pretty much a fact. The good news is that AMD came out with ryzen, and are competitive again. I just wonder why people all of the sudden are praising FX cpus as if they weren't complete shit now.
What's the end game?

>Netburst was great but no one meaningfully optimized software to take advantage of the new architecture.
Well as it stands it was still shit. I don't care if it wasn't able to reach it's true potential, or not. That's intel's own fault. Just like how FX was AMD's fault.

Why can't Intel just bribe the laws of physics? :-)

yes sirs ples buy intel, amd is antisemetic

Attached: 1501867726886.jpg (1500x1164, 337K)

Sensors are reading them fine retard, already tested them.

>The word isn't going to change, because it hurts your feelings user.
You are actually a brainlet. IPC means instructions per clock. The 9590 didn't have higher IPC than any other FX piledriver CPU. It was just clocked higher

>It was everybody else's fault I guess.
Part of the blame goes to Global Foundries for not delivering on their promised manufacturing process. The FX line where architecturally designed to run @ 5ghz+ casualty. When GLOFO wouldnt deliver one there promises AMD was left sitting on an architecture designed to leverage GLOFO's promises and with a crippled RND budget thanks to Intel's years of shady tactics. If AMD knew GOFLO wasn't going to deliver they would have just further developed Phenom. The whole situation was a real shitstorm.

Attached: 1455987252821.gif (500x281, 281K)

L i b r e b o o t

>IPC means instructions per clock
Yes, and you claim that no one in the world knows what it means, because you're dead set in rewriting history for the fx cpu.
>Part of the blame goes to Global Foundries for not delivering on their promised manufacturing process.
All the blame goes to AMD user stop bullshitting.

Totally agree. It's just one of those things that gets glossed over and yet another thing we will never the true potential of. Kind of like Voodoo or if Cyrix didn't fail because of weak quake performance. Or anything VIA/transmeta did.

GloFo is AMD

>The 9590 didn't have higher IPC than any other FX piledriver CPU. It was just clocked higher
Okay then. I mispoke. I meant to say that the fx 9590 had that highest single core performance out of all fx cpus since it was clocked higher being 5ghz, and that was still lower than an intel sandy bride which was clocked higher than 3.2ghz.
I wonder how the core2quad was. I wonder if the core2 cpus had a better ipc, and how the sigle core performance would stacke up against a 5ghz fx 9590.

pls buy amd fx cpu.

The IPC of an FX 8350 is pretty much dead similar to the 65nm conroe cores, A core 2 quad Q6600 will score 235 on cinebench R15 with 4 cores running, and an FX 8350 with one core per module running at 2.4GHz will score 232.

Can confirm. I kept hearing that you only need a quad core for gaming so without doing any research I bought an fx 4350. Using a ryzen 1600 now

>FX 4350
>Quad core
That's a dual module setup with four integer units sharing the parts of two acual cores, if you wanted a quad core, you should've gotten an FX8350, and enabled one core per CU on the motherboard, then it's quad core, the ipc of a vishera core goes down 20% when two cores are both under load, it's a truly weird architecture.

>two cores are both under load
Two cores in a module both under, I mean, but an FX8000 CPU with one core per module running is like a core 2 quad that clocks extremely high with not much voltage.

What should I do if I have a FX6350? Should I disable anything?