Was AMD FX that bad?
Was AMD FX that bad?
The AMD FX line-up generally performed worse than its Intel competitors during its lifespan. The floating-point performance was relatively poor due to a single shared FPU per module. In applications that benefitted from more threads, AMD SKUs typically pulled ahead.
Is the AMD FX 9590 good for gaming?
The 9590 is not a good gaming chip. It’s a good chip if your furnace is going out and are looking for alternative ways to heat your room. If you’re one of those guys who just HAS to have AMD, then get the FX 8350. It’s much more efficient.
What is the best FX CPU?
Summary For Best AM3+ CPU
| Award | Modal |
|---|---|
| Best Flagship am3+ CPU | AMD FX-8300 Black Edition |
| Best Overall am3+ CPU | AMD FX-4300 Black Edition |
| Best Budget am3+ CPU | AMD FX-4350 Black Edition |
| Best Performance am3+ CPU | AMD FX 8150 Black Edition |
Why was AMD FX series so bad?
The unfortunate part was obviously single core performance, for gaming, these were not very good. They weren’t good overall when it was at MSRP. Oh stop with the “bulldozer was ahead of its time” bs… it was terrible in desktop or server, single-threaded or multi-threaded, and power hungry all the time.
When did the FX 9590 come out?
April 2013
Spot the CPU
| AMD FX CPU Comparison | ||
|---|---|---|
| FX- 4350 | FX- 9590 | |
| Release Date | April 2013 | June 2013 |
| Modules | 2 | 4 |
| L1 Cache (Code) | 128 KB | 256 KB |
What’s the clock rate on the AMD FX-8350?
The flagship, FX-8350, features a base clock rate of 4 GHz. Turbo Core technology is able to push that to 4.2 GHz in lightly-threaded workloads, though most of the chip’s speed-up undoubtedly comes from its default state. How much does Turbo Core really do for FX-8350? Not much.
Which is faster AMD FX-8350 or bulldozer?
Experience tells us that, per core and per cycle, Piledriver can be as much as 15% faster than a Bulldozer-based design. Add to that the fact that FX-8350 operates at least 400 MHz faster than FX-8150.
What was the performance of the AMD FX-8150?
In fact, in the conclusion of our launch article featuring the AMD FX-8150, we posted an AMD-provided slide that showed Piledriver was already on-deck and that it would offer IPC and power improvements over existing architectures, which would result in roughly a 10% to 15% uplift in performance.
Is the AMD FX-8350 based on piledriver?
Last year, AMD launched its Bulldozer architecture to disappointed enthusiasts who were hoping to see the company rise to its former glory. Today, we get an FX processor based on the Piledriver update. Does it give power users something to celebrate? Page 17: FX-8350: Still Not The FX Us Old-Timers Remember… Ed.: