Intel vs AMD
Intel vs AMD
Hello, it seems the FX8350 is showing signs of aging, and your computer is running slower on basic tasks. The system has changed formats and still struggles even after fresh installations. It's using an SSD, but your older PC with an Intel Core 2 Duo handles things differently—can manage simple tasks but struggles with heavier workloads. This might be a difference between Intel and AMD. For the new Ryzen CPUs, will it be better to go with Ryzen or stick with Intel? Let me know how I can help.
I used to rely on FX tools. Ryzen resolved many issues such as overheating and poor performance under load. Switching to Ryzen would be a smart move.
budget isn't the concern here; I'm curious about why my Core 2 Duo handles basic tasks better than my FX8350. My 6600K is also performing well without any problems. I'm considering comparing a 3600x versus a 9600K.
Compare it with the identical boot drive. Often delays also rely on background programs, SSD condition, available memory, etc. Given you likely use the FX as the main processor, you'll encounter more issues than a standard dual-core setup. I've had both systems before; I can confirm the FX performs significantly better than a dual-core system right after installation.
I believe the most challenging part will involve running multiple browsers simultaneously, each with numerous tabs, while performing essential tasks like file management, copying, and communication.
The 9600K is hitting its boundaries in numerous games and operations. The 3600X offers greater performance, operates more efficiently, consumes less energy, provides a upgrade route to 16-core Zen3 processors this year, and avoids the numerous serious security concerns plaguing i5s. Two years ago, i5s were already obsolete.