What are your thoughts on the AMD FX era
What are your thoughts on the AMD FX era
I got a solid FX6300 at a much lower price than any other intel chip available at that time, thanks to its extra cores. I kept it running until my 2060 Super, but eventually upgraded because the system's maximum RAM (32GB) wasn't enough anymore. I moved up to a 3700x and now a 5950x. Back then, I played a lot of games, and it worked just fine. It wasn't top-notch, but it was decent considering how affordable it was at the time.
Most of the criticism I heard made sense, the platform ran slower than what came after it, used power almost like free beer, and simply couldn’t match overall performance. For a budget build at the time, it was fine because AMD cut prices significantly on these chips (you could usually find an FX 8320 for around $120, which wasn’t bad). However, if you opted for a used Intel setup, you’d generally be in a better position.
Used a bulldozer/excavator laptop (A10-8700P) without problems; it handled tasks well, ran Civ 5 smoothly at 720p low with around 30 FPS, and performed web browsing and word processing easily. The main problem was overheating: the device became very hot under load, similar to placing it near an AC vent to prevent overheating.
Yes, you understand the distinction between what people believe and what is actually true.
Owned an FX-8650 for about three years, used fake 8 cores and struggled with anything newer than 1999. Intel’s lineup was significantly stronger when it launched, and if I could travel back in time, I’d have invested there instead. AMD didn’t perform well at that moment.
The Quad FX and the FX era of the 2010s represent distinct periods. While there were AMD FX chips in the 2000s, the context and meaning are quite different now.
the only thing that stands out is the high clock speeds—something 65nm cedar mill already supports, but at a lower cost. Overall it seems mid-range in terms of IMC, probably similar or slightly worse than x58 when you check the hardware forum, and even the legendary DDR3 3800 with an 8150 chip has been surpassed by x58 now that the ground is close to 32nm with 3000. You can see this in the hwbot discussion, and llano appears to outperform fx on average with K CPUs (3600+) while non-K models cap around 3200 according to hwbot. If I locate llano first, it might be worth the investment instead of fx. Stable speeds for fx are uncertain, but I’ve maintained steady results at 2800 on both 32nm (tri channel singlerank) and 45nm (dual channel dualrank). The latter seems to have room for improvement, possibly due to degraded dualrank CFR from my earlier attempts with DDR3 3000—probably because of the 2.5v issue I encountered. I haven’t taken a screenshot yet, but I’m planning to try a better w3503 once I acquire more stable cfr chips (around 2900). If that works, I might revisit fx and test memory frequency now that I have better components. I only managed a 2700 on Windows, likely because of the poor green PCB stick I was using (my best stick is 2656c11 at 2.2v), but I’ll stop if I get bored with x58 or find a good deal. If not, I’d lean toward llano, consider DDR4, or try DDR2 overclocking again.
AMD Quad FX was a dual CPU system introduced in 2006 featuring two dual-core processors. It aimed to challenge Intel’s first quad-core chip, the QX6700. Prior to the Quad FX, Intel offered Athlon 64 FX chips for the 940, 939, and AM2 platforms. These were among the fastest gaming CPUs available at the time, though they didn’t match the performance of standard Athlon 64 models in terms of value. When discussions about AMD FX typically arise, people often refer to the AM3+ architecture that became prominent around 2011–2017 before the AM4 and Ryzen lines.