Why do people keep on buying 2012 CPUs?

Why do people keep on buying 2012 CPUs?

youtube.com/watch?v=aenCxVcUwPE

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/FsZGLoXo4WI?t=3m30s
technologyx.com/featured/amd-vs-intel-our-8-core-cpu-gaming-performance-showdown/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Poorfags, poorfags everywhere.

What a specimen

>ReviewTechUSA

because we're at the point where you don't notice a difference. sure benchmarks can be a bit higher. but nothing a human can notice. also OCing still works the same.

Not really worth updating your whole system right now. maybe next gen

Isn't that a sponsored video?

I just bought an 8300, it's great for streaming dota 2, just need a better PSU to overclock it

dumb poorfags

...

skbiity bop bu doo doo

Because the only other option at the time was an i3 3220, which can't compete in either price or performance.

Fx6300 could easily be OC to i5 2500 performance and was slightly cheaper than an i3. It's still performing great too, no need to upgrade for a while. Incredible value for the performance it's given me.

Probably the same reason why people are still using 2500ks and even older i7s. CPUs haven't changed all that much.

bad goy, no new drivers for you

an i5 doesn't have the multi-threaded performance of the FX 8 cores

My fx 8320 has been aging like wine, incredibly dependable chip for the heavy workloads i put on it. Got it for 99 bucks brand new from my local microcenter a few years back, no regerts

Price/performance

>Why do people keep on buying 2012 CPUs?
>Why does intel keep re-releasing the same CPU since 2009 i7 900 series

Face it Sup Forums cpu tech is reaching its limits, well X86 is.

Bought mine in 2013, good purchase at the time since it still suits me.
How else are we going to make AMD great again?

2012 was the best year to build a pc.
I'm not planning to upgrade my 2500k or 7950 anytime soon.

For the money they are still pretty good

i5 performance for i3 money

Can still build a decent core 16gb, asus 97 and 8350 for $400 and still keeps up in games unless you go xfire

Fuck off tiny dick tripfag, I remember you from your penis thread.

Because instead of leaping forward in cpu performance, we are leaping to cpus with 3g capability that can be locked if you forgot your cpu authorization key.
Shouldn't be a problem to use it again after all data has been transmitted if you buy a new key

doesnt need it.

The instruction.per.core of an i5 matches 8 weak cores.

>Not disabling this in BIOS
>Not having a Gaming board
KEK

tinfoilhats btfo

This. 2013 here, fx8320 and gtx 680 4GB Still going strong.

I remember having an 8320. Fuck it was a painful 3 years. I had 3 different coolers, constantly tuning my OC but still my performance was... Bad.
You're all probably wondering why it was bad. For starters, that shit was hot. Extremely hot. It was my first build at the time and I thought I could just stick with the stock cooler for at least a year. Nope, I caved in and bought a water cooler in less than 2 weeks. It's unbelievable how many times I had to change the paste on this thing because I felt like I just wasn't getting the right Temps. I definitely learned a lot from this chip.
When it came time to overclocking, it took me some times to figure out the best tune. I didn't get the perfect tune until 2 years later. I had it at a stable 4.5ghz. It was strange. Anything under 4.4 ghz didn't give me much performance increase but once I break that threshold, I'm getting at least 15+fps difference. At 4.5 I got nearly 20 fps increase in Valley benchmark. The thing is, although I was maxing out every game at the time with 60+fps, games always had weird dips which causes lag/stuttering when playing. It definitely wasn't the gpus not being able to handle the settings, cause there were dips even on lower presets. Some of the dips I can safely blame on shit devs being lazy and not optimizing right but for the most part it was the cpus fault.
Another theory I had was maybe the power supply just wasn't good enough for the system. 750w gold isn't good enough for an oc 8320 and sli gtx 770?
Anyway, I made the switch to Intel back in January and so far no dips, no issues and better performance on a stock 4690k. I haven't had time to overclock it as I want to liquid cool the current gpu in the pc first. This was my experience with fx 8320. I sold it for the same price I bought it but all the months I spent dealing with issues just wasn't worth it. Probably would've been better off getting a 3570k or 2500k at the time.

Also forgot to mention,it seems like everyone is doing amd builds these past 2 weeks. Maybe it's because of the new wrath cooler or whatever.

A while back... they were actually selling the FX-9590 with liquid cooling bundle for the same price as the 8350 Wraith cooler bundle is now... $200. One of the best amd cpus i've ever used btw.

Tho I think they stopped making the liquid cooling bundle for the fx9590. They still sell the cpu without the cooler and you'd have to buy your own liquid cooler for it.

But yea.. these youtubbers getting the fx 8350 Wraith bundle are casual tier faggots.

I need it because video transcoding

I'm I don't have any overheating issues, stock cooler did sound like a jet engine though.
Upgraded to an a1-v10 I got cheap and it's been flawless since. Even OC to 4.4.
I could push it higher but I couldn't be bothered with a serious overclock, too lazy.
I'm currently on a 550w psu, it's a cheapo but it is 80+ silver. Honestly surprised at how well my pc is doing with all the corners I cut just to afford it at the time. It's my first performance machine.

I don't think they're building it for themselves considering they all most likely have intel 59xx tier cpus I'm their current builds. I know the guy from joker productions is making a 400 dollar amd build and is giving it away in a contest.

Yeah, finally, after 4 years. I5 6600 has only just caught up to fx 8350.

In real performance though the skylake is better because ddr4.

Also it can match i7 performance on DX12.

Fuck, I want to go hug my pc.
How does fx6300 hold up against i3 6100 tho?

Here's a chart with more CPUs

I never had overheating problems. Just that the Temps would usually trigger the 65c safety warning on the Asus board I had. I just expected better Temps with a 120mm liquid cooler. I ended up splurging on a corsair h100i gt, their latest model I believe. I got better Temps from that but I feel like I shouldn't need to spend so much just to cool the chip down. Would've been cool if I couldve swapped my 8320 for the 8320e that came out later. Had less wattage usage, and slightly better overclocks. I had a golden chip, it could go all the way up to 4.6ghz(though there was no increase in performance). Just wish it wouldn't exceed 55-65c. Only got worse when newer games were coming out. Last game I played where the Temps went above 65c(on the $130 cooler mind you) was the star wars battlefront beta. I couldn't deal with it anymore and the system just wasn't performing well. Sold all the parts and rebuilt with a skylake chip. Currently satisfied with the build now.

Would the difference between an i5 6400 and a 6600 be too big? I need to save some money

>gtx 680 4GB
Great card but ultimately got crushed by no DX12 support

pclab.pl

I've never trusted that site. They've always been extremely bias against amd.

The Jews sure love their Intel. I remember they were telling Stephen Hawking to remove the Intel processor he needs to communicate because he spoke critically of Israel.

Considering how bad skybreak is i doubt ill get a Intel CPU ever again.

Zen When?

Until then staying with my i5 4690

The memory controller is still on the motherboard for the FX 8 cores isn't it?

Unfortunately yes

Zen will have an integrated Quad Channel DDR4 controller though.

yeah, look at that gentile, oy vei
just get intel for your gaming needs, goy

All Zen has to do is offer consumers 8 core chips with SMT and be close to haswell per core performance to be pretty alright

>14nm
of course it will

>buying AMD
>using Asus
Asking for it 2bh. My friend has an asus r7 260x that runs way too hot, or way too loud.

The AMD processors seem to be doing alright in that benchmark 2bh.

Why not an i3 6100 then? It's great value for the price, and only 0.1fps behind the i5 6600 in that benchmark.
Also cheaper than an i5 6400

>OC FX6300 will be performing as well as an i5 6600k in the new Dx12 gaymes
Oi veh. Looks like I'll be flipping my Skymeme build 7-8 months from now when Zen finally hits.

>Comparing low end gpus to motherboards

So the game only uses 4 threads?

>Why not an i3
Dunno, the only computer I ever had had an i3 2120 and I felt like changing to i5 for some reason

That i5 was running at a really low clock speed compared to the i3

4 cores are definitely better than 2, but the i3 isn't far behind the i5 6400. Maybe save up for an i5 6500 or 6600k?

That's just the i5 6400. It's pretty shit for a quad core. Not worth it compared to the i3.

Ya, the i5 6500 is the minimum recommendation from me

I'd recommend looking to the used market if you need 4 cores but can't go above the 6400 2bh.

difference is like 20 bucks and MSI makes really good motherboards for around $60

Where is his neck?

I will never buy MSI mobos ever again in my life. Had a bad experience with them on one of their FM2+ mobo.

It should be using all your cores under dx12.

That's the main difference between DX12 and DX11. DX11 only uses the first core.. doesn't really do much with the rest.

Personally I always buy gigabyte.
I still have a pIII and the mobo is gigabyte. Ultra durable isn't just a meme.

My i7 870 is on a gigabyte board, it's maintained 4.2GHz for the past 3 years.
My gtx 680 is a gigabyte windforce.

My next upgrade will also feature a gigabyte board and GPU.

I know brand loyalty is stupid, but I've had zero issues with gigabyte products in my life so I'd rather stick with what's been good to me.

Dx12 scales to 6 cores iirc.

Still, on an fx 8350 that leaves 2 extra cores for background tasks, if your system can schedule that correctly.

You probably just bought a poorly designed board, the H110 and B150 VD and GAMING 1151 boards all have USB 3.1 on board as well as solid power delivery

>I know brand loyalty is stupid, but I've had zero issues with gigabyte products in my life so I'd rather stick with what's been good to me.
Really? Every Gigabyte motherboard ive had has randomly shit itself

Because an FX-8350 is still a great CPU, especially for gaming PCs where there is no need for integrated graphics.

Intel makes superior products but this doesn't matter for a lot of people. Hell, I know people who use A4 and A8 APUs for gaming and don't have a single issue.

>the celery

Damn.

Maybe you're unlucky, or I'm just lucky?

Either way I've had really good experience with gigabyte so far

Rigged benchmark or ram speeds? Idk meng

Do you know that atm,vending machine, etc.. Are powered by these cheap ass cpu

Because, you know goy it still gets the job done, not just your latest i7?

All i can say is i had an i5 with crPpy integrated graphics i played league on. I bought my mobo with even worse integrated graphics because i was buying a card later. The 6300 i got bumped me from 18-32fps to 118-194fps.

The other interest was the multicore performance for my terragen3 projects.

Must have been a really shitty i5 model

Moores law is dead

Also amd makes a great space heater in the winter when that chip starts to overheat

My I7 3770k stays nice and cool

>ashes of singularity

Probably the only gane in existence optimized for amd cpu. I think amd even part own stardock.

>a celeron beats an 8 core AMD chip

doesn't surprise me

What no, the memory controller moved to the cpu during phenom II with the change to ddr3 didn't it?

>750w gold isn't good enough for an oc 8320 and sli gtx 770?
No. This would have been pushing it.

It must hurt being this stupid.

>he doesn't even review

I feel bad for these guys but I can see why they do this. The poorfag retards who bought these shitty amd cpus because they were the best they could afford act like a fucking cult. Despite amd's market share being utterly irrelevant you always see some idiots trying to convince himself his cpu isn't shit by yelling to everybody that the FX line is "j-just f-f-f-fine!!!!" and they get other people tricked into their post-purchase rationalization barrage.

I speak from experience because when I was due an upgrade back in 2012 and didn't really know much about the current state of the market, these babbling retards made me fall for the amd meme and I got myself the shittiest CPU I've ever owned, the FX 8120. This shit gave me nothing but trouble but you will STILL see idiots standing by these awful cpus no matter what.

The best builds have Intel CPUs and AMD GPUs.

Prove me wrong. Protip: you can't.

Same, man. I bought an FX 8150 and it's a completely subpar product. I don't know why people defend it.

FX-6300 reporting here. Bought because it was cheap and got s good price on HD7870 too. Been very capable for over 2 years now, and I'm glad I didn't spend more because I'm an adult now and finding I don't have a lot of gaming time anyway.

I'm and I deeply understand what you're talking about because I went through the exact same bullshit you did. Had to stay with this shitty cpu for 3 years as well until I found an outstanding deal on a 3770+itx mobo that would cost me less than a brand new i5 4460 and I simply couldn't say no. The difference is fucking night and day.

It was loud and hot as fuck, so I also bought a water cooler for it a few days after its acquisition but I also learned AIO CLCs are hot garbage that way. There was simply no pleasure in playing anything with my computer because I always had massive sub-30 fps dips and instead of focusing on the game I was always monitoring my OC, my temperatures and my shitty performance. I spent more time looking for workarounds than actually enjoying anything, which curiously enough has taught me a great deal about computers as a whole and I finally understood why I made a terrible purchase for the sake of someone else's post purchase rationalization. The peace of mind I got after I made the switch just doesn't compare and I wish I had bought a 2500k back in 2012 instead of that massive turd of an amd cpu. The slightly lower price at the cost of your peace of mind just simply isn't worth it at all whatsoever.

One thing this whole crusade with AMD has taught me is that you just do not engage in discussion with amd fanboys. They behave like jehovah's witnesses and will stand by the shitty cpus made by this awful company no matter what. In fact I was just wondering a while ago if this whole "pc master race" shit that gets pushed around like a fucking cult isn't on their behalf as well. It certainly sounds alike.

Meant to quote on the second part of my post. My bad.

>I'm glad I didn't spend more because I'm an adult now and finding I don't have a lot of gaming time anyway

Post-Purchase Rationalization: The Post

>w-well I d-didn't even w-want better p-performance anyway!

>FX-8350 is still a great CPU
>specially for gaming PCs
>specially
>for
>gaming
>PCs
>amd cpus
>specially good for gaming pcs

Is this satire? What is it?

What game doesn't run on the FX-8350?

Running and running well are different

Games run on singlecore performance best aka Intel

All of them will "run" on it. Now solid 60 fps performance without horrible dips because of the awful IPC this cpu has? Not a lot of them.

The entire MMO and RTS genre for starters save one or two games and anything even remotely unoptimized. Things like ArmA 2/3 or DayZ are a nightmare to run on AMD cpus. This thing couldn't even handle fucking skyrim with 60 fps without an update. The only demanding game that ran well on this shit was witcher 3 because they did a great job at making it properly optimized. Multiplayer games, which are naturally more CPU heavy, will mostly play like shit. Another one which has even sub-30 dips is Diablo 3.

The FX line is terrible for gaming because the vast majority of games will hammer only the first thread while spreading the rest of the load unevenly on the rest, and this thing just so happens to have piss poor IPC, therefore you're much better off even with an i3 for the vast majority of games.

The only time where an FX cpu really shines is at video rendering because the software will always benefit from as many cores/threads as you can feed it. For anything else, consider anything intel.

Then name games that doesn't run well (less than 24 FPS).

>Diablo 3
Now you're just kidding.

The fact you are actually implying that just more than fucking 24 fps is considered "running well" on a fucking PC is just fucking laughable. Sure, 30 fps for consoles is ok, but on a pc you're using a mouse and the added input lag will be GREATLY noticeable due to the aggressive camera pans.

And another game runs like fucking ass on amd from the top of my mind is Dying Light, same goes for Metal Gear Rising, despite it being a very simple game.

Seems alright to me.

That is average fps. Go and actually play the game and come back when you witness the terrible dips it has when things get intense.

Look at the massive dips the guy has and how performance is all over the place, ranging for high 100s to as low as fucking 16 fps: youtu.be/FsZGLoXo4WI?t=3m30s

This is exactly why amd is shit when it comes to cpus because your minimum frames are always fucking terrible so the fps looks like it's on a rollercoaster.

nothing worthwhile released after 2012

Top kek this thread is great. Fx 8 core cpus are an incredible value. I play any game with no noticeable dips with an hd 7870 which limits more so in games than the cpu ever would. Im not jacking off over 60 fps or anything, i dont run a frame counter, the game either appears to run smootly and consistently, or it doesnt. With my fx 8320 at 4.2 ghz, I have only experienced the former.

Now, with mt fx 6300 that i owned before, i had dips just trying to play bioshock inf, and had to OC it to 4.5 ghz just to be playable.

The 8 core is an i5 in most cases or better if you ever had to render 3d animations or the like. In a properly threaded environment my FX has the performance of roughly an i7 3770, and i can post personal benchmarks with performance test to back that up (albeit single core obv will be a disparity). Considering i paid 100 bucks for it brand new, its an amazing purchase

I dont think these hoards of amd owners you all talk about were tricked into anything, and theyre not lying to themselves either. They just realize they can save 150-200 dollars and only take a marginal hit in performance compared to an i5 and even an i7 in some cases.

...

>mfw children judging CPUs by how fast proprietary Wintendo software and useless video games run on them

I'm reading the chart saying AMD cpus are benefiting from dx12 enormously. Could be enough to put them in competition in lower Price points.

This should squeeze Intel a bit and May lead them to lower prices or increase speeds.

But...the future is clearly multi core. That's how I'm interpreting This. Could be mistake buying dual core now

Your investment in multi core cpu can only pay off more and more in the future as dx12 utilizes more cores and game developers optimize for multi core cpus

>970'S sli
Where did you get this chart from, so that I may never go there.

technologyx.com/featured/amd-vs-intel-our-8-core-cpu-gaming-performance-showdown/

Seeing the FX hold its own against a chip that costs like 5x as much brings a tear to my eye