:cheers: Can anyone give me the differences between FX processors (Vishera x6 x8 core) and the A series of processors (A8 A10, etc.)? Besides the socket . . . AM3+ / FM2 etc.
FX CPU's dont have IGP while A Series is an APU, meaning you dont need a dedicated GPU. FX chip have higher power consumption, higher clocks/cache, more threads.
@ PapaGato- I had and still have both. For general use I would get a Apu A10,A8,A6 ect..... Fx series on the other hand will offer a slight increase in performance in some games ( maybe) ....I ran pretty much every Fx 6100 to Fx 9370 they are all the same trust me Basicly at this point nothing to see here! The Apu on the other hand....Is a diffrent story, you have an intergrated Gpu thats built into the chip itself as ( Undying ) stated above, meaning you dont need a video card right off the bat, But if you are serious about gaming you will need one down the line.The Apu will get your foot in the door tough. Not only that but you have a newer chipset, support for memory up to 2400 Mhz, Fx tops out at 1866Mhz, I have run so many tests on my kids system which has a A10-7870k and I was actually pretty suprised it handled all my Steam games with ease, granted not on Ultra settings but with Decent. Get a Apu dont waste your money on Fx if you are thinking of buying.
Im currently running FX8320 @ 4420Mhz, 1,4 vcore with CM TX3Evo Cooler. I have this processor for almost 3 years. Still strong. Until it doesn't bottleneck any high end gpu i don't think u need anything stronger than this. It's the best budget chip on the market. If u are on a budget, go for an used APU and some higher end 1 generation behind GPU (GTX770/R9280X).
8320 is a Very good deal for an 8-core cpu, I had the 8350, 9370 and did not notice any diffrence at all between the 2. The 8-cores will not bottleneck any single Gpu solution, but multi-gpu is a diffrent story,Altough I did run Crossfire on a Fx 6100 for some time and it did rather well. If I was buying Fx now 8320 would be my 1st choice. I still like Apu's way more! Also I honestly think Amd's future is in its Apu's.
Lol! Darkest dont even boder dude I know where you are going with this. @ Floppy just beacause the Fx has 8 cores and the i3 2 physical plus hyperthreading does not mean its slower or not as good as the Fx series. Cores do not mean EVERYTHING! A common mistake a see alot of people make,I use to think the same way also. i3s are faster yes, In gaming and many other things as well, even the Pentiums are faster at gaming then the Fx it is a PROVEN FACT nobody is making this stuff up as we go along. I understand brand-loyality and everything but you gotta be realistic.
I understand, however an i3 is then in the same price range as most AMD's and its better to spread one's knowledge, experience and money around. I build AMD systems, I use Intel systems when they are free.
It depends on the exact usage and features you need as to whether or not AMD is better. For anything lightly threaded where IPC heavily impacts performance, the i3 will easily trounce an AMD processor. In some cases, even a Celeron will outperform several of AMD's offerings. If power consumption is a concern, AMD becomes utterly useless until Zen gets released. The only processors AMD has that are power friendly are the AM1 processors and they're low-end SoCs based on the same Jaguar core that's used in the XBox One and PS4.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. http://www.techspot.com/review/1087-best-value-desktop-cpu/page4.html Throw in the fact you can pop an i5 or i7 down the line if you need more performance, and you've a healthy upgrade option. More so if you're happy to OC and buy a K series chip. AMD has no upgrade options, they have nothing available right now which performs on par with even an older gen i7 in most scenarios.
Its going to be tuff for Amd to compete anymore against Intel, Intel pretty much has EVERY price point locked down starting with $1000 High-end , $500 mid-grade,$300 high end i7s, $200 dollar i5s, $150 or so for the i3, they even had the G3258 for a mere $50 bucks! Nothing on Amd side can touch that G3258 for $50 dollars.I have even see the G3258 beat 8-core Fx cpus at gaming-I mean what more can you ask for? Even if Zen is Great I am affraid to little to late for them, I hope i am wrong but thats the vibe I get. The only thing I like on Amd's side right now is its Apus.
PapaGato what do you plan on using it for and what's your budget? Or did you just want to know the general differences ?
There are plenty of games these days that have 4 cores as a minimum requirement. I don't think they are counting placebo hyperthreading as cores there. Anybody who plans to do any half-serious gaming should try to squeeze out enough dough for at least an i5. I haven't recommended AMD CPUs for anybody for a few years now. I hope that changes when the Zen is released. The CPU situation has been catastrophic with Intel's pure dominance.
Yes, they dont count HT as cores. So if one day games need 6+ cores to run even 6700k is history. Thats why i said, when 6600k becomes obsolete 6700k will be too.
Question....Why all of a sudden would games require more then 4 cores to run unless of course it was written into the program in order to force you ( us ) to upgrade our hardware/! I can honestly see both camps pulling a move like that if they had the chance,Thats Big-Money right there.