What is the best AMD cpu currently avaliable

[stonerdude420]

title says it all

[DarkBlade6]

title says it all

Phenom 2 x6 1100t/1090t

[vesseblah]

For gaming? FX-4170 gives best value for money if you overclock the shit out of it. Better value than any OC-locked Intel processor even.

But if you aren't willing to OC, don't bother with AMD at all unless you're aiming for extremely low budget.

[Cyanotical]

best cpu for what? without that context i say it's the Opteron 6282 ,16 cores at 2.6Ghz, and it's stable

[Milkshake86]

best cpu for what? without that context i say it's the Opteron 6282 ,16 cores at 2.6Ghz, and it's stable

Lets go with the gaming website computer forum context and assume gaming, which Vesseblah would be correct Fx-4170 overclocked can contend in some games w/ the i5-2500k, but always competes w/ the 980 Black so given a decent and well rounded build the 4170 could be a goto and pushing it to 5Ghz isnt unheard of so why not.

[glo]

You would have to clock the 4170 WAY past 5.0Ghz to make it viable. Saying it's on par with the i3 line isn't true, we're no longer stuck using 2100s.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/FX-410...X-4100-870241/

Looking at a CPU bound game such as SC2 which is triple threaded, even the i3-2100 beats it at stock clocks. If one were to throw the i3-3220 into the mix, no amount of overclocking would put the 4170 ahead.

Again, this is all excusing the the fact that to -attempt- to make the 4170 viable, you would not only have to purchase a decent motherboard, but a beast cooler to push it over 5.0Ghz.

i3-3220 + H77 board = $190~
FX 4170 + capable motherboard + cooler capable of going over 5.0Ghz = $285~
i5-3570 + H77 board = $285~

TLDR: The 4100 was viable when only the i3-2100 was available. The 4170 is NOT viable however due to the i3-3220 being available. With the amount of money you would be dropping on what was linked above, you could get a locked i5-3570 and a H77 board for the same price.

[Deleted]

One should also mention the immense power-draw of the FX CPUs once overclocked. Not to mention the PSU requirement as well as the cooling needed. For the time being, unless the end-user demands overclocking to be an option (because lets face it, some like to play around with frequencies and voltage) intel's solutions are, for the most part, better.

[Dizey]

For gaming, and since this is a gaming community, I'd have to agree with the FX-4170 for reasons already mentioned. 125w TDP at stock speed makes me palm my face though.

[Deleted]

Again, this is all excusing the the fact that to -attempt- to make the 4170 viable, you would not only have to purchase a decent motherboard, but a beast cooler to push it over 5.0Ghz.

And a beefier PSU. Thus AMDs problems in the laptop market (and consumer desktop). Even though the processors are cheaper on their own, they require much heavier investments elsewhere that means in the end - you've often failed to achieve any meaningful savings, while decreasing the value of your system through weight, noise, reduced battery life / larger power bill costs.
(Never mind such systems don't always cope well with summer months & warmer climates)

[Milkshake86]

And a beefier PSU. Thus AMDs problems in the laptop market (and consumer desktop). Even though the processors are cheaper on their own, they require much heavier investments elsewhere that means in the end - you've often failed to achieve any meaningful savings, while decreasing the value of your system through weight, noise, reduced battery life / larger power bill costs.
(Never mind such systems don't always cope well with summer months & warmer climates)

AMD isnt having mobile or server sales issues, and as of late not to many GPU sales issues. The FM series APU's in laptop are some of the more potent sellers and @ $400-$700 are the only laptops w/ semi decent quality of graphics.

[Deleted]

AMD isnt having mobile or server sales issues, and as of late not to many GPU sales issues.

Not once did I mention server or GPU sales. Mobile sales are however, still lackluster (comparably).

Note that the AMD GPUs were a fair bit more power efficient than NVIDIAs alternatives with the 5xxx and 6xxx. In addition, as I recall - AMD owned some +80% of the DX11 GPU market for a considerable time.

NVIDIA flipped the sooner around with the 6xx versus 7xxx - but nothing implicates AMD will not, and cannot, turn that around again.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Also, look out for the upcoming Trinity (APU) release.

[Cyanotical]

i think the biggest problem is that people are expecting a ton from AMD right now, and i honestly dont think we will see much from them for quite a while, probably not for another generation, but they are much smaller than intel and dont have the same resources to dump into R&D

i'd also like to add that AMD's track record when overclocking is less than ideal, typically they are rarely if ever stable when overclocked, so you may be able to match a bridge cpu with a FX clocked to 5.2GHz, but be ready for those bluescreens

but, this isn't about amd vs intel performance, it's about amd, and there is no real answer for the OP, in some cases the new FX chips are better, and in others the older Phenom IIs are better, it really depends on the game/application you are running

last i heard there were issues with how windows utilizes the twin core modules, and it's supposed to be fixed in W8, but i dont know if this has been fixed

[BicycleMafioso]

Meh, the upcomming FX-series is worth waiting for.

[glo]

They've outclassed Intel numerous times before, I'm sure they can do it again. Many people seem to have short term memory when it comes to the (somewhat recent) glory days of the Athlon, or even more recently with Phenom II > majority of the Core 2 series and keeping in step easily with first gen i5 at respective price points.

I suppose it's simply due to PC building taking a massive rise in popularity over the past couple years and people assuming this is the way it has always been. Regardless AMD's Vishera has a chance to compete and turn some heads with a new architecture.

[Cyanotical]

i actually have numerous AMD chips lying around, i even have a 1090t sitting on my desk in front of me, but for now i think intel fans don't give them enough credit, and amd fans are expecting a new Athlon era with piledriver, which i dont think will happen, but if it surpasses IB, it's not impossible for intel to release a EE i5, or unlocked dual core IB-E xeons in response to anything from AMD

what amd needs to shoot for is to beat what intel hasn't released yet, not to match whats already on the market

[Milkshake86]

i think the biggest problem is that people are expecting a ton from AMD right now, and i honestly dont think we will see much from them for quite a while, probably not for another generation, but they are much smaller than intel and dont have the same resources to dump into R&D

i'd also like to add that AMD's track record when overclocking is less than ideal, typically they are rarely if ever stable when overclocked, so you may be able to match a bridge cpu with a FX clocked to 5.2GHz, but be ready for those bluescreens

but, this isn't about amd vs intel performance, it's about amd, and there is no real answer for the OP, in some cases the new FX chips are better, and in others the older Phenom IIs are better, it really depends on the game/application you are running

last i heard there were issues with how windows utilizes the twin core modules, and it's supposed to be fixed in W8, but i dont know if this has been fixed

Ive heard of the stability on the Fx-8xxx being a bitch to get stable, Ive really only heard the opposite about the Fx-4170, and still to this day chunking 4/8 of the "cores" nets a large stability increase on the 8cores.

[demonskies]

Definately my old k6-2 333mhz or my old t-bird Oc'ed to 1.5.