i7 4770 vs FX 8350 - 4 Cores vs 8 Cores a DECADE Later.

The FX8350 doesn't have 8 cores, it only has 8 integer units.

The IPC is crap because of that nonsense of modules. Floating point rules over integer.

I have an i7-12700K, the floating point is so ridiculously fast that it's almost similar to integer.

Haswell to this day is the minimum for anything, previous Intel generations are way too slow.

I have an i7-4700MQ laptop chip, it's faster than an FX8350, only draws 45 watts.

Fx 8350 beat out the 2nd gen i7s. 3rd gen i7s took back that crown......8350s where good for productivity, but when it came to gaming even pentiums(4th gen) out performed them. 8350s also perform signifigantly better with oced at a time when locked i5s cost twice as much. In fact many fx user where very content and didnt just to the ryzen platform until 3rd gen ryzen. Thats partly why the 3rd gen ryzen are the highest saleing units to date.

Isn't Bulldozers require like 2133 mhz ram and higher HT clock?

.

hi, can i buy one of your x99 motherboard please

The FX series... the first number "denominates" the amount of threads, not necessarily the number of cores. These "8" core CPU's performed so badly because they weren't really 8 cores. They had some parts of the cores doubled and other parts were just the one... this basically was a little more advanced type of SMT (Hyperthreading if you will) Cinebench will tell you the same.

I’m on AM4 from 2017. Started with Ryzen 1200 ➡️ 1500X ➡️ 3500X ➡️ 5800X and now I’m getting 5600X for my second build on B350 motherboard. This is still platform worth getting in early 2024.

I purchased a 020 Small Form Factor Desktop with Intel Core i7-4770 Upto 3.9GHz, HD Graphics 4600 4K Support, 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD, DisplayPort, HDMI, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth - Windows 10 Pro (Renewed) for about $232.03 on Amazon. I did my research and the Intel I-4770 made a great deal. I purchased 2 of them. Gave one to my sister for 2023 Christmas. The computer with the Intel I-4770 is fast enough for quick Internet browsing, Word Processing, and light gaming. I however, have the latest AMD CPU's for High GPU demand gaming.

It is 4 cores vs 4 cores.

A few key differences
1. Haswell has AVX2 instructions FX doesn't.
2. Haswell has PCIE gen 3 FX doesn't. Running a GPU like that with only 8x memory lanes is going to take a performance hit.

Those two reasons are definitely enough to recommend a Haswell CPU like a i5-4690 or better if someone wants to play more modern games on a budget.

Recently I got a free FX 8350 w/ broken MSI 990XA-GD55 - MS-7640 Ver 4.0 , I could not fix it yet. Hope to eventually sort it out and get a budget pc out of it ,MB seems to have a broken sdm/transistor - the one next to power plug gives out a continuity beep on one of the feet (has the ground on top , 2 as + and middle is cut) , I hope to pull one from a broken board and replace it soon , to retest everything .

Used to own an AMD 8350, my first OC. It was a heat monster! haha! But it was fun! Would be nice to see how it behaves in productivity benchmarks, DaVinci Resolve especially since I'm working with it on my current Ryzen 5900X build. Would be nice to see the difference.

2011-2017 really were the worst years to be an AMD fanboy like I used to be. Nothing even came close to this debacle. Not R600 (technically still and ATi design, but still), which was redeemed by RV670 and eventually moved to the spectacularly successful RV770 and 870, not K10, which would become K10.5 and compare quite favourbly to Core2, not even Vega, which at least showed its potential in some games.
Bulldozer was just horrible across the board. Calling it AMD's Netburst would be an insult to the few good Pentium 4 versions that were out there.

I7 4770 is a legendary cpu no doubt, 10 years old and still holding up nicely...

That motherboard is awful (970 krait) mine was much better when I changed for the corsshair v formula z try a different motherboard if you get board

I think the big nail in the coffin for the amd fx cpu was it's instruction sets. The Haswell is still VERY modern since it was the first avx2 cpu series. Back in the day that didn't seem like such a big deal but now it's kind of commonly expected that a cpu will have avx2 so games demand it more. yeah it's performance was always behind the intel, but not 20x weaker, that's got to be from the FX's outdated instructions. It's a shame AMD deliberately chose to keep the AM3 so outdated and progress the bulldozer on other platforms to eventually excavator with avx2. I'd have loved to see an AMD 8 excavator core cpu (yes I know technically the first excavator avx2 cpus were am4).

The reviewers plugging the AMD chips over Intel at the time were just your regular AMD fanboys. It was a time for slagging Intel off so everyone was against them as they were the market leader and every iteration of their chips only moved the goalpost marginally. Intel were taking the right royal rip though, to be honest. Intel might not have had more cores but they had much better single-core performance. The Bulldozer chips were absolute failures as evidenced by your test on how they have held up. You are starting to see a repeat of this today with Nvidia and AMD, Nvidia being the new target of gamers ire. Intel, ironically enough, are starting to look like champions with their Arc GPUs. Definitely ones to watch. It's funny how things go.

Tech Yes City my maan used to watch you back in the day, when you were just starting out and actually changed your name but reversed it back :D, I dont know if its me but youve goten a bit older :D keep these amazing videos up nontheless ^)^

Had the 4770K until 2019 and it was very stable and had good temps.
I was shocked when I got my ryzen 9 3900X how hot it got compared to the intel.
It was better value tough compared to Intel 9th Gen....😅

3770 vs fx8350

3770 was 5 years ahead of all intel, it even out performs my 6600t, my FX 8150 8 core is alot better in video rendering... 3770 shirts the bed in hard perfomance...of course maybe your not too good at optimizing AMD like i am... for one thing it doesnt heat...You need to learn about undervolting a FX increases performance by twice as much

This is an aplles to oranges comparison. When I built a system at that time I could get either current gen i3(2c/4thr)/previous gen lower i5(4c/4thr or smth) or FX6300(6cores) for almost the same price. The FX6300 lasted for 5 years in my system and I haven't had any complaints or regrets on my desicion. all current gen i5/i7 were more than double the price. so, for a correct comparison, you should benchmark 2 cpu's with the same MSRP

My son is still using a FX8350 w 24gb of ram and a 8gb XT GPU. It runs alot of game really well. its been solid gaming for close to 10 years.

It is a great test coming at it from today. If you get offered an FX or a Haswell, go with the haswell!
Back in the day though, the 8350 came out before I7 3770 - and if you were on a budget a 63x0+board got you enough cores to game and could be had for half of what an i5+board cost.

To be fair amd's cores were fake at the time.

How can that slowed-down footage be "slowed down 400%" when a 100% slow-down would mean zero movement/speed?

with the 8 core amd cpus back in the am3+ days you needed a motherboard with a good power phase like 8+2 almost anything under that would cause the vrms to throttle like crazy and it was a common mistake if you look at old forum posts from around this time period that made. So the 8350 is even more so trash than mentioned when you factor in the cost of probably a $100 motherboard used just so you can get what little performance the processor has

well i use for long time fx cpus . no stuttering in desktop and smooth gameplay with an r9 280 and 1080p . so i can 't confirm your testing in this way

could you use a better gpu?

I have an R7 5800X/ RX6900XT build now a days...
But man I miss my FX 8350/ RX470 build... Rose tinted glasses for sure but those were simpler times and I almost feel like I enjoyed games more. There's something satisfying about playing the newest games no matter by finding the right settings and overclocking etc etc.... Now I just default everything to Ultra and don't bother looking. First world problems haha 🥲

I still have rig with a 4770k legendary cpu

Yeah, the power consumption is in sharp contrast to current day AMD vs Intel.

Today, all Windows versions puts automatically 2 cores to sleep in the FX cpus. I had to use a specific program to wake them up and keep all four always ready to work and snappy. All these FX reviews don't count this aspect. The cpu was ahead of its times, but Windows never did nothing to work better with that architecture, and the main programs used at the time were still designed for 32bit cpus or just introduced their 64bit version. The software was still evolving. Just search for the FX 8350 review done by Logan of Tek Syndicate to see how (good) the cpu was performing back then.
The power consumption is not a problem, because this is not a cpu that goes in a machine used for rendering 24/7. In their normal and gaming usage, the cpus and gpus consume way less power that what these YT tests or synthetic benchmarks show. At the end of the day the difference in the power bill is minimal: nothing worth to care about.
The heat. Yes, the FX was hot, just like the Intels of those times. I had the FX 8320E for years and later a core i7-5960X ($1000 MRP, Haswell E family). They both were hot as hell in summer. I live in Sardinia and I had to use them undervolted and at stock frequency for most of the year.
Now I own a Ryzen 5 5600X and it's miles better in efficiency compared to them.
Multithreding. Was the strength of the FX back then and nowadays they still perform well. 16/32GB of ram and SSD make these cpus still viable. An NVME disk even better. For rendering buy an Nvidia RTX gpu. For me web browsing or using programs while downloading movies or games in the background was a common thing, and I never experienced the slowdowns described in the video.
Single core performance. Was the real problem in the end. For my experience I can say that the 8320E @4.5 was generally slower than the i7-5960X stock. This was evident launching the programs or the browser: the intel was faster. But we're talking of milliseconds, or a second at max, depending on the program. A thing is Firefox, a different thing is 3DS Max.
I had many cpus, of different kind and brand, and for me the big jumps in performance came when switching to a cpu with an higher core-count. Nowadays the single core performance it's something that the user feels only in specific tasks: like launching a program or doing a specific thing inside a program (like some operation in a software like Zbrush).
I guess that having to use a cpu on daily basis makes the user to understand better how it works. My 2014 €100 FX was on the same level of my 2014 $1000 i7 for a good 90% of the time. When there was a difference was in terms of milliseconds most of the times. In gaming I noticed a small difference. The intel was generally smoother, that's it. I bought the i7 to replace the AM3 system and in the end I regret it, because I didn't see a big jump in performance and efficiency. Was almost the same system, just smoother.
Some months ago I moved to AM4 and bought a Ryzen 5 5600X. This instead was a huge jump in terms of performance and efficiency, under every aspect, despite having only 6 cores. Can't be more happy.

im currently watching this on my main pc, an i7-4770 and for an everyday pc running win-10 it still holds up. ill eventually jump to a 12100f based system with na mb that supports 13th gen intel. oh and my gaming pc has a 4790k.. and 5600 xt = farcry 6 with ease

It's not an 8-core. It only has 4 FPUs. The definition of a core includes both integer and floating point math capability. 8 integer units are mostly worthless for games.

AMD’s Dozer architecture did not result in an “8 core” CPU - that was pure AMD markitecture silliness. Their “modules” were, by any reasonable definition, the CPU core boundary. They were an SMT architecture, much like Nehalem and Sandy Bridge, with the notable difference being the decision to segment the ALU and AGU’s with separate instruction schedulers with a single third scheduler for FP. They still shared common L1 instruction cache and decode front-ends, and the FP shared the L1 data cache between the ALU’s (though they didn’t share said cache amongst themselves). Intel’s (provably superior at the time) approach in Nehalem and Sandy Bridge, was a carefully implemented unified scheduling scheme that front-ended a very wide set of mixed function units that supported staggered scheduling ports. This allowed for up to 6 instruction scheduling slots (ports) per cycle, but they could actually have as many as 12 instructions in flight - by having a mixture or functionality per instruction unit, this allowed for a lot of flexibility around logic usage and scheduling of said units.

While Dozer failed in the marketplace, it did lay the groundwork for Zen. Specifically, the more partitioned approach does create flexibility. As much as people think Zen was a clean break from Dozer, it’s very much a continuation of the same architecture, with some key differences: it’s much wider and deeper. However Zen still employs the same non-unified instruction scheduling model, whereas Intel still uses a unified scheduler (but instead of 6 slots / ports in Sandy Bridge, it’s now massively wider with 12 in Golden Cove cores). This means Zen’s SMT implementation is virtually identical to Dozer’s except instead of two integer schedulers feeding two sets of integer resources and a single FP scheduler scheduling a single set of FP pipelines, Zen 3 (for example) has four integer schedulers and two FP schedulers (with the FP units being wider). If we were to use AMD Dozer marketing speak to describe Zen 3, we’d claim that each Zen 3 “module” had 4 cores, which is silly.

So while I think AMD’s marketing was full of it when trying to call Dozer’s SMT scheme “cores”, the Zen architecture, especially from Zen 2 onwards, is seriously impressive. Furthermore, the pattern of execution unit partitioning, and the flexibility that’s given AMD in core layout, has directly contributed to other aspects of their increasingly modular approach (scheduling blocks, CCX, CCD, cache stacking). That core philosophy started with Dozer and, while not well realized in that era of products, AMD’s future success was built on it.

Now I want to slap my 6800xt in my son's fx 3500 and see what happens.

It's that bad... cause of instuction set. Right now... newest intel is not that far from good old 4th gen. In FX case this procesor had low instruction set capability even when it was released. It's forced to emulate some instructions within DirectX implementation.

fx isnt true 8 core

Great info as always. I scored two I7-4790's for $50 US shipped and have a 3rd one in my old HPZ 230 with a GTX 1060 and it runs fine and are really good bargains. I7-4770"s can be had in old HP Elite machines out here for cheap too. Thanks for the tip on the Xeon E3 1230 v3. Happy New Year to you and yours.

Ah yeah, the lack of AVX 2.0 on the FX CPU definitely is a disadvantage.

both of those are 4 core.

I currently have and using a i3770 now
all this time gaming PC still running
and out performs the FX 8350 as well

What, are you an adjunct writer for userbenchmark or something?
There are so many absurdly inaccurate and outright BS statements in this video I don't have time to list them all. But for a start, comparing processors 2 generations apart and with a 2:1 price ratio while claiming they were launch rivals. The nearest competitors were the i7-2700k[32nm] and i7-3770[22nm] both were over $300 and with more expensive motherboards, I bought my FX-8350[32nm] for $150 at the end of 2012 and fx990 boards were only like $20 more than the 870 series (main diff was more PCIe).
The Vishera (Didn't use bulldozer modules BTW) clustered multi threading is more akin to 8 E-cores than 4 P-cores with hyperthreads. (Which for my specialized non-gaming loads was a far better performance per dollar)

I still have an FX-8350 here, it is underclocked a bit to 3.5GHz. (I don't want to reboot to change the clock right now.) The whole system draws 195w from my UPS with a 100% 8-core stress test (the stock cooler isn't even at max RPM). And 81w idling with GUI background tasks(~4% load). I have never had stuttering problems either, even on the occation that I do a bit of gaming or load up 4 videos on two screens; so that stuttering is almost certainly user error or poor programming. With Windows and Linux (Sometimes both at once via virtualization.)

In anycase what most people don't know is that Phenom was essentially the final refinement of the decade old athlon64 core architecture, and that FX was a testbed generation, Zen is largely a refinement of a lot of the tech trialed in the FX architectures.(Just trivia, not a reason to buy or reject the item)

I don't have the exact same i7, I have two of the i7-4710HQ in laptops from about 2014. I stopped using them back in 2019-2020, but not because the CPU performance was too bad.

Yea ok in intel 4 gen vs one gen ... More cors it is slit cores .vs no . An it depens ... It fore win 7. ..not aning more . An it waz. A 150$. Vs tha core i7. Wichi waz until 6 gen olwesy from. 440$ to 700$ for a i7 1/2/3/4... gen ... Tha etuziamz decent in gen 3. An inteks haz 70%of tha market pc so more otimization and les 25% and it is a chit intha bechi merks so yea shure ok

I am not sure if the rules of engagement before Ryzen plus applies to FM3 chips. It is quite possible they were there but not quite for AMD. The true test for any gpu and or Cpu is on the platform.