Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
But, have you looked into overclocking it?
And, does it play games good enough for you?
If not, then overclock/buy a new CPU.
Luckily these old FX processors can be sold for quite a bit online.
For GPU get an RX 570 or better. Idealy a GTX 1660 or RX 5600.
Whew.. You talking about some big money there on the GPU
You really can't buy anything less and expect it to play any game you throw at it.
*FACT* is that FX8 chips still pull solid 60FPS averages in most titles on the market as of 2020. Not all of them, but most all of them.
So long as you are not trying for high FPS gaming (read 75Hz or higher) you will be fine. FX8 chips even do fine at 4K. They *will* have more ocasional frame drops than some other chips, but average wise they will still pull the golden 60FPS mark that the PC gaming comunity (last I checked) still held as "the" line between good and bad.
If you have decent cooling an overclock would be a great idea, if not run stock and make sure you are able to hold a consistent core speed under all core load. If not you might need to give it a touch extra voltage.
As for the system you have, getting a better GPU would be step number one. You have a CPU that will pull 60FPS in most every title on earth right now at 1080p through 4K but your GPU can barely muster 1080p/60 in a small number of "modern" titles.
Look at something in the $100 to 200$ range on GPU. Should match nicely with your existing system and give you something that can pull 1080p/60 in most all games out right now.
Again though, people, specially on this forum, tend to hate on FX, so dont be surpised to be told to trash it despite it being plenty usable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQYlA1UNMQY
A great GPU in the lower budget end that you might look at would be the RX570, which below is paired with the slightly slower FX8350 so this gives you a reasonable idea what you would get performance wise with such a combo. If you were given the chip free, investing in a new GPU like a 570 would give you a more or less entry level PC for modern 1080p gaming, just dont expect it to break benchmarks or be a high refresh rate rig...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mlkrw7-yMkg
And it still gets smashed by a $50 Pentium.
bro hoenstly if you haevthe money you ca nget for 85 bucks a 1600 AF which destroys the FX in every single way and it's a steal for the moeny. it's basically an underclocked 2600
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Pentium-G4560-vs-AMD-FX-8370/3892vs2983
With a 950 it's fine, but once you get into more powerful GPUs like the 1650S or better you'd want to at least tap into the Ryzen 5 1600AF or one of the upcoming Ryzen 3 CPUs (3100X or 3300X) Once you start going into games that need single-threaded performance more than cores, like CS:GO, is where FX falls flat on its ass, because any CPU with better single-core performance and clocks would generally get way better FPS than the FX-8370, even if it only has 2 cores because those kinds of games that only need 2 cores but get high FPS depend so much more on core performance than the amount of cores themselves. Literally any game where 4 threads is enough but core performance is the thing to go for, FX can easily fall behind.
Also ignore Hawkens' rant about FX. People hate on it because it's just that bad where a lot of quad core CPUs with much stronger cores can easily wipe the floor with the "eight-core" FX CPUs. Back in the day, even some dual core pentiums were better gaming chips and they costed less. It's usable, but AMD pre-Ryzen is just awful.
Fanboys can say whatever they want about FX, but the simple fact is Intel had AMD held way back since Sandy Bridge because FX just couldn't compare, and still doesn't beat the i7s and matches the i5s. AMD had so many CEOs during this time because they were trying to fix their ♥♥♥♥, and there were so many failures before Lisa Su.
I never said FX was great, but I also defend it from people like you that claim its trash...
Only reason dual core Pentiums *held* a chance against the FX8 chips in games was because back then games only needed 2-4 threads. Now days many games can and will use 6-8 (or more).
Go look at 4 and 8 core loading on those two chips you listed, 4 core is a wash and 8 core go to FX by a *large* margin.
There is a reason FX4/6 chips, along with all intel dual chips (2c2t or 2c4t) have died out entirely in gaming at this point. None of those chips can pull 60 FPS in modern titles due to them wanitng more threads. Intel does have stronger cores but not that strong.
Meanwhile 4c4t intels and FX8 chips comintue to push solid 60fps averages, though *both* suffer form frame dips bad. Intel 4c8t is better, but its a bandaid and wont last much longer either.
But seriously, as someone who has built, used, and gamed on FX8 its not as bad as you or others make it out to be. Is it beat by many things? Sure. But is it still a solid chip for daily usage *and* acceptable for entry gaming, sure as hell is.
Thats not being a fanboy, its just true. They are heaters, they are *not* great. But they *ARE* decent enough to pass the 60FPS average threashold that makes them PC gaming worthy. And thats shown in the video's above. It has a few places it strugles, but on average it does fine in the majority of the titles shown, and the higher the rez you play the less an issue it becomes.
You're under the false assumption that people are ONLY playing games that use 6+ threads, when those games still make up way less than 5% of all PC games that exist. A lot of users are still playing more older titles than newer ones.
Also anyone looking for really high FPS figures that are stable wouldn't want to look at FX, because it doesn't have the power to handle that. For 60, it's fine, but games that can pull very high FPS like CS:GO would have a better experience on a Pentium than FX.
Though the 8370 *was* behind in its day, it was still a flagship. Though not the best option, no one would have called it a bottleneck on the flagship GPU's of its day. For gaming purposes, though being a bit behind, it was just as capable of pushing the AMD R9-290X (for example) as a good Intel i5 or i7, at least within comparable usage to the point of not being a bottleneck.
Why does this matter?... B/C if an 8370 didnt noticably bottleneck an R9-290X, its not going to bottleneck a 1650s thats ~15% faster than that 290x was...
https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-1650S-Super-vs-AMD-R9-290X/4058vs2166
In games like CS:GO it will bottleneck, that's a CPU bound scenario. Even a 9900K can bottleneck a 2060 in CS:GO, it's unavoidable. but that's not the point.
When the cores aren't the problem, and they usually aren't, core performance is what matters, and FX core performance is well below current standards. People recommend upgrading because it's just not as good.
Nobody is trashing FX as bad as you're saying they are, you're just getting worked up because they're saying bad things about it, and rightfully so, because it's well below modern standards and even back then was disappointing. If it wasn't, Intel wouldn't have been dawdling with each generation and not actually doing anything. All of these generations since FX came out have been based on the same design that started with sandy bridge and it hasn't 100% changed since.