I am actually in the market to replace my old Phenom II system (965BE @4GHz with an HD7950). And as nice as the price is for newer AMD stuff, even at the same price the performance is just not there for gaming. Too many games are poorly coded and only use two threads, so even with my current CPU two cores sit there doing nothing. With an 8320e, 6 cores sit there doing nothing. And the IPC improvements from Phenom II to current FX chips is marginal at best.
Its just disappointing that gamers basically HAVE to go Intel to run any current games decently.
It all depends on what you're trying to run. A very large number of games are going to be GPU limited, so much so that it really has no meaning what CPU you're running unless you're at medium to high quality settings in order to boost frame rates. We could also trot out Mantle and DX12, which should make the CPU matter even less -- but only on games that use those APIs, which is not the vast majority of games out right now or even coming this year.
So yeah, if you're buying a new motherboard and CPU, it's hard to find a reason to buy an FX chip right now. If you already own one, you don't necessarily need to upgrade, but that's a different matter.
Mantle is a huge boost. BF4 is near unplayable for me in multiplayer with DirectX, but runs "ok" in mantle (average 45fps, CPU limited with all four cores pegged). In that game an 8 core FX would help a lot. But then you go to a Blizzard game like Heroes of the Storm, and I am stuck with 2 cores pegged. A low end i3 outperforms my system (and FX systems) in these cases by quite a large margin.
Blizzard games always seem to be CPU heavy. It enables them to run the software decent on almost any kind of hardware. They build for Macs and many use the Intel IGP.
This is true and in some ways Blizzard's engines are very well optimized. They don't lean too hard on the graphics (at least at fairly moderate settings) and they look good even if you don't have a fast enough system to crank on all the eyecandy. They run well on systems with few cores, too. Both of these things tend to make them fairly laptop-friendly as well. But they're not very well threaded and the downside is that if you've got a system with relatively low per-thread performance and 4+ cores you're often going to have an unnecessarily poor experience as it simple can not take advantage of your setup.
I will jump in here with a question. Considering myself a WoW player and AMD supporter (that's a weird combo for sure ;-) ), I look for some options to upgrade my Phenom II X4 965 (3,5 GHz, it's not OC-ing well) and Radeon 6790 /w 1GB GDDR5 (which is noisy…). I realize, the improvement won't be huge, but I think about: Vishera 8320E, some mobo (Asus M5A99X EVO R2.0? Or maybe there are better ones for the price) and some much more silent GPU (R7 265 / R9 270? Or maybe there's something not much more expensive and better?). Do you think I will notice some justifable difference? :)
Thank you! Eh, seems AMD marketing should never, ever show WoW results to anyone ;) Ineed, if not i3, then i5 seems to much more sensible path, especially it's not THAT more expensive thank 8320E. Well, it's just a weird, very bad for AMD case, still…
I generally agree, but I would say that the $99 FX-6300 and the $115 OEM FX-8310 would be the exceptions that actually stand out as good values from the red team right now - particularly when paired with a 970 board and boosted with a moderate overclock into the ~4.5 ghz range, these chips offer more value vs. the similarly-priced i3 series, albeit with higher power consumption and lacking an upgrade path.
I took the upgrade dive as due to a offering on 125W fx8370. As I run only at stock speeds, my experience might not be relevant to you. The single module max turbo takes little less power than the 95W thuban with turbo and is faster with modern software, marginally slower on very old test software. I sometimes still launch UT2k4 and the speed improvement is significant. A software 4k 60Hz video playback got 70% improvement. Reflecting this, I wouldn't go near anything slower than the models running at least 4GHz base speed as an upgrade.
looking at figures and benchmarking you are right. but when you look a bit further on general platforms single gpu its not that big difference at all and some even none existing. with examples like 85-95 fps you won't even notice the difference if you would run on ore another.
Does it matter? AMD has intentionally not released new BD-products or updated chipsets for non-APU and server products. They are not counting on selling broken Bulldozers. They have put their resources on the new architectures instead. You can continue to use an AMD-system if your demands aren't too high, new stuff will come there just isn't any sense buying one today. Buying AMD graphics might not be an easy sell these days either, but R9-290 is still decent and new stuff will come hopefully with HDMI 2.0 support and all that.
I'm going to chalk this up as me being a terrible reader, but I was confused reading this review. Does this motherboard support 220W CPUs or not? Or is it limited to just 125W range?
I ran a dedicated 10guage Romex line, 30 amper, to my 4.23 Vishy w/ my OC 290X and all was good my killawatt was reading 890wattts but then it tore down my 3000joule clamping voltage surge protector. :-( Luckily I had the fire extinguisher handy just in case.
Voltage by offset only, and no LLC, on a 'gaming' motherboard, is very disappointing. For $100, this board's other shortcomings could be forgiven, but as it stands, one would do better to stick to a standard 970 board at around $85. As for 990FX, unless someone already owns a 6000 or 8000 series CPU, investing $130+ for a 990FX board on the rather dated AM3+ platform at this point is a pretty foolish move vs. what Intel has to offer.
As someone who prefers smaller (read mATX) systems, it's been a real disappointment that no one has come out with any decent AM3+ mATX motherboards in the last several years. For those of us with limited space, we're pretty much forced to use FM2 or Intel at lower performance or higher cost.
THAT. No 9 Series mATX boards whatsoever, and only a few AM3+ mATX boards with a decent power stage (even 4+1 phases). That's too bad. I, for one, could put one such board to good use.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
37 Comments
Back to Article
Stuka87 - Thursday, January 22, 2015 - link
I am actually in the market to replace my old Phenom II system (965BE @4GHz with an HD7950). And as nice as the price is for newer AMD stuff, even at the same price the performance is just not there for gaming. Too many games are poorly coded and only use two threads, so even with my current CPU two cores sit there doing nothing. With an 8320e, 6 cores sit there doing nothing. And the IPC improvements from Phenom II to current FX chips is marginal at best.Its just disappointing that gamers basically HAVE to go Intel to run any current games decently.
JarredWalton - Thursday, January 22, 2015 - link
It all depends on what you're trying to run. A very large number of games are going to be GPU limited, so much so that it really has no meaning what CPU you're running unless you're at medium to high quality settings in order to boost frame rates. We could also trot out Mantle and DX12, which should make the CPU matter even less -- but only on games that use those APIs, which is not the vast majority of games out right now or even coming this year.So yeah, if you're buying a new motherboard and CPU, it's hard to find a reason to buy an FX chip right now. If you already own one, you don't necessarily need to upgrade, but that's a different matter.
Stuka87 - Thursday, January 22, 2015 - link
Mantle is a huge boost. BF4 is near unplayable for me in multiplayer with DirectX, but runs "ok" in mantle (average 45fps, CPU limited with all four cores pegged). In that game an 8 core FX would help a lot. But then you go to a Blizzard game like Heroes of the Storm, and I am stuck with 2 cores pegged. A low end i3 outperforms my system (and FX systems) in these cases by quite a large margin.eanazag - Thursday, January 22, 2015 - link
Blizzard games always seem to be CPU heavy. It enables them to run the software decent on almost any kind of hardware. They build for Macs and many use the Intel IGP.Alexvrb - Thursday, January 22, 2015 - link
This is true and in some ways Blizzard's engines are very well optimized. They don't lean too hard on the graphics (at least at fairly moderate settings) and they look good even if you don't have a fast enough system to crank on all the eyecandy. They run well on systems with few cores, too. Both of these things tend to make them fairly laptop-friendly as well. But they're not very well threaded and the downside is that if you've got a system with relatively low per-thread performance and 4+ cores you're often going to have an unnecessarily poor experience as it simple can not take advantage of your setup.piteq - Friday, January 23, 2015 - link
I will jump in here with a question. Considering myself a WoW player and AMD supporter (that's a weird combo for sure ;-) ), I look for some options to upgrade my Phenom II X4 965 (3,5 GHz, it's not OC-ing well) and Radeon 6790 /w 1GB GDDR5 (which is noisy…). I realize, the improvement won't be huge, but I think about: Vishera 8320E, some mobo (Asus M5A99X EVO R2.0? Or maybe there are better ones for the price) and some much more silent GPU (R7 265 / R9 270? Or maybe there's something not much more expensive and better?). Do you think I will notice some justifable difference? :)HappyHubris - Friday, January 23, 2015 - link
From a X4 965 you really have no viable upgrade path.According to Anandtech's benchmark, upgrading from a X4 965 to FX 8320E would give you
HappyHubris - Friday, January 23, 2015 - link
From a X4 965 you really have no viable upgrade path.According to Anandtech's benchmark, upgrading from a X4 965 to FX 8320E would give you less than 10% improvement in average FPS:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/102?vs=698
It looks like a Haswell i3 would be quite an upgrade, based on the SB i3 performance vs. AMD parts:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/62
piteq - Monday, January 26, 2015 - link
Thank you! Eh, seems AMD marketing should never, ever show WoW results to anyone ;) Ineed, if not i3, then i5 seems to much more sensible path, especially it's not THAT more expensive thank 8320E. Well, it's just a weird, very bad for AMD case, still…FlushedBubblyJock - Sunday, February 15, 2015 - link
Buy a GTX970, you're done.Gigaplex - Thursday, January 22, 2015 - link
Instead of spending that money on a new CPU and motherboard, spend it on a GPU instead to get better BF4 performance.Phartindust - Thursday, January 29, 2015 - link
Exactly, use that money towards a R9 290x, 290.tekphnx - Friday, January 23, 2015 - link
I generally agree, but I would say that the $99 FX-6300 and the $115 OEM FX-8310 would be the exceptions that actually stand out as good values from the red team right now - particularly when paired with a 970 board and boosted with a moderate overclock into the ~4.5 ghz range, these chips offer more value vs. the similarly-priced i3 series, albeit with higher power consumption and lacking an upgrade path.rafaelluik - Tuesday, February 24, 2015 - link
What more value? Haswell i3 beats even FX 8350 in 99% of games and beats the FX9590 in 90% of them!TeXWiller - Thursday, January 22, 2015 - link
I took the upgrade dive as due to a offering on 125W fx8370. As I run only at stock speeds, my experience might not be relevant to you. The single module max turbo takes little less power than the 95W thuban with turbo and is faster with modern software, marginally slower on very old test software. I sometimes still launch UT2k4 and the speed improvement is significant. A software 4k 60Hz video playback got 70% improvement. Reflecting this, I wouldn't go near anything slower than the models running at least 4GHz base speed as an upgrade.duploxxx - Thursday, January 22, 2015 - link
looking at figures and benchmarking you are right. but when you look a bit further on general platforms single gpu its not that big difference at all and some even none existing. with examples like 85-95 fps you won't even notice the difference if you would run on ore another.http://www.anandtech.com/show/8427/amd-fx-8370e-cp...
Penti - Thursday, January 22, 2015 - link
Does it matter? AMD has intentionally not released new BD-products or updated chipsets for non-APU and server products. They are not counting on selling broken Bulldozers. They have put their resources on the new architectures instead. You can continue to use an AMD-system if your demands aren't too high, new stuff will come there just isn't any sense buying one today. Buying AMD graphics might not be an easy sell these days either, but R9-290 is still decent and new stuff will come hopefully with HDMI 2.0 support and all that.piroroadkill - Friday, January 23, 2015 - link
" the IPC improvements from Phenom II to current FX chips is marginal at best."I thought it was actually the reverse. I definitely recall seeing the old high end Phenom II X6 outpeform the new Bulldozer chips when they first hit.
Yep: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-r...
ShieTar - Friday, January 23, 2015 - link
Sure, but there is a difference in IPC between "When Bulldozer first hit" and "current FX":http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1280?vs=700
Phartindust - Thursday, January 29, 2015 - link
The difference is larger than you think:http://anandtech.com/bench/product/102?vs=697
Samus - Thursday, January 22, 2015 - link
Not a bad price for such a complete board, even if the chipset is 4 years old.R3MF - Thursday, January 22, 2015 - link
the new asrock 970 fatality board looks better to be frank.no silly atheros 'killer' network cocket with dubious linux support
20Gb/sec m.2 slot
support for 220W CPU's
Ranari - Thursday, January 22, 2015 - link
I'm going to chalk this up as me being a terrible reader, but I was confused reading this review. Does this motherboard support 220W CPUs or not? Or is it limited to just 125W range?silverblue - Thursday, January 22, 2015 - link
Ian pointed this out to AMD; I doubt it does. It does support up to and including the 8370 though if their compatability list is to be believed.I'm not sure who'd want to throw a 220W CPU into any board let alone a 970, though.
FlushedBubblyJock - Sunday, February 15, 2015 - link
I ran a dedicated 10guage Romex line, 30 amper, to my 4.23 Vishy w/ my OC 290X and all was good my killawatt was reading 890wattts but then it tore down my 3000joule clamping voltage surge protector. :-(Luckily I had the fire extinguisher handy just in case.
Killrose - Thursday, January 22, 2015 - link
I beleive MSI is getting 2 x 8 PCI-e for SLI / Crossfire out of the 970 chipset on this motherboard although it is not supported by AMD, is this true?frenzy55 - Wednesday, January 28, 2015 - link
Yes this is true, this mobo supports SLI and Crossfire.failquail - Friday, January 23, 2015 - link
Could be a nice cheap replacement for my current motherboard that is experiencing a slow and painful death.(Asus Crosshair IV formula, AMD 890FX
Current status:
8/12 of the USB2 ports non-functional
USB3 ports dead
RAID controller dead
Jmicron ESATA/SATA extra controller dead
The rest of the board is still going, but i'm unsure how long for...)
Regarding the killer NIC: does this simply function as a standard LAN port if you don't install their software?
tekphnx - Friday, January 23, 2015 - link
Voltage by offset only, and no LLC, on a 'gaming' motherboard, is very disappointing. For $100, this board's other shortcomings could be forgiven, but as it stands, one would do better to stick to a standard 970 board at around $85. As for 990FX, unless someone already owns a 6000 or 8000 series CPU, investing $130+ for a 990FX board on the rather dated AM3+ platform at this point is a pretty foolish move vs. what Intel has to offer.MrFrogSD - Monday, January 26, 2015 - link
As someone who prefers smaller (read mATX) systems, it's been a real disappointment that no one has come out with any decent AM3+ mATX motherboards in the last several years. For those of us with limited space, we're pretty much forced to use FM2 or Intel at lower performance or higher cost.200380051 - Friday, January 30, 2015 - link
THAT. No 9 Series mATX boards whatsoever, and only a few AM3+ mATX boards with a decent power stage (even 4+1 phases). That's too bad. I, for one, could put one such board to good use.frenzy55 - Wednesday, January 28, 2015 - link
"The 970 chipset limits the user to a single NVIDIA GPU and PCIe 2.0,"MSI's website says they support SLI and I am currently running 2 Radeon 7770's in crossfire with this board.
frenzy55 - Wednesday, January 28, 2015 - link
Also, their site claims x16 + x8.Phartindust - Thursday, January 29, 2015 - link
Yeah Ian, the board does support AMD GPUs too. LOLecuakd - Wednesday, April 29, 2015 - link
can this motherboard handle 4k fine?arizona - Monday, October 19, 2015 - link
hey averyone i got something to ask does this motherboard can it run windows 7 please let me knowvikash124 - Wednesday, December 30, 2015 - link
msi 970 usb 3.0 drivers not working please help