What about the AMD FX series, AMD FX 4100 performance

High consumption and low energy! Poor power control! Poor performance! All kinds of are killed by Intel SNB seconds! What's more** it's not cheap!

People are asking AMD, what are you doing with a bunch of Intel pictures?

At present, AMD has the best value for money.

fx8320 ￥1000

fx6300 ￥700

Yilong 955 500

Athlon: 740 400

a10 5800k ￥600

Do you use a discrete GPU? The best at home is A10 5800K, which is equivalent to a CPU + 630 graphics card of about 400. And ** only more than 700.

And that 750Although you want to use a separate display, it's also very reasonable to use about 400**, and it's dedicated to games.

It seems that there is still an FX series, but in terms of performance, AMD still can't compare with Intel, and there is a technical gap. However, it seems that there is also a place for cheap ** and multi-core.

AMD** processors below 800 are good value for money.

Generally, there are 4-core Aspeed Dragon 750k, and the 4-core with very high cost performance is only 450.

The old 955 is also cost-effective, but it is not recommended, the heat is too great, and the processor is cheap, but it is made up for in heat dissipation.

A8,A10The cost performance is also good,If you don't plan to match the independent display,The cost performance is higher than 750K,If you are equipped with a separate display,It's very chicken。

In fact, the really cost-effective one now should be the 6-core FX-6300, more than 600; 4-core FX-4130, 400 more.

These 2 have very good performance, not many people used them before because of the high **, the price has been reduced recently, and the cost performance is very high, like Athlon 4 core 750, the old 955 don't need to be considered at all.

I believe that with the ** of **, more and more people will turn their attention to these two processors.

If you have enough budget, it is recommended to have an FX series CPU + discrete graphics card. The cost performance of the APU is still okay, but the performance is similar to the third-generation Core i3 at home, which outweighs the loss.

APU is a nuclear display.。。。 If you want to use it for the office, if it's cheaper, use the APU

FX is a bulldozer cheap multi-core... If you want to hang up more, use the APU.

If you are just using it for normal use, then AMD quad-core or i3 or i5 is recommended

1.Depending on your needs, if the budget is sufficient, it is best to fx+ independent display (forget about low-end independent display, let alone HD7770 or more), and the performance is proper.

2.If the budget is insufficient (probably within 2000 of the host budget), the APU is more cost-effective. At present, A8 is the most cost-effective, A10 is also good, CPU performance is about the same, but the core graphics are stronger than A8 (A10-6800K is not recommended, the cost performance is too low, 5800K is enough), which is probably equivalent to the D5 version HD6570 or GT630 level.

However, the group APU platform must be on high-frequency dual-pass memory, at least DDR3-1600, 2G*2 (DDR3-1866, 4G*2 recommended), otherwise the core graphics performance will not be able to play. The APU can be exchanged with the low-end A card independent display, and the performance can probably reach the level of 7750, but the cost performance is not high, so it is not recommended.

3.In fact, the price is about the same as the A10 solutionG2020+HD7750, this independent display performance is completeA10, the power consumption is higher, the overall performance of the CPU is weaker than A10, but the single-core performance is stronger than A10. (This scheme is more appropriate when playing a game like Interstellar 2 that focuses on single-core performance).

Bulldozer FX4100, mainly with turbo frequency, three slow large, power consumption 95W is lower than 965's 125W, support 1866 memory (965 is 1333), loose piece ** 550 yuan, 965 loose piece 450 yuan, overclocking is no problem 4G, comprehensive performance 965 is stronger. These 2 belong to the regular quad-core, there is nothing special, and the game will be better for multi-core optimization in the future.

Bulldozer series,I'm only optimistic about FX8120Octacore,Loose piece 870 yuan,Strong overclocking,More open is useful,Don't open more and don't do graphics rendering,Can't use it。

The best U in the AMD 600 price range is AMD Phenom II X6 1055T hexa-core loose chip 620 yuan, 1045T 580 yuan.

The architecture is different, you can't directly look at the frequency and three slows. The bulldozer single-core performance is low, and the FX4100 is quite a bit weaker than the 965.

The FX8150 bulldozer flagship can hit the i7 870

The FX8300 can get close to the 8150. It's a small improvement in a single core.

9590 can hit 3770

It's good to use it for installation, but it's lighter if it's used to smash people.

That's because FX uses a bulldozer architecture.

The special feature of this architecture is that the previous processors were 2 cores with 2 integer operation modules + 2 floating-point operation modules, while the bulldozer was 2 cores with 2 integer operation modules + 1 floating-point operation module.

As a result, the resources that can be dispatched per core of the bulldozer are smaller than those of the previous processor, and the efficiency per core is lower than that of the previous core, resulting in a very low running score.

AMD's engineers did this because they found that most users rarely used floating-point arithmetic, so they streamlined the redundant arithmetic units to free up more space for new technologies.

It's a pity that the scoring software doesn't care about this, so the bulldozer architecture scoring results are ugly.

As a result, some people who only look at the running score will feel that the performance of the bulldozer is not as good as the old products (Yilong, Athlon).

In fact, the bulldozer not only added instruction set support, but also evolved from the original core three launches to four launchers, both in terms of game performance and computing performance have been improved, but only for practical use.

Note that due to AMD's backward process, FX does not use the new process, resulting in higher heat generation than Intel's processors, and it can also be seen from the later third-generation bulldozer 7850K that the power consumption of the upgraded bulldozer has been greatly reduced.

Bulldozers, excess performance, single-threaded performance is similar to Athlon, and the like. You can see the difference if you're multithreaded.

Yilong? 907? I just looked at the picture and saw that my octa-core FX8320 was overclocked to the point that it couldn't outrun the quad-core Yilong!! !

Descendants of the Dragon -- from across the Pacific Ocean, the evil capitalist American Verizon custom version of Nokia Lumia 928Don't follow, don't compromise, don't give up.

Dillon, Shi Xiaolong, Liang Xiaolong.