AM3+ Socket - Still warrent a purchase?

Is an AM3+ socket still worth purchasing?

  • Yes

    Votes: 33 36.3%

  • No

    Votes: 39 42.9%

  • Depends (please explain in post)

    Votes: 19 20.9%
  • Total voters
    91
W

Ws60

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 12, 2012
Messages
124
Hello, its me again with yet another question this time about the AM3+ line of sockets in my quest for knowledge. There's been a severe dearth of information regarding their future much less that of the FX CPU's they currently support that even that doesn't look to be lifting anytime soon. However I do realize this silence could both be a good or a bad sign depending on how one takes it. Either its a sign they are planning something special but want to announce it when ready* or that they just don't want to hurt sales of a currently a still profitable but in the long term zombie product line during a critical market transition phase.^ Or less pessimistically that they plan on replacing it with the rumored FM2+/FM3 socket that would merge the current AM-FM lines as AMD has publicly wanted to do for some time but want to sell out of old inventory first.

A search of the forums here turned up a few threads of interest but all they did was raise more questions. Chief among them was if given all this uncertainty if it may be wise to even consider picking up an AM3+ board at this time much less an FX CPU. While I understand fully that the only outcome for playing the waiting game is generally a net loss the possibility of having to replace a motherboard+CPU in a year or less time makes me wary. Even if I would be potentially going from an AM2+ board and Phenom II X4 975. On a final note please keep in mind I'm posting this in the AMD forum for a reason so while I have been looking at Intels latest offerings as well that's not what I'm asking about. :p

*Unlike Bulldozer
^Would not be the first time a corporation has told a baldfaced lie to keep moving product.
 
Depends on what kind of deal you get and what you're using it for. For example: MC has FX6300 with free motherboard for $109. Pretty good deal for $109 in terms of bang for buck.

If money is no object, then, no, it's not a good purchase.
 
My answer to the poll was "It depends".

If you're looking for future CPU upgrade capability, my answer to that is "Don't bother." Both Intel and AMD are guilty of this. In AMD's case, they're not exactly able to force motherboard manufacturers to support newer CPUs with older AMD motherboards. Nor as AMD been exactly forthcoming with the required information needed to provide support for newer CPUs on older motherboards.

Anecdotally, for three years, my main system had the Gigabyte GA-890GPA-D3H AM3 motherboard and a cheap AMD X3 720 CPU. My original plan was to upgrade that CPU to one of the newer Bulldozer CPUs as I needed more cores at that time. Now due to either Gigabyte's incompetance or lack of forethought or just plain bad luck or AMD's lack of forthcoming information about the Bulldozer CPUs, or some weird combination of those factors, my particular motherboard revision did not support the Bulldozer CPUs due to supposedly "weak" power delivery or something along those lines. Later revisions of my motherboard did support those Bulldozers however. Anyway, the point is that you should not expect to have any room to upgrade in the future as there's a lot of factors that could end up preventing that. As such, try to get the best bang for the buck CPU you can afford.

If you're looking to do an ESXI build on the cheap or a cheap file server, I'd recommend AMD in those cases as AMD motherboards that have 8 or more SATA ports tends to be quite cheaper than Intel motherboards with a similar amount of SATA ports. In addition, IOMMU/VT-D support is a bit clearer with AMD motherboards than with Intel motherboards as some Intel motherboard manufacturers don't actually state if they support IOMMU/VT-D or not. Plus the higher "core" count is a bit more beneficial to virtualization than raw clock for clock speed.

For a gaming or high-performance PC that's over $900, I wouldn't bother with AMD AM3+ at all. That is, unless you're planning on playing nothing but Mantle enabled games. In that particular case, AMD's lower clock for clock performance won't hamper it as much for a gaming PC and it might be more suitable as a gaming setup. But even then, you would have to get a really really good discount on the AMD parts to justify going over an Intel setup.

For a low profile and/or relatively cheap gaming HTPC or even Steambox build with ZERO plans for a GPU upgrade, the AMD Kaveri based APUs are solid choices IMO.
 
As an AMD fanboy, my vote is no. Intel is better on virtually every level except price and even then it's not that big a difference. An i5 is just the sweet spot right now and at $30 more than a 8350 but much better performing, not a whole lot of reasons to go AMD unless you're looking at the $100 CPU price point.
 
I'm AMD-biased, but even I can't find any real worthwhile reasons for someone to go to AM3+ right now (or ever.) The socket is dead in the sense that it won't be getting anymore new processors. No Steamroller FX due to the process node (GloFo's 28nm SHP node is balanced specifically for APU's CPU/GPU integration and performs best at lower TDP's, whilst the prior 32nm SOI node was CPU-biased) and the roadmaps show no plans for an Excavator FX either. So unless one is using software that really utilizes six or eight threads, there's no reason to go FX.

FM2+ is a better platform in virtually every way, since HSA will be a big deal and you do have an upgrade path in sight (pre-existing Trinity/Richland users can go to Kaveri, and then go to Carrizo in 2015). If someone is only willing to spend ~$100 on a CPU, FM2+ all the way. If one needs high-performance or wants the best gaming experience, they may as well just go to LGA 1150 and get an i5 or an i7 if they plan on doing productivity tasks as well.
 
Instead of making this a poll why don't you use email to ask AMD for a clarification on this matter.
You can clearly state you do not want to buy Intel but you are not happy with the very limited options that are available and no future outlook on the AM3+ platform and FM2+ is not something you would ever buy.
 
I'm still buying them in. Good value and the hardware is good for 6+ years as usual.

This isn't 1998 anymore.
 
If you are [going] to run two cards and make use of those extra PCIe lanes, and have a lot of multi-threaded workloads then yes, AM3+ with an 8core might make sense.

If you are likely only to ever run one card, why not get a socket 1155/1150 setup for the same money and at least get more GPU bandwidth to the card?
 
I'll probably hang on to this setup halfway through 2015. After that if there is nothing from AMD besides 4 core apu ill go Intel again. Now days a lot of us here atleast don't keep setups to long so I think if one wanted an am3+ 8 core to keep for 1 1/2 years I could see buying one still.
 
I built my current system in May 2010, coming up for four years, and the only change has been an MSI Lightning 7970 a year ago.

I think it will last until autumn, and by then it will have lasted more than twice as long as is the norm, but i will be expecting something a damn sight better than my 1090T/890FX system.

Will AMD be able to provide that? I'd say it seems unlikely.
 
I built two AMD rigs in 2013, and will keep them for years to come. Unless I get a wild itch to start gaming again, I see no reason to upgrade what I have currently.

EDIT: To answer the question.
I would only purchase AM3+ moving forward if I wanted a budget BF4 rig and used Mantle.
Otherwise I wouldn't bother.
 
Last edited:
If patient, can always wait and see what platform Excavator-based processors will use.

However, the way I see it is this: For the current price of an FX-8320 or FX-8350, there isn't an 8-core processor at that price from Intel or ever will be.

You buy one now, and you're still able to play games as well as any Intel processor costing tens to hundreds of dollars more. Games will still run above 40 FPS or higher depending on your video card. It may be 5 to 15 FPS lower than Intel's K-series or E-series CPUs, but it's still playable framerates, and that's all that matters. You can still watch videos on Netflix and Youtube; laugh or cry at your friend's Facebook posts; still read e-mail in G-mail; and do productivity stuff in Office just as well as Intel's processors. It may not match the sheer single-threaded throughput of Intel's more expensive processors but for what you get at $130 to $200-- native 8 physical cores on one single socket; overclockability without restriction; virtualization without restriction; and over 3.0GHz speed off the bat.

The only downside going to AMD's AM3+ platform is a platform that's held back with age. It lacks native PCI-Express 3.0 as it is hobbled by an inefficient communication bus meant only for multi-socketed processor systems-- HyperTransport. It has no native USB 3.0 or SATA 6.0 GB/s ports. The chipset has been a part of AMD's lineup since the 700-series chipset days (?), just upgraded slightly over the years. The pin count of the socket limits expandability of processor features such as more memory channels or PCI-Express lanes-- 942-pins compared is small compared to Intel's offerings. The only one that seems to get any amount of significant upgrade are AMD's FMx platform-- PCI-Express 3.0, USB 3.0, and SATA 6.0 GB/s expansion.

It's with Excavator-based processors, I expect to see AMD at the very least support PCI-E 3.0, USB 3.0, and SATA 6.0 GB/s natively in a new chipset. It may be an all new Socket FM3/FM3+ or Socket AM4 or a variant of their server socket G34/C32 platform. They will need to support DDR4 memory right off the CPU die itself come 2015 or they will decidedly be behind Intel in terms of memory support, and AMD needs to drastically improve memory bandwidth and throughput, something Intel has an advantage over AMD on. And, somewhere along the lines, improve not only multi-threaded performance, but single-threaded performance, and if that means through a combination of HSA and other new technology, AMD needs to get that done.
 
I appreciate the replies and its given me a lot of food for thought. It also makes me aware that I forgot the most critical piece of information in the opening post, ie that this was meant to be in reference to a primarily gaming system with strong possibilities of both streaming+voip being run simultaneously. That aside it seems even then most of the advice boils down to at the current price points avoiding the AM3+ socket for such intensive tasks unless a significantly good deal can be found. I'm not sure if clarifying the specific use would alter the advice already given. If we only knew the facts behind AMD claiming the FX line wasn't actually EOL, such as something being developed at least, then things would be much less uncertain. That said as 1/2 Bent mentioned I might consider doing a partial upgrade soon (board+cpu+ram) as one thing I considered was transferring my old hardware to the SO when I did finally pull the trigger on a full setup. So in a worst case scenario it would just mean they'd end up with 'newer' hardware. Still to be determined obviously.

Octoberasian, actually that is a plan of action I have considered to see both where AMD and Intel go. I had originally planned on having upgraded by this time but circumstances put a hold on that unfortunately. If a few things pan out in the next week or so however its entirely possible I could pull the trigger on a full setup ASAP but given my current system is still 'acceptable' if slower then I'd like I may just hold off a few months anyway. Worst case is it lets me bank a little more towards the upgrade while doing more research. I can think of a few ways that having some extra coin would be beneficial. :D
 
Last edited:
Anything is worth buying at the right price. If you stumble over a motherboard + chip deal, and scoop up a mid-range gfx card on sale for $200, that would probably last 4 years easy at 1080p. Maybe a gfx card swap a couple years into it.
 
My upgrade plans are on hold at this moment, AMD is willing to forsake the AM3+ platform but prices for these mainboards are still like it was when they were launched.

If this changes then AM3+ is not that bad because you can still get enough performance out of FX 8350
 
It's as dead as 1150 (that's to say, not dead). One gen left I would imagine.
 
kirbyrj said:
What are you basing that on?
Click to expand...

Yeah I want to know that too. I have seen nothing to lead me to believe AM3+ is going to have any life left. None of the road maps show Steamroller on AM3+ and i can't see any way they'd let Excavator on there.
 
Considering you can't upgrade AM3+ I wouldn't but if you want to save 100.00 or so I would just for the 8 cores on Battlefield 4.

I wouldn't get anything less then a Fx-8350
 
NaroonGTX said:
If that was directed at me, I'd love for you to explain the future of AM3+, because all evidence points to it being a dead-end socket.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Trust me. Nobody has looked harder than I have trying to find any hint that my rig would have one more upgrade in its future but I can't find anything. All AMD roadmaps show AM3+ dead as dirt. There aren't even any rumors of future AM3+ chips.
 
I usually buy both CPU and motherboard as a bundle so when I upgrade, I upgrade both. This thread is somewhat irrelevant to me, but I just want to share something.
 
xorbe said:
Anything is worth buying at the right price. If you stumble over a motherboard + chip deal, and scoop up a mid-range gfx card on sale for $200, that would probably last 4 years easy at 1080p. Maybe a gfx card swap a couple years into it.
Click to expand...

And

Pieter3dnow said:
My upgrade plans are on hold at this moment, AMD is willing to forsake the AM3+ platform but prices for these mainboards are still like it was when they were launched.

If this changes then AM3+ is not that bad because you can still get enough performance out of FX 8350
Click to expand...


Interesting thoughts. What sort of prices would be considered a good deal for a Mobo and/or CPU considering the sockets EoL status?
 
I would say the high end parts needs to be around $100 for each, mainboard and cpu. This would allow decent amount of money to get your 3 year old technology some performance for the next 2 years, if you are using an AMD videocard it might work out longer.

And were talking about FX8350 and Asus formula mainboard
 
Last edited:
Depends on if electricity is an issue for you. If not AM3+ might be worth looking at. Otherwise I think server platforms offer more on the AMD side.
 
Darakian said:
Depends on if electricity is an issue for you. If not AM3+ might be worth looking at. Otherwise I think server platforms offer more on the AMD side.
Click to expand...

Thankfully for me thats not that large of a worry considering here we have an electrical rate near the low end of the spectrum at 9¢/kWh (USD). The more I look at things the more attractive the FX-8350 looks despite the initial hesitation, with its decent gaming performance and multi-threading at a price point cheaper then Intel. Especially when compared to the i5-Haswell series which is its main price point competitor. While the i7 is the better all around chip outside of Microcenter deals, which I cannot easily make use of, for the cost of just the chip I can get both the FX-8350 and a solid motherboard. Toss in a Seasonic psu that will carry over to the next build and I'm gold.

As a result I have to seriously consider this path as a viable 'short term' upgrade to last at least the next year or two. This would be easier on my finances, fit my general usage pattern better, and solve my main worry by replacing aging hardware. Granted I'm likely just over paranoid about the last one but I've yet to have a system that has been peacefully retired rather then met its end with the same finality that a sentence encounters a period. :p
 
Ws60 said:
Thankfully for me thats not that large of a worry considering here we have an electrical rate near the low end of the spectrum at 9¢/kWh (USD). The more I look at things the more attractive the FX-8350 looks despite the initial hesitation, with its decent gaming performance and multi-threading at a price point cheaper then Intel. Especially when compared to the i5-Haswell series which is its main price point competitor. While the i7 is the better all around chip outside of Microcenter deals, which I cannot easily make use of, for the cost of just the chip I can get both the FX-8350 and a solid motherboard. Toss in a Seasonic psu that will carry over to the next build and I'm gold.

As a result I have to seriously consider this path as a viable 'short term' upgrade to last at least the next year or two. This would be easier on my finances, fit my general usage pattern better, and solve my main worry by replacing aging hardware. Granted I'm likely just over paranoid about the last one but I've yet to have a system that has been peacefully retired rather then met its end with the same finality that a sentence encounters a period. :p
Click to expand...
If we're talking just gaming, the Core i5s will outperform the FX CPUs man.
 
Last edited:
Two best deals going right now:

FX-8320 @ MC for $99
7850k w/ free asus dual pci-e x16 board for $130
i5-4570 @ MC ( if you do'nt need a board and/or need vt-d) for $159
i4-4670k @ MC ( with $30 off a board if you need overclocking but don't need vt-d) $180

IMHO Am3+ is a great deal if you want a bargain-basement gaming box and/or want a small server that doesn't need high cpu power (ecc capable setup for $100'ish cpu+board)
 
Last edited:
Robstar said:
Two best deals going right now:

FX-8320 @ MC for $99
7850k w/ free asus dual pci-e x16 board for $130
i5-4570 @ MC ( if you do'nt need a board and/or need vt-d) for $159
i4-4670k @ MC ( with $30 off a board if you need overclocking but don't need vt-d) $180

IMHO Am3+ is a great deal if you want a bargain-basement gaming box and/or want a small server that doesn't need high cpu power (ecc capable setup for $100'ish cpu+board)
Click to expand...

I don't know what asus dual pci-e x16 board you're talking about. The free board only has a single pcie x16 slot.

Like I said on the first page...the FX6300 with free GB USB 3 board for $109 is a good deal also if you need a board.
 
kirbyrj said:
I don't know what asus dual pci-e x16 board you're talking about. The free board only has a single pcie x16 slot.

Like I said on the first page...the FX6300 with free GB USB 3 board for $109 is a good deal also if you need a board.
Click to expand...

I read the MC specs which say 2 pci-e 3.0 x16. In reality it only has 1.
 
Dangman said:
If we're talking just gaming, the Core i5s will outperform the FX CPUs man.
Click to expand...

Oh I'm aware that core for core and clock for clock even the i5 has better benchmarks then the FX-8350. AMD's chip still had trouble with Ivy Bridge and Haswell is an additional 10% bump on top of that. Its still a solid gaming chip however even if its the Focus to Intels Mustang especially if on a tight budget and multi-threading is a priority. Or they are willing to settle for 'only' 60 frames per second rather then trying to squeeze out every last refresh they can get. Anyway this entire thread was more about answering a 'what if' scenario to garner general information then forming an actual parts list. Still waiting on one last question regarding finances in the next few months to be answered first. Which should be by next Friday hopefully.

The summery so far seems to be that going with an AM3+ board at this moment is only advisable if:
1. One is on a tight budget and/or free's up sufficient resources to get a better GPU when compared to going Intel.
2. One's typical uses rely heavily on multi-threaded applications and/or have many applications running at once to fully exploit AMD's more numerous, but for the moment individually weaker*, cores. A good example being Streaming a game, talking on voip, keeping tabs on your stream chat and also recording for later editing.

One of the critical things I'd need to do in part of comparing Intel to AMD at the moment would be to look at my usage and see how many programs I run on a regular basis would benefit from multi-threading and also how many I run at the same time. If few make use of it and/or I generally only run three or less then the main advantages of an FX over an i5 are moot.

*Not surprising considering how immature the architecture still is compared to Intels but I do believe it has more potential in the long run if AMD can stick it out long enough to further refine it. As it is even with a large advantage in per core IPC Intel appears to only be on par with AMD in terms of raw multi-threading performance. Granted its also with greater efficiency per core as well but there is a large difference in die scale being used.
 
Ws60 said:
The summery so far seems to be that going with an AM3+ board at this moment is only advisable if:
1. One is on a tight budget and/or free's up sufficient resources to get a better GPU when compared to going Intel.
2. One's typical uses rely heavily on multi-threaded applications and/or have many applications running at once to fully exploit AMD's more numerous, but for the moment individually weaker*, cores. A good example being Streaming a game, talking on voip, keeping tabs on your stream chat and also recording for later editing.
Click to expand...
You should also add "Both must happen in order for an AMD AM3+ setup to be viable".

Ws60 said:
One of the critical things I'd need to do in part of comparing Intel to AMD at the moment would be to look at my usage and see how many programs I run on a regular basis would benefit from multi-threading and also how many I run at the same time. If few make use of it and/or I generally only run three or less then the main advantages of an FX over an i5 are moot.
Click to expand...
You also have to factor which of those programs are ones that you actually plan to use the most. Yes, you may have only three applications that'll take advantage of the extra cores but if those three applications are the three programs you use the most, then you should note the FX's advantages. Though from your last thread in General Hardware, the only thing you posted under your planned use was "Gaming."
 
There's a crap load of bias in this thrad.

Simple, unbiased statement: NOBODY knows if AM3+ is dead except people inside AMD. Some people say it's over, but the truth is, they don't know, and neither do I, or you, or anybody else. But right now, at this moment, FX CPUs are at the same generation as Ivy Bridge.
 
Most of the no's are probably Intel sheep. Why even sweat over it when the cost is so low with FX-8320 going for $99 and a quality mobo for not much more. Spread $200 over 24 months and it's like $8 per month. For most things they're relatively equal to Intel and for other things like virtualization it's better with more cores. These guys say it best and although they use Intel they're not closed mind Intel sheep:

http://youtu.be/4et7kDGSRfc
 
PCunicorn said:
There's a crap load of bias in this thrad.

Simple, unbiased statement: NOBODY knows if AM3+ is dead except people inside AMD. Some people say it's over, but the truth is, they don't know, and neither do I, or you, or anybody else. But right now, at this moment, FX CPUs are at the same generation as Ivy Bridge.
Click to expand...

It's not random bias. It's the fact that AMD hasn't mentioned AM3+ in any of their press releases or road maps. They HAVE spent time talking up FM2+.
 
PCunicorn said:
There's a crap load of bias in this thrad..
Click to expand...
Show me the bias.

mi7chy said:
Most of the no's are probably Intel sheep. Why even sweat over it when the cost is so low with FX-8320 going for $99 and a quality mobo for not much more. Spread $200 over 24 months and it's like $8 per month. For most things they're relatively equal to Intel and for other things like virtualization it's better with more cores.
Click to expand...
It's only $99 if you live near a Microcenter. For half the United states, and probably more, they're not anywhere near one.
 
kirbyrj said:
It's not random bias. It's the fact that AMD hasn't mentioned AM3+ in any of their press releases or road maps. They HAVE spent time talking up FM2+.
Click to expand...

agreed.

this is not bias, it's common sense.
 
PCunicorn said:
There's a crap load of bias in this thrad.

Simple, unbiased statement: NOBODY knows if AM3+ is dead except people inside AMD. Some people say it's over, but the truth is, they don't know, and neither do I, or you, or anybody else. But right now, at this moment, FX CPUs are at the same generation as Ivy Bridge.
Click to expand...

This is how AMD now operates , it does not want to admit defeat and just quietly goes with FM2+ because that is where the money is.

To claim that only people in AMD know if AM3+ is dead is a sad joke. When your chipset which used to get yearly upgrades now is dormant and does not get any love how much more dead do you want it to be.

What is known by AMD about AM3+ is not something they wish to share so why don't they share? The only reason is that the money is really tight at AMD at this moment more then anything else.

Reviving AM3+ magically this year or the next year makes no sense, the only way forward for the steamroller CPU platform is server. Or do you think that they will launch without DDR4 which would need another chipset anyway.

So after 3 years AMD is going ro revive an old chipset without DDR4 to what segment of the market? People who are struck by Alzheimer ?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top