What does 40% improvement over FX-8350 equates to?

[rentaspoon]

was probably before their time.

Yep, kids these days, spoilt with their dual cores, quad cores and hyperthreading.

Back in the day, if you wanted to turbo anything you pushed the button on the front of the case. Overclocking cpus with rocker switches.

Ah the good old days... They were a pain in the arse! Enjoy what you've got Kiddo's

:)

[FLUFFYJELLO]

There was a time before FX ya know

The FM2 and AM2/3(+) platforms suffer the same flaws. It's easiest to reference the platform people are most familiar with when giving an example. It leaves less to be misinterpreted. But I guess it was misinterpreted anyway. Oh well.

[Caeradwyn]

If amd goes under I don't thing prices will rise and this is why:

If a 300$ Vga or 300$ cpu costs 800$, because of the lack of competition, guess what i am not buying? They bot only lost 800$, but the 300$ I would've gladly spent as well, they make nothing. I don't need a fast computer, I just like to have one. I'm not breaking the bank for it so if they double their prices I salute them with my middle finger. I'll go Amish.

It's like these smart phones for 1300$. Gtfo Samsung that's hilarious, I can build a gaming rig for that. I'll stick with my iPhone 5 I got for 180$.

 

Why is it that the words "the price would go up" seems to always be interpreted as "multiplying by at least 2 or 3"?

They would very gradually increase by small increments over years. Perhaps never reaching a total increase of even 50%, but they could also hold back progress more as well, meaning that while we now have a certain amount of performance increase per generation of products, while prices for the high-end remain fairly constant in terms of price/performance, we'd be paying gradually more (not 5 times as much, but more nonetheless) for less performance increase. They would probe the market to see how far they could push it.

I mean, if all CPUs under $200 was too slow to game on, then you'd either have to give up gaming, or you'd have to pay it. If next tic or toc had a 4% price increase, people would still upgrade. If the next one was another 3% higher, with large PR campaigns explaining how this wonderful new transistor technology required to squeeze more performance out of current CPU design, cost so much more to manufacture, that in reality, the 3% increase in prices over last generation should really be seen as a 7% decrease, all the while Intel really knowing that it's cheaper to produce, I'm pretty sure very few people would object.

Believing anything else is naive. Intel, AMD, Nvidia are not philanthropists who are after giving people at much as possible for as little money as possible. They are major commercial companies that would prefer to give us, the consumers as little as possible for as much money as possible. That is how the business world works.

[Dabombinable]

Pretty much about the same per core performance of my i5 4440. This is the difference single threaded, and my i5 is at its stock speed while the FX 8320/8350 are clocked over 2GHz higher.