AMD FX-8350 FX-Series 8-Core Black Edition Processor $130

[i_build_nanosuits]

that's not a hot deal at all...when you can have this for the same price:

http://www.outletpc.com/yc2457-core-i5-4450-cpu.html?utm_source=yc2457-core-i5-4450-cpu&utm_medium=shopping%2Bengine&utm_campaign=pcpartpicker&utm_content=Intel%2B-%2BCPUs%20%28Processors%29%20%3E%20Intel%20Core%20i5

[i_build_nanosuits]

It's a 40 buck difference, well was.  Now, it's like 10 at most.

factor in a decent 6 or 8 phase AM3+ 970 motherboard and the pretty much required 30$ hyper 212 to keep it from overheating and you'll spend more than a good H97 mobo and i5-4460 or i5-4590 friend.

 

Unless you're building a budget workstation machine and need the ''cores'' for rendering and stuff this is not a deal at all...and even then, if you need the ''cores'' just get the FX-8320 or 8320E which ever is cheaper and clock it to 4.2ghz and call it a day.

[minibois]

I love this entire thread.

Pretty sure everyone at this point knows the FX series CPU's are not the best for gaming and are a locked down upgrade path..

[Sintezza]

that's not a hot deal at all...when you can have this for the same price:

http://www.outletpc.com/yc2457-core-i5-4450-cpu.html?utm_source=yc2457-core-i5-4450-cpu&utm_medium=shopping%2Bengine&utm_campaign=pcpartpicker&utm_content=Intel%2B-%2BCPUs%20%28Processors%29%20%3E%20Intel%20Core%20i5

 

Well i dont fully agree, because it highly depends on what you are using the system for.

Like @valdyrgramr allready said above, not everyone is just playing games.

There are certain workloads in which the FX8350 realy shines over anything that intel has to offer at the same price tag.

 

For pure gaming, sure the i5 is a better allround chip for that.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Well i dont fully agree, because it highly depends on what you are using the system for.

Like @valdyrgramr allready said above, not everyone is just playing games.

There are certain workloads in which the FX8350 realy shines over anything that intel has to offer at the same price tag.

 

For pure gaming, sure the i5 is a better allround chip for that.

post was updated just before you quoted it...

[minibois]

I can agree with that.  If you want an all around gaming experience than go with Intel as the frame averages are better in GPU extensive games, but do even better at CPU extensive.  Until Zen comes out the platform is locked down too, but that can be said about intel due to socket reasons.  Skylake and Zen make more sense for future gaming.

"but that can be said about intel due to socket reasons."

Well if you have a Haswell i3 you can upgrade to a Haswell i5 or i7. Of course that is not a super amazing upgrade path, but it's IMO more than what AM3+ offers right now.

[QueenDemetria]

I love this entire thread.

Pretty sure everyone at this point knows the FX series CPU's are not the best for gaming and are a locked down upgrade path..

I could argue that all CPU sockets are locked down or "dead" once the next socket is released, lol.

[Memories4K]

Never said anything about gaming, or that. Again Intel bias arrives again.

 

I said simply that if you utilize it than it is a great processor.  You two keep acting like Intel reigns over everything.  Well, IBM destroys them in the server market.  IBM destroys them at quantum computing, and just about just everything.  Not everyone is gaming, and once again if you use the FX chips for what they are meant for then you made a good a purchase.  Also, I don't exactly trust those benchmarks after my frames not being so different, minus the stability of average frames, after owning both a 9370 and 4790k both oced to around the same.  So, I'm starting to believe that Intel is buying people off to make up bs when that's not where the Intel processors do better.  In fact, they do better in holding average frames, but I have not seen the massive jump ahead of FPS that they keep advertising in GPU extensive games just more stability in average frames.  So, as someone who has no bias towards AMD or Intel, how do you explain that?

 

I also find it funny that you two don't realize that this is about a deal, not about what OP is buying.  Isn't Intel bias amazing with how deluded their mentality gets the second they see AMD CPUs for sale?

Really?

Let's be real here, you're trying to justify your former shit purchase hahahaha

Why would we not talk about gaming?

I can agree that if cash is tight and you're ONLY going to be doing something that would utilize all cores, then it might be a good purchase...but let's be real how many people on here are only doing just that?

I literally have no biases either (I'm excited for Zen after buying one of AMDs shit CPUs), you keep throwing that word around but i don't think you understand what it means.

Holy shit are you edgy.

Goddamn.

 

Cool but what is exaly your proof which benchmark is obviously wrong or right?

Because thats an interesting claim.

Aside from numbers, both benchmarks obviously show that Fallout 4 likes multiple cores.

Source is super sketch.

If you were in the the thread a while ago talking about Fallout 4 performance on AMD and Nvidia cards you would have caught it.

Pretty sure i remember this site saying a 950 is better than a 770.

 

I do love how the game example is used in a game that's only currently optimized for Intel and Nvidia hw at the moment, and not so much for AMD's HW.  It's funny how easily baited into that they were.  As a game dev major, I laugh at their bias.

Oh shit son.

Edgy McEdgerson in the house.

Euphoric as fuck over here.

 

I never brought up Fallout 4, someone else did.

Oh boy, i love this

"FX chips r doing so w3ll on F4 tho?! silly!"

"F4 is optimized for Int3l dont be bias pls"

 

Hahahahaha

[brandishwar]

I love this entire thread.

Pretty sure everyone at this point knows the FX series CPU's are not the best for gaming and are a locked down upgrade path..

Intel mainboards also have locked upgrade paths. Always have had locked upgrade paths.

But ask yourself this: how many people will build a system only to swap out just the CPU for something better a little down the line? Chances are most people who build a system will use it for a couple years (or more) before swapping out the entire platform for something newer. So the upgrade path of the mainboard is actually going to be of little concern or consequence. There has been only once when I've swapped out just the processor, and that was 15 years ago, and only because the mainboard I was using supported the upgrade. Every other time I've "upgraded", it's been a full part swap: new mainboard, new processor, new memory. Possibly new GPU if I haven't upgraded it recently. And for most everyone else, it's likely been the same.

To upgrade and see a significant performance benefit, you're likely going to have to do a full swap out. The fact that Intel has released newer CPUs and platforms in the last couple years while AMD has not doesn't change that fact. Both have locked down upgrade paths.

[Penny5837]

I have an h60, would that be enough to get 5ghz?

[Nena Trinity]

"The i5-6600k runs at 3.9 GHz you are silly!   (their board probably suck so it had to be undervolted...)"

 

If you hadn't noticed, the FX-9590 has a single-core turbo-boost of 5.0 GHz, just like the i5-6600k has a turbo-boost of 3.9 Ghz on a single core. So by using your logic, the FX-9590 is gimped by 300 MHz while the i5-6600k is gimped by 400, which, if you hadn't noticed by now, is a bigger difference. Yet it still wins. By a mile.

FX = 300MHz(x8) vs i5 400MHz(x4) duh!

[Penny5837]

Depends on the board, CPU[not just model though the exact CPU you have], and good temps. OCing is like playing the lottery. Hard to say with any CPU.

Well I have a 6350 right now, and I can almost get it to 4.8, but I don't know the voltages.

[Penny5837]

I have no experience with that particular one, so I wouldn't be much help. What I'd do is have CCC push as far past the turbo as it can with auto-tune and then see if it is possible to go that high. As for a bios one that depends on the board for the voltage. Some can handle more than others.

https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/2pmofq/fx6350_oc_to_49ghz/ This guy got his to 5, so maybe try that?

I'll see what I can do. I probably need better cooling.

[BurgerBum]

no shit the 8 cores have less single core performance. thats why i was able to get mine for 80$.

im not being constructive at all. im just pissed off that people feel the need to use the ''its just numbers and facts'' shit. yes. we know. to some people, ITS NOT WORTH IT. <_<

[Dabombinable]

Shh, the others won't listen.  They're too busy ignoring the fact that this was a sale, and would rather be insecure girls over it.  If one person buys amd CPUs they lose their mind.  D:  Even if it does benefit that one person!

Its not about buying AMD CPU's, its about buying the crap ones that are made by AMD.

[Benji_w]

http://www.overclock.net/t/1534128/vishera-vs-devils-canyon-a-casual-comparison-by-an-average-user

 

Good read tbh, shows the FX isn't as shit as the placebo effect makes out. NOTE: the guy who wrote the article owns both intels and AMD chips and overclocks them on the regular etc etc etc

[Benji_w]

So, if someone can only afford a CPU and this was in their budget and they have like an am3+ capable board.  Should they just avoid this?  That's my point of defending it.  There are people it would benefit, and yes some people still can benefit from it from a performance aspect too in areas I've mentioned.  But, I've also mentioned where Intel does better, and if you're looking to just buy to not buy this.  It's not crap if you utilize it though, and that gives you a performance advantage or if you can only afford the CPU upgrade.

 

 

Don't argue with him, it's pointless, that's why I have him on ignore. His bias is too strong.

[Dabombinable]

http://www.overclock.net/t/1534128/vishera-vs-devils-canyon-a-casual-comparison-by-an-average-user

Note that its 4 cores with hyperthreading at 4GHz vs a CPU at 5GHz with 4 modules and 8 integer units/ALU+220W power consumption and a beefy motherboard.

 

 

So, if someone can only afford a CPU and this was in their budget and they have like an am3+ capable board.  Should they just avoid this?  That's my point of defending it.  There are people it would benefit, and yes some people still can benefit from it from a performance aspect too in areas I've mentioned.  But, I've also mentioned where Intel does better, and if you're looking to just buy to not buy this.  It's not crap if you utilize it though, and that gives you a performance advantage or if you can only afford the CPU upgrade.

Value for money-unless your going to be using all 8 threads more than 50% of the time getting an FX 8350 is pointless. Very few games can utilise more than 4 threads so unless your in need of a budget workstation (rendering, VM etc) your getting poor value for money.

 

Don't argue with him, it's pointless, that's why I have him on ignore. His bias is too strong.

Says the one with the FX 8350. I'm not against AMD-in fact I shelled out $120 to upgrade the Phenom II P920 in my laptop to an N970, I'm against products that are only slightly better in 1 area than something which costs around the same and falls flat in all other areas.

[Benji_w]

Note that its 4 cores with hyperthreading at 4GHz vs a CPU at 5GHz with 4 modules and 8 integer units/ALU+220W power consumption and a beefy motherboard.

 

Doesn't really matter, shouldn't an i7 blow the FX away? I'd be very disappointed spending all that money on an i7 to have to go toe to toe with a very cheap alternative...

[BurgerBum]

Its not about buying AMD CPU's, its about buying the crap ones that are made by AMD.

again, the FX parts erent crap.

[BurgerBum]

https://youtu.be/5DmYLrxR0Y8?t=30s

[kicker2222]

Haha you wont scam me to buy a inferior CPU!

Note all the ones who are better cost way more.

Also the FX-9590 is under-clocked and rest is E models so you failed hard...

........ all current AMD cpus are garbage and inferior to Intel RIGHT NOW

[Swndlr]

Like 180 fo the black edition max.

BE chips are literally the exact same as the regular FX8's, they just get shipped in a different box...

[Dabombinable]

Doesn't really matter, shouldn't an i7 blow the FX away? I'd be very disappointed spending all that money on an i7 to have to go toe to toe with a very cheap alternative...

Lol, 4GHz i7 4790K with PCIe Gen 3.0, the ability to handle 2 TitanX in SLI, far lower power consumption (well under half), the ability to overclock to 4.8GHz on a 4 phase H87M motherboard, and only a need for one of the low end 120mm AIO/mid range tower cooler. Compared to a 3-4 year old FX 8350 at 5GHz, the ability to handle 1 R9 290X without bottlenecking, 220W and higher power consumption, the need for one of the best AM3+ motherboards and the requirement of a mid to high end AIO. Yeah the FX 8350 *at 5GHz* really goes toe to toe with the 4790K at stock :rolleyes: .

 

again, the FX parts erent crap.

P6 (also the basis for the Core series)=good, Netburst (Pentium 4)=crap

K10+IMC (Phenom II)=good, Bulldozer and derivatives+IMC=crap

 

AMD's just going through their shit CPU phase a bit late-Intel came good with the P6 based Core architectures, so if AMD's Zen is anything like the predictions-we should be seeing a come back (should-not will)

[BurgerBum]

i linked a song guys...

why we still argue. D: