AMD FX-8320 Black Edition 3.5GHz Socket AM3+ Eight-Core Processor $154

Quote from lotus1197 : Yeah it supports the 8320(ASRock 870 Extreme3 R2.0), didn't know if it would be beneficial for me seeing as all i mainly do is play WoW,gaming and photoshop.Plus it's tax season, so lots of disposable income.May skip the cpu and finally jump on the ssd bandwagon

Definately jump on the SSD bandwagon instead. Unless you need a lot of storage and now, hold out for 120gb -128gb deals you'll see on SD. I scored the kingstone hyper x ssd 120gb for $60 awhile back, really great upgade to a system.

my board can take AM2+ amd AM3 (running a hexacore thuban 1055T now)
can it take AM3+ or is it another mobo?

I have this chip and I love it! Very fast! But also VERY HOT! How are you guys running overclocks with such low temps?? I saw one guy has a liquid cooler buy others are claiming cool temps (below 60 C) under prime95 tests with the stock cooler or slightly above average air cooler??
I was running the stock cooler and I tried to clock mine to 4.0 ghz and with prime95 running all 8 cores my CPU temps rapidly shot up to 70 C at which point I decided that is running too hot. I Never let my CPUs get over 70, and from the rate at which my temp was rising I think it would have settled at around 80C. That is on stock voltage and stock FSB, stock everything except I just turned up the multiplier to get to 4.0 ghz. This is on an Asus m5a97 r2.0 mobo.
I also took a gigantic AM2+ cooler I had as a test and bolted that up, it only covers about 90% of the cpu surface but actually keeps it 2-3 C cooler than the stock cooler. I tried the stock thermal glue along with a good arctic silver compound.
I don't know why this runs so hot, or how you guys are running so cool - are you sure you have core parking disabled in windows? Watch your CPU load in task manager to make sure all 8 cores are in fact reaching 100% cpu load. Please report back or private message me as I'd like to figure out how to clock mine higher without it starting on fire!

125W isn't it too much for the processor?

Quote from gonepostl : From what I gather it's some sort of asus. Mine has an overdrive feature that maxes out the multiplyer and ups the bus speed until it crashes and dumbs it down some more. These series of cpu's have incredible overclock potential. I believe I've seen people get to 5.5 ghz. I bought a liquid cooler. Can't afford to put it in until my cpu starts getting boggled; the psu is too close to where I'm comfortable. I own the 6 core fx-6300. I bought it from microcenter for 140. I bought it there because with a warranty you can make up any bs excuse 2 years from now and get a new cpu; they give you a giftcard.

Scumbag alert....

How does this match up to the Intel i5-3570K? Tom's has the Intel one bracket above the AMD on their Gaming CPU list, is whatever extra the Intel offers worth the additional $50? (Both would need a new mobo and ram for me)

Quote from diablofreak : my board can take AM2+ amd AM3 (running a hexacore thuban 1055T now) can it take AM3+ or is it another mobo?

Check if there is a bios update to support newer processors.
Check the CPU support list at the manufacturer's site.

Hey guys, nice processor at an excellent price, but, personally, I would go Intel. And don't get me wrong...I am not an AMD hater...in fact, I just finished a new back up build using AMD's FX-8350 with the Gigabyte 990XFA-UD3. I was in a hurry to get this build done before the Microsoft deals ran out, so I did not carefully weigh all my decisions.

Now I wish I had simply purchased an Intel i5-2500k or the i5-3750.

I have a friend who told me the AMD FX-8350 is not a genuine true 8-core processor, and he knows what he is talking about. Here is what he stated:

"The FX series isn't true "8 core". There are 4 modules with two IC's (integer cluster) per module that share resources going in, split the thread, process, then re-integrate, in simplicity. As opposed to a single Intel core that does not share any such information or resources to process a thread. In all reality, it is a more physical version of Intel's virtual Hyper Threading (single core + virtual core). So in other words, it's like having 4 people and say 2 1 armed men working. It gets the job done only slightly faster. Thus, the problem with IMC and single threaded performance. Most all applications rely heavily on single threaded per core performance because they simply aren't optimized for more than 1 or 2 cores and software patching (depending on software) splits certain aspects to off-load certain loads to other threads. This is better, but still the 1 armed man tactic where most of the load is still mainly on one or two cores.

There simply isn't enough day to day software or graphics engines that fully utilize more than 2-4 cores making even the 1 armed man or Module strategy pointless. Intel accelerates in that single threaded (cycles per clock per core) performance giving their quads the upper hand making them 6 and 8 cores pointless. The only real programs that can utilize that kind of processing power wont be used on your typical consumer desktop which is why the real CPUs with more than 6 cores are left for servers and workstations. I explained this in my own article as to why a fast cheaper dual core will work perfectly for most if not all games for the next 5 years give or take.

We are at a time now where software is lagging far behind hardware and games further behind that. We wont see any game engines possibly take advantage of more cores or RAM until the new consoles come out. Even then, it's 50/50 if it will actually carry over to the PC after the port (excluding Cryengine 3, Frostbite 2, and Unreal Engine). Other software in the professional industry is taking advantage of more cores and RAM but we wont see that carry on to other more consumer useful products until much later."

To be honest with you, after hearing him explain this to me, I wished I had simply gone with another Intel i5-3750!

Hope this helps, and may God deliver me from Intel haters!

Soar

Quote from burticus : Probably the best online price you're going to find. I have a Microcenter locally so will pass. I have a 955 and I would swap to a 8320 or 8350 in a heatbeat if this motherboard would support it... sadly it does not.

Not if you don't need a mobo....it's 20 more

Quote from harshan9 : Not to belittle folks that don't have local Fry's and MC, but MC is offering $50 off with a MB with the purchase of this processor included as well as a lot of other AMD ones - including FX4100 and 6100. So this deal - rather cold. Our local Fries try and match MC.

Not cold at all...do the math, plus if you don't need a mobo, this is 20 cheaper

Quote from woomer051 : Definately jump on the SSD bandwagon instead. Unless you need a lot of storage and now, hold out for 120gb -128gb deals you'll see on SD. I scored the kingstone hyper x ssd 120gb for $60 awhile back, really great upgade to a system.

I have a 1tb Spinpoint F3(pre-seagate) that will be the main drive and the ssd would be OS/WoW and few other games

Quote from soarwitheagles : Hey guys, nice processor at an excellent price, but, personally, I would go Intel. And don't get me wrong...I am not an AMD hater...in fact, I just finished a new back up build using AMD's FX-8350 with the Gigabyte 990XFA-UD3. I was in a hurry to get this build done before the Microsoft deals ran out, so I did not carefully weigh all my decisions. Now I wish I had simply purchased an Intel i5-2500k or the i5-3750. I have a friend who told me the AMD FX-8350 is not a genuine true 8-core processor, and he knows what he is talking about. Here is what he stated: "The FX series isn't true "8 core". There are 4 modules with two IC's (integer cluster) per module that share resources going in, split the thread, process, then re-integrate, in simplicity. As opposed to a single Intel core that does not share any such information or resources to process a thread. In all reality, it is a more physical version of Intel's virtual Hyper Threading (single core + virtual core). So in other words, it's like having 4 people and say 2 1 armed men working. It gets the job done only slightly faster. Thus, the problem with IMC and single threaded performance. Most all applications rely heavily on single threaded per core performance because they simply aren't optimized for more than 1 or 2 cores and software patching (depending on software) splits certain aspects to off-load certain loads to other threads. This is better, but still the 1 armed man tactic where most of the load is still mainly on one or two cores. There simply isn't enough day to day software or graphics engines that fully utilize more than 2-4 cores making even the 1 armed man or Module strategy pointless. Intel accelerates in that single threaded (cycles per clock per core) performance giving their quads the upper hand making them 6 and 8 cores pointless. The only real programs that can utilize that kind of processing power wont be used on your typical consumer desktop which is why the real CPUs with more than 6 cores are left for servers and workstations. I explained this in my own article as to why a fast cheaper dual core will work perfectly for most if not all games for the next 5 years give or take. We are at a time now where software is lagging far behind hardware and games further behind that. We wont see any game engines possibly take advantage of more cores or RAM until the new consoles come out. Even then, it's 50/50 if it will actually carry over to the PC after the port (excluding Cryengine 3, Frostbite 2, and Unreal Engine). Other software in the professional industry is taking advantage of more cores and RAM but we wont see that carry on to other more consumer useful products until much later." To be honest with you, after hearing him explain this to me, I wished I had simply gone with another Intel i5-3750! Hope this helps, and may God deliver me from Intel haters! Soar

good points.

Quote from harshan9 : Not to belittle folks that don't have local Fry's and MC, but MC is offering $50 off with a MB with the purchase of this processor included as well as a lot of other AMD ones - including FX4100 and 6100. So this deal - rather cold. Our local Fries try and match MC.

These "cheaper at MC" posts are great.

Yes. We. Know. Thanks. We. Can't. Afford. The. Airfare. To. Our. "Local". Micro. Center. Though.

Meanwhile, for those people who got the free ASUS M5A97 LE R2.0 from Newegg, this is the perfect deal. I got two for free plus one for $15, bought a 8320 at $165 a few weeks ago, and bought two of these for $142.50 after c a s h back to the setup.

Quote from dpjackal89 : Ovrclocking does not void microcenter warranty.

Exactly this. This was the main reason why I bought the extended warranty.

Quote from soarwitheagles : Hey guys, nice processor at an excellent price, but, personally, I would go Intel. And don't get me wrong...I am not an AMD hater...in fact, I just finished a new back up build using AMD's FX-8350 with the Gigabyte 990XFA-UD3. I was in a hurry to get this build done before the Microsoft deals ran out, so I did not carefully weigh all my decisions. Now I wish I had simply purchased an Intel i5-2500k or the i5-3750. I have a friend who told me the AMD FX-8350 is not a genuine true 8-core processor, and he knows what he is talking about. Here is what he stated: "The FX series isn't true "8 core". There are 4 modules with two IC's (integer cluster) per module that share resources going in, split the thread, process, then re-integrate, in simplicity. As opposed to a single Intel core that does not share any such information or resources to process a thread. In all reality, it is a more physical version of Intel's virtual Hyper Threading (single core + virtual core). So in other words, it's like having 4 people and say 2 1 armed men working. It gets the job done only slightly faster. Thus, the problem with IMC and single threaded performance. Most all applications rely heavily on single threaded per core performance because they simply aren't optimized for more than 1 or 2 cores and software patching (depending on software) splits certain aspects to off-load certain loads to other threads. This is better, but still the 1 armed man tactic where most of the load is still mainly on one or two cores. There simply isn't enough day to day software or graphics engines that fully utilize more than 2-4 cores making even the 1 armed man or Module strategy pointless. Intel accelerates in that single threaded (cycles per clock per core) performance giving their quads the upper hand making them 6 and 8 cores pointless. The only real programs that can utilize that kind of processing power wont be used on your typical consumer desktop which is why the real CPUs with more than 6 cores are left for servers and workstations. I explained this in my own article as to why a fast cheaper dual core will work perfectly for most if not all games for the next 5 years give or take. We are at a time now where software is lagging far behind hardware and games further behind that. We wont see any game engines possibly take advantage of more cores or RAM until the new consoles come out. Even then, it's 50/50 if it will actually carry over to the PC after the port (excluding Cryengine 3, Frostbite 2, and Unreal Engine). Other software in the professional industry is taking advantage of more cores and RAM but we wont see that carry on to other more consumer useful products until much later." To be honest with you, after hearing him explain this to me, I wished I had simply gone with another Intel i5-3750! Hope this helps, and may God deliver me from Intel haters! Soar

The last time I knew half as much as what you said Cyrix seemed like a plausible intel competitor.