Slickdeals.net

Slickdeals.net (http://slickdeals.net/forums/index.php)
-   Deal Talk (http://slickdeals.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   AMD FX-8320 Black Edition 3.5GHz Socket AM3+ Eight-Core Processor $154 (http://slickdeals.net/f/5844092-amd-fx-8320-black-edition-3-5ghz-socket-am3-eight-core-processor-154)

sr71 02-06-2013 09:39 PM

AMD FX-8320 Black Edition 3.5GHz Socket AM3+ Eight-Core Processor $154
 
1 Attachment(s)
$20lOff
Use coupon at checkout NWJ81883
Thru 2/9/2013 11:59 PMlET

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applic...u=A79-8320

brisar 02-06-2013 09:39 PM

AMD FX-8320 Black Edition 3.5GHz Socket AM3+ Eight-Core Processor $154
 
2 Attachment(s)
TigerDirect.com has AMD FX-8320 Black Edition 3.5GHz Socket AM3+ Eight-Core Processor (FD8320FRHKBOX) on Sale for $169.99 - $20 w/ promo code NWJ81883 = $149.99. Shipping is $3.80 (econo ship). Thanks sr71

wikipost 02-06-2013 09:39 PM

This post can and should be edited by users like you :)
 
This post can be edited by most users to provide up-to-date information about developments of this thread based on user responses, and user findings. Feel free to add, change or remove information shown here as it becomes available. This includes new coupons, rebates, ideas, thread summary, and similar items.

Once a Thread Wiki is added to a thread, "Create Wiki" button will disappear. If you would like to learn more about Thread Wiki feature, click here.

To clarify the eight-core debate, there are four modules with 2 integer cores and 1 FP shared. so yes you can have 8 instruction/integer operations going on simultaneously (vs. Hyperthreading which is time slicing within a core) the floating point operations do rely on a single resource, but that's may or may not be a bottleneck depending on the app.

LOctopus 02-06-2013 09:51 PM

Great price. I bought this for $150 from NCIX. The cheapest its been is $145 and some change and that was only for one day at Amazon.

Im currently running it at 4.2Ghz with a CM Evo in a NZXT H2 case (a silent case with not much airflow) and its goes to about 50c tops running Prime, running all threads. At its stock speed, 3.5Ghz, it goes to 44c tops running Prime.

tomhrxbfg 02-06-2013 09:59 PM

I'm debating this and 8350...Seems this need an extra voltage (thus more temp) to achieve similar OC. Also, 8320 does not clock as high as 8350.

SDRebel 02-07-2013 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOctopus (Post 57421462)
Great price. I bought this for $150 from NCIX. The cheapest its been is $145 and some change and that was only for one day at Amazon.

Im currently running it at 4.2Ghz with a CM Evo in a NZXT H2 case (a silent case with not much airflow) and its goes to about 50c tops running Prime, running all threads. At its stock speed, 3.5Ghz, it goes to 44c tops running Prime.

what mobo?

gonepostl 02-07-2013 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDRebel (Post 57444148)
what mobo?

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.:woot::drool:

OsirisDev 02-07-2013 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gonepostl (Post 57445000)
These series of cpu's have incredible overclock potential. I believe I've seen people get to 5.5 ghz.

The best I've read about online with normal cooling is about 4.9. I have my 8320 stable at about 4.7 @ 1.425v on a push-pull liquid cooler, but it still runs very hot (60c) under full load. If I got back to stock voltage I can easily run 4ghz with a 4.4 turbo and still keep it under 40 with only 1 fan (instead of 2).

Quote:

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.:woot::drool:
How is that any different than just stealing it right off the shelf? Getting a good deal is one thing, but lying to get a replacement is just stealing. Suck it up and pay for it.

LOctopus 02-07-2013 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDRebel (Post 57444148)
what mobo?

A Gigabyte 970A-UD3. I first used the OC software it came with, but the temps went way up. So I manually did in the bios and temps went up very little. Remember I have in a NZXT H2 case... solid side panels, only 2 front intakes and 1 rear exhaust. I know it will run cooler in a case with better airflow. I kept it at 4.2Ghz because Im a novice with overclocking and didn't want to mess with voltages.

johnnycr 02-07-2013 10:22 PM

I have my 8320 running at 4.2GHz with stock voltage. It's cooled by a cheapo Cooler Master Hyper 212+ and it maxes out around 40C depending on the room temp. It's a solid CPU. It does start eating voltage for breakfast past 4.4GHz though. You need good cooling if you want to go past that.

CrimsonPride88 02-07-2013 11:03 PM

I have a 8320 with a ZALMAN CNPS9900MAX running at 4.7ghz. Idles around 20c and gets around 55c under full load, just using AMD's software. Highly recommend this CPU.

EnzoFX 02-07-2013 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OsirisDev (Post 57445076)
How is that any different than just stealing it right off the shelf? Getting a good deal is one thing, but lying to get a replacement is just stealing. Suck it up and pay for it.

Yeah well needing extra warranty is lame too. Besides, needing an excuse to take advantage of the warranty you're entitled to, that's just a loophole. It is definitely not stealing.

CrimsonPride88 02-07-2013 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnzoFX (Post 57445872)
Yeah well needing extra warranty is lame too. Besides, needing an excuse to take advantage of the warranty you're entitled to, that's just a loophole. It is definitely not stealing.

You're entitled to the warranty if the product fails. Lying to take money from the company when the product has not failed is most definitely stealing.

EnzoFX 02-08-2013 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrimsonPride88 (Post 57446024)
You're entitled to the warranty if the product fails. Lying to take money from the company when the product has not failed is most definitely stealing.

Was that not what he was implying? In case it failed from an overclock?

CrimsonPride88 02-08-2013 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnzoFX (Post 57446354)
Was that not what he was implying? In case it failed from an overclock?

Overclocking voids warranties, but even still that's not what he said.

EnzoFX 02-08-2013 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrimsonPride88 (Post 57446434)
Overclocking voids warranties, but even still that's not what he said.

Ok, but they really don't care if people overclock, they'd lock the cpu's if they did. It's a selling point.

lotus1197 02-08-2013 05:11 AM

Other than faster clock speed, how does this compare to Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition 3.2GHz ?

dpjackal89 02-08-2013 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrimsonPride88 (Post 57446434)
Overclocking voids warranties, but even still that's not what he said.

Ovrclocking does not void microcenter warranty.

woomer051 02-08-2013 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lotus1197 (Post 57447512)
Other than faster clock speed, how does this compare to Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition 3.2GHz ?

Benchmark score twice as high, but I don't really see people taking advantage of 8 cores (not your average user). Kinda like the high scores a 6 core 1045t would get more than yours, but unless your video editing, that 1045t wont do much more for you then your 955 or a 965 will. Its an upgrade, not a bad one either. Just make sure your mobo can handle 125w, because your 965 is only 95 or 100w I think, your mobo may not handle 125w. You got a great processor though, I'd hold out, especially if you had to upgrade your mobo.

TH0R 02-08-2013 05:52 AM

I'm still rocking an AMD Phenom II X4 940 @ 3.5 ghz here on my all-AMD rig. :cool:
Great deal for an awesome CPU! OP repped and 2 mighty thumbs up! :nod:

santiagoanders 02-08-2013 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OsirisDev (Post 57445076)
The best I've read about online with normal cooling is about 4.9. I have my 8320 stable at about 4.7 @ 1.425v on a push-pull liquid cooler, but it still runs very hot (60c) under full load.

You mean 60c above ambient? Or do you really believe that 60c is hot?

tommyg562000 02-08-2013 05:57 AM

Would this be much of an upgrade from Athlon II X3 440? From my research this should fit in my am3 motherboard, it's an Asus M4A77TD.

gobundy 02-08-2013 06:01 AM

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.

SDRebel 02-08-2013 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gonepostl (Post 57445000)
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.:woot::drool:

I bought an x4 830 with warranty last year but not sure whay would be a good excuse :P. Thinking now about a fx6300 with msi 970 board

acpartsguys 02-08-2013 06:24 AM

is there a cheap way to build a system with a quality processor and mobo and yet get an affordable OS to go with it?

burticus 02-08-2013 06:26 AM

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.

blueiedgod 02-08-2013 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TH0R (Post 57447928)
I'm still rocking an AMD Phenom II X4 940 @ 3.5 ghz here on my all-AMD rig. :cool:
Great deal for an awesome CPU! OP repped and 2 mighty thumbs up! :nod:


Me too, $50 Pehnom from MC couple of years ago was a great upgrade for Athlon X2 that was being used in the whole house DVR system. Phenom made all 5 TV's respond much quicker.

sr71 02-08-2013 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommyg562000 (Post 57448008)
Would this be much of an upgrade from Athlon II X3 440? From my research this should fit in my am3 motherboard, it's an Asus M4A77TD.

think it has to be AM3+
http://www.asus.com/Motherboard/M...upport_CPU

darci663 02-08-2013 06:44 AM

That's the chance they take by charging extra money to people for an extra warranty. If they didn't make money off of it they would go out of business and Microcenter is doing just fine.


Quote:

Originally Posted by OsirisDev (Post 57445076)
The best I've read about online with normal cooling is about 4.9. I have my 8320 stable at about 4.7 @ 1.425v on a push-pull liquid cooler, but it still runs very hot (60c) under full load. If I got back to stock voltage I can easily run 4ghz with a 4.4 turbo and still keep it under 40 with only 1 fan (instead of 2).



How is that any different than just stealing it right off the shelf? Getting a good deal is one thing, but lying to get a replacement is just stealing. Suck it up and pay for it.


lotus1197 02-08-2013 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woomer051 (Post 57447704)
Benchmark score twice as high, but I don't really see people taking advantage of 8 cores (not your average user). Kinda like the high scores a 6 core 1045t would get more than yours, but unless your video editing, that 1045t wont do much more for you then your 955 or a 965 will. Its an upgrade, not a bad one either. Just make sure your mobo can handle 125w, because your 965 is only 95 or 100w I think, your mobo may not handle 125w. You got a great processor though, I'd hold out, especially if you had to upgrade your mobo.

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

woomer051 02-08-2013 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lotus1197 (Post 57448826)
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.

diablofreak 02-08-2013 06:50 AM

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

SuzukiDan7 02-08-2013 06:53 AM

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!

pokymon 02-08-2013 06:55 AM

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

redsrule2500 02-08-2013 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gonepostl (Post 57445000)
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.:woot::drool:


Scumbag alert....:vomit:

Big_H 02-08-2013 06:55 AM

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)

evongugg 02-08-2013 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diablofreak (Post 57448922)
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.

soarwitheagles 02-08-2013 07:02 AM

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

SDRebel 02-08-2013 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by burticus (Post 57448488)
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:

Originally Posted by harshan9 (Post 57448062)
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

lotus1197 02-08-2013 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woomer051 (Post 57448898)
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

majorjohn 02-08-2013 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soarwitheagles (Post 57449146)
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.

satanslover 02-08-2013 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harshan9 (Post 57448062)
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.

colorme 02-08-2013 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dpjackal89 (Post 57447548)
Ovrclocking does not void microcenter warranty.

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

WingsTown 02-08-2013 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soarwitheagles (Post 57449146)
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

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

satanslover 02-08-2013 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soarwitheagles (Post 57449146)
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

I don't hate Intel, just their prices.

If you're lucky you'll get a 30% boost from Hyperthreading. Meanwhile for integer (non-FPU) processing you'll get 100% more from the real FX integer cores. This processor is a win for multithreading integer performance. Single threading performance and floating point performance wins go to the Intel processors, but they cost ALOT more.

Even with Intel performing better, at the price you pay this is still a better deal compared to comparable i7 cpus.

Edit: Damn, I should have posted in red, because what I wrote is really, really, really, important.

gobundy 02-08-2013 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by satanslover (Post 57449418)
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.

ASUS M5A97 for Free, when??

TH0R 02-08-2013 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woomer051 (Post 57448898)
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.

SSD's slow down a lot over time and are overrated, imo. You also get a lot less space for the money. I'm using an SSD drive now. If I had to do it all over again, I wouldn't have bought one. My Windows Experience Index scores are all over 7.4, (so yeah I have the SSD properly configured) but I think money spent on SSD's is better utilized elsewhere.

TH0R 02-08-2013 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soarwitheagles (Post 57449146)
Hey guys, nice processor at an excellent price, but, personally, I would go Intel.

No need to read any further... stop thread crapping ya troll, this CPU is excellent for the price and is future proof as well. :nod:

Intel's propaganda machine is strong, they have paid bashers all over the place, even on AMD finance related message boards. I call them Intards. :lol:

Quote:

Originally Posted by satanslover (Post 57449510)
I don't hate Intel, just their prices.

If you're lucky you'll get a 30% boost from hyperthreading. Meanwhile for integer (non-FPU) processing you'll get 100% more from the real FX integer cores. This processor is a win for multithreading integer performance. Single threading performance and floating point performance wins go to the intel processors, but they cost ALOT more.

Even with Intel performing better, at the price you pay this is still a better deal compared to comparable i7 cpus.

Edit: Damn, I should have posted in red, because what I wrote is really, really, really, important.

Exactly, well said! :nod:

w1n78 02-08-2013 07:30 AM

i have an intel 2600k right now. i got it OC'd at 4.6ghz. i do a lot of handbrake encoding. it's fine but would like to do things faster. would getting this processor give me faster encoding times? handbrake is a multi-threaded app. i've been looking and all i see are benchmarks related to gaming. hardly any video related stuff :(

it's either this 8320/8350 or save money for a 3930K set up but concerned that haswell may have its own enthusiast cpu line up right after i build my sandy-e computer.

TH0R 02-08-2013 07:31 AM

Wish I could smack him with that fish... :lol: (no, not w1n78)

Quote:

Originally Posted by w1n78 (Post 57449652)
i have an intel 2600k right now.

No need for you to upgrade, but for those of us with slower CPU's, this deal on an AMD Vishera FX-8320 Boxed CPU for only $150 is amazing! :nod:

woomer051 02-08-2013 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TH0R (Post 57449564)
SSD's slow down a lot over time and are overrated, imo. You also get a lot less space for the money. I'm using an SSD drive now. If I had to do it all over again, I wouldn't have bought one. My Windows Experience Index scores are all over 7.4, (so yeah I have the SSD properly configured) but I think money spent on SSD's is better utilized elsewhere.

Depends on the system. If you are running w7 (not starter) on a 5400rpm hdd, its no question you should upgrade to a SSD, windows 8 does fine on 5400rpm though for boot. You will see them more and more in laptops, reliability and power savings are a plus.

You should check out videos with identical pentium 4 pcs, all the same parts, except one has an ssd. So to say they'd overrated......,meh. They'll basically replace hard drives over time (not for large archiving purposes), its just that high capacity is so expensive now in the earlier years.

TH0R 02-08-2013 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woomer051 (Post 57449736)
Depends on the system. If you are running w7 on a 5400rpm hdd, its not question you should upgrade to a SSD. You will see them more and more in laptops, reliability and power savings are a plus.

You should check out videos with identical pentium 4 pcs, all the same parts, except one has an ssd. So to say they'd overrated......,meh. They'll basically replace hard drives over time, its just that high capacity is so expensive now in the earlier years.

Yeah I realize the hard drive is the bottleneck usually, but I just don't see enough of a performance improvement to justify spending on an SSD instead of on a superior graphics card or faster CPU (like this awesome AMD FX 8320) especially considering how much SSD's slow down over time. Slickdealers aren't going to buy a new SSD every year, so it's just not worth it imo.

ccsdbrian 02-08-2013 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big_H (Post 57449014)
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)

Given the same GPU and equivalent other parts, the i5-3570k rig will have better frame rates in most games. This will change as games become more and more multi-thread in the years to come.

1st Note: if you are using the system mainly for video encoding the 8320 is the better chip.
2nd Note*: If you are building from the ground up or doing a CPU+Mobo+GPU upgrade with a set budget the money saved with the 8320 may put a higher tier GPU within reach with or without stretching a little .
Say from a GTX 660 Ti to a 7950 w/Boost or GTX 670. This could make for a both a better overall gaming and encoding rig.

*Assumed price gap between the cpus is roughly $40-70 depending on purchase location.

Bottom line: Neither cpu is a slouch and both are good buys for the money.

puddnhead 02-08-2013 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gonepostl (Post 57445000)
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.:woot::drool:

You sound like one of the people who probably also pushed Costco to change their previously very trusting and generous return policy by exploiting that to the hilt, would I be wrong?

Well, at least this time when you screw people of a good retailer relationship by forcing MC to either change policy or raise prices to cover losses due to your actions, I won't personally be screwed by your fraud, since I don't have an MC near me anyway.

"BS" indeed.

TH0R 02-08-2013 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ccsdbrian (Post 57449798)
Given the same GPU and equivalent other parts, the i5-3570k rig will have better frame rates in most games. This will change as games become more and more multi-thread in the years to come.

They're both more than fast enough for 60 fps at most resolutions with a good enough graphics card so it's irrelevant unless you're in the less than 1% of gamers who really need that extra power. Plus, benchmarks tend to be skewed in intel's favor over AMD so take those benchmarks with a grain of salt.

RandallDeals 02-08-2013 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TH0R (Post 57449772)
Yeah I realize the hard drive is the bottleneck usually, but I just don't see enough of a performance improvement to justify spending on an SSD instead of on a superior graphics card or faster CPU (like this awesome AMD FX 8320) especially considering how much SSD's slow down over time. Slickdealers aren't going to buy a new SSD every year, so it's just not worth it imo.

I don't know, if you ask some of these guys you'll find many of them have unopened SSD's just because its hit the front page so often. :-P

SSD's have dropped tremendously in price and will continue to do so. If equipped with a fast processor the experience is greatly improved. It may be difficult to realize the gain while gaming or running just a few applications but when you're opening and closing applications all day it really speeds things up.

satanslover 02-08-2013 07:43 AM

For the intel boosters, can you please post a deal (an old deal perhaps) which shows us what you get for $150 in Intel?

Quote:

Originally Posted by harshan9 (Post 57449516)
ASUS M5A97 for Free, when??

FAR actually:

http://slickdeals.net/f/5592276-ASUS-M5A97-LE-R2-0-AM3-AMD-970-SATA-6Gb-s-USB-3-0-ATX-AMD-Motherboard-FREE-after-rebate-with-free-shipping

buckhr 02-08-2013 07:45 AM

How would this compare to my current AMD Phenom 2 X4 955 Black Edition OCed to 3.8ghz?

NJMaster 02-08-2013 07:45 AM

Like most reviews have said, AMD's Vishera (and Bulldozer) is a disappointment in the tech world as far as cpu performance advancement is concerned. However, price per performance wise, Vishera has real value. The problem? Power consumption. Depending on your energy prices at your location & your usage amount, you could be wasting a lot more money over the course of 1~2 years compared to purchasing Intel cpu for higher initial prices.

Because of these factors, I always recommended FX-6300 + mobo microcenter deal, because 1) you get "some" benefit of higher # of cores for multithreaded apps 2) lower TDP = about 30watts less used per full load and 3) microcenter prices makes this processor about $70 considering the mobo price.

FYI, expert reviews @ various sites. They all say THE SAME THINGS about these chips.
http://www.techspot.com/review/58...page8.html
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/fo...ew-18.html
http://www.anandtech.com/show/639...0-tested/9

TH0R 02-08-2013 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandallMarshall (Post 57449918)
I don't know, if you ask some of these guys you'll find many of them have unopened SSD's just because its hit the front page so often. :-P

SSD's have dropped tremendously in price and will continue to do so. If equipped with a fast processor the experience is greatly improved. It may be difficult to realize the gain while gaming or running just a few applications but when you're opening and closing applications all day it really speeds things up.

Very good post, repped.* For the record, as an SSD user I don't recommend SSD's in general unless the rest of your computer system is already well equipped. They simply slow down too much over time and have too little space for the money. Unless you want to reinstall everything every 2 months it's really not worth it, in my opinion.

* will rep when the system allows me to

woomer051 02-08-2013 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TH0R (Post 57449772)
Yeah I realize the hard drive is the bottleneck usually, but I just don't see enough of a performance improvement to justify spending on an SSD instead of on a superior graphics card or faster CPU (like this awesome AMD FX 8320) especially considering how much SSD's slow down over time. Slickdealers aren't going to buy a new SSD every year, so it's just not worth it imo.

Depends on what one wants to upgrade, but even a slow ssd isn't comparable to a hdd. Many users may not even take advantage of sata 3 ports yet (many budget boards don't have them). Its great peace of mind knowing the failure rates, speed, and power savings/battery life though. Worth it for .50/gb for system file and program storage. As prices fall further and they get better, it will be hard to find a better upgrade, because you'd be looking at very low profile video cards to keep in the price range. To say they need cleared every 2 months is meh, kinda going backwards......................maybe the earliest of drive, before trim, etc. Moving forward though, SSDs are gonna be fine. People will not need to clear every 2 months....................

TH0R 02-08-2013 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NJMaster (Post 57449990)
Like most reviews have said, blah blah blah

This is the best mid to high end CPU for the money right now, so good that it made it to the front page of this site. Post a better active deal for an intel counterpart. :)

Oh wait a minute, you can't because there IS no better deal! ;)

Slickdealers generally don't buy new CPU's every year, so a nice 8 core future proof performance AMD FX-8320 CPU at a slickdeals price of $150 is a no-brainer for those who need to upgrade. :nod:

Allthesame 02-08-2013 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TH0R (Post 57449772)
Yeah I realize the hard drive is the bottleneck usually, but I just don't see enough of a performance improvement to justify spending on an SSD instead of on a superior graphics card or faster CPU (like this awesome AMD FX 8320) especially considering how much SSD's slow down over time. Slickdealers aren't going to buy a new SSD every year, so it's just not worth it imo.

Love all five of the SSDs I have installed in 3 notebooks/laptops and desktops. Best money spent on my computers in past 10 years. Using one for over a year and no slow downs noticed. I am not a big gamer so graphics and processor do not mean much to me. Use a system with a AMD 5050e 4-5 days per week for general work. With SSD installed it certainly extended the life of that general purpose PC.

TH0R 02-08-2013 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allthesame (Post 57450100)
Love all five of the SSDs I have installed in 3 notebooks/laptops and desktops. Best money spent on my computers in past 10 years. Using one for over a year and no slow downs noticed. I am not a big gamer so graphics and processor do not mean much to me. Use a system with a AMD 5050e 4-5 days per week for general work. With SSD installed it certainly extended the life of that general purpose PC.

Well for you, clearly, the SSD's make sense. Good moves.

Big_H 02-08-2013 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ccsdbrian (Post 57449798)
Given the same GPU and equivalent other parts, the i5-3570k rig will have better frame rates in most games. This will change as games become more and more multi-thread in the years to come.

1st Note: if you are using the system mainly for video encoding the 8320 is the better chip.
2nd Note*: If you are building from the ground up or doing a CPU+Mobo+GPU upgrade with a set budget the money saved with the 8320 may put a higher tier GPU within reach with or without stretching a little .
Say from a GTX 660 Ti to a 7950 w/Boost or GTX 670. This could make for a both a better overall gaming and encoding rig.

*Assumed price gap between the cpus is roughly $40-70 depending on purchase location.

Bottom line: Neither cpu is a slouch and both are good buys for the money.

Mainly gaming.
I've got an obscenely old CPU (I don't even want to say what :P) and an ATI Radeon HD 4770 right now. The GPU hits 7.1 on the Windows Experience test, so I was thinking I'd probably stick with that till the spring or something in my price range comes up on SD, and just upgrade the CPU/mobo/ram now/soon.
Given this AMD at $150, and the Intel i5-3570k at $200, which would you suggest as the better way to go? Or is that 7.1 WEI on the GPU going to drop when my CPU stops bottlenecking my system, and the best bet would be to upgrade the card as well?

ejimmyjj 02-08-2013 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron5090 (Post 57448424)
is there a cheap way to build a system with a quality processor and mobo and yet get an affordable OS to go with it?

If you take the microcenter route it should prove quite cheap.
Get an amd phenom 1045t with the free gigabyte motherboard combo. Go for an inland 350W power supply, 4gb microcenter ram, liteon dvdrw drive, and a case of your preference. For storage I would get a 64gb SSD.

All said and done you should be hovering around $250 spent. OS is up to you, If you're looking for a genuine OS cheap I'd probably install an ubuntu variant e.g Linux Mint. (FREE!)

At this point you will have a zippy desktop with a very capable OS. Not to mention microcenter backs up their products quite well, in case a component were to fail.

NJMaster 02-08-2013 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TH0R (Post 57450072)
This is the best mid to high end CPU for the money right now, so good that it made it to the front page of this site. Post a better active deal for an intel counterpart. :)

Oh wait a minute, you can't because there IS no better deal! ;)

Slickdealers generally don't buy new CPU's every year, so a nice 8 core future proof performance AMD FX-8320 CPU at a slickdeals price of $150 is a no-brainer for those who need to upgrade. :nod:

Well, what I meant was that there are pros and cons that are well known about this cpu that should be considered. Expert reviews show one side of the equation, but they are helpful nonetheless. AND all experts are saying the same thing about it. I have no doubt that this is a great deal for some people. I just meant that for one to consider purchasing it, it really depends on different factors and what your needs are whether this is a true "slickdeal" or not.

- Running games, single or multi thread apps, etc
- Overall PC build cost, or budget
- Power consumption, daily PC usage amount, energy cost at home
- overclock just because you can, and don't care about the added energy cost.
- Building from scratch or upgrading
- Do you hate Intel?
- Do you have microcenter nearby?

I considered purchasing this, but I get total price of $168 (with shipping & tax), which is only $12 lower than Newegg.com's regular price of $180. Is that a slickdeal for me? NO. I bought my 2600K for $200 almost a year ago. That is a slickdeal TO ME. Currently, I would get FX-6300 + decent AMD 970 mobo for $150 at local microcenter. That will get me similar single thread performance, lower but still decent multithread performance, & lower power consumption.

You can buy whatever you want, and I can't tell you what to buy or what not to buy. But expressing opinion and sharing information is just that. No need to react sarcastic about that.

KingVijay 02-08-2013 08:37 AM

I have a 6-7 year-old self-builded computer....if I remember right the CPU is core 2 duo.......and the ram is DDR2.....(YES...I KNOW IT IS OLD....BUT IT CAN STILL PLAY COD BLACK OP2 IN MID TO HIGH )so If I want to upgrade to this one......any suggestion for me? (I think I need new mobo, cpu, and ram...I got SSD and a 1000w power already...so)

Most likely gaming all day long.......
I have a 6870 which I think it is ok to keep?
Thank you for all your help. =)

bob151 02-08-2013 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woomer051 (Post 57447704)
Benchmark score twice as high, but I don't really see people taking advantage of 8 cores (not your average user). Kinda like the high scores a 6 core 1045t would get more than yours, but unless your video editing, that 1045t wont do much more for you then your 955 or a 965 will. Its an upgrade, not a bad one either. Just make sure your mobo can handle 125w, because your 965 is only 95 or 100w I think, your mobo may not handle 125w. You got a great processor though, I'd hold out, especially if you had to upgrade your mobo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woomer051 (Post 57447704)
Benchmark score twice as high, but I don't really see people taking advantage of 8 cores (not your average user). Kinda like the high scores a 6 core 1045t would get more than yours, but unless your video editing, that 1045t wont do much more for you then your 955 or a 965 will. Its an upgrade, not a bad one either. Just make sure your mobo can handle 125w, because your 965 is only 95 or 100w I think, your mobo may not handle 125w. You got a great processor though, I'd hold out, especially if you had to upgrade your mobo.

I think games are taking advantage of more cores these days aren't they? IIRC, BF3 used nearly all processing power of my AMD 1045 (6 core) while playing. Maybe it only used 4 cores 100%, I'm not %100 sure, I've uninstalled the game.

I realize gaming is more dependent on the GPU, but maybe some games supplement some aspects of processing from the CPU.

Anyone have any games using more than 4 cores?

Scott P 02-08-2013 08:39 AM

I've been running a Phenom II 965 and it seems to still hold strong. I really could use a fresh O/S install and might just elect to change out the CPU while I'm at it. I just don't know if the upgrade would really be worth it.

maddoggyusa 02-08-2013 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woomer051 (Post 57447704)
Benchmark score twice as high, but I don't really see people taking advantage of 8 cores (not your average user). Kinda like the high scores a 6 core 1045t would get more than yours, but unless your video editing, that 1045t wont do much more for you then your 955 or a 965 will. Its an upgrade, not a bad one either. Just make sure your mobo can handle 125w, because your 965 is only 95 or 100w I think, your mobo may not handle 125w. You got a great processor though, I'd hold out, especially if you had to upgrade your mobo.

965's are 140W (old) or 125W (new)
I think he has the 955 which is 125+ Watt

I still prefer Ghz and cache over # of cores... even then the GPU is what makes games run better. The cpu is rarely the bottleneck once your over 3Ghz with a good quad CPU.

dragoon7134 02-08-2013 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingVijay (Post 57451132)
I have a 6-7 year-old self-builded computer....if I remember right the CPU is core 2 duo.......and the ram is DDR2.....(YES...I KNOW IT IS OLD....BUT IT CAN STILL PLAY COD BLACK OP2 IN MID TO HIGH )so If I want to upgrade to this one......any suggestion for me? (I think I need new mobo, cpu, and ram...I got SSD and a 1000w power already...so)

Most likely gaming all day long.......
I have a 6870 which I think it is ok to keep?
Thank you for all your help. =)

Well if you upgraded to this, it's a new CPU (this one), new Motherboard, and new memory, so keep that in mind before you make a change. If you're just gaming, this will be plenty fine for years to come (probably only thing you'll need to change is GPU to stay updated, but 6870 is plenty for now). Make sure to get up to date items that have usb 3.0, sata 3 6Gb/s just to "future" proof your system a bit and to take advantage of new technology.

gobundy 02-08-2013 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by satanslover (Post 57449932)
For the intel boosters, can you please post a deal (an old deal perhaps) which shows us what you get for $150 in Intel?


FAR actually:

http://slickdeals.net/f/5592276-ASUS-M5A97-LE-R2-0-AM3-AMD-970-SATA-6Gb-s-USB-3-0-ATX-AMD-Motherboard-FREE-after-rebate-with-free-shipping


Missed it. SOB. Missed it fair and square. Was hiking at the Grand Canyon and the LTE reception is pretty bad away from the Village.

Thanks!! Now will have to wait until Nov again for this and the 16GB DDR3 for $40 NE deals.

KingVijay 02-08-2013 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragoon7134 (Post 57451608)
Well if you upgraded to this, it's a new CPU (this one), new Motherboard, and new memory, so keep that in mind before you make a change. If you're just gaming, this will be plenty fine for years to come (probably only thing you'll need to change is GPU to stay updated, but 6870 is plenty for now). Make sure to get up to date items that have usb 3.0, sata 3 6Gb/s just to "future" proof your system a bit and to take advantage of new technology.

Yea....that is what I am planning for.....new mobo, cpu and memory...budget should be around $500-600~~~just because I haven't keep an eye on the market....so I have no idea how to build an other .....XD....:lmao::lmao:

lotus1197 02-08-2013 09:17 AM

http://pcpartpicker.com/ is a good place to plan new builds at these days..especially if you have a smaller budget.....also one of the regulars over @ mmo-champ does a nice price tier for builds once a month.

http://www.mmo-champion.com/conte...ly-Roundup

flawlessly 02-08-2013 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brisar (Post 57447986)
TigerDirect.com has AMD FX-8320 Black Edition 3.5GHz Socket AM3+ Eight-Core Processor (FD8320FRHKBOX) on Sale for $169.99 - $20 w/ promo code NWJ81883 = $149.99. Shipping is $3.80 (econo ship). Thanks sr71

Is this better than i7 3770K?

Sent from Slickdeals App for iPhone & iPod Touch.

satanslover 02-08-2013 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harshan9 (Post 57451728)
Missed it. SOB. Missed it fair and square. Was hiking at the Grand Canyon and the LTE reception is pretty bad away from the Village.

Thanks!! Now will have to wait until Nov again for this and the 16GB DDR3 for $40 NE deals.

You went hiking during the Black Friday sales? Turn in your SD login, Sir.

satanslover 02-08-2013 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flawlessly (Post 57451996)
Is this better than i7 3770K?

Sent from Slickdeals App for iPhone & iPod Touch.

Yup, since the 3770K costs twice as much.

darci663 02-08-2013 09:21 AM

At Microcenter you can get an MSI motherboard and an FX 83504 250 970A-G46 and the FX8350 for $215.00 +tax

NJMaster 02-08-2013 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flawlessly (Post 57451996)
is this better than i7 3770k?

NO. FX-8xxx series are comparable to Intel i5 series without hyperthreading (i.e. 2500K, 3570K). Typically worse in single thread apps, better in multi thread apps (utilizing all 8 cores). For general use, i5's are better.

Kithkin 02-08-2013 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingVijay (Post 57451818)
Yea....that is what I am planning for.....new mobo, cpu and memory...budget should be around $500-600~~~just because I haven't keep an eye on the market....so I have no idea how to build an other .....XD....:lmao::lmao:

Games haven't kept up with computers. As you said, your old machine is capable of running the newest Black Ops game just fine. Anything you get now is going to be "future" proof.

You can get away with a new cpu, mobo and ram for less than $300. After that, I'd go with an SSD for the OS and 2 or 3 games. Then I'd look at a new video card.

You shouldn't spend more than $100 on any component without a pretty good reason.

KingVijay 02-08-2013 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kithkin (Post 57452268)
Games haven't kept up with computers. As you said, your old machine is capable of running the newest Black Ops game just fine. Anything you get now is going to be "future" proof.

You can get away with a new cpu, mobo and ram for less than $300. After that, I'd go with an SSD for the OS and 2 or 3 games. Then I'd look at a new video card.

You shouldn't spend more than $100 on any component without a pretty good reason.

You are right.....I am still thinking about uograding....since it can run black ops2 just fine....and I have 500 GB+ SSD so I think I am ok with SSD....
The video card is just fine, and I would just maybe add another one to make them CF?? or maybe it is not the time for me to upgrade yet....:rolleyes::rolleyes:

AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core
Motherboard ASRock 990FX Extreme4 ATX AM3+
2 x Corsair 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR3-1600
Asus Radeon HD 7850 2GB

That looks good enough??? under $600.....
@@

webjock 02-08-2013 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flawlessly (Post 57451996)
Is this better than i7 3770K?

Sent from Slickdeals App for iPhone & iPod Touch.

I've been waiting for this deal since Xmas.
I have a FX-6100 that I plan to replace. I also have a i7-3770K I run in a hackintosh. Both my current AMD and i7-3700K rigs have SSD and 32GB of RAM.

And to be honest, the i7 is way over priced. Sure it is faster but if I could run a hackintosh on an AMD, I wouldn't even look at the Core Intels.
It is three times the price of the FX-6100 and twice the price of the 8320.
Doing heavy handbrake of bluray rips, the i7 may rip a movie( 1080p Bluray to MKV ) in 34 minutes versus 40 minutes on the FX-6100. So, to me, that isn't that big of a quantum advantage of the Ivy Bridge I7.
So, with this delta, I think the FX-8320 will compete very well considering the $150 price point.


For my needs, I need the extra cores. Heck, even if they are so-called fake integer cores, ESXi and other virtualization products see them as individual cores.
My average load is 24-28GB of RAM usage. I use about 70-80% of my RAM running Virtual machines. I hit all the cores running various heavy loads and I can see where the AMD really shines. I run various whitebox ESXi servers using nothing but AMD because of the price.

I've been running Linux Mint 14, Ubuntu 12.04 and Elementary Luna (EOS).
Running Ubuntu 12.04 with six live Virtual Machines (Win Xp, Win7, FreeBSD, a few LAMP VM, Android), I see literally no difference in day-to-day work: programming, web, office, watching HD movies.
Like I said, my average load is 24-28 GB of used RAM out of 32GB and my old AMD doesn't break a sweat.

The downside is the power consumption. I believe the i7 is a 77w CPU vs the 125W in the FX-8320.

dragoon7134 02-08-2013 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingVijay (Post 57452598)
You are right.....I am still thinking about uograding....since it can run black ops2 just fine....and I have 500 GB+ SSD so I think I am ok with SSD....
The video card is just fine, and I would just maybe add another one to make them CF?? or maybe it is not the time for me to upgrade yet....:rolleyes::rolleyes:

AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core
Motherboard ASRock 990FX Extreme4 ATX AM3+
2 x Corsair 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR3-1600
Asus Radeon HD 7850 2GB

That looks good enough??? under $600.....
@@

As someone else said, unless you got the money to spend, you don't have to upgrade. It is true games haven't kept up with technology in that many games still don't utilize 4+ cores, etc. etc. Crossfire/SLI is a nice thing to boost performance, but again, not all games support CF/SLI.

If you do got the money, i would get a new cpu/mobo/ram not only to future proof a bit, but also have access to newer tech to take advantage of like sata 3 w/ 6Gb/s to use your SSD to it's fullest (assuming it is sata 3).

trza 02-08-2013 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron5090 (Post 57448424)
is there a cheap way to build a system with a quality processor and mobo and yet get an affordable OS to go with it?

How does free sound? Install Linux.

Ubuntu is very mature, relatively stable, and easy to learn. Linux Mint is also popular. There are plenty of other flavors that are also free.

kaosstar 02-08-2013 10:23 AM

Linux is out of the picture for gamers.

Krakn3Dfx 02-08-2013 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaosstar (Post 57453520)
Linux is out of the picture for gamers.

Things change. [geek.com] If there's any company that can lure developers and gamers over to Linux, it's going to be Valve. Nothing happens overnight, but I wouldn't outright dismiss Linux as a viable gaming platform in the future. A lot of big Triple A titles run on the Unreal Engine, which already has Linux binary executable code available, so it would be a pretty minimal amount of work to get an UE based game onto the platform.

There are also a good handful of games on Steam that already do work on Linux, including Serious Sam 3, Amnesia, Killing Floor, and other notable titles. Linux games on Steam. [steampowered.com]

Jasnah 02-08-2013 10:28 AM

I wish they'd put the cheaper versions on sale. I'm waiting for a vishera or zambezi am3+ to dip below $90...

junhao123 02-08-2013 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soarwitheagles (Post 57449146)
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

Check the Phoronix benches. What you say is true, but an the FX 8-core chips still outperform their Intel counterparts in multi-threading heavy tasks.
Their cores are still more true than Intel HT.
However, yes, for consumer usage the above does not apply.

brbubba 02-08-2013 10:33 AM

Anyone use this with folding or BOINC? Curious how it compares to something like the X6?

The stock heatsink actually looks pretty decent, has anyone used it with some decent results?

SonicTron 02-08-2013 10:36 AM

How's this sucker for video editing and rendering?

KingVijay 02-08-2013 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragoon7134 (Post 57453250)
As someone else said, unless you got the money to spend, you don't have to upgrade. It is true games haven't kept up with technology in that many games still don't utilize 4+ cores, etc. etc. Crossfire/SLI is a nice thing to boost performance, but again, not all games support CF/SLI.

If you do got the money, i would get a new cpu/mobo/ram not only to future proof a bit, but also have access to newer tech to take advantage of like sata 3 w/ 6Gb/s to use your SSD to it's fullest (assuming it is sata 3).


I have the money.....just not sure I should save it for later or....@@ but if I do want to upgrade....within $600....what is your recommendation??:nod:

brbubba 02-08-2013 10:51 AM

Ugh nevermind, just bit the bullet. This should last me a long time. Not doing any overclocking so hopefully the copper stock heatsink will fit the bill nicely.

kaosstar 02-08-2013 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krakn3Dfx (Post 57453568)
Things change. [geek.com] If there's any company that can lure developers and gamers over to Linux, it's going to be Valve. Nothing happens overnight, but I wouldn't outright dismiss Linux as a viable gaming platform in the future. A lot of big Triple A titles run on the Unreal Engine, which already has Linux binary executable code available, so it would be a pretty minimal amount of work to get an UE based game onto the platform.

There are also a good handful of games on Steam that already do work on Linux, including Serious Sam 3, Amnesia, Killing Floor, and other notable titles. Linux games on Steam. [steampowered.com]

Hopefully things keep changing. If I could do most of my gaming in Linux (natively), I'd drop windows and never look back.

anotherRandomUser 02-08-2013 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maddoggyusa (Post 57451478)
965's are 140W (old) or 125W (new)
I think he has the 955 which is 125+ Watt

I still prefer Ghz and cache over # of cores... even then the GPU is what makes games run better. The cpu is rarely the bottleneck once your over 3Ghz with a good quad CPU.

I prefer instructions per clock cycle over Ghz... Why do you think we went backwards in the Ghz department? I'll never understand why people think more Ghz = faster / better processor.

BestJinjo 02-08-2013 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingVijay (Post 57453838)
I have the money.....just not sure I should save it for later or....@@ but if I do want to upgrade....within $600....what is your recommendation??:nod:

I am waiting for Haswell. It should be out June 2-5th week. I'll pay a little extra for higher IPC cores and possibly breaking the 5.0ghz overclocking barrier with a more mature 22nm node and rumors of Intel going back to proper solder of Sandy Bridge after they cut costs out on Ivy Bridge's thermal interface that reduced overclocking without delidding them.

KingVijay 02-08-2013 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BestJinjo (Post 57454890)
I am waiting for Haswell. It should be out June 2-5th week. I'll pay a little extra for higher IPC cores and possibly breaking the 5.0ghz overclocking barrier with a more mature 22nm node and rumors of Intel going back to proper solder of Sandy Bridge after they cut costs out on Ivy Bridge's thermal interface that reduced overclocking without delidding them.

I know they are saying Haswell is coming out soon...but do we really need that????....:P also....with only $600(not much I think???)....it is better to go with AMD?????

dragoon7134 02-08-2013 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingVijay (Post 57453838)
I have the money.....just not sure I should save it for later or....@@ but if I do want to upgrade....within $600....what is your recommendation??:nod:

Well i guess a lot of it depends on how long you are willing to wait, whether it's for good deals, get everything ASAP, or waiting for the new gen as someone said already (Haswell). But to be honest, for a gamer, it won't change much, mainly just for enthusiast. My aging i7-920 is still going strong at a meager OC of 3.0ghz from 2.66, I still run most games on max settings with my bottleneck of a GPU that is a GTX 465 that ive been using for 2+ years.

As for recommendation, do you happen to have a microcenter near you? you can always hop on the i7-3770k for $220 if you do that will last years, other than that, even an i5 will be more than enough for the standard gamer combined with a good GPU. I don't normally find many Intel core series on SD besides from SD (or at least no i7's), but maybe one will pop up. If you want something now, just hop on this CPU and a decent motherboard, from reviews, it seems this CPU can be OC'd quite a bit if you go that route (with a decent cooler of course).

For memory, I'd just wait for a good SD to pop up, i see decent memory on sale all the time. Don't got to go crazy overboard too, I'm only using 6GB and it's more than enough already.

TH0R 02-08-2013 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brbubba (Post 57454122)
Ugh nevermind, just bit the bullet. This should last me a long time. Not doing any overclocking so hopefully the copper stock heatsink will fit the bill nicely.

Wise choice. I would be interested in knowing if getting a better heatsink and fan while lowering the voltage would decrease power consumption significantly?

KingVijay 02-08-2013 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragoon7134 (Post 57455188)
Well i guess a lot of it depends on how long you are willing to wait, whether it's for good deals, get everything ASAP, or waiting for the new gen as someone said already (Haswell). But to be honest, for a gamer, it won't change much, mainly just for enthusiast. My aging i7-920 is still going strong at a meager OC of 3.0ghz from 2.66, I still run most games on max settings with my bottleneck of a GPU that is a GTX 465 that ive been using for 2+ years.

As for recommendation, do you happen to have a microcenter near you? you can always hop on the i7-3770k for $220 if you do that will last years, other than that, even an i5 will be more than enough for the standard gamer combined with a good GPU. I don't normally find many Intel core series on SD besides from SD (or at least no i7's), but maybe one will pop up. If you want something now, just hop on this CPU and a decent motherboard, from reviews, it seems this CPU can be OC'd quite a bit if you go that route (with a decent cooler of course).

For memory, I'd just wait for a good SD to pop up, i see decent memory on sale all the time. Don't got to go crazy overboard too, I'm only using 6GB and it's more than enough already.

They have MC in CA....but that is like 1000+ miles away...LOL.....(sadly they dont ship CPU....)and I do not need new PC like ASAP....but would like to keep an eye for one....

Looks like I should get this one, and wait for the next better deal for mobo (get them one by one not all in one time...I guess??) For memory......thank you for pointing that out....I did not pay attention on any memory deals nowaday...= =:lmao:

gourygabriev 02-08-2013 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NJMaster (Post 57449990)
Like most reviews have said, AMD's Vishera (and Bulldozer) is a disappointment in the tech world as far as cpu performance advancement is concerned. However, price per performance wise, Vishera has real value. The problem? Power consumption. Depending on your energy prices at your location & your usage amount, you could be wasting a lot more money over the course of 1~2 years compared to purchasing Intel cpu for higher initial prices.

Because of these factors, I always recommended FX-6300 + mobo microcenter deal, because 1) you get "some" benefit of higher # of cores for multithreaded apps 2) lower TDP = about 30watts less used per full load and 3) microcenter prices makes this processor about $70 considering the mobo price.

FYI, expert reviews @ various sites. They all say THE SAME THINGS about these chips.
http://www.techspot.com/review/58...page8.html
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/fo...ew-18.html
http://www.anandtech.com/show/639...0-tested/9

Exactly!
Most people fail to realize that their electric bills are tiered.

if they hit a higher tier, the rate is a lot more.

like from starting to 11 cents a KW it goes all the way to 40 cents a KW.

Like people that used less than 200 KW will get the 11 cent/KW

but people who used 400 KW might get 22 cents.

People don't take that into consideration that even though they've only used 2x the electricity, they are paying 2 times higher per KW, resulting in an electric bill that is 4x higher.

TH0R 02-08-2013 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SonicTron (Post 57453798)
How's this sucker for video editing and rendering?

In theory it should be amazing for that, check out some benchmarks.

Shoryuken23 02-08-2013 11:51 AM

Man I miss AMD and ATi. I am running a 3570K/GTX 670 but my next PC will be AMD. This looks like a solid processor and a good deal. A 7950 would probably be a great GPU to pair with this.

soarwitheagles 02-08-2013 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TH0R (Post 57449606)
No need to read any further... stop thread crapping ya troll, this CPU is excellent for the price and is future proof as well. :nod:

Intel's propaganda machine is strong, they have paid bashers all over the place, even on AMD finance related message boards. I call them Intards. :lol:

Exactly, well said! :nod:

Th0r,

I am not thread crapping and I am not a troll. I simply stated I wish I had gone with the Intel i5-3570 or 2500k, and gave specific reasons why.

Dude, you bash anyone that brings constructive criticism and then accuse them of being trolls...obvious signs of a AMD lover-fan-boy! :heart:

For the last 10 years, I have made it a habit of building two personal computers every two years...and it has always been one computer with an Intel processor, one with the AMD processor. And I have been very happy building this way.

But this is the first time I wish I had done a little bit more thinking before purchasing the AMD FX 8350. For my needs [I do little to no video encoding or other tasks that require the use of more than 4 cores].

The large majority of people with an 8 core processor or a processor with 4 modules with two IC's (integer cluster) per module will never utilize all cores. And no game on the market today utilizes more than 4 cores.

Nearly all applications rely heavily on single threaded per core performance.

There simply isn't enough day to day software or graphics engines that fully utilize more than 2-4 cores.

So, given these facts, I now wish I had gone with an Intel 3570 or 2500k because this would have clearly been the better choice for my needs.

I hope you can hear/see some logic here instead of going off on another narrow minded AMD brainwashed drooling craze rant that clearly advertises to the entire world your deep level of ignorance. :lmao:

Soar

doxology 02-08-2013 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BestJinjo (Post 57454890)
I am waiting for Haswell. It should be out June 2-5th week. I'll pay a little extra for higher IPC cores and possibly breaking the 5.0ghz overclocking barrier with a more mature 22nm node and rumors of Intel going back to proper solder of Sandy Bridge after they cut costs out on Ivy Bridge's thermal interface that reduced overclocking without delidding them.

just so you know it doesn't like like haswell is going to be a huge step up. in fact maybe even slower in some instances then ivy bridge. some think it might be because they are trying to up the gpu on the cores to compete with AMD's APU's. no one knows for sure. if the rumors are true then the only big advantage it might have is better overclocking then ivy bridge. but clock for clock it seems intel is hitting a similar brick was as AMD has. It is only getting a hair better, like ivy bridge over sandy bridge.

http://www.techpowerup.com/179631...quot-.html

zerorhythm 02-08-2013 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soarwitheagles (Post 57456414)
Th0r,

I am not thread crapping and I am not a troll. I simply stated I wish I had gone with the Intel i5-3570 or 2500k, and gave specific reasons why.

Dude, you bash anyone that brings constructive criticism and then accuse them of being trolls...obvious signs of a AMD lover-fan-boy! :heart:

For the last 10 years, I have made it a habit of building two personal computers every two years...and it has always been one computer with an Intel processor, one with the AMD processor. And I have been very happy building this way.

But this is the first time I wish I had done a little bit more thinking before purchasing the AMD FX 8350. For my needs [I do little to no video encoding or other tasks that require the use of more than 4 cores].

The large majority of people with an 8 core processor or a processor with 4 modules with two IC's (integer cluster) per module will never utilize all cores. And no game on the market today utilizes more than 4 cores.

Nearly all applications rely heavily on single threaded per core performance.

There simply isn't enough day to day software or graphics engines that fully utilize more than 2-4 cores.

So, given these facts, I now wish I had gone with an Intel 3570 or 2500k because this would have clearly been the better choice for my needs.

I hope you can hear/see some logic here instead of going off on another narrow minded AMD brainwashed drooling craze rant that clearly advertises to the entire world your deep level of ignorance. :lmao:

Soar

You can always use more than 4 core even though an app can only handle a few threads at a time. It's not like you run only one application at a time. Many people run a lot of apps at once. Even while you are gaming you have other software running.

I think the ignorant one is you. You are still living in a time where computers have a hard time running 2 windows at once.

gonepostl 02-08-2013 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OsirisDev (Post 57445076)



How is that any different than just stealing it right off the shelf? Getting a good deal is one thing, but lying to get a replacement is just stealing. Suck it up and pay for it.

Because the people that worked there told me to do it. I asked about their warranty and didn't provoke them one bit. THey said and I quote "You can complain about your fan being too loud and we'll give you a giftcard." So it aint stealing if their employees tell me to do it AND my friend on two separate occasions. You can call it stealing all you want but it's THEIR policy. Not mine. Next video card and cpu is going to be purchased there. Then free graphic cards and cpu's for a while.

Deal with it.:lol::nod:

Quote:

Originally Posted by OsirisDev (Post 57445076)
The best I've read about online with normal cooling is about 4.9. I have my 8320 stable at about 4.7 @ 1.425v on a push-pull liquid cooler, but it still runs very hot (60c) under full load. If I got back to stock voltage I can easily run 4ghz with a 4.4 turbo and still keep it under 40 with only 1 fan (instead of 2).

60 degrees stable. You can still push it obviously. Are you using a liquid cooling situation? I am; if your not, it's not a fair comparison if your using some crappy fan. Liquid beats that crap every time :D

satanslover 02-08-2013 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soarwitheagles (Post 57456414)
Th0r,

I am not thread crapping and I am not a troll. I simply stated I wish I had gone with the Intel i5-3570 or 2500k, and gave specific reasons why.

Dude, you bash anyone that brings constructive criticism and then accuse them of being trolls...obvious signs of a AMD lover-fan-boy! :heart:

For the last 10 years, I have made it a habit of building two personal computers every two years...and it has always been one computer with an Intel processor, one with the AMD processor. And I have been very happy building this way.

But this is the first time I wish I had done a little bit more thinking before purchasing the AMD FX 8350. For my needs [I do little to no video encoding or other tasks that require the use of more than 4 cores].

The large majority of people with an 8 core processor or a processor with 4 modules with two IC's (integer cluster) per module will never utilize all cores. And no game on the market today utilizes more than 4 cores.

Nearly all applications rely heavily on single threaded per core performance.

There simply isn't enough day to day software or graphics engines that fully utilize more than 2-4 cores.

So, given these facts, I now wish I had gone with an Intel 3570 or 2500k because this would have clearly been the better choice for my needs.

I hope you can hear/see some logic here instead of going off on another narrow minded AMD brainwashed drooling craze rant that clearly advertises to the entire world your deep level of ignorance. :lmao:

Soar

Software, including games, doesn't magically utilize some number of cores. It creates a number of threads and then they are scheduled as needed. The various bits of software running on your computer will between them create hundreds of threads, most of them idle, but tens of them will be active at any one time.

dpjackal89 02-08-2013 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by satanslover (Post 57457226)
Software, including games, doesn't magically utilize some number of cores. It creates a number of threads and then they are scheduled as needed. The various bits of software running on your computer will between them create hundreds of threads, most of them idle, but tens of them will be active at any one time.

If you are implying that all 8 cores will be used in ALL software then you are wrong.

BestJinjo 02-08-2013 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingVijay (Post 57455172)
I know they are saying Haswell is coming out soon...but do we really need that????....:P also....with only $600(not much I think???)....it is better to go with AMD?????

Is your budget $600 for the entire PC or just CPU+Mobo+Ram? If the budget is for the entire PC, then ya, the AMD processor makes sense.

BestJinjo 02-08-2013 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doxology (Post 57457102)
just so you know it doesn't like like haswell is going to be a huge step up. in fact maybe even slower in some instances then ivy bridge. some think it might be because they are trying to up the gpu on the cores to compete with AMD's APU's. no one knows for sure. if the rumors are true then the only big advantage it might have is better overclocking then ivy bridge. but clock for clock it seems intel is hitting a similar brick was as AMD has. It is only getting a hair better, like ivy bridge over sandy bridge.

http://www.techpowerup.com/179631...quot-.html

I don't believe those benchmarks for a couple reason. Early engineering sample. Intel no longer optimizes for legacy x87 code. Intel's estimates that IPC with Haswell goes up 10%. I already have an i7 so I wouldn't be downgrading to the FX8320 but even then for most people i5 4570K is probably going to be worth spending a little extra for if they are overclockers/gamers. If you do a lot of multi-tasking/rendering/video encyption and streaming games to YouTube while gaming (xsplit) or similar, then FX8320-8350 are very good value.

doxology 02-08-2013 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BestJinjo (Post 57457552)
I don't believe those benchmarks for a couple reason. Early engineering sample. Intel no longer optimizes for legacy x87 code. Intel's estimates that IPC with Haswell goes up 10%. I already have an i7 so I wouldn't be downgrading to the FX8320 but even then for most people i5 4570K is probably going to be worth spending a little extra for if they are overclockers/gamers. If you do a lot of multi-tasking/rendering/video encyption and streaming games to YouTube while gaming (xsplit) or similar, then FX8320-8350 are very good value.

you never know what to believe. ivy bridge was reported before it came out as being 17% faster then sandy bridge which wasn't the case by far.

haswell needs to be much faster if intel wants to sell people on having to upgrade to a whole new socket, which haswell requires.

NJMaster 02-08-2013 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doxology (Post 57457926)
you never know what to believe. ivy bridge was reported before it came out as being 17% faster then sandy bridge which wasn't the case by far.

haswell needs to be much faster if intel wants to sell people on having to upgrade to a whole new socket, which haswell requires.

Guys, the difference between Intel's vs AMD's new architecture releases is that Intel was able to make steady improvement in both CPU & GPU performances clock for clock. They don't necessarily have to meet all their claims; they just have to come close, and they delivered on that account every release. And this improvement has been proven time after time since they introduced Core (i.e. Conroe). As they steadily moved from 65nm to 22nm manufacture process, they either equaled or improved in all areas (clock for clock performance, higher max clock, heat generation, power consumption, graphics core performance). Pricing is another matter.

AMD, on the other hand, was disappointing for the last few generations. Clock for clock, some of the newer chips were slower then their predecessors. Remember, Bulldozer was supposed to be "Sandy Bridge Killer." I remember getting extremely disappointed with the performance results by various sites and techie friends. And Vishera too. Even before that, quad core Phenoms were sacrificing efficiency for raw performance at some point. I remember purchasing Athlon X2s and being completely satisfied that it was faster and cheaper than Core 2 Duos at the time.

My prediction is that just like Ivy Bridge, Haswell is going to be another steady improvement in cpu performance (+5~15%), another huge jump in graphics performance, and another jump in efficiency. AMD is in a tough spot right now. If intel decided to open overclocking features on their low end chips, AMD would be in trouble. But they won't because they aren't like Samsung, who destroys competition to try to become a monopoly.

KingVijay 02-08-2013 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BestJinjo (Post 57457512)
Is your budget $600 for the entire PC or just CPU+Mobo+Ram? If the budget is for the entire PC, then ya, the AMD processor makes sense.

I think just CPU+MOBO+Ram~~~~for $600:bounce:

satanslover 02-08-2013 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dpjackal89 (Post 57457390)
If you are implying that all 8 cores will be used in ALL software then you are wrong.

LOL, I notice all you say is that I'm wrong, probably because you don't know anything.

The number of cores in use at any time is dependent on the overall processing load, as well as the type of load. Of course I didn't say anything like that, I was just describing how a CPU is used.

doxology 02-08-2013 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NJMaster (Post 57458672)
Guys, the difference between Intel's vs AMD's new architecture releases is that Intel was able to make steady improvement in both CPU & GPU performances clock for clock. They don't necessarily have to meet all their claims; they just have to come close, and they delivered on that account every release. And this improvement has been proven time after time since they introduced Core (i.e. Conroe). As they steadily moved from 65nm to 22nm manufacture process, they either equaled or improved in all areas (clock for clock performance, higher max clock, heat generation, power consumption, graphics core performance). Pricing is another matter.

AMD, on the other hand, was disappointing for the last few generations. Clock for clock, some of the newer chips were slower then their predecessors. Remember, Bulldozer was supposed to be "Sandy Bridge Killer." I remember getting extremely disappointed with the performance results by various sites and techie friends. And Vishera too. Even before that, quad core Phenoms were sacrificing efficiency for raw performance at some point. I remember purchasing Athlon X2s and being completely satisfied that it was faster and cheaper than Core 2 Duos at the time.

My prediction is that just like Ivy Bridge, Haswell is going to be another steady improvement in cpu performance (+5~15%), another huge jump in graphics performance, and another jump in efficiency. AMD is in a tough spot right now. If intel decided to open overclocking features on their low end chips, AMD would be in trouble. But they won't because they aren't like Samsung, who destroys competition to try to become a monopoly.

well it has to slow down at some point. intel has been doing well but they have had more then their fair share of blunders over the years especially before the core 2 duo was introduced.

intel will never compete with amd in the graphics department, every huge leap in graphics intel has promised hasn't delivered on those promises. and things like quick sync that do hardware decoding do not compare in quality to those as done through software encoding as testing has proved. but no ones has gotten that down very well hardware wise.

honestly i don't care about power efficiency. i can unscrew an extra light bulb and save more energy then i do by going intel, so that doesn't seem like a huge deal. AMD is being competitive and at the $150 price point I think this is a pretty great deal if you want to go AMD. Sure Intel is generally better but at $150 you are similar in price to a top end core i3.

Gavica 02-08-2013 04:00 PM

how does this comprer to i5 2500K for gaming?

jwcdis 02-08-2013 04:41 PM

i5 2500K beats out the FX 8320 in gaming.
They're about neck to neck when it comes regular application processing (photoshop, zip files, etc)

danrc 02-08-2013 04:41 PM

what is the best am3+ for office use? no gaming

AhmedK 02-08-2013 04:48 PM

I would take a look at this video before I jump on the Intel i5 is better bandwagon!

AMD FX 8350 OC vs i5 3570k OC Using an EVGA GTX 670
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc

this CPU is pretty good for the great majority of gamers and the overall build [cpu + mobo] will save you money, allowing you to spend more on the gpu if you want!

I personally run the FX cpus for virtual machines [great perf] and some gaming.

AhmedK 02-08-2013 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danrc (Post 57461784)
what is the best am3+ for office use? no gaming

you can get a 6300 or an older 6120; they will both be amazing for office work; I'd stick with the 6 cores; but it is possible that the fx 4xxx cpus might also be fine.

fooshnik 02-08-2013 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by w1n78 (Post 57449652)
i have an intel 2600k right now. i got it OC'd at 4.6ghz. i do a lot of handbrake encoding. it's fine but would like to do things faster. would getting this processor give me faster encoding times? handbrake is a multi-threaded app. i've been looking and all i see are benchmarks related to gaming. hardly any video related stuff :(

it's either this 8320/8350 or save money for a 3930K set up but concerned that haswell may have its own enthusiast cpu line up right after i build my sandy-e computer.

No. The only significant step up for you is the 2011 platform. You can google h.264 encoding benchmarks or look at passmark [cpubenchmark.net], which will give you a ballpark comparison of multi-threaded performance.

DaVeYbRaT 02-08-2013 05:05 PM

This is a fantastic deal on a great cpu. Can't beat an 8-core cpu for only $149!

I've heard that Microcenter has matched the cpu price AND you get $50 off any motherboard!!

So those that have a Microcenter nearby makes this an even sweeter deal!!

Rawimpact 02-08-2013 05:17 PM

I have a 8320 and i love it... be aware though, idle temperature is 29-31C. I've overclocked it to 4.2 on stock cooling no problem, didnt even notice a change in temperature. Cinemax has gotten me a score of 6.9 which is amazing. I got this thing for $150 - 25 MC coupon with 40 Mobo credit and 20 dollar SSD credit which i paired with another 25 MC coupon. I ended up paying an extra 20 bucks for a 990 mobo (openbox), got 16GB of ram free, and a SSD for free.


all told i spent 150 on the upgrade and i am simply amazed. that MC coupon really was a SD...

w1n78 02-08-2013 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fooshnik (Post 57462116)
No. The only significant step up for you is the 2011 platform. You can google h.264 encoding benchmarks or look at passmark [cpubenchmark.net], which will give you a ballpark comparison of multi-threaded performance.

thanks, i'm really leaning towards a 3930k but that price is a killer. i'll just save up more and go with something i'll be happier with in the long run - for what i do with it.

Tarbo 02-08-2013 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AhmedK (Post 57461916)
I would take a look at this video before I jump on the Intel i5 is better bandwagon!

AMD FX 8350 OC vs i5 3570k OC Using an EVGA GTX 670
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc

this CPU is pretty good for the great majority of gamers and the overall build [cpu + mobo] will save you money, allowing you to spend more on the gpu if you want!

I personally run the FX cpus for virtual machines [great perf] and some gaming.

Ugh that video is a joke and he is using that garbage xsplit a notoriosuly badly optimized streaming software without even telling you his settings. But yeah buying a cheaper amd and spending money on a better gpu can be a better option for some people.

BestJinjo 02-08-2013 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingVijay (Post 57458944)
I think just CPU+MOBO+Ram~~~~for $600:bounce:

You can easily fit an i7 in that budget. i7 $325, good mobo is $150-175, and 16GB of DDR3 is $85-100. Depending if you are a heavy multi-tasker or not, if not, you could drop down to i5 and spend the extra $ on an SSD as that is way more important than moving from an i5 to i7. Also, if you are a gamer/intend to play games, it's better to allocate funds towards the GPU and downgrade to an i5 rather than get a lower GPU and an i7. With your budget, it doesn't make much sense to get the FX8000 series.

BestJinjo 02-08-2013 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doxology (Post 57457926)
you never know what to believe. ivy bridge was reported before it came out as being 17% faster then sandy bridge which wasn't the case by far.

I don't remember a single source that stated IVB to be 17% faster. I remember reading rumors 6-7 months before it launched: 3-4% increase in IPC and 100mhz bump in CPU clocks. It ended up basically at that level. IVB was always a refresh and it was never meant to deliver anything like a 17% faster performance. I don't think any credible source like AnandTech, Tom's Hardware, Xbitlabs, TechReport wrote any articles or insinuated that IVB would ever be that much faster. You must have read that on some forums. The only way I can see 17% faster is if people took together the 3-4% increase in IPC and assumed IVB would overclock to 5.0ghz or something.

Regarding Haswell, if you read about the architecture alone, it makes no sense whatsoever why it would deliver the same IPC as IVB. On the execution stage alone [anandtech.com], Haswell is the biggest change architecturally since Nehalem in 2008 since it adds 2 more ports. Then you have AVX2 and FMA instructions. Floating point performance should double from Sandy Bridge/IVB [anandtech.com].

doxology 02-08-2013 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BestJinjo (Post 57463214)
I don't remember a single source that stated IVB to be 17% faster. I remember reading rumors 6-7 months before it launched: 3-4% increase in IPC and 100mhz bump in CPU clocks. It ended up basically at that level. IVB was always a refresh and it was never meant to deliver anything like a 17% faster performance. I don't think any credible source like AnandTech, Tom's Hardware, Xbitlabs, TechReport wrote any articles or insinuated that IVB would ever be that much faster. You must have read that on some forums. The only way I can see 17% faster is if people took together the 3-4% increase in IPC and assumed IVB would overclock to 5.0ghz or something.

Regarding Haswell, if you read about the architecture alone, it makes no sense whatsoever why it would deliver the same IPC as IVB. On the execution stage alone [anandtech.com], Haswell is the biggest change architecturally since Nehalem in 2008 since it adds 2 more ports. Then you have AVX2 and FMA instructions. Floating point performance should double from Sandy Bridge/IVB [anandtech.com].

http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item...ndy-bridge

http://news.softpedia.com/news/In...2353.shtml

BestJinjo 02-08-2013 07:55 PM

Fudzilla is a rumor site. They post anything that pops up. It's not the same as reading those same rumors on the types of websites I listed. Either way if you read the details of the Fudzilla post, IVB being 16% faster was in very specific programs that most of us don't even use.

The second link you posted is also a huge rumor site (VR-Zone) and the main source you linked even noted:

"To put things into perspective, when compared to the first generation of Intel Core chips, Sandy Bridge was only 15% to 17% faster per clock, so the speed increase advertised for Ivy Bridge is hard to believe."

and from same source:

"The only way this massive increase in performance can be explained is if Intel used different clocked parts for its comparison, pairing them by price level instead. For this reason, not many changes will be made to its architecture,"

Even your own sources contradict your assertion. Most people who followed CPUs and read multiple sources knew IVB was just a die shrink and the only way it would outperform SB > 5% on average was due to higher clocks/more aggressive turbo function and/or through higher overclocking.

Contrast this with Haswell vs. IVB where Haswell is known to be a new architecture, not a die shrink. Intel's leaked slides are showing up to 10% increase in IPC, not VR-Zone, not Fudzilla, Intel's. Also, IVB was not a new CPU architecture, Haswell is.

Let's look at Intel's track record of IPC increase:

Core 2 Duo to Nehalem/Lynnfield = 17.5-20% IPC increase (new architecture)
Nehalem to Sandy Bridge = 14-15% IPC increase (new architecture)

You are saying doubling the floating point performance, adding 2 more execution engines and a handful of other architectural enhancements (Increased the ports by two making the chip capable of 8ops, 1 cycle L2, increased BW for L1 and L2, increased OoO buffers, increased L2 TLB, improved virtual latency, new instructions including TSX, Random Number Generator, AVX2, FMA) will result in no IPC increase from IVB? That's not even logical. Why would Intel release Haswell then? I am not suggesting in any way that Haswell will increase IPC 14-20% like those other generational leaps but it'll be more than 3-4% of IVB and there is a very large chance that Haswell will go back to SB style solder/TIM interface which should allow easy 4.8-5.0ghz overclocks, unlike IVB.

KingVijay 02-08-2013 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BestJinjo (Post 57463092)
You can easily fit an i7 in that budget. i7 $325, good mobo is $150-175, and 16GB of DDR3 is $85-100. Depending if you are a heavy multi-tasker or not, if not, you could drop down to i5 and spend the extra $ on an SSD as that is way more important than moving from an i5 to i7. Also, if you are a gamer/intend to play games, it's better to allocate funds towards the GPU and downgrade to an i5 rather than get a lower GPU and an i7. With your budget, it doesn't make much sense to get the FX8000 series.

If you were me....(Core 2 Duo, MOBO DDR2 ram...1000w power, HD 6870, 500+ GB SSD....)
with $600.....what CPU, mobo, and ram you will get?(Or maybe just mobo and CPU? Often good deal on ram, right>???)

Dam....6 years ago I can build my own computer and now I were like a blind person....no idea where to go and what to do= =:P:P

TheGeneralCS 02-08-2013 08:17 PM

I am tempted to upgrade from my 8120, think Ill wait for next upgrade

BestJinjo 02-08-2013 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarbo (Post 57463000)
Ugh that video is a joke and he is using that garbage xsplit a notoriosuly badly optimized streaming software without even telling you his settings. But yeah buying a cheaper amd and spending money on a better gpu can be a better option for some people.

There are specific gaming genres like MMOs and strategy games (WOW, Guild Wars 2, Starcraft 2, Shogun 2), and games used on outdated engines that are only dual-threaded (Skyrim) that can be CPU limited on the AMD CPUs assuming your GPU is fast enough. However, for the majority of gamers, you'd need to have a GPU faster than GTX670 if you are gaming at 1920x1080 4AA before you run into a CPU bottleneck:

http://pctuning.tyden.cz/hardware...7?start=16

I agree with you that it's way better to get a $154 FX8320 and a $360 HD7970/GTX670 than to get an i7 3770K $325 and a $200 HD7870/GTX660 if gaming.

The i5 3570K isn't that much though.

Rtard 02-08-2013 08:37 PM

This seems like a good deal, but I dont know one person who wouldn't rather just buy the Intel 3570k for $189 at Microcenter and get $50 off a motherboard as well. The 3570k utterly destroys this cpu in most tasks. The FX 8320 IS better in synthetic benchmarks I guess, but holy hell if you are into gaming for example:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Pr...698?vs=701

the 3570k is like 20-30% faster. Oh, and the 3570k can easily achieve a 30% overclock if you feel like buying an aftermarket cooler.

soarwitheagles 02-08-2013 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TH0R (Post 57449606)
No need to read any further... stop thread crapping ya troll, this CPU is excellent for the price and is future proof as well. :nod:

Intel's propaganda machine is strong, they have paid bashers all over the place, even on AMD finance related message boards. I call them Intards. :lol:



Exactly, well said! :nod:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rtard (Post 57465600)
This seems like a good deal, but I dont know one person who wouldn't rather just buy the Intel 3570k for $189 at Microcenter and get $50 off a motherboard as well. The 3570k utterly destroys this cpu in most tasks. The FX 8320 IS better in synthetic benchmarks I guess, but holy hell if you are into gaming for example:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Pr...698?vs=701

the 3570k is like 20-30% faster. Oh, and the 3570k can easily achieve a 30% overclock if you feel like buying an aftermarket cooler.

Rtard, nice post and nice truth...

Geez...finally someone who knows the truth and isn't afraid to tell it like it is.

Rtard, be careful...you just kicked a hornet's nest of AMD fanboys...and ThOr is the queen bee!

I can already here em'...Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Good job in insulting their LACK of intelligence!

Soar

doxology 02-08-2013 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rtard (Post 57465600)
This seems like a good deal, but I dont know one person who wouldn't rather just buy the Intel 3570k for $189 at Microcenter and get $50 off a motherboard as well. The 3570k utterly destroys this cpu in most tasks. The FX 8320 IS better in synthetic benchmarks I guess, but holy hell if you are into gaming for example:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Pr...698?vs=701

the 3570k is like 20-30% faster. Oh, and the 3570k can easily achieve a 30% overclock if you feel like buying an aftermarket cooler.

well not everyone has a microcenter. i live in a capital city of a state and we have no microcenter or frys electronics. so people shouldn't assume everyone has access to one or both of them, something that happens frequently on tech deals on slickdeals.

at $150 this is the same price as the top end core i3. sure power consumption is worse.

also if you aren't already on the bandwagon with intel the ivy bridge socket is a dead end and will be dead in a few months. AMD is sticking with AM3+ i believe through steamroller for what its worth.

kennyminot 02-08-2013 09:50 PM

Holy crap. This CPU has more cores than I have holes in my body. (Think about it! I didn't!)

Rtard 02-09-2013 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doxology (Post 57466674)
well not everyone has a microcenter. i live in a capital city of a state and we have no microcenter or frys e. Alao,ctronics. so people shouldn't assume everyone has access to one or both of them, something that happens frequently on tech deals on slickdeals.

at $150 this is the same price as the top end core i3. sure power consumption is worse.

also if you aren't already on the bandwagon with intel the ivy bridge socket is a dead end and will be dead in a few months. AMD is sticking with AM3+ i believe through steamroller for what its worth.

True, but you can order online and have them ship it. Also, sockets don't matter with Intel, as they update them like every 3 months. Also, by the time you upgrade a CPU, you are absolutely going to want to upgrade your motherboard as well, at least in my experience.

fredstone 02-09-2013 04:43 AM

too bad is really a 4-core and $179 IB i5 and i7 murder it in gaming

step in the right direction though

just by fab process intel uses much much less power and heat as well

satanslover 02-09-2013 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rtard (Post 57465600)
This seems like a good deal, but I dont know one person who wouldn't rather just buy the Intel 3570k for $189 at Microcenter and get $50 off a motherboard as well. The 3570k utterly destroys this cpu in most tasks. The FX 8320 IS better in synthetic benchmarks I guess, but holy hell if you are into gaming for example:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Pr...698?vs=701

the 3570k is like 20-30% faster. Oh, and the 3570k can easily achieve a 30% overclock if you feel like buying an aftermarket cooler.

LOL, what's a "non-synthetic" benchmark? Do they watch ordinary people use their computer to see how fast they work?

Fact is that this processor slays the i7 in multithreading. Although gaming is talked about a lot here, it's not what most people use computers for and you have to ask yourself, if multithread performance isn't important to you, why pay for all these cores? Two should be enough. If you're going to pay for cores and use them, the this processor is great value. It's like half the cost of the i7. Quoting a B&M deal that is available to like 5% of people as the price benchmark is a joke.

doxology 02-09-2013 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rtard (Post 57469010)
True, but you can order online and have them ship it. Also, sockets don't matter with Intel, as they update them like every 3 months. Also, by the time you upgrade a CPU, you are absolutely going to want to upgrade your motherboard as well, at least in my experience.

frys and especially microcenter rarely make their deals available online. things haven't changed that much lately to have a huge need to upgrade motherboards. feature wise intel isn't really going to offer anything new with their new socket feature wise that they don't already offer on their current boards.

and for those saying it isn't really an 8 core it has 8 cores but just shares resources. it isn't like hyperthreading. you get zero help from hyperthreading in games, in fact it often makes it slower so most gamers disable it. if you program for 8 cores for this cpu you get the benefit of 8 cores.

sushiserv 02-09-2013 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TH0R (Post 57447928)
I'm still rocking an AMD Phenom II X4 940 @ 3.5 ghz here on my all-AMD rig. :cool:
Great deal for an awesome CPU! OP repped and 2 mighty thumbs up! :nod:

I'm still rocking a Phenom 965... Saul Goodman:D

Rtard 02-09-2013 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by satanslover (Post 57469244)
LOL, what's a "non-synthetic" benchmark? Do they watch ordinary people use their computer to see how fast they work?

Fact is that this processor slays the i7 in multithreading. Although gaming is talked about a lot here, it's not what most people use computers for and you have to ask yourself, if multithread performance isn't important to you, why pay for all these cores? Two should be enough. If you're going to pay for cores and use them, the this processor is great value. It's like half the cost of the i7. Quoting a B&M deal that is available to like 5% of people as the price benchmark is a joke.

A non synthetic benchmark is timing a rar file being created or unpacked. Its testing the FPS during gaming. Its real life tests. Its not testing the theoretical maximum speed of the L2 cache or some nonsense and then adding up all of those numbers to meet some score. Most "benchmarks" are synthetic in nature.

CruzImperial 02-09-2013 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kennyminot (Post 57466716)
Holy crap. This CPU has more cores than I have holes in my body. (Think about it! I didn't!)

You obviously don't have any piercings then. Or are a male, or both.

TH0R 02-09-2013 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TH0R (Post 57449606)
Intel's propaganda machine is strong, they have paid bashers all over the place, even on AMD finance related message boards. I call them Intards. :lol:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rtard (Post 57465600)
This seems like a good deal, but I dont know one person who wouldn't rather just buy the Intel 3570k

Quote:

Originally Posted by soarwitheagles (Post 57466504)
Rtard, nice post

Oh the irony! Intards, Rtards, and swimwithfishies... or all rolled into one?
The latter being full of mercury or smacked by the fish-n-pic? :lol:

Ignore the threadcrappers and intard ladyboyfans, the fact that they're here in an AMD thread trying so hard to bash the product shows you what a fantastic deal this is. :nod:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaVeYbRaT (Post 57462176)
This is a fantastic deal on a great cpu. Can't beat an 8-core cpu for only $149!
I've heard that Microcenter has matched the cpu price AND you get $50 off any motherboard!!
So those that have a Microcenter nearby makes this an even sweeter deal!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by junhao123 (Post 57453656)
Check the Phoronix benches. What you say is true, but an the FX 8-core chips still outperform their Intel counterparts in multi-threading heavy tasks.
Their cores are still more true than Intel HT.
However, yes, for consumer usage the above does not apply.

Quote:

Originally Posted by satanslover (Post 57469244)
Fact is that this processor slays the i7 in multithreading... this processor is great value. It's like half the cost of the i7.

Exactly.

TH0R 02-09-2013 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NJMaster (Post 57458672)
Guys, the difference between Intel's vs AMD's new architecture releases is that Intel was able to make steady improvement in both CPU & GPU performances.

Actually, AMD's APU's utterly destroy Intel's integrated graphics.

Tarbo 02-09-2013 01:47 PM

So do these new AMD cpus really perform the same (bad) as the Phenom quad cores for dual core gaming or whatever? I used a 955 BE OC'd @ 4ghz for 3+ years and I hated the performance for gaming, and video editing, encoding, streaming etc. so I went with an i7 at MC for $220 + $100 mobo. I still have the same gpu but gaming overall even on these old dual core optimized games had a HUGE increase in performance with my new cpu. Overall Starcraft 2 performance increased so much. Metro 2033 didn't run like crap at 1080p with DX11 on. A game like Planetside 2 ran a thousand times better with an i7. I was so happy with the increased gaming performance that I bought a $200 ssd instead of upgrading my aging ati 5850 a few weeks ago.

imabored 02-09-2013 02:59 PM

can anyone recommend a decent motherboard for this? build is mainly going to be used for photoshop/ picture editing. most likley no OC

SDRebel 02-09-2013 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rtard (Post 57465600)
This seems like a good deal, but I dont know one person who wouldn't rather just buy the Intel 3570k for $189 at Microcenter and get $50 off a motherboard as well. The 3570k utterly destroys this cpu in most tasks. The FX 8320 IS better in synthetic benchmarks I guess, but holy hell if you are into gaming for example:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Pr...698?vs=701

the 3570k is like 20-30% faster. Oh, and the 3570k can easily achieve a 30% overclock if you feel like buying an aftermarket cooler.

First of all, not everyone has the time to play hours and hours playing games so that is not a concern but performance in general is.
Second, the 3570k with a similar board is going to be at least 20% more expensive.
Third, with Intel changing sockets so often, this may last you longer

SDRebel 02-09-2013 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imabored (Post 57476442)
can anyone recommend a decent motherboard for this? build is mainly going to be used for photoshop/ picture editing. most likley no OC

I'd recommend one of the 970 chipset mobos. Read good things about the Asrock extreme4.
Good thing about the 970 and up (990) is that they have all the bells and whistles

Rtard 02-09-2013 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TH0R (Post 57474882)
Oh the irony! Intards, Rtards, and swimwithfishies... or all rolledwho is thinking of spending money on this CPU and gaming with it should look bat.to one?
The latter being full of mercury or smacked by the fish-n-pic? :lol:

Ignore the threadcrappers and intard ladyboyfans, the fact that they're here in an AMD thread trying so hard to bash the product shows you what a fantastic deal this is. :nod:





Exactly.

I don't know wtf you are talking about with all of that nonsense, but this is all anyone who is thinking about buying this CPU for gaming should look at:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/639...0-tested/5

Its not pretty. This CPU is great for multithreaded applications, and if you are going to use the CPU SOLELY for those, then its a great buy. If you are trying to save money on a CPU to spend it on a GPU instead, its a complete waste due to how poorly this CPU does in most games.

Rtard 02-09-2013 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDRebel (Post 57476696)
First of all, not everyone has the time to play hours and hours playing games so that is not a concern but performance in general is.
Second, the 3570k with a similar board is going to be at least 20% more expensive.
Third, with Intel changing sockets so often, this may last you longer


Maybe, but I absolutely spent 280 dollars for the 3570k and a ridiculously nice Gigabyte UD5H motherboard. If ridiculously nice AMD motherboards go for 75 dollars regularly, then you would be correct about the 20% figure.

Looking over at new egg, there certainly seems to be a ton of super inexpensive motherboards available for AMD. Not a bad budget option at all then if you are not into gaming.

soarwitheagles 02-09-2013 04:01 PM

2 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rtard (Post 57476784)
I don't know wtf you are talking about with all of that nonsense, but this is all anyone who is thinking about buying this CPU for gaming should look at:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/639...0-tested/5

Its not pretty. This CPU is great for multithreaded applications, and if you are going to use the CPU SOLELY for those, then its a great buy. If you are trying to save money on a CPU to spend it on a GPU instead, its a complete waste due to how poorly this CPU does in most games.

Rtard,

ThOr has no clue what he is talking about and most of his assertions are based upon self deception, total delusion and/or wishful thinking. He is obviously an AMD fanboy that refuses to face the facts and clear benchmarks. I recommend just ignoring him. The more he talks, the more obvious his gross ignorance reveals itself.

Let him go on in his delusion. Anyone with half a mind can already see he is either mentally ill or not all there.

I only wish I didn't rush into purchasing and building my AMD FX 8350 just before the Microsoft deals ended at the end of last month. I already have an Intel i3-3570 with the ASRock Z77 Extreme 4, and I am totally happy with it [see my pic]. BTW, I was able to purchase the brand new Intel i5-3570 for only $77 after I sold all the rebated items I picked up with it at Frys.

With this AMD 8350, I just wanted to build a back up rig just in case [oh, I also wanted a rig that could run 8 home security video cams], and now I realize I should have simply gone with my left over Intel i5-2500k instead of the AMD 8350. My mistake was I was in a hurry, did not do my homework good enough, and procrastinated too long to pick up a decent MB for the 2500k before the MS deadline.

I learned my lesson.

I plan now on ignoring Th0r, otherwise it is feeding an ignorant troll that is doing its very best to stir up negative feelings in people who are simply stating the truth.

Rtard, thanks for posting the info you did. I read most of those benchmarks and comparison charts. It showed me that given my computing needs, I should have simply stuck with Intel.

Have a good one and don't feed the trolls!

Soar

BargainBob 02-09-2013 06:01 PM

8 cores ??? What are you kidding me ???

pokymon 02-09-2013 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BargainBob (Post 57479262)
8 cores ??? What are you kidding me ???

Isn't this CPU 8 cores?

kennyminot 02-09-2013 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CruzImperial (Post 57474288)
You obviously don't have any piercings then. Or are a male, or both.

I was born with as many holes as I'll ever have. If God wanted me to have more holes, he would have drilled them in there with his holy hands.

TL/DR: Male. No piercings.

payLittle 02-10-2013 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrimsonPride88 (Post 57446024)
You're entitled to the warranty if the product fails. Lying to take money from the company when the product has not failed is most definitely stealing.

I agree. If everyone followed that principal microcenter would be out of business. And over clocking a CPU really hard and then claiming a warranty on it is obnoxious. Thats like constantly redlining a car all the time and then expecting it to run like new at 60k miles.

payLittle 02-10-2013 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rtard (Post 57476824)
Maybe, but I absolutely spent 280 dollars for the 3570k and a ridiculously nice Gigabyte UD5H motherboard. If ridiculously nice AMD motherboards go for 75 dollars regularly, then you would be correct about the 20% figure.

Looking over at new egg, there certainly seems to be a ton of super inexpensive motherboards available for AMD. Not a bad budget option at all then if you are not into gaming.

Like he said, that's at least 20% more. You can get an alright AMD board for $60-70.

Aitrus 02-10-2013 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soarwitheagles (Post 57449146)
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


This is true. In fact when I built a new machine a bit ago this is what stopped me from purchasing the FX series at Microcenter with their Processor/Free or discounted board combos.

All of the FX are not true "physical" quad/hex/or octa cores. I went with the Phenom X6 which outperforms some of the FX processors in benchmarking tests. I'm sure this particular processor would beat mine. I was told by many people that the prior line Phenom II performs better than FX. Not sure if true in all cases.

Cozmo85 02-10-2013 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soarwitheagles (Post 57477348)
Rtard,

ThOr has no clue what he is talking about and most of his assertions are based upon self deception, total delusion and/or wishful thinking. He is obviously an AMD fanboy that refuses to face the facts and clear benchmarks. I recommend just ignoring him. The more he talks, the more obvious his gross ignorance reveals itself.

Let him go on in his delusion. Anyone with half a mind can already see he is either mentally ill or not all there.

I only wish I didn't rush into purchasing and building my AMD FX 8350 just before the Microsoft deals ended at the end of last month. I already have an Intel i3-3570 with the ASRock Z77 Extreme 4, and I am totally happy with it [see my pic]. BTW, I was able to purchase the brand new Intel i5-3570 for only $77 after I sold all the rebated items I picked up with it at Frys.

With this AMD 8350, I just wanted to build a back up rig just in case [oh, I also wanted a rig that could run 8 home security video cams], and now I realize I should have simply gone with my left over Intel i5-2500k instead of the AMD 8350. My mistake was I was in a hurry, did not do my homework good enough, and procrastinated too long to pick up a decent MB for the 2500k before the MS deadline.

I learned my lesson.

I plan now on ignoring Th0r, otherwise it is feeding an ignorant troll that is doing its very best to stir up negative feelings in people who are simply stating the truth.

Rtard, thanks for posting the info you did. I read most of those benchmarks and comparison charts. It showed me that given my computing needs, I should have simply stuck with Intel.

Have a good one and don't feed the trolls!

Soar


Why do you have so many silly fans, especially the one on the bottom.

brbubba 02-11-2013 08:37 AM

Anyone have any success running this in an 890 series AM3+ mobo? Mine shows full support for 95W and 125W Bulldozers but not Piledriver. Didn't realize this before I bit the bullet, but from what I'm reading there's been some success with these mobos and piledriver even without official BIOS support. So if I do get it to work with my mobo, is there any disadvantage that anyone can think of to not having it fully supported in BIOS?

sr71 02-11-2013 10:31 AM

MSI 890GXM-65 Motherboard is listed among folks who've had it work.
FWIW

imabored 02-11-2013 07:22 PM

don't know if my order will ship but I just purchased this about 10 minutes ago. Not sure how it worked but it is probably because I had the cpu in my cart and the code was entered yesterday when the deal was still live and my browser/page was still up and it let me checkout with the discounted price.

sd444 02-11-2013 07:30 PM

I see the intel circle jerk found its way here.

kennyminot 02-12-2013 04:32 AM

Look: unless you want to run your games at 8000x9000 resolution with super mega high ultrablaster settings, I'm pretty sure this processor is going to be just fine. All these debates are mostly about arcane issues. Personally, I ended up going with an i5 for my build, but if I had snagged an awesome deal on an AMD processor, I probably would have just went with it and never would have noticed the difference.

I have a 3.1ghz i5 with an old ATI Radeon 5700 series. I'm not always able to turn up my games to the highest settings, but they all play just fine - in fact, I'm even able to play them with my three monitor Eyefinity setup. So unless you're planning on hooking up six monitors to your computer and are obsessed with running games at the highest possible resolution, I personally wouldn't worry too much. This AMD/Intel dust-up is like the eternal Android/Apple debates, where the operating systems are basically the same but people insist that they are hugely different. The average user isn't going to be able to tell the difference between an AMD and an Intel processor.

brbubba 02-15-2013 05:20 PM

Got the 8320, installed, booted, was working ok on my AsRock 890GX Pro3 until I cranked Boinc on all cores and GPU and it had a pretty fast shutdown. Don't know yet if it was thermal or something else. But at least the CPU works in the 890 board!!!

EDIT: Looks like I was overclocked out of the gate at 3.7Ghz, don't quite know why. Downclocked to normal 3.5Ghz w/ stock fan. Running stress test, all cores pegged, with AMD Overdrive utility and it seems stable now at 49 degrees C without the fan sounding like a jet engine.

Uhhhh yeah, I think it's my PSU. Might have finally caught up to me. Did 20 minutes with all 8 cores pegged, perfect, very acceptable temps, etc. Did Boinc again with GPU and all 8 cores and after about 2 minutes... bam, shut off again.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:41 PM.


1999-2014