FX-8350 Benchmarks and review

Faethon said:
+1

Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Hard to see, the dark side is. :D
Click to expand...

Most of my machines are AMD except an old P35 board with dual core Pentium.

I've found issues in ALL of the main vendors boards/products (gigabyte, msi, asrock, asus) at one time or another in the past 5 years. All 4 vendors have told me to "install windows" (When I found the issue in Linux). I don't expect the remaining companies to be any better (foxconn? biostar?) which mean my next build is probably going to be an intel cpu & intel made board.

Intel has actually fixed bios issues due to issues found in Linux.
 
Faethon said:
+1

Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Hard to see, the dark side is. :D
Click to expand...

I just love the bout of white knighting we're seeing in this thread! Only, I rarely see it applied so aggressively to a CPU COMPANY :D

O good knight, save us from the evil Lord Intel, for he forces upon us the shackles of superior performance, and he leads us into temptation with promises of performance-per-watt!

If you don't lead us to the divine light of AMD, how will we ever find our way out of the veil of darkness?

Never give up brave knight, for if you buy every AMD chip you can (and brag about it wherever possible), YOU can single-handedly save the company of AMD from certain doom!
 
defaultluser said:
I just love the bout of white knighting we're seeing in this thread! Only, I rarely see it applied so aggressively to a CPU COMPANY :D

O good knight, save us from the evil Lord Intel, for he forces upon us the shackles of superior performance, and he leads us into temptation with promises of performance-per-watt!

If you don't lead us to the divine light of AMD, how will we ever find our way out of the veil of darkness?

Never give up brave knight, for if you buy every AMD chip you can (and brag about it wherever possible), YOU can single-handedly save the company of AMD from certain doom!
Click to expand...

Twisted by the Dark Side young defaultuser has become. Size matters not.
 
defaultluser said:
I just love the bout of white knighting we're seeing in this thread! Only, I rarely see it applied so aggressively to a CPU COMPANY :D

O good knight, save us from the evil Lord Intel, for he forces upon us the shackles of superior performance, and he leads us into temptation with promises of performance-per-watt!

If you don't lead us to the divine light of AMD, how will we ever find our way out of the veil of darkness?

Never give up brave knight, for if you buy every AMD chip you can (and brag about it wherever possible), YOU can single-handedly save the company of AMD from certain doom!
Click to expand...

Well,

Admittedly Intel is a pretty shitty company. They have a history full of marketplace abuse, and unethical behaviors.

I would prefer to vote with my wallet and not give them any of my money and only buy AMD, but unfortunately, none of AMD's products are currently sufficient for my needs :(

So I find myself stuck buying Intel products. :(
 
I also won one of these at the AMD event. But I used the Motherboard and quadcore instead and sold this 8350. Thanks Texanmann for the thread.

Here's with the new Quad core they gave away and mobo.

KQGH4.png
 
defaultluser said:
I just love the bout of white knighting we're seeing in this thread! Only, I rarely see it applied so aggressively to a CPU COMPANY :D

O good knight, save us from the evil Lord Intel, for he forces upon us the shackles of superior performance, and he leads us into temptation with promises of performance-per-watt!

If you don't lead us to the divine light of AMD, how will we ever find our way out of the veil of darkness?

Never give up brave knight, for if you buy every AMD chip you can (and brag about it wherever possible), YOU can single-handedly save the company of AMD from certain doom!
Click to expand...

I just like buying their products as I like rooting for the underdog as long as it's a close race. As far as Bulldozer goes I can run every program that the Intel system run with ease so I don't feel as if I am obligated to buy Intel. If AMD left the CPU market it would be a good thing as they just aren't making money. It makes 0 sense for them to continue in a bad business. That's reality.

At the rate of new challenging software development goes our 2500k's and 8120's will be viable for another 5 - 7 years. By then maybe someone will step up and take their place. If not I guess I'll get an Intel chip.
 
Zarathustra[H];1039248241 said:
Well,

Admittedly Intel is a pretty shitty company. They have a history full of marketplace abuse, and unethical behaviors.

I would prefer to vote with my wallet and not give them any of my money and only buy AMD, but unfortunately, none of AMD's products are currently sufficient for my needs :(

So I find myself stuck buying Intel products. :(
Click to expand...

I see comments like this all the time and frankly i dont understand it. Ive never thought, gee i wish i had an intel processor so i could perform this certain task ... ?

I am sitting on a core i7 system right now, and i dont see any difference compared to any of my amd systems... am i missing something ?
 
Zarathustra[H];1039248241 said:
Well,

Admittedly Intel is a pretty shitty company. They have a history full of marketplace abuse, and unethical behaviors.

I would prefer to vote with my wallet and not give them any of my money and only buy AMD, but unfortunately, none of AMD's products are currently sufficient for my needs :(

So I find myself stuck buying Intel products. :(
Click to expand...
Let me get this through everyone's thickheaded attitudes on [H]ardForum here, ok?

If you can still do 'X' on an Intel system, you can DEFINITELY still do it on an AMD system.

Same thing with games and so on.

It DOES NOT MATTER what system you do the following, either an AMD or Intel processor will still run them well enough for any average person to a PC gamer:
  • Email
  • Productivity software
  • Video encoding
  • Audio editing and recording
  • Video transcoding
  • PC games (OpenGL, DX9, DX10, DX11)
  • 3D movies
  • Bluray playback
  • DVD playback
  • Flash games
  • 3D rendering
  • Photo editing
  • Desktop publishing
  • Online video streaming
  • Web browsing
  • Music playback
  • Music encoding
  • IM chatting
  • Console emulation
  • Virtual machines
  • Programming
  • Blogging
You can still do ALL THAT REGARDLESS WHAT PROCESSOR IS IN YOUR SYSTEM!

It does not matter if you use an AMD or Intel processor. Even if an Intel processor does it better than AMD, an AMD processor can still run it just as well.

Get that through your stubborn heads everyone!
Does 10 to 15 FPS difference in a game at above 40 FPS going to kill you?

Does 2000 to 5000 point difference in 3DMark going to stop you from buying one processor over another?

Does 5 to 20 extra seconds in encoding going to kill your patience?

NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT!​
Both an AMD and Intel-based system will do everything you can possibly do on a computer regardless of brand.

Not EVERYONE is a computer enthusiast in the real world outside this forum. The majority of computer users are just average computer users who will occasionally game here and there. But, a few FPS difference in a game that's already running smooth enough above 30 or 40 FPS is not going to deter them from buying an AMD system over an Intel system.
 
Forceman said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

The game is still running smoothly enough.

I can understand with multi-GPU systems, you'll need a very good processor to feed multiple video cards. Regardless, either processor brand will still do that same job.

Not every computer gamer is like you though.
 
I'm sorry, but for many people 40 FPS is not "smoothly enough".

Is the AMD system good enough for 90% of the population? Sure, but this is a forum for the other 10%.
 
It should be noted that a number of people buy processors for things other than gaming. I use my system mostly for photo and video editing/encoding and that's one area where bulldozer actually did well (better than thuban at stock). I'm quite looking forward to piledriver for an upgrade from my phenom 2.
 
Forceman said:
I'm sorry, but for many people 40 FPS is not "smoothly enough".

Is the AMD system good enough for 90% of the population? Sure, but this is a forum for the other 10%.
Click to expand...

The 10% on [H] usually lurk in a few forums, and mainly in the video card forums or gaming forums.

But, I'm talking about a wider variety of computer users out there that are NOT the 10% you speak of.

And, this forum may be catered to overclockers and enthusiasts, but look at the forums here, including the various posts posted here. Not everything is about enthusiasts, and this forum gets a wide variety of computer users. And, these computer users feel intimidated by people like you just asking for general advice or help.

The 10% does not make up the majority of the computer processor market, and the 90% also exist on this forum regardless of its primary focus.

Stop being so stubborn or thickheaded. There are more kinds of computer users than you out there, and these people still visit these forums. You can't ask them to stop coming to these forums. They have every right to be here, and they have every right to buy whatever processor or product that'll suit their needs even if it's not going to be about overclocking or getting 100 FPS in 'X' game-thats-a-console-port.

Darakian said:
It should be noted that a number of people buy processors for things other than gaming. I use my system mostly for photo and video editing/encoding and that's one area where bulldozer actually did well (better than thuban at stock). I'm quite looking forward to piledriver for an upgrade from my phenom 2.
Click to expand...

Exactly. A number of people are not gaming on their PC all the time. They do other things on it.
 
octoberasian said:
Let me get this through everyone's thickheaded attitudes on [H]ardForum here, ok?

If you can still do 'X' on an Intel system, you can DEFINITELY still do it on an AMD system.

Same thing with games and so on.

It DOES NOT MATTER what system you do the following, either an AMD or Intel processor will still run them well enough for any average person to a PC gamer:
  • Email
  • Productivity software
  • Video encoding
  • Audio editing and recording
  • Video transcoding
  • PC games (OpenGL, DX9, DX10, DX11)
  • 3D movies
  • Bluray playback
  • DVD playback
  • Flash games
  • 3D rendering
  • Photo editing
  • Desktop publishing
  • Online video streaming
  • Web browsing
  • Music playback
  • Music encoding
  • IM chatting
  • Console emulation
  • Virtual machines
  • Programming
  • Blogging
You can still do ALL THAT REGARDLESS WHAT PROCESSOR IS IN YOUR SYSTEM!

It does not matter if you use an AMD or Intel processor. Even if an Intel processor does it better than AMD, an AMD processor can still run it just as well.

Get that through your stubborn heads everyone!
Does 10 to 15 FPS difference in a game at above 40 FPS going to kill you?

Does 2000 to 5000 point difference in 3DMark going to stop you from buying one processor over another?

Does 5 to 20 extra seconds in encoding going to kill your patience?

NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT!​
Both an AMD and Intel-based system will do everything you can possibly do on a computer regardless of brand.

Not EVERYONE is a computer enthusiast in the real world outside this forum. The majority of computer users are just average computer users who will occasionally game here and there. But, a few FPS difference in a game that's already running smooth enough above 30 or 40 FPS is not going to deter them from buying an AMD system over an Intel system.
Click to expand...

For most people no.

I'm picky though.

For every multiplayer game I play, I insist the frame NEVER drop below 60fps, not even fir a few seconds.

The main reason I bought an Intel CPU Was for Red Orchestra 2. (I really needed 4 fast cores, not the hexacore with HT, a 2500k would likely have been sufficient, but I was being silly and went a little overboard.)

Recent builds of the game are more efficient at CPU usage, but at the time, about a year ago, it was very very per core speed dependent. I had bought a 990FX system last summer with a 1090T as a temporary CPU waiting for Bulldozer. I had it overclocked to 4.1 Ghz, but even at that speed it was CPU limited on my dual Radeon 6970's. During intense scenes with falling artillery on 64 player servers it was not uncommon for my frame rate to drop to 25, and it was unaffected by resolution and video quality settings, so I knew it was the CPU.

When bulldozer was released and I learned that even at max OC it wouldn't get me much if any improvement over my 1090T I was disillusioned for a few weeks and then splurged on my 3930k.

instantly the game ran smoothly, and I was happy. I should have saved some cash and gone with a 2500k, but I was concerned about the number of PCIe lanes feeding my dual 6970s.

Anyway, I'd be willing and would prefer to use an AMD CPU that was slower than the competition as long as it dint impact negatively the games and programs I use. Right Now that isn't the case.

RO2 (pretty much the only game I play) has gotten some optimizations and improvements since then, but based on my estimations there is still no AMD CPU on the market, even at max OC that will guarantee me constant 60+ FPS.
 
Zarathustra[H];1039248633 said:
For most people no.

I'm picky though.

For every multiplayer game I play, I insist the frame NEVER drop below 60fps, not even fir a few seconds.

The main reason I bought an Intel CPU Was for Red Orchestra 2. (I really needed 4 fast cores, not the hexacore with HT, a 2500k would likely have been sufficient, but I was being silly and went a little overboard.)

Recent builds of the game are more efficient at CPU usage, but at the time, about a year ago, it was very very per core speed dependent. I had bought a 990FX system last summer with a 1090T as a temporary CPU waiting for Bulldozer. I had it overclocked to 4.1 Ghz, but even at that speed it was CPU limited on my dual Radeon 6970's. During intense scenes with falling artillery on 64 player servers it was not uncommon for my frame rate to drop to 25, and it was unaffected by resolution and video quality settings, so I knew it was the CPU.

When bulldozer was released and I learned that even at max OC it wouldn't get me much if any improvement over my 1090T I was disillusioned for a few weeks and then splurged on my 3930k.

instantly the game ran smoothly, and I was happy. I should have saved some cash and gone with a 2500k, but I was concerned about the number of PCIe lanes feeding my dual 6970s.

Anyway, I'd be willing and would prefer to use an AMD CPU that was slower than the competition as long as it dint impact negatively the games and programs I use. Right Now that isn't the case.

RO2 (pretty much the only game I play) has gotten some optimizations and improvements since then, but based on my estimations there is still no AMD CPU on the market, even at max OC that will guarantee me constant 60+ FPS.
Click to expand...

Thus, you have valid reasons to go Intel.

My problem lately is that posters here are lambasting others in getting an AMD processor over an Intel processor. I understand that Intel is better than AMD, but no one should in their right mind push someone or coerce someone into getting something they cannot feasibly afford.

Like someone said here: An AMD AM3+ processor is a drop-in replacement. If he went Intel, he'd have to spend around $500-plus for an upgrade.

Does it make sense for posters here to make the decisions of another person? NO.

That's their choice, that's your choice, and no one should be insulted for their own personal decisions. In the end, for any person or that so-called "90%", either an AMD or Intel processor will do the job just fine. For people like your or Forceman above, yeah Intel would be better choice. But, in the end, it's still your choice, not someone else's decision.
 
sigh more of the same with the Amd processor threads here.

Amd's Current fastest processor is the 8150. Not thuban, While thuban is certainly a decent cpu, even in single thread the FX 8150 out paces it. No not clock for clock. In fact it takes my fx 4.950ghz to match a thuban at 4.1ghz in single thread. However Bulldozer does clock higher has more cache thus is faster in most games even single threaded ones.

as for Amd vs Intel. It really doesn't matter, its all about price points. If a 150$ Amd Cpu Beats a 150$ Intel cpu in over 50% of the benchmarks well then the Amd cpu is better. Course other things come in to factor such as IGP, and power consumption.

Anyways Amd will not likely be in the extremist rigs until at the very least SteamRoller, where they have made many changes, not just tweaks. That remains to be seen though, so for now Intel is on top, and Amd must play the price points game.
 
octoberasian said:
Thus, you have valid reasons to go Intel.

My problem lately is that posters here are lambasting others in getting an AMD processor over an Intel processor. I understand that Intel is better than AMD, but no one should in their right mind push someone or coerce someone into getting something they cannot feasibly afford.

Like someone said here: An AMD AM3+ processor is a drop-in replacement. If he went Intel, he'd have to spend around $500-plus for an upgrade.

Does it make sense for posters here to make the decisions of another person? NO.

That's their choice, that's your choice, and no one should be insulted for their own personal decisions. In the end, for any person or that so-called "90%", either an AMD or Intel processor will do the job just fine. For people like your or Forceman above, yeah Intel would be better choice. But, in the end, it's still your choice, not someone else's decision.
Click to expand...


I agree.

If someone were starting from scratch today and they asked for my recommendation, I'd recommend an Intel CPU to pretty much everyone (though there are a few notable exceptions, AMD APU's for instance are better than Intel's integrated units for HTPC duty, unless they plan on using discrete graphics, which ups the cost, and AMD's FX CPU's are fantastic for people experimenting with virtualization because of their many cores and IOMMU that just works.)

If someone already had a compatible motherboard and not much cash to spend, a new AMD CPU becomes easier to recommend.
 
Hi Texanman,

good to know you got a 8350 before anybody

A personal request if you wouldnt mind....

download ubuntu 12.04 and install it . Install hardinfo from software centre and run refresh CPU cryptohash till you get the highest possible value.. post the other benches in that category also............
If its asking too much ignore it. Just get your hands on AIDA 64 and paste the benches here.

if the good gets better will get this chip and slot in my 1090t in 880gm usb3 mobo for htpc+NAS.

Thank you.

My rig:
x6 1090t with 4 cores enabled @1.3375v 3.7ghz
ifx 14 with push pull fans+arctic silver 5
Asrock 970 extreme4 am3+ mobo 4+1 phase
16gb 1600mhz gskill sniper 9-8-8-24
zalman 240gb sata3.0 ssd
sapphire 6790 1 gb gddr5
custom modded athlon64 mid tower( 12 years old) with5 fans
450 watt gold psu
 
Zarathustra[H];1039248633 said:
For most people no.

I'm picky though.

For every multiplayer game I play, I insist the frame NEVER drop below 60fps, not even fir a few seconds.

The main reason I bought an Intel CPU Was for Red Orchestra 2. (I really needed 4 fast cores, not the hexacore with HT, a 2500k would likely have been sufficient, but I was being silly and went a little overboard.)

Recent builds of the game are more efficient at CPU usage, but at the time, about a year ago, it was very very per core speed dependent. I had bought a 990FX system last summer with a 1090T as a temporary CPU waiting for Bulldozer. I had it overclocked to 4.1 Ghz, but even at that speed it was CPU limited on my dual Radeon 6970's. During intense scenes with falling artillery on 64 player servers it was not uncommon for my frame rate to drop to 25, and it was unaffected by resolution and video quality settings, so I knew it was the CPU.

When bulldozer was released and I learned that even at max OC it wouldn't get me much if any improvement over my 1090T I was disillusioned for a few weeks and then splurged on my 3930k.

instantly the game ran smoothly, and I was happy. I should have saved some cash and gone with a 2500k, but I was concerned about the number of PCIe lanes feeding my dual 6970s.

Anyway, I'd be willing and would prefer to use an AMD CPU that was slower than the competition as long as it dint impact negatively the games and programs I use. Right Now that isn't the case.

RO2 (pretty much the only game I play) has gotten some optimizations and improvements since then, but based on my estimations there is still no AMD CPU on the market, even at max OC that will guarantee me constant 60+ FPS.
Click to expand...


In a double sli or crossfire setup, you are correct the frame rate might drop to a level that is noticeable. What percentage of people who buy pc games and even better what percentage of total pc users have a double sli or double crossfire setup. I venture to say it is 1% or less of the total market. So these ridiculously weighted benchmarks and warped evaluations are based on 1% of the market, and we should lie to the other 99%;:
"Don't go AMD" . That is utter drivel. Why should 1% of the marker influence the other 99%, I guess its time for Occupy Intel;!!!!
 
They just gave you a free 8350? No wonder they're going out of business, your doing it wrong AMD XD
 
Xz CJ zX said:
They just gave you a free 8350? No wonder they're going out of business, your doing it wrong AMD XD
Click to expand...

This was a some what large event in Austin ~500-600 people. They gave away about 10 in various raffles. They also gave the first 200 people to sign up a A8-5600k, a nice Gigabyte motherboard and 2x 2gb kingston 1600 sticks. Everyone else got an A8-5600k. Gigabyte and Sapphire were also giving away various items
 
octoberasian said:
Thus, you have valid reasons to go Intel.

My problem lately is that posters here are lambasting others in getting an AMD processor over an Intel processor. I understand that Intel is better than AMD, but no one should in their right mind push someone or coerce someone into getting something they cannot feasibly afford.

Like someone said here: An AMD AM3+ processor is a drop-in replacement. If he went Intel, he'd have to spend around $500-plus for an upgrade.
Click to expand...

This.

So I think it's all settled. Anybody who intends to build a rig to play crappy, single core games should buy a cheap Intel processor, like an i3 or an i5. Just don't give Intel any more than ~$200 max under any circumstances. THEY DON'T NEED THE MONEY! :)

Anybody who plans to do just about anything else should buy an AMD system with a new Piledriver chip, or upgrade to Piledriver if you already have an AM3+ mobo. That way, AMD will get the revenue it needs to bring out Steamroller and hopefully restore balance to competition again. That way, we'll all be able to enjoy reasonable CPU prices going forward. This is called teamwork.
 
Last edited:
os2wiz said:
In a double sli or crossfire setup, you are correct the frame rate might drop to a level that is noticeable. What percentage of people who buy pc games and even better what percentage of total pc users have a double sli or double crossfire setup. I venture to say it is 1% or less of the total market. So these ridiculously weighted benchmarks and warped evaluations are based on 1% of the market, and we should lie to the other 99%;:
"Don't go AMD" . That is utter drivel. Why should 1% of the marker influence the other 99%, I guess its time for Occupy Intel;!!!!
Click to expand...

I have only two comments on this.

1.) The users on this website are not the typical users. We are hardware enthusiasts. I'd obviously recommend different things to my grandmother or neighbor than I would to people here.

2.) The reason I'd recommend and Intel CPU to the typical user today is because they have more headroom. Yeas AMD CPU's are sufficient for most, today. but will a AMD CPU bought today be sufficient in 1-2 years? Not sure, cause we don't know whats coming down the road. I'd rather play it safe and get something with a bit more head room just in case the user winds up using it for something unusually taxing, or software requirements go up significantly in the next couple of years. If I recommended something and later it didn't work for them, I'd feel terrible, especially since there really isn't a cost advantage with AMD anymore.
 
Zarathustra[H];1039249746 said:
2.) The reason I'd recommend and Intel CPU to the typical user today is because they have more headroom. Yeas AMD CPU's are sufficient for most, today. but will a AMD CPU bought today be sufficient in 1-2 years? Not sure, cause we don't know whats coming down the road. I'd rather play it safe and get something with a bit more head room just in case the user winds up using it for something unusually taxing, or software requirements go up significantly in the next couple of years. If I recommended something and later it didn't work for them, I'd feel terrible, especially since there really isn't a cost advantage with AMD anymore.
Click to expand...

I had no problem making a system for a friend which isn't an enthusiast using FM2 mainboard and A10-5800. for general usage.

But gaming I still find it weird the "best way" is to stick to Phenom II unless you only play those games which have decent optimizations.

Money wise i have some problems with the Asus boards (AM3+) they are still way to expensive for the platform all of the others seem to have a better price range.
 
@octoberasian:

I'm not going to requote your horrible rant, but get this through your head: you don't know anyone here. 40+ FPS may matter to some, slightly less encoding time may matter to some, slightly lower temps may matter to some, etc.
 
Clyzm said:
@octoberasian:

I'm not going to requote your horrible rant, but get this through your head: you don't know anyone here. 40+ FPS may matter to some, slightly less encoding time may matter to some, slightly lower temps may matter to some, etc.
Click to expand...

Then stop telling people they've made a terrible choice in their computers, just like with a lot of other similar posters here.

AMD can do the same thing as Intel processors. Everyone is different, I understand that, but does it mean calling some users an idiot or insulting them over a bunch of numbers for choosing AMD over Intel? No.

Sure, Intel beats AMD but it's just numbers.

Numbers AREN'T EVERYTHING!

There are more things to do on a computer than trying to one-up someone in the latest gaming benchmark. And, people use their computers more than just gaming. Those same users also visit these forums!

The world of computing DOES NOT revolve around computer enthusiasts and e-peen overclockers!
 
If you have a PHII, and are wanting a SPEED upgrade, then why would someone want to not get something that is faster? The whole point of upgrading a machine is speed, to get things done faster. Time is money to a lot of people. Intel's stuff is just faster, there isnt another way to look at it. Why spend $200 on an FX-8350 when you can get a 3570K for less?

If you already have an AM3+ it might be worth it, but you could easily put your board and CPU on ebay or the forums, and put that with your spending money, and have a faster Intel system. If you dont want to go through all that, and you are someone who can use more threads over speed per core, then I can see getting a Vishera.

Intel not only offers a clock for clock advantage, but they have things like QuickSync, and Virtue MVP. Its also the only way to get PCIe 3.0 right now. While that doesnt matter 95% of the time, but if you consider game "X" has 10% better minimum frames then a comparable AMD in CPU alone, and if you have a high end graphics setup and super high res, and you benifit about 10% from PCIe 3.0, then thats 20% combined. Thats equal to the difference of someone getting a GTX-660 instead of a GTX-680.

In the last few months I have gotten three seperate 3570K + Z77 combos for $250 or less. Its not hard to shop around for deals.
 
In real world everyday use you will not be able to tell the difference from Intel to AMD. Synthetic benchmarks are just about the numbers.

If you already have an AM3+ motherboard it is a cheap upgrade to go to the 8350 and get the performance boost from it.
 
cfdfireman said:
In real world everyday use you will not be able to tell the difference from Intel to AMD. Synthetic benchmarks are just about the numbers.

If you already have an AM3+ motherboard it is a cheap upgrade to go to the 8350 and get the performance boost from it.
Click to expand...

That. It's cheap, easy, you don't have to do a system reinstall, etc...
 
I've been using this Phenom 1 9950 system for about 4 years, I have held off upgrading for the release of Win 8.

I'm going back and forth between an A10 5800K and a new FX either 4 or 6 core, although i'm building a new system just from a lifecycle standpoint, truth is that this current system is plenty fast enough for daily tasks and is in fact faster than what the average person has.
 
AMD really needs to pull a rabbit out with this one or they arent gonna be around for xmas 2014
I have built amd systems for 12 years it saddens me deeply that my next system will probably need to be intel or perhaps ARM

the rumored sub 200 dollor price on the 8350 might not be enough to save them if the performance is not there
 
Onemoar said:
AMD really needs to pull a rabbit out with this one or they arent gonna be around for xmas 2014
I have built amd systems for 12 years it saddens me deeply that my next system will probably need to be intel or perhaps ARM

the rumored sub 200 dollor price on the 8350 might not be enough to save them if the performance is not there
Click to expand...

I really try not to get involved in this type of shit, but, the only people on the planet who give a great big shit about how far intel is ahead in performance are dorks, like me, that post on forums like this.

My parents, my sister, my ex wife are typical computer users, and they couldn't tell the difference in day to day use between an amd or an intel system.


They don't pay attention to how long it takes to boot a PC up they never really turn off, they don't give a great big damn about whether their games get 60 or 350 fps, so long as they work.

AMD doesn't market itself well, they never have, and intel has market dominance with OEMs and likely won't ever lose it. AMD could literally release something tomorrow twice as fast as the best intel can muster, and it wouldn't register much more than a tiny blip on the radar.

When they had the better hardware, it didn't make a difference, it wouldn't again.

AMD isn't going anywhere. And someone who build a bunch of systems for typical users should be building them as cheaply as they possible can, and that means going with AMD. The end.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top