http://www.overclock3d.net/gfx/artic...105225982l.png

AMD have revised the FX8150 and brought out the Piledriver FX8350. Is it a much-needed improvement?


Continue Reading

What a shame.

Amd please sort your stuff and become competitive again to intel.

Oh, dear.... more AMD fail

I don't think AMD are going to be in the desktop CPU market much longer. They have had a loss of $157 million in earnings and are sacking 15% of their employees. They need to pull something out of the bag to either compete with Ivy or for Haswell next year, other wise I can't see them having a place in the market.

Why did this even get bronze? it sucks...

Because, as we said in the review, if you've already got an AM3+ board, this is the fastest CPU AMD have to offer.

don't say i didn't tell you so 18months ago :P

I have fx 8150 and am very disappointed with it and I was hoping this would be a nice upgrade but apparently not as they just don't provide enough edge over a I5 3570k so it looks like I'm Im going Intel.

that does make sense i'm just peeved that this is all that amd can come back with, as tom said we need the competition...

They should of called it a "PileOfShit" ....

As a long term AMD fan, i love my HD 7970 and the A10-5800K l have just thrown into a media center is outstanding, however l have moved over to a i7 3610QM + GTX 680M in a P170EM and have just ordered the bits for a ITX/i5 3550 + HD 7970. AMD where did you go wrong with the CPU's DUDDDDDDDDEEEEEESSSS!

Regards.

C.

I was expecting amd to make a Bugatti. All they made was Peugeot Hogger.

What a huge let down

LOL

As an AMD-fanboy (GPUs) this is a sad day when I find out that.. yet again, an stock i5-3570K totally outperforms an overclocked FX8350 at 4.8GHz is ridiculous and this only shows AMDs ignorance and how much they don't really care about us performance per dollar people, instead their main focus are for laptops (closed standards and systems). I feel sad for people buying this unit. Thank you Tom and OC3D for all your hard work, review and honest thoughts.

/RzrTrek

http://imageshack.us/a/img521/4661/13768049.png
- Don't buy AMDs lies nor their piles of bull#¤%&! This is why they fail.

Instead they made overcooked spaghetti..

The pricing is still the same as a 3570k, mega confusion.

Even at stock every normal place that matters the 3570k wins it. Unless you are rendering but then the CPU gets held back by crappy ram performance.

Once you overclock the 3570k there is no contest.

They really do seem to be going backwards these days compared to the old Athlon64 days.

As you said in the video,this is bad for us punters.

I don't know if this is AMD's way of casually slipping out of the performance market without crashing and burning....by crashing and burning i mean just stopping altogether and going out like a fart.

I really honestly believe they still have it in them to bring something to intels front door but it almost feels like they don't give a flying shit.

Yes they have the lower market segment by the balls, but is that seriously all they strive for when they have the tools to become what they once where? big money is being made in the portable/home theater segment for AMD but in all honesty this just shows how lazy they have become.

Why have a slice of cake? when you could eat the entire damn thiing?!

so very disappointing.
Next...

airdeano

I'm very worried too now. This ain't good people, this ain't good... Any idea what Intel's going to do with the Haswell release date? Still somewhere around may 2013?

Just watched the review, this has left me so disappointed. Really wanted something from AMD. Like Tom said we need competition otherwise Intel will rape us, mainly because they can. AMD need to get their house in order and fast. Need to step back to the 1090t days and have another breakthrough.
Looks like i'll be selling my 1090t soon before they sell for next to nothing. Never thought i'd say this but it looks like Intel is the only viable option nowadays.
Sad times

could you have gotten a bad chip Tom ? tpu says they did 2400 on the ram without any problems. They even recommended it.

The only thing in this review that stays on my mind is the part of Carmen Electra!! what a good taste Tom!!

The problem with no competion for intel from amd is now intel can put that research money into apu where amd are and 2 years down the line there will not be an option on what you buy. Great for intel charge the earth with the slogan pay the price or play at 600x800


p.s forget the condom if she's in that much of a rush

i wonder if its even worth releasing money wise.

If it weren't for AMD's graphics cards, I would hate AMD to the core (no pun intended).

How is it that they refined the 7970 so drastically (7970GHz edition), but then they can't hardly do anything to their CPU's.

I think they need to stop pussyfooting around with minor tweaks and completely overhaul the module based architecture. It's simply not a viable option.
I wonder, if they put the same money into developing the 1090T and its architecture as they did with Bulldozer/Piledriver, what kind of results we'd see.
Let's hope that companies currently invested into the mobile market, such as Qualcomm and even Apple, start developing their own chips for the desktop/enthusiast market. Maybe, then, Intel shall have some competition.

Such a shame looks like AMD are dead as a cpu provider, and at the rate they are going I can't see how they can remain viable in the market place for much longer as they have all this product that no one wants to buy.
Lets just hope they are making enough money from their graphic cards to keep their doors open cause their latest cards are great.

I think what they need to understand is that we WILL buy new motherboards. They keep continuing with these 700 and something pin sockets... Intel left socket 775 so long ago.

this really depressing, i upgraded my old phenom x4 955 BE to an fx 8150 a few months ago, its not bad but not great but it works for me, i had hoped that AMD would get it together and atleast be able to compete with an i5. i can assume that this kind of performance increase will be the same with the next two amd cpus that will be released. im sure my next rig will be intel, not a fanboy for either side but still kind of a shame to see a company go down hill so fast.

oh dear oh dear...

Would Intel let either of those have an X86 licence(didn't they tell Nv to bugger off when they tried for one?)
Funny how you say that(Just to spin it around):

Looks like AMD may be going ARM and leaving the normal desktop market?

For the right money? If they think they're no real threat? Possibly.
ARM must be doing really well right about now, what with Apple taking out a license for the architecture for the in-house iPhone 5 chip. Nice to see a UK based technology company prosper

Um, Vishera is nothing more than tweaked silicon based on the same basic architecture as Zambezi. And remember that it is built with the same 32 nm SOI fab process. It isn't a shrink, just a minor tweak. Pretty impressive performance gain I would say.

I don't think 'pretty impressive' and 'Pile driver' can be used in the same sentence - not in a positive light, at least.
It's a bit like having a car which blows up every single day. Suddenly, a newer car comes out, and it only blows up every other day. It's an improvement, sure, but it's an improvement on something that's underwhelming, and so it in itself is underwhelming.

I dont understand that much on CPU architecture but I wonder, if AMD cant do the hard stuff, desktop CPUs, how will they make good mobile chips??
And on top of that, what is stoping Intel to just go in and destroy everyone again in mobile, since they can do the best chips in the world atm?

Im really sad about this and honestly I dont really care about AMD because they dont seem to have the right objectives or care in their products. What I would like to see is a new brand getting out some kick ass products, but thinking on the money you need to do it, I dont think it will happend in a near future.

Too bad for us, the consumers.

I look at this in a slightly different way. It's another step in "a" correct direction for AMD. An architectural overhaul and coming out with the 8150, which I also didn't think was that-bad a cpu when you look at it from an existing AMD customer's pov. This 8350 I think is another step, maybe a nudge, in the same direction.

Comparing it to the Intel equiv. of course it falls down, but in my eyes it's still a very decent and capable cpu. Not for workstations..... yet.

Would like to see the cpu only scores for the gaming benchtests. (this is where someone points out I missed that graph)
Would also like to see a Windows 8 bunch of testing, as AMD have made some boasts for that over 7.

AMD, sort out the memory bandwidth, something they used to be champions at. Sort out the power usage. And maybe the next evolution will be that much better again.

Let's keep in mind, just thinking of Intel for a mo, that it took a huge wedge to drag alot of people from the 775 socket, and will take a bigger wedge to move them from the likes of the i7-2600. Justifiable upgrading from the same camp isn't easily done.

For the person buying from scratch, there's no reason to look at the 8350 too closely. If you "ended up" with one in a package, they're not too bad.

all-in-all the Piledriver is a good CPU... for the average gamer/user.

you all have to remember that we (the members) at OC3D are not the average people sat in front of mediocre computers. we are way beyond that

and this offering, from the red corner, can be summed up in one word: "MEH!"

That's a fair comment.

Agree

Although atm, in my intership, Im in front of a crappy iMac from 2009 with 1GB DDR2 memory lol

I feel the same way as Tom. It would be really nice for some competition. Look at the GPU industry for example, From the previous 500 and 6000 series from Nvidia and AMD the new models are an unreal improvement.

1090T's are still cheap - just saying

Guys, if I wanted to buy a six-core processor on the am3+ socket, should I get the FX-6300, or the 6100? The 6300 is not a million miles ahead, it's going to be more expensive at launch and its memory read/write speeds are terrible, so it looks kinda pointless to me. I know an old P2 X6 would be the best option, but I'm struggling to find it.

Why 6 core?
What are you using it for?

Video rendering and compiling maps. I know I won't see a much of a difference between a quad-core and six-core processor in terms of gaming, if this is what you thought I'd be using it for. So, 6100 or 6300?

For the price I'd probably say just get the 6100.

Well if a high ghz 8 core cpu can't beat a quad ...nuff said. I personally like the idea of a budget cpu that performs really well I even bought a 965be for a budget build a few weeks ago.
I would like amd to sort out the mess that is lets face it cores sharing this,that and the other is pants.
(the above is so technical i had to put it in layman's terms)

Well, my long comment got deleted. Not sure why...

It could be you keeping it and reading it, and start considering. And delete it because such post/reply would be nice to be not in the forums, but to keep it.

Or it was deleted for other reasons...

Haven't been checking this forum for quite a long time but, but since then, that post didn't get any replies before it gets deleted. As far as I know. Now, I am not sure if this site is credible or not (in the CPU section). Although I'll still trust the GPU and other sections like cooling and cases.

This site is completely credible.

I remember your post - for a first post on the forums I felt it was a little bit out of order...
The AMDs are still way behind Intel's for core/core performance.

Whether it wins in one of two specific benchmarks does not make it a better processor. I'd far sooner still have a 3570k then an 8 core Piledriver, just because overall performance in day to day tasks which only use 1 or 2 cores anyway will be better.

Maybe build a little rep up with posts before coming on here and slating reviews...

Yes, that's what I thought earlier, that this site is completely credible. But since I gave out a critic that I backed up with facts and later it was deleted, it makes me think that this site is not that credible anymore (especially in the CPU section).

I think there is no need for me to build up reputation in this site. I followed computer hardware sites since a quite a long time ago. Plus, I have been a user of tom's hardware and techpowerup for a quite a long time and somewhere in tom's hardware, I've got a gold badge (that shows that I know about computers).

Whether that I haven't rep up or not, My points is backed up with facts which means that my points are all true. So you shouldn't be telling 'for a first post on the forums I felt it was a little bit out of order'. The way that you suppose to judge posts as 'Out of order post' depends on the content, not that I've rep up or not.

Yet, your points doesn't go answer my post well. Yes, AMD is behind in core to core performance. But that's not my point. Yes, daily task that uses 1 or 2 core will be better on a 3570k, but that doesn't mean that all people do daily tasks. Some people are doing rendering and they use all 8 cores. This way, they'll benefit from the 8 cores, plus the price (£250 for a 8350 and a M5A97).

Winning in one or two specific benchmarks (that shows rendering capabilities) does shows it is a better processor for rendering.

And (yes I am literally repeating and shortening that post now), I only don't agree with the way that the review states only the bad things. It doesn't even conclude the positive things. And... some conclusions were not to the point. I wished that I have the copy of that post, so I can repost it. But sadly not, I just felt like I wasted time writing that. Because it got deleted. Again I am not sure why, but I hope for good reasons. I hope that everybody can see it.

Whether that I'm writing that as an insult or a slate of reviews, my goal or my purpose was to make a critic, or literally, to make this site a better site. So you shouldn't give any hate.

Oh yes, why didn't you answer that time?

EDIT: To back up my answer, Look at this. Both Tom's hardware and Techpowerup shows a pretty positive conclusion. Different from this. And their points are the same as mine.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/A..._Review/8.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...w,3328-17.html

I'm unsure on your points...

I don't really know why the review sites you've linked give it a good conclusion, considering it doesn't beat the Intel chips in any tests?
Which rendering test are you talking about? I've never seen that...

It's not about having a massive post count that makes it out of order - it's the fact that your first post was one that came on purely to discredit the site. At least post an introduction or something somewhere before coming on and slating the site.
I personally don't even think the chip should have got a Bronze award here - unless that was only really based on being better than the Bulldozer (which wasn't exactly hard)

Still unsure of my points? Here I repeat my main one.

Daily task that uses 1 or 2 core will be better on a 3570k, but doesn't mean that all people do daily tasks and 3570k will be better for them. Some people are doing rendering and they use all 8 cores (or more). This way, they'll benefit from the 8 cores, plus the price (£250 for a 8350 and a M5A97) Shown in the bechmark.

Winning in one or two specific benchmarks (that shows rendering capabilities) does shows it is a better processor for rendering. I only don't agree with the way that the review states only the bad things, but not the good ones which is rendering.

Yes, introduction is something better to do. But, I introduced my self in that post too. The reason why I sign up because I want to critic the site, not to give it a hate and not discredit or something. My language skills are not excellent at all, so you guys might see it as a hateful comment, but that's not what it's supposed to be. I want it to be a critic.

Funny you didn't know which benchmark I referred too. It was from here. Specifically Page 6. Here:

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/c...river_review/6

No, you don't understand. Read the conclusion on the pages I referred you. Don't just see the benchmark and start fighting over me as I said 'shows a pretty positive conclusion' Read this:

You should know why that they give a little bit of a positive conclusion...

Yeah, I saw that page...
Not sure why you'd use that though since it shows, and states that the 2600k 'whips' it...
Nowadays you can get a 2600k and a decent motherboard for close to £250, so you're then best off doing that...?

You do come across as sounding very aggressive....

£250 for 2600k plus a decent motherboard? Pure BS. Look At this:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...odid=CP-359-IN

Trying to say that my '£250' a BS? Here you go:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...odid=CP-336-AM
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...odid=MB-462-AS

Only a ~0.4 (6.93 vs 7.38) stock vs stock doesn't mean it 'whips it' at all. He also said that a ~0.5 (6.39 (from 3570k vs 6.93) is a 'little bit better'.

No, I am not aggressive. I may look aggressive and you may guess so, but all my comments was actually backed up with facts. So, I'm trying to defend facts. I may do it aggressively because my language is not good.

Google shopping says you can get a 2600k for £192 (although I probably wouldn't want to buy from a seller offering that price) Then with an MSI G45, I'd still rather have the Intel option any day.

And no - I never questioned your prices at all....

Whichever was you look at it, Intel still wins on one level or another. I don't think anyone would go out to buy a rig for the one and only purpose of rendering and choose an AMD for it.

Your i7-2600k/Z77(you need to OC) will cost more than £300

I didn't say that you question my pricing, but I want to stop you from doing that in the next post.

That's my point. With £250 you could only get a 8350 and a 3570k plus a supporting Mobo. But, when we look at 8350's rendering capabilities (all 8 cores), the 8350 wins. The 3570k may be better for daily task, but doesn't mean it's better and all categories.

Your thinking is very wrong. People would buy a 8350 for rendering certainly. Go look at the benchmarks. I mean, what stops you? Pricing? No. Power Consumption? Umm... No when electricity is cheap (and you put your computer mostly idle). Overclockability? No. Memory Bandwitdh? No Mate! It doesn't matter. Per Core (single core/threaded) performance? Doesn't matter at all!

And Yes, that's my point. The review didn't state the positiveness of the processor. All negative and I say, they need to fix them. I don't think this is a problem at all.

*couch cough*

I am a person who has built both an AMD, and an Intel system. I originally chose AMD for the 8 cores... I mean, how can 8 cores be bad at rendering?! So I spent $2000 on building a top of the line AMD rig. And I rendered on it... And it was stupidly slow at rendering. I mean STUPID slow. I have an Intel Core i5 laptop, that is a couple years old. My $2000 AMD system barely rendered faster than an old laptop.

Due to this, I went out and built a $4000 Intel system. And it can beat the absolute $*** out of anything. I will tell anyone to go with Intel from the start. It can beat an equivalently priced AMD system at everything.

+1 Without James' level headed approach this would have easily turned into a flaming match. Cudos to you James!

No. That's not a good post at all. You don't bring benchmark here and I won't easily believe you. PovRay and Cinebench benchmark (in this review) could counter your statements too. It shows that 8350 is better than 3570k and 8150 being better than 2500k. And, I am sure you lied about that i5 Laptop, because it is just too unrealistic and you say that out without benchmarks.

You are literally just saying things without a real objective evidence. And, you guys are repeating yourself (with that) for a quite a few times. Which makes me repeating myself for a few time too.

'+1 Without James' level headed approach this would have easily turned into a flaming match. Kudos to you James!'

Nice joke. No, I didn't flame and James didn't do/post anything which can drop down my argument. I can answer all his posts with ease.

Right,
You're saying the 8350 (8 core processor) is better than the 3570k (4 core processor) at rendering... Ok?
The 3570k is quite a lot better at day to day tasks, infact - pretty much everything except rendering, including gaming than the 8350.

The i7 ranges from Intel (3770k, 2700k, 2600k) give better rendering performance, and better performance in day to day tasks than the 8350, albeit, they are a little more expensive, but IMO you get a far better processor - it runs cooler, less power consumptious, overclocks better...

Your argument is based on the rendering capabilities alone of one processor against another processor. I can't see anyone building a computer for the one and only purpose of rendering, not using it for any day to day tasks whatsoever and putting in the 8350. It beats the 3570k marginally in rendering, yet the 3570k beats the 8350 at everything else, and by quite a long way. If you're rendering, most people would realise that to do a good job rendering, you need to be spending a fair amount on a processor and get a 3770k or a 3930k.
If someone is lacking in money and needs a machine to do rendering on, I can't see anyone thinking - let's spend £600 on a machine for the sole purpose of rendering. They'd buy a machine that may be a tiny bit worse at rendering, but a lot better at everything else - such as the 3570k, or realise they need to spend more on an i7 to get better rendering results.

I think this argument has gone on too long. It feels like you're only here to try and start an argument, whether you blame it on your language or not, it still comes across incredibly disrespectful to the site, and to Tom.

If you want to go out and buy a rendering machine with an 8350, do it. Nobody here is stopping you.
But I think I can speak for most of the users on this site in saying I'd want to spend a little more and get an i7 and see a lot better performance.

Hey listen here, the more post you give out, the more unclear that your points are. No I don't want to start a long argument at first, but I want you guys to point out the mistakes in this reviews. The fact is, no one including you, have been giving a right response why my points are wrong. I argue because all your points can be argued, mainly because it doesn't answer my points right.

I am solely talking about two things. Rendering and Price. Look here:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...odid=CP-359-IN
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...odid=CP-336-AM
Tell me, how can a £70 difference be 'a little bit more'? Then, see the benchmarks, are the i7 processors 'that' better? Not really. Ivy Bridge doesn't run cooler than 8350.

Yes, i7 would be generally a better processors than the 8350. But, I need you guys to point out, that when you render and you have a budget of £250, 8350 is a better option than the i5s. i7 is going to be out of budget. I want the review to point this out, not only the negative things only.

You mean daily tasks like Microsoft Office? Windows Explorer? Browsing the internet? (No gaming!). You don't need a good processor for those jobs and the 1 core 8350's performance is totally enough for the job. Also, if you are only doing rendering, why should you worry about the performance in other areas? And no, you have to know that not all people can 'spend a bit more (£70)'.

As I told you before (and I've repeat myself like ten times till now) I don't want to start an argument here, but I only want to point out the wrong things. It's actually you who starts the argument, why are you saying wrong things? And I mean disrespectful? In what way? I am pointing out the mistakes that could make the review better, not offending or something like that (although you might interpret it so because of my language skills).

Thank you. I think I should stop here because you want me to. Next time you shouldn't judge newbies. Newbies in here doesn't mean he/she's a newbie in the computer world. Oh yes...

Reviewers cannot point out every little piece of information. Your point is only really relevant to people who want to render and have budget of £250. That's a pretty small subset of the people who'll read this review...

It begs the question why do you care so much about this chip? Have you purchased one? Do you work for AMD or an affiliate? Just curious.

Perhaps if you weren't so aggressive in your posts people would be more receptive to your points.

Since it's a different person posting, I'm going to answer.

OK, I apologised already, that the way I am being aggressive is because my language skill suck, I am a normal person and I can't give a proper critic. I confess myself.

So what if it's only a little 'subset of people who reads this reviews' to benefit? Is it any wrong to just type it? What if it's really that the person who reads this is a 'small subset of people who reads this reviews'? They're going to think no way! But it's actually a better option. So that's a big negative to the site when that person opens tom's hardware, anandtech or whatever and surprised that it's actually good in rendering.

So actually, by saying that, you're indirectly making this site's reputation down. Which is the opposite of what I'm doing. And, you're stopping me for doing that?

Why do I care so much about the processor? It's not because that I care so much about the processor and I start defending it like crazy, but I actually care about the site and the review itself more than the processor. How could I say this? All my points were backed up by facts and objective opinions.

This is what I seriously hate. I mean, seriously hate. I recommend a i3 over a PhenomII/FX-4xxx, they tell me I am an intel fanboy. I recommend an i5 over a FX-8xxx, they told me that too. I recommend a 7950 over a 660 Ti, they told me I am an AMD fanboy. Now, I tried recommending a FX8350 over an i5 for rendering, they told me, I work for AMD. What kind of madness is that? I have experienced dealing with these not long ago. And it's not nice at all to be honest. So please no...

At the launch of a 8350, I have argued with a guy in a review. The argument was much harder for me than this. That time I was in the intel side talking about core to core performance and it's increase in each generation vs AMD. So please mind what you're talking.

Peace Dude.

Waiting for AMD to make a good chip feels just like I did after being disappointed by The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones and thinking "Ohh man Revenge of the Sith is going to redeem this trilogy"

Depends on how you look at it. I think Piledrive is a "good" processor in and of itself. Heck my 8150 is a good proc. It overclocks like mad and crushes anything I throw at it. The problem is that Intel is doing it so much better and for not much more money. Thats what hurts.

Still I think Piledriver is a step in the right direction and along with some competitive pricing can be a reasonable alternative to Intel which is what we need. We need something that can nip at Intel's heels and keep them honest. the 8350 at $200 or under does this IMO.

I'm really hoping AMD can fix their memory controller problem before they launch their next line. As a long time AMD fan I find this very disheartening. My next build will without doubt be Intel. Intel pwns AMD in about 90% of the tets here and in other reviews. I dont compile or decompile code, which is where AMD CPU's really shine. Since the Intel i5 3570k is only about $6 more than the FX8350 its easy to see why I decided to go intel.

Perhaps Sir TTL should consider creating the Rust Award. This is just the same old worn out crap from AMD.

Well if you consider the 8320 which is the same thing as the 8350 but $30-40 cheaper, it looks a lot better.

I would like to do an Intel swap but like I said, my 8150 is fun to play with and is handling all my duties which is just gaming and porn. Aside from a few games, there is relatively no real world difference between Intel and AMD when you're running a single GPU amd playing at resolutions of 1920x1080 and below. It's not til you get into the multi-GPU and/or ultra high resolutions that Intel really starts to pull away.

I fully agree with toms statement in his video. AMD is 2 years behind Intel, and thats very sad. In germany there is a proverb: "Konkurenz belebt den Markt." What means: Competition brings the market to a kind of new level.

Yep. With AMD being no real competition for Intel you have to buy the most expensive i5 if you want to overclock. When AMD was close enough to be a viable alternative, you could overclock any Intel proc.

AMD doesn't have to be better than Intel, they just have to be good enough so that along with competitive pricing, they're that viable alternative again. That's all that's needed to keep Intel honest and that benefits us OC/PC enthusiasts.

I heared that Samsung is buying AMD and Intel is buying Nvidia, but I'm no 100% sure with these infos.

LOL! Samsung. Love the internet rumor mill.

Heared it from a good friend - I don't trust inofficial internet announcements.

Samsung buying AMD would be awesome. Samsung has the funds to get AMD back in the game. They would also get good cpu's for their line of phones. With the way AMD is going to lay off 15% of its employees and close plants, Samsung could fund enough to put AMD on top. If there is any truth to that rumour Intel would have to be very very concerned.

Samsung is leading in mobile chips but amd could learn from their efficiency and Samsung could create better apus with amds knowledge about graphics, also is Samsung a manufacturer like Intel, that means they can produce their own chips .. and if Intel gets Nvidia they had better mobile CPUs and the drivers would be working more efficient. All in all - dreams would come true.

Just a quick one, I seriously doubt nV would sell to Intel. I think they'd rather be bought by AMD. Just because of the x86 licensing BS that's gone on in the past. I'd be surprised if nV didn't hate Intel's guts.

It really is a shame, AMD needs to atleast start an enthusiast lineup, maybe not the cheapest but they would deliver power.

It is not like this CPU will not handle games... You will notice difference only when you do other stuff with CPU, like rendering etc.
But yea...intel is ahead

This cpu was made to compete against the i7-3770k...It's very powerful
and is a winner against any kind of i5 series intel has to offer..and for the price of 195$ there is no other option available.

having personal experience with the 8320 (basically just an underclocked 8350 that's cheaper), I can safely say that for the price, I would pick this platform over an i5 of any generation any day of the week. It DOES use a bit more power under load, but for all but the must grueling of tasks (i.e.: hXc workstation number crunching or video rendering) you can't go wronk. Now once you hit i7 territory... eh, sure, I'll take the i7, but at quite the premium in the process.

If i had dosh i would go Intel for sure, but unfortunately spare cash is very limited so i will probably be getting one in a few months....

*****************Hell, im running a 3770k @ 4.5ghz.Just thought it was a interesting perspective.

The overall score of a cpu is based on many factors and not just gaming performance.

Where AMD falls short is raw processing power to the point where iirc this cpu in some cases is out performed by a low end Intel Dual Core cpu.

AMD whilst being amazing in the past, have fallen quite far really hard and fast simply because Intel came out with something that AMD cannot compete with.

Sure Intel cost's more but for overall performance you are getting more from Intel than you do from AMD.

The only time at the moment I would buy a AMD based system is for a media pc and small lan pc combined, in a M-ATX case because for everything else I will use my Intel based pc because it's faster at video editing etc and also there is no issue with having, to update the bios on the motherboard just to be able to play a game.

Amd really needs to get their collective heads our of their asses!

Saw the reviews today myself. I must agree, end of the day it is personal choice. But as budget vs performance goes..... AMD wins!

watching thread

If logan is right then I don't see how its anything below a silver considering most people are just PC gamers this should be the gaming CPU to get and considering the multithreading is good as well then it should be a no brainier.. Why on earth do we still need single threaded applications everything is going multi.

I agree we need more multi thread app's but at the moment the only testing that can be done is using allot of single threaded app's, and that is where the AMD cpu's fall short compared to Intel.

It is all down to personal choice as to which you buy, but if you want overall gaming performance only then yes the AMD would be better aslong as you play the games where it out performs Intel, and also stream the gameplay that was mentioned but if you only play the likes of the Crysis games and Battlefield games and don't, do streaming then you are better with a Intel CPU.

If you want something that is nearly as good for gaming and do allot of video editing, and use allot of single threaded apps then you are better off with the Intel cpu.

Most pc users who build there own computer, do research before buying a cpu and will go for the cpu that offers the best performance for what they want to do, aslong as it's in the budget.

For me the best cpu I could afford at the time of building my pc was a 2700K, but if I could then I would have built a 3930K based system because that is better for my needs, if the AMD chip's at that time were better for my needs then I would have built using that, but they were not better than the Intel.

The end result is simple a score is given to a cpu based, on what it performs like in the applications that the reviewer uses or has access to, and whilst it may just be performance that allot of people look at there are other factors to the score, such as temperatures, noise levels and power usuage compared to other cpu's and currently AMD is not as good as Intel.

People can say all they want about Price Vs Performance but at the end of the day, people will buy what is best for them and if they don't make a informed decision then that is, there fault for not doing enough research before making a purchase.

This is the CPU for for gaming though and the majority are doing just that gaming. Therefore these OTT reviews have completely destroyed AMD to the point of bankruptsy wth is really going on here?

Not so much of an improvement in my opinion.

I do find it funny the amount of fiction in this thread.

The AMD CPU's are bad, too much power not enough poke. You really are better off buying Intel.

Even AMD know it ffs, they are just humouring the fanboys now. Pretty much all their R&D money goes into APU's. The sooner people realise this the sooner they might actually wake up.

Shock tactic have to be given so they take us seriously and do something about the rubbish they are trying to sell us at the minute.

The only way you would buy an inferior CPU that uses MORE power would be if you cant afford to upgrade away from AMD already (kit you already have) or you are a blind fanboy. Lets face it there is a lot of them here.

As for aggressive members swearing, we do not take that lightly here. Debates are fine, keyboard warriors are not required.

I hope AMD wakes up and remember that their name means Advanced Micro Devices.