I need some info about AMD CPUs

Originally Posted by jsc1973 

Basically, the two companies have flipped philosophies on CPUs. Back in the days of the Athlon XP and Athlon 64, AMD was pushing higher IPCs at lower clock rates, while Intel was competing with very high clockspeeds on the slower Pentium 4 architecture.
Now, Intel has the processors that do more work at lower clock rates, and AMD is trying to fight back with the new FX series, that hits higher clockspeeds but doesn't do nearly as muck work per clock cycle. AMD will also sell you a processor with more cores for the same amount of money as an Intel CPU with less cores.
Those AMD eight-core processors really shine in applications that can use a lot of cores; if you're running a rendering farm, or a server, they're very good value for the money. Where they fall short is if you're doing something that can't use all of the cores; for example, most games can use two cores at the most. Despite the slower clock rates, Intel has a big advantage there right now. You have to put a heavy overclock on an FX to make it competitive. But most people who choose AMD for gaming rigs just opt for the older Phenom II processors instead. They have a higher IPC and thus perform better in applications where not all of the cores are utilized.
AMD's next-generation FX, the Piledriver series, should fix some of Bulldozer's weaknesses, but it doesn't arrive until the fall. And as software developers begin using assembly tools that can take advantage of more cores, AMD's approach will result in better performance. But we're not there yet.

Originally Posted by Xoriam 

So this next upcoming chip is suppose to be something good?