Originally Posted by j3st3r
The FX processor will do FINE when a game uses 4+ cores - why are AMD fans constantly bringing this up????
If a game uses 8 cores, like BF3, the FX series is actually a great buy. The problem is that 99.9999999% of games DO NOT. And therefore, they run like poo compared to the Intel equivalent. If all my games ran on 8 cores I would get the FX series no doubt - SLI/Xfire and all.
The fact of the matter is that Intels quads still dominate AMDs 8 cores. Just wait till Intel releases 6-8 core i5 and i7s. AMD will have to respond with even moar c0r3z unless they come up with a decent chip.
But on that note, what people also fail to realize that games that are single threaded or lightly threaded are either old engines, or ports. Both of which can easily be maxed by any modern processor for the most part.
On the flipside, when you have a game that came out q4 2011 such as BF3 already using 8 cores on an engine that will be thrown around a bit, it's fair to understand that the FX-8 will be in a perfectly fine position for upcoming games.
Face it, most games that 'melt our pc's (as crytek would put it) are VERY gpu bound.
Next gen is around the corner, even the Wii U is a tri core and from the specs of the other systems, they seem aimed at an 8 core setup. When those ports roll in (and they will), the FX series will show off it's potential a bit more.
Now for those that argue it will be outdated by then, it's a ridiculous argument to make, of course it will. But then again, a i7 920 is VERY outdated, yet it does perfectly fine even on max settings for anything out today.
My last cpu before my AM3+ board was a socket 939 x2 4200+, and that lasted me perfectly fine for games until 2011 when it was just too slow. It lasted so long simply due to gpu upgrades. I plan to keep my fx-8350 until atleast 2014 and will probably pick up steam roller by then