Originally Posted by wthenshaw
Why not? Those FX8350s do pull their weight.
Actually sir, why is a more appropriate question, the only people I know who would buy an AMD processor were only looking at core count per dollar spent and were too cheap to buy the technologically and thermally superior Intel based processors only because they had a lower core count, even though they are much more efficient cores and consequently can actually multitask with ALL known software out as such.
I have yet to see someone buy an AMD because they think they are better, they only bought them because they were marginally less expensive than the Intel's.
The direct competitor to the FX-8350 is the i5-3570k/i5-4670k, and they are only 10-15% more cost as of today on newegg. And they are 50% more efficient on power and have cores that actually use resources properly.
I guess I just don't understand the mindset of AMD purchasers as the processors are today, sure, back in the "original" FX days I bought the AMD's because they were true competition to Intel and actually better for certain things. But that all changed at the Core Solo/Core Duo release and the performance gap across the boards between the companies products has gotten larger every year since. I don't want AMD to succeed in making a better product because I want to buy them again, I want them to succeed because it will require Intel to drop the prices on the superior processors I want to buy as of right now.
It's not just about core count per dollar spent, it's also about how refined and smoothly the cores do their workload. And that is what is still killing AMD processors that use the Bulldozer and more recent released cores as of now. They neutered all of their processors that they released with those cores due to the way they are sharing the system resources and need to redesign them.Edited by Jimhans1 - 12/14/13 at 10:56am