Originally Posted by boxwunder13
. But, if you cannot wait, the 8320 is just as good for less money because it will OC on par with the 8350. The only reason I just purchased an 8350 was because it had a promo code for twenty dollars off on newegg.com so it was only $179.99, at the same time, the 8320 had that same promo code which made it like $145 or something like that. Since the promo code is gone, just go with the 8320.
I have to disagree a little, I have had, played and overclocked with a majority of the FX series 4100, 4300, 4350, 6100, 6300, 8100, 8320 and finally 8350. The 8350 is higher binned than the 8320 and it really shows when you start significantly overclocking the cpu. I have had it muchhhhhh higher than i could ever get the 8320. My point isnt that its bad, its just "not as good". If the builder never intends to go big on his OC, 8320 can definitely save some coin. I never had any issues gaming on mine and ran it over a year. But the 8350 was a nice jump in performance with OC easily over 5. and a nice 4.8 ghz 24/7 at around 53-54C under load. Above the 4.8 ghz. I found it started eating a lot more power and I just didnt need the extra performance. But its nice to have the option.
But im with the general consensus, the right FX systems can do everything you need them to do and do it well for much less money. From a sales point, i turn out far more AMD machines than Intel for obvious reasons, but if people combine the Visheras with good components, you end up with a nice capable system.