that's the funny thing about AMD, the clockrate today is actually worse performing than before.....only these youngins don't realize it because they don't even know anything about previous generations. so they think "Oh I went from 3.5Ghz to 4.7Ghz, it must be blazingly faster!".....turns out, nope.
An 8320 is barely twice as fast as a stock Phenom II x3 720, and it has 5 more cores at 700Mhz higher clock rate per core at stock! And that's a 5 year old chip that only cost $120 at the time.....then 5 whole years later, here comes a $160 chip that only performs twice as well at a much higher clock rate and energy usage.
You know this whole Ghz thing is kind of ridiculous and misleading because it doesn't tell the picture of performance except against other chips based on the same design, but people fall for it everytime. That's why some people actually think AMD's 4Ghz is higher performing than Intels 3.5Ghz.
I honestly wouldn't care about power usage if they delivered more respectable performance, all things considered.
Now I know you can't exactly combine the added up Ghz of a multi core chips to tell real performance, but let's look at how disparate the two are anyways:
8x3.5Ghz = 28Ghz
3x2.8Ghz = 8.4Ghz
combined, that's quite a disparity for the performance.
One thing is clear to see though: an 8 core Phenom II would wipe the floor with the FX series, and overclock just as well if not better if it was done on a 32nm process rather than a 45nm.Edited by AMDATI - 4/7/14 at 10:15am