Originally Posted by
cssorkinman
Very capable gaming chip, I prefer it to the 2500K, 2600K and 3770K's that I have/had. The games most Intel supporters point to to express their advantage generally give poor fps on Intel as well. Often the minimum fps is only captured at one sample point , but that is enough to generate a point of contention, even if it is all but unnoticeable. Average frame rates are a better indicator of performance in my opinion because of this. All I have to do is run the bioshock infinite benchmark to see this clearly being expressed. There is no game that I play on a regular basis that the 8350 doesn't offer a very good experience with.
FX = unlocked easy to get a basic overclock on , but you can spend literally years tweaking it to get the best performance. General stable OC expectaions - Up to 700 mhz OC on Big air or good 120mm clc and good motherboards, 700 + to around 1 ghz on 240 MM clc's and motherboards with the best power delivery. Beyond that it takes a very good custom loop, great psu and an offering to the silicon gods in addition to the top motherboards.
Temps are partly a factor of VID it seems , in the case of my 3 , 8 core Vishera's the 8350 with the 1.28 vid runs 8-10 C cooler than my 1.38 vid chip at the same high overclocks. The 9370 has a VID of 1.538 and it runs very warm at stock speeds and above. It can be substantially undervolted and run at stock speeds however. At stock speeds they are very similar for temps as shown below.
Example Prime 95 @ stock , 1.28 vid chip on MSI 990FXA GD-80 - H100 cooling 68 F ambient 15 min run
1.38 Vid chip on a CHV-Z with a Thermaltake 2.0 water extreme cooler, 68F ambient , over an hour on prime 95
It's difficult to compare core temps Intel vs AMD because they are measured so differently.
Heat is no problem for the 240 CLC's I have until 4.8 GHz + on stress tests or 5ghz for daily use. However if you are in this territory of overclock, you need to have good case airflow to cool the VRM's on the motherboard and socket area.
People who put the FX down as being a space heater are exaggerating greatly, the air coming off my 7970 is much hotter than the exhaust of my CLC's , even when pushing 5ghz+.
The Intel's do use less power, but in real world usage, it's nearly as huge a deal as people make it out to be, with powersaving features turned on, idle power usage isn't that great. People always seem to point to the extreme when discussing advantages / disadvantages, but even in the extreme, the difference between the 2 could be made up by replacing a couple 100 watt incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent alternatives .
I haven't tried Haswell, but my 8 core FX's are noticeably quicker during my daily combo of surfing while gaming ,messaging etc, than my Ivy and Sandy I 7's are.
As for motherboards, you should base your purchase on what your overclocking goal is, same goes for cooling.
I like my MSI 990FXA GD-80V2 the best, but it's not for novice overclockers.
It doesn't offer the thermal and current protections that the ASUS 990 Sabertooth and CHV-Z boards do. Also, the ASUS boards have LLC which simplifies the overclocking process.
I have no experience with Gigabyte boards ( some people love theirs), and the only Asrock AM3+ I have is a 990 FX extreme 3 and I wouldn't recommend it for the 8350.