AMD FX-9000 specifications

[Majesticii]

My point remains. Outside of WoW (where I don't think it's a problem either), AMD is a better recommendation for the money than Intel on a budget.

And my point remains that a 220W rebrand shouldnt be applauded.

[yurano]

I see you throw that around a lot. I see increasingly fewer people request Wow-rigs, albeit still many, yet I don't say anything against that.

Users will be paying through the nose to power the FX-9000; this specific SKU is hard to recommend.

[The Cat]

The concept that AMD is cheaper than intel hasn't existed for awhile. It's pretty much only at the ultra low end of the spectrum.

The reverse is true. AMD Mobo's are cheaper at higher price points; you end up paying less for comparable features. Native sata ports, sli/crossfire, etc.

[vesseblah]

I see you throw that around a lot. I see increasingly fewer people request Wow-rigs, albeit still many, yet I don't say anything against that.

Because MMOC is a WoW fansite, and if no game is specified otherwise (remember that "what games you're playing?" is asked in the sticky) it defaults to WoW since assuming anything else would be dumb. Don't really see how you possibly could have anything to say against it. Games are changing, but having 2-3 titles released in last year that uses more than four cores is not good enough reason to buy AMD just yet unless you play nothing more than those 2-3 games.

Neither is MMOC inherently a WoW-site - that is an effect of WoW being the only real long-term serious contender in MMOs. Just throwing it out there.

This is an old interview of Boubouille, but nothing has been said in public to refute it since then. And other games are an one-liner link on the frontpage at best so I don't really see your logic with MMOC not being a WoW fansite. Also the same Intel recommendation applies to every single other major MMORGP currently played on the western side of the globe (GW2, Rift, SWToR) so I really don't see a problem even if we pretend this is a generic MMORPG fansite without any kind of WoW bias.

Where is MMO-Champion headed today? Will the site remain focused on World of Warcraft, or will it grow to include other MMOs?
The original plan was to include other MMOs, but I didn't expect the WoW part of the site to be so popular. It takes all my time now, and I don't think you will see any other MMO covered on MMO-Champion.

I really want to talk about a few other games like EVE Online or Diablo 3 -- but it won't be on MMO-Champion, and I won't do it until I have the time to do something nice with each site.

[BicycleMafioso]

Since this is derailing, I'll let this be my final input, in response to Killora then.
The 8350 has, in many tests I've seen, superior minimums to Intel CPUs (and in some worse).
I've never said they've outperformed Intel, but I ask why they need to. CPU is now at a level that it's rather irrelevant in most games either way as long as it's over 60 FPS most of the time. And by most, I mean that spikes will happen.
If price becomes irrelevant and that "no substitution to the best" argument is made, then you ought to have an i7. Because it does perform better than an i5 in many games. Not by a large margin, and barely noticable, but it's close to the same argument with the AMD CPU.
Even back when the worst AMD CPUs were destroying the best of Intel in games, people still went out and bought intel CPUs. And apart from the highest end, I can't blame them because it was good enough (until the end of course, where Intel was largely irrelevant before C2D)

If we're going to do a quick mock-up build, I'm going to pick reasonable mobo/cpu for both.
That you can get away with less for an intel mobo I strongly disagree with.
I'm going to use Swe-prices, but the percentage is the same.
Asus M5A99X EVO R2.0 -- 990 SEK (quad SLI/CF, 8 sata 6.0)
FX-8320 -- 1267 SEK
FX-8350 -- 1664 SEK

Asus P8Z77-V -- 1490 SEK. Comparable in price in the segment
i5 3570K -- 1890 SEK
i7 3770K -- 2690 SEK

It's a 49% and 57% price increase that I don't find worth it to someone on a budget.


And before you assume otherwise, I'm an intel fanboy. Never do I say AMD beats the Intel options. For an enthusiast, it's no contest. For where money matters, performance per money, I would suggest that AMD is very favourable for gaming solutions. Better in raw performance? No.

[Killora]

The reverse is true. AMD Mobo's are cheaper at higher price points; you end up paying less for comparable features. Native sata ports, sli/crossfire, etc.

While i'll admit i was wrong in saying the cheapest motherboard you can realistically put a 8350 was $120, i wouldn't say AMD boards are cheaper at the high end. cheapest board i could find that you could really put a 8350 on is $80. which is about the same for a cheaper Z77 board. they have some cheaper (~$50) boards but you can't put a 8350 on them.

[BicycleMafioso]

Note: The conversation is still relevant and that I think I'm derailing the conversation and dropping out does not mean that I demand that you should as well; I don't make a practice of making a warning and then drive in a post where others cannot refute it in an appropriate manner.

In short, keep the conversation alive if you see fit, I feel I have made my points. If others disagree, this is fine; Although I of course believe I am onto something, a devil's advocate is needed in all discussions, else it will just be one side singing something's praise and little discussional value is to be held.
I will just not take as active of a participation in the conversation as I did.

[Majesticii]

I've never said they've outperformed Intel, but I ask why they need to. CPU is now at a level that it's rather irrelevant in most games either way as long as it's over 60 FPS most of the time. And by most, I mean that spikes will happen.

While i agree to some degree in what you're trying to say, this is an annoying argument on tech forums (almost up there with people claiming 4GB 680's are good value). CPU performance doesn't at some point stop contributing, nor is it a performance wall you hit at some point (even when you saturate your GPU). And what is 60fps NOW, might not be 60fps in a year or 2. Which i assume most of us (except for shroudster) atleast expect our CPU to last.

If i run Metro2033 with 2 of my cores disabled and at 2.8ghz, i'll probably still get roughly 99% GPU load. But that doesn't mean i wont get a better framerate with 4cores enabled @ 4.2ghz.

As is also evident by the graphs posted earlier. You can still see the games scale up in framerate. Even with a 4.5ghz I7-3770K.

Oh and i wasn't discussing value for money. Which is good on the 8350. I was talking purely performance per watt.

[n0cturnal]

http://www.techpowerup.com/185477/am...processor.html

http://www.sweclockers.com/nyhet/171...90-och-fx-9370

It has now been officially announced.

[DeltrusDisc]

http://www.techpowerup.com/185477/am...processor.html

http://www.sweclockers.com/nyhet/171...90-och-fx-9370

It has now been officially announced.

Looks like they are just highly binned FX-8350s.

Such a shame.

[BicycleMafioso]

Looks like they are just highly binned FX-8350s.

This has been the assumption all along? Or rather, highly binned Piledriver FX-chips.

[DeltrusDisc]

This has been the assumption all along? Or rather, highly binned Piledriver FX-chips.

But this is a confirmation. :P I guess my wording made me sound ignorant of the fact we already were expecting this. Oops. =X

[Hellravager]

Been announced here too http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/...z-consumer-cpu

[BicycleMafioso]

But this is a confirmation. :P I guess my wording made me sound ignorant of the fact we already were expecting this. Oops. =X

In the stead of a new architecture, you mean then? I don't think it's quite the time yet. But I also think that AMD won't necessarily want to shove up the frequencies due to lack of IPC that generation. Then again. It'd be a tough decision to back down from that path.

[n0cturnal]

http://www.sweclockers.com/nyhet/171...9370-prissatts

And the price is.... GTFO

[vesseblah]

http://www.sweclockers.com/nyhet/171...9370-prissatts

And the price is.... GTFO

WTF? $920 for the FX-9590? They really deluded enough to think it's worth the same as i7-3970X?

[Saithes]

WTF? $920 for the FX-9590? They really deluded enough to think it's worth the same as i7-3970X?

The sad thing is people will buy it thinking it is better purely by the clock speed and "Eight-Core" marketing alone lol

[BicycleMafioso]

Those are the prices for OEM.
Prices may differ if they release them to consumers directly. Which is something they said there isn't a current plan on doing.

It will sell.

[yurano]

Those are the prices for OEM.
Prices may differ if they release them to consumers directly. Which is something they said there isn't a current plan on doing.

It will sell.

Seems like OEMs would be the most informed about these kinds of purchases.

Its a really big gamble to assume the end consumer is going to shell out big bucks for a FX-9000 after retail markup. If these CPUs were instead 12 or 16 core, the price would be more justified.

[Deleted]

No matter how many cores they have there lack of raw performance does not justify the hefty price. I feel AMD should sell these at a loss just to get a very small gain on Intel, Lets face it you would consider one of these if they were the same price as an i5 3570k would you not? I would.