Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 127720	2012-11-09 00:01:00	My 2 cents on the AMD FX-8350	lostsoul62 (16011)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1311286	2012-11-09 00:01:00	We all know about the power of the i5 and the i7. If you take the AMD FX-8350 and say the i7 2600 and build the 2 computers. I think that 99% of users couldn't tell the difference nor would they ever need the power of the i7. So I'll save $200 and build myself the AMD FX-8350 and have all the power I will need and feed my ego with the 8 cores and overclocking. What do think?	lostsoul62 (16011)
1311287	2012-11-09 00:12:00	AMD boards have (on average) been noticeably cheaper for years now, so this can be taken into account too. If you had $200 to spend on a board, you get much more bang for your buck feature and connectivity wise going AMD than Intel, so this brings the price down further. We still go AMD for >90% of our builds.	wratterus (105)
1311288	2012-11-09 00:41:00	To be fair most users won't notice the difference between say a i3 or FM2 chip and an i7.	icow (15313)
1311289	2012-11-09 00:43:00	Oh, I should have said putting a cheap SSD and an i3 rather than an i7 and a mechanical drive will make more 'noticeable' difference for the majority of users.	wratterus (105)
1311290	2012-11-09 01:00:00	^^ I'll second that notion of using the money on a SSD instead :D	Chilling_Silence (9)
1311291	2012-11-09 01:13:00	This is what I'd look at: www.tomshardware.com But of course, budget comes into it too, so if that matters, then yes, go for AMD.	pctek (84)
1311292	2012-11-09 01:54:00	I really like the amd Ax chips - (A6/A8/A10) - more of an equivalent of the i3/5/7 as they include a GPU component. Means you can get a pretty cheap system up and running with just a motherboard and matching cpu. No shelling out for a dedicated graphics card.	psycik (12851)
1311293	2012-11-09 02:08:00	We've mostly stayed away from AMD recently as we started getting a few dead CPUs and also seemed to have more failures of AMD mainboards. Haven't had any issues with Intel systems so far.	CYaBro (73)
1311294	2012-11-09 03:35:00	I haven't gone AMD since my Athlon x2 days back when intel make dual cores that didn't seem any faster than their single cores. Once the Core 2 CPUs hit I went intel and never went back. I have nothing against AMD and would still own one in theory but in practice AMD and inTel at the same price perform fairly similarly and intel currently just has more upgrade potential so I keep going back to inTel. A big part of my decision revolves around gaming though - my main PC is built for it and inTel dominates at the performnce end of the scale. Because of that whenever I get a secondary machine for any reason I tend to stick to the same platform. I've found if you own 2 or more PCs it's very helpful to be able to swap parts around freely.	dugimodo (138)
1311295	2012-11-09 09:11:00	I really like the amd Ax chips - (A6/A8/A10) - more of an equivalent of the i3/5/7 as they include a GPU component. Means you can get a pretty cheap system up and running with just a motherboard and matching cpu. No shelling out for a dedicated graphics card. This mirrors my own experience, albeit only with my own (one) build, using an ASUS board, with inbuilt graphics. I added a GPU, but was frankly very, very impressed with what the motherboard alone could do with its own inbuilt graphics processor. It does a good job, with minimal heat issue, on a heatsink without active cooling. In fact, it gave better, faster and cooler performance than the gear it replaced, which had it's own dedicated grpahics card. If I were content to use only games that were 2 years out of date (and a fraction of the price) I'd be fine with the inbuilt mobo graphics alone, and could shave about $1000 off the costs of a dedicated graphics card and the price of old vs new games (old being only 2 yrs after release). Far cheaper to upgrade CPU and MOBO (with graphics) every few years than to do the whole lot, plus RAM and GPU every 4 or 5 years.	Paul.Cov (425)
1 2 3