FX8350 and similar OctoCores. Whats the advantage nowadays?

[RGone]

This should close it up, again.

Hehehe. U still duh manz air E_D.

RGone...

 

[Foxbat Kannan]

A little late to the game, but I'm actually a protein chemist/AMD enthusiast for the last decade or so. I'm not sure how it will directly translate to gaming, but some of the bigger "protein folding" programs have lead to new branches of research, like molecular dynamics and binding servers. These things chew up incredible amounts of processing power (I've been running one simulation that will use all 8 cores for the next three weeks) and have even extended to using GPUs for their extra computational capacity.

Down the road, I am sure that the people programming these top notch programs will eventually begin to use some of their expertise to make games that can better take advantage of eight cores. At the very least better physics, because the brute force methodology being applied to solve a lot of problems now is mind boggling, and I can see a lot of this stuff being very useful in 3D gaming.

 

[Tech Tweaker]

OK but an i5 isn't exactly an 8 threaded cpu. And you would like to purchase a K model for overclocking. For average person, it may be better for gaming, most definitely but why buy into another quad when you already have a q6600 for example? Gaming does also rely a whole heavy deal on the graphics card.

How about a guy with a Phenom II 965BE OCed to 4ghz OR Q6600 OCed to 4ghz and he has an older video card. Say he's running a GTX 460. Has 300$ to spend. What would be a smarter purchase for gaming?

Get a GTX 780 Or upgrade board and cpu i5 intel or x8 amd 300$ worth of board and cpu?

Because it's about more than just the number of cores. It's about amount of performance per core, and the amount of work it does during each clock cycle. Taking it a little further, make it about the amount of "work" each CPU can complete at the same clock speed. A modern Intel Ivy Bridge or Devil's Canyon Core-series i5 absolutely wipes the floor with a Q6600, in most tasks (from reviews and comparisons I've looked at) the newer Core i5's and i7's offer roughly double the performance, and in some tasks/programs nearly triple the performance.

This sounds familiar. I was in that situation last year.

Had a Q6600 overclocked to 3GHz with a GTX 460. I upgraded the video card when I found a used GTX 570 for $35 on ebay.

Personally, I'd say don't spend all of the $300 at once. The person in this scenario should get something that will be a decent upgrade from their current GPU and will be something that can tide them over until they can afford to get a more complete upgrade (CPU, Motherboard, Memory, GPU, etc). Then set aside what is left over after the stop-gap upgrade (small upgrade) and put that into their upgrade fund while they save up to upgrade further. Better to do a little upgrade now so that the PC will remain sufficient, than to be frustrated by gaming on a PC that is too insufficient in FPS to play games with while they wait to be able to get a big upgrade. At least that's what I'd do anyway, but I'm kind of a proponent of incremental upgrades for a tight budget.

A good CPU and Motherboard combo on either the AMD or Intel side for $300 isn't really possible at the moment, at least from what I can see. At least not with Z97 or AM3+ (maybe with FM2+?). If the hypothetical PC owner is upgrading from a DDR2 system (AM2, AM2+, LGA775), then they won't have any money left for a new memory kit after they've bought a motherboard and CPU, so they'd have to really nerf some part of the system to afford all parts with a $300 budget (probably the CPU).

The 4GHz overclock on a Q6600 on ambient cooling is a bit optimistic to be honest, best I've been able to reach has been 3.6GHz.

Strangely, I've owned both an AMD Phenom II X4 965BE and an Intel Q6600 C2Q. Really not much difference between the two performance-wise, the Phenom II 965 BE at 3.8GHz didn't feel much different from the Q6600 at 3GHz. Big difference was that the Phenom II X4 965BE at 3.8GHz puts of a ton of heat (mine did anyway), it felt a lot hotter than my Q6600 (as far as the air coming off the heatsink from the pull fan in push-pull setup). I had to open a window when I was benching the Phenom II, in the middle of winter.

@op, nice looking rig by the way.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

Because it's about more than just the number of cores. It's about amount of performance per core, and the amount of work it does during each clock cycle. Taking it a little further, make it about the amount of "work" each CPU can complete at the same clock speed. A modern Intel Ivy Bridge or Devil's Canyon Core-series i5 absolutely wipes the floor with a Q6600, in most tasks (from reviews and comparisons I've looked at) the newer Core i5's and i7's offer roughly double the performance, and in some tasks/programs nearly triple the performance.

This sounds familiar. I was in that situation last year.

Had a Q6600 overclocked to 3GHz with a GTX 460. I upgraded the video card when I found a used GTX 570 for $35 on ebay.

Personally, I'd say don't spend all of the $300 at once. The person in this scenario should get something that will be a decent upgrade from their current GPU and will be something that can tide them over until they can afford to get a more complete upgrade (CPU, Motherboard, Memory, GPU, etc). Then set aside what is left over after the stop-gap upgrade (small upgrade) and put that into their upgrade fund while they save up to upgrade further. Better to do a little upgrade now so that the PC will remain sufficient, than to be frustrated by gaming on a PC that is too insufficient in FPS to play games with while they wait to be able to get a big upgrade. At least that's what I'd do anyway, but I'm kind of a proponent of incremental upgrades for a tight budget.

A good CPU and Motherboard combo on either the AMD or Intel side for $300 isn't really possible at the moment, at least from what I can see. At least not with Z97 or AM3+ (maybe with FM2+?). If the hypothetical PC owner is upgrading from a DDR2 system (AM2, AM2+, LGA775), then they won't have any money left for a new memory kit after they've bought a motherboard and CPU, so they'd have to really nerf some part of the system to afford all parts with a $300 budget (probably the CPU).

The 4GHz overclock on a Q6600 on ambient cooling is a bit optimistic to be honest, best I've been able to reach has been 3.6GHz.

Strangely, I've owned both an AMD Phenom II X4 965BE and an Intel Q6600 C2Q. Really not much difference between the two performance-wise, the Phenom II 965 BE at 3.8GHz didn't feel much different from the Q6600 at 3GHz. Big difference was that the Phenom II X4 965BE at 3.8GHz puts of a ton of heat (mine did anyway), it felt a lot hotter than my Q6600 (as far as the air coming off the heatsink from the pull fan in push-pull setup). I had to open a window when I was benching the Phenom II, in the middle of winter.

@OP, nice looking rig by the way.

Not sure what exactly your getting at. I mean it's understood, just exampling......

I am running as typed now a 6400+.... well just see sig. Will be benched at CP. Is what we do.

On the other hand, I have the funds, know how and experience to build pretty much any type of rig I'd like to. Where some others may not.

Although I find it amusing that you compare the Phenom II to a Q6600, when I found the 2500K was no better for 3D benching or gaming over the Phenom II 965, unless we are talking major differences in clock speeds. Even then, gaming frame rates didn't go up much on high end i7 3770K until I slapped in the GTX 780 HOF card. Then WOW the frame rates jumped big time. Nothing like going from a GTX 480 to a 780, IDC what Cpu you use at that point.

 

[Tech Tweaker]

Not sure what exactly your getting at. I mean it's understood, just exampling......

I am running as typed now a 6400+.... well just see sig. Will be benched at CP. Is what we do.

On the other hand, I have the funds, know how and experience to build pretty much any type of rig I'd like to. Where some others may not.

Although I find it amusing that you compare the Phenom II to a Q6600, when I found the 2500K was no better for 3D benching or gaming over the Phenom II 965, unless we are talking major differences in clock speeds. Even then, gaming frame rates didn't go up much on high end i7 3770K until I slapped in the GTX 780 HOF card. Then WOW the frame rates jumped big time. Nothing like going from a GTX 480 to a 780, IDC what Cpu you use at that point.

The first part was just meant as an explanation that it isn't always about just going from one quad-core CPU to another, and that not all CPU's are the same performance-wise, even if they have the same number of cores and are operating at the same clock speed. It's meant to be informative to less-experienced readers who know less about the workings of PC's and CPU's that might not know that there would be reasons to upgrade from one CPU to another newer CPU, even if they both have the same number of cores. It would likely be less useful to someone like you or me, since were likely to already know about efficiency improvements that come with newer CPU model lines and platforms, even if they have the same number of cores as an older CPU (and even if both CPU's operate at the same core frequency, that doesn't mean that both will have the same performance (i.e. the newer technology CPU will typically be faster)).

Well, you were talking about upgrading a hypothetical rig to a new platform with a new MB and CPU for a hypothetical budget of $300, I thought I'd discuss that point a bit.

Yes, I'm well aware that you built the AM2 rig with a purpose in mind and that you could have gone with whatever you liked. I wasn't alluding to your abilities to build a rig, or saying in any way that you were the one that needed the upgrade. As far as I can tell you were discussing a hypothetical scenario, unless this pertains to some other thread I haven't read.

You were the one that brought up the Phenom II 965 and the Q6600, I just thought I'd elaborate a bit on the fact that they had similar performance and that it was a good example. For me, they both had nearly identical performance in daily tasks (web surfing, email, MS Office, etc), without bringing benchmarking performance into the scenario at all. Using the two systems, they feel basically the same to me.

Really a bit confused by your response, as it seems you're upset with me for having replied to your post. Sorry if I offended you.