fx-9370 at newegg

[Gikaseixas]

Combo deals = two or more different products. So much energy being spent on making this deal look bad. This is a much better deal than FX 9570

 

[Keysplayr]

Combo deals = two or more different products. So much energy being spent on making this deal look bad. This is a much better deal than FX 9570

Combo deals, to me, are all hardware. CPU + MOBO, CPU + MEMORY + GPU. ETC.
A bundle, to me, is hardware and software.
At ANY rate, this particular bundle is a joke as there a re numerous free anti-virus and security programs available that are most likely better than that Virus seeding company called Norton/Symantec. IMHO.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Regardless of politics, wouldn't you agree that this deal is better than the abomination that is the FX9570??? That's my only point.

 

[jpiniero]

Regardless of politics, wouldn't you agree that this deal is better than the abomination that is the FX9570??? That's my only point.

I guess the question is why you would buy this as opposed to the 8320 and just overclock it.

 

[inf64]

I guess the question is why you would buy this as opposed to the 8320 and just overclock it.

Probably because 8320 generally OCs worse than 8350 and uses more power at that (requires higher Vcore). These parts are pre binned for this clockspeed and will work out of the box. Plus you have some OC headroom left and I expect that power draw will still be lower than manually OCed 8320 to similar speed. BTW 9370 @ stock is very fast chip for a lot of purposes - multiply 8350's scores from here by 1.1x factor and you will see what it will get in their benchmark suite.

 

[Gikaseixas]

I guess the question is why you would buy this as opposed to the 8320 and just overclock it.

This chip has a guaranteed 4.4ghz stock and the potential to reach 5.0ghz
FX 8320 usually reaches 4.5ghz

 

[Arkaign]

Regardless of politics, wouldn't you agree that this deal is better than the abomination that is the FX9570??? That's my only point.

Yes, it is definitely better.

I don't think that anyone legitimately views a 'combo' in a standard form to be a bare CPU + software (software that most tech types skip anyway).

Due to Fry's, Micro Center, TigerDirect, and even most Newegg deals, 'combo' in the context of a CPU generally means at minimum : CPU and Motherboard. Beyond that, you get into what are referred to as 'barebones' kits, generally comprising another piece of hardware or several (ie; mobo, cpu, ram, possibly also a hdd, case, psu, etc).

As far as these CPUs :

8320 at $159 on Newegg, comes WITH a decent heatsink+fan. They overclock fairly well, and with a $30 air cooler 4.4Ghz is pretty normal. This is a good value for those whose workloads are well suited to that particular CPU design. The closest Intel chips in price are much less optimal for encoding and other very very well threaded apps. While IPC isn't superb, it's good enough for most things when matched with the right hardware. A+ on value.

9370 at $349 (combo with crap you probably don't want mandatory) is more than double the price. At that price point, you're up against things like 4770K, which beats it at stock in most things, and once overclocked beats it in virtually everything. All with significantly lower requirements in terms of cooling and power supply. That said, it's not the worst choice IF your particular workload matches exceedingly well to things that the 8 core AMD processors excel at.

9590 at $899+ is staggeringly insane. Idiotic on a scale not seen since P4 'Emergency Edition', and actually worse than the P4 considering the P4EE DID in fact win many benchmarks against the 3000/3200 AMD64 competition. Ludicrous cooling requirements and expense make it something only fit for masochists. At the price point we're talking about, one can buy a 4770K, 16GB DDR3, a great air cooler, a motherboard, and a 7950OC and STILL have money left over.

83xx make sense. 6300 makes sense. 93xx/95xx are utterly idiotic.

 

[Rvenger]

Newegg is selling the FX-8320 for $145 shipped. Overclock that to 4.4ghz and save a ton of $$$$$$$$$. That is actually a great deal for that CPU.

 

[Idontcare]

Newegg is selling the FX-8320 for $145 shipped. Overclock that to 4.4ghz and save a ton of $$$$$$$$$. That is actually a great deal for that CPU.

OC'ing an 8320 is really the best bang-for-buck CPU right now provided you already the mobo/ram and HSF that can do it.

The 8320 stock HSF isn't the same as the 8350, so you have to be reasonable in the OC expectations of an 8320 vs 8350 on that basis alone (plus the binning).

I'd take an 8320 and OC it with stock HSF over an OC'ed i5 "K" chip any day, however I'm not an extreme gamer (more of a multi-tasker that uses lots of cores). I believe when it comes to gaming an OC'ed i5 is superior to an OC'ed 8320 if I recall the benchmarks correctly.

Given what you can get out of an 8320 or an 8350, the 9370 and 9590 are not well positioned price/performance wise IMO.

You know it was no different with the K7 in the days of the run-up to the first 1GHz chip. The 850MHz vs 900 vs 950 vs 1GHz SKUs were all priced such that it made absolutely no sense to buy anything higher than an 800MHz (for stock or for OC'ing)...but people did still buy them and AMD made a tidy profit in the process.

 

[SPBHM]

I'd take an 8320 and OC it with stock HSF over an OC'ed i5 "K" chip any day, however I'm not an extreme gamer (more of a multi-tasker that uses lots of cores). I believe when it comes to gaming an OC'ed i5 is superior to an OC'ed 8320 if I recall the benchmarks correctly.

even the stock I5 is a superior gaming CPU, it costs less money (considering no OC means the stock HSF is 100% adequate, and low cost motherboards are also adequate for 77-84w), and it's as fast or faster for gaming.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35272270&postcount=106
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35273419&postcount=139
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35271581&postcount=82

outside of gaming, without HT for MT the FX is more compelling than when you compare it to i7s (like the 9370 pricing force us to do), but there are plenty of benchmarks showing that at the same clock the K i5 is normally not far for MT, and it's much faster for up to 4t performance, I remember on your 8350 thread that you still used some ST demanding softwares, which should make the FX look poor compared to the i5...

 

[djshortsleeve]

Why doesnt Intel just rebrand the 4770k as the 4990k with a 4.7 GHz clock and require water cooling?

 

[crashtech]

Why doesnt Intel just rebrand the 4770k as the 4990k with a 4.7 GHz clock and require water cooling?

That would be interesting to see, even if it could never really happen. If they sold it that way, presumably it would have even a bit more headroom, which would make it incredibly fast.

 

[Chiropteran]

Why doesnt Intel just rebrand the 4770k as the 4990k with a 4.7 GHz clock and require water cooling?

Because they don't need to. Lack of competitive pressure makes Intel fat and lazy.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Because they don't need to. Lack of competitive pressure makes Intel fat and lazy.

Making foolish products is not competition or beneficial.

 

[crashtech]

Making foolish products is not competition or beneficial.

Ha, I remember some foolish product releases when Intel was actually behind in performance.

 

[Bradtech519]

I can get 4400 out of my FX 8350 with relative ease. Won't be interested in anything else until the next gen processors come out and can gain some performance.

 

[frozentundra123456]

even the stock I5 is a superior gaming CPU, it costs less money (considering no OC means the stock HSF is 100% adequate, and low cost motherboards are also adequate for 77-84w), and it's as fast or faster for gaming.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35272270&postcount=106
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35273419&postcount=139
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35271581&postcount=82

outside of gaming, without HT for MT the FX is more compelling than when you compare it to i7s (like the 9370 pricing force us to do), but there are plenty of benchmarks showing that at the same clock the K i5 is normally not far for MT, and it's much faster for up to 4t performance, I remember on your 8350 thread that you still used some ST demanding softwares, which should make the FX look poor compared to the i5...

I agree. I would take the i5 definitely for gaming. A stock i5 will beat an overclocked FX in many games, while being close in the newer highly threaded games. For heavily multithreaded productivity apps, I would give the edge to the FX, depending on workload.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Actually Cyberpower has a pretty decent system with the 9370 and a HD7850 for about 1200.00. Supposedly, they will overclock it another 10% for 20 bucks. If they in fact can do that with good stability, it is close to stock 9590 levels. Personally, I still probably would go with Intel for gaming, but this is much more reasonable than the 9590 for 800.00 for the cpu alone. (the 9590 is a 500.00 plus upgrade for this model).

Gamer Scorpius 9000.

 

[Arkaign]

Ha, I remember some foolish product releases when Intel was actually behind in performance.

Hahah definitely. Let's see how many I can list :

Pentium 1 (FDIV bug, which apparently affected 1 in 90 billion random FP divides? lol)

Original Launch cache-less Celeron slot 1 (just useless at everything)

Pentium III 600 Slot 1 Katmai (had to run at 2.05v to be stable, not really a great chip at all, pretty much topped out at stock)

Pentium III 1.13Ghz Coppermine (first run, was successfully re-released in a stable new stepping of coppermine a little later)

Pentium 4 Willamette (expensive, tied to RDRAM when launched, sluggish performance)

Pentium 4 Emergency Edition (actually decent performance, but MASSIVELY overpriced)

Pentium 4 Prescott (just plain uncompetitive, and actually a step BACKWARDS from Northwood)

Pentium 4 Cedar Mill (what Prescott should have been, but by this point too little too late)

Pentium D Smithfield and Presler (the lower clocked models were decent value overclockers in the land of $300+ X2s from AMD, but overall this was lackluster at best, and the higher-priced models were horrendously poor value)

So that's pretty much it. It was all win after that (and largely before that as well, with some arguably decent competition during the 286/386/486 days), outside of Atom trash.

A mix of problems listed there : either unstable, poor value, too hot, too slow, too late, too insane (RDRAM), Intel certainly wasn't without it's mis-steps. At the same time many people seem to remember Pentium 4 as being a complete failure when in fact the Northwood era was amazingly good for Intel. That was my favorite time ever to be an enthusiast. You could take a low-clocked Northwood from Intel, or a low-clocked Duron/Tbird/AXP from AMD, and with the right magic you could beat the top end chips, sometimes that was literally talking about $1000+ processors.

 

[Chiropteran]

Making foolish products is not competition or beneficial.

I said, *lack* of competition. Your attempt at correcting my statement is misplaced.

 

[Lepton87]

Ha, I remember some foolish product releases when Intel was actually behind in performance.

I see nothing wrong with releasing those new FX CPUs, they are low-volume products, Intel on the other hand released an unstable CPU, because they didn't want to fall far behind in performance.(P3 1.13GHz)

 

[ElFenix]

Newegg also changed the advertising of the 2. After being contacted. They are now listed as 4.4Ghz and 4.7Ghz instead of 4.7Ghz and 5Ghz as first listed.

:hmm:



do you call in rules violations on tv golf too?

 

[SeraphicSamurai]

I bought the amazon bundle, cost me roughly 550 for a Crosshair V and the 9370, got a h100i, thinking of replacing the fans with cougar for push pull, we'll see.
Bottom line, I have an overclocked 4.9 GHZ Sandy Bridge (i72600k)

So I am curious to how close I can come to it in real world performance. I also got a evga acx 780gtx. We'll see where the beast stacks up.

 

[Arkaign]

I bought the amazon bundle, cost me roughly 550 for a Crosshair V and the 9370, got a h100i, thinking of replacing the fans with cougar for push pull, we'll see.
Bottom line, I have an overclocked 4.9 GHZ Sandy Bridge (i72600k)

So I am curious to how close I can come to it in real world performance. I also got a evga acx 780gtx. We'll see where the beast stacks up.

That will be an interesting comparison, have fun! Good on you for not buying into the ludicrous 9590 lol.

I think that per-core, obviously SB is hugely faster IPC wise vs. the FX chips. However, encoding and certain apps that really take advantage of tons of threads, the FX shouldn't look that bad. The i7 is more like a super-charged Quad, and the FX is closer to a legit 8-core (with full fledged FPUs instead of shared 'modules', that's what it would be, after all). It's hard to conceptualize the FX architechture. For some things it's basically a quad core. For others it's an eight core. For mixed loads it works out to ~ 6 core? That's probably worded poorly, I'm tired lol.

 

[SPBHM]

That will be an interesting comparison, have fun! Good on you for not buying into the ludicrous 9590 lol.

I think that per-core, obviously SB is hugely faster IPC wise vs. the FX chips. However, encoding and certain apps that really take advantage of tons of threads, the FX shouldn't look that bad. The i7 is more like a super-charged Quad, and the FX is closer to a legit 8-core (with full fledged FPUs instead of shared 'modules', that's what it would be, after all). It's hard to conceptualize the FX architechture. For some things it's basically a quad core. For others it's an eight core. For mixed loads it works out to ~ 6 core? That's probably worded poorly, I'm tired lol.

with (full, HT, 8MB l3) SB at 4.9GHz I expect the FX to have a hard time impressing, even more when he paid 4770K + good motherboard money for it...

the FX have 4 full cores or 8 cores sharing resources (the Intel CPUs have almost nothing doubled because of the 2t per core), because of that it doesn't scale like a "pure" 8 core would, but I think it's a little faster than what a 6 core (with the same ST performance) would do... the trouble is, the ST performance is not that great to begin with... so the "CMT" penalty is not the biggest problem.

if you look here the ST (and up to 4t) performance of a 5GHz FX is around 3.6GHz SB (if they are all running with turbo for the tests)