Just got word from AMD, they are not sampling the FX-9000 series at this point which is surprising. At a guess I would say the reason is the performance isn't that great given the tradeoffs.
The FX-8000 series are not 8-core processors, they are really 4-core processors with a HyperThreading like technology. So its 8-threads rather on 4-cores.Yea, honestly a lot of people are hell bent on comparing the FX 8's to the i7 processor line and don't see the purpose of the chip. Its a very good hybrid performance chip honestly because of the way the 8 cores giving you multi-threaded performance for high multi-tasking purposes and tasks while the performance in general is on par for Gaming purposes too. Really the differences is simple, if you only play games on the machine at the moment, the I5 is a great chip. But if you like to do lots of things, gaming, rendering, and heavily threaded tasks, then the FX 8350 chip might be a better option especially seeing that games are starting to even hit the 6 core range of usage. In terms of sheer performance, no one denies the I7 is a better chip, but its still 100 + dollars more and comparing it generation to generation, its not that big a difference in overall performance as people make it out to be, but it is still the TOP overall.
Like ive said in the past, each company has a different answer to the same question, which ever way your prefer, is up to you.
Chips like the FX-8350 are only cheap because they have to be, they struggle to compete with the Core i5’s and that is why they are priced alongside them.
Even in programs that use more than 4-threads the Core i5’s are often faster as each core is so much more efficient. Gaming is where the FX-8000 series often looks best due to most games being GPU limited.
I mean look at our encoding results…
The Core i5 owns the FX-8350 in most of those tests, particularly the real-world applications.
Having said all that the FX-8350 is a great value chip given the price so essentially what you are trying to say is correct