It still has an effect, and it doesn't warrant shelling out the extra cash for a 3820 and a X79 board, unless you need it for work.
This is true and has always been. It's also a reason why Phenom IIs were eyed by many people before, including myself. Those Core 2 Quads may have the performance, but not value. Phenom IIs came with good performance (more than enough for most users at the time) while coming in as low as 50% the price of Intel's offerings.
But when you're talking about gaming, CPU doesn't count much. As long as it doesn't bottleneck your GPU, you'll get similar results between a system using the lowest-end CPU possible or the highest-end CPU. Sure it has an effect, but you're talking a difference of 2-3FPS at best; something that won't end the world if you already have playable framerates to begin with..
I don't understand why you guys are being critical of AMDs FX series, the 8350 is neck to neck against the 3820 in general gaming and actually beat out the 3820 in 3Dmark at 1080p.
I may just skip the Richland and wait to see what the Kaveri has to offer.
I think a lot of the critical comments and feelings come from frustration with AMD as a company. They really over hyped the FX line as they built to it and to get a chip that is not much of an improvement over the existing line (Phenom II) and even worse in some cases was a HUGE let down after all the hype they pumped into us. I also think a lot of the reason comes from the fact that core for core the FX is NOT as fast as Intel in most tests. You are correct in general gaming there is not enough difference to matter.
However when you go to buy a chip the common thinking is that you can get an Intel chip for the same price as the 8350 and have something that in core to core testing is faster and uses less power.In fact if you go to a Microcenter you can actually buy an i5 for less than the 3850.
As for the 3820, I totally agree. Unless you are picking up one very cheap there is just no reason to get it over an i5 or even an FX for a gaming system. Well other than bragging rights.
Uhh.. Who was it that made all this hype? Oh right, its us. Yeah they didn't meet our expectations, but it's not completely unreasonable. IIRC AMD has been second to Intel in terms of core-per-core performance since Socket 939 came out (probably even before that). Come AM3 and still they were behind Intel by quite a length. And here we were all expecting them to beat Intel out of the blue? I admit, I'm one of those who were disappointed as well. But I don't think its right for us to blame them for not meeting the Hype that we, ourselves made.
The problem now is, like you and Waco said, it ain't worth the price. For the same price you can get a better performing, lower power i5. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if the (then just released) 8150 was priced at $160-180 price (Thuban prices), I'd get one over the 2500K ($220) any-day.
true that, i think amd basically gave up trying to compete like that with intel, knowing that they will always be beat out by intel's tech and strategy, so that's why they're advancing the apu market, and finding new ways to convince the world that this is needed and worthwhile...
I thought AMD did say that they're going to focus more on the APUs and less on competing with Intel on the high-end chips.. And when you follow their progress, they're slowly catching up with i3 performances (which is enough for gaming) with discrete graphics capabilities. All they need is an integrated 89xx like you said earlier and it'll be the perfect little mean gaming system.