Aside from the fact that AMD uses a larger fab size than Intel, they also have 8 physical cores, whereas Intel has 4 cores with 2 logical threads each.

Intel didn't lie about anything, all that happened was that unsubstantiated rumors were proven untrue.

Would be intersting to see vs 5.0ghz ivy or most likely 4.6-4.8 ivy and Sandy.

Here is one of AMD's biggest issues as well, they have some of the worst marketing people I've ever seen; in particular their CPU branding division. Just starting off from recent memory, I have no idea which idiot decided to drop the "Fusion" moniker from AMD's APU line. AMD finally had a brandname that people were starting to recognize (similar to Intel's "Core", "Pentium", etc), and then they drop it right before the major release? What the hell were they thinking? Now while Intel's CPU lineup naming is a bit of a mess that I hope they start clearing up in the next iteration's release, but AMD had a pretty good and simple branding going on: FX-4xxx "4 core (two module)" FX-6xxx "6 core" FX-8xxx "8 core" FX-x1xx "First generation (Bulldozer)" FX-x3xx "Second Generation (Piledriver)" Simple and clean. They have two more spaces for these two new CPU's in the form of FX-8370 and FX-8390, and what do they do? They completely destroy one of the best things going for them by suddenly jumping, for no apparent reason, to FX-9xxx. Worse, they also screw up the second series of numbers by going to FX-x5xx while still being Piledriver. Sometimes I wonder what actually goes on in AMD's headquarters.

Well done AMD I take my hat to ya. This might help them. I wonder what the benchmarks are going to be vs the i7 4770k.

if only intel would do 5ghz stock cpu, or atlest do 4ghz Stock speeds havent advanced much in the last 5 + years

Intel tried higher clock speeds with netburst, we saw what happened with their 3.8 stock speeds. Intel has worked on core efficiency with more and better instruction sets, and better implemented nb controller on die, more and better cache management, overall fixing what was broken with netburst.

Just to keep things in perspective...;

At $0.2 per kwh, an FX-8350 would cost you $44 more a year to run assuming you run it close to load for 4 hours a day. For that amount you could have easily made up the difference in price between it and the i7-4770k over the course of a an upgrade cycle; the difference becomes even more drastic if you use your system under near load for longer. If you average the three-four year upgrade periods of the people on this forum (which are higher than average), then the savings would have been $176 for four years. These are not insignificant savings. Furthermore, most people leave their systems on these days and don't bother shutting down. Assuming the systems are idle for the other 20 hours a day (I'm being favorable to AMD here btw), over the course of a year there would be $33.5 higher cost to run the AMD system on idle over the Intel system. Times this by four as well and you end up with $134 in additional energy costs. Combined, the AMD chip costs $310 more to run over the period of four years using very reasonable estimates than the Intel chip. Even if you don't agree and half all the estimates, you still end up paying more than the Intel chip's difference. The major OEM's figured this much as well, which is why among the major OEM's I quickly checked, I only spotted a single model that ships with an AMD FX processor (HP FX-8120). The difference is even larger in other place in the world. For example, in Germany the cost per KwH is $0.338, over 50% higher.

Why the hell are you comparing AMD's second best to Intel's best? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116901 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113284 AMD FX-8350 = $200 Intel i7-4770k = $350

Why wait? FX-8350 @ 4.8Ghz vs. i7-3770k at 4.8GHz:

At $0.2 per kwh, an FX-8350 would cost you $44 more a year to run assuming you run it close to load for 4 hours a day. For that amount you could have easily made up the difference in price between it and the i7-4770k over the course of a an upgrade cycle; the difference becomes even more drastic if you use your system under near load for longer. If you average the three-four year upgrade periods of the people on this forum (which are higher than average), then the savings would have been $176 for four years. These are not insignificant savings. Furthermore, most people leave their systems on these days and don't bother shutting down. Assuming the systems are idle for the other 20 hours a day (I'm being favorable to AMD here btw), over the course of a year there would be $33.5 higher cost to run the AMD system on idle over the Intel system. Times this by four as well and you end up with $134 in additional energy costs. Combined, the AMD chip costs $310 more to run over the period of four years using very reasonable estimates than the Intel chip. Even if you don't agree and half all the estimates, you still end up paying more than the Intel chip's difference. The major OEM's figured this much as well, which is why among the major OEM's I quickly checked, I only spotted a single model that ships with an AMD FX processor (HP FX-8120). The difference is even larger in other place in the world. For example, in Germany the cost per KwH is $0.338, over 50% higher.

I leave my system on all day. imagine the difference with that 220w joke of a processor amd is gonna release.

Here is one of AMD's biggest issues as well, they have some of the worst marketing people I've ever seen; in particular their CPU branding division. Just starting off from recent memory, I have no idea which idiot decided to drop the "Fusion" moniker from AMD's APU line. AMD finally had a brandname that people were starting to recognize (similar to Intel's "Core", "Pentium", etc), and then they drop it right before the major release? What the hell were they thinking?