I'm asking because it's really quite difficult to find many full reviews where the reviewer has matched the clock speeds of the chips. How does the performance of the AMD Phenom II X6 compare to the new AMD FX 8350 when they are both clocked to the same speed? I know that many people are able to push their Phenom II X6 on liquid cooling to over 4.5 GHz, but they aren't typically shown compared to the alternate chips.
the 8350 will win more often then not because of the extra cores as well as a better core design.
Ragingh4vok's post seems to quite simply contradict yours.
Thank you so much for that, I've been wondering what the actual comparable data was. I'm still quite tempted to find one of the Phenom II X6 1100T for the primary purpose of everyday computing in my life. I'm currently dealing with a Core2Duo, so I'm constantly running out of actual processing threads, so I would really love to have six full threads. I had been considering the FX 8350, because it was new and had a really high base clock, but then I learned all of the bad news about their piledriver units...
the clock to clock performance is less on the new fx cpus but the phenom cpus hit there oc wall around 4.0-4.2 for most cpus. But the fx cpus can hit 4.5 to 5 ghz. If you look at the single core performance between 3.5ghz and 3.8 you can see there is some performance gains and there id much more that can be done with an OC
you also have to consider that vishera has more/newer instruction sets that can greatly improve performance in tasks that utilize them
they don't match clocks, but here's some more benchmarks http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/piledriver-k10-cpu-overclocking,3584.html
his post doenst show the 8 core. I was comparing the 8 core to the 6 core his was 6 core to 6 core.
Thanks. I'm still not sure if I want to rely on having higher clock speeds to replace higher numbers of discrete threads.