> Most users don't spend any time waiting for software that eats 100% of <= 4 cores, which is where the i5's advantage lies. Well, every gamer does, and this e

> Most users don't spend any time waiting for software that eats 100% of <= 4 cores, which is where the i5's advantage lies. Well, every gamer does, and this exactly describes what web-browsing does. However, the FX is of course not too slow for that. Just slower. > It depends on the user, and what he's using his computer for. Sure. I was joking above with "get The FX if all you do is 7-Zip on Linux", but yours is of course a correct statement. If you identified correctly that the FX will perform better for your workload, then it is a better choice (if okay with higher energy usage and not having further upgrades, which just might be the case, and it is not like intel is known for long socket support anyway). I for example use Funtoo, which is a Gentoo variant, meaning I compile stuff all the time. I'm on an older processor, but I assume the FX would be a good choice for me. > It's more likely that they are reusing old 8370 results and comparing with new 6600 results. I think exactly for the FX-8370 that might be not true, as it is the processor you'd have wanted to compare the new skylake-i5 against. But for the others and older models exactly that will happen. I see no big issue there. > I don't see a ~23% advantage for the 6600 to be very significant, when other results have the 8370/6600 100% faster than the 6600/8370. ~23% advantage is very significant to me. That is way off of measurement errors. 100% difference just matters even more ;) Also, that it is most often pro-i5. Ah, I just hope Zen will turn out as great as I hope and is announced and I can start recommending and defending those processors :)