This was posted 11 years 1 month 22 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

AMD FX-9370 $249USD Delivered from Amazon

120
AMD FX-9370 $249USD Delivered from AmazonAffiliate
Go to Deal
Cashback
PComposure on 04/11/2013 - 08:44 amazon.com (230 clicks)
This post contains affiliate links. OzBargain might earn commissions when you click through and make purchases. Please see this page for more information.

The AMD FX-9370 8-core CPU has received a price drop for the 'Black Friday' sale period from Amazon.
The FX-9370 is now at the lowest price on record, dropping to $237.99USD, shipping comes in at $10.98USD.

Both the XBone and PS4 will utilize AMD hardware, meaning the AMD CPU will receive more widespread support than ever before in terms of games.

With all of the GPU deals popping up over the last weeks, 'tis the season to upgrade your system.

Price History at C CamelCamelCamel.
Computing AMD Computer Component CPU

Related Stores

Amazon US
Amazon US

closed Comments

  • donkeydoc on 04/11/2013 - 09:27

    rather get the i5 4670k for $265 AUD

    • pacifist2121 on 04/11/2013 - 10:05
      +4

      Do you intend on substantiating your comment? The FX-9370 is 8 core and the i5 is quad-core, so depending on what you intend on using your rig for, the FX-9370 is the superior CPU.

      • nubix on 04/11/2013 - 10:13
        -1

        You'll be spending far more on electricity, yet the Intel would be quicker in a majority of applications.

        • Purt on 04/11/2013 - 11:31

          Tek Syndicate looked at this with an 8350.

          http://youtu.be/4et7kDGSRfc?t=9m52s

        • pacifist2121 on 04/11/2013 - 15:32
          +2

          Electricity is one argument but as someone else posted, It takes 1.5 years to make up the difference in power costs between the equivalent I7. Some people would be upgrading before the 1.5 years is completed.

          My issue was with the post 'donkeydoc' made - it offers nothing beneficial to the community and discussion at hand.

          It would help less informed readers if people actually make an effort to justify their positions.

      • HomeAlone on 04/11/2013 - 10:28

        Quality over quantity.

        The extra cores don't really mean anything when they scale so poorly.

    • Composure on 04/11/2013 - 10:13
      +6

      Both cards will do most jobs the same, the AMD card benchmarks better and is now cheaper.(Amazon doesn't ship the 4670K)
      As I mentioned in the post, AMD is expanding and most new games will be fashioned for their specs, including 8 cores.
      You will likely be fine either either card, to each their own.

      • Thrawn on 04/11/2013 - 10:35
        +3

        They're chips, not cards

        • Composure on 04/11/2013 - 10:40
          +1

          Indeed, you're right. No clue why I wrote cards.

      • HomeAlone on 04/11/2013 - 10:54

        Have you seen BF4 benchmarks?

        An i7 4770k (3.5Ghz) outperforms the FX-9590 (5Ghz) in a game supporting 8 cores which is apparently optimized for AMD :D

        • Letrico on 04/11/2013 - 11:39
          +1

          Well im not sure about them optimising stuff but usually they only mean it is optimised for graphic cards only and not cpu

  • tonyjzx on 04/11/2013 - 09:34

    only useful as a VM box

  • [Deactivated] on 04/11/2013 - 09:36

    I think that it's all about the GPU, CPU wise there isn't that much optimization comparing AMD + Intel so you should just go for the best performing chip….

  • f38r1 on 04/11/2013 - 09:45

    Can anyone tell me which intel processor this is comparable to? (or the closest match) Thanks

    • dbrent12 on 04/11/2013 - 10:03
      +1

      doesnt really compare with anything.
      it uses insane amount of power for its performance.. intel do it much more efficiently
      probably i7 4700k.

      http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-9370+Eight-Co…

      • shliu1983 on 04/11/2013 - 10:20
        -1

        4770k = 85w $350

        FX 9370 = 220w $250
              ~150w  ~$100

        $100 ~= 350kmh power / 150w = 2333h = 467days (5h use/day)

        That means, if you buy i7 4770 for $100 more, you will get that $100 back in 1.5 years in power save.

        • Thrawn on 04/11/2013 - 10:38
          +6

          CPUs doesn't hit peak load all that much (even in games). Unless you're encoding videos 5 hours a day or doing batch photo conversions, the average usage wattage difference is only a few watts realistically.

        • shliu1983 on 04/11/2013 - 11:49

          Ha, I do finite element simulations engaging at 5-6 cores/threads, nearly 24 hours/day. Still uses the rests for general office work. Does that count?

    • HomeAlone on 04/11/2013 - 10:23

      Probably the i7 4700k if you need it for encoding, compressing, compiling code, etc.

      If it's just for gaming then a i5 4670k will give you roughly the same performance. In some games the 4670k will give you a few extra frames and in others the FX-9370 will. The GPU is more important here than anything else.

      I would go with Intel as it will cost less in the long run due to much lower power usage.

      FX-9370 @ 220 watts VS i5 4670k @ 84 watts

  • dbrent12 on 04/11/2013 - 10:04

    also need to buy a cpu cooler

  • cheepwun on 04/11/2013 - 10:11

    Never had 8 cores here.
    Might consider them when they are under $100.
    Last CPU (and graphics) upgrade was many years ago; I have no idea how the Big Two's products compare. Giving support to this post for making me think about computer guts again.

    • Letrico on 04/11/2013 - 11:41

      Will never go under $100 unless you are hoping for some third hand half fried CPU or if you buy them from scrap shop 10 years later

      • cheepwun on 04/11/2013 - 16:53

        Will never go under $100…

        Maybe you are right. Though the sort of prices we're seeing now would only buy you a mainstream dual core only a few short years ago (8 cores was unheard of).

        Now dual-cores fill the entry-level. 4-cores are mainstream and grandma uses a 4-core smartphone. Still well within reason for desktop processosrs to have 8-core processors at the budget end in a few years, I reckon.

        I'm not a huge PC gamer or content-creator, so I'm in no rush for an 8-core.
        I can wait.

  • GMJ on 04/11/2013 - 10:20
    +2

    They are available locally bundled with a watercooler for not too much more.

  • jackwoz on 04/11/2013 - 10:51

    Im thinking of getting this processor for BF4. I hear BF4 scales well with multiple cores. Agree?

    • scrimshaw on 04/11/2013 - 11:07

      Higher core-count = Good for battlefield.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Cj8RP4kEGo

      BF4 is pretty good at spreading it's workload over 8 cores, so AMD CPU's here will do comparably well against Core i5 counterparts.

      • HomeAlone on 04/11/2013 - 11:27
        -1

        This is true. An 8 core AMD is comparable to a 4 core Intel in BF4.

    • ItsMeAgro on 04/11/2013 - 12:02

      Don't guess, there are BF4 benchmarks around (google it). Apparently i7 still wins.

  • DevilMayCry on 04/11/2013 - 11:39

    It is a deal if define on price only. As a product its not. This CPU has requires a pretty high-end cooler and there is not much of a motherboard out there to support it.

    • CyberGenesys on 04/11/2013 - 16:08

      there is not much of a motherboard out there to support it.

      Wouldn't it be supported by all AM3+ mainboards, or at the most simply require a BIOS update?

      • dbrent12 on 04/11/2013 - 16:13
        +1

        because its a 220w part it will melt most mobos.
        theres about 5 compatible and they're all high end.

  • RobotWizard on 05/11/2013 - 08:04

    It doesn't really have 8 cores on processor only 4 cores and 4 physical cores so they share bandwidth between 2 cores, I never had any bad experience with AMD though I used both Intel and AMD, and I love both :)

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join