Jesus christ, Boom keeps banging on about system power while ignoring completely what the system is doing in the system power consumption tests. In the first review the system power test was done in Cinebench, the ONE test they used which used all 8 cores and the FX 8350 was almost 100% faster than the i3 Haswell.
It does NOT say it uses that much more power in gaming, it will be more but should be by a significantly smaller margin. In the second review Boom showed which again he claims it uses twice the power, the power test is using a test which uses 8 threads.
Boom failed to mention that they used unrealistic low res in the MOST CPU LIMITED GAMES THEY COULD FIND(they state this specifically), with the express intention of trying to highlight any differences. Their second test, 1080p high res, showed incredibly little difference across all cpu's except in Civ 5(both crap and still offering 75fps on the fx8350), and was designed to reflect actual real world usage. Which says, an i3, i5 fx 4/6/8 cores made very little difference in the vast majority of situations. You can see from hundreds of other reviews that this stretches to i7's as well, look at the humbug benchmarks , we have one game where a £600 intel hexcore and an AMD quad core, and everything in between means almost no difference.
Two games where CPU makes a noticeable difference, in both the FX8350 beats the 2600k(8 threads) and the 4670k(haswell 4 thread) and is close to the 4770k(haswell 8 thread) where the i3's are lagging MILES behind Intel quad cores. This is real world, where if you go by the newest games pushing the boundaries, 4-8 cores means massive massive performance improvements over 2 cores and that AMD 8 cores effectively used are extremely competitive in most newer games because these games are actually using more of the cores.
Boom can't seem to understand, that in a game with 2 threads there is NO REASON at all a 8, 16, 482 core cpu should be faster. It's why a 4 core and 4 core 8 thread version of the same Haswell architecture is basically no faster either.
Fact of the matter is you could have passed along fine in gaming with 2 cores for most of the past 5 years, the past 2 years maybe have started to have a higher percentage of games(but still relatively small) which really use 3-4 cores effectively and a very low percentage of games that could use 8 cores/threads effectively. The past year this is changing further, and in the next 8 years 8 cores will show a bigger and bigger difference.
An i3 is a great chip, it's a great architecture, it's the same architecture (suprising only to Boomstick apparently) as the haswell i5 and i7, so really only an ignorant person would reasonably expect it to be much slower. In 2 thread situations an i3 SHOULD match a FX8350, and a fx 6300, and a i5 and an i7. Move to 4 threads and the i3 gets left behind, move to 8 threads and the fx6300/i5 get left behind, move to 8 threads and there are only two chips left performing great.
Even BF4 isn't great with 8 cores, it certainly allows the FX8350 to beat a Haswell i5, but this is as much to do with optimising for AMD chips as 8 cores, because it's really not using 8 cores effectively.
in 18 months time every game released will be well optimised to use 8 cores and compiled with all the AMD performance flags.
Boom, post this thread again in 2 years and see how the i3 is showing vs a fx8350 in the games out then....
The problem with Humbugs links is that they're the i3 sandy's. The one in the OP's going to be around 20% faster if not more.
As for humbugs links showing an i3 sandy, they also show an i7 Haswell...... NOT significantly beating the FX8350, the first game he showed wouldn't improve an iota for the i3 haswell as the game is so cpu limited anyway, the other two would improve but the i3 is SO far behind Intel quads it would still lag miles behind.
,
