The point of Intel's new octa-cores?

Intel is gonna be releasing the i7 5960x, which happens to be an octa-core priced at $999, while AMD has already released the FX-9590, which is also an octa-core, only with 8 threads instead of 16, but it is priced at $299 and has a whooping 4.7 Ghz (5.0 Ghz OC'd) compared to Intel's 3.0 Ghz (3.3 Ghz OC'd). So what really would be the point of buying Intel when AMD is offering so much more bang for your buck?

Forgive me if I'm being ignorant, as I'm mostly a console gamer.

It's not always about the clock speeds, more efficient tech sometimes far better than raw power and sometimes vice versa.

You can compare now FX8350 vs i5 4670K and while AMD got double the cores, Intel still wins.

^This.

You can already compare a 9590 to a 4770K. Check out the link below.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-vs-AMD-FX-9590

Well yeah as a pc gamer there is no point to get this chip..

So if I don't really care about how high price goes and I go with the i7 5960x, will I be getting more value than the FX-9590 for my money?

The point is that it will be an absolute beast for software that can make use of it (this won't be games for now). AMD's current offerings won't come close.

Some people don't seem to consider that PC's have many uses that are far more demanding on a processor than gaming.

From my understanding the AMD octo cores aren't "true" octo cores (the cores share resources between each other). In a true octo core scenario each core has its own resources.

The fact that its not a true octo core + the fact that the architecture is weak (the architecture from an intel i7 920 from 2008 is superior than the current AMD cpu's) are reasons why a quad core intel can outperform the FX 8000/9000 series CPU's

Hello.

FX 9590 might be an 8-core CPU, but the inferior IPS performance per core is what makes FX9590 to lose in a performance comparison even against the 4core/8threads i7 4770K (against the 8core/16threads i7 5960X it will be a massacre...).

AMD FX-9590 Review; Piledriver at 5GHz

Also in the price of the FX9590 you should include a $100 water cooling setup, cause AMD suggests that anyone who will buy the FX9590 must use water cooling. That makes the FX9590 a $400 CPU.

The real question would be:

"What's the point of making 8 core CPUs (even more 16 thread CPUs) for non-proffesionals while only 0,01% (or even less) of the non-proffesional software uses 8 cores or more?"

More value? not really, you can buy right now FX8350 instead of any i7, the difference will be no more than 20fps boost, now is it worth your money? depends how much money you've got spare.

You can save that money and get a better GPU or anything else really.

In the end of it all, only you can value your money =)

Ah, thank you all so much for replying, I guess I will wait it out for Intel's new CPUs instead of AMD.