Should i get a HD 7850?

The FX-9000 series was released a while ago. The prices have been dropping. Let me explain how AMD's CPU naming scheme goes for most (but not all) of the FX series. Let's take the FX-8xxx for example, starting with the FX-8100:

The first digit, in this case 8, means the number of cores that are in the series. So there are 8 cores in an FX-8xxx CPU.

The second digit, in this case 1, means the architecture (usually, but not always). Most of the time a new "generation" comes with new architecture. The FX-x1xx series (and the FX-x2xx series) is the older, much weaker architecture and it sucks by comparison. It's of the Zambezi/Bulldozer architecture, and it was engineered in such a way that its predecessors (the Phenom II CPUs) actually beat it out in a lot of areas. There's no point to considering them. This second digit is really what you were referring to about AMD's "new" CPUs. Currently, the latest series is the FX-x3xx is of the Vishera/Piledriver architecture and it's far better than the Zambezi/Bulldozer architecture used in FX-x1xx and FX-x2xx CPUs.

The last 2 digits, in this case 00, means the clock speed. In an FX-xx00, it means that this is the base clock speed and AMD doesn't sell this CPU at a lower clock. An FX-xx20 means a slightly higher clock speed than FX-xx00, but it's still the same CPU, they've just overclocked it in the factory. The FX-xx50 is an even greater overclock, and as you may have guessed, the FX-xx70 is yet another even greater overclock.

Then there's the FX-9xxx series. That's where things get complicated and AMD executives apparently said "hey, you know something? Screw our naming scheme, let's confuse the hell out of our customers!" Well basically, the FX-9xxx series only has 8 cores. Why not 9? No idea. But the FX-9xxx consists of AMD's most expensive and powerful CPUs. Honestly though, I haven't bothered looking at the difference since the cheapest one there is $280. All I know is, it's supposed to have a huge clock speed and a similar architecture and it's a mess... but whatever.

--------------------------------------------------------

So basically, the point in saying all that was just to tell you that the FX-x1xx and FX-x2xx are crap, and the prices are so close to the FX-x3xx series that there's no point to considering the former two when the latter is available, and that the prices for the FX-8350 are dropping but not enough and AMD's new series, the FX-x4xx Steamroller cores (or that's likely what it'll be called) won't be out anytime soon. The last thing I heard about those is that they won't be out till 2014.

However, the FX-8350 is still awesome. But I can understand why you'd shy away from the $180 - $200 price point. However, remember what I wrote about the last 2 digits only signifying clock speed? Well luckily, AMD offers the much cheaper FX-8320 for $30 - $50 less:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B009O7YU56/?tag=pcpapi-20

It's the exact same architecture, just slightly underclocked, but the FX series is built for overclocking so you can totally overclock very easily to reach the performance set by the FX-8350. Anyway, that was a mouthful...or a handful...whatever the typing equivalent of talking a lot would be, but enjoy!

Excuse my french but hell yeah! The FX lines' claim to fame is its overclocking headroom. I have an FX-6300 which at stock is 3.5 GHz, and I've overclocked it to a stable 4.2 GHz easily just using the multiplier! I had to increase voltage by nearly .075 Volts, which may sound bad, but I didn't change load line calibration at all which is great. The only reason I haven't overclocked it further is because I'm no longer at home where my desktop is. With a water cooler, you could pretty easily overclock an FX-8320, which is at 3.5 GHz, past the FX-8350's 4.0 GHz. It's not uncommon to hear of overclocks exceeding 1.0 or 1.2 GHz within the FX series.