Thats a ludicrous argument. A bit like me saying, "lets pretend the athlon X4 is faster, which would you choose if both were the same price".
There is no difference to what you just said. When you consider what is "better" you need to take EVERY aspect of the chip into consideration.
IF he'd...
Don't threaten me with your crap, THEY are the ones who are bringing up false arguments and laughable websites like xbitlabs, and downright lies and I'm proving it with ANANDS OWN BENCHMARKS.
You don't like it because you don't like the truth, eod.
Show me this "antagonism" that didn't start...
First of all, I don't count Sysmark and it should be obvious why. As for picking and choosing the rest of the benchmarks, we could easily do that all day. The point is pretty obvious.
Just had to quote this because it's amusing to see intel fanboys telling people that gaming matters to the...
Athlon II X4 @3.1GHz vs i3 2100 @ 3.1Ghz
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/188?vs=289
That's what, 15 wins each or so? You sure are failing to convince me that I'd be better off paying more for that 2100.
You're just annoyed because you can't handle the truth of your 2600K being somewhat less impressive than intels marketing made you believe. It's not AMD's fault you overpaid for what is basically a minor speed bump over 2 year old technology.
LOL yeah lets discuss overclocked intel chips vs stock AMD chips now. Backtrack much?
Comprehension failure? SB is 11% faster clock for clock than Lynnfield. Phenom II and Core II are about the same.
Yet people continue to laud SB as some fantastic improvement over the previous generation...
955 wins 16 loses 10
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=289
And you're assuming everybody can afford the extra $150 for the chip and mobo? Even the 2500K is well above intels ASP. Well above it. Most people do not buy chips like the 2500K, not even close.
As most people buy chips...
Now, if you had to compare the 2600K to the i7 860 for example, at the same clock speed like 996GT2 is trying to do, then how much faster do you think it would be? Well I already showed it would be 11.3% faster or thereabouts.
That isn't all that much better than what a Phenom II vs a...
How is it a 2 gen older chip? Some of the comments here are ludicrous.
You want to see how AMD's best compares to the Q6600?
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/203?vs=53
Wins 30, loses 0, mostly twice as fast. Is that what you call "competitive"?
Anands benchmarks are the most biased laughable benchmarks on the entire net (i should probably add except for xbit, now that russiansensation reminded me of that) and even then the Q6600 loses most of them. If it weren't for Sysmark and jokes like Monte Carlo excel it would barely win any...
Lol yeah show the Sysmark benchmarks who are you trying to kid?
Outside of Sysmark, the Phenom wins 18 and loses 7. No wonder people claim Anand is biased, even just using Sysmark is enough proof of how much crap his benchmarks are.
My best mate knows almost nothing about pc's and he still has his chip overclocked.
Actually I had a Q6600 and sold it recently. It is no match for the Phenom II in anything. Like the rest of the people who tried to justify overclockability and power draw as being a good reason to upgrade to...
Except it isn't. The market for $100 chips clearly outweighs the market for $300 chips. In fact intel's ASP in the performance desktop sector is only $132.49 and in mobile it is $108.66
It would seem that the majority of people agree that cheaper chips are "better". By far.
No I didn't miss that, I was just responding to the claim of 25-35% faster clock-for-clock.
Which was my point. If it was as great as it is being claimed people would be upgrading from the last architectures. Plenty of people upgraded from Core 2 to Nehalem, a lot more than did from Nehalem...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-871-_-Product
I like that one. Costs 3x less and is nowhere near 3x slower.
Or this one at $115
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-808-_-Product
Both are much "better". Maybe you meant something else though?
Llano was planned for Q1 and Brazos for Q2. Neither of those release dates happened, and neither of them are failing to perform.
Changes in strategy DO happen and actually have been happening a lot at AMD recently.
Launching BD on desktop first made no sense to me at all anyway tbh. I don't think it takes 90 days for GF to get wafers out either, maybe 6-8 weeks maximum.
JF got quiet on the Q2 launch about a month ago in my opinion. I think the decision was probably made then to leave desktop till later...
If yields were below 20% then Seifert wouldn't have said that yields "meet our expectations". This is AMD not Nvidia.
I don't see why it's difficult to believe that Llano is getting the wafers. AMD probably told OEM's to be ready by Q1 but were forced to hold it off and pull in Brazos...
Hmm yeah you're right, that's a weird one. Gotta be memory then because the clocks are a lot higher than Lynnfield. And the tanking of the Athlon 2 X4 suggests cache must be very important as well.
Where did you say that specifically?
I didn't point out anything about integer performance.
Bullshit, you mention over and over that BD has to overcome a 25% reduction vs Phenom II just to get equal on numerous occasions. Your entire argument was based on a house of cards on a shaky foundation.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.