Being on a CRT, i am happy to sacrifice resolution for buttery smooth gameplay and better textures/shadows/effects etc. If i cant get over 50fps i will drop from 2048x1536 to a minimum of 1600x1200 before i start dropping settings instead.
I only have two mandatory requirements when it comes to...
PS1/N64/Saturn era was by far the best. The leap from 16 bit to 32bit and 2d to 3d was visually amazing, and the use of CD-ROM allowed for comparatively massive games and excellent audio. But it wasn't just the hardware.. The PS1 era gave birth to brand new exciting, original never seen before...
I used to disable AV and close all internet browser tabs and running apps before gaming back when i was on a dual core e7500 @ 4ghz for maximum performance. Now that im running a quad core i2500k @ 4.4ghz with 8gb of ram there's no need.
Just get an AV that is known to have a small footprint...
I'd ask "How tight did your bumholes pucker up when you guys read the SB reviews over at AMD HQ?" :P
In seriousness no question asked is going to get a 100% straight answer, it is PR after all and no ones gunna stand up and see "look we F'd up ok? We'll try and do better next time"
I'd...
So pretty much the OP is asking us to be patient, give AMD the benefit of the doubt and have faith that they will deliver in a timely manner, while AMD remains completely tight lipped and gives no guarantees or indicators otherwise?
De je vu anyone?
We've been hearing the same thing from AMD...
So wake me up when all the things you mentioned have come into effect/been rectified. I'll enjoy the all round performance of my 2500k til then.
Maybe after Windows 8 comes out, in 18 months time or so, i might think about buying into AMD's chip design if advantages are to be had then, AND...
Yep, you either gotta feel sorry for the marketing guys at AMD for being forced to put a positive spin on and trying to sell a turd in a toilet bowl, or be annoyed at how out of touch they are with the sub par product they are pedaling.
"Unrivaled, Unlocked, Unbelievable?" Yeah unbelievable is...
Unless your 90 years old or you plan on dying in the next 10 years, then i think we will definitely see an 8 core Intel CPU under $250 in the next 10 years. Hell, in less than five years we've gone from the first ever quad core costing $1000 to paying less than $180 for Intel's latest offering...
AMD were right about not releasing early benchmarks in fear of cannibilizing their current sales. Except it wouldnt have been due to a halt of Phenom II sales because of people holding off buying and waiting for BD causing a backlog of unsellable inventory, but for people realizing that BD...
So if this slide is to scale AMD will have a processor equal to Phenom II next year, and finally a processor faster than Phenom II in 2013?
They need a hell of alot more than a 10-15% increase each year to stay competitive
As usual Intel provides in depth information about their next gen well in advance. Seems they aren't worried about "cannibalizing their own sales" or "handing information to their competitors" as jf amd is.
It's a strategy that works well, because now anyone in the market to build a new pc...
Bobby was so enraged he vowed never to use PC's again and the next day he applied to work at the local Genius Bar. The manager said he was the most over qualified applicant he had ever saw.
Hehe that ramp could also be referred to as a sandy bridge :P Notice it's complete, solid, has been around for a while yet is still perfectly useful.
Here is a ramp that better symbolizes AMD
So basically you destroyed your chip because you bent the socket pins due to improperly/carelessly installing your CPU which shorted out and fried the chip, and felt that it was Intel's responsibility to send you a brand new one so you could give it a second attempt?
Bd has had the telltale signs of being a disappointment for some time.
1) The sacking of the ceo as soon as sb was released
2) Delay after delay after delay
3) The refusal of AMD to throw the media/public a bone in regards to previews or benchmarks (this can partly be attributed to #2)...
What AMD doesn't want you to take away from this PR stunt:
Even at 5.9 ghz under phase change, BD is still slower in single thread performance than SB @ 5ghz, and MUCH slower than a 2600k in multithreaded performance due to only managing to have one module/2 cores active at that clockspeed :P...
If BD is <10% faster clock for clock in single thread and multi thread AND OC's to 5ghZ like my 2500k, i'll be glad i didn't wait for it because i've enjoyed this level of performance for 9 months now.
If it is >10% faster across the board and OC's to 5ghz then i'll consider buying one.
I...
I dunno... The paltry 100mhz turbo increase on the FX-4170, plus the rumors that the delays are partly due to AMD not being able to reach the clocks they wanted, leads me to believe that 4.3 Ghz is fast approaching the max overclocking headroom limit at a reasonable voltage/temp on the current...
Just saying...it's obvious AMD has had big troubles and complications with BD considering it's immense lateness, it wouldn't surprise me if with Intel's much larger R&D budget they could improve upon BD's design if they really wanted to.. wasnt being serious, just a little fun at AMDs expense
Yep i reckon Intel would've had their hands on just about every relevant stepping of BD, im sure they know exactly how it's going to perform. Hell they probably have it performing better than AMD are able to..
Hay guys Im having my own bulldozer event at my house. come over n watch me play dirt 2 on my pc. it will be the only program installed and u can't look inside the case or in system properties, but just take my word for it, it is powered by bulldozer n this is what it can do!!
I know you're talking about price performance ratio, but im just getting down to the semantics of the word "better". Most people would feel you are being misleading or wrong by making statements like "athlon x4 is a better chip than 2600k" especially on a tech forum. When you say something is...
I think almost everyone would agree that "better" means the CPU you would pick if someone offered to give you any ONE of those CPUs for free.
Would you choose a free X4 640 over a free 2600k? Of course you wouldn't, because the 2600k is better. If you did choose the X4 you would just be cutting...
I'm not sure but i would think dual 64s on sata 2 would still outscore a single 64 on sata 3. Besides that still doesnt explain why the single 64gb outscores the 256gb by so much when they are both tested at sata 3.
Flamenko, im confused by some of the results on your Vantage HDD suite scores..It shows the 64gb c300 beating the 256gb c300 by over 13,000 points?? Also according to your chart the 64gb c300 and two 64gb c300's in raid 0 score EXACTLY the same? (55880)
Well said. It seems like were putting 4k random performance up on a pedestal as the be all end all of everyday SSD performance, much like we did with CPU clock speed in the past. With all the millions of dollars Crucial, Intel, Marvell etc invest in R & D do people really think that they're...
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.