Bought a core upgrade today *Poll too*

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Phynaz

Lifer
Mar 13, 2006
10,140
819
126
Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: Phynaz
AMD southbridge?

No thanks, I'll pass.

Care to explain? Looking at them both on Newegg (AMD board and Intel board) they both look quite comparable. Both have 8 x USB 2.0 and both have the exact same onboard audio. I see the Intel board has 2 more SATA ports (8 vs. 6). I really don't see anything that is a deal breaker on the AMD southbridge I guess.


I'm talking about things that aren't on a spec sheet.

For example, I've not heard yet that AMD has fixed their USB ports.
And their SATA ports are just too broken for me.
 

Flipped Gazelle

Diamond Member
Sep 5, 2004
6,666
3
81
Originally posted by: Phynaz
Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: Phynaz
AMD southbridge?

No thanks, I'll pass.

Care to explain? Looking at them both on Newegg (AMD board and Intel board) they both look quite comparable. Both have 8 x USB 2.0 and both have the exact same onboard audio. I see the Intel board has 2 more SATA ports (8 vs. 6). I really don't see anything that is a deal breaker on the AMD southbridge I guess.


I'm talking about things that aren't on a spec sheet.

For example, I've not heard yet that AMD has fixed their USB ports.
And their SATA ports are just too broken for me.

The USB on SB750 is much better than on SB600. Still not quite as speedy as Inte and Nvidia, but improved.

I've not had a problem with SATA.

Edit: AT has an article about SB750 and points out the improvements.
 

error8

Diamond Member
Nov 28, 2007
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: taltamir
I think the reason people vote for the AMD machine is because they didn't read through your post to find the 30 watt power consumption difference... THAT IS HUGE and translates to a lot of dollars per year.
Either that or they are morons.

Is it so hard for you to understand that for some people, that 30 W difference doesn't matter, especially since it's under full load and nobody is gaming 24 hours a day!?
 

MrK6

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2004
4,458
4
81
Very interesting thread, I actually just faced the same dilemma for a friend who wanted a new gaming rig. We went with the Q8400 + UD3P. First, the UD3P is one of the best motherboards I have owned in regards from features to overclocking abilities (it screams, 510+ FSB on my Q6600). While it the Q8400 has less L2 cache than I would like on a rig focused on gaming, it doesn't seem to impact performance all that much: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...owdoc.aspx?i=3559&p=12 . It looks like the Q8400 comes out ahead once overclocking is throw into the mix, and I think with some tweaking we can easily get this chip past 3.6GHz. Also, the power consumption figures are much better for the Q8400, as pointed out. According to that Xbit article, when you get into overclocking, it looks like the Q8400 puts out almost 70W less than the Phenom at load. Anyway, I think we made the right choice, we'll find out very soon though :).
 

Spoelie

Member
Oct 8, 2005
54
0
0
Phenom should consume the lowest amount of power over time
*Computers are at their idle point much more than at their load point
*Gaming uses around 70-75% of the cpu, not 100% - GPU power consumption is arguably more important
Only if you turn on your computer, immediately start encoding/gaming and afterward you immediately turn it off (no browsing, music, ...) will the power numbers swing in Intel's favor

The extra amount of cache on the phenom will widen the gap slightly over time.

Uncore clock has a pretty significant impact on performance, being able to play with it is just cool :)

So yeah, I voted AMD on this one.
 

error8

Diamond Member
Nov 28, 2007
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: MrK6
It looks like the Q8400 comes out ahead once overclocking is throw into the mix, and I think with some tweaking we can easily get this chip past 3.6GHz.

This was the final conclusion of the overclocking review: "The situation seems to boil down to this - at max frequency the Phenom II will probably retain its performance lead in 3D rendering and ray-tracing applications, while the video encoding lead goes to Intel. Power consumption also favors the Q8400 significantly."

Far Cry 2 was the game that favored q8400, but anandtech didn't used other games to test and see which was faster overall. Based on a single game, I wouldn't conclude that the intel cpu is faster, since in 3d rendering and ray-tracing, Phenom 940 won. So your conclusion is wrong.

And I don't think you can really hit 3.6 ghz with all the tweaking in the world, on the Q8400, since the anandtech reviewer is already using 1.45 V, which is way above the maximum safe limit. And I really think that he does know how to overclock a quad and he played with more settings, not just with the Vcore. ;)
 

Denithor

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2004
6,298
23
81
Originally posted by: Spoelie
Only if you turn on your computer, immediately start encoding/gaming and afterward you immediately turn it off (no browsing, music, ...) will the power numbers swing in Intel's favor.

Or if, like me, you run F@H 24/7.

I've chosen not to buy any of the current quads (although the "S" series from Intel is certainly interesting) because my room is already hot enough. Two GTX 260's crunching really put out the heat and I don't want a molten cpu added to the mix.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,002
126
Originally posted by: Phynaz
Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: Phynaz
AMD southbridge?

No thanks, I'll pass.

Care to explain? Looking at them both on Newegg (AMD board and Intel board) they both look quite comparable. Both have 8 x USB 2.0 and both have the exact same onboard audio. I see the Intel board has 2 more SATA ports (8 vs. 6). I really don't see anything that is a deal breaker on the AMD southbridge I guess.


I'm talking about things that aren't on a spec sheet.

For example, I've not heard yet that AMD has fixed their USB ports.
And their SATA ports are just too broken for me.


Fair enough. I don't have an Intel system here to compare, so I can't comment. But, I have the older SB600 and have no complaints, everything just works. <shrug>

But again, as far as that 30 watts at full load goes, I wouldn't give it a seconds worth of thought unless you're going to be pegging all four cores for days at a time.
 

cusideabelincoln

Diamond Member
Aug 3, 2008
3,275
46
91
Ya know, I wonder why AT's article uses the x264 HD 1st pass benchmark? During testing they claim, "AMD continues to have a large advantage in two pass x264 encoding thanks to a lot of unaligned loads that penalize Intel's pre-Nehalem architectures." This would leave me to believe the Intel processors aren't working as hard and thus not using as much power, although it may not be much.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,002
126
Originally posted by: OCguy
Q8400.


The poll results to not surprise me though.

I thought the PhII had consistantly better minimum frame rates than the C2D/Q processors in general? That could make a difference in some situations. Though, personally I doubt you'd notice much difference with a system built from either of those options.

I can't find the article (it may be an Anandtech article, I can't remember) that tested minimum fps with a variety of different CPU's though, so I could be wrong.
 

PlasmaBomb

Lifer
Nov 19, 2004
11,636
2
81
Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
Originally posted by: taltamir
I think the reason people vote for the AMD machine is because they didn't read through your post to find the 30 watt power consumption difference... THAT IS HUGE and translates to a lot of dollars per year.
Either that or they are morons.

Depends on usage. The X4 940 uses 6w less at idle.

WTF?

You have to run it for 33 odd hours at maximum load to use one single kWh more than the Q8400...

At 100% load 24/7/365 it is about $30...
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,110
64
91
Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
Originally posted by: taltamir
I think the reason people vote for the AMD machine is because they didn't read through your post to find the 30 watt power consumption difference... THAT IS HUGE and translates to a lot of dollars per year.
Either that or they are morons.

Depends on usage. The X4 940 uses 6w less at idle.

WTF?

You have to run it for 33 odd hours at maximum load to use one single kWh more than the Q8400...

At 100% load 24/7/365 it is about $30...

$30 buys a lot of pizza pockets and mtdew though dude, thinx about it.
 

error8

Diamond Member
Nov 28, 2007
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
Originally posted by: taltamir
I think the reason people vote for the AMD machine is because they didn't read through your post to find the 30 watt power consumption difference... THAT IS HUGE and translates to a lot of dollars per year.
Either that or they are morons.

Depends on usage. The X4 940 uses 6w less at idle.

WTF?

You have to run it for 33 odd hours at maximum load to use one single kWh more than the Q8400...

At 100% load 24/7/365 it is about $30...

$30 buys a lot of pizza pockets and mtdew though dude, thinx about it.

Well if you put it this way, then it means that Intel gets you fat, while AMD keeps you fit. :)
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,002
126
Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
Originally posted by: taltamir
I think the reason people vote for the AMD machine is because they didn't read through your post to find the 30 watt power consumption difference... THAT IS HUGE and translates to a lot of dollars per year.
Either that or they are morons.

Depends on usage. The X4 940 uses 6w less at idle.

WTF?

You have to run it for 33 odd hours at maximum load to use one single kWh more than the Q8400...

At 100% load 24/7/365 it is about $30...

Yea, I just don't see that difference amounting to anything for the average user as I've said above. That was blown way out of proportion in my opinion. There could be some situations where that is a major factor to consider for some users, but not for the vast majority of users.

Though IDC does bring up a good point... MMmmmm.. pepperoni...
 

MrK6

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2004
4,458
4
81
Originally posted by: error8
Originally posted by: MrK6
It looks like the Q8400 comes out ahead once overclocking is throw into the mix, and I think with some tweaking we can easily get this chip past 3.6GHz.

This was the final conclusion of the overclocking review: "The situation seems to boil down to this - at max frequency the Phenom II will probably retain its performance lead in 3D rendering and ray-tracing applications, while the video encoding lead goes to Intel. Power consumption also favors the Q8400 significantly."
How? They extrapolated this from what, one overclocking test showing the Phenom ahead? They "probably" should do more research before pulling conclusions out of the air and at least feign some sort of scientific process (like maybe including the actual Vcore they're using so I don't have to go google for it).

Originally posted by: error8 Far Cry 2 was the game that favored q8400, but anandtech didn't used other games to test and see which was faster overall. Based on a single game, I wouldn't conclude that the intel cpu is faster, since in 3d rendering and ray-tracing, Phenom 940 won. So your conclusion is wrong.
Where? Do you have any evidence that I was wrong beyond disagreeing with you? Because I do:

Here's another article - http://www.neoseeker.com/Artic...e_2_quad_q8300_review/
You'll notice that the Q8300 is competitive or faster in most tests against the Phenom 940 (3.45GHz Q8300 vs. 3.8GHz Phenom 940). It does all this while using about 120W less under load and 60W less at idle than the overclocked Phenom 940.

Originally posted by: error8And I don't think you can really hit 3.6 ghz with all the tweaking in the world, on the Q8400, since the anandtech reviewer is already using 1.45 V, which is way above the maximum safe limit. And I really think that he does know how to overclock a quad and he played with more settings, not just with the Vcore. ;)
Why? Because you've tested one? In the review I linked to, both the Q8200 and Q8300 were able to make it to 460FSB, if the Q8400 can, that's already 3.68GHz. The Anandtech reviewer used a 10% (which is 100% + 10% = 1.1) increase on Vcore -> 1.2 x 1.1 = 1.32V. There's still a LOT of room to go with that chip, where did your math fail?

EDIT: Also, concerning the power consumption debate - power consumption is more than just actual kWh cost. Electricity is dirt cheap in the US, however, one should also consider the heat output that comes from the increased power consumption. Now that summer is upon us, it's rather foolish to pay to heat up a room with a new build only to have to cool it down again with A/C (or deal with the sauna, personal call). The costs can definitely add up, not just monetary but also comfort-wise.
 

error8

Diamond Member
Nov 28, 2007
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: MrK6

Originally posted by: error8And I don't think you can really hit 3.6 ghz with all the tweaking in the world, on the Q8400, since the anandtech reviewer is already using 1.45 V, which is way above the maximum safe limit. And I really think that he does know how to overclock a quad and he played with more settings, not just with the Vcore. ;)


The Anandtech reviewer used a 10% (which is 100% + 10% = 1.1) increase on Vcore -> 1.2 x 1.1 = 1.32V. There's still a LOT of room to go with that chip, where did your math fail?

Your eyes are failing you, unfortunally. Read the overclocking page again and be very very careful, when they are saying this: "
The Core 2 Quad Q8400 saw a 15% increase in clock speed without touching the core voltage. Bumping the core voltage up to 1.45V bought us another 11% taking the chip up to 3.36GHz
Now you see it? Should I make the text bigger? ;) They upped it over 10% and there really isn't any more room to go from there.

Originally posted by: MrK6
In the review I linked to, both the Q8200 and Q8300 were able to make it to 460FSB, if the Q8400 can, that's already 3.68GHz.

In the review you've linked, they are saying this:
"

All that was required was:

set Vcore to 1.45V
set Vfsb to 1.45V
set FSB strap to 400MHz FSB
run the DDR3 memory at 1380-8-8-8-24
I could run most benchmarks without many problems at 475MHz, and could post at 500MHz, but I hit the FSB wall (reliably) at 460MHz.

Given that I've previously run this motherboard stably at 490MHz, the 460MHz limit must have come from this particular processor."

As you can see, they are again, using 1.45 V to achieve that overclock. 1.36 V is the maximum allowed for this chip, so I don't see too many people hitting 3.68 ghz by using 1.45 V ,being unsafe and probably on the verge of overheating the cpu. Once again, 3.6 ghz is not guaranteed for this chip, especially when not every motherboard is able to hit 460 FSB with a quad core.
You can't prove your point again, but there is nothing new about that.
 

MrK6

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2004
4,458
4
81
Originally posted by: error8
Originally posted by: MrK6

Originally posted by: error8And I don't think you can really hit 3.6 ghz with all the tweaking in the world, on the Q8400, since the anandtech reviewer is already using 1.45 V, which is way above the maximum safe limit. And I really think that he does know how to overclock a quad and he played with more settings, not just with the Vcore. ;)


The Anandtech reviewer used a 10% (which is 100% + 10% = 1.1) increase on Vcore -> 1.2 x 1.1 = 1.32V. There's still a LOT of room to go with that chip, where did your math fail?

Your eyes are failing you, unfortunally. Read the overclocking page again and be very very careful, when they are saying this: "
The Core 2 Quad Q8400 saw a 15% increase in clock speed without touching the core voltage. Bumping the core voltage up to 1.45V bought us another 11% taking the chip up to 3.36GHz
Now you see it? Should I make the text bigger? ;) They upped it over 10% and there really isn't any more room to go from there.

Originally posted by: MrK6
In the review I linked to, both the Q8200 and Q8300 were able to make it to 460FSB, if the Q8400 can, that's already 3.68GHz.

In the review you've linked, they are saying this:
"

All that was required was:

set Vcore to 1.45V
set Vfsb to 1.45V
set FSB strap to 400MHz FSB
run the DDR3 memory at 1380-8-8-8-24
I could run most benchmarks without many problems at 475MHz, and could post at 500MHz, but I hit the FSB wall (reliably) at 460MHz.

Given that I've previously run this motherboard stably at 490MHz, the 460MHz limit must have come from this particular processor."

As you can see, they are again, using 1.45 V to achieve that overclock. 1.36 V is the maximum allowed for this chip, so I don't see too many people hitting 3.68 ghz by using 1.45 V ,being unsafe and probably on the verge of overheating the cpu. Once again, 3.6 ghz is not guaranteed for this chip, especially when not every motherboard is able to hit 460 FSB with a quad core.
You can't prove your point again, but there is nothing new about that.
Being snippy makes you look immature, don't embarrass yourself. What point didn't I prove? That the Q8400 is a better buy? Did that. That it is faster than the 940 clock for clock and once overclocked? Done.

So that Anandtech review has flawed math/presentation, and you'd like to use them as your primary source for accurate information; that really adds to your standing and argument. Also, the review points to one specific example of a Q8300 (a lower performance grade, mind you), not a Q8400. The 460MHz might be a wall for this chip, the Q8300 model, or the whole series, we don't know. However, as with most reviews, it's time-limited and they probably didn't take the time to tweak all of their options to get maximum FSB/overclock.

Also, since when was 1.36V the "max" for this chip? It's 1.45V as specified by Intel in their white papers. Honestly, pulling arbitrary numbers out of the air doesn't make a point yet either. One of the benefits of using a more efficient chip allows you to keep it cooler and run higher volts and clocks with the same cooling solution (another notch for the Q8400). And we aren't talking about "every motherboard." We're talking about the UD3P, which is a fantastic overclocking motherboard, so that "every motherboard has to do it" point is moot. Hell, my UD3P can boot into Windows at 510FSB+ on my old Q6600 (266MHz rated FSB).

What is the point of all these attempted counter-retorts? That the 940 is a better buy? Not at all. That the Q8400 isn't a good bang-for-your-buck chip? Failed again. If you're arguing just to argue, then go create a thread in OT and send me a PM. It's fine if you're an AMD fan, by all means be an AMD fan, you don't have to make ridiculous or poorly constructed arguments to prove it. However, if you're building a new system with a CPU at the $180-190 price point I can't see any reason to get a 940 over a Q8400.
 

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
13,314
690
126
Originally posted by: Idontcare
The only other deciding factor that I can think might be entertained is the psychological one...

Originally posted by: taltamir
I think the reason people vote for the AMD machine is because they didn't read through your post to find the 30 watt power consumption difference... Either that or they are morons.

Originally posted by: MrK6
It's fine if you're an AMD fan, by all means be an AMD fan, you don't have to make ridiculous or poorly constructed arguments to prove it.

I find these interesting. :laugh:

On topic: I can vouch for the two boards OP considered. (see sig) Both are great boards and just about as identical as could be. P45 one has more overclocking options in BIOS so that is a plus, but I guess that also explains the slight difference in prices.
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,110
64
91
Originally posted by: lopri
Originally posted by: Idontcare
The only other deciding factor that I can think might be entertained is the psychological one...

Originally posted by: taltamir
I think the reason people vote for the AMD machine is because they didn't read through your post to find the 30 watt power consumption difference... Either that or they are morons.

Originally posted by: MrK6
It's fine if you're an AMD fan, by all means be an AMD fan, you don't have to make ridiculous or poorly constructed arguments to prove it.

I find these interesting. :laugh:

Well now you had to know you couldn't just expect to be allowed to leave it as a teaser like that...so "care to expound on what makes these three quotes interesting?". ;)
 

error8

Diamond Member
Nov 28, 2007
3,204
0
76


Originally posted by: MrK6

So that Anandtech review has flawed math/presentation, and you'd like to use them as your primary source for accurate information; that really adds to your standing and argument. Also, the review points to one specific example of a Q8300 (a lower performance grade, mind you), not a Q8400. The 460MHz might be a wall for this chip, the Q8300 model, or the whole series, we don't know. However, as with most reviews, it's time-limited and they probably didn't take the time to tweak all of their options to get maximum FSB/overclock.

Yes, I'm using Anandtech as my first source of accurate information. I have registered on these forums, just because of the great articles I always red on this site. Is there something wrong with that? If you dislike or not trust their articles, why aren't you a member of Tomshardware or something like that?

Originally posted by: MrK6
Also, since when was 1.36V the "max" for this chip? It's 1.45V as specified by Intel in their white papers.

Yup, you are right there :eek: . 1.45 V is the maximum for Q8XXX chips. I was under the impression that if all 45 nm dual cores are maxing out at 1.36 V, then the quads should also have that limit. Even so, if they are using 1.45 V to squeeze 3.3 ghz out of it, I don't see how much room it lefts for you to overclock it.

Originally posted by: MrK6
What is the point of all these attempted counter-retorts? That the 940 is a better buy? Not at all. That the Q8400 isn't a good bang-for-your-buck chip? Failed again. If you're arguing just to argue, then go create a thread in OT and send me a PM. It's fine if you're an AMD fan, by all means be an AMD fan, you don't have to make ridiculous or poorly constructed arguments to prove it. However, if you're building a new system with a CPU at the $180-190 price point I can't see any reason to get a 940 over a Q8400.

I just see the PII 940 as a better cpu, just how you see your q8400. It's funny that my last two cpus were Intel, so how am I an AMD fanboy, is beyond my comprehension abilities. Aside for my mistake with the maximum Vcore, I don't see what poorly constructed arguments I've listed here. PII 940 overclocks better then Q8400, that is fact. It maxes out at 3.6 ghz . And it's very loud and clear that Q8400 doesn't go that far, as the usual norm, even in your own linked review.

What I hate about the Q8XXX series, is that they are so very crippled. This is why, I just like the Phenom II more. I prefer a full size cpu, over one that is just a shadow of it's older and better brothers. Q9400 is a great cpu, Q8400 isn't.
 

MrK6

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2004
4,458
4
81
Originally posted by: error8 Yes, I'm using Anandtech as my first source of accurate information. I have registered on these forums, just because of the great articles I always red on this site. Is there something wrong with that? If you dislike or not trust their articles, why aren't you a member of Tomshardware or something like that?
Anandtech puts out some GREAT reviews. But concerning our specific topic and discussion, the review by Anandtech lacks specific, and vital, information (or at least what it contains is lacking). Hench why I suggested don't rely on it.

Originally posted by: error8 Yup, you are right there :eek: . 1.45 V is the maximum for Q8XXX chips. I was under the impression that if all 45 nm dual cores are maxing out at 1.36 V, then the quads should also have that limit. Even so, if they are using 1.45 V to squeeze 3.3 ghz out of it, I don't see how much room it lefts for you to overclock it.
And the neoseeker used 1.45V and squeezed 3.45GHz out of a Q8300. Like I said earlier, I don't think review articles give all the needed time to take chips to the max, mostly because they're under a time crunch. It'd be nice to see a user review (I'll check xtremesystems later); if not, I'll post one when I get my friend's system together next week.

Originally posted by: error8 I just see the PII 940 as a better cpu, just how you see your q8400. It's funny that my last two cpus were Intel, so how am I an AMD fanboy, is beyond my comprehension abilities. Aside for my mistake with the maximum Vcore, I don't see what poorly constructed arguments I've listed here. PII 940 overclocks better then Q8400, that is fact. It maxes out at 3.6 ghz . And it's very loud and clear that Q8400 doesn't go that far, as the usual norm, even in your own linked review.

What I hate about the Q8XXX series, is that they are so very crippled. This is why, I just like the Phenom II more. I prefer a full size cpu, over one that is just a shadow of it's older and better brothers. Q9400 is a great cpu, Q8400 isn't.
I never said that you were an AMD fanboy, just, in this specific case, an AMD fan. So far you have not provided a sound argument to get the 940 over the Q8400. In the neoseeker article, an overclocked Q8300 @ 3.45GHz performed the same or faster than an overclocked 940 @ 3.8GHz (which is a good overclock for a 940). Meanwhile, it also uses 120W less at load and 60W less at idle (less heat, saved electricity costs, maybe higher overclocks on the same cooling solution for the Q8300). It doesn't matter if the Phenom 940 overclocks higher if the Q8xxx series compensates by being faster clock for clock. Now I understand that the Q8xxx series has less cache, but it is hardly crippled. This happened with the Q9xxx series with only 6MB cache was released instead of the 12MB like its bigger brother. People were pissed about getting less cache, as it does mean less performance, but most of the time it's not even noticeable in most applications. If intel can get cheap and efficient quad cores to market that perform well, why not? That's why I said, there's no logical reason to get a Phenom 940 over a Q8400 beyond simply being a fan (not a fanboy) of AMD.
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
Originally posted by: lopri
Originally posted by: Idontcare
The only other deciding factor that I can think might be entertained is the psychological one...

Originally posted by: taltamir
I think the reason people vote for the AMD machine is because they didn't read through your post to find the 30 watt power consumption difference... Either that or they are morons.

Originally posted by: MrK6
It's fine if you're an AMD fan, by all means be an AMD fan, you don't have to make ridiculous or poorly constructed arguments to prove it.

I find these interesting. :laugh:

On topic: I can vouch for the two boards OP considered. (see sig) Both are great boards and just about as identical as could be. P45 one has more overclocking options in BIOS so that is a plus, but I guess that also explains the slight difference in prices.

if the OP is wrong about 30 watt difference, then he is wrong, not me. I am just trusting him to have done his research correctly for the two identically priced systems that he designed.
The question isn't "should I buy an AMD or Intel CPU", they question is "Should I buy THIS SPECIFIC INTEL or THIS SPECIFIC AMD if the intel cost 2$ more but takes 30 watts less"

BTW, take a poll in any university 500 years ago and the consensus would be that the world is flat :)
Consensus does not mean Correct.
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,110
64
91
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Originally posted by: lopri
Originally posted by: Idontcare
The only other deciding factor that I can think might be entertained is the psychological one...

Originally posted by: taltamir
I think the reason people vote for the AMD machine is because they didn't read through your post to find the 30 watt power consumption difference... Either that or they are morons.

Originally posted by: MrK6
It's fine if you're an AMD fan, by all means be an AMD fan, you don't have to make ridiculous or poorly constructed arguments to prove it.

I find these interesting. :laugh:

Well now you had to know you couldn't just expect to be allowed to leave it as a teaser like that...so "care to expound on what makes these three quotes interesting?". ;)

Hello Lopri?