Highend vs Mid-Range, was AMD right?

[Chiropteran]

Those are both AMD systems.

One is an AMD video card with an AMD CPU, the other is an AMD video card with an Intel CPU.

Looks to me like AMD has won, it's only competitor is itself 🙂

 

[Ferzerp]

Those are both AMD systems.

One is an AMD video card with an AMD CPU, the other is an AMD video card with an Intel CPU.

Looks to me like AMD has won, it's only competitor is itself 🙂

AMD is the only video card company for the time being. Nvidia isn't competitive, and won't have a chance to be so until they release their new cards (whenever that is).

 

[Idontcare]

The point of article was to high light how we get caught up in specs of hardware and not the experience itself.

If the point of the article is correct, then it brings to question why AMD endeavors to sell 8-core bulldozers. Surely that quad core PhII 960 is ample for all but the extreme 1% of users.

Right?

To bad AMD had to go and waste all that shareholder equity building bulldozer, didn't AMD know their own 45nm quad-core was enough? Did they get wrapped up in the specs and forget its just the experience that counts?

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

high end=most expensive crap possible

Not this again. No, it is not.

Please educate yourself. Anything in the Performance market and up is, according to the market, high-end.

 

[blckgrffn]

*snip*

Understand and agree. The only thing I would say is that if someone is building a ~$500 "gaming" PC, I don't think that either an AMD or Intel (CPU/chipset) is going to serve them poorly as they will be limited by GPU power unless they do something really funky.

By the time that the Intel solution "has the legs" to really play games that the AMD one no longer can, how large will that performance gap? It's more likely they'll both be too slow.

For the people I consult with for gaming builds, this is the only time we talk about AMD really, but right now a lot of people I know down for doing things on the cheap.

I also have a tough time recommending a two thread build now, despite what the benchmarks may claim (show). It hurts 😛 If it comes down to a FX-4100 vs a G620? That puts me in a bind, given they both cost basically the same (the FX-4100 is actually $50 cheaper, for me) and I am really trying to optimize builds to include a 128GB SSD these days...

What I am trying to say is that when you are on the cheap (it's pretty much how my brain is wired), you take the speed for the $$$ or even brand preference typically because CPUs are generally "fast enough" and SSDs and GPUs are better investments for instant gratifications. phew, that took long enough.

Not this again. No, it is not.

Please educate yourself. Anything in the Performance market and up is, according to the market, high-end.

I think that he, too, was criticizing the article based on this presumption.

 

[Chiropteran]

If the point of the article is correct, then it brings to question why AMD endeavors to sell 8-core bulldozers. Surely that quad core PhII 960 is ample for all but the extreme 1% of users.

Right?

To bad AMD had to go and waste all that shareholder equity building bulldozer, didn't AMD know their own 45nm quad-core was enough? Did they get wrapped up in the specs and forget its just the experience that counts?

But bulldozer is cheaper than those expensive 45nm Ph2s. At least if you buy it at a Microcenter.

 

[Matthiasa]

How does one miss a 2x difference in fps... unless the screen sucked anyways?

That is of course assuming that it wasn't something dumb like one was at >60 and the other was 2x that.
Even good monitors often can't do that.

 

[Blitzvogel]

Did they play BF3 on those two rigs?

 

[Puppies04]

Did they play BF3 on those two rigs?

I will let you know shortly, just reading the article....

 

[Puppies04]

Did they play BF3 on those two rigs?

Elder scrolls, crisis 2 and dirt 3 on a generic 1920 x 1080p 60hz monitor. They spend a lot of time dancing around the fact that it isn't really a "real world" example of how each machine would really be set up and even explain that you would get pretty much the same results from the "high end" rig with a 2500k or similar CPU but they wanted to show.... hell i'm not sure what they wanted to show, I think they just had a few pages to fill before deadline day.

 

[Ketchup]

Not that the Intel setup isn't ridiculous enough without it, but some quick adding shows that had to buy the $1600 480 GB RevoDrive to get the price they are showing, which obviously has nothing to do with playing games.

Glad I am not wasting money on a subscription to that magazine.

 

[DeeDot78]

U can have good gaming experience without spending alot of money. No one is denying intel is the best or they could've spent money better, but this one example. Strong opinions, from a simple article. This articles doesn't say anything or imply that tech shouldn't push forward. Bulldozer was a ,mishap but bulldozer is mentioned in this article where? This speaks to price, they could have featured a 2100, with the same affect.

 

[Ferzerp]

U can have good gaming experience without spending alot of money. No one is denying intel is the best or they could've spent money better, but this one example. Strong opinions, from a simple article. This articles doesn't say anything or imply that tech shouldn't push forward. Bulldozer was a ,mishap but bulldozer is mentioned in this article where? This speaks to price, they could have featured a 2100, with the same affect.

*effect

The effect of mispairing something with a crappy 1080p monitor? Congrats I guess?