- Status
mayankleoboy1
Distinguished
- Aug 11, 2010
- 2,497
- 0
- 19,810
Noob, you are a sponge, selectively filtering stuff.
Selecting one benchmark that is
a) Highly threaded
b) Integer heavy.
Why dont you show the itunes benchmark ?
Edit : I thought all benchmarks were false, bribed by Intel :lol:
Selecting one benchmark that is
a) Highly threaded
b) Integer heavy.
Why dont you show the itunes benchmark ?
Edit : I thought all benchmarks were false, bribed by Intel :lol:
JAYDEEJOHN
Champion
- Aug 23, 2006
- 19,840
- 0
- 50,860
Look, lets not eliminate heavily threaded games for a companies sake, but where it isnt, its still not that bad.
You are sorta making the guys video on point here.
Lets just say AMD is a decent alternative, just like any car, and our roads would be boring if they all looked the same
You are sorta making the guys video on point here.
Lets just say AMD is a decent alternative, just like any car, and our roads would be boring if they all looked the same
viridiancrystal
Distinguished
- Jul 27, 2011
- 444
- 0
- 18,790
A highly threaded and Integer heavy benchmark is still a benchmark.
On a related note, If Richland manages 10% over Trinity, and Kaveri goes further, that would bode well for PD -> Steamy. However, Richland's gains seemed to be focused around clocks/process, which would not affect Kaveri or Steamy.
-Fran-
Illustrious
- May 3, 2007
- 9,053
- 2,310
- 42,140
I do recommend AMD when the one asking is seeking something for a little more than just games. Since day-to-day stuff is non-issue, it's hard to be recommending something more than a Pentium dual or an APU for those.
As long as the price they're looking doesn't reach i7 and are NOT willing to do OC, off course.
Ironically, one of the advantages of Intel when leveraging cheap platforms, is their iGPU and the dirt cheap Hxx chipset. AMD just has the APUs in that regard and are usually a tad more expensive, but have more features to them. Maybe I'm a little outdated since last October (when I switched to Intel), but I do remember Intel was cheaper at some feature points against the FX line (not the APUs). Like the cheapest G6xx + H61 is less than FX4K + 760G and are not so far from each other in performance.
Cheers!
A85 platform has Z77 connectivity and features for marginally more than a H61 and B75, the Asrock Extreme 6 A85 is barely $100 and has what a $200 intel Z77 features. The A10 and A8 deliver i3 sort of prformance. With AMD also having FX4 and FX6 parts for around the i3 cost it is hands down value for money in the AMD corner. Of course tests run on i3s are on Z77 which is a terrible waste of money and completely unrealistic and the difference between a Z77 and a lower end B75 or H61 is around 10% so all in all AMD has the budget spectrum pretty much under control.
FX6 and A10 right now are easily more recommendable than a i3 or Pentium
FX6 and A10 right now are easily more recommendable than a i3 or Pentium
selective filtering? your the one that said it...
Maybe you meant everything that is single threaded only, or everything as only the programs that are faster on Intel ...
define your definition of everything, because its clearly not all benchmarks available.
btw, you might want to turn off your own selective filtering. I clearly stated SOME benchmarks are way too obvious that its not just a cpu bound "benchmark", IE SC II being one of the worst out there where PD actually slowed down over BD.
-Fran-
Illustrious
- May 3, 2007
- 9,053
- 2,310
- 42,140
Like I said, the FX line loses when you have to take into account discrete graphics. The i3s and the G Pentiums deliver more for a discrete card. I know about the APUs, but the FX line has no answer yet in the AM3+ platform.
You could show me a cool build using "dirt cheap" components though. It would be interesting. I'll look around and come up with something as well, hehe.
Cheers!
BeastLeeX
Distinguished
- Dec 13, 2011
- 431
- 0
- 18,810
+1
FX6 matches or beats the i3s, and you can overclock'em, and my friend just bought a Dell or some company A8 for $400, and he plays WoW on the highest preset at 1080p i believe. so I would say that AMD has the $100-$140 price range under control.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/699?vs=677
notice, the FX6 beats the i3 3220 (highest end model) in Skyrim, Diablo 3, and Sysmark 2012 overall.
Lets stop this nonsense for 200$ a 8350 does really well compared to its competition and so does the 6300.
Side note
My PSU broke and i'm in college and have no money to waste on a PSU but i have my A8 3520M laptop here plugged into my 1080P tv and i can play dead island maxed out at 720P on it and it looks great. Have to admit i only spent 548$ on this laptop as well talk about one heck of a deal.
mayankleoboy1
Distinguished
- Aug 11, 2010
- 2,497
- 0
- 19,810
Of course the 8350 is a food processor, specially at that price.
But its so much more fun to get a illogical, conspiracy-filled rant out of Noob222.
griptwister
Distinguished
- Oct 7, 2012
- 1,437
- 0
- 19,460
I am a self-proclaimed AMD fanboy. How ever, I'm not waiting till 2014 for performance I can get now... I'm buying an i7 within the next few months here... I live by microcenter... so its only a few bucks more than the 8350. Simply, This has been shown, AMD's Real cores smash Virtual cores in multi-threading. How ever, in gaming and single threading, AMD isn't quite on par... To be nice. Also AMD's memory controller doesn't work as well as Intel and AMD is waiting too long to give the performance they need. I hope SteamRoller makes me regret my decision to buy an i7, but we shall see.
mayankleoboy1 :
Of course the 8350 is a food processor, specially at that price.
But its so much more fun to get a illogical, conspiracy-filled rant out of Noob222.
But its so much more fun to get a illogical, conspiracy-filled rant out of Noob222.
gotta love when this is the best arguement, now the 8350 is just a food processor.
first off: i am not getting into the ongoing "intel/amd does everything better than amd/intel" .... thing. every thread seems to have one like this.
but. i've noticed something. proponents of am3+ platforms keep praising how fx<insert your fave cpu model number> on how much more 'value' they offer, overclocking, motherboard features and whatnot. one thing is quite clear though, fx cpus don't have any igpu. am3+ motherboards don't offer integrated gfx (afaik). so if you're gonna pit strictly intel vs amd, in this case, amd loses hands down because almost all the intel cpus (except the ones with -p suffix and such) have igpus. thus the 'value' that fx4xxx or 6xxx offer, especially fx4xxx vs core i3, goes away. you gotta put in a discreet card to count the fx cpus in. if you're gonna add oc to the calculation, add the value of a good mobo with decent vrm (at least 6 phases afaik), bios, a cooler that can cool those hot messes without driving you insane (imo at least a xig. loki or hyper 212+) - money just keeps on adding up.
here's where the trinity apus shine. the k series apus offer best of everything amd has to offer and it's very likely that kaveri will continue that trend. you get great igpu (no need for discreet), cheap price, 4 integer cores, mobos from a55 to a85 chipset.
so, it comes down to this: if you're gonna champion amd ( i just felt that i've written something like this before), pick your contenders, benchmarks, price points. for example: core i3 vs a10 5800k - 5800k wins. pit an fx8350 vs a core i5 3570k, 3570k will win because of hd4k igpu and better single core and gaming perf.
do's, don'ts and nevers to champion the amd cpus (fx, apus),
■never let your opponent know that the fx needs a discreet gfx card. pit them in build against build instead of purely cpu vs cpu. count a discreet card in and then isolate the cpu perf.
■do cherry pick, cherry pick and cherry pick some more. do pick multithreaded benches and review articles that have majority benches that favor multiple integer cores e.g. bjorn3d, techreport, kitguru all have benches that favor higher number of integer cores. they factor in all benchmark scores so due to the majority of multicore-favoring benches, the final score/judgement will favor fx8350.
■do not pick balanced benches like toms that also include single core/single thread performance and cpu bound gaming (if you do include a bench from these sites, pick a multithreaded bench).
■always try to disregard power consumption and heat generation. this is a must when championing amd cpus. amd cpus are spaceheaters/toasters of the new generation. even some so-called 65w apus can easily push up to 100w heat on load. try to dismiss like 'real gamers and enthusiasts don't care about power use', 'power costs nothing where i live' etc. with that, try to add a snide remark on 'tree huggers' and add a numerical calculation of how little power costs where you live.
■do blame intel's evil business practice. there is actually some truth to this, so your opponent will have a bit of a hard time.
■do pick price points, not the products. a core i5 can humiliate every thing from amd on tasks that a regular gamer/prosumer-type user will perform. however, there are specific tasks that fx8350 will excel in. do emphasise those tasks e.g. video encoding (2 pass, intel sometimes wins in the 1st pass), archiving (7zip, not winzip or rar), encryption. 'prove' that amd offers better performance for price at these tasks.
■do try to pitch apus. trinity, upcoming richland and possibly 28nm kaveri apus will support the same socket so they'll offer a good upgrade path and save money. if you feel getting cornered, make a vague statement of amd offering better upgrade path and switch to the apus. since lga 1155 is dead end and upcoming haswell will support lga1150 socket, in addition to that haswell's successor broadwell will mostly have cpus soldered on the motherboard - your opponent will never know what hit him/her/it/them.
■do pick favorites. this requires a bit of reverse psychology. pick benchmarks that favor intel cpus. sounds weird? no. if you remove almost all the variables including platfors from a test, you'll see that some softwares simply favor one architecture or cpu over the other i.e. programmer(s) didn't bother to optimize for all hardware. pick one that favors intel and perform some of the 'do's' mentioned earlier. you have successfully managed to make intel look bad using the benchmarks that intel wins! great success!
■do not choose benchmarks that come from software coded lazily/improperly. those tend to benefit from higher single core performance which is currently intel's forte. may be return to those when amd offers competitive single core perf. until then, no.
■do not compare memory performance. amd's imc sucks balls, even most of amd fans know this. problem is that ram is so cheap and memory bw is so plenty for regular users that only benchmarkers and high-perf users will benefit from better memory performance. steer away from them.
■if you're comparing core i3/pentium vs apus, do mention that the 4 core (even better with oc) apus will have an advantage in online multiplayer games. make sure to undermine hyperthreading.
■do make fun of intel's product segmentation. in reality, intel, amd, nvidia all do this but your opponent needs to feel that intel's product segmentation is the worst thing since 'liz and dick'... or that new eddie murphy movie.
■do fearmonger. scare people of the impending monopoly if amd goes belly up and intel has free reign on the cpu market. scare them with future $1000 core i3 though amd can't compete with intel even right now - that's why we have $1k core i7 3970x but your opponent doesn't need to know that. do try to make him feel that intel has to have amd in order to sell cpus at reasonable prices (not that they don't do that already >_>).
■do be pathetic, miserable, sappy. this one is one of the last resort moves. start moping saying that amd sucks, they're shitty garbage (even though only amd fanboys say that), people are always out for amd, amd should die etc. your opponent will feel so sorry for you that he/she/it/they will admit 'defeat' (from your p.o.v.) (as if winning/losing the argument serves a great(er) purpose). apparently this tactic is utilized by people who like pity-sex.....i could be wrong about this last bit...
■do not argue about gaming benchmarks. this is a bit of a slippery slope. say you've started championing a quad apu against pentium and suddenly your opponent brings in a core i5 saying that 'proper' gaming needs at least a core i5 and a powerful discreet card. higher core amd cpus do have a slight advantage against lower core core i3/pentiums/celerons in multiplayer games. stick to a low price point so that your opponent can't bring in a core i5 or higher. also try to argue the definition of 'proper' gaming.
■do mention 'superior' multitasking of amd cpus. this is somewhat true for 4+core amd cpus vs dual core intel cpus. most regular users don't have a clear idea about what will happen when all the cpu cores are loaded and which cpu will perform better. most people still think that higher number of cores easily results in better multitasking which is not always true - but your opponent doesn't need to know that.
■do chant the 'moar cores are the future' mantra. this is true, more cpus/gpu cores will improve performance. although regular users still don't need more than 2-4 cores but make them feel that amd is offering more (but less performing) hardware for less money. old 6 cores amd phenom ii cpus never really caught on...
■do mention that amd has better performance per dollar. this is mostly true if the benchmark suite you picked has majority of benches that favor multiple integer cores.
■do make sure that the benchmark suite has less number of games. why? pc games only recently started using 4 cores, most of them still use 2 cores. even with games that use 4 cores, intel has an advantage for their superior single core performance. using the 'lower price point' tactic combined with 'moar cores...' will help you win.
■do try to lock out core i5 cpus as much as you can. amd cpus' biggest advantages are actually against core i3 and lower cpus. quad core amd apus actually offer overall comparable cpu performance along with superior igpu performance.
so, to summerize: cherry pick, keep i5 out, pick lower price limit, fearmonger, act sad.
hopefully this will help a decently knowledgeable amd fanboy defeat an intel fan or a m.i.l.f. (mindless intel loving fanboy).
but. i've noticed something. proponents of am3+ platforms keep praising how fx<insert your fave cpu model number> on how much more 'value' they offer, overclocking, motherboard features and whatnot. one thing is quite clear though, fx cpus don't have any igpu. am3+ motherboards don't offer integrated gfx (afaik). so if you're gonna pit strictly intel vs amd, in this case, amd loses hands down because almost all the intel cpus (except the ones with -p suffix and such) have igpus. thus the 'value' that fx4xxx or 6xxx offer, especially fx4xxx vs core i3, goes away. you gotta put in a discreet card to count the fx cpus in. if you're gonna add oc to the calculation, add the value of a good mobo with decent vrm (at least 6 phases afaik), bios, a cooler that can cool those hot messes without driving you insane (imo at least a xig. loki or hyper 212+) - money just keeps on adding up.
here's where the trinity apus shine. the k series apus offer best of everything amd has to offer and it's very likely that kaveri will continue that trend. you get great igpu (no need for discreet), cheap price, 4 integer cores, mobos from a55 to a85 chipset.
so, it comes down to this: if you're gonna champion amd ( i just felt that i've written something like this before), pick your contenders, benchmarks, price points. for example: core i3 vs a10 5800k - 5800k wins. pit an fx8350 vs a core i5 3570k, 3570k will win because of hd4k igpu and better single core and gaming perf.
do's, don'ts and nevers to champion the amd cpus (fx, apus),
■never let your opponent know that the fx needs a discreet gfx card. pit them in build against build instead of purely cpu vs cpu. count a discreet card in and then isolate the cpu perf.
■do cherry pick, cherry pick and cherry pick some more. do pick multithreaded benches and review articles that have majority benches that favor multiple integer cores e.g. bjorn3d, techreport, kitguru all have benches that favor higher number of integer cores. they factor in all benchmark scores so due to the majority of multicore-favoring benches, the final score/judgement will favor fx8350.
■do not pick balanced benches like toms that also include single core/single thread performance and cpu bound gaming (if you do include a bench from these sites, pick a multithreaded bench).
■always try to disregard power consumption and heat generation. this is a must when championing amd cpus. amd cpus are spaceheaters/toasters of the new generation. even some so-called 65w apus can easily push up to 100w heat on load. try to dismiss like 'real gamers and enthusiasts don't care about power use', 'power costs nothing where i live' etc. with that, try to add a snide remark on 'tree huggers' and add a numerical calculation of how little power costs where you live.
■do blame intel's evil business practice. there is actually some truth to this, so your opponent will have a bit of a hard time.
■do pick price points, not the products. a core i5 can humiliate every thing from amd on tasks that a regular gamer/prosumer-type user will perform. however, there are specific tasks that fx8350 will excel in. do emphasise those tasks e.g. video encoding (2 pass, intel sometimes wins in the 1st pass), archiving (7zip, not winzip or rar), encryption. 'prove' that amd offers better performance for price at these tasks.
■do try to pitch apus. trinity, upcoming richland and possibly 28nm kaveri apus will support the same socket so they'll offer a good upgrade path and save money. if you feel getting cornered, make a vague statement of amd offering better upgrade path and switch to the apus. since lga 1155 is dead end and upcoming haswell will support lga1150 socket, in addition to that haswell's successor broadwell will mostly have cpus soldered on the motherboard - your opponent will never know what hit him/her/it/them.
■do pick favorites. this requires a bit of reverse psychology. pick benchmarks that favor intel cpus. sounds weird? no. if you remove almost all the variables including platfors from a test, you'll see that some softwares simply favor one architecture or cpu over the other i.e. programmer(s) didn't bother to optimize for all hardware. pick one that favors intel and perform some of the 'do's' mentioned earlier. you have successfully managed to make intel look bad using the benchmarks that intel wins! great success!
■do not choose benchmarks that come from software coded lazily/improperly. those tend to benefit from higher single core performance which is currently intel's forte. may be return to those when amd offers competitive single core perf. until then, no.
■do not compare memory performance. amd's imc sucks balls, even most of amd fans know this. problem is that ram is so cheap and memory bw is so plenty for regular users that only benchmarkers and high-perf users will benefit from better memory performance. steer away from them.
■if you're comparing core i3/pentium vs apus, do mention that the 4 core (even better with oc) apus will have an advantage in online multiplayer games. make sure to undermine hyperthreading.
■do make fun of intel's product segmentation. in reality, intel, amd, nvidia all do this but your opponent needs to feel that intel's product segmentation is the worst thing since 'liz and dick'... or that new eddie murphy movie.
■do fearmonger. scare people of the impending monopoly if amd goes belly up and intel has free reign on the cpu market. scare them with future $1000 core i3 though amd can't compete with intel even right now - that's why we have $1k core i7 3970x but your opponent doesn't need to know that. do try to make him feel that intel has to have amd in order to sell cpus at reasonable prices (not that they don't do that already >_>).
■do be pathetic, miserable, sappy. this one is one of the last resort moves. start moping saying that amd sucks, they're shitty garbage (even though only amd fanboys say that), people are always out for amd, amd should die etc. your opponent will feel so sorry for you that he/she/it/they will admit 'defeat' (from your p.o.v.) (as if winning/losing the argument serves a great(er) purpose). apparently this tactic is utilized by people who like pity-sex.....i could be wrong about this last bit...
■do not argue about gaming benchmarks. this is a bit of a slippery slope. say you've started championing a quad apu against pentium and suddenly your opponent brings in a core i5 saying that 'proper' gaming needs at least a core i5 and a powerful discreet card. higher core amd cpus do have a slight advantage against lower core core i3/pentiums/celerons in multiplayer games. stick to a low price point so that your opponent can't bring in a core i5 or higher. also try to argue the definition of 'proper' gaming.
■do mention 'superior' multitasking of amd cpus. this is somewhat true for 4+core amd cpus vs dual core intel cpus. most regular users don't have a clear idea about what will happen when all the cpu cores are loaded and which cpu will perform better. most people still think that higher number of cores easily results in better multitasking which is not always true - but your opponent doesn't need to know that.
■do chant the 'moar cores are the future' mantra. this is true, more cpus/gpu cores will improve performance. although regular users still don't need more than 2-4 cores but make them feel that amd is offering more (but less performing) hardware for less money. old 6 cores amd phenom ii cpus never really caught on...
■do mention that amd has better performance per dollar. this is mostly true if the benchmark suite you picked has majority of benches that favor multiple integer cores.
■do make sure that the benchmark suite has less number of games. why? pc games only recently started using 4 cores, most of them still use 2 cores. even with games that use 4 cores, intel has an advantage for their superior single core performance. using the 'lower price point' tactic combined with 'moar cores...' will help you win.
■do try to lock out core i5 cpus as much as you can. amd cpus' biggest advantages are actually against core i3 and lower cpus. quad core amd apus actually offer overall comparable cpu performance along with superior igpu performance.
so, to summerize: cherry pick, keep i5 out, pick lower price limit, fearmonger, act sad.
hopefully this will help a decently knowledgeable amd fanboy defeat an intel fan or a m.i.l.f. (mindless intel loving fanboy).
JAYDEEJOHN
Champion
- Aug 23, 2006
- 19,840
- 0
- 50,860
Boy,, somewhat TLDR, but got most of it.
I bet youve lost your lifetime membership at AMDZone heheh
I bet youve lost your lifetime membership at AMDZone heheh
Bargain basement:
FX 4XXX entry gamer.
Gigabyte GA-970-UD3 $100
FX-4170 (Can replace with the FX-4300) $120
HD7770 $130
Crucial Ballistix Tracers DDR3 1600 $45
Total system estimated cost: ~$500 (includes drives, PSU and Chassis)
Pros:
Balance of connectivity with a fair helping of enthusiast features.
Solid gaming performance at 1080P
Cons:
FX-4170 runs hot sufficient aftermarket cooling and good airflow case is a aspect to consider.
Rating: 7/10
APU Gamer
ASRock A85 Extreme-6 $100 (Can save $30 on the Extreme 4 - M which is essentially the same board minus extra PCI slots)
A8-5600K $100
G.Skill TridentX DDR3 2400 $70
Flexibility
HD6670 $70 (Dual graphics mode will get around a HD7750 performance)
HD7850 $180
A10-5800K
Estimated System Cost: ~$500-600 (Drives, PSU, Chassis)
Pros:
Balanced CPU and iGPU performance.
HSA is notable when supported.
Connectivity and features seen on the most expensive Z77 platforms.
Overclocking headroom on CPU, iGPU and RAM is off the chart RAM SPD's in excess of 3000mhz easily attainable with notable iGPU performance gains.
Flexibility.
Impressive discrete and dual graphics performance in context.
Good HTPC
Cons:
X86 performance is acceptable.
iGPU performance is impressive considering but still in its infancy.
Rating:
8.5/10
Mid-Level Gamer
MSI-990XA-GD80 $150
FX-6300 $140
Crucial Ballistix Tracers DDR3 1866 $50
HD7870 GE $220
Estimated System Cost: ~$700 (Drives, Chassis, PSU)
Pros:
Flawless gaming at 1080P
Balanced price/performance
Cons:
None
Rating 9/10
Extreme AMD Gaming Dream Machine
Asus Crosshair V Formula Z $240
FX-8350 $200
G.Skill TridentX DDR3 2133 $60
HD7970 GE $400
Estimated System Cost ~$900
Pros:
Fastest AMD CPU to date.
Tremendous overclocking capabilities.
ROG features and connectivity.
Exceptional gaming performance.
High end components at a sub $1000 bracket
Competes well with Intel equivalents in the price bracket.
Cons:
Overkill, cheaper components easily achieve close enough to this performance to render spending this amount irrelevant.
Rating: 8/10
AMD's 2014 Kabini successor is Beema
http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/30108-amds-2014-kabini-successor-is-beema
http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/30108-amds-2014-kabini-successor-is-beema
viridiancrystal
Distinguished
- Jul 27, 2011
- 444
- 0
- 18,790
http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/30102-amd-28nm-chips-are-still-tsmc
Beyond the article, I enjoyed reading through the comments. AMD making it's mobile/low end parts at TSMC, unhappy with process/yields at GloFo.
Beyond the article, I enjoyed reading through the comments. AMD making it's mobile/low end parts at TSMC, unhappy with process/yields at GloFo.
esrever
Splendid
- Dec 27, 2011
- 5,386
- 0
- 26,160
this is beginning to look like one of them "Intel Vs AMD which is better" threads.
Anyways back on "topic". Since Kabini and Temash are from TMSC and that Richland is at 32nm, its pretty safe to assume glofo still doesn't have 28nm going. It would also explain why Kaveri is launching so soon after Richland and why AMD want to launch power hungry desktop Kaveri first before Laptops for the first time.
Anyways back on "topic". Since Kabini and Temash are from TMSC and that Richland is at 32nm, its pretty safe to assume glofo still doesn't have 28nm going. It would also explain why Kaveri is launching so soon after Richland and why AMD want to launch power hungry desktop Kaveri first before Laptops for the first time.
well some saw AMD capitulating early this term, they said that SR and subsequent roadmaps were ditched and the company was heading to a buy out. Others said that SR was still on schedule, AMD will take knocks until Q2 then the situation will improve. Stocks have gone from a sub 2 points to 2.7 some expecting this to improve gradually and that followed the leaks of SR definitely due out along with GCN SeaIslands parts.
I guess its choose to be the cynic or choose to believe that AMD had to take the knocks to get through it and look to get better. AMD ditched 500 odd engineers and technicians but hired 100 odd higher skilled prominent staff, where 1 can outperform 5 its not really that much of a train smash its just restructuring. AMD will be fine because the technology and innovation is really good.
I guess its choose to be the cynic or choose to believe that AMD had to take the knocks to get through it and look to get better. AMD ditched 500 odd engineers and technicians but hired 100 odd higher skilled prominent staff, where 1 can outperform 5 its not really that much of a train smash its just restructuring. AMD will be fine because the technology and innovation is really good.
mayankleoboy1
Distinguished
- Aug 11, 2010
- 2,497
- 0
- 19,810
I dont agree with this.
Plus, if they can do the work of 5 people , they would be paid more than 5 times the other.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
News Zen 5 SMT-focused testing suggests Intel made a mistake ditching Hyper-Threading on Lunar Lake- Started by Admin
- Replies: 76
-
News Intel's stock drops 30% overnight —company sheds $39 billion in market cap
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 42
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram