AMD: Done for?

[renz496]

Some of you guys are idiots. The OP hasnt even responded to his own thread, he/she is sitting back in their arm chair watching you guys argue and debate whilst he/she creates a flame war and falls back. I doubt we will be seeing the OP again.

maybe he/she just want to create this useless flame war and have fun with it

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

n games such as Wolfenstein, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Tom Clancy’s H.A.W.X, BattleForge and Far Cry 2 the Phenom II X4 processors were actually faster when clocked up near 4GHz! This is quite amazing as out of the 9 games tested, the Phenom II X4 series was faster than the Core i7’s in 5 of them


While we hardly expect there will be many users trying to pair a $600 US graphics card, such as the Radeon HD 5970, with a budget processor, it is nice to see that the sub-$200 US processors are up to the task. The Intel Core i7 920 proved to be more than powerful enough at $280 US, while the AMD Phenom II X4 955 will work just as well at $165 US, giving users plenty of great options.

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=869&p=0

Yea, poor AMD

 

[Scotteq]

<Captain Obvious to the rescue>

Yes! Once again, we find that in GPU Limited Benchmarks the speed and processing power of the CPU doesn't make much difference!!!

Impressive!! (well.. not really, but whatever...)

</Captain Obvious>

 

[jeffk464]

n games such as Wolfenstein, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Tom Clancy’s H.A.W.X, BattleForge and Far Cry 2 the Phenom II X4 processors were actually faster when clocked up near 4GHz! This is quite amazing as out of the 9 games tested, the Phenom II X4 series was faster than the Core i7’s in 5 of them


While we hardly expect there will be many users trying to pair a $600 US graphics card, such as the Radeon HD 5970, with a budget processor, it is nice to see that the sub-$200 US processors are up to the task. The Intel Core i7 920 proved to be more than powerful enough at $280 US, while the AMD Phenom II X4 955 will work just as well at $165 US, giving users plenty of great options.

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=869&p=0

Yea, poor AMD

Indeed, unless you spend a fortune on dual graphics cards, the cpu is not really the bottleneck. The typical $150-200 graphics card is pretty well matched with a sub $200 cpu, either intel or AMD.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Yea, limited, thats why one wins 4 the other 5 out of nine, as we all know gpu limitations make fps flipflop like this
PS your welcome Sgt Dubious

Even at 4Ghz, the lowly? i7 loses 5 out of nine.
Whatever excuses you want to make, I just pointed out a good reason why Intels advantages for some are severly overated for most

 

[jennyh]

That doesn't matter jaydee because the i7 is clearly superior in left4dead at 640x480 resolution.

 

[earl45]

That doesn't matter jaydee because the i7 is clearly superior in left4dead at 640x480 resolution.

What you and JDJ don't want to admit is most people use there cpu for more than just games, and thats why Intels
cpu are the better choice.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Well, the OP stated that at lower than 200$ AMD had nothing=debunked
The OP stated that for highend usage AMD hasnt a solution= debunked
The OP stated that the i7 was clearly superior= debunked
The OP stated that the new Intel releases would leave AMD with nothing, now, either the lower end cpus soon to be released are superior to i7, or theyll lose by even more in those 5 out of 9, and maybe lose in a couple other of the last 4 = debunked.

Links there, facts are there, truth is there, fps dont flipflop because of gpu limitations, this is simply how it is, so yes, Im being obvious, and not making dubious claims

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

What you and JDJ don't want to admit is most people use there cpu for more than just games, and thats why Intels
cpu are the better choice.

Id like to see numbers on that, as I can pull up steams numbers for gamers numbers, you have numbers for say, winrar? or anything?
Office usage is again a dubious distinction, as they buyers are often "sold" by marketing and not perf. Also, you cant ignore 10 billion dollars worth of stifling in these markets either

As for proofs of my last 2 statements, see P4 and the NY AG

 

[jennyh]

What you and JDJ don't want to admit is most people use there cpu for more than just games, and thats why Intels
cpu are the better choice.

Regardless of that, what happened to i7 beating all with muti-card setups and/or at 4ghz? The last excuse the i7 people were using has gone. Both of them actually, crossfire and 4ghz - the Phenom II is just as good or better than i7.

What happened to faster graphics cards showing better with the i7? Well there's another little intel myth busted right there.

 

[earl45]

Well, the OP stated that at lower than 200$ AMD had nothing=debunked
The OP stated that for highend usage AMD hasnt a solution= debunked
The OP stated that the i7 was clearly superior= debunked
The OP stated that the new Intel releases would leave AMD with nothing, now, either the lower end cpus soon to be released are superior to i7, or theyll lose by even more in those 5 out of 9, and maybe lose in a couple other of the last 4 = debunked.

Links there, facts are there, truth is there, fps dont flipflop because of gpu limitations, this is simply how it is, so yes, Im being obvious, and not making dubious claims

Ok let's play it, you and jenny's way then show the forum readers how well AMD compete with intel without use games.

 

[jennyh]

Ok let's play it, you and jenny's way then show the forum readers how well AMD compete with intel without use games.

How about you do it instead? Make sure you do it based on price/performance btw.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

It all depends on apps.
You could argue the average user will never really see the benefits of i7 having a higher IPC or even its SMT, if the vast majority only surfs, plays some music, light gaming and emails.
I understand your point, and have no problem with it, except that as I just mentioned, ripping off AMD growing and using its dollars earned from the ripoff for R&D etc and then to say, gee guess who sells more, or who currently has the best is a bit misleading, like saying how powerful the US is now without also looking at the past, and also overselling how important the vast majority of users actual uses mean to the user in perf between the 2 companies and their respective chips.
Its not so cut in dried, even without using the most used scenario (gaming) for the average user. Its not us here who make a dent into the vast amounts of sales here, its the OEMs that sell to average Joe, and as Ive said, he doesnt know the difference anyways, and thats my point here.
So, sure, leave out the largest usage by average Joe if you want, but the rest doesnt make a bit of difference to him

 

[Scotteq]

Yea, limited, thats why one wins 4 the other 5 out of nine, as we all know gpu limitations make fps flipflop like this
PS your welcome Sgt Dubious

Even at 4Ghz, the lowly? i7 loses 5 out of nine.
Whatever excuses you want to make, I just pointed out a good reason why Intels advantages for some are severly overated for most

You're right - If gaming is important (which it is to many/most here) then you have successfully shown that an individual's choice of CPU doesn't matter. This should be obvious because the stress is not on the CPU.

However, the only Dubious part here is fanbois who use GPU based benchies to provide "evidence" of a Proccy's "superiority". And you, Sir, are *very* *well* *aware* of this little fact. So kindly spare me - It's my opinion your only reason to be upset and go on the offensive is that you got called on it.

It's really really simple: When gaming is important, use gaming benchies. When Multithreading is important, then use tests which stress that. If/when encoding is important, then then use encoding tools. And If/when you want to measure CPU performance, you use benchies that stress the CPU. It is misleading and innacurate to use gaming benchies to prove/disprove a given CPU's capabilities. Period. End.


And as you all should WELL know by now: I'm not a fanboi of either company. It's all just Product. I am, however, quite annoyed at the blatant bias and liberal usage of dis/mis~information used by individuals On Both Sides.



...and in a more personal note, Jay - Fanboi~ism aside, I should expect a MODERATOR of this website to at least have the dignity to leave personal attacks out of it. If you have an issue with that, then I cordially invite you to take it up with me offline. PM me if you want my Cell#.

 

[jennyh]

I think that was because he believed you were inferring he was captain obvious. I had to read it again to see that you weren't.

 

[jeffk464]

What you and JDJ don't want to admit is most people use there cpu for more than just games, and thats why Intels
cpu are the better choice.

Gaming is probably the most demanding thing most users do. Most other uses are multimedia, web browsing, and office type stuff, all of which can be handled by the lowely regor 250.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

I replied in kind, and if that made you upset for calling you dubious, then I apologize, but it was more a joke intended than an attack, which is very different, and if I had to do such as be harsh, it would have already been done.
The OP stated AMD had nothing, I used by your own admissions usage that AMD does quite well at.
If you already knew this, then why call me obvious? and insist that the OP is in itself ok?
Or, do you not think it should be corrected, even using obvious ways to do so? With you pointing that out

 

[jeffk464]

Kind of prooves my earlier point that the platform is becoming more important than then all out cpu performance. Issues such as does it have HDMI out, can it bitstream HD audio, how does the onboard graphics handle HD video, how quite is the system. All of these things are more significant to me then all out processor speed.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

OK, again, Im sorry, I got it wrong, I thought it was pointed towards me. I hate these threads, and maybe theyll be more short lived in the future, as if we got caught up in this, then others surely will as well.

I didnt see the last captain obvious, only the first, so I was mistaken here

 

[Scotteq]

I replied in kind, and if that made you upset for calling you dubious, then I apologize, but it was more a joke intended than an attack, which is very different, and if I had to do such as be harsh, it would have already been done.
The OP stated AMD had nothing, I used by your own admissions usage that AMD does quite well at.
If you already knew this, then why call me obvious? and insist that the OP is in itself ok?
Or, do you not think it should be corrected, even using obvious ways to do so? With you pointing that out

In no way, shape or form, did support - or even reference - the OP (it's already been established this is a troll thread - note the OP did not respond to his own thread) And I do agree with your assessment the OP is FOS. Nevertheless, thank you for (another) attempt at inferring upon me an (unwanted, I assure you) "Intel Camp" badge. Again - I am not a partisan player here. Merely "Anti~Stupid".

What I did do is mildly call you on your usage of GPU based benchies to "prove" CPU performance. Game based benchies are largely irrelevant to CPU performance. You fully understand this fact, as do I. If you don't like my delivery, then fine - I'll edit the post.

However: And you are also VERY well aware, many of the readers/browsers of this site do *not* understand these things. And while it's quite a lot to expect random denizens of the Internet to display such restraint in their opinions - (witness this series of posts) - I should expect a Moderator of this (or any, really) website to at least provide proper context; rather than use GPU based tests to make blanket assertions that "Phenom II X4 series was faster than the Core i7’s", when you know very well the entire basis is invalid because of the very nature of the testing.

The point I'm bringing you to, Sir, is that while the general membership are under no such obligation - You, as a Moderator, very much should be.

 

[C00lIT]

Granted AMD is in trouble however I don't see a reason for worry as long as they keep releasing products that are worth buying.

If I were to put a good money on a PC yes I would get an I7 as it is the winner with quite a performance gap and overclocking headroom.

But I don't see how anyone can go wrong with a half price Phenom.

Those with AM2+ motherboards are laughing at ease of upgrade and building a budget PC is so much easier with an AMD that has an intergrated Radeon3200 with DVI,VGA and HDMI output on a 75$ Motherboard...

Also most of the internet is on PHP that runs on Linux and frankly I find that AMD CPUS work as good if not better then intel on Linux... so there are quite a bit of Opterons and low Watt AthlonII's in the making.


To conclude, my opinion is
High end machine 1200$+ just the tower... Go for I7
Cost effective... go for AMD as you get more performance per $
The majority of people will get a cost effective machine.

Point is... AMD is having a good challenge... that is all.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Within the context of the thread, my comments hit where they needed to, AMDs very relevance.
Other people read this and wonder how bad AMD is, and they too game.
If you put all my posts here into context, I addressed this in a average Joe sorta way.
If youd like to add more reasons go for it, otherwise, my comments as well as anyones addresses certain portions of the readers, and yes, you and I know the varying degrees of a games demand on the entire platform, but in the end, its called gaming by many a average Joe.
So, as far as context, I never left it, as this is who I pointed my mposts towards, the general market overall, and not those few who have greater needs.
I conceded this, again, keeping within context, but pointed out the bigger picture, and its my right as well as responsibility to clear up misconceptions about an entire market, when held hostage by small viewpoints

 

[jennyh]

Exactly. People like the OP and earl45 probably never even rendered a single pic in their lives, and even if they have chances are they don't do it nearly enough to justify the cost of an i7.

The i7 is for professionals who absolutely need the extra speed doing those things. AMD aren't attempting to compete in that market 1-1, but on price/perf or perf/watt in servers instead.

 

[Scotteq]

Thank You sir - I look forward to a more balanced approach in the future.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

As beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so too is a cpus value for its particular uses, including gaming, to its user