AMD Pokes at Intel With Valentine's Day Gifts

[chaoski]

[citation][nom]konjiki7[/nom]Not really my oced 1090t i bought back in April of last year. Ties with the brand new 2600k in most bench marks. In apps that take advantage of the 6 cores it really flies! It is slower then the 980x in non gaming situations... but it does cost $800 less. So it works for me : )[/citation]

You must be smoking crack.

Forget about 2600k (which BTW costs under $300.....not $1000)

2500k owns your 1090t in every single benchmark.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=146

 

[hardcore_gamer]

LMFAO!!!

 

[Guest]

@someguynamedmatt 02/16/2011 12:02 PM
Lol... gotta love AMD...

-------------

No, no we don't. Why would I love a company that once was awesome, on the cutting edge, and had the performance to make them worthwhile to use....

All the things they are no longer.

 

[nukemaster]

[citation][nom]chaoski[/nom]You must be smoking crack.Forget about 2600k (which BTW costs under $300.....not $1000)2500k owns your 1090t in every single benchmark.http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=146[/citation]
Try to re-read the post.

800 less then the 980X that beats it in games. And the fact that he had it almost a year ago. and it is overclocked(thus closer to SB scores on benchmarks).

@ all, I want my amd chocolate cpus, bet they overclock great.

 

[Reynod]

I see none of you are into chocolate ...

<sulks>

 

[quicksilver98]

I usually don't respond in threads like this but I can't keep silent.

Do any of you Intel Fanboys remember the K6 II and the K6 III or the Athlon 64/ 64X2??? It's a power tug of war, and there have been long periods where AMD Dominated Intel by a huge margin. This is what drives these companies to provide you new products with new features and better performance/efficiency.

The last few years AMD has been focusing on the Mid range level. This is where most people are looking to purchase when it comes to processors. Most of you sound like ill informed teenagers and adolescents that have spent their mommy's and daddy's money on a kickin' Intel setup, and your comments reflect that.

And for the record very few people on the grand scheme of things give a crap about how high your Sandy Bridge will overclock. Very few people in the world overclock, so your 4.8 - 5.5Ghz OC means jack to the general user or gamer.... It only matters to the enthusiasts... Intel Just caters more to the high end user, and theres nothing wrong with that.. How many of you will purchase a $1000 processor???

(Not just overclockers and enthusiasts read Tomshardware .)

 

[flacoman3]

Being a fanboy is counterproductive. If BD fails, then AMD fanboys will cry for a while, and intel fanboys will cheer for a while when AMD dies out.

Shortly thereafter, everyone will be crying when intel starts selling their cheapest processor at ~1000 bucks, not to mention the habit of big successful companies sitting back on their accomplishments when there's no competition pushing them to innovate.

For example, the ATI vs Nvidia battle is, to me, the most beautiful even competition that makes my pockets happy.

Competition is really win, so if I were any of you angry fanboys, I'd cheer for success in both camps.

 

[christop]

That's funny!!

 

[renz496]

lol. honestly now they poke intel like this AMD better have something to deliver. i still remember when they poke nvidia with their SWAT video but in the end GTX580 still faster than HD6970 XD

 

[silverblue]

I'm not sure the 6970 was supposed to directly compete with the 580. There's a rather sizeable price difference for a start.

 

[quicksilver98]

That S.W.A.T video was about the 480GTX and it's heat output.. If your going to post comments make sure your facts are relevant...

 

[falchard]

Lets be honest here on where the company stands compared to Intel. The only leg up Intel has on AMD is in higher end processors. Right now AMD is winning with chipsets and low end processors. Infact Atom does not even compare to Fusion, and intel chipsets are a complete joke compared to the complete line of AMD chipsets over the last 4 years.

 

[chaoski]

[citation][nom]quicksilver98[/nom]I usually don't respond in threads like this but I can't keep silent. Do any of you Intel Fanboys remember the K6 II and the K6 III or the Athlon 64/ 64X2??? It's a power tug of war, and there have been long periods where AMD Dominated Intel by a huge margin. This is what drives these companies to provide you new products with new features and better performance/efficiency. The last few years AMD has been focusing on the Mid range level. This is where most people are looking to purchase when it comes to processors. Most of you sound like ill informed teenagers and adolescents that have spent their mommy's and daddy's money on a kickin' Intel setup, and your comments reflect that. And for the record very few people on the grand scheme of things give a crap about how high your Sandy Bridge will overclock. Very few people in the world overclock, so your 4.8 - 5.5Ghz OC means jack to the general user or gamer.... It only matters to the enthusiasts... Intel Just caters more to the high end user, and theres nothing wrong with that.. How many of you will purchase a $1000 processor???(Not just overclockers and enthusiasts read Tomshardware .)[/citation]

You are wrong, Intel has the gaming CPU market cornered on just about every level. I5 -750 has been a king at 180-200 level for over a year now and some, before that it was Core 2 Due.

AMD only appeals to people that like AMD. I go with whoever gives me the best performance for the dollar. When it comes to gaming, Intel is THE only choice past 3 years or so.

 

[chaoski]

[citation][nom]falchard[/nom]Lets be honest here on where the company stands compared to Intel. The only leg up Intel has on AMD is in higher end processors. Right now AMD is winning with chipsets and low end processors. Infact Atom does not even compare to Fusion, and intel chipsets are a complete joke compared to the complete line of AMD chipsets over the last 4 years.[/citation]

High end? How is Sandy Bridge or I5 high end. many are within 100-200 price range and they outperform AMD consistantly.

Did you really say Fusion, onboard graphics and Chipset? Come on now, those are a joke.

 

[captaincharisma]

who cares AMD will sell to the highest bidder soon. there sinking into oblivion. sucks cause there the only main CPU competition right now.

 

[falchard]

[citation][nom]chaoski[/nom]High end? How is Sandy Bridge or I5 high end. many are within 100-200 price range and they outperform AMD consistantly.Did you really say Fusion, onboard graphics and Chipset? Come on now, those are a joke.[/citation]

Most benchmarks disagree that Sandy Bridge and Core i5 are the best processors in their price range. When you can get AMDs best processor for $300, and it performs as well as Intel's $500 offerings means AMD offers the best low end processors for the buck.

 

[lradunovic77]

[citation][nom]v4nquish[/nom]You might be 'geekapproved', but you are definitely not an accountantapproved. I know it's hard; but think, "big picture". I know it's difficult because you love AMD products.[/citation]
[citation][nom]Anomalyx[/nom]Prediction 1: the AMD in question is a slightly slower per-core clock speed than the Intel, and the test was single-threaded.Prediction 2: the AMD was a heck of a lot cheaper than the IntelPrediction 3: Intel will continue to NOT sell GOOD processors for CHEAP, and I will continue to buy AMD as a result[/citation]


Sandy Bridge is very cheap 2500K Model for example. So that AMD is heck of lot of cheap is not true. Only an idiot would buy AMD right now.
I don't care if it is called Intel or AMD just saying what's better and what do you get most out of what you pay for. This little hiccup with chipset is nothing for Intel. In less than a month Sandy will be shipped and as far as AMD goes...they are way behind even with Buldozer out they will be still behind.

 

[lradunovic77]

[citation][nom]falchard[/nom]Most benchmarks disagree that Sandy Bridge and Core i5 are the best processors in their price range. When you can get AMDs best processor for $300, and it performs as well as Intel's $500 offerings means AMD offers the best low end processors for the buck.[/citation]

No it does not perform as well as Intel's $500 and that is the fact.

 

[lradunovic77]

[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]who cares AMD will sell to the highest bidder soon. there sinking into oblivion. sucks cause there the only main CPU competition right now.[/citation]

I just hope ATI gets out of it cause ATI does not need sinkin ship called AMD.

 

[chaoski]

[citation][nom]falchard[/nom]Most benchmarks disagree that Sandy Bridge and Core i5 are the best processors in their price range. When you can get AMDs best processor for $300, and it performs as well as Intel's $500 offerings means AMD offers the best low end processors for the buck.[/citation]

Are you on Mars or something? Show us, please prove it!!!

I posted a benchmark comparison of i2500 vs 1090T (same price) and i2500 OWNS it on EVERYTHING. Heck like I said before, LAST GENERATION Intel CPU > anything AMD has out there (especially gaming)

 

[silverblue]

Fusion's hardly a joke. When you've got a tiny APU outperforming a much more expensive Arrandale quite handily in most games, this can finally mean a cheap netbook that doesn't completely blow.

The only really viable comparison being thrown about here is Thuban to the 980X, however as the new Sandy Bridge CPUs can easily get to 980X levels at a fraction of the cost, the comparison becomes less meaningful. AMD do provide cheaper and more featureful motherboards in general, though we've seen S1155 bring performance Intel boards to a much lower price point than they have with, say, S1366.

If people want to buy the current SB motherboards, that's fine by me. They can get on the train early and enjoy performance most haven't been able to experience before now. However, you can't argue that it would've been much more ideal for Intel had there not been an issue with the SATAII controller.

I just took a look at a retail site to check on prices, and for the price of a i5-760 (oddly slightly cheaper than the 750), I could get a P2 X4 975 or a P2 X6 1090T. That's not too bad, plus with the latter, there will be tasks that it can beat the 760 at. Buy a setup for what it excels at, be it Intel or AMD... however, Intel still can't offer a cheap quad core CPU, which is a shame. Had AMD released Zosma products in the end, it could've made for more compelling quad core products... imagine an Athlon II X4 with Turbo CORE.

 

[sinfulpotato]

Intel is losing a whole lot of many over this. R&D costs, Mass recall costs, mending relationships with suppliers.

Do you think mobo manufactures are happy with Intel? Hell no, and they know that they have Intel in the perfect position to make money off the mistake.

 

[sinfulpotato]

[citation][nom]chaoski[/nom]You are wrong, Intel has the gaming CPU market cornered on just about every level. I5 -750 has been a king at 180-200 level for over a year now and some, before that it was Core 2 Due.AMD only appeals to people that like AMD. I go with whoever gives me the best performance for the dollar. When it comes to gaming, Intel is THE only choice past 3 years or so.[/citation]

Only those who want to brag about what is on the inside of their PC will spend 200 on a proc. For 100 dollars I can by a Processor that will run any game and I will enjoy that game.

 

[alextheblue]

[citation][nom]chaoski[/nom]I go with whoever gives me the best performance for the dollar. When it comes to gaming, Intel is THE only choice past 3 years or so.[/citation]If you truly believe this, you are a blind fanboy. AMD has been going through some rough times, and Intel has been putting out some amazing processors. But in the past 3 years AMD has often had great gaming performance/dollar. Haven't you seen THG's "best gaming CPU for the money" articles?? Tom's publishes them fairly often, and AMD is typically very competitive. So like I said, you're a fanboy.
[citation][nom]sunflier[/nom]I'll keep my Sandy Bridge and my "defective" Sabertooth motherboard [/citation]Well, you're probably the type that replaces his system every couple of years, so this probably won't be an issue for you. But you realize you only have two long-term reliable SATA ports, right? The 3.0 ones. If you're like a lot of people with more than two SATA drives, one or more of those devices goes on the eventually-will-fail ports, unless you want to eat up an expansion slot and some more cash with a second SATA controller.

Is it a big issue? No. But putting defective in quotes is idiotic. They ARE defective. It is just a matter of when it fails, and whether or not the user is impacted (if they use the older 2.0 SATA ports). Intel has acknowledged this. Otherwise they wouldn't have halted shipments and started an expensive exchange/repair program.

Edit: Furthermore, if this was AMD's faulty controller... you would be all over them. Heck there's a bunch of people here jumping on AMD's case for a lighthearted jab at Intel's foul-up. What are you people trying to prove, that there are as many rabid Intel fanatics than there are AMD ones?

 

[alextheblue]

Are you serious? What games are you playing? Farmville?

No, he's right. While it may not net you uberleet framerates, $100 will get you an E6800 clocked at 3.33, or an Athlon II X3 455 at 3.3Ghz. The E6800 is right at $100, and the 455 is $90. Both are adequate, especially if you're reducing your CPU budget in order to get a better GPU!

If you're an overclocker on a budget, even better. The E6800 probably has some decent headroom, and the X3 will probably have a free core hiding under the hood.