Intel fanboys that have the bleeding edge technology have only two things to prove.......... Small penis and large wallet. I rock out on a hand built AMD dualcore X250 at 3.0GHZ with a 1GB ATI 5670 with DDR5 and it plays Crysis on high settings. I have 4GB of DDR2 @ 1066MHZ.
- Status
kronos_cornelius
Distinguished
- Nov 4, 2009
- 365
- 1
- 18,780
[citation][nom]eyemaster[/nom]The majority of consumers buy a "computer", not a phenom or a bulldozer... You are a minority if you're waiting for a certain chip.[/citation]
He is certainly not in the minority in this site. I am waiting for Bulldozer as well. At least for an AM3+ mobo. The MSI board they showed in CES looks like the one I was dreaming about (because I am a Nvidia SLI fan). Every days I search google news to see if they are out. Are AM3+ mobos out yet ? waiting is so agonizing.
He is certainly not in the minority in this site. I am waiting for Bulldozer as well. At least for an AM3+ mobo. The MSI board they showed in CES looks like the one I was dreaming about (because I am a Nvidia SLI fan). Every days I search google news to see if they are out. Are AM3+ mobos out yet ? waiting is so agonizing.
kronos_cornelius
Distinguished
- Nov 4, 2009
- 365
- 1
- 18,780
ulysses35
Distinguished
- Jul 2, 2008
- 1,681
- 0
- 19,960
So AMD are benefitting from the Cougar chipset problems that Intel have at the moment...
How exactly ? AMD's current chip line up doesnt compete with Intel's previous LGA1156 / LGA1366 CPU's & chipsets...
Bulldozer seems to be another "myth" because still there are no promised launch dates, and even if there was Intel have Ivy Bridge in the pipe line too.
Gotta love fanboys (all camps not just AMD) but please keep the posts objective and dont necessarily believe all the hype of something that is not on sale despite numerous promsies from AMD
How exactly ? AMD's current chip line up doesnt compete with Intel's previous LGA1156 / LGA1366 CPU's & chipsets...
Bulldozer seems to be another "myth" because still there are no promised launch dates, and even if there was Intel have Ivy Bridge in the pipe line too.
Gotta love fanboys (all camps not just AMD) but please keep the posts objective and dont necessarily believe all the hype of something that is not on sale despite numerous promsies from AMD
retirepresident
Distinguished
- Dec 16, 2009
- 88
- 0
- 18,630
Life funny when you screw people(consumer)$$$$$$$$ and that's what they get. I hope they(intel) have a SUPER BAD year. AMD/ATI this is your SUPER SUPER SUPER LUCKING YEAR. DON'T SCREW THIS UP.
rohitbaran
Distinguished
- Mar 21, 2010
- 1,938
- 0
- 20,160
Well, their high end Fusion chips aren't debuting for a few months. So they can't fully reap the benefits of Intel's debacle.
kg2010
Distinguished
- Jun 6, 2010
- 358
- 0
- 18,810
So let me get this straight.
AMD is proud of themselves 'cuz now the SB is temporarily off the shelves they are getting calls for product of "similar" performance which they don't carry? But hey they'll happily provide their inferior cheaper products.
If SB was still on the shelves would they still be getting such calls? NOPE
AMD should be very proud of being 2nd choice out of 2.
Had they come out with Bulldozer to capitalize would be a different story.
In the end, the consumers are getting jipped since they're now getting inferior products. Go AMD, you rock!
AMD is proud of themselves 'cuz now the SB is temporarily off the shelves they are getting calls for product of "similar" performance which they don't carry? But hey they'll happily provide their inferior cheaper products.
If SB was still on the shelves would they still be getting such calls? NOPE
AMD should be very proud of being 2nd choice out of 2.
Had they come out with Bulldozer to capitalize would be a different story.
In the end, the consumers are getting jipped since they're now getting inferior products. Go AMD, you rock!
enzo matrix
Splendid
- Nov 10, 2009
- 4,289
- 0
- 23,160
[citation][nom]reprotected[/nom]Umm... Who wants to even buy Phenom II? Those are low class compared to what hype Bulldozer has in it's reputation. So where is Bulldozer? I'm waiting so I can compare it with Sandy Bridge for my new computer I've been waiting to build for the last month.[/citation]
The 955 has gone down from >$200 to $150. There are very few CPUs not worth their price for someone's uses.
The 955 has gone down from >$200 to $150. There are very few CPUs not worth their price for someone's uses.
kg2010
Distinguished
- Jun 6, 2010
- 358
- 0
- 18,810
@mayankleoboy1 - didn't you hear the news - AMD is competing with SB right NOW, and actually benefiting from Intel's woes, ha ha.
Give it another month or 2 when SB is back, and no one in the right mind, even the AMD fanboys can possibly recommend AMD for new rigs with the 2500k being at the price point it is at.
It's pretty pathetic that AMD can only compete and actually receive new business only when Intel's current gen is un-available for sale.
Give it another month or 2 when SB is back, and no one in the right mind, even the AMD fanboys can possibly recommend AMD for new rigs with the 2500k being at the price point it is at.
It's pretty pathetic that AMD can only compete and actually receive new business only when Intel's current gen is un-available for sale.
retirepresident
Distinguished
- Dec 16, 2009
- 88
- 0
- 18,630
[citation][nom]edilee[/nom]What disturbs me in this article is the statement that "Intel announced it would resume shipment of the faulty Cougar Point chipsets"...WTF Intel? They think it is messy now...intentionally selling known faulty product will only make it 10 times worse. Who on earth will be buying the faulty chips...oh wait..HP,Dell, etc....they sell faulty product all the time so this is right up their ally and probably at a decent discount.[/citation]
If HP,DELL,Etc knew about the bad chips. I dealt that they would have sold this bad chips from good old scam intel.
If HP,DELL,Etc knew about the bad chips. I dealt that they would have sold this bad chips from good old scam intel.
kg2010
Distinguished
- Jun 6, 2010
- 358
- 0
- 18,810
You AMD fanboys have no clue what you're talking about, and maybe you need to educate yourselves b4 spreading propaganda.
Intel is resuming distribution to PC distributors on rigs that won't use the affected SATA ports. And if they need more SATA ports, then a SATA controller card WILL be used.
Therefore, the consumer is getting a perfectly fine working system.
The CHIPS have NEVER been bad, idiotic AMD guys only wish.
The chipset has an issue, which is easily avoided by plugging in a SATA controller, and are you aware that Intel is offering FREE REPLACEMENT Boards? They sure are scammers.
zepfan_75
Distinguished
- Jan 3, 2011
- 280
- 0
- 18,790
[citation][nom]GeekApproved[/nom]I've seen LOTS of people doing Phenom II builds lately because of lack of SB motherboards. I see a lot less s1156 builds for some reason.[/citation]
I have been noticing this lately too, could be because a 970 isn't that bad, the 750s have jumped in price and the 955s have lowered also. Awaiting new build myself. 😀
I have been noticing this lately too, could be because a 970 isn't that bad, the 750s have jumped in price and the 955s have lowered also. Awaiting new build myself. 😀
Travis Beane
Distinguished
- Aug 6, 2010
- 470
- 0
- 18,780
[citation][nom]Damn girl[/nom]Intel fanboys that have the bleeding edge technology have only two things to prove.......... Small penis and large wallet. I rock out on a hand built AMD dualcore X250 at 3.0GHZ with a 1GB ATI 5670 with DDR5 and it plays Crysis on high settings. I have 4GB of DDR2 @ 1066MHZ.[/citation]
Really? That's rather insulting.
I just wanted better framerates and faster processing. It's not about the size of my penis or my wallet, it's all about me being a computer enthusiast and a impatient man.
AMD and Intel both have their place, and to blindly proclaim one is better than the other is wrong.
Really? That's rather insulting.
I just wanted better framerates and faster processing. It's not about the size of my penis or my wallet, it's all about me being a computer enthusiast and a impatient man.
AMD and Intel both have their place, and to blindly proclaim one is better than the other is wrong.
alextheblue
Distinguished
- Apr 3, 2001
- 3,078
- 106
- 20,970
[citation][nom]GeekApproved[/nom]The OEM's are using a sata controler card instead of the faulty sata controller on the mobo. This solves the problem. They are not using the faulty controller.[/citation]
Yes, though that doesn't help put more SB motherboards in the hands of DIYers. Unless e-tailers start bundling mainboards (missing the 4 older gen SATA ports) with a PCIe SATA card. It cetainly helps OEMs get back to shipping systems. My next box is going to be too small to waste a PCIe slot on a SATA controller. So yeah, I'll have to wait.
I might not even get a dedicated sound card this time around. Although that issue has more to do with the pricing of good sound cards, the money is better spent on a faster CPU. Not to mention some "X-Fi" models aren't X-Fi's at all - they're rebadged Audigy cards. So for a REAL X-Fi or a decent Xonar, you're gonna spend $100+. Anything less than that and you might as well just use onboard.
Man, I miss my old Fortissimo II. That was affordable and (at the time) powerful, good solid drivers too. There's just not enough competition in the soundcard space anymore. /rant
Yes, though that doesn't help put more SB motherboards in the hands of DIYers. Unless e-tailers start bundling mainboards (missing the 4 older gen SATA ports) with a PCIe SATA card. It cetainly helps OEMs get back to shipping systems. My next box is going to be too small to waste a PCIe slot on a SATA controller. So yeah, I'll have to wait.
I might not even get a dedicated sound card this time around. Although that issue has more to do with the pricing of good sound cards, the money is better spent on a faster CPU. Not to mention some "X-Fi" models aren't X-Fi's at all - they're rebadged Audigy cards. So for a REAL X-Fi or a decent Xonar, you're gonna spend $100+. Anything less than that and you might as well just use onboard.
Man, I miss my old Fortissimo II. That was affordable and (at the time) powerful, good solid drivers too. There's just not enough competition in the soundcard space anymore. /rant
alextheblue
Distinguished
- Apr 3, 2001
- 3,078
- 106
- 20,970
Oh, and by "I'll have to wait" I don't mean that I'm ruling out AMD solutions either. My current rigs are AMD based (except for my lappy), and if the pricing is right when I do go to build a new box, I'll certainly consider whatever AMD has on the market in that price range. Be it a venerable Phenom II or something else.
jimmysmitty
Champion
- Oct 5, 2007
- 21,595
- 595
- 59,140
Of course your games play at that res maxed. You are running a dual GPU card. You could leave the Phenom at stock and it would still play the games at that res maxed since the CPU wont have very much affect on the performance at that resolution.
As for Bulldozer, some people think it might not overclock as well as Phenom II let alone Sandy bridge. Phenom II has been using a very mature 45nm process. When it first came out, the top overclock was about 3.8GHz with a few lucky people hitting 4GHz. Now its common due to the maturity of the process. But Bulldozer is going to be AMDs newest 32nm process and first gen HK/MG so it might not overclock out of the box as well.
And as for less than $300, only way you will see BD that cheap at start is if it underperforms against Sandy Bridge. If it beats Sandy bridge, you will see much higher prices for their 8 "core" (not even truly an 8 core CPU....).
As for this its a nice temporary boost for AMD but once the mobos are back in full volume I don't think it will last for them unless BD is somehow more efficient and better performing than SB.
kg2010
Distinguished
- Jun 6, 2010
- 358
- 0
- 18,810
Finally, someone with some common sense, @ 1600p games are more GPU bound, a 5970 is a SICK card and can handle anything you throw at it, it's not your processor that's doing you any favors.
Lower the resolution to 800x600 and compare the 5970 with a stock i7 and stock PII, and I guarantee you will notice different results.
Jimmy, you're one of the few people that understands the AMD pricing scheme.
AMD processors are generally priced cheaper, because they offer inferior performance to their Intel counterparts.
Would the 1100T be priced where it's at if performed exactly like the 980x?
Of course not. it is priced where it's at because that's where it's performance puts it.
BD will be priced according to its performance. If it does outperform SB, I am 100% certain it will be priced higher too.
AMD doesn't create processors to sell them so cheap and minimize their profits, they are forced to sell them cheaply due to their performance, this is the key that so many of you fail to understand.
Yes, AMD processors are great for builds on a budget, but those builds will never be on par with Intel rigs.
For those of us who are after performance, and aren't afraid to pay for it, sadly there's only one place we can get that best performance from. If AMD offered performance on par with Intel, more enthusiasts would build AMD rigs, and AMD would be a much more profitable company because of it.
I would love to build a BD rig in the future if it does outperform SB, let alone IB, but I ain't holding my breath.
Lower the resolution to 800x600 and compare the 5970 with a stock i7 and stock PII, and I guarantee you will notice different results.
Jimmy, you're one of the few people that understands the AMD pricing scheme.
AMD processors are generally priced cheaper, because they offer inferior performance to their Intel counterparts.
Would the 1100T be priced where it's at if performed exactly like the 980x?
Of course not. it is priced where it's at because that's where it's performance puts it.
BD will be priced according to its performance. If it does outperform SB, I am 100% certain it will be priced higher too.
AMD doesn't create processors to sell them so cheap and minimize their profits, they are forced to sell them cheaply due to their performance, this is the key that so many of you fail to understand.
Yes, AMD processors are great for builds on a budget, but those builds will never be on par with Intel rigs.
For those of us who are after performance, and aren't afraid to pay for it, sadly there's only one place we can get that best performance from. If AMD offered performance on par with Intel, more enthusiasts would build AMD rigs, and AMD would be a much more profitable company because of it.
I would love to build a BD rig in the future if it does outperform SB, let alone IB, but I ain't holding my breath.
[citation][nom]eyemaster[/nom]The majority of consumers buy a "computer", not a phenom or a bulldozer...[/citation]
also most consumer don't even know what their cpu is, except for the fact it is a intel or amd because of all the stickers.
also most consumer don't even know what their cpu is, except for the fact it is a intel or amd because of all the stickers.
[citation][nom]kg2010[/nom]Finally, someone with some common sense, @ 1600p games are more GPU bound, a 5970 is a SICK card and can handle anything you throw at it, it's not your processor that's doing you any favors. Lower the resolution to 800x600 and compare the 5970 with a stock i7 and stock PII, and I guarantee you will notice different results. Jimmy, you're one of the few people that understands the AMD pricing scheme. AMD processors are generally priced cheaper, because they offer inferior performance to their Intel counterparts. Would the 1100T be priced where it's at if performed exactly like the 980x?Of course not. it is priced where it's at because that's where it's performance puts it. BD will be priced according to its performance. If it does outperform SB, I am 100% certain it will be priced higher too. AMD doesn't create processors to sell them so cheap and minimize their profits, they are forced to sell them cheaply due to their performance, this is the key that so many of you fail to understand. Yes, AMD processors are great for builds on a budget, but those builds will never be on par with Intel rigs. For those of us who are after performance, and aren't afraid to pay for it, sadly there's only one place we can get that best performance from. If AMD offered performance on par with Intel, more enthusiasts would build AMD rigs, and AMD would be a much more profitable company because of it. I would love to build a BD rig in the future if it does outperform SB, let alone IB, but I ain't holding my breath.[/citation]
most things that that are core for core the same (as in 4 core against the 4 crore, 6 against the 6) intel has at best a 10% difference, some things video wise now, they are significantly better, but advrage user, 10% means nothing, 1 minute vs 54 seconds isn't much, 10 minutes vs 9 is also insignificant to most people.
and lastly, amd doesn't screw us on price, because they aren't the market leader. if bulldozer is more powerful than a sandy/ivy bridge, they will still be cheaper, not because they want to be, but because they have to be.
when amd is competing toe to toe with intel they will still make their processors cost less because they arent a majority market share.
on a side not, at the 2560x1600 resolution, its mostly graphics card for most games, but there are quite a few that would still be bottle necked by a cpu.
most things that that are core for core the same (as in 4 core against the 4 crore, 6 against the 6) intel has at best a 10% difference, some things video wise now, they are significantly better, but advrage user, 10% means nothing, 1 minute vs 54 seconds isn't much, 10 minutes vs 9 is also insignificant to most people.
and lastly, amd doesn't screw us on price, because they aren't the market leader. if bulldozer is more powerful than a sandy/ivy bridge, they will still be cheaper, not because they want to be, but because they have to be.
when amd is competing toe to toe with intel they will still make their processors cost less because they arent a majority market share.
on a side not, at the 2560x1600 resolution, its mostly graphics card for most games, but there are quite a few that would still be bottle necked by a cpu.
kg2010
Distinguished
- Jun 6, 2010
- 358
- 0
- 18,810
Although I respect your points, as they were nicely shown here.
Things aren't always that cut and dry, and saying that Intel has at best a 10% edge core for core is simply not true, and it's wishful thinking.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/142?vs=146
If you do the math on the comparisons seen here, you will see 10% overall is not the case.
For example:
3dsmax r9 - SPECapc - Radiosity - Render Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
980x - 7426
1090T - 14383
That's TWICE as fast, there's a big difference between 123 minutes & 240 minutes in this benchmark, and most importantly, in real world rendering times. ( My previous AMD Dual Core rig encoded a 30 minute video in like 20 hours, where that same video now takes about 25 minutes. Yes, I'm comparing Apples to Oranges, but it was so painful to wait almost an entire day for such encodes. )
----
Back on topic:
Keep in mind that these results are at stock too.
When overclocking the processors, and they're both at the same speeds ( Say 4.0 vs 4.0 ) Intel runs away with the performance crown at far greater than a 10% edge in many cases.
-----
What's that? I can already hear the argument that the 1090T is cheaper than the 980x, well duh of course it is, its performance barely matches that of the 950, and was priced accordingly. I am simply comparing Intel's 6 core vs AMD's 6 core period.
When the 2600k comes back on the shelves, that is by far the best buy out of any other processor out right now, see below:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/142?vs=287
Intel must be doing something right when their Quad core processor trades blows with its previous 6 core processor champ, and has priced it at nearly $700 less.
Last but not least, how does the 2600k perform against the 1090T? ( 4 cores vs 6 cores )
The proof is in the pudding:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/287?vs=146
BD has its work cut out for itself, and I sure hope it narrows down this gap, as I don't want to pay a lot for IB. 😉
Things aren't always that cut and dry, and saying that Intel has at best a 10% edge core for core is simply not true, and it's wishful thinking.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/142?vs=146
If you do the math on the comparisons seen here, you will see 10% overall is not the case.
For example:
3dsmax r9 - SPECapc - Radiosity - Render Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
980x - 7426
1090T - 14383
That's TWICE as fast, there's a big difference between 123 minutes & 240 minutes in this benchmark, and most importantly, in real world rendering times. ( My previous AMD Dual Core rig encoded a 30 minute video in like 20 hours, where that same video now takes about 25 minutes. Yes, I'm comparing Apples to Oranges, but it was so painful to wait almost an entire day for such encodes. )
----
Back on topic:
Keep in mind that these results are at stock too.
When overclocking the processors, and they're both at the same speeds ( Say 4.0 vs 4.0 ) Intel runs away with the performance crown at far greater than a 10% edge in many cases.
-----
What's that? I can already hear the argument that the 1090T is cheaper than the 980x, well duh of course it is, its performance barely matches that of the 950, and was priced accordingly. I am simply comparing Intel's 6 core vs AMD's 6 core period.
When the 2600k comes back on the shelves, that is by far the best buy out of any other processor out right now, see below:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/142?vs=287
Intel must be doing something right when their Quad core processor trades blows with its previous 6 core processor champ, and has priced it at nearly $700 less.
Last but not least, how does the 2600k perform against the 1090T? ( 4 cores vs 6 cores )
The proof is in the pudding:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/287?vs=146
BD has its work cut out for itself, and I sure hope it narrows down this gap, as I don't want to pay a lot for IB. 😉
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Question Weird issue accessing "server" from one computer- Started by TheRedDoor
- Replies: 0
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Question RTX 3050: How High is the Transient Power Demand?
- Started by Imacflier
- Replies: 3
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram