I just recently did an AMD rebuild on my system...955 BE, XFX 5870 ( that I bought off a friend for less than $200), 6 gb GSkill Ripjaws DDR3, Asus m4a87td EVO mb..... all in all its a system that I play any game out there, meets and exceeds any personal computing that I require all for under $600, do I have anything to complain about??? no, I did look at building an Intel system, I'm not biased at all, I just couldn't put a deal together that performs as well as my current system for anywhere near the price that I came out with..... I may build an Intel system next time if I can afford it, if not I'll used AMD parts, works for me.
- Status
kg2010
Distinguished
- Jun 6, 2010
- 358
- 0
- 18,810
I've had as many ( or more ) AMD rigs AND laptops as Intel over the years, and my current rig started off as a 1090T build -
put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Notice the ignorance and stupidity in the comment I quoted when I wrote that - and if you can't, well... good luck to you.
Here it is again, just for you, dude can't even spell doubt.
Now tell me, what is wrong with the Sandy Bridge CHIPS?
I guess when you're better than the competition, you're considered a "scam"
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/2
Will you look at that, 21 Intel processors appear before we see any signs of AMD's processors.
I'm pro performance, not an Intel fanboy. When AMD delivers something truly worthwhile that outperforms Intel, I'll be the first one buying.
Just because some people want the best performance, and can afford it, doesn't mean you should hate on them due to your mediocre rig. Wifey is more than satisfied with the size and performance of my penis, just as I'm more than satisfied with the performance of my rig.
Quit drinking the...
enforcer22
Distinguished
- Sep 10, 2006
- 1,692
- 0
- 19,790
[citation][nom]chaoski[/nom]"Some retailers have had to take things off their shelves, so they call us to ask what they could get from our OEMs that's similar.."Umm, NOTHING AMD has today comes even close to SB.In gaming, AMD is still struggling to catch up with 1156 socket chips.....[/citation]
What games really give a damn about the cpu anyways? There are so few games out there that even give a damn about the cpu power they require a nice video card and a decent enough cpu, Which any cpu on the market today for the most part anyways qualifies. For me its about multi tasking. Now i realize most programs aren't multi threaded enabled but windows is and i do a lot of crap on my computer at once. Hell i play 4 instances of games while playing moves, downloading, burning, and surfing websites with like 30 tabs or so open including a few instances of either IE or opera at the same time. I rather be able to load balance between more cores then a faster couple. For me the phenom x6 or X8 if it ever comes out will be my cpu. Im still working on a AMD 6400x x2 when it came out it made my computing so much nicer but as my power using went up my cpu did not. Im looking for 4 more cores
and another 8 gigs of ram. my 8 gigs doesn't seem to do the trick anymore. Honestly i don't care what intel has anymore unless AMD just destroys their line of cpus their cpus will always be what i need and intel will always cost me more then its worth thats held pretty stead since good old P-2 days when i had to pau $800 for a p-2 instead of $30 for a AMD chip and motherboard that performed the same. Now i realize there is a performance gap but all i do is play games for the most part and while doing that i do what i mentioned. Im in no hurry to get that cd burn done 6 seconds faster while I'm killing someone in my game.
If your going to talk about the faults of a cpu why not talk about something relevant other then 5 frames a second, When a new video card can give you another 50+ at the same price point. or considering intels prices A LOT cheaper.
What games really give a damn about the cpu anyways? There are so few games out there that even give a damn about the cpu power they require a nice video card and a decent enough cpu, Which any cpu on the market today for the most part anyways qualifies. For me its about multi tasking. Now i realize most programs aren't multi threaded enabled but windows is and i do a lot of crap on my computer at once. Hell i play 4 instances of games while playing moves, downloading, burning, and surfing websites with like 30 tabs or so open including a few instances of either IE or opera at the same time. I rather be able to load balance between more cores then a faster couple. For me the phenom x6 or X8 if it ever comes out will be my cpu. Im still working on a AMD 6400x x2 when it came out it made my computing so much nicer but as my power using went up my cpu did not. Im looking for 4 more cores
and another 8 gigs of ram. my 8 gigs doesn't seem to do the trick anymore. Honestly i don't care what intel has anymore unless AMD just destroys their line of cpus their cpus will always be what i need and intel will always cost me more then its worth thats held pretty stead since good old P-2 days when i had to pau $800 for a p-2 instead of $30 for a AMD chip and motherboard that performed the same. Now i realize there is a performance gap but all i do is play games for the most part and while doing that i do what i mentioned. Im in no hurry to get that cd burn done 6 seconds faster while I'm killing someone in my game.If your going to talk about the faults of a cpu why not talk about something relevant other then 5 frames a second, When a new video card can give you another 50+ at the same price point. or considering intels prices A LOT cheaper.
silverblue
Distinguished
- Jul 22, 2009
- 1,199
- 4
- 19,285
[citation][nom]kg2010[/nom]For example:3dsmax r9 - SPECapc - Radiosity - Render Time in Seconds - Lower is Better980x - 74261090T - 14383That's TWICE as fast, there's a big difference between 118 minutes & 240 minutes in this benchmark, and most importantly, in real world rendering times.[/citation]
The 980X is a mere 133MHz faster at stock. It also features HT as well as a better Turbo implementation and double the L3 cache. The Benchmark you chose was one of the situations where the Intel product really excels, however you mistakenly took it to be minutes when it's seconds. CBALLS2 shows a much closer picture, likely where those logical cores cannot be properly utilised due to the load on the physical cores.
Windows Media Encoder 9 x64 shows the 980X winning by 23 seconds to 28. 5 seconds difference between a $1,000 processor and a $300 one isn't a massive difference. x264 2nd pass is a typical failure for AMD CPUs, as is the Monte Carlo simulation (well, all Office tests - probably very well optimised for Intel CPUs). Batman, Fallout, Crysis and L2D show a far closer picture as does Par2.
10% is very optimistic. I'd go more with 30% depending on application. If you're using it for a workstation, the 980 obviously makes more sense, and will recoup the cost quite quickly, however that's not to say the 1090T or even the 1100T BE are bad CPUs. Buy which fits your needs.
Incidentally, I know it seems only right to compare two hexacore CPUs, but with the ability to handle 12 threads at a time as well as a much larger cache and a smaller manufacturing process, it doesn't really make sense to compare them.
The 980X is a mere 133MHz faster at stock. It also features HT as well as a better Turbo implementation and double the L3 cache. The Benchmark you chose was one of the situations where the Intel product really excels, however you mistakenly took it to be minutes when it's seconds. CBALLS2 shows a much closer picture, likely where those logical cores cannot be properly utilised due to the load on the physical cores.
Windows Media Encoder 9 x64 shows the 980X winning by 23 seconds to 28. 5 seconds difference between a $1,000 processor and a $300 one isn't a massive difference. x264 2nd pass is a typical failure for AMD CPUs, as is the Monte Carlo simulation (well, all Office tests - probably very well optimised for Intel CPUs). Batman, Fallout, Crysis and L2D show a far closer picture as does Par2.
10% is very optimistic. I'd go more with 30% depending on application. If you're using it for a workstation, the 980 obviously makes more sense, and will recoup the cost quite quickly, however that's not to say the 1090T or even the 1100T BE are bad CPUs. Buy which fits your needs.
Incidentally, I know it seems only right to compare two hexacore CPUs, but with the ability to handle 12 threads at a time as well as a much larger cache and a smaller manufacturing process, it doesn't really make sense to compare them.
custodian-1
Distinguished
- Oct 7, 2010
- 85
- 0
- 18,630
[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]
This takes up an expansion slot on the motherboard which reduces the value of the system. Will there be an explanation outside the box? A six year warranty? I wouldn't bet on it.
This takes up an expansion slot on the motherboard which reduces the value of the system. Will there be an explanation outside the box? A six year warranty? I wouldn't bet on it.
philologos
Distinguished
- Feb 4, 2009
- 105
- 0
- 18,690
If you want to spend > $200 on a CPU -> buy Intel
If you want to spend < $200 on a CPU -> buy AMD (for the most part)
I can't believe how many people are dismissive of Intel's chipset issue. Just because the first two SATA ports aren't affected doesn't make it okay. This is FAR from ideal.
I went with an AMD build last spring because at the same price point I could get a very good CPU and an excellent motherboard going with AMD. With Intel, for the same price I'd get an excellent CPU and a mediocre motherboard. That being said, if I did it over again I might make a different decision. At the time, it seemed likely Bulldozer chips would work in AM3 mainboards.
If you want to spend < $200 on a CPU -> buy AMD (for the most part)
I can't believe how many people are dismissive of Intel's chipset issue. Just because the first two SATA ports aren't affected doesn't make it okay. This is FAR from ideal.
I went with an AMD build last spring because at the same price point I could get a very good CPU and an excellent motherboard going with AMD. With Intel, for the same price I'd get an excellent CPU and a mediocre motherboard. That being said, if I did it over again I might make a different decision. At the time, it seemed likely Bulldozer chips would work in AM3 mainboards.
dark_lord69
Splendid
- Jun 6, 2006
- 3,227
- 8
- 22,015
Hoorahh for the underdog!
Seriously, I like AMD cause you can get excellent performance for the money.
Intel on the other hand is pretty spendy.
The cost/performance ratio is why I chose AMD over Intel.
Seriously, I like AMD cause you can get excellent performance for the money.
Intel on the other hand is pretty spendy.
The cost/performance ratio is why I chose AMD over Intel.
AMD process work well and as others have said the performance to price ratio is great.. I just get tired of Intel having this idea that because it is Intel there prices should be twice as much for the same performance. Both companies make competing products. I just happen to choose AMD because of the performance I need and the price I am willing to pay . As for the Intel fan boys saying that AMD is an under performer look at the requirements for most software that give requirement for Intel and AMD and you will find most often that the upper end Intel is needed but the Mid range AMD is needed not the Upper end AMD.. so how is Intel better if I have to upper end at a much higher cost ?
redwoodz
Distinguished
- Aug 31, 2010
- 6
- 0
- 18,510
All you Intel elitist should go read Agner's blog-then you will understand much of Intel's core-per-core advantage is really just Intel screwing with rival's compilers.http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49
DarkMantle
Distinguished
- Aug 6, 2008
- 131
- 0
- 18,690
[citation][nom]redwoodz[/nom]All you Intel elitist should go read Agner's blog-then you will understand much of Intel's core-per-core advantage is really just Intel screwing with rival's compilers.[/citation]
Thank you very much for that info. I would like to know why Tom's have not help to spread this kind of important information. I'm pretty sure that if this Intel's Compilers unfair behaviors are more widely known, they will have to stop; even if it is just to stop the bad press.
Thank you very much for that info. I would like to know why Tom's have not help to spread this kind of important information. I'm pretty sure that if this Intel's Compilers unfair behaviors are more widely known, they will have to stop; even if it is just to stop the bad press.
kg2010
Distinguished
- Jun 6, 2010
- 358
- 0
- 18,810
It has been said before, and I don't know why you guys keep trying to justify it.
AMD is cheaper for a reason, if you can leave with mediocre performance since that's all you can afford, that's fine, but don't hate on those who want better performance and are willing to pay for it.
When AMD held the top performance crown, they happily charged $1000 for the Dual Cores, or have you already forgotten this simple fact from 4 years ago?
Did you even bother to look at this?
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/2
I would not be happy if my processor under-performed like that, no matter how cheap it was, but that's just me.
We'll see how your saviour AMD prices Bulldozer IF it outperforms SB.
You can quote me now that if BD > SB it will be priced higher than SB.
For those who think CPU's don't make a difference in gaming, than have a look Cataclysm's review right here on THG.
"Clearly, AMD's CPUs are holding back performance in Cataclysm compared to Intel's processors."
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/world-of-warcraft-cataclysm-directx-11-performance,2793-10.html
If you do any sort of research, you will see that AMD processors are often a bottleneck for higher end cards, especially in multi-card set ups. It's a fact.
Do you think that a Quad Core Phenom can properly push 3 580's? If your answer is yes, you're delusional. 1st of ALL SLI is not officially supported on AMD boards, and with the SLI hack, the processor would be a huge bottleneck.
Besides for those of us who do video editing, rendering, encoding often, there's no way AMD provides the necessary performance.
980x - 7426 seconds / 60 = 123 minutes
1090T - 14383 seconds / 60 = 240 minutes
---------------
Disclaimer: Playing the devil's advocate here...
If AMD is so butthurt when using INTEL's compilers, then why don't they write their own compiler? Wouldn't this be an easier solution? Why are they relying on INTEL's compilers anyway? If they did write their own compilers I would love to see how they will make sure that the code is fully optimized to run on Intel processors, I bet this will be their #1 priority.
IMO, Intel shouldn't have to optimize their code to support AMD's processors, why should they? AMD is their competition.
Besides, Intel already paid $1.25 Billion to AMD for this, and have been forced to change their ways.
Is AMD a saint in such practices? NOPE!
It's just like AMD limiting YOU from having SLI setups. They don't support SLI in their motherboards since they sell graphics cards, and would prefer you buying AMD cards, but no one is complaining of this anti-competitive fact are they? It goes both ways.
I've seen many uninformed people blatantly say that "You can't run Nvidia cards on AMD setups" Well you can run single cards just fine, and you can do the SLI hack, but why should do? Since you CAN run the SLI hack, then clearly AMD boards are capable of running SLI aren't they?
Shouldn't you be given a fair choice of Nvidia or AMD cards for your setup?
Well guess what, AMD is robbing you of that choice, and they are forcing you to buy AMD Graphics cards. At least with Intel setups you can run either CF or SLI just fine.
These corporations will do everything they can to gain an edge over their competition, and both camps are guilty of such practices, it's just that a lot of you are in denial about it, or simply uninformed.
AMD is cheaper for a reason, if you can leave with mediocre performance since that's all you can afford, that's fine, but don't hate on those who want better performance and are willing to pay for it.
When AMD held the top performance crown, they happily charged $1000 for the Dual Cores, or have you already forgotten this simple fact from 4 years ago?
Did you even bother to look at this?
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/2
I would not be happy if my processor under-performed like that, no matter how cheap it was, but that's just me.
We'll see how your saviour AMD prices Bulldozer IF it outperforms SB.
You can quote me now that if BD > SB it will be priced higher than SB.
For those who think CPU's don't make a difference in gaming, than have a look Cataclysm's review right here on THG.
"Clearly, AMD's CPUs are holding back performance in Cataclysm compared to Intel's processors."
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/world-of-warcraft-cataclysm-directx-11-performance,2793-10.html
If you do any sort of research, you will see that AMD processors are often a bottleneck for higher end cards, especially in multi-card set ups. It's a fact.
Do you think that a Quad Core Phenom can properly push 3 580's? If your answer is yes, you're delusional. 1st of ALL SLI is not officially supported on AMD boards, and with the SLI hack, the processor would be a huge bottleneck.
Besides for those of us who do video editing, rendering, encoding often, there's no way AMD provides the necessary performance.
980x - 7426 seconds / 60 = 123 minutes
1090T - 14383 seconds / 60 = 240 minutes
---------------
Disclaimer: Playing the devil's advocate here...
If AMD is so butthurt when using INTEL's compilers, then why don't they write their own compiler? Wouldn't this be an easier solution? Why are they relying on INTEL's compilers anyway? If they did write their own compilers I would love to see how they will make sure that the code is fully optimized to run on Intel processors, I bet this will be their #1 priority.
IMO, Intel shouldn't have to optimize their code to support AMD's processors, why should they? AMD is their competition.
Besides, Intel already paid $1.25 Billion to AMD for this, and have been forced to change their ways.
Is AMD a saint in such practices? NOPE!
It's just like AMD limiting YOU from having SLI setups. They don't support SLI in their motherboards since they sell graphics cards, and would prefer you buying AMD cards, but no one is complaining of this anti-competitive fact are they? It goes both ways.
I've seen many uninformed people blatantly say that "You can't run Nvidia cards on AMD setups" Well you can run single cards just fine, and you can do the SLI hack, but why should do? Since you CAN run the SLI hack, then clearly AMD boards are capable of running SLI aren't they?
Shouldn't you be given a fair choice of Nvidia or AMD cards for your setup?
Well guess what, AMD is robbing you of that choice, and they are forcing you to buy AMD Graphics cards. At least with Intel setups you can run either CF or SLI just fine.
These corporations will do everything they can to gain an edge over their competition, and both camps are guilty of such practices, it's just that a lot of you are in denial about it, or simply uninformed.
mcreskiller
Distinguished
- Jun 25, 2009
- 59
- 0
- 18,630
I have an athlon 2 640 (upgraded around a month ago from a pentium dual core 2.0 ghz) the ONLY thing ic ould have maybe got at my price point is a shitty little i3, instead i got a decent quad core, my quad core + a 5670 and i can play anygame released to date at max on at 1650 by 1080, i used an amd2+ motherboard that was on sale (gigabyte) and i love this build, 600 dollars total for all of it and theres not a game or anything it can't run flawlessly, and when i want to upgrade imma get am amd3+ motherboard and then a bulldozer cpu
enforcer22
Distinguished
- Sep 10, 2006
- 1,692
- 0
- 19,790
[citation][nom]kg2010[/nom]It has been said before, and I don't know why you guys keep trying to justify it. AMD is cheaper for a reason, if you can leave with mediocre performance since that's all you can afford, that's fine, but don't hate on those who want better performance and are willing to pay for it.When AMD held the top performance crown, they happily charged $1000 for the Dual Cores, or have you already forgotten this simple fact from 4 years ago?Did you even bother to look at this?http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/2I would not be happy if my processor under-performed like that, no matter how cheap it was, but that's just me. We'll see how your saviour AMD prices Bulldozer IF it outperforms SB. You can quote me now that if BD > SB it will be priced higher than SB. For those who think CPU's don't make a difference in gaming, than have a look Cataclysm's review right here on THG. "Clearly, AMD's CPUs are holding back performance in Cataclysm compared to Intel's processors."http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 93-10.htmlIf you do any sort of research, you will see that AMD processors are often a bottleneck for higher end cards, especially in multi-card set ups. It's a fact. Do you think that a Quad Core Phenom can properly push 3 580's? If your answer is yes, you're delusional. 1st of ALL SLI is not officially supported on AMD boards, and with the SLI hack, the processor would be a huge bottleneck. Besides for those of us who do video editing, rendering, encoding often, there's no way AMD provides the necessary performance. 980x - 7426 seconds / 60 = 123 minutes1090T - 14383 seconds / 60 = 240 minutes---------------Disclaimer: Playing the devil's advocate here...If AMD is so butthurt when using INTEL's compilers, then why don't they write their own compiler? Wouldn't this be an easier solution? Why are they relying on INTEL's compilers anyway? If they did write their own compilers I would love to see how they will make sure that the code is fully optimized to run on Intel processors, I bet this will be their #1 priority. IMO, Intel shouldn't have to optimize their code to support AMD's processors, why should they? AMD is their competition. Besides, Intel already paid $1.25 Billion to AMD for this, and have been forced to change their ways. Is AMD a saint in such practices? NOPE! It's just like AMD limiting YOU from having SLI setups. They don't support SLI in their motherboards since they sell graphics cards, and would prefer you buying AMD cards, but no one is complaining of this anti-competitive fact are they? It goes both ways. I've seen many uninformed people blatantly say that "You can't run Nvidia cards on AMD setups" Well you can run single cards just fine, and you can do the SLI hack, but why should do? Since you CAN run the SLI hack, then clearly AMD boards are capable of running SLI aren't they?Shouldn't you be given a fair choice of Nvidia or AMD cards for your setup? Well guess what, AMD is robbing you of that choice, and they are forcing you to buy AMD Graphics cards. At least with Intel setups you can run either CF or SLI just fine. These corporations will do everything they can to gain an edge over their competition, and both camps are guilty of such practices, it's just that a lot of you are in denial about it, or simply uninformed.[/citation]
Well that is a good example of a more cpu bound game then a gpu bound game so as i had mentioned in my earlier post some games are cpu bound more then gpu bound. This is one such game that is more cpu bound. Of course in this instance i expect the cpu to effect the game a lot more as anyone would.
Also i didn't pay near $1000 for my x2 cpu it was about $300 for a 6400+ x2 i think your referring to a special line of cpus they had then called the FX line which if memory serves was more aimed towards servers.
I wont say your wrong about adding 4 video cards though i hardly see the point in spending $3000 on video cards to get 40 more frames i cant even imagine a resolution that needs that and im running 2560x1600 and i have never needed more then a single card though a dual card or dual gpu on single card did help a bit. Hell even with 3 monitors but o well not my money. Im in no way saying the AMD cpus are better in all aspects but some people here are just pure blind when it comes to CPU's and see things in really really narrow ways. As far as the running nvidia cards in SLI on an AMD board its been years since i cared to check but does crossfire even run on SLI boards? and even if it did i would likely not buy a crossfire board for my nvidia cards anyways. Its not like there is any benefit that i have seen looking at SLI and Xfire boards. I am one of the few people who doesn't upgrade i just rebuild but hell.. Intel also doesn't have a graphics market to push Nvidia and AMD do, Though IF SLI and Xfire were compatible which im sure they aren't 100% which would need AMD and NVIDIA to rework their chip sets to be 100% compatible for their competitions work. Which i am sure Intel does (didn't they also not like SLI before? or was it Xfire)
Like i said before all i do is play games surf the web watch movies burn some cd's blah blah blah i don't need to spend another $500 for a cpu that is only going to save me a few seconds for what i do.my ability to afford something i don't need is irrelevant and also bs. Ill spend a good chunk of money on 16 gigs of ram which i can actually get a benefit from and a 2 gig video card which i actually get a benefit from.
Now if i did the thing that the Intel cpu excelled at i would buy it assuming the price i paid would save me the time to make up for its cost. Of course if you only give examples of things that excell with intels implementation then sure they looks freaking awesome. I also don't care either way since i haven't met a game yet where the cpu i have has held me back from having 100+ frames and this thing is a dinosaur. Though my video card will need an upgrade here soon if i plan on playing newer games. which despite my CPU "holding me back" always doubles my frames.
to part.... i hate synthetic benchmarks and i only use them as a baseline not a alpha omega on anything being benchmarked. I almost always get higher frames then toms shows in their benchmarks anyways.
Well that is a good example of a more cpu bound game then a gpu bound game so as i had mentioned in my earlier post some games are cpu bound more then gpu bound. This is one such game that is more cpu bound. Of course in this instance i expect the cpu to effect the game a lot more as anyone would.
Also i didn't pay near $1000 for my x2 cpu it was about $300 for a 6400+ x2 i think your referring to a special line of cpus they had then called the FX line which if memory serves was more aimed towards servers.
I wont say your wrong about adding 4 video cards though i hardly see the point in spending $3000 on video cards to get 40 more frames i cant even imagine a resolution that needs that and im running 2560x1600 and i have never needed more then a single card though a dual card or dual gpu on single card did help a bit. Hell even with 3 monitors but o well not my money. Im in no way saying the AMD cpus are better in all aspects but some people here are just pure blind when it comes to CPU's and see things in really really narrow ways. As far as the running nvidia cards in SLI on an AMD board its been years since i cared to check but does crossfire even run on SLI boards? and even if it did i would likely not buy a crossfire board for my nvidia cards anyways. Its not like there is any benefit that i have seen looking at SLI and Xfire boards. I am one of the few people who doesn't upgrade i just rebuild but hell.. Intel also doesn't have a graphics market to push Nvidia and AMD do, Though IF SLI and Xfire were compatible which im sure they aren't 100% which would need AMD and NVIDIA to rework their chip sets to be 100% compatible for their competitions work. Which i am sure Intel does (didn't they also not like SLI before? or was it Xfire)
Like i said before all i do is play games surf the web watch movies burn some cd's blah blah blah i don't need to spend another $500 for a cpu that is only going to save me a few seconds for what i do.my ability to afford something i don't need is irrelevant and also bs. Ill spend a good chunk of money on 16 gigs of ram which i can actually get a benefit from and a 2 gig video card which i actually get a benefit from.
Now if i did the thing that the Intel cpu excelled at i would buy it assuming the price i paid would save me the time to make up for its cost. Of course if you only give examples of things that excell with intels implementation then sure they looks freaking awesome. I also don't care either way since i haven't met a game yet where the cpu i have has held me back from having 100+ frames and this thing is a dinosaur. Though my video card will need an upgrade here soon if i plan on playing newer games. which despite my CPU "holding me back" always doubles my frames.
to part.... i hate synthetic benchmarks and i only use them as a baseline not a alpha omega on anything being benchmarked. I almost always get higher frames then toms shows in their benchmarks anyways.
extremebadass
Distinguished
- Jun 3, 2009
- 42
- 0
- 18,530
I purchased an AMD phenomii x6 1055t cpu for $190.00 au @ mwave.This cpu replaced my Amd phenomii x3 720BE.Performance wise this cpu blows my old x3 away.It's 100% stable @ 4150Ghz on air.Gaming has increased in fps.I think the old x3 bottlenecked my gtx 295.In some games i am getting up to 10-20 fps better.For the price of this cpu i cannot find a bad thing to say about it.LOVE AMD....
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram