8350rocks :
earl45 :
8350rocks :
You talk like I was disappointed with my purchases...which is a complete fallacy. Also, I don't want sympathy from you or any other Intel nut. You might think that whatever minor performance gains mattered to you are important to me...but in the end, only I have to worry about the PCs I use. I am completely happy with every PC I have ever built. I have no regrets. If you think that having the 2600k is what it takes to make you happy...great! You have what you wanted. I am personally happy with my AMD CPUs...they do everything I have ever asked of them, and they do it well. I could care less if buying Intel saves me 15 seconds of rendering time...what's 15 seconds in the grander scheme of things? Though, if I had bought Intel, I would have regretted it from day one for supporting such an ethically and morally challenged business.
Just to give you an idea about the company you're supporting...you should read this article. Like your Intel CPU with a dedicated GPU? Don't count on them allowing you to do that for too much longer...they're already cutting back on the bandwidth on many of their boards to prevent you from using anything but their crappy iGPU effectively.
http://semiaccurate.com/2012/12/18/how-intel-can-slam-the-door-on-gpus/
This entire conversation was about showing everyone how your claims where,
just so ridiculous and AMD fan boyish, at the end your just left grasping at straws.
I know you're ok with the purchase of both cpu's, but your claims for purchasing
them were completely bogus.
Like I said you bought them because you don't like Intel, and that perfectly ok,
just say that, don't start fabricating lie's about performance.
When I bought the 1100T, the 2600k was not out...it compared to the i7-950. So you made a false comparison, and I didn't catch it until after I looked back at release schedules (memory isn't as good as I would like it to be). The 2600k did not come out until after I bought my 1100T, and though it wouldn't have mattered in my purchase, it matters that your comparison is not apples to apples.
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/336/AMD_Phenom_II_X6_1100T_vs_Intel_Core_i7_i7-950.html
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1484/4/
So, I was right...you were just comparing the AMD architecture to a newer Intel architecture, which is always an unfair comparison no matter who is newer/older.
Further, in things like video encoding, etc. The 1100T does very well, and in file compression and other things it holds it's own.
Here's the problem with your last post.
8350rocks said:
LOL...ok...here are some of the things I do, programs I run...tell me what you recommend there firemedictj:
So, why should I spend more money on a 3570k again?
EDIT: I am a game developer, I don't just use my pc for gaming like so many others do. I know what I bought and why, and it made the most sense because I paid less for more performance relevant to what I do with it. There is no amount of arguments you can present that would change my mind on this subject. Nothing Intel has out presents enough performance increase across the board that the value of the expense is justifiable for my purposes.
My first post: The question is how long have you been working with these programs, would you say
about 3 year's or more, now if that's so you could of bought a 2600k 2 year's ago and
get the performance of your FX-3850 today.
Your response:
Actually, my previous system was an 1100T BE OC'ed to 4.0 GHz, and I wouldn't have bought a 2600k then either as the 1100T was flat out better at everything there as well.
Thanks for playing though
EDIT: The 2600K is miles behind the 8350 in all of those applications...LOL...how on earth would I get the same performance?
1) Notice who put the 1100T BE in the conversation, that would be you.
2) What did you say the 1100T is good at, "was flat out better at everything there as well."
3) You also said this: "The 2600K is miles behind the 8350 in all of those applications...LOL...how on earth would I get the same performance?"
These are all your asinine claims, and I called you out on each and everyone,
proving to you that your boasting is completely unfounded.
8350rocks said:
When I bought the 1100T, the 2600k was not out...it compared to the i7-950. So you made a false comparison, and I didn't catch it until after I looked back at release schedules (memory isn't as good as I would like it to be). The 2600k did not come out until after I bought my 1100T, and though it wouldn't have mattered in my purchase, it matters that your comparison is not apples to apples.
My response:
I compared the 1100T BE only after you make false claims about it being better then the
2600k in the same things you use the 8350 for.
8350rocks said:
So, I was right...you were just comparing the AMD architecture to a newer Intel architecture, which is always an unfair comparison no matter who is newer/older.
My response:
This another one of your BS moments, NO you're no right the 2600k is over 2 year older
then the 8350 and still beats it at will, you do know the 2600k can overclock as good or
better then 8350, so running them at the same clock speed the 2600k will best the 8350
in pretty much everything: the graph below proves this.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/compare,3142.html?prod%5B5759%5D=on&prod%5B5877%5D=on&prod%5B5945%5D=on
The problem with you is when proven wrong, you try to twist words, double talk,
and blame people for thing you actually did.
Watch the insults.