# Constant hate towards AMD



## codename47deni

Intel vs AMD - the never ending war between the companies and their fans...

Seriously, why do people hate so much on AMD? I mean how much will it matter for the average customer in the end?

I am buying an AMD Phenom II X4 960T and most of my friends say that I'm buying shit, even though my setup will be able to run today's games. And they never had an AMD in their life! Talk about bias.

How much advantage does Intel really have over AMD?

How does this affect the customer?

Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse...


----------



## chuckzwood

In the market right now, Intel is a strong leader as far as performance goes.  Intel having a strong competitor is best for the consumer, but AMD needs to do some more work before giving much competition.  **This is coming from personal opinion from what I have read -- far from seasoned experience!**


----------



## codename47deni

chuckzwood said:


> In the market right now, Intel is a strong leader as far as performance goes.  Intel having a strong competitor is best for the consumer, but AMD needs to do some more work before giving much competition.  **This is coming from personal opinion from what I have read -- far from seasoned experience!**



Sure. That's fine with me, but jeez... It's like I'm getting ostracized by not following the herd.


----------



## trewyn15

No shame in getting AMD, but personally if I'm ever going to spend a lot on a nice gaming build I would want to spend the little bit extra on getting the "top" processor in the market right now.

Still, like you said, the AMD will handle your games, then you're fine.  Plenty of people with respectable systems around here running an AMD


----------



## codename47deni

trewyn15 said:


> No shame in getting AMD, but personally if I'm ever going to spend a lot on a nice gaming build I would want to spend the little bit extra on getting the "top" processor in the market right now.
> 
> Still, like you said, the AMD will handle your games, then you're fine.  Plenty of people with respectable systems around here running an AMD



Okay. But I had a tight budget, and computer prices are way higher where I live. I see that in the US you can get killer deals on all computer parts. Plus you have a wider variety of stuff to choose from.

I'm also curious how this AMD will handle my games, even if Intel has an edge.


----------



## chuckzwood

codename47deni said:


> Okay. But I had a tight budget, and computer prices are way higher where I live. I see that in the US you can get killer deals on all computer parts. Plus you have a wider variety of stuff to choose from.
> 
> I'm also curious how this AMD will handle my games, even if Intel has an edge.



As long as you buy an AMD processor which is good enough, they can handle games just fine.  

Some people are radically into certain brands.  Although I do prefer some brands over others (such as Ford over Chevy), I am not radical in any of these preferences.  But sometimes the "fan boys" are entertaining !


----------



## SuperDuperMe

I think its all just BS tbh. The power these people are talking about is pretty much miniscule. A few fps for a few hundred doesnt sound all that great to me. Last amd chip i had was an xp2000, before that i had an intel p4, now an intel e6600.

SO long as it does the job. Is affordable, and wont break i dont care who makes it. For me if intel has a chip as cheap as the 955be then id be up there ass, but amd are leaders in affordable but well performing chips. For methats what counts. Im not a performance jockey so dont really care if i get that extra 4 fps at 16 million p or w.e. If i can play a game, it looks smooth and i enjoy myself. All is good.


----------



## trewyn15

codename47deni said:


> Okay. But I had a tight budget, and computer prices are way higher where I live. I see that in the US you can get killer deals on all computer parts. Plus you have a wider variety of stuff to choose from.
> 
> I'm also curious how this AMD will handle my games, even if Intel has an edge.



If you can't afford it you can't afford it, agreed with what was just said, if you're on a budget a few fps isn't worth it for sure!


----------



## Ankur

Intel also says that AMD is its competitor as its products are nicely priced.
AMD can do well, I like they have a good ambition.
But seriously saying I hate when new guys choose AMD over intel for those 8 cores.


----------



## codename47deni

Ankur said:


> Intel also says that AMD is its competitor as its products are nicely priced.
> AMD can do well, I like they have a good ambition.
> But seriously saying I hate when new guys choose AMD over intel for those 8 cores.



I wouldn't even know what to do with those 8 cores. I think the average user wouldn't need more than 2 cores, but that's just what I think.

I'm not going to render video or do serious work. I believe that Intel is better for that kind of thing, but I'd rather buy an affordable AMD that can do the job.

I had both AMD and Intel systems in my lifetime, and didn't really care much for brands. They both performed well.


----------



## claptonman

45-55 fps on BF3 with ultra, I'm not complaining. And if I went Intel, I'd have to cut back on my video card.


----------



## Spesh

It all comes down to budget at the end if the day. With current hardware, the only real reason for considering an AMD platform is if you are limited by budget. This doesn't mean that AMD chips are bad, they suit a purpose and are priced accordingly.


----------



## codename47deni

Spesh said:


> they suit a purpose and are priced accordingly.



Thank you!


----------



## OvenMaster

I've been using AMD since 2004. Even for my last build (Oct '11) when I compared CPUs and motherboards, I found that I just can't afford Intel. AMD gets my money for sheer value.


----------



## jonnyp11

only difference between the 2 is when it comes to pricing. your 960t will be barely behind a i3-2100 which costs the same. but your cpu can either unlock to a 6 core or you could easily and cheaply upgrade to cooler and put that thing at 4ghz or higher which it now beats the i3, and the i3 can't overclock but maybe and extra .1 or .2ghz before it becomes unstable and screws things up. i'd take a phenom x4 over an i3 every time plus it also does better at multitasking and once in game, there is virtually no difference.


----------



## codename47deni

jonnyp11 said:


> only difference between the 2 is when it comes to pricing. your 960t will be barely behind a i3-2100 which costs the same. but your cpu can either unlock to a 6 core or you could easily and cheaply upgrade to cooler and put that thing at 4ghz or higher which it now beats the i3, and the i3 can't overclock but maybe and extra .1 or .2ghz before it becomes unstable and screws things up. i'd take a phenom x4 over an i3 every time plus it also does better at multitasking and once in game, there is virtually no difference.



Now that you mentioned multitasking. I wanted to know if you could elaborate on the importance of multiple threads. What does Intel excel at when it comes to applications, photoshop, video rendering and stuff like that?

when does having multiple cores and more threads really come into play? 

How does RAM really affect over all performance and when do I have enough RAM?


----------



## jonnyp11

Ram amounts needed change over the years, for anybody 8 is more than enough, 4gb's can easily do anything if on a budget, anything over those is only going to be used in a professional editing or 3d modeling situation. for cores it's like having 1 person do a worksheet at school vs 1 doing the front and the other doing the back, way faster in the second option, as for threads, there's not a way i can think in this example but they only add a little performance and there are many programs that can only use 1 or 2 cores, and a thread just makes it so the core acts like 2 and can do a little more, so i guess the people doing the work are semi-ambidextrous or whatever, so he can write a littloe with his other hand at the same time.

as far as where intel excels, right now they excel at everything pretty much, i think amd wins against them for video editing and 3d modeling on the lower end up to the low end x6's but once you get the the i5-2300 or 2400, intel's back in the lead i think.


----------



## Spesh

jonnyp11 said:


> as far as where intel excels, right now they excel at everything pretty much, i think amd wins against them for video editing and 3d modeling on the lower end up to the low end x6's but once you get the the i5-2300 or 2400, intel's back in the lead i think.



Yes, AMD tend to be competing in the lower - mid end, using an aggressive pricing strategy, which gives you a great alternative if you are a home user. Generally speaking, any proffessional environment that requires high productivity in mulithreaded tasks will use Intel based systems, as will enthusiasts.

It's been a little while now since AMD have been able to offer any reasonable competition to Intel in terms of outright maximum performance.


----------



## kdfresh09

codename47deni...forget about your friends playing you for the black sheep just cause your leaning on amd's side of things.  ive ran my rig now for some time and i can not complain.  i have never come into a situation where it wasnt enough, and i do gaming, video editing/convering as well as rendering and audio compiling.  granted, when it comes to everything besides gaming that i listed, im sure intel would get the job done "a little quicker", but ill gladly take the 6 cores i have over intels 4 for the same price.  even if i were to get a quad core by amd and contemplate it with a i5, i would still rather get the amd and spend the extra money i saved towards my gpu fund.  i mean, look at the 3dmark11 thread...im ranked #3, and its AMD.  tell your friends that they can have intel, but your going with the 960t, with the possibilty of unlocking it to a 6 core cpu, and if not, overclocking it to 4Ghz and it still being onpar with an i5 stock, while being able to have a better GPU because of it.


----------



## Okedokey

One thing people forget though is, if you get a 960T or similar, thats almost the end of the line.  With the i3, it still performs as well now, plus you can upgrade right through to i7 and ivybridge, so the future upgradability is massively better.


----------



## Perkomate

they both have good price/performance, it's just that Intel gets my vote for being a heap faster. My quad is as fast, if not a bit faster than their 8 core.


----------



## kdfresh09

yeah but even the phenom II are somewhat faster than the new bulldozers....but i do agree, if you have the budget, run the intel...although i feel that AMD is more than enough if your not running a workstation or if your not in a profession that requires it.....


----------



## voyagerfan99

Intel is a good performer, but they're over-priced. I run AMD because I'm a college student on a budget. I still get great performance from my X4 965BE.


----------



## Okedokey

But the i3 is about the same price?  And is faster at stock and the platform can be upgraded through the i5, i7 and ivybridge.  That's a massive advantage.


----------



## linkin

Why bother going through the i3 and i5 ranges when they can't be effectively overclocked (speaking about the non-k chips) and the chips are still $100+, when you can get a 955BE or 960T for about $120 and overclock/unlock it.


----------



## Okedokey

A 2500K will spank anything AMD has to offer and can be upgraded in a year or so to ivybridge.


----------



## linkin

Yeah, what if you can't afford a 2500K?


----------



## Okedokey

i3 will spank anything too.


----------



## Jiniix

AMD recently admitted defeat in desktop and laptop processors, and announced they are going to focus on phones and other mobile devices. Intel is far stronger in my opinion, and I used to be an all AMD guy.


----------



## codename47deni

bigfellla said:


> One thing people forget though is, if you get a 960T or similar, thats almost the end of the line.  With the i3, it still performs as well now, plus you can upgrade right through to i7 and ivybridge, so the future upgradability is massively better.



Sure, but by the time I am going to buy a new computer, I'm sure that there will be better processors out there, possibly requiring new motherboards as well.

I agree with what you're saying, it's just that if I wanted a quad core Intel, I would have less money for everything else.

I'm never going to need an i5 or an i7 or that 2600k.


----------



## Okedokey

No, maybe not, but you're not an enthusiast obviously.  And never say never 

BUT, if you are to get a new computer now, and you want a discrete graphics card, there is nothing in AMD that can compete.  They can only compete at the moment in the on CPU GPU varieties, and even then, just.  Intel makes in a month what AMD makes in a year, why?   Better products.


----------



## CrazyMike

This has to be the best thread to read when you are waking up drinkIng a coffee. BigFella, I always love reading your comments  it reminds me of the hockey rival between the Edmonton Oilers and Calgary Flames. Totally amusing!! 


PS ... Ian hurry up with that mobile app, this is horrible on the iPhone!


----------



## turbodiesel

i used to like AMD untill i used a AMD sempron


----------



## voyagerfan99

ryan.white said:


> i used to like AMD *until* i used *an* AMD *Sempron*



Corrected your spelling there.

Anyway, Sempron's aren't bad. They're like the Celeron, but just like the recent generation, they've gotten a lot better than they used to be.


----------



## codename47deni

voyagerfan99 said:


> Corrected your spelling there.
> 
> Anyway, Sempron's aren't bad. They're like the Celeron, but just like the recent generation, they've gotten a lot better than they used to be.



I know Intel is reliable, but I stay away from Celerons. They just have a bad reputation. Doesn't Intel have its own bad CPUs? Or AMD has more?


----------



## jonnyp11

Intel has had many bad cpus, in the past the roles where reversed and AMD pwn'd intel in performance. the newest amd cpus are similar the old pentium 4's with netburst which failed, yet they recovered and are now better, so hopefully amd will do the same and in a year or 2 equal or pass intel in performance


----------



## voyagerfan99

codename47deni said:


> I know Intel is reliable, but I stay away from Celerons. They just have a bad reputation. Doesn't Intel have its own bad CPUs? Or AMD has more?



My first computer (that was my own) had a 1Ghz Celeron and it was dog slow. However the new ones have hyper threading (some are dual-core) so they're a lot better than they were. These days you can't really find a "crappy" processor. Any processor these days can do basic computing exceptionally well. If you need more intense processing power, that's the only time you can say a processor is "crappy".


----------



## linkin

Ah yes, the celery processors  The latest ones are dual cores at least, like a core 2 duo.

Also bigfella, i3 doesn't even spank an athlon quad core, they are head to head 

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Athlon-II-X4-640-vs-Core-i3-530-CPU-Review/1041/3

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Athlon-II-X4-640-vs-Core-i3-530-CPU-Review/1041/4

The other pages detail some divx and photoshop results, it goes about 15% either way depending on the application.


----------



## Spesh

My first computer was a beast.......75mhz Pentium


----------



## Richard89

Spesh said:


> My first computer was a beast.......75mhz Pentium



Haha! Windows 98SE FTW! What did that computer run?


----------



## Perkomate

the Cellys clock like a mofo though. 
I can understand the support for AMD because of the price, but i mean, come on. An 8 core with similar performance to a quad.


----------



## OvenMaster

Jiniix said:


> AMD recently admitted defeat in desktop and laptop processors, and announced they are going to focus on phones and other mobile devices.


Link, please.
And if this is true, build-it-yourselfers like most of us here will be in the same boat as enthusiasts were 20 years ago. Intel pretty much had a lock on CPUs and were outrageously expensive. In other words, screwed.
If it weren't for AMD, Intel would not have had to lower their prices and compete for business.


----------



## Okedokey

OvenMaster said:


> Link, please.
> And if this is true, build-it-yourselfers like most of us here will be in the same boat as enthusiasts were 20 years ago. Intel pretty much had a lock on CPUs and were outrageously expensive. In other words, screwed.
> If it weren't for AMD, Intel would not have had to lower their prices and compete for business.



Google is your friend.  http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9222298/AMD_moves_away_from_Intel_rivalry_rethinks_course

AMD has put themselves in this position with crappy products.  Simple capitalism.  Ironic isn't it.


----------



## linkin

Didn't say they would stop making x86 CPU's, you guys are so glass-half-empty


----------



## Okedokey

x86 is moving into mobile devices bro.


----------



## tech savvy

"Well, Bulldozer is a loser. Where do they really go from there? Intel's chips are already well out in front, and Ivy Bridge and 22nm will move them further out. I don't see AMD as having any chance at all."

^that.

Edit: What about AMD desktop graphics cards?


----------



## Okedokey

I for one would love to see AMD come out with something massive, but alas, its looking liking a distant dream.


----------



## Spesh

Richard89 said:


> Haha! Windows 98SE FTW! What did that computer run?



It was a very old Packard Bell machine running Windows 95.


----------



## jonnyp11

tech savvy said:


> "Well, Bulldozer is a loser. Where do they really go from there? Intel's chips are already well out in front, and Ivy Bridge and 22nm will move them further out. I don't see AMD as having any chance at all."
> 
> ^that.
> 
> Edit: What about AMD desktop graphics cards?



they're not going to quit graphics, that's a lot of money there. as for cpus, their prob going to keep making trinity and fusion cpus, and for ivy bridge, it's not going to pull them a lot further ahead, it's just a more energy efficient sandy and barely has a performance increase, under 5% i think, although the HD4000 or whatever will be a lot better.


----------



## georgewgrainger

I've been told that AMD processors use alot of technology ahead of it's time.


----------



## jllipke

Iv'e been using AMD Athlon Duel Core for a while now, and iv'e never had any problems.


----------



## jonnyp11

georgewgrainger said:


> I've been told that AMD processors use alot of technology ahead of it's time.



not really, intel is ahead in performance for a reason, they're better. amd's cpus are all a few years old now other than bulldozer which is really very similar to the concept of intels sandy bridge and other i-series cpus, they just did it a little differently and arguably better, in concept that is. in practice they lose because of the architecture itself, but if intel copied the bulldozer design, i think it would kill, but that's just what i think.


----------



## wolfeking

historically I think so jonny. I think, at least on the consumer end, AMD was first to the 64bit game, and I am unsure, but I think they beat intel to the multicore game too. They have been first to a lot, but they need to be refined a lot.


----------



## jonnyp11

well historically yes i guess, currently not so much though, i was thinking right now though.


----------



## wolfeking

the module idea may be ahead of its time. Like HT 2.0. So it can carry even to today.


----------



## linkin

I'd say they've been thinking too far ahead. People want to see the performance NOW instead of in 2 or 3 years.


----------



## Perkomate

i rekon that Intel's 3D transisitors is are pretty cool. That's one up on AMD. 
It seems to be, that AMD comes up with the technology first, but then Intel improves on it.


----------



## jonnyp11

I still want to see how good it would be or if it would work if intel did a modul like design, since basically bulldozer was a hyper-threaded core plus one or 2 other pices, so if intel did it even just by copying and pasting parts of their current sandy or ivy cores, you'd think it would kick some arse


----------



## Okedokey

jonnyp11 said:


> ... it's just a more energy efficient sandy and barely has a performance increase, under 5% i think





> Ivy Bridge will generally inherit Sandy Bridge micro-architecture and will sport a rather significant number of improvements. Firstly, it will have certain improvements that will boost its performance in general applications by around 20% compared to Core i "Sandy Bridge" chips (e.g., enhanced AVX acceleration). Secondly, the forthcoming chip will have a new graphics core with DirectX 11 and OpenCL 1.1 support, 30% higher performance compared to the predecessor as well as new video processor and display controllers. Thirdly, Ivy Bridge will feature PCI Express 3.0 x16 interconnection as well as PCIe 2.0 x4 controller. In fourth, the processor will support a number of power management innovations. The CPU is made using 22nm process technology.





> Core i 3000-series processors to deliver up to 25% better performance than existing Core i 2000-series "Sandy Bridge" chips in office applications and up to 199% improvements in graphics intensive apps.


http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...y_Bridge_Performance_Numbers_to_Partners.html

Fairly good improvements by the look of it.  Even better when i can drop one straight in


----------



## Spesh

Ivybridge samples have been released to overclockers. They show a 10% increase in performance over the 2600k.....

http://www.legitreviews.com/news/12310/


----------



## Okedokey

Spesh said:


> Ivybridge samples have been released to overclockers. They show a 10% increase in performance over the 2600k.....
> 
> http://www.legitreviews.com/news/12310/



Read the first paragraph, 1 over clocker, Lol. I'll trust intel for now over that rubbish reference


----------



## Spesh

bigfellla said:


> Read the first paragraph, 1 over clocker, Lol. I'll trust intel for now over that rubbish reference



I'm inclined to think that these results are fairly accurate. 10% would seem about right to me. Why would you rather believe rumoured hype over an impartial party that has actually tested one of these chips?


----------



## Okedokey

Lol impartial? How do you know that? And also because I would expect twice that performance.


----------



## Spesh

bigfellla said:


> I would expect twice that performance.



Why?

10% performance boost may not seem all that good to some users, but it will put it ahead of SB-E in some tasks. Combine that with reduced power consumption and potential overclocking headroom, it seems quite reasonable to me.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

I hope Advanced Micro Devices does not throw in the towel with Desktop processors.

Bulldozer was so devastating to them I'm sure.


----------



## mx344

mikeb2817 said:


> I think its all just BStbh. The power these people are talking about is pretty much *miniscule*. A few fps for a few hundred doesnt sound all that great to me.
> 
> SO long as it does the job. Is affordable, and wont break i dont care who makes it. For me if intel has a chip as cheap as the 955be then id be up there ass, but amd are leaders in affordable but well performing chips. For methats what counts. Im not a performance jockey so dont really care if i get that extra 4 fps at 16 million p or w.e. If i can play a game, it looks smooth and i enjoy myself. All is good.



amen. As long as it fits your needs, thats all that should matter. 



bigfellla said:


> Google is your friend.  http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9222298/AMD_moves_away_from_Intel_rivalry_rethinks_course
> 
> AMD has put themselves in this position with crappy products.


Crappy? lol, Don't know where your getting that.



2048Megabytes said:


> I hope Advanced Micro Devices does not throw in the towel with Desktop processors.
> 
> Bulldozer was so devastating to them I'm sure.



I hope they don't either 

O.P. 
Its just fanboyism. Just Like any other company loyalty. I've owned Intel and Amd, and I enjoy both, they both get the job done in the end. And thats all that matters to me, no need to debate about which one is better, cause they both do the same job...


----------



## Okedokey

They don't do the same job.  What drugs are you on?

As shown here, the difference at 1920 x 1080 in Skyrim for example is the difference between an unplayable game (<30FPS) and a playable one.  There are many examples like that.  And I too have owned gear from both companies.  The last resort of calling someone a fanboy is just a copout.

This is especially true when you want to run multiple high end graphics cards.



mx344 said:


> Crappy? lol, Don't know where your getting that.



Why do you think they have laid off 10% of their staff, quiting the desktop market?  If BD was a success this wouldn't have happened.  Simple.


----------



## mx344

bigfellla said:


> They don't do the same job.  What drugs are you on?
> 
> As shown here, the difference at 1920 x 1080 in Skyrim for example is the difference between an unplayable game (<30FPS) and a playable one.  There are many examples like that.  And I too have owned gear from both companies.  The last resort of calling someone a fanboy is just a copout.
> 
> This is especially true when you want to run multiple high end graphics cards.
> Why do you think they have laid off 10% of their staff, quiting the desktop market?  If BD was a success this wouldn't have happened.  Simple.



1. They do do the same job, I never said they both did it at the same speed, FPS,or how ever you want to measure them. You can look at specs all you want, to me personally, that means little to nothing because I'm not going to play games at that setting. To you it may sure. I look at it from the stand point, of what I personally am going to use it for, image editing, some gaming, and internet browsing. When it all comes down to it, you have to look at something that fits what your target goal is, your look at it is more of the enthusiast benchmark type of guy, on the other hand, i look at it as, will can it run smooth, does my program launch quickly, do my photos import fast, is my games load in a reasonable time, does photoshop/LR3 export my edited files quickly etc.
2. I was responding to the original poster, when he asked "why do people hate on AMD" Calling someone a fan boy, isn't a copout. Lol, when you say AMD makes crap, its ridiculous, because they make quality products, that work pretty damn good. 
3. I would agree, with you BD, would have def. helped out AMD, but again, calling them crap is far from an accurate statement.


----------



## Okedokey

LOL ^

The game is unplayable even at high settings so telling me they do the same thing is rediculous.  Of course if you want to run everything a 640 x 400 sure itll work.


----------



## jonnyp11

bigfellla said:


> LOL ^
> 
> The game is unplayable even at high settings so telling me they do the same thing is rediculous.  Of course if you want to run everything a 640 x 400 sure itll work.



You're the biggest fanboy on this forum. You're seriously linking to a comparison of a 230 buck 2500k v a 145 or so buck phenom x4 970 (or lesser overclocked). That's a 17% increase in performance for almost a 60% price increase, talk about value. And yes, i will say that the i3 beats it in the other bench test, of course i would never call 25 fps unplayable, especially when it's the absolut minimum frame rate ever reached, and the average dips where most likely still in the 30+ fps range.


----------



## Ankur

I have always said AMD CPUs are really a good option for the cost. Everyone knows that budget is the limiting factor which makes AMD a competitor price wise. Dang, but my next build will have an Ivy Bridge.


----------



## M1kkelZR

bigfellla said:


> LOL ^
> 
> The game is unplayable even at high settings so telling me they do the same thing is rediculous.  Of course if you want to run everything a 640 x 400 sure itll work.



i dont think thats extremely true...

i run skyrim on my laptop +/- 20-30 fps windowed 1024x720. if i play full screen i get 10-20 fps with the same resolution, and what ive gathered from you is that an Phenom2 X4 wont run ANY game because its simply AMD. 

A friend of mine has a 955 combined with an old 9800GT and it runs skyrim perfectly. another friend also has a 955 but combined with a 5670 and runs it too. 

im going for AMD on my build too, and regardless of your fanboy-ism and hate towards amd because their performance isnt as high as intel's, doesnt mean that EVERYONE should use intel, ive always used AMD until i got my laptop with the i3 380M, it does the trick but id still think that an AMD Mobile cpu would do it all too with the same ease.


----------



## wolfeking

I personally don't have a issue with AMD. I use intel though in my lappy because it is more energy efficient than the AMD equalivant processor. 

And Raz3rd, your laptop should have the original intel HD with the 380m. At least my acer with the 380m had HD1000, 2000 and 3000 are on sandybridge 2*** series processors.


----------



## M1kkelZR

wolfeking said:


> I personally don't have a issue with AMD. I use intel though in my lappy because it is more energy efficient than the AMD equalivant processor.
> 
> And Raz3rd, your laptop should have the original intel HD with the 380m. At least my acer with the 380m had HD1000, 2000 and 3000 are on sandybridge 2*** series processors.



yeah i have 2000, i kept forgetting so i thought ill just stick with some number lol nevertheless the gfx card sucks


----------



## wolfeking

Raz3rD said:


> yeah i have 2000, i kept forgetting so i thought ill just stick with some number lol nevertheless the gfx card sucks


Not with a i3-380m. Maybe I didn't make sense above. The first generation i series were all HD1000. 
HD 2000 and HD 3000 are Sandybridge. HD 4000 id the LGA2011 i7 processors and HD5000 (i think) will be ivybridge.


----------



## M1kkelZR

wolfeking said:


> Not with a i3-380m. Maybe I didn't make sense above. The first generation i series were all HD1000.
> HD 2000 and HD 3000 are Sandybridge. HD 4000 id the LGA2011 i7 processors and HD5000 (i think) will be ivybridge.



ohh Lol, well when i check some things it says i have 2000? so maybe my laptop is just handicapped


----------



## wolfeking

hmmm.... This confuses me. Maybe the computer is misidentifing it or something. It is an acer after all. Lol. (speaking from experience *aspire 5742 nvidia edition* they arent great*.


----------



## M1kkelZR

wolfeking said:


> hmmm.... This confuses me. Maybe the computer is misidentifing it or something. It is an acer after all. Lol. (speaking from experience *aspire 5742 nvidia edition* they arent great*.



yeah my teacher said, you got to choose a laptop and you chose an Acer... i didnt get to choose it i got it for my birthday. so im happy i have it but just dont want it anymore lol.

ill try to see if i can find the program that shows me the name.


----------



## wolfeking

CPUz or GPUz should provide that info. 

And acers genuinely do suck donkey. I would never buy another one in my life, even though 2 of them I have used had no issue (besides subpar cooling solutions). 
I understand how it is with gifts, especially the electronic verity. I got an HP DV7 for christmas one year, and I was like *FML*, but it works when its inbetween malfunctioning GPUs.


----------



## M1kkelZR

wolfeking said:


> CPUz or GPUz should provide that info.
> 
> And acers genuinely do suck donkey. I would never buy another one in my life, even though 2 of them I have used had no issue (besides subpar cooling solutions).
> I understand how it is with gifts, especially the electronic verity. I got an HP DV7 for christmas one year, and I was like *FML*, but it works when its inbetween malfunctioning GPUs.



yeah i have had some nice Acer 22" monitors, and they work perfectly but until i got the laptop i was like crap, not an acer why not just a Medion ALDI thing? lol

GPUz says: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			
		
		
	


	




 so i think its just the HD 1000.


----------



## wolfeking

it is. If it were 2000 or 3000 it would say HD2000 or HD3000.


----------



## M1kkelZR

yeah well just for the sake of lazyness ill change my sig some other time


----------



## wolfeking

I don't think that anyone really pays attention to the siggy unless someone is claiming outrageous performance, or says "specs in sig". no one will notice the oversight.


----------



## M1kkelZR

yeh true, we arent like bigfella


----------



## wolfeking

im not taking a side on bigfella. Hes smart, and has good advice. Might could do without the computer god complex a little though.


----------



## M1kkelZR

wolfeking said:


> im not taking a side on bigfella. Hes smart, and has good advice. Might could do without the computer god complex a little though.



yeah, i like his enthousiasm but saying that his pc smashes anything else on the forum makes me think hes a tad cocky


----------



## Spesh

Raz3rD said:


> yeah, i like his enthousiasm but saying that his pc smashes anything else on the forum makes me think hes a tad cocky



And a tad wrong too.


----------



## M1kkelZR

Spesh said:


> And a tad wrong too.



sometimes yeah


----------



## Okedokey

It wasn't meant to be a definitive statement, as I said before its simply a relational statement as a comparison from subscore to hardware.  Thats all.  Didn't mean to get knickers in a knot.  Having said that, ive still not seen a faster system for gaming at least.  And no, a 6990 in quad fire is not faster.


----------



## Okedokey

jonnyp11 said:


> You're the biggest fanboy on this forum. You're seriously linking to a comparison of a 230 buck 2500k v a 145 or so buck phenom x4 970 (or lesser overclocked). That's a 17% increase in performance for almost a 60% price increase, talk about value. And yes, i will say that the i3 beats it in the other bench test, of course i would never call 25 fps unplayable, especially when it's the absolut minimum frame rate ever reached, and the average dips where most likely still in the 30+ fps range.



No one said anything about price comparison jonny.  The comment i was referring to was essentially saying, regardless of price they all do the same thing.  Which is completely incorrect.  And anyone who thinks you can play a game 25fps is kidding themselves.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> And anyone who thinks you can play a game 25fps is kidding themselves.


Why, this may well be true for shooters and other games where accuracy and precision matter, but outside them I have absolutely no trouble playing even at around 20fps. I can play, say, Assassins Creed maxed out at 1900x1080 on a measley HD5750 & Phenom 8450 (both stock) with visible lag at times without it getting in the way of me having fun. And that's even without getting into the RTS or, God forbid, TBS domain (yea this might not be a usual scenario but I'm into that kind of stuff).

Actually, I played the original oldschool Red Faction on the ancient machine just at the end of last year with frame rates that probably fairly consistently went down to the 15-20 range (based on my experiences with shooters on a laptop with Intel GMA) yet I had no trouble even on impossible. That wasn't the most pleasant gaming experience, though, but it's still quite playable.


----------



## Okedokey

hackapelite said:


> That wasn't the most pleasant gaming experience, though, but it's still quite playable.



I rest my case


----------



## SuperDuperMe

bigfellla said:


> No one said anything about price comparison jonny.  The comment i was referring to was essentially saying, regardless of price they all do the same thing.  Which is completely incorrect.  And anyone who thinks you can play a game 25fps is kidding themselves.



Just out of curiosity have you ever played arma 2? I play that game at 20fps-25fps. And its more playable than modern warfare 2 at 40fps. If you have a look on the BIS forums that is considered a decent fps for that game. I dont dispute that 60fps looks fantastic. But saying a game is unplayable is quite misleading. Especially to all these people now thinking they need 3xgtx 580's just to game. 

Its quite sad really as some of us dont have the money for decent hardware. And if i was new to the forum looking at this id be put off pc gaming by the constant "you need 60 fps or gtfo" that you seem to throw about. 

Just to reiterate, im not saying 60 fps isn't the dogs bollocks but i am saying you dont need it to have a good time. I rarely get more than 40 fps in most games if im lucky and i still have a whale of a time gaming. The only game i feel like i could do with more fps is cod 6, but i dont play it anymore so its not a problem for me.


----------



## Okedokey

ArmA at 20FPS is not playable unless you absolutely don't give a shit.  HAHHAHA what a joke.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

bigfellla said:


> I rest my case


Well blimey did that get laughed out of the court fast.


----------



## Okedokey

Ummm, huh?


----------



## SMGOwnage

I was able to play mineraft at 20 fps for over 2 months, and was plenty enjoyable, then I upgraded my computer and I get way better framerates but with my old HP system(yep, you heard right, a HP) I still enjoyed playing it at 20-30 fps.


----------



## Okedokey

haha ok minecraft


----------



## SuperDuperMe

bigfellla said:


> ArmA at 20FPS is not playable unless you absolutely don't give a shit.  HAHHAHA what a joke.



You obviously havent played ARMA 2 or visited the forums. The tweak guide on the BIS forums, generally contributed to by some of the best scripters, mod makers, and players of arma 2 think the exact opposite as you. Fair enough, they probably dont play it at 20-25 fps. But they can appreciate that its playable. I think with you, your agrument is a proxy for you being able to stick your nose up at people. Just my opinion. But as seen on many threads theres no arguing with you or reasoning.





bigfellla said:


> haha ok minecraft




Sort of proves my point about sticking your nose up at people. My observation is your very snotty about anyone who doesnt have the best of the best.


----------



## Okedokey

No its just 20FPS is not playable on any first person shooter no matter how much your ghetto gear wants it to be. Don't make this personal mofo, coz 20fps is shit/

30fps is the standard bottom line for fps games, period, not my benchmark.  If you think that 20-25fps on ARMA is acceptable well fine, but that doesn't make it a recommended standard.

That is why all computer hardware publishing rates 30fps as the absolute minimum, and less than that is considered unplayable - especially ARMA.


----------



## SuperDuperMe

Now thats very immature. My "ghetto gear" gets me by. I know personally that 20-25fps gets me by just fine. When you actually play arma 2 then come back as its obvious you've never played it. And if you have you've never played it on a lower end rig.

Its quite sad that you have to try and put people down for the size of there wallet as opposed to any reason actually helpful or constructive. Please by all means by me an i7 and 3 gtx 580's then i can be just the greatest guy, just like you. Until then, im going to get back to my "ghetto gear"and play arma 2 to my hearts content knowing that it is a) playable, 2) enjoyable and 3) (probably the most important) a contradiction to 
what you believe.


EDIT: At 34 i would expect your manner to be a bit more mature, i mean "mofo" really?


----------



## Okedokey

Touchy hey? I said nothing about your wallet, you did.

I talked about fps, so turn down your resolution and meet the requirement.  

30fps for first person shooters is the absolute minimum.  Not my standard.


----------



## SuperDuperMe

bigfellla said:


> Touchy hey? I said nothing about your wallet, you did.
> 
> I talked about fps, so turn down your resolution and meet the requirement.
> 
> 30fps for first person shooters is the absolute minimum.  Not my standard.



Please educate yourself on BIS forums and spread that nonsense there see how far that gets you. People may believe this crap here but i doubt you'll get far over there.

That said, you still haven't said whether you have played the game? 

Also im not touchy im merely stating observations and personal opinion.


----------



## Okedokey

OK so you're saying less than 25fps is playable on ARMA? lol really?>

btw ive played arma and armaII a lot.


----------



## SuperDuperMe

bigfellla said:


> OK so you're saying less than 25fps is playable on ARMA? lol really?>
> 
> btw ive played arma and armaII a lot.



I am saying 25 and less on arma 2 is playable.  Unless your playing it like a cod game its very playable. Your either one of these idiots who sets up cqb battles on the editor or is just generally picky. Either way theres no chance were going to agree. So for the sake of not derailing this thread anymore than the pair of us have i would suggest we should agree to disagree.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> Ummm, huh?


Your case was that 25fps or less is unplayable. I said that "[20fps] is still quite playable". You said you rest your case. The fact that it sometimes got in the way and was a bit harsh on the eyes didn't make it unplayable by any means. And that's the problem with what you're saying here - see, you can go on about commonly accepted standards or acceptable minimums until your fingers fall off, they still don't necessarly set the standards for playability. For a shooter, yes, you would most likely need a steady 30fps for it not to get int the way (as in negatively affect the actual gameplay to any significant degree rather than just visuals), but that doesn't mean its unplayable. Yes, 20fps is shit and is especially annoying when I get in close combat with a really slow semi-auto weapon, or when trying to snipe a guy with a movement patterns of a jack russell terrier on coffee, or when playing online (0.4KDR FTW), but what the hell. It's like playing tennis on the backyard. Yes, the ground is uneven and the ball bounces at weird angles and you can never quite tell if it was in or out because all we're using is posts to mark the corners. Whatever, I can dig that. I'm still having a good time.


----------



## Spesh

bigfellla said:


> OK so you're saying less than 25fps is playable on ARMA? lol really?>
> 
> btw ive played arma and armaII a lot.



Bigfella, seeing as you have recently acquired a third 580, would you mind posting your Heaven score in this thread....

http://www.computerforum.com/206968-post-your-unigene-heaven-score.html

Cheers.


----------



## jonnyp11

Anyone else reading this thinking about how much of an immature dick bigfella is being on here. I mean, did he really call his setup "ghetto gear?" Also i don't think you can say the ARMA's are unplayable at 20fps cuz i doubt you've ever had close to that at least semi recently. And for your reply yesterday about playing anything at 25fps, that was the lowest fps recorded in the bench, it probably was hit once or twice in the entire bench and for less that a second for the entire dip, also there are ways to prevent that stuff they probably didn't use, like upping the games priority some might've kept that number at 30 or higher, so playing at 25fps has nothing to do with what i was saying that you replied to


----------



## FuryRosewood

if you have a problem with someone, post it to a mod. dont post it here.


----------



## I_BUILD_NASTYS

AMD has a lot of cathing up to do, their on the right path they just need to really speed up their game. INTEL for the win.


----------



## M1kkelZR

bigfellla said:


> OK so you're saying less than 25fps is playable on ARMA? lol really?>
> 
> btw ive played arma and armaII a lot.



20-25FPS is playable, by nearly any standard.
my laptop plays Skyrim at about 20-25fps, i still enjoy it.
it plays Crysis2 at 10-15fps, i enjoy it just the sheer fact of fast voices and slow animations.

and even when my "salvage build" is done. i can still run most games for about 40-60fps and still have fun.

at 34, saying "coz" and "mofo" makes you no better than me, a 17 year old prick who thinks they know everything. atleast i admit it, now its your turn


----------



## SuperDuperMe

I think we've all took the discussion between myself and bigfella a bit to much to heart. At the end of the day its a computer forum not a rage forum . Regardless of what i think of bigfella and his opinions or vie versa im not going to ruin it for new users and get my knickers in a twist. So i reckon we should all just drop it and get back on topic because the offensive name calling is a bit much.


----------



## turbodiesel

voyagerfan99 said:


> Corrected your spelling there.
> 
> Anyway, Sempron's aren't bad. They're like the Celeron, but just like the recent generation, they've gotten a lot better than they used to be.




the old sempron im talking about it was terrible


----------



## Mishkin

mikeb2817 said:


> I think we've all took the discussion between myself and bigfella a bit to much to heart. At the end of the day its a computer forum not a rage forum . Regardless of what i think of bigfella and his opinions or vie versa im not going to ruin it for new users and get my knickers in a twist. So i reckon we should all just drop it and get back on topic because the offensive name calling is a bit much.



*shrug* Some people are douche bags.  Whether it's from insecurity, blind arrogance, or they simply were raised poorly.  It happens.

That said, bigfella is definitely a douche bag, and it's pretty obvious as to the reasoning behind it.  Getting into it with these people is never needed, because if you really think about it, they make crap out of themselves by blatantly pointing out and announcing their own mental issues.  These things go hand in hand, almost like life's very own safety catch.


----------



## Perkomate

Mishkin said:


> *shrug* Some people are douche bags.  Whether it's from insecurity, blind arrogance, or they simply were raised poorly.  It happens.
> 
> That said, bigfella is definitely a douche bag, and it's pretty obvious as to the reasoning behind it.  Getting into it with these people is never needed, because if you really think about it, they make crap out of themselves by blatantly pointing out and announcing their own mental issues.  These things go hand in hand, almost like life's very own safety catch.



that was completely out of line. There is no need to say any of that. You have no idea who he is, and therefore no right to call him a douchebag.


----------



## Okedokey

I apologise if i offended anyone.  

Secondly, in terms of minimum frames per second, I think you need to review most benchmarks as they concur with 30FPS, and less than 25FPS being unplayable such as:



> Further down the order even potent cards from last year such as the GTX 460 1GB struggle, just surpassing the minimum playable frame rate of 25fps.


 here

and same reference again here 





> Every card manages a minimum frame rate of above 25fps,



and here Advances in visual computing: 4th international symposium, ISVC 2008

And here 


> Even the powerful Radeon HD 6850 struggles to achieve a minimum of 28 FPS. The Radeon HD 5770 (and everything below it) is simply unplayable



there are many more...


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> Secondly, in terms of minimum frames per second, I think you need to review most benchmarks as they concur with 30FPS, and less than 25FPS being unplayable such as:


I don't think that by "unplayable" they mean "not playable by anyone, anywhere, ever, personal subjective perception be damned", I think what they concur on is that 25-30fps the minimum fps without hampering the player's performance/enjoyment on those games.


----------



## Okedokey

Agreed, FPS is subjective.  However unplayable has a definition and it means you cannot play it.  Especially in first person shooters where accuracy and speed is everything. Also, you must agree that its a common threshold, 30FPS and above is considered playable by most, below that is a massive compromise.


----------



## jon76

I personally prefer AMD, I seen an amd 8 core 3.6ghz processor the other day for £199 and the motherboard to go with it supporting upto 32gb ram for a further £170. I can only imagine what a similar Intel setup would cost you


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> Agreed, FPS is subjective. However unplayable has a definition and it means you cannot play it. Especially in first person shooters where accuracy and speed is everything. Also, you must agree that its a common threshold, 30FPS and above is considered playable by most, below that is a massive compromise.


Well I do agree with all of that, all I wanted to do is point out that there are people outside the "most" that find even shooters at low fps playable, and that poor playability does not necessarily imply unplayable.

But eh. The stench of a dead equine is beginning to hit pretty hard.


----------



## SuperDuperMe

bigfellla said:


> Agreed, FPS is subjective.  However unplayable has a definition and it means you cannot play it.  Especially in first person shooters where accuracy and speed is everything. Also, you must agree that its a common threshold, 30FPS and above is considered playable by most, below that is a massive compromise.



Again, wrong. To you maybe, but i find no problem playing below 30fps. I honestly couldn't care if everyone on this forum suggested that i am unable to play my games, the simple fact is its not true. I own around 70 games, quite a few of them are newer titles, bf3, crysis 2, brink and a plethora of others. The only game i can honestly say that i cannot play at less than 30 fps is brink. Its completely unplayable. Battlefield 3, i drop below 27 fps a few times and its still playable. Crysis 2 hovers around 25-27 still hugely playable. In fact when i used to play it i did well enough online usually coming in the top 3.

You can read all the benchmarks you want, suggest what you want. But in this case i think your simply being closed minded. Yes YOU can get 60fps in game, yes YOU dont want to ever drop as YOU know 60 fps looks amazing. Im sure to YOU 25-27fps is absolute rubbish. But for some of us that "comprimise" to play it have a bit of respect. I cant afford hi end gear, so the 25-27 fps gets me by. And i can honestly say i thoroughly enjoy gaming.

Out of curiosity, dont most console games play at sub 30 fps? Now i know pc gaming is better, but are you going to argue that consoles are unplayable? I mean if you have a look at xbox lives players they seem to find no problem gaming on a console at sub 30.


----------



## Okedokey

jon76 said:


> I personally prefer AMD, I seen an amd 8 core 3.6ghz processor the other day for £199 and the motherboard to go with it supporting upto 32gb ram for a further £170. I can only imagine what a similar Intel setup would cost you



Well the ram will cost the same.  And the 8 core AMD chip is slower than a i3 in most games and about the same cost.  So yeah about the same only faster.


----------



## Okedokey

mikeb2817 said:


> Again, wrong. To you maybe, but i find no problem playing below 30fps. I honestly couldn't care if everyone on this forum suggested that i am unable to play my games, the simple fact is its not true. I own around 70 games, quite a few of them are newer titles, bf3, crysis 2, brink and a plethora of others. The only game i can honestly say that i cannot play at less than 30 fps is brink. Its completely unplayable. Battlefield 3, i drop below 27 fps a few times and its still playable. Crysis 2 hovers around 25-27 still hugely playable. In fact when i used to play it i did well enough online usually coming in the top 3.
> 
> You can read all the benchmarks you want, suggest what you want. But in this case i think your simply being closed minded. Yes YOU can get 60fps in game, yes YOU dont want to ever drop as YOU know 60 fps looks amazing. Im sure to YOU 25-27fps is absolute rubbish. But for some of us that "comprimise" to play it have a bit of respect. I cant afford hi end gear, so the 25-27 fps gets me by. And i can honestly say i thoroughly enjoy gaming.
> 
> Out of curiosity, dont most console games play at sub 30 fps? Now i know pc gaming is better, but are you going to argue that consoles are unplayable? I mean if you have a look at xbox lives players they seem to find no problem gaming on a console at sub 30.



Consoles are locked to 30FPS for a reason.



> DICE developers confirmed via Twitter that the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 versions would run at 720p, as opposed to 1080p, which both consoles support. Furthermore, console versions would run at *30 frames per second*, *which is considered the bare minimum frame rate for first person shooters*.


 http://bf3blog.com/2011/06/battlefield-3-to-run-in-720p-30fps-on-consoles/

furthermore



> Regarding the frame rate, it’s interesting to note that BF3′s main competitor, Modern Warfare 3 and its predecessors have always run at 60fps, which resulted in the familiar smooth gameplay that Call of Duty is known to deliver on consoles.



And I didnt quote myself.  I quoted experts.  And yes by all means if <25fps is your thing, go for it.  Its a bit like fat chicks.... whatever floats your boat.


----------



## SuperDuperMe

At least we agree on something 


bigfellla said:


> Its a bit like fat chicks.... whatever floats your boat.


----------



## Okedokey

indeed


----------



## TrainTrackHack

Relevant
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMnjF1O4eH0


----------



## SuperDuperMe

hackapelite said:


> poor playability does not necessarily imply unplayable.



Thats pretty much what i was getting at and i couldnt agree more.


----------



## jon76

bigfellla said:


> Well the ram will cost the same.  And the 8 core AMD chip is slower than a i3 in most games and about the same cost.  So yeah about the same only faster.



how did you work that one out for a start I can get the i3 for £80  http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-354-IN&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=1671 and also it is clearly not faster than the 8 core bulldozer although from what I have heard the Intel would probably be more stable, also I didn't mention the cost of the ram, merely the motherboard to go with the processor which seems to be about £30 cheaper with AMD


----------



## TrainTrackHack

The i3 beats the FX chips in gaming because of its far superior single-threaded performance since a lot of games still use only one or two threads to do the hard lifting and very few scale well beyond 4 threads (which the i3 supports through HT). Of course, it doesn't really stand a chance against the 8-cores in properly threaded software.


----------



## Okedokey

hackapelite said:


> The i3 beats the FX chips in gaming because of its far superior single-threaded performance since a lot of games still use only one or two threads to do the hard lifting and very few scale well beyond 4 threads (which the i3 supports through HT). Of course, it doesn't really stand a chance against the 8-cores in properly threaded software.



exactly, and since gaming doesn't require more than 4 cores at best, the bulldozer is a complete fail.


----------



## Okedokey

mikeb2817 said:


> Thats pretty much what i was getting at and i couldnt agree more.



yeah like walking with 1 leg isnt falling over


----------



## Okedokey

jon76 said:


> how did you work that one out for a start I can get the i3 for £80  http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-354-IN&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=1671 and also it is clearly not faster than the 8 core bulldozer although from what I have heard the Intel would probably be more stable, also I didn't mention the cost of the ram, merely the motherboard to go with the processor which seems to be about £30 cheaper with AMD



yeah save 30 quid for a slow processor and a dead socket.  that makes sense.


----------



## jon76

I used to have a dual core cpu, it was noticeably slower with everything


----------



## Okedokey

what a 33MHz single core chip from 1983?  I doubt it.

The point is cores means little.  Its the amount of calculations per clock cycle that counts in games.  So having 8 cores (even though bd only really has 4 real cores) that are slow, is much much worse than even 2 with a higher IPC.


----------



## jon76

bigfellla said:


> yeah save 30 quid for a slow processor and a dead socket.  that makes sense.



to get one of the better Intel cpu's you are talking nearly £800, is that really worth an extra £600? for that price they can shove that.

if I had an abundance of money I would rather have the intel i7 but for the average person who doesn't have unlimited money it's just not worth paying the extrortionate prices they charge

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-393-IN&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=1672


----------



## Okedokey

are you tripping?

i3 and motherboard =  155 quid

and its faster for gaming than bulldozer and can be upgraded all the way through i5, i7 and ivy bridge.


----------



## jon76

yes, we have established the i3 is cheap, it's upgrading to the i7 that is expensive take a look at the price of the one I put in the link


----------



## Okedokey

jon76 said:


> yes, we have established the i3 is cheap, it's upgrading to the i7 that is expensive take a look at the price of the one I put in the link



different socket, different chip, completely irrelevant.

the i3 is a similar price and spanks a bulldozer, that was the point.




jon76 said:


> how did you work that one out for a start I can get the i3 for £80  http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-354-IN&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=1671 and also it is clearly not faster than the 8 core bulldozer ..


----------



## jon76

bigfellla said:


> different socket, different chip, completely irrelevant.
> 
> the i3 is a similar price and spanks a bulldozer, that was the point.



I have a friend who has the i3 who admits it is not as good although he plans to upgrade to some of the better, that was enough to put me off. But then there will always be people with a biased opinion of what they have, take a look up the forum list, the vast majority have the intel setup and will get uptight about anyone arguing the point that amd is better value for money


----------



## Okedokey

Bias is looking at facts and interpolating something else.  That is what you have done, not me. I do note that you have an AMD system, interesting.

I simply pointed out where you were factually wrong, nothing more.  AMD has some great alternatives, but to say an 8 core BD chip is better for gaming is simply ignorant.

Btw, your friend can upgrade to something better, a i5 2500k which is still the best gaming chip of all time.  He can sell his i3 for 50 quid and pay another 100 for the best chip for gaming.  Unfortunately for you though, if you were to purchase a gaming graphics card of note, or require more horsepower form your system, your upgrade potential is a lot less.  Significantly less and significantly more expensive than your friends, to get the same performance.  That was my point.  But we have gone (yet again) off track.  8 core BD is rubbish period.

An indication for the lack of importance on cores for gaming is shown here.  Between the 1090T and i3 2100.


----------



## jon76

ok how can you say I have been biased when I clearly indicated stated that if I had the money I would buy intel. They do have the best processors however they are just too expensive this is the point you seem to be repeatedly missing. And to say something "is" the best gaming chip of all time is surely just an opinion and would be quite arrogant to claim is a fact


----------



## wolfeking

the 2500k is the most efficient chip for gaming. It will have better performance than any lower intel chips, and than the entire lineup of AMD. This is benchmarked games proven. Games run better on a 2500k period. 

Now, AMD does have some nicely priced chips, but that does not excuse using an ancient technology and slow processors.


----------



## jon76

wolfeking said:


> the 2500k is the most efficient chip for gaming. It will have better performance than any lower intel chips, and than the entire lineup of AMD. This is benchmarked games proven. Games run better on a 2500k period.
> 
> Now, AMD does have some nicely priced chips, but that does not excuse using an ancient technology and slow processors.



when you say slow, take a look at this     http://venturebeat.com/2011/09/13/a...stest-processor-frequency-at-8-429-gigahertz/


----------



## SuperDuperMe

Do you have the tech to run that? I know no one on here does. Not to mention that you cant run that sort of cooling method as much as you do air or water. Its merely a milestone. Something AMD can now say theyve done. Dont get me wrong, when i upgrade i was going to go phenom 2, as it was cheaper than intel (cant find any brand new phenoms now though they seem to be out of stock everywhere) But that said (and i hate to say it) Bigfella is right. Even in the cheaper end of the spectrum the i3 2100 is kicking arse and taking numbers. Im actually considering getting one of them when i eventually upgrade now.


----------



## jon76

mikeb2817 said:


> Do you have the tech to run that? I know no one on here does. Not to mention that you cant run that sort of cooling method as much as you do air or water. Its merely a milestone. Something AMD can now say theyve done. Dont get me wrong, when i upgrade i was going to go phenom 2, as it was cheaper than intel (cant find any brand new phenoms now though they seem to be out of stock everywhere) But that said (and i hate to say it) Bigfella is right. Even in the cheaper end of the spectrum the i3 2100 is kicking arse and taking numbers. Im actually considering getting one of them when i eventually upgrade now.



no, I know know one could realistically have a cooling solution to do that but none the less I am still impressed, are you in the uk, I bought my phenom 2 processor online at overclockers they only have the six core 2.8ghz on there at the minute though


----------



## wolfeking

jon76 said:


> when you say slow, take a look at this     http://venturebeat.com/2011/09/13/a...stest-processor-frequency-at-8-429-gigahertz/


all that shows is they can clock well. Celerons held the record for a long time. 

What I mean when I say that AMD is slow is that they are far behind clock for clock. 1 instruction set on a AMD is less work done than one set on intel. No matter how fast you overclock it, you can't fix a design flaw.


----------



## SuperDuperMe

jon76 said:


> no, I know know one could realistically have a cooling solution to do that but none the less I am still impressed, are you in the uk, I bought my phenom 2 processor online at overclockers they only have the six core 2.8ghz on there at the minute though



Yeah im in the UK, in the last few months iv seen most p2's pulled from online stores. Only really seen the 960t as of late. I assume that will be the next to go so ill most likely go intel on my next build. Due to wanting to avoid fx more than anything.


----------



## jon76

mikeb2817 said:


> Yeah im in the UK, in the last few months iv seen most p2's pulled from online stores. Only really seen the 960t as of late. I assume that will be the next to go so ill most likely go intel on my next build. Due to wanting to avoid fx more than anything.



before you pointed it out I didn't notice the phenom 2 dissappearing from stores but I seem to be having problems finding it myself now, if money was no object I would go for this intel i7 http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-393-IN&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=1672

but I know I will never be able to afford this, I spent 400 building the computer in my signature from scratch all but the hard drive which I used from my previous computer and I thought I did pretty well, the intel cpu there alone is nearly double the cost of my build


----------



## SuperDuperMe

Why would you go for that? I assume this machine would be for gaming, even if it wasn't an i5 2500k is pretty much all you'd need unless you really cant wait that extra bit of time for editing and stuff like that. For gaming the sandy bridge e chips are a waste of money. Dont get me wrong im sure they're the dogs bollocks of chips. But with an i5 2500k for 150 they're pretty pale in comparison.


----------



## jon76

realistically speaking I would agree with you but let's just say you won the lottery and you could afford any build you wanted, would you still choose the i5? I do use it for gaming but I don't just consider that when building my computer, I am a bit of a geek really, I like to look on the properties and see the specs when I finish building and see the highest specs I can afford, I know sad but I get a buzz when I finish building and see the improved specs. Having said that I am pretty sure I have seen a motherboard with 2 cpu slots, would that actually work? as I don't know anyone who has built one


----------



## SuperDuperMe

Of course id go for a sandy bridge e, but i wouldnt need it even if i did. However in a more likely scenario i wouldnt win the lottery. If i had 2 grand to spend on a pc. Id still go for the i5 2500k just because anything higher is practically wasted on gaming. The rest could go on gpu's etc. Or a building sized kebab. Id still have an amazing pc regardless of what i could have had.


----------



## wolfeking

mikeb2817 said:


> Why would you go for that? I assume this machine would be for gaming, even if it wasn't an i5 2500k is pretty much all you'd need unless you really cant wait that extra bit of time for editing and stuff like that. For gaming the sandy bridge e chips are a waste of money. Dont get me wrong im sure they're the dogs bollocks of chips. But with an i5 2500k for 150 they're pretty pale in comparison.



I thought that I had read somewhere that there was going to be a locked quad released some time soon for LGA2011 and x79. i can't remember where I saw it, but that would be an awesome setup for a limited build (quad core, SLI and the like, and quad channel memory). 
That chip should put it down in the 2500k weight class too.


----------



## SuperDuperMe

They are putting out the 3820 i believe and thats supposed to be much more affordable. Still its said to be more expensive than the 2500k


----------



## wolfeking

what advantage would it have over SB anyway? Cause isn't SBe just a modified SB on the same architecture.


----------



## SuperDuperMe

Im not too sure tbh . For gaming not much im guessing at the price point. Other things like hd encoding or w.e i have no clue  Never done it never needed to so it beats me haha.


----------



## M1kkelZR

mikeb2817 said:


> Yeah im in the UK, in the last few months iv seen most p2's pulled from online stores. Only really seen the 960t as of late. I assume that will be the next to go so ill most likely go intel on my next build. Due to wanting to avoid fx more than anything.



phenom2's have been pulled off because AMD stopped manufacturing these. Same situation on Athlon2's


----------



## jonnyp11

mikeb2817 said:


> They are putting out the 3820 i believe and thats supposed to be much more affordable. Still its said to be more expensive than the 2500k



Yep, but it's an i7 so threaded for 8, msrp'd at 185 i think, and they were telking about it saying there is this weird way of overclocking it having to do with the turbo boost, and somehow it could be overclocked to like 4ghz normally or something, it was really strange from what i remember.


----------



## Okedokey

And the 2011 socket is dead.  That is also the kicker.


----------



## SuperDuperMe

Hasnt 2011 just come out :/


----------



## Okedokey

Yep.  But that is the end of the line. Its basically a re-release of 1356 socket, with some improvements.

That is why I constantly bang on about the 1155 socket.  You can get a cheap platform now based on the i5 2500k for about $300 and in a year upgrade to i7, and then to ivybridge.  Thats the best option on the market for gaming right now.


----------



## paulcheung

jon76 said:


> to get one of the better Intel cpu's you are talking nearly £800, is that really worth an extra £600? for that price they can shove that.
> 
> if I had an abundance of money I would rather have the intel i7 but for the average person who doesn't have unlimited money it's just not worth paying the extrortionate prices they charge
> 
> http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-393-IN&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=1672



That is a top of the line I7 which Intel use to rip off the idiots.  You can easily get I7 2600k for less than 225 pounds in the USA. I don't know how much I7 2600k sell in the uk, The I5 2500k is less than 150 pounds in newegg.com in the usa. So try serch and see if there is a reasonable dealer in uk.
Cheers.


----------



## SuperDuperMe

bigfellla said:


> Yep.  But that is the end of the line. Its basically a re-release of 1356 socket, with some improvements.
> 
> That is why I constantly bang on about the 1155 socket.  You can get a cheap platform now based on the i5 2500k for about $300 and in a year upgrade to i7, and then to ivybridge.  Thats the best option on the market for gaming right now.



No way i assumed it was a new platform for uber nerd. Damn that was a bad move by intel. Then again i bet they sold a tonne.


----------



## paulcheung

jon76 said:


> before you pointed it out I didn't notice the phenom 2 dissappearing from stores but I seem to be having problems finding it myself now, if money was no object I would go for this intel i7 http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-393-IN&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=1672
> 
> but I know I will never be able to afford this, I spent 400 building the computer in my signature from scratch all but the hard drive which I used from my previous computer and I thought I did pretty well, the intel cpu there alone is nearly double the cost of my build



You can buy this one, even through it is much much more expensive compare to USA.
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-360-IN


----------



## jonnyp11

it's not a ton cheaper, that translates to 265 usd while newegg charges 230 usd, it's a good chunk more but not an incredible amount. also

http://www.aria.co.uk/SuperSpecials...+Unlocked+Processor+-+Retail+?productId=43216

that one's only 15.5 more in usd


----------



## Okedokey

mikeb2817 said:


> No way i assumed it was a new platform for uber nerd. Damn that was a bad move by intel. Then again i bet they sold a tonne.



No they simply have different end users in mind.  The 2011/1356 platforms are for massively multi-threaded applications where 6 or 8 cores can effective be used.  Double that with HT.  So if you are running a home server then that would be your choice.  It has some other benefits such as PCIe 3.0 and more lanes which may be an advantage if you need that.

The 1155 socket is the consumer product for everything else.  That is why they have said it will support ivy bridge which again, will provide support for PCIe 3.0, have 3d transistors and a shrink, and will have more pcie lanes than SB.  Thats why I have chosen to go with 3 cards on this platform.  An upgrade is simply a fantastic opportunity with the 1155 platform.


----------



## jon76

paulcheung said:


> That is a top of the line I7 which Intel use to rip off the idiots.  You can easily get I7 2600k for less than 225 pounds in the USA. I don't know how much I7 2600k sell in the uk, The I5 2500k is less than 150 pounds in newegg.com in the usa. So try serch and see if there is a reasonable dealer in uk.
> Cheers.



it's about the same price here, to be fair I was probably a bit hasty damning the intel cpu's without first properly researching them first, I have had nothing but amd since the p166 and p433 and clearly still have a lot to learn about intel cpu's so probably owe bigfella an apology as I blindly defended amd without properly looking at the options first. To be fair i'm here not just for the tech support which I have recieved lots of so far but to learn more about computers, as everything I have learnt so far is from friend and learning as I build them myself


----------



## jon76

mikeb2817 said:


> Of course id go for a sandy bridge e, but i wouldnt need it even if i did. However in a more likely scenario i wouldnt win the lottery. If i had 2 grand to spend on a pc. Id still go for the i5 2500k just because anything higher is practically wasted on gaming. The rest could go on gpu's etc. Or a building sized kebab. Id still have an amazing pc regardless of what i could have had.



i'm with you on that you can spend a good chunk of that on a good graphics card which I have been stingy on with my build and spent £50, I felt that was a bit steep as it was shop bought, but I got the motherboard, cpu, psu and ram on next day delivery as there was no other choice but the case I got from e buyer on free super saver and waited 7 days for it to arrive, it's fair to say by this time I was annoyed with waiting when it came to me the onboard graphics might not work on the t.v I have it connected to as my previous computer didn't


----------



## SuperDuperMe

Do what you must and all that. That said you probably could have picked up a gtx 260 for 50 quid. Iv seend 6770's go for that here on gumtree in manchester.


----------



## jon76

mikeb2817 said:


> Do what you must and all that. That said you probably could have picked up a gtx 260 for 50 quid. Iv seend 6770's go for that here on gumtree in manchester.



I know, I wa kicking yself when I was looking online at what I could have had, if I had only been more patient


----------



## Okedokey

jon76 said:


> ... probably owe bigfella an apology as I blindly defended amd without properly looking at the options first. ...



No apology required mate.  I make my fair share of social car-crashes!


----------



## Spesh

This seemed to get ignored......



Spesh said:


> Bigfella, seeing as you have recently acquired a third 580, would you mind posting your Heaven score in this thread....
> 
> http://www.computerforum.com/206968-post-your-unigene-heaven-score.html
> 
> Cheers.


----------



## Okedokey

Spesh said:


> This seemed to get ignored......



Correct.  And since somehow overnight you have aquired my computer I don't see much point.

Secondly synthetic benchmarks mean very little.

Thirdly, you are hijacking this thread.


----------



## Spesh

bigfellla said:


> Correct.  And since somehow overnight you have aquired my computer I don't see much point.
> 
> Secondly synthetic benchmarks mean very little.
> 
> Thirdly, you are hijacking this thread.



Lol, we always had very similar components. I just find it very interesting that you got a third 580 exactly when I did (and this had no impact on your temps).

Heaven is well known for giving very accurate results regarding how GPU's deal with heavy tesselation, as would be the result of real world gaming.

I just want to see what the constistencies are among the same or similar hardware, as I have found on other forums there have been discrepancies when testing the same components. 

Seeing as it would only take 5 minutes, there isn't really any reason to not run a quick loop and post your score.


----------



## jonnyp11

Hey, if i can run it and post my 52 you can run it and show your couple thousand score


----------



## Spesh

jonnyp11 said:


> Hey, if i can run it and post my 52 you can run it and show your couple thousand score



I think if he did actually have three 580's then he would run the benchmark. It speaks volumes to me.


----------



## cobrahead

for me AMD on Gaming is good but Intel is Good also, everyone pick their own choice but for me amd processor is a good one


----------



## jonnyp11

Spesh said:


> I think if he did actually have three 580's then he would run the benchmark. It speaks volumes to me.



Heeeelllllllzzzzzz yeah i would!!!!!! Then i'd jump in my lambo in go 200 down the highway, of course this won't happen but still, i can dream.

Also, noticed you downclocked to 955mhz, did 1ghz get too hot or unstable?


----------



## Spesh

jonnyp11 said:


> Heeeelllllllzzzzzz yeah i would!!!!!! Then i'd jump in my lambo in go 200 down the highway, of course this won't happen but still, i can dream.
> 
> Also, noticed you downclocked to 955mhz, did 1ghz get too hot or unstable?



1Ghz was fine on two cards and I can run some benchmarks with three cards @ 1Ghz too. However, for stability through all my games when using a three card setup, I needed to downclock to 955.

Looks like I might have to rewrite the BIOS again to allow for even higher voltages, seeing as my temps on the GPU's at max load are only in the mid 40's.


----------



## Perkomate

Spesh said:


> 1Ghz was fine on two cards and I can run some benchmarks with three cards @ 1Ghz too. However, for stability through all my games when using a three card setup, I needed to downclock to 955.
> 
> Looks like I might have to rewrite the BIOS again to allow for even higher voltages, seeing as my temps on the GPU's at max load are only in the mid 40's.



get more monitors!
MOAR MONITORS!


----------



## Spesh

Perkomate said:


> get more monitors!
> MOAR MONITORS!



When SLI is capable of handling 7680x1600, I most likely will get another couple. Although I always feel that surround/eyefinity is a bit of a novelty. I actually prefer gaming on a single, larger monitor.


----------



## Spesh

bigfellla said:


> Correct.  And since somehow overnight you have aquired my computer I don't see much point.
> 
> Secondly synthetic benchmarks mean very little.
> 
> Thirdly, you are hijacking this thread.



I'm calling BS on the third 580.


----------



## Okedokey

May be its because im on the other side of the country on my laptop.  Grow up.


----------



## Spesh

bigfellla said:


> May be its because im on the other side of the country on my laptop.  Grow up.



Or maybe it's because your sig is BS.


----------



## StrangleHold

This thread is hilarious. lol


----------



## jon76

I have a feeling I know the general direction this will go but I just came across the amd opteron 6200 obviously out of my price range but are they any good?


----------



## jonnyp11

they're based on "interlagos" (bulldozer), so they work but not as well as the alternatives, and they're server chips, not desktop, so there's another reason not to buy it unless it's for a server.


----------

