Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by maleficarus™, Oct 14, 2011.
You're so wrong with that comment...
Nearly any modern CPU when GPU limited will put out the same results...
It was marketed and hyped up by AMD like crazy prior to launch.
Oh really? Left is GTX 560, right is GTX 460 from the same manufacturer and series.
Denial is not a river in Africa.
You do know that humility is a virtue.
Anyways, if you weren't before, now you are officially designated a troll on my list. Your arrogance and denigrating attitude to others is disgusting.
problem here is that AMD priced the BDs at a price point higher than 2500Ks. And with that, everyone is expecting to of course perform better, but it did not. if AMD priced somewhere around 2500K's price, or lower, then it's not really a 'fail'.
and don't tell me the AMD PR 'we aren't competing for the high-end segment' BS. if you price your products close to the high-end products of your competitor, then you're surely trying to compete for the same spot in the market.
Where's the chart with the BF3 cpu performance, can't find it.
If i remember right the game likes AMDs over Intels? Not just BD but PIIs and X6s?
It's spelled their
People are just disappointed as they were wanting something that pushed Intel into doing something special, or at least dropping their prices.
BD did neither, so bringing out a CPU than on average sits in between a 2500k and 2600k performance wise, and also price wise just isn't much use to most people, not forgetting the over the top power usage and the ridiculous marketing claims about how you could save nearly $800 by using this in games compared to an Intel setup.
Nice find. That shows perhaps the only reason Bulldozer is winning in BF3.
The Athlon 645 matches the 2500k @ 1920x1200 or prolly same with 1920x1080.
Llano is up there as well...that's a really bland CPU. Something tells me BF3 likes core clocks above all and doesn't need a lot of caches or really potent logic, which reminds me of the good old MP3 rippers. And with that in mind I know a couple of CPU's that easily clock to 5 GHz...
Bulldozer is good in apps that take adavantage of its 8 cores, games at present do not, if the chips were very cheap then i would consider an upgrade but at the moment the isnt the software that will take adavntage of bulldozer and so in my eyes isnt a good upgrade for anyone with a half decent intel/amd chip, its a shame really.
Will people stop ruining this thread aswell, take the arguments about GPU's somewhere else, as most of us really dont care.
AMD needs to retire quickly the Phenom II lineup and replace it with the current on par/slighly better Bulldozer. That's their problem. In reality Intel was not a competition they can fight. This thing is going for some years now and it would have been impossible to overturn just like that. On the other hand the AMD fanatics preached that it will demolish Sandy Bridge, same as they did with the 6000 GPU series which should have killed the green monster. But at the same time AMD themselves starting to act like their own fanbois which is understandable up to a point. Now there's the backfire.
"Wait for Bulldozer and then decide on your build" was the worst piece of advice given on every forum in the past year. I admit, sometimes I gave it myself...
The lesson we learned? Go with what gives you the best performance for what you need when you have the money to buy. And for gaming, the answer since a few good years now and I don't see this chage in the forseeable future... Intel.
Well technically it was good advice, all those people now can buy an intel set-up or whatever they like, as BD hasnt performed as expect, if new hardware is due it worth the wait just incase it does to out to be amazingly fast.
Any truth to this?
I don't know.
So true jajaja ... lol :giggle2: :funny:
Well there is some truth to it, BD beat Intel in 2 out of 12 tests
I was trying to illustrate a point. That being older hardware can still be as fast or faster with a few clicks of your mouse! My OC'd GTX460 is par with a stock GTX560 non Ti. The GTX560 is ALREADY clocked faster then my GTX460 even overclocked. Both my card and that card is par with each other + or - 5%. The same point can be tossed at the FX line from AMD vs. the 2500k/2600K line. Both are similar in performance + or - a few % points. Now I am not fooling anyone. I am just simply pointed out the truth of this debate! If you don't like the truth too bad!!
The FX8150 is par with Intel. Being as fast as the competition is not a fail unless you think the competition was a fail as well. If not, like I said a few times already that is no different then the pot calling the kettle black! If you can't grasp this concept then you should just leave the hardware debate forum to people that can!!
The FX is on par with the PII in 90% of apps in 2011. GG
BF3 is the par in 2011. It is the new Quake3. This is the game that is going to be used for years to come. It dosen't matter if you don't like the game or play the game. It is the "race track" that all the cars will be driving on so to speak. This will be the standard for at the very least 3 years...
Trust me, I would love to jump on the LOL at AMD bandwagon, but the truth is you laugh at AMD right now would mean I am laughing at my own 2500K. I am not a hyprocrite! A spade is a spade. I don't care if you want to turn that spade into a king. It won't happen, Not on my watch!!