AMD is Not Better at Gaming!

[DemonDragonJ]

Certainly not. I am optimistic they will gain the upper hand in processor tech again, and do it for cheaper than Intel.

I am very glad to hear that, as AMD is vital to the consumers as a competitor to Intel and Nvidia; they are the underdogs in the microprocessor market, the Rebel Alliance to Intel's Galactic Empire, the John Connor to Intel's Skynet, if you consider those to be suitable metaphors and/or comparisons.

For now, I'm unimpressed with their specs.

I see; the reason that I thought that you were being condescending in your earlier post is that you said that you were "waiting for [AMD's] 'freight train' processors," when there are no processors with that code name in their current plans, but I am glad to learn that you were being sincere.

[Twigsoffury]

Really... What's the difference between 68 and 72fps when your already getting above 60fps in the first place.

[TheGreatSatan]

Nothing. 30 Fps is smooth to the eye

[Twigsoffury]

Nothing. 30 Fps is smooth to the eye

Then at least to me I can't really justify spending that extra amount on a intel i7 series, when I could scoop up a cheaper AMD and spend the money on a better power supply or get the next series up of graphics card and get a overall better balanced computer.

But man, intels have always and probably will always be of a higher quality then AMD's just for the fact intel hand picks its processors out of the dies,and rejects the damaged ones all together... and AMD just reclassifies each core of the die to a class based on the quality of the die that comes out.

Which i mean nothing is wrong with that, that's cheaper prices to us out here but when you buy a X4 965 it's a roll of the dice, it could clock to the moon on a low voltage. or it might s@#t a brick when you even try changing any of the settings regardless of you attempting to pump 1.21 jigawatts through the regulators.

But when you spend double that of a AMD on a intel i7 series, you already know your getting a Cadillac of processors so to me it's really what your willing to spend on your computer, if you need balanced performance without breaking the bank, shoot for AMD processors and ATi Graphics (I'll never not call it ATi, i don't care if they take the logo and name away, ill still call them ATi's lol) But if your looking for peak performance and capability across the board then shoot for a Intel/Nvidia set up and let's stay up night trying to hit 86 miles an hour in your living room with the DMC computer we've just assembled.
=)

[xr4man]

ok first off, cadillacs are pieces of GM crap so that's a bad analogy. second, even if you could get your dmc computer to 86 mph in your living room, you'd still be two mph short of time travel.

seriously though, hasn't intel been known to do the same thing. i seem to remember something about chips that couldn't pass the pentium tests being sold as celerons.

[Twigsoffury]

ok first off, cadillacs are pieces of GM crap

[xr4man]

ok, you got me on that one.

let me qualify and say any cadillac built after the 70's is GM crap.

[Twigsoffury]

ok, you got me on that one.

let me qualify and say any cadillac built after the 70's is GM crap.

Caddilac Sixteen?

[OvRiDe]

Saw this article and it reminded me of this thread... thought some of you might be interested in reading it.

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/13...ng-performance

which is based on this article.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/23246

[mDust]

Saw this article and it reminded me of this thread... thought some of you might be interested in reading it.

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/13...ng-performance

which is based on this article.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/23246

That's meaningless for both chips without at least an average time for offending frames. 16.68ms > 16.87ms and ticks that counter up without a visible performance hit.

Let's say a counter ticks up each time your car gets less than it's rate mpg (30mpg for this example). This happens pretty much every time you accelerate from a stop. It is meaningless if you're getting 29mpg for a short period and then 30mpg at speed. It's much more concerning if you're getting 1-2mpg for a while before returning to 30mpg at speed. Either way, the counter ticked up.

What they are trying to show is why min/max fps is included in reviews next to averages.