[QUOTE=Roast Beast;21850595]With you being the one deciding whether or not it's AMD-biased, of course. I also like how you set yourself up as the ultimate authority on processors, since [I]anyone[/I] who disagrees with you "obviously" has no experience. Top notch trolling there.[/QUOTE]
Allow me to redirect you to my AMD thread for the billionth time:
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=901890[/url]
[QUOTE=ph0ne;21850608]Allow me to redirect you to my AMD thread for the billionth time:
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=901890[/url][/QUOTE]
Very nice, chock full of generalities and not a single source. Again, I salute you.
that thread was rated dumb for a reason
[QUOTE=Roast Beast;21850623]Very nice, chock full of generalities and not a single source. Again, I salute you.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=whatnow V2;21850630]that thread was rated dumb for a reason[/QUOTE]
I figured you two charlatans wouldn't respond with suitable rebuttals. I have come to accept it. Your intellect is clearly inferior. I win.
[QUOTE=ph0ne;21850608]Allow me to redirect you to my AMD thread for the billionth time:
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=901890[/url][/QUOTE]
Allow me to redirect you to my post:
[quote]How about you show us some benchmarks that show how Intel can kick AMD's ass?
[url]http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html[/url]
According to this one, the AMD 965 performs about the same as the i5 750 for less.
The 1090T AMD CPU performs the same as an i7 950 for much, much less.[/quote]
You know what, fuck it. I'm done.
Go and be an Intel Fanboy, Ph0ne.
[QUOTE=ph0ne;21850642]I figured you two charlatans wouldn't respond with suitable rebuttals. I have come to accept it. Your intellect is clearly inferior. I win.[/QUOTE]
no, you're dumb.
and lets hope he doesn't grip onto synthetic benchmarks
[QUOTE=GamerKiwi;21850650]Allow me to redirect you to my post:
You know what, fuck it. I'm done.
Go and be an Intel Fanboy, Ph0ne.[/QUOTE]
Since when has Passmark ever been right or even relevant to real-world performance?
[QUOTE=ph0ne;21850642]I figured you two charlatans wouldn't respond with suitable rebuttals. I have come to accept it. Your intellect is clearly inferior. I win.[/QUOTE]
Interesting, ad hominem attacks to direct attention away from you trying to shift the burden of proof.
[QUOTE=Makol;21850661]no, you're dumb.[/QUOTE]
Another terrible rebuttal. You're honestly humoring me at this point.
[editline]05:03AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Roast Beast;21850675]Interesting, ad hominem attacks to direct attention away from you trying to shift the burden of proof.[/QUOTE]
I am the burden of assumption, kiddo. YOU'RE the burden of proof.
[QUOTE=ph0ne;21850676]I am the burden of assumption, kiddo. YOU'RE the burden of proof.[/QUOTE]
A negative evidence fallacy! Beautiful.
[QUOTE=Roast Beast;21850720]A negative evidence fallacy! Beautiful.[/QUOTE]
There's no such thing as a negative evidence fallacy. Maybe it exists in your 5th grade debate class, but in real debate, that's just made-up shit.
[QUOTE=ph0ne;21850737]There's no such thing as a negative evidence fallacy. Maybe it exists in your 5th grade debate class, but in real debate, that's just made-up shit.[/QUOTE]
Yup, my 5th grade debate class wrote a whole Wikipedia article about it: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance[/url]
Cue you rejecting Wikipedia as a source of information.
[QUOTE=ph0ne;21850539]From whatnow V2's profile:
Holy shit, kid. You [b]really[/b] need to get out some more, instead of wasting your life on the internet.
[editline]04:50AM[/editline]
S.T.O.R.M. already proved my point with his own evidence. Go look for his link you lazy nerd.[/QUOTE]
I would suggest looking at the link again. You will see a big difference.
[QUOTE=Roast Beast;21850769]Yup, my 5th grade debate class wrote a whole Wikipedia article about it: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance[/url]
Cue you rejecting Wikipedia as a source of information.[/QUOTE]
Of course I'm rejecting Wikipedia as a source of information. You just edited the article. How do you expect yourself to be taken seriously in a real debate if you're citing Wikipedia as a source? Everyone will laugh in your face. Congratulations on making yourself look like a pseudo-intellectual FOOL.
[QUOTE=S.T.O.R.M;21850773]I would suggest looking at the link again. You will see a big difference.[/QUOTE]
That's when it was overclocked to 4.1GHz, retard. ANY Nehalem can do that in a snap.
[url]http://www.tweaktown.com/news/13207/core_i5_750_clocked_to_4_4ghz_on_air_stable/index.html[/url] - 4.4GHz, ON AIR. See if your AMD can do that.
[quote]..spending around 20 minutes to see what this little chip could do.[/quote]
For AMD's CPUs, it's not so easy. The most I've seen out of a Deneb on air was 4.2GHz.
[QUOTE=ph0ne;21850797]Of course I'm rejecting Wikipedia as a source of information. You just edited the article. How do you expect yourself to be taken seriously in a real debate if you're citing Wikipedia as a source? Everyone will laugh in your face. Congratulations on making yourself look like a pseudo-intellectual FOOL.[/QUOTE]
Is that all you've got, more ad hominem attacks? I expected more from you.
[QUOTE=Roast Beast;21850840]Is that all you've got, more ad hominem attacks? I expected more from you.[/QUOTE]
It's not an ad-hominem attack. You're making a fallacy of unreliable authority. Way to skirt your way around my rebuttal COMPLETELY.
[QUOTE=ph0ne;21850797]Of course I'm rejecting Wikipedia as a source of information. You just edited the article. How do you expect yourself to be taken seriously in a real debate if you're citing Wikipedia as a source? Everyone will laugh in your face. Congratulations on making yourself look like a pseudo-intellectual FOOL.
That's when it was overclocked to 4.1GHz, retard. ANY Nehalem can do that in a snap.
[url]http://www.tweaktown.com/news/13207/core_i5_750_clocked_to_4_4ghz_on_air_stable/index.html[/url] - 4.4GHz, ON AIR. See if your AMD can do that.
For AMD's CPUs, it's not so easy. The most I've seen out of a Deneb on air was 4.2GHz.[/QUOTE]If you look there is just a normal stock one.
By the way, there are many people who have over clocked the 1090t CPUs to 4.4 on air. So please stop trying to prove facts wrong.
[QUOTE=S.T.O.R.M;21850855][/QUOTE]
What did quoting my entire, factual post accomplish for your pathetic argument?
[QUOTE=ph0ne;21850860]What did quoting my entire, factual post accomplish for your pathetic argument?[/QUOTE]
hey look lets insult someone because they made a mistake!!!
[QUOTE=whatnow V2;21850871]hey look lets insult someone because they made a mistake!!![/QUOTE]
Isn't that what you and your butt buddies have been [b]attempting[/b] on me for the past hour or so?
Also, do you really think rating my posts "Dumb" will enhance the validity of your pathetic argument? If anything, it just shows that you're immature and unable to properly cope with any contrary form of thought to your own.
Well you are well, you.... Thats why...
[editline]03:27PM[/editline]
Anyway OP. If your happy enough to wait for the xeon go right ahead. It is a pretty good build.
[QUOTE=S.T.O.R.M;21850906]Anyway OP. If your happy enough to wait for the xeon go right ahead. It is a pretty good build.[/QUOTE]
I agree, the Xeon will be an [i]excellent[/i] solution.
[QUOTE=ph0ne;21850852]It's not an ad-hominem attack. You're making a fallacy of unreliable authority. Way to skirt your way around my rebuttal COMPLETELY.[/QUOTE]
No, I reject your rebuttal on the grounds that the only authority you consider reliable is yourself.
[QUOTE=ph0ne;21850918]I agree, the Xeon will be an [b][i]excellent[/i][/b] solution.[/QUOTE]
That tone of writing still points to fanboy. OP,are you happy waiting?
[QUOTE=Roast Beast;21850932]No, I reject your rebuttal on the grounds that the only authority you consider reliable is yourself.[/QUOTE]
Nice, you've driven me further to believe that you regurgitate information from Wikipedia, as if you have no argument or thoughts of your own.
[editline]05:36AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=S.T.O.R.M;21850967]That tone of writing still points to fanboy. OP,are you happy waiting?[/QUOTE]
How am I a fanboy? I favor Intel because they are the better solution at this time. Before Core 2 Duo was released, I would've gone AMD all the way. Get it right.
totally lets just think about ourselves and ignore the people who can't afford a "fast" intel system
[QUOTE=whatnow V2;21851016]totally lets just think about ourselves and ignore the people who can't afford a "fast" intel system[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about? The E5000 series is still out and is very fast for the sub-$100 price tags. The i3 530 is also a fantastic option for the sub $150 CPUs. It even outperforms an AMD 965 when OC'd to 3.4GHz, a very miniscule OC.
[QUOTE=ph0ne;21850990]Nice, you've driven me further to believe that you regurgitate information from Wikipedia, as if you have no argument or thoughts of your own.
[editline]05:36AM[/editline]
How am I a fanboy? I favor Intel because they are the better solution at this time. Before Core 2 Duo was released, I would've gone AMD all the way. Get it right.[/QUOTE]
Not really with the Price/Performance ratio. AMD have the better cheaper solutions for buyers out there at this current moment. Look. Intels 6 core processor. 1000+ and you have a 1090T for 2/3rds of the price. Yea, Intel is a much better solution..
[QUOTE=S.T.O.R.M;21851038]Not really with the Price/Performance ratio. AMD have hte better cheaper solutions for buyers out there at this current moment. Look. Intels 6 core processor. 1000+ and you have a 1090T for 2/3rds of the price. Yea, Intel is a much better solution..[/QUOTE]
Your argument is completely irrelevant when Intel is faster; clock for clock AND core for core. AMD keeps answering Intel's releases by adding on more cores or having their chips higher-clocked (to speeds that Intel can reach easily when OC'd). I really don't understand what kind of bullshit you're trying to fill me full of, because it's not working.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
