[QUOTE=danharibo;41001801]Well am I in the UK and the pricing is a bit more all over the place.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I made sure to toss in the "for me" since I know outside NA there's going to be a different gap. Even if it was just changed to £50 that's a more significant gap than fifty bucks.
Have they said how big the cache is?
[QUOTE=Odellus;41000740]why aren't you banned[/QUOTE]
BACK...
SEAT...
[sp]butthurt[/sp]
[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;41000390]AMD > Intel in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
I'm an AMD fan and even I know this isn't the case.
[QUOTE=Corey_Faure;41002348]I'm an AMD fan and even I know this isn't the case.
Clocks and performance aren't opinion. They're cold hard fact.[/QUOTE]
And as we all know, facts are just opinion.
[sp]/s[/sp]
I'll wait till Steamroller.
Gotta have that better parallelism.
This is cool and all but there really aren't enough games that support multicore out there to reap the benefits of having 8 million cores.
I wonder if this is AMD's response to Planetside 2?
[I]But can it run Planetside 2?[/I]
Guess what the TPD is for this processor? 220W. That's right, 220W.
[QUOTE=mblunk;40999200]Or Skyrim[/QUOTE]
Or the ArmA series, easily the most CPU intensive game I can think of off the top of my head.
[quote]9600 by 1080 pixels[/quote]
My nvidia card has 3 2560 x 1440 displays, much more pixels, and it runs fine...
what are AMD cpu's like when things are actually made for multi cores and not games?
[QUOTE=rampageturke 2;41005491]what are AMD cpu's like when things are actually made for multi cores and not games?[/QUOTE]
[Url=http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested]Even in software that is heavily multithreaded they're still behind in many cases.[/url]
They do have some wins however, and with the cases where they outperform an i7 you also have the i7 costing $100 more which is even more significant of a victory. But overall it's still Intel if you need speed, and there shouldn't be any cases when a supposed 8 core loses to a quad in a multithreaded test.
[QUOTE=Kaabii;41000794]AMD has been most successful when they do switch sockets because it allows for significant changes, not doing so is just a barrier. Look at how fast FM1 was chucked, and how well their APUs are doing.
Intel doesn't switch just for laughs. With the integration of the iGPU, north bridge and south bridge components, etc etc throughout all the Core series CPUs, it's necessary to do socket changes. It's definitely a pain, and everyone's wallet hates them for it, but it contributes to why Intel is ahead right now. They don't have any barriers beyond the technology available to their engineers, and physics.[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah, I do get why Intel change socket so rapidly, but I was looking at it more from a "ouch my wallet" perspective. Though it is nice to see AMD actually changing socket a bit faster to try and keep up with newer Intel offerings.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
