anyone else think newegg is being biased towards intel?

looking at their combo's now and since am3+ launched as a platform i have noticed that not once have i found a case + motherboard or OS+motherboard or for that matter basically any am3+ motherboard + (anything but ram) combo's. its either hudson fm1's or 1155 or 2011 socket boards.

maybe because faildozer sucks? If you cant even match core 2 duo/phenom 2 clock for clock....

Bulldozer is the pinnacle of AMD's strategy of 'MAOR CORES!!!' to increase performace and it didnt work hopefully piledriver matches atleast phenom 2 which it probably will but I hope it matches first gen core I cpu's, priced strategically it might make AMD cpu worth buying again.

never notice.

looking at their combo's now and since am3+ launched as a platform i have noticed that not once have i found a case + motherboard or OS+motherboard or for that matter basically any am3+ motherboard + (anything but ram) combo's. its either hudson fm1's or 1155 or 2011 socket boards.

ionusX

Newegg probably modifies its combos on what sells the best. Let's face it. Most enthusiasts are flocking to the Intel CPUs (including me for my next PC) and newegg is an enthusiast site.

Edit:

I stuck with AMD throughout the previous decade from 2001 to present with my current PC (and mostly Intel back in the 90's). Right now, we're seeing a repeat of the 90's where AMD is really behind. So, it's back to Intel for me.

Pretty sure their combos are tailored consumer interests.

No, maybe you would notice if you are amd biased.

So a retailer is favouring an item that is more popular? How shocking!!!

intel sells better and has the better hardware. You tell me

No, maybe you would notice if you are amd biased.

Bikouchu35

its not so much of a bias as much as intel is just straight better and has been since core 2 duo

maybe because faildozer sucks? If you cant even match core 2 duo/phenom 2 clock for clock....

Bulldozer is the pinnacle of AMD's strategy of 'MAOR CORES!!!' to increase performace and it didnt work hopefully piledriver matches atleast phenom 2 which it probably will but I hope it matches first gen core I cpu's, priced strategically it might make AMD cpu worth buying again.

OldSoldier123

Hey guess what? You're an idiot.

[QUOTE="OldSoldier123"]

maybe because faildozer sucks? If you cant even match core 2 duo/phenom 2 clock for clock....

Bulldozer is the pinnacle of AMD's strategy of 'MAOR CORES!!!' to increase performace and it didnt work hopefully piledriver matches atleast phenom 2 which it probably will but I hope it matches first gen core I cpu's, priced strategically it might make AMD cpu worth buying again.

GummiRaccoon

Hey guess what? You're an idiot.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="OldSoldier123"]

maybe because faildozer sucks? If you cant even match core 2 duo/phenom 2 clock for clock....

Bulldozer is the pinnacle of AMD's strategy of 'MAOR CORES!!!' to increase performace and it didnt work hopefully piledriver matches atleast phenom 2 which it probably will but I hope it matches first gen core I cpu's, priced strategically it might make AMD cpu worth buying again.

Gambler_3

Hey guess what? You're an idiot.

I have something to tell you also. You too are an idiot.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Hey guess what? You're an idiot.

GummiRaccoon

I have something to tell you also. You too are an idiot.

Yes. Because nothing says biased towards Intel like only selling the most compelling AMD product (ie APUs) in their combos.

[QUOTE="OldSoldier123"]

maybe because faildozer sucks? If you cant even match core 2 duo/phenom 2 clock for clock....

Bulldozer is the pinnacle of AMD's strategy of 'MAOR CORES!!!' to increase performace and it didnt work hopefully piledriver matches atleast phenom 2 which it probably will but I hope it matches first gen core I cpu's, priced strategically it might make AMD cpu worth buying again.

GummiRaccoon

Hey guess what? You're an idiot.

I am not an idiot I am just stating things as they are. I have been into PC's for a long time and have had both computers with Intel and AMD cpu's and I hope piledriver is competitive.

Your the idiot for beign a blind fan boy.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="OldSoldier123"]

maybe because faildozer sucks? If you cant even match core 2 duo/phenom 2 clock for clock....

Bulldozer is the pinnacle of AMD's strategy of 'MAOR CORES!!!' to increase performace and it didnt work hopefully piledriver matches atleast phenom 2 which it probably will but I hope it matches first gen core I cpu's, priced strategically it might make AMD cpu worth buying again.

OldSoldier123

Hey guess what? You're an idiot.

I am not an idiot I am just stating things as they are. I have been into PC's for a long time and have had both computers with Intel and AMD cpu's and I hope piledriver is competitive.

Your the idiot for beign a blind fan boy.

[QUOTE="OldSoldier123"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Hey guess what? You're an idiot.

Iantheone

I am not an idiot I am just stating things as they are. I have been into PC's for a long time and have had both computers with Intel and AMD cpu's and I hope piledriver is competitive.

Your the idiot for beign a blind fan boy.

dumbass way to curb someone's build due to your own stupid fanboyism. A £90/100 Core i3 Sandy/Ivy destroys the similar priced bulldozer quads espacially in games that only use 2 cores or less.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="OldSoldier123"]

maybe because faildozer sucks? If you cant even match core 2 duo/phenom 2 clock for clock....

Bulldozer is the pinnacle of AMD's strategy of 'MAOR CORES!!!' to increase performace and it didnt work hopefully piledriver matches atleast phenom 2 which it probably will but I hope it matches first gen core I cpu's, priced strategically it might make AMD cpu worth buying again.

OldSoldier123

Hey guess what? You're an idiot.

I am not an idiot I am just stating things as they are. I have been into PC's for a long time and have had both computers with Intel and AMD cpu's and I hope piledriver is competitive.

Your the idiot for beign a blind fan boy.

yeah ok

[QUOTE="Iantheone"][QUOTE="OldSoldier123"]

I am not an idiot I am just stating things as they are. I have been into PC's for a long time and have had both computers with Intel and AMD cpu's and I hope piledriver is competitive.

Your the idiot for beign a blind fan boy.

OldSoldier123

dumbass way to curb someone's build due to your own stupid fanboyism. A £90/100 Core i3 Sandy/Ivy destroys the similar priced bulldozer quads espacially in games that only use 2 cores or less.

Nah

looking at their combo's now and since am3+ launched as a platform i have noticed that not once have i found a case + motherboard or OS+motherboard or for that matter basically any am3+ motherboard + (anything but ram) combo's. its either hudson fm1's or 1155 or 2011 socket boards.

ionusX

[QUOTE="OldSoldier123"]

maybe because faildozer sucks? If you cant even match core 2 duo/phenom 2 clock for clock....

Bulldozer is the pinnacle of AMD's strategy of 'MAOR CORES!!!' to increase performace and it didnt work hopefully piledriver matches atleast phenom 2 which it probably will but I hope it matches first gen core I cpu's, priced strategically it might make AMD cpu worth buying again.

GummiRaccoon

Hey guess what? You're an idiot.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="OldSoldier123"]

maybe because faildozer sucks? If you cant even match core 2 duo/phenom 2 clock for clock....

Bulldozer is the pinnacle of AMD's strategy of 'MAOR CORES!!!' to increase performace and it didnt work hopefully piledriver matches atleast phenom 2 which it probably will but I hope it matches first gen core I cpu's, priced strategically it might make AMD cpu worth buying again.

godzillavskong

Hey guess what? You're an idiot.

[QUOTE="godzillavskong"][QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Hey guess what? You're an idiot.

C_Rule

Bulldozer has 8 cores right? Phenom is still better?

Bulldozer has 8 cores right? Phenom is still better?

jakes456

[QUOTE="jakes456"]

Bulldozer has 8 cores right? Phenom is still better?

godzillavskong

[QUOTE="godzillavskong"][QUOTE="jakes456"]

Bulldozer has 8 cores right? Phenom is still better?

Marfoo

Bulldozer has 8 cores right? Phenom is still better?

jakes456

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="godzillavskong"]
It also looks like the fx beats the Phenom in some of the benchmarks as well. godzillavskong

Where bulldozer excells is running many things at once, as in, a real world scenario. As it stands I have; chrome with 10 tabs, photoshop, dreamweaver, steam, diablo3, putty, youtube, internet explorer, windows media player classic all open and running right now.

All the benchmarks have windows + whatever they are benchmarking, which something that has strong single threaded performance will excell.

I don't care two shakes for useless benchmarks, I care about real world usability and that is where AMD processors shine.

[QUOTE="godzillavskong"][QUOTE="C_Rule"] And the ones where it does beat it, are probably due to the extra 'cores'. Thing is, it should be beating the Phenom II in ALL benchmarks, not just the ones where it has a core/module advantage.C_Rule

You always make something today designed for tomorrow. Such was 386, 486 pentium athon 64, athlon 64x2 etc. You must be new to this

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="godzillavskong"] I'm no engineer, so I don't know the exacts on the design philosophy, but I would assume they designed the fx chip to surpass the older ones. Maybe they're preparing for applications that take advantage of 6-8 cores? I don't wanna get into a technical debate, mainly because I'm no PC expert, but I go from experience.I'll go for what's worked for me and remains reliable, that is usually what I tend to stay with . GummiRaccoon

You always make something today designed for tomorrow. Such was 386, 486 pentium athon 64, athlon 64x2 etc. You must be new to this

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"] This is what some people say, but in the world of IT, you don't make something today, designed for tomorrow. In heavily threaded apps, Bulldozer does perform well, but the sad reality is; most things cannot take advantage of all those cores. By the time most programs are able to effectively use 6+ cores, Intel (and probably even AMD) will have something that will dwarfs Bulldozer. C_Rule

You always make something today designed for tomorrow. Such was 386, 486 pentium athon 64, athlon 64x2 etc. You must be new to this

You may have thought that up all by yourself, but the examples I listed were all things that were considered "out before there was need for them".

Which, I think clearly shows my argument is stronger than your "well this is true because I think so, I won't bother to back it up though" argument.

[QUOTE="godzillavskong"][QUOTE="C_Rule"]
And the ones where it does beat it, are probably due to the extra 'cores'. Thing is, it should be beating the Phenom II in ALL benchmarks, not just the ones where it has a core/module advantage.C_Rule

Where bulldozer excells is running many things at once, as in, a real world scenario. As it stands I have; chrome with 10 tabs, photoshop, dreamweaver, steam, diablo3, putty, youtube, internet explorer, windows media player classic all open and running right now.

All the benchmarks have windows + whatever they are benchmarking, which something that has strong single threaded performance will excell.

I don't care two shakes for useless benchmarks, I care about real world usability and that is where AMD processors shine.

GummiRaccoon

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Where bulldozer excells is running many things at once, as in, a real world scenario. As it stands I have; chrome with 10 tabs, photoshop, dreamweaver, steam, diablo3, putty, youtube, internet explorer, windows media player classic all open and running right now.

All the benchmarks have windows + whatever they are benchmarking, which something that has strong single threaded performance will excell.

I don't care two shakes for useless benchmarks, I care about real world usability and that is where AMD processors shine.

C_Rule

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Where bulldozer excells is running many things at once, as in, a real world scenario. As it stands I have; chrome with 10 tabs, photoshop, dreamweaver, steam, diablo3, putty, youtube, internet explorer, windows media player classic all open and running right now.

All the benchmarks have windows + whatever they are benchmarking, which something that has strong single threaded performance will excell.

I don't care two shakes for useless benchmarks, I care about real world usability and that is where AMD processors shine.

C_Rule

Most people have >9000 things running in the background that they aren't even aware of, most of those things I never had installed because I don't ever click yes. I would say that me power using is about as intensive as someone who clicks yes and doesn't unclick all the things that get co-installed whenever they do anything.

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Where bulldozer excells is running many things at once, as in, a real world scenario. As it stands I have; chrome with 10 tabs, photoshop, dreamweaver, steam, diablo3, putty, youtube, internet explorer, windows media player classic all open and running right now.

All the benchmarks have windows + whatever they are benchmarking, which something that has strong single threaded performance will excell.

I don't care two shakes for useless benchmarks, I care about real world usability and that is where AMD processors shine.

godzillavskong

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Where bulldozer excells is running many things at once, as in, a real world scenario. As it stands I have; chrome with 10 tabs, photoshop, dreamweaver, steam, diablo3, putty, youtube, internet explorer, windows media player classic all open and running right now.

All the benchmarks have windows + whatever they are benchmarking, which something that has strong single threaded performance will excell.

I don't care two shakes for useless benchmarks, I care about real world usability and that is where AMD processors shine.

godzillavskong

the point is you can get better performance for the same price, the price perperformance of AMD chips is a myth more cores does not equal more performance. yes it works fine, but anything does, if you want the best though which is what all ppl building their own PCs want then AMD is not the best even if its fine.