Please intel fanboys...

I do all that stuff plus I game. I'm still going Intel for my next PC.

I don't think anyone denied that AMD can compete in multithreaded tasks like video rendering. It is the performance in games that people are talking about, which AMD CPUs are usually weaker compared to the intel's offerings. That is not to say that AMD CPUs can't play games fine, i have an 8120 myself and it is a great gaming CPU, but i know that in practically all games it is weaker than a sandy or ivy quad.

I do all that stuff plus I game. I'm still going Intel for my next PC.

jun_aka_pekto

I don't think anyone denied that AMD can compete in multithreaded tasks like video rendering. It the performance in games that people are talking about, which AMD CPUs are usually weaker compared to the intel's offerings. That is not to say that AMD CPUs can't play games fine, i have an 8120 myself and it is a great gaming CPU, but i know that in practically all games it is weaker than a sandy or ivy quad.

ferret-gamer

With the sub-$100 Pentiums performing so well, Intel's $125 Core i3-2100 easily beats more expensive Phenom II and FX models. And the $190 Core i5-2400 dominates the sub-$200 landscape without challenge, really. As such, we're almost-shockingly left without an AMD CPU to recommend at any price point.

I tend not to trust reviews anymore. Intel can easily buy them off.AlexKidd5000

Unless you are playing single threaded based games there's not a real big difference after a set resolution where the gpu is most important

With the sub-$100 Pentiums performing so well, Intel's $125 Core i3-2100 easily beats more expensive Phenom II and FX models. And the $190 Core i5-2400 dominates the sub-$200 landscape without challenge, really. As such, we're almost-shockingly left without an AMD CPU to recommend at any price point

MonsieurX

Are they seriously recommending Pentiums over AMD quads? That is just stupid unless you only play really old games, they are not future proof at all. And a FX 6100 or 6300 is a way better overall CPU than an i3, they generally perform perfectly fine in gaming, maybe a tad slower, and are much better in applications.

[QUOTE="MonsieurX"]

With the sub-$100 Pentiums performing so well, Intel's $125 Core i3-2100 easily beats more expensive Phenom II and FX models. And the $190 Core i5-2400 dominates the sub-$200 landscape without challenge, really. As such, we're almost-shockingly left without an AMD CPU to recommend at any price point

ferret-gamer

Are they seriously recommending Pentiums over AMD quads? That is just stupid unless you only play really old games, they are not future proof at all. And a FX 6100 or 6300 is a way better overall CPU than an i3, they generally perform perfectly fine in gaming, maybe a tad slower, and are much better in applications.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="MonsieurX"]

With the sub-$100 Pentiums performing so well, Intel's $125 Core i3-2100 easily beats more expensive Phenom II and FX models. And the $190 Core i5-2400 dominates the sub-$200 landscape without challenge, really. As such, we're almost-shockingly left without an AMD CPU to recommend at any price point

AlexKidd5000

Are they seriously recommending Pentiums over AMD quads? That is just stupid unless you only play really old games, they are not future proof at all. And a FX 6100 or 6300 is a way better overall CPU than an i3, they generally perform perfectly fine in gaming, maybe a tad slower, and are much better in applications.

Seriously, pentiums are horrible gaming CPUs. They might be able have a decent average framerate on certain games, but they are spastically all over the place. As new games come out that focus more on multithreading they will just fall further and further behind.

Get a newer demanding game that is properly multithreaded like BF3 or Crysis 2/3 and this happens:

It might get decent average framerate but will have terrible frametime issues.

[QUOTE="AlexKidd5000"]I tend not to trust reviews anymore. Intel can easily buy them off.MonsieurX

...and ionus :D.

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

I do all that stuff plus I game. I'm still going Intel for my next PC.

AlexKidd5000

Looking around, I wasn't aware Vishera was already out. We'll see what else AMD comes up with later this year. If I can buy a Vishera (or something newer) significantly cheaper, I may consider it.

I tend not to trust reviews anymore. Intel can easily buy them off.AlexKidd5000

I just always go with amd because higher clock speed for less $ and it just always works for me never had any problems with amd. but i would not mind an intel rig. it might sound weird but when i go to my friends house (he has a core 2 quad 2.3 yadda yadda) it seems to have a different personality. fear 2 loads faster on his rig. i dont know how thats possible but it does. but i like both companies. if intel was cheaper i would buy intels most likely

[QUOTE="AlexKidd5000"]I tend not to trust reviews anymore. Intel can easily buy them off.JohnF111

I just always go with amd because higher clock speed for less $ and it just always works for me never had any problems with amd. but i would not mind an intel rig. it might sound weird but when i go to my friends house (he has a core 2 quad 2.3 yadda yadda) it seems to have a different personality. fear 2 loads faster on his rig. i dont know how thats possible but it does. but i like both companies. if intel was cheaper i would buy intels most likely

_SKatEDiRt_

Could be ssd or other factors.

You can grab an intel setup $190 3570k or $220 i7 2700k + $40 discount off motherboards at microcenter.

I just always go with amd because higher clock speed for less $ and it just always works for me never had any problems with amd. but i would not mind an intel rig. it might sound weird but when i go to my friends house (he has a core 2 quad 2.3 yadda yadda) it seems to have a different personality. fear 2 loads faster on his rig. i dont know how thats possible but it does. but i like both companies. if intel was cheaper i would buy intels most likely

_SKatEDiRt_

dude, AMD cpus suck for gaming, its the facts.  Games arent going to wait for AMD to catch up, either they copete or sell out to a competent company like Google who knows what they're doing.

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

I just always go with amd because higher clock speed for less $ and it just always works for me never had any problems with amd. but i would not mind an intel rig. it might sound weird but when i go to my friends house (he has a core 2 quad 2.3 yadda yadda) it seems to have a different personality. fear 2 loads faster on his rig. i dont know how thats possible but it does. but i like both companies. if intel was cheaper i would buy intels most likely

MonsieurX

I just always go with amd because higher clock speed for less $ and it just always works for me never had any problems with amd. but i would not mind an intel rig. it might sound weird but when i go to my friends house (he has a core 2 quad 2.3 yadda yadda) it seems to have a different personality. fear 2 loads faster on his rig. i dont know how thats possible but it does. but i like both companies. if intel was cheaper i would buy intels most likely

_SKatEDiRt_

That's interresting to hear. I remember way back before 1GHz was surpassed (yes, the stone ages), AMD CPUs seemed the same way. They had a strange lagginess that Intel's didn't have.

[QUOTE="JohnF111"][QUOTE="AlexKidd5000"]I tend not to trust reviews anymore. Intel can easily buy them off.AlexKidd5000

dude, AMD cpus suck for gaming, its the facts.  Games arent going to wait for AMD to catch up, either they copete or sell out to a competent company like Google who knows what they're doing.

blaznwiipspman1

[QUOTE="MonsieurX"][QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

I just always go with amd because higher clock speed for less $ and it just always works for me never had any problems with amd. but i would not mind an intel rig. it might sound weird but when i go to my friends house (he has a core 2 quad 2.3 yadda yadda) it seems to have a different personality. fear 2 loads faster on his rig. i dont know how thats possible but it does. but i like both companies. if intel was cheaper i would buy intels most likely

dramaybaz

okay go set your cpu multiplier in half and see what happens if clock speed means nothing. :roll:

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

I just always go with amd because higher clock speed for less $ and it just always works for me never had any problems with amd. but i would not mind an intel rig. it might sound weird but when i go to my friends house (he has a core 2 quad 2.3 yadda yadda) it seems to have a different personality. fear 2 loads faster on his rig. i dont know how thats possible but it does. but i like both companies. if intel was cheaper i would buy intels most likely

Bikouchu35

Could be ssd or other factors.

You can grab an intel setup $190 3570k or $220 i7 2700k + $40 discount off motherboards at microcenter.

no we both have same HDD and his is prebuilt with a gt120

[QUOTE="dramaybaz"][QUOTE="MonsieurX"] Clock speeds meann nothing_SKatEDiRt_

okay go set your cpu multiplier in half and see what happens if clock speed means nothing. :roll:

I have thought about upgrading my CPU lately, but I know that my 1100T can still hold up today and I'm glad that I made a good purchase.

i heard the cinebench slows down on purpose when you are using a amd cpu is that true?

Jesus christ OP, are you that butthurt? Did Intel piss in your cereal every morning?clyde46

dude, AMD cpus suck for gaming, its the facts.  Games arent going to wait for AMD to catch up, either they copete or sell out to a competent company like Google who knows what they're doing.

blaznwiipspman1

I'm very fond of Far Cry 3. So, here.

The older AMD CPUs definitely fall behind. But, the Vishera restored my confidence in AMD. And if Vishera keeps a price advantage, I'm definitely sticking with AMD now unlike earlier last year.

Back in the olden days we would discuss what processors to get at what price point, now everyone just suggests a $220 processor no matter what anyone's needs are.  this is ridiculous and either these people are all intel viral marketers or braindead.

Back in the olden days we would discuss what processors to get at what price point, now everyone just suggests a $220 processor no matter what anyone's needs are.  this is ridiculous and either these people are all intel viral marketers or braindead.

GummiRaccoon

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Back in the olden days we would discuss what processors to get at what price point, now everyone just suggests a $220 processor no matter what anyone's needs are.  this is ridiculous and either these people are all intel viral marketers or braindead.

JigglyWiggly_

But everyone is out of a job now and has had their house foreclosed.  Besides wasting money is pointless.  I could buy a dozen alienware rigs right now, but what's the point?

I mean, people kind of get the concept, I don't see any 3770k recommendations over the 3570k.  +33% cost for +~5% performance  but why stop there?  If you game at 1080p or do other things than gaming you will not see a difference between a 3570k and an 8350 or an 8320.  The main reasons to get an intel cpu over an AMD cpu is never even argued.  (quicksync, smart response, etc)

[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"][QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Back in the olden days we would discuss what processors to get at what price point, now everyone just suggests a $220 processor no matter what anyone's needs are.  this is ridiculous and either these people are all intel viral marketers or braindead.

GummiRaccoon

But everyone is out of a job now and has had their house foreclosed.  Besides wasting money is pointless.  I could buy a dozen alienware rigs right now, but what's the point?

I mean, people kind of get the concept, I don't see any 3770k recommendations over the 3570k.  +33% cost for +~5% performance  but why stop there?  If you game at 1080p or do other things than gaming you will not see a difference between a 3570k and an 8350 or an 8320.  The main reasons to get an intel cpu over an AMD cpu is never even argued.  (quicksync, smart response, etc)

obviously your not out of a job or forclosed. :roll: i on the otherhand have been unemployed for a year and a half

*CollisionFaux: holy sh1t that's insane *CollisionFaux: are you asian?? JigglyWiggly@3dslice.net: idunomen

whose signature is that on the baseball?

zubin probably has double/three times as much mice as antero
here's what I got though.
3x wheel mouse opticals
3x razer abyssus
2x g9x's
1x m210 mouse
1x razer lachesis
1x g5
2x m518

I probably have a few more
zubin gets all the mice and tests them by their sensor. So far he has found the deathadder sensor is by far the best. Abyssus has the same sensor, but half of them have jitter.
He hates/despises the g9x sensor, but likes the grip.

He uses 108cm/360 which is insanely low and plays dragshot style, so for him a sensor is more important.

I use 28cm/360 and sensor isn't as important as grip.
I use the g9x with no shell.

My style is accel based snapping w/ good dodge more than dragshots. (Hint zubin was the worst quake live player of all time, 108cm/360 in quake live? wat)

now if they made a g9x with the deathadder sensor...
(But even I can tell the g9x sensor isn't as good as my abyssus)

although antero isn't that good even though he has like 1500 hackusations(yes 1500). Me and zubin played him and fisher in tribes and we smacked them with our manly gamestyle.

Although fisherolol has better mouseaim than both of us, but he probably has the best mouseaim in all of north america. We still beat him badly because fisherolol refuses to learn how to dodge. (He gets like 75k in aim40kg vs our 73.5~)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qgjxbsRjYo that's fisher

but yes, you have to go through a lot of mice to see what suits you best. I need more grip than fisher/zubin, they use extremely low sensitivity.

to give you a perspective

it takes me 3/4 of my mousepad with no accel to do a 360(this is the razer goliathus control large, a giant mousepad)

it takes zubin like 4 whole giant mousepads to do a 360

oh and all of our mouseaim is better than fatal1ty's(except antero). But if arena shooters were simply just handeye, then that would be boring.

also this

ZubinRC314: it reminds me more of when I tried to convince Levi to stop using 6cm/360
ZubinRC314: 6.7cm/360*
JigglyWiggly@3dslice.net: what
JigglyWiggly@3dslice.net: 6.7cm/360
JigglyWiggly@3dslice.net: wat
JigglyWiggly@3dslice.net: what is this gamespot
ZubinRC314: nah
ZubinRC314: I'm sure gs has people that consider that low sens
ZubinRC314: > : |
JigglyWiggly@3dslice.net: LOL