[cdawall]

Originally Posted by HumanSmoke

So what? My nephew uses my old hand-me-down 4 year old QX9650/X48 Rampage on LGA 775. It certainly isn't embarrassed by any AMD CPU performance.

You sure about that? Put 2 GPU's on it or stress the memory out and see how well that FSB does. If you want I am sure I can find you a stack of benchmarks showing how well that ones goes.

Originally Posted by HumanSmoke

The one that delivers on time.
On a personal note, I like new stuff. If Haswell delivers, I might just buy it...but then, I tend to upgrade yearly- probably why Intel make so much money!

No kidding you buy Intel I honestly didn't see that one coming.

Originally Posted by HumanSmoke

The same can be said for any full featured Z77 and X79...or are you too myopic to see past a brand?

Except with Z77 and X79 you cannot go buy a brand new CPU every year you will by buying a brand new motherboard as well or can you not see past brand.

Originally Posted by HumanSmoke

Because AMD are the only company to evolve their CPU design ? because Intel CPU's lack multi-threaded performance ? Because the next 6-12 months are going to see an exponential growth in software tailored to Bulldozer architecture ? Because AMD can stick to a timetable and their performance estimates ?

What are you trying to get at with this one? You own a P6 design chip which dates back to Pentium 3. It was designed in the middle of single core needs. We are well past that. Software doesn't have to be tailored for bulldozer all it has to do is allow bulldozer to use AVX. Weird how there is a CPUID flag in a lot of programs that block AMD even when it supports the technology. The rest of what you said is fluff.

Originally Posted by HumanSmoke

While you're answering those, maybe you can provide links to support your supposition of "every company complaining about multithreading".

How about Intel's guide to multithreading that the released for free for everyone to use in hopes to help get programmers to multithread apps or this one were a programmer was cornered by intel. Would you like some more?

Originally Posted by HumanSmoke

So what? How many people use every feature on a motherboard?

That is probably the dumbest argument for why Intel's $100+ don't offer any improvement over AMD's $60 mobo's.

Originally Posted by HumanSmoke

Bleat on about dual x8 boards (presumeably for CFX/SLI) and rave about "mildly worse" in gaming. Sounds about right.

That is already considered a pretty bad review, but figures you would find it. I am quite glad to see a $130 more expensive processor perform better when not only overclocked more, but also using a $50 more expensive motherboard. For $180 I could buy a lot of things to make up for the frames. Like better cooling for a higher overclock, or better video cards that perform better.

What I find most interesting is the 3770K they clocked up hit higher than most at 4.8ghz and the 8350 fell short of every other review out there. Gee I do wonder if that review might possibly have been a bit biased to one side.

Originally Posted by HumanSmoke

I'd think that more people might look at options such as choice in the mATX/ITX form factor, onboard WiFi and WiDi, SSD caching and the like.

SSD caching is available on ONE chipset. Not exactly making headway. AMD also has options for onboard WiFi.

Originally Posted by HumanSmoke

True, but whats AMD's track record ? I know which company I'd trust more to adhere to their timetable.

That's nice.

Originally Posted by HumanSmoke

Rubbish. Dual GPU cards and CFX/SLI are already impacting the electrical restriction of PCI-E 2.0

Electrical restriction meaning what? Power consumption or performance? TPU's own review shows negligible difference between 2.0 and 3.0 PCI-e X16

Originally Posted by HumanSmoke

I see we've reached the limit of your knowledge.
PCI-E x16 2.0 @x16 = 80GT/sec (8GB/sec) * 80% (8b/10b encode) = 64GT/sec (6.4GB/sec)
PCI-E x16 3.0 @x8 = 64GT/sec (6.4GB/sec)* 98.46% (128b/130b encode)= 63.6GT/sec (6.36GB/sec)

I see we have substantially exceeded yours as has been already pointed out to you quite bluntly already. It isn't all about the bandwidth, but how it is delivered. The number of available lanes is a substantial hamper on crossfire and SLi performance. Hence why people do not want a 16x/4x mobo instead looking for an 8x/8x.

Originally Posted by HumanSmoke

Bullshit. If trolling was a reason to fired up, you'd have jumped all over cdawall's posting. Some of the of the guys' "facts" come straight out of Fantasia.

Also if you would like to continue to insulting not only myself, but many other members of this forums I am sure the moderators will have no issues escorting you off of the forums.

Originally Posted by HumanSmoke

Personally, run whatever you want- this is supposedly a tech enthusiast community, and as such, I've not denigrated a single item of hardware in 290+ posts here (unlike some), because my interest is hardware, and not a brand of hardware...probably why I was pretty much certain what PD was bringing to the table some time before launch

The post you quoted is you naming things that you don't think AMD will have I fail to see how that proves anything in your favor.