Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Jan 24, 2012.
Those are HUGE checkboxes!
Think we need to call in the Mythbusters on this one. That is once they're done explaining that little mishap with their cannon
This is confirmed
How is AMD offering more for less in the case of their FX line??? The FX8150 is more expensive than the i5 2500k yet is vastly inferior.
maybe one used an SSD and the other didn't haha even tho it makes no real difference it could depending on what game Maybe they Oced one system.
The reason the FX got lot of votes is because users didn't care about power consumption (none of those systems were plugged into a wattmetter whatsoever) and the other reason is that the FX is not a bad processor at all, its really very responsive under windows/linux, and the 990 chipset is fast, it feels a bit snappier at times, but this is subjective unless there was a snappiness-test or benchmark.
I am thinking its because they used a game that prob isn't so CPu dependant. like BF3 can be.
IMO the BD isn't so bad, it does win in mny productivity benchmarks, like if you winrar up a lot of stuff.
If they ran skyrim it would be a completely different story.
"Marketing and Prejudice Get the Better of Consumers with PC Processors:test"
Isn't capitalism great?
"Standard's in advertising" HaHaHa
I agree with the other's that said this "test" is invalid due to it being hosted by one of the "competitor's", it need's to be carried out by a 3rd party who is non-partial and done under stricter condition's to have any sembalance of validity.
Just my $0.02
Yeeeeeaaaah i buy this.... in fact give me two. At the end, If you ground both systems into a powder and baked it into a cake, Amd user would find theirs taste better. Some flavors...u just cant hide.
A shame most people use their computers for more than just gaming.
Sample size was too small and event was filled with fan boys, really no surprise they picked AMD on every count.
you were ranting about the i3 setup.
And you are still completely full of crap.
The fact of the matter is, this "test" was performed by AMD's marketing dept. That makes it invalid. If Intel performed this test, the same would be true.
And just so you know, somebody owning Intel doesn't make them a fanboy. Some people actually buy things because they want what it has to offer. I don't give a shit what brand my chip is, as long as it's the fastest available for the money I'm spending.
All this test managed to achieve is the following:
1) Prove that the iGPU in the Llano CPU is much better than the iGPU in any SB CPU
2) Confirm that at Eyefnity resolutions (assume 5760x1080 + bezel correction) the GPU is the limitation in the majority of cases.
Question - who didn't know this already?
I have always stated the biggest problem with Bulldozer as a desktop CPU is not its performance - which considering it can match a Nehalem i7 isn't exactly bad, it is its relative power consumption. In a world that is moving towards "green" everything, using more power to achieve the same result in the same amount of time is just wrong.
the i3 and a8 test was unfair, but it helps clarify the high end test - that 99% of people there, knew the difference between utter crap and decent FPS.
the other test was obvious - the AMD system gave better feel. nuff said. anything else used to try and justify it works both ways - if you have an excuse as to why the amd system 'tricked' people into voting for it, then it can be reversed to work for the intel system as well.
Why it gave a better feel is a very important factor in a test performed by the marketing dept of one of the competitors. It is most certainly not a "nuff said" situation.
Would you trust it if the roles were reversed and Intel performed the test and came out ahead?
And in independent testing, the verdict is almost always a draw on high end systems. Sometimes Intel get the nod on games that perform right on the borderline of smoothness, but not often. I'm sorry, but I'll take my own experience with the matter, and that of the countless other third parties that contradict the findings of this test.
AKA: This test is full of shit for the high end systems.
I wouldn't be surprised if they cherry picked it so they found an Intel CPU that suffered from Micro-Stuttering (not all do, and I know several people who say it goes away once you disable HTing) and tossed BF3 at it. This would cause them to do an "unbiased" test, that was still heavily weighted. Even using identical setups, there are plenty of ways to rig tests (Vsync, HTing, Settings, etc.)
I think the results are basically split and this test just deviated towards AMD having the upper hand. Since the BD launch and marketting ****storm I put little stock in what AMD Marketting has to say...
see this is what i say. Intels are freakishly fast in stuff. but they dont give "that" feel.
though my bro's core2 quad wasnt that bad in the feel factor, but still...
most people dont use their computers in such a way that buying an AMD system will hinder their work, hence for them, this "feel factor" is important (even i dont require the performance of an intel system). and the marketing dept is trying to harvest this.
why buy 10kgs of rice when you need 1?
In almost every test scenario I have tried or read about or seen, an AMD system doesn't feel faster at all unless there is some sort of bug in the program used to test. At best it feels the same, at worst it's noticeably slower.
This is very true but it still makes no sense that one system feels faster than the other unless there's something wrong.
Just a marketing stunt. The low-end setup is no surprise. For both rigs, we would need more details to evaluate the comparison's legitimacy (hardware and software configuration, overclocking, game settings).
i've done LAN events where it was blind tested with other users rigs, and people can never tell. its usually about the peripherals, unless there is some drastic hardware change - crossfire vs single GPU, and so on.
Separate names with a comma.