Discussion in 'TPU Frontpage Polls' started by W1zzard, Nov 7, 2008.
I also read it effected the 64 bit OS more?
yeah phenoms one required like 4 VMwares running at once in order to crash. the bad press was because that 0.1% of users got a 'fix' which crippled memory performance instead.
Thank you for the clarification.
Core 2 in this moment is more than enuff for gaming and surfing . The i7 is much to expansive for all the buggs that comes with it. After all i find no need in desktop for a i7.
So, Core i7 =>
Well i will be staying with my all AMD rig . I will just up grade to a new Phenom 2 (940) cpu in the next month . Later in 2009 i will up date my video card set.
OH MAN sorry to here that !
I'm staying Core 2. Intel has something else coming, so IMO i7 is dangerously close to a screw job.... But I got ragged on pretty hard before for saying I am using a Core 2, so idk...
Intel already has a TLB bug. Unless i7's and their motherboards get a whole lot cheaper, I am going AMD.
deerrr I switched already by mistake >.< lol I love it!
Which the problem was solved before release...I know its already been stated but there are always a multiple of bugs when these cpus are produced. The question is only if the bugs can be solved before retail production.
WOW, surprised to see people still sayin AMD is a smarter choice LOL. I guess they dont care for performance. The extra $50 for Intel is worth it. If you are that cheap, you deserve a Athlon X2.
Please show me an i7 thats only 50 more than any AMD phenom out currently
But for me AMD does me fine, if you want i7 then go for it but not for me im afraid.
Yeah -- sorry I don't have $600 to spend on just a motherboard+CPU+RAM like you.
Where's this "extra $50?"
Dont get me wrong, i LOVE AMD, but i go where performance is, and AMD is not offering much, I meant $50 more for a core 2 duo, AMD is not much cheaper, you can get an E2200 for $70, overclocks to 3ghz + and outperforms and AMD system comparable in price by far.
No its a terrible waste of money..........
rofl amd ftw!
heh, staying AMD, it makes more sense, I have yet to see a chipset from intel or nvidia that really takes care of business. further more, I feel i7 just aint worth it, I got more important things to spend money on, like a decent monitor and gpu (ATI) to back whatever AMD processor I get.
Well ... a little 50% for AMD smarter choice. But where am I ?
I understand that due to the price of DDR3 and X58 motherboards only a few people are interested in switching to core i7, but who can choose to switch to an AMD processor today ?
If you take the example of Crysis, the Phenom X4 9950 is beaten by a "poor" E4500 (low res).
Even on multithreaded applications the best Phenom does not match a Q6600, which costs a bit less.
So people, tell me why are you voting AMD ?
I still have an "old" Opteron 165 and I really enjoyed it. At that time AMD was ruling the world of CPU with their Athlon (s754 / s939)... but now, who would be fool enough to buy a Phenom instead of a good C2D or C2Q ?
Ill say 1 thing, Crysis has a Hard time running on any machine so there is really no excuse to use that as a benchmark for systems when its poorly coded, also say that Intel is better at it because OMG it Plays 15FPS on a Intel at max Detail without Much Goin on in the Picture. Sorry if i Last Recall 30-60 FPS without a Spike of FPS Loss is the Ideal for any game and most actually run well above 30-60 without loss, where anything less than 30 is unbearable.
I do agree that Crysis is not the most optimized game I ever seen..
Even if today a Phenom is good enough to play at any game, it will struggle faster than a good C2D. But in my opinion the problem is not being "enough", it is the performance / price ratio. And in this matter the C2D & C2Q do have a clear advantage.
Take a look at this test:
Btw What most people are looking at for AMD is Phenom 2, Athlon X4, and Kuma Core and Future X2 CPUs.
Separate names with a comma.