84 replies to this topic

[Havok1978]

and you DO also realize intel claims virtual cores to be actual cores aswell? and I didnt cherry pick anything, I used sandra and thats the results it gave me flat out... but butchery is a figurative word I suppose, my rig did infact surpass the i7 in several aspects while slightly trailing it in others.. due to the gap in cost and design yes I would call this butchery...

the i7 rig scord a 6.55 while my fx6300 scored a 6.41... but the i7 cost 2700$ so for 2k more you can get a slight increase in some areas of performance... my fx is clocked at 4.72ghz prior to this i had been running it at 4.95 and under full load it was at 45 celcius and as for the gobbleing of power its still at 95watts. thats not gobbleing power.

also looking into drop box, I can output to text file but thats not the same as a cpu-z validation which is what I'm trying to do is validate it, one of my friends died recently so havent been exactly on top of this...

and for the OP I'm not thread jacking you, but when you compare hardware and ask if something is a worthwhile upgrade here is the answer.
Thubans are/were great proc's but they are dated, the zambezi bulldozer core is a decent chip but it doesnt run right and isnt optimized, the Vishera does.. the prime advantage you get from running a FX6300 in this case is its actually an FX8350 with cores 7 and 8 locked... when OC'ing this chip you are able to rob your speed increase from cores 7 and 8 without effecting your 6 accessed cores, also to note, this chip is physically designed to be a 125watt chip but due to locking cores 7 and 8 it is scaled down to 95watts, this also leaves a horrendous amount of overhead for OC'ing
In retrospect this is in the same spirit as the 550 to 950 phenom II which is what I upgraded from.

as for specifically testing MWO with the FX6300 in core utilization what program would you like me to use to test this?

I spent 2 years in semi-conductor manufactureing I may not design the chips but I defintely know how they work.

Edited by Havok1978, 17 August 2013 - 09:03 AM.

[Odins Fist]

Butchery indeed... FX-6300 x6 3.5GHz versus the i7 3770k x4 3.5GHz... Please leave "PRICE" out of the discussion, the OP didn't ask about price, and saying and upgrade to the FX-6300 from the Phenom II 1100 Thuban is a great move, well it isn't.
.

.
Notice where it says higher is better, and where it say lower is better in the different tests, also note that this is an AMD (6) core versus and Intel (4) core... FX-6300 v i7 3770k, and just imagine if I put the Intel (6) core up against the AMD (6) core.
Butchery indeed...
.

.
So the AMD CPUs are better than the Intel CPUs..???

Price is not an issue, please leave that out of the which has better performance debate.

Edited by Odins Fist, 17 August 2013 - 12:25 PM.

[Havok1978]

price is not to be left out of a discussion concerning if an upgrade is *worth* it or not...
also to note you are still comparing a stock clocked proc... your figures are off by quite abit.. also.. this thread is about AMD components.. not your love for intel fanboyism....

as you noted he asked about a thuban vs an FX, not a thuban or FX versus an intel which you constantly insist on bringing into this since your first post.

http://www.sisoftwar...eaccbf82b2&l=en

also theres the link to the benchmark off my system. i could clock it higher but I like where its running now and im not messing with it again for the sake of numbers.
im not entirely sure about the memory bench though cuz my memory is running in intel XMP2 mode which shows it to be running at 2133mhz where this benchmark says 1800.

lastly your video compares an i7 top of the line 1000$ proc...
http://www.newegg.co...CFUmi4AodohoAfQ
im using a proc that cost 100$ so ya... thats butchery
and the OP didnt say price isnt an issue.. YOU did.

Edited by Havok1978, 17 August 2013 - 10:52 AM.

[Odins Fist]

Havok1978, on 17 August 2013 - 10:34 AM, said:

price is not to be left out of a discussion concerning if an upgrade is *worth* it or not...


"im not entirely sure about the memory bench though cuz my memory is running in intel XMP2 mode which shows it to be running at 2133mhz where this benchmark says 1800"

No it isn't, not for some of us .... And yes I did say it wasn't an issue, but I should have said "for me" to begin with.

Chip versus Chip, I don't see a reason to upgrade from a Phenom II x6 1100 Thuban to a FX-6300, the performance gain isn't worth the time to apply the thermal paste.. I'm sitting quite nicely where i'm at 4.27 to 4.3GHz on water, I have zero perfomance issues, so it doesn't make any sense "TO ME", and if the OP is still rocking a Phenom II x6 1100 Thuban (or other P2 6 core), then my advice would be just wait a while, and build something else... Who knows, maybe the FX series chips will drop even further in price than they already have, that in itself is a telling statement right there.. When things go on a fire sale, then you know something is up.

By the time I will need to upgrade, the FX-6300 will have outlived it's possible usefullness to me at least, and I will not be building another AMD CPU based machine.. I will be putting togther an Intel system about March 2014.

You're FX-6300 doesn't butcher an Intel 3770K x4, it doesn't butcher a i7-4770K x4 Haswell, or the i7-3970X (6)core
If all you're going to go about is price then i'm sorry..

Like I said, if you really want to compare performance, then be fair, and put the Intel (6) core up against the AMD (6) core, and see where that duck lands.

Also you need to back it up about fanboyism, I have run nothing but AMD CPUs since 2007-08, but the time to make a switch after seeing first hand what AMD has for current offerings is here for me...

Other than saving some money, AMD has nothing to offer over Intel..

Side Note: Just because the XMP profile is 2133, doesn't mean the RAM is running at 2133, you might want to go into your BIOS and set everything (MHZ, Timings, Voltage, etc..etc..etc..), just plugging your RAM into the Mobo doesn't guarantee it will run at stated speed and timings, as a matter of fact I have had to set every single set of RAM manually in BIOS every time.
Corsair Dominator 2000MHz at 1.65v, Timings 9-9-9-24.. <--- I lowered the Timings then OC'd from 1866 in BIOS, my Mobo supports 1866, but OC'd to 2000MHz and change. Officially my CPU only supports 1600MHz if I remember right.

EDIT: Your RAM is 2133 I take it, so set your RAM to 1866, you may have to loosen you timings slightly.
When you overclock it you will most likely be sitting at 2133 or so with ease. It's really quite simple.

Important, ----> Officially your FX-6300 memory controller supports 1866MHz, but you can get 2133MHz no problems if you do it right. Also your Mobo will have a memory standard which it officially supports, but most decent Mobos will allow you to OC past this, mine does.

Mobo: Asus Crosshair V 990FX
CPU: Phenom II x6 1100t
RAM: CORSAIR DOMINATOR GT DDR3 2000MHz, Tweaked a bit up from 1866 to 2000Mhz and some change.
PSU: Corsair TX850M 850W ATX12V v2.31 / EPS12V v2.92
(2 x 4+4-Pin 12V CPU) <---- Helps Stabilize OC, not needed but not hurting. I have an 8-PIN, and an additional 4-PIN power for CPU.
DOUBLE EDIT: The last time I downloaded Sandra SiSoft for free on C-Net it tried to install a bunch of creepy toolbars, and such.. LOL

TRIPLE EDIT: Prime95 it after your done to see if you throw any errors.

Edited by Odins Fist, 17 August 2013 - 12:31 PM.

[Havok1978]

i have done all this .... already, im not just plugging in stuff and saying oh look what i did der....
my bios reports the memory at 2133 and so does prime95...
I dont like using prime 95 as its already been burned in once and restressing the components its not a good idea...
also i did not say it butchered all i7's omgzorz im leet....
also still comparing a 1000 proc to a 100 proc then saying nah it doesnt compare.. is just lulz

i did say there was room for improvement and while you are infact entitled to your opinion you need to keep it inline with what the OP asked... not what you think intel is compared to AMD..
and yes the fanboi remark is exactly what you are doing becuse you keep promoting intel in an AMD thread.. I.E. you are OFF TOPIC....

Edited by Havok1978, 17 August 2013 - 12:42 PM.

[Odins Fist]

Havok1978, on 17 August 2013 - 12:40 PM, said:

the fanboi remark is exactly what you are doing becuse you keep promoting intel in an AMD thread.. I.E. you are OFF TOPIC....

Nope sorry not a Fanboi, I just go with what is going to have better performance when I build a new system, nice try though.
If AMD had the best performer for what I want to do, then I would go AMD, but they don't, and i'm not, if you consider that being a fanboi, then i'm sorry I hurt your feelings so much, wait a minute.. No, i'm not.
Price is not going to be a deciding factor in my next build (within reason) for personal use, non business related.

Also, I went a little off topic after a failure to compare the FX-6300 to an older i3 was brought up by the OP himself.
Hang the money issue, and don't cherry pick CPUs to put against each other, I gave several examples that all beat the FX-6300, price aside.

Narcissistic Martyr, on 15 August 2013 - 03:55 PM, said:

the fx6300 is a heck of a lot more chip for the money than an i3

Uh oh huh..?? Yeah there it was...
I did say a little about single threaded perfomance swaying me from AMD, but it was not intended to pull the thread off into a Intel Versus AMD discussion.

Odins Fist, on 15 August 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

One example for you, running an older game Sins of a Solar Empire (original and rebellion), I went head to head with my 1100 Thuban at 4.27GHZ against a 2011 socket i7-3820 quad core clocked lower.. The i7-3820 quad core beat my Phenom II x6 1100 Thuban by 20% on CPU usage (hundreds of strike craft and other units), with my Phenom II pegged at 100% usage (game only uses one core) versus 80% for the i7-3820..

Yep, AMD won't be on my next build, so what about the cost, i'm over the FX series, was a long time ago.
http://odinswolves.enjin.com/home

Finally, if all you're going to rant on about is price, then i'm glad you plan to stay with AMD, it's right where you need to be.
I'm moving on to other things, fanboi you say.?? Nah, I have spent plenty of time and money on AMD, i'm giving Intel a little business now. You can have what ever opinion you like, it's non issue to me, have a nice life.

Edited by Odins Fist, 17 August 2013 - 01:00 PM.

[Havok1978]

http://valid.canardp....php?id=2761978
then theres this

Edited by Havok1978, 17 August 2013 - 01:05 PM.

[Odins Fist]

Havok1978, on 17 August 2013 - 01:03 PM, said:

http://valid.canardp....php?id=2761978
then theres this

Stable at 5711.83 MHz ..???
Stable huh.. 5.8GHz...??
Nope, nothing more than overclocking to just get a screenshot...

Try again, actually if you can get your CPU that high, please open up BattleField 3 for me would ya.

The most common OC on an FX-6300 I have seen stable is 4.5 to 4.6GHz..

I have seen 5.0GHz on some, but also very little perfomance increase past 4.7 to 4.8GHz..
After that you're just wasting power..

Again have a nice life

Edited by Odins Fist, 17 August 2013 - 01:53 PM.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Odins Fist, on 17 August 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

Uh oh huh..?? Yeah there it was...
I did say a little about single threaded perfomance swaying me from AMD, but it was not intended to pull the thread off into a Intel Versus AMD discussion.

Don't worry about it, I got the thuban benchmarks I wanted so feel free to do whatever y'all want with the thread now.

[Smokeyjedi]

Odins Fist, on 17 August 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

Stable at 5711.83 MHz ..???
Stable huh.. 5.8GHz...??
Nope, nothing more than overclocking to just get a screenshot...

Try again, actually if you can get your CPU that high, please open up BattleField 3 for me would ya.

The most common OC on an FX-6300 I have seen stable is 4.5 to 4.6GHz..

I have seen 5.0GHz on some, but also very little perfomance increase past 4.7 to 4.8GHz..
After that you're just wasting power..

Again have a nice life

Weren't you just rambling on for a good few pages Intel this, Intel that, your credibility with anything AMD has long gone out the window, You clearly own or rather use an Intel based system, you should leave the AMD to the AMD guys........

[Odins Fist]

Smokeyjedi, on 17 August 2013 - 03:21 PM, said:

your credibility with anything AMD has long gone out the window,

#1. You're wrong, I know a good deal about AMD based systems, been running them exclusively for years, I simply stated that I wouldn't be going with AMD from here on out.

#2. Are you saying that the screenshot of a 5.8Ghz overclock on the FX-6300 is a stable OC..??
On water 5,8Ghz "NOPE", on the most extreme phase change "Highly Doubtful", on liquid helium "possible but not stable", it wouldn't prime95, or be stable, highly unlikely.. So I called it for what it is..

#3. The Bulldozer release was an admitted failure by AMD, the Pildriver release was a marginal improvement, and if you didn't know that universally accepted fact in the business, then I will certainly enjoy debating that, but whatever..

This thread did indeed go way off subject, and for that I am a little bit sorry

As for your statement..

Smokeyjedi, on 17 August 2013 - 03:21 PM, said:

you should leave the AMD to the AMD guys........

I fully plan to on my next build, and gladly so...
I said as much in earlier posts in this thread.

B.T.W., I do not own an Intel system currently, but my very close friend has two of them, and coupled with a GTX 680, also water cooled, I have seen all I need to see to make my decision... Well after what I have seen it do against my other friends FX-8350, in terms of tripping the saftey features an 850watt PSU trying to hit 5.0Ghz with (2) 6850s on crossfire, and then again with a 6990 dual GPU card... Yeah it's the fault of the PSU, it's older, but he actually smoked a low end Mobo trying to OC and Unlock a 960t back in the day as well, but regardless of human error in his case, it's just another factor that made my decision possible, and quite easy.

Whatever works best for my needs I will use, whatever doesn't I won't, misguided fanboi labeling aside.

EDIT previous post: I had to set my RAM to 1600Mhz and clock it up to 2000Mhz and change.

Edited by Odins Fist, 17 August 2013 - 05:36 PM.

[Havok1978]

actually, if you read the top... it was on air not liquid cooling.. and my OC also if you had noted my benchmarks i submitted rather than just dismissing them out of hand waving your intel flag.. my CPU is OC'ed to 5ghz and is rock solid and stable...
but you will continue to spout your unfounded drivel becuse...


also its rather funny you have no experience with an FX-6300 or other AMD products aside from your buddy "who smoked a low end mobo unlocking a core and overclocking" LoL whut!?

Edited by Havok1978, 18 August 2013 - 03:50 AM.

[Odins Fist]

Havok1978, on 18 August 2013 - 03:23 AM, said:

my CPU is OC'ed to 5ghz and is rock solid and stable...

First of alll chief, I never said you weren't at 5.0GHz, I said you weren't at 5.71183Ghz or 5.8GHz "STABLE", learn to read.
That was in response to this ----> http://valid.canardp....php?id=2761978 just a boot to screenshot.

Second, I said the most common overclock I see is between 4.5 to 4.6GHz. (I guess I should have said stock or mid-range air cooling with that huh), so I will accept not including that when I should have, I just assumed you would understand that as accepted knowledge, and that I wouldn't have to elaborate. Next time I will spell it out, using small words.

Then I said "I have seen 5.0GHz on some"... Meaning: Not most.

Odins Fist, on 17 August 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

http://valid.canardp....php?id=2761978

Stable at 5711.83 MHz ..???
Stable huh.. 5.8GHz...??
Nope, nothing more than overclocking to just get a screenshot...

Try again, actually if you can get your CPU that high, please open up BattleField 3 for me would ya.

The most common OC on an FX-6300 I have seen stable is 4.5 to 4.6GHz..

I have seen 5.0GHz on some, but also very little perfomance increase past 4.7 to 4.8GHz..
After that you're just wasting power..

ALSO:
#1. You're wrong, I know a good deal about AMD based systems, been running them exclusively for years, I simply stated that I wouldn't be going with AMD from here on out.

#2. Are you saying that the screenshot of a 5.8Ghz overclock on the FX-6300 is a stable OC..??
On water 5,8Ghz "NOPE", on the most extreme phase change "Highly Doubtful", on liquid helium "possible but not stable", it wouldn't prime95, or be stable, highly unlikely.. So I called it for what it is..

Again have a nice life

OC past 4.8Ghz and the farther you go the less of a performance increase you get from say 3.5Ghz to 4.5Ghz, it's called diminishing returns, at a certain point it's not much of a performance gain. Or otherwise said "wasting power", don't tell me you don't know that.

You did see where I said I have seen a few at 5.0Ghz, right..?? The smart money sets at between 4.7 to 4.8Ghz and call it a day, you're chip will live longer.

Where did I say you weren't at 5.0Ghz..?? Where did I say you weren't 5.0Ghz on air..?? I didn't
Your poor little "STOCK" air cooler must be on the edge if you're.. LOLZ.. J/K I imagine you have a decent aftermarket cooler on there.

Finally: You say I have no experience with anything other than a buddy that smoked something on another Mobo with another chip..?? That's pretty funny...

Oh boy, chew on this little nugget, I have run "MY" computer repair and networking business since 2008, I have seen all kinds of CPUs, all kinds of situations, from uninformed people trying to overclock, to people screaming that they bought NON conductive liquid for their cooling system, not realizing that any dust particles that come into contact with the liquid, if it leaks, then causes the liquid to become conductive and ZAP...

You're not at 5.71183Ghz stable "PERIOD", I never said you weren't at 5.0Ghz (facepalm), and nowhere are you going to find that satement in any of my posts.. There ya go "BRO".

http://valid.canardp....php?id=2761978 <----- Stable huh..?? Nope

Edited by Odins Fist, 18 August 2013 - 10:05 AM.

[Smokeyjedi]

Odins Fist, on 18 August 2013 - 10:00 AM, said:

First of alll chief, I never said you weren't at 5.0GHz, I said you weren't at 5.71183Ghz or 5.8GHz "STABLE", learn to read.
That was in response to this ----> http://valid.canardp....php?id=2761978 just a boot to screenshot.

Second, I said the most common overclock I see is between 4.5 to 4.6GHz. (I guess I should have said stock or mid-range air cooling with that huh), so I will accept not including that when I should have, I just assumed you would understand that as accepted knowledge, and that I wouldn't have to elaborate. Next time I will spell it out, using small words.

Then I said "I have seen 5.0GHz on some"... Meaning: Not most.



OC past 4.8Ghz and the farther you go the less of a performance increase you get from say 3.5Ghz to 4.5Ghz, it's called diminishing returns, at a certain point it's not much of a performance gain. Or otherwise said "wasting power", don't tell me you don't know that.

You did see where I said I have seen a few at 5.0Ghz, right..?? The smart money sets at between 4.7 to 4.8Ghz and call it a day, you're chip will live longer.

Where did I say you weren't at 5.0Ghz..?? Where did I say you weren't 5.0Ghz on air..?? I didn't
Your poor little "STOCK" air cooler must be on the edge if you're.. LOLZ.. J/K I imagine you have a decent aftermarket cooler on there.

Finally: You say I have no experience with anything other than a buddy that smoked something on another Mobo with another chip..?? That's pretty funny...

Oh boy, chew on this little nugget, I have run "MY" computer repair and networking business since 2008, I have seen all kinds of CPUs, all kinds of situations, from uninformed people trying to overclock, to people screaming that they bought NON conductive liquid for their cooling system, not realizing that any dust particles that come into contact with the liquid, if it leaks, then causes the liquid to become conductive and ZAP...

You're not at 5.71183Ghz stable "PERIOD", I never said you weren't at 5.0Ghz (facepalm), and nowhere are you going to find that satement in any of my posts.. There ya go "BRO".

http://valid.canardp....php?id=2761978 <----- Stable huh..?? Nope

You are totally amusing at this point.....................You wouldnt rant and rave so much, if you really knew how the Intels and the 8core Fxs TRADE punches..........If you argue that fact you truly are daft.

[Odins Fist]

Smokeyjedi, on 18 August 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

You are totally amusing at this point.....................You wouldnt rant and rave so much, if you really knew how the Intels and the 8core Fxs TRADE punches..........If you argue that fact you truly are daft.

Can't refute so attack, that's been pretty much the tone of your lump of replies...

Oh wait I thought we were talking about the FX-6300 trading punches with Intel (4) cores and it's (6) cores..
I'm in no way daft, you're wrong, you tried... I would say good attempt, but it wasn't. "SLAP"

So the AMD offerings are better performers than Intel's offerings, that is what you are saying or no..??
Oh, and leave price out of it... Non issue.. Keep insulting and dodging.

You're not at 5.71183Ghz stable "PERIOD", I never said you weren't at 5.0Ghz (facepalm), and nowhere are you going to find that statement in any of my posts.. There ya go "BRO".

[Byzan]

some of the benchmarks for the AMD Vishera CPU's are quite promising, actually quite good news. Things are improving as the tech improves as you would expect I guess.

still think AMD need to reduce their manufacturing process from 32mn and greatly improve power usage.

some say it's just $10 a year but that depends where you are. some parts of the world its $10 a month or more. Quoting $ values is pretty meaningless because of power cost variances. I also wonder if the power saving stats also take into account that the onboard GPU can be used for basic tasks to save power and also consider cooing power required.

right now in general terms it seems like at similar price levels Intel CPUs are ~35-40% better per core performance so an application needs to be able to effectively use 6 or more cores to have a chance to run better on an AMD 6-8 core CPU. It basically means that performance wise in general they are equal the defining factor is that in general the Intel CPU will use 30-40% less power.

head to head that factor rules AMD out for me.

Also consider that the the Intel CPU is 4 core + GPU and the amd cpu is 8 core and no GPU

Kinda feel like at any time if intel feels under threat from AMD they could easily release a new range to blow AMD away again. I mean they could surely drop the GPU or use an even smaller manufacturing process (of which we know they have two reductions in the works) and release an 8 core range that would destroy AMD again.

Still think another worry for AMD is if intel releases a range with a significantly more powerful GPU. The AMD APU's are better for gaming/GFX but you would have to think that if intel wanted to they could make a huge gain in this area in a short time.

[Havok1978]

LoL... whut? talk about learning to read...
im @ 5.0ghz on water... and I didnt say i was at 5.7ghz myself at all... you need to quit spouting drivel you obviously know nothing about... the FX-6300 is rated to go up 7.0Ghz on LN2.. and retain its warranty... you would know this if you actually researched the products you are commenting on rather than just spouting stuff you get from magazines...

you have made yourself into a target for misqouting and misconstrueing what people have said here... quite frankly if this is you understanding the material thats presented to you and how you use it then no wonder you cant get your CPU to run decently

you are lost Mr.fist

Edited by Havok1978, 18 August 2013 - 04:37 PM.

[Havok1978]

Byzan, on 18 August 2013 - 04:35 PM, said:

some of the benchmarks for the AMD Vishera CPU's are quite promising, actually quite good news. Things are improving as the tech improves as you would expect I guess.

still think AMD need to reduce their manufacturing process from 32mn and greatly improve power usage.

some say it's just $10 a year but that depends where you are. some parts of the world its $10 a month or more. Quoting $ values is pretty meaningless because of power cost variances. I also wonder if the power saving stats also take into account that the onboard GPU can be used for basic tasks to save power and also consider cooing power required.

right now in general terms it seems like at similar price levels Intel CPUs are ~35-40% better per core performance so an application needs to be able to effectively use 6 or more cores to have a chance to run better on an AMD 6-8 core CPU. It basically means that performance wise in general they are equal the defining factor is that in general the Intel CPU will use 30-40% less power.

head to head that factor rules AMD out for me.

Also consider that the the Intel CPU is 4 core + GPU and the amd cpu is 8 core and no GPU

Kinda feel like at any time if intel feels under threat from AMD they could easily release a new range to blow AMD away again. I mean they could surely drop the GPU or use an even smaller manufacturing process (of which we know they have two reductions in the works) and release an 8 core range that would destroy AMD again.

Still think another worry for AMD is if intel releases a range with a significantly more powerful GPU. The AMD APU's are better for gaming/GFX but you would have to think that if intel wanted to they could make a huge gain in this area in a short time.

but would you use the built on GPU in the intel chip? most people would not.
the slight power savings the intel chip provides is a little more but not much really...and the intial cost of an intel chip is 60% more than an AMD chip as well.

Edited by Havok1978, 18 August 2013 - 04:56 PM.

[Odins Fist]

Havok1978, on 18 August 2013 - 03:23 AM, said:

actually, if you read the top... it was on air not liquid cooling.. and my OC also if you had noted my benchmarks i submitted rather than just dismissing them out of hand waving your intel flag.. my CPU is OC'ed to 5ghz and is rock solid and stable...

Havok1978, on 18 August 2013 - 04:35 PM, said:

LoL... whut? talk about learning to read...
im @ 5.0ghz on water...

Oh so I misread that..?? " it was on air not liquid cooling.. " then my bad, it was a jumble..
If I made a mistake on that then I would apologize but I won't, you are misguided and rude.
So, you going to answer that question I have already asked..??

"AMD has been trailing behind Intel for some time now, especially when it comes to desktop performance. While the company has promised a lot, they've singularly failed to deliver, and just can't compete with the best that Intel has to offer."

You still haven't answered the question after multiple posts:
"So the AMD offerings are better performers than Intel's offerings, that is what you are saying or no..??"
Oh, and leave price out of it... Non issue.. So which is it..??

Lemme guess going to side step the question again right..??
Been trying to get you to say something other than talking "PRICE", leave that out.

EDIT: keep backing AMD like it's the king, but don't be too sad....
http://www.tomshardw...sors,15741.html

There is no interest at AMD to continue a processor war with Intel that has lasted decades...
“That era is done, Rory Read" .... Is this still the case..???

"AMD can't compete with the sheer raw performance of Intel's fastest current four-core chips in the LGA1155 socket. And that means it's nowhere near Intel's high-end chips in the LGA2011 socket. LGA2011 chips, of course, don't have processor graphics and are entirely focussed on CPU performance."

http://arstechnica.c...eepest-valleys/

So I will ask the question one last time before I go..
"So the AMD offerings are better performers than Intel's offerings, that is what you are saying or no..??"
Yes or No..??

COST IS NOT AN ISSUE, that's not what i'm asking.

Oh, and BTW, a 4.27Ghz to 4.3Ghz OC on a Phenom II x6 1100 thuban is nothing to sneeze at, and is not a low overclock for that chip.. Get a clue.. 3.3GHz stock

Edited by Odins Fist, 18 August 2013 - 05:36 PM.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!!