84 replies to this topic

[Havok1978]

Odins Fist, on 18 August 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:

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 apologise 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.

once again, I'm NOT leaving price out of it.. you may demand that to justify using 1000$ procs but myself and most the rational world do not...

now as for the matter of does an AMD out perform an intel? the answer is they "can" it depends on who does what ...

as for the "jumble" though earlier.. that is from you seeking to attack my rig or myself rather than reading the information that is presented to you. stop frothing and foaming at the mouth.. we know you love intel... we get it... but this is not the intel love story you were looking for...

Narcissistic Martyr, on 18 August 2013 - 05:15 PM, said:

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!!

LoL

[Havok1978]

[Odins Fist]

Havok1978, on 18 August 2013 - 05:28 PM, said:

CUZ poor and Jealous....

LEAVE PRICE OUT OF IT, i'm not asking about price...

You can't/won't answer the question... I see

I'll make it an easy question for you. "Which is the better overall performer, price not an issue?"

Edited by Odins Fist, 18 August 2013 - 05:42 PM.

[Smokeyjedi]

Odins Fist, on 18 August 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:

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".

Man, You are so ramped up in yourself you clearly haven't even considered taking one second to actually objectively(critical thinking skills required) listen to one word any person has said in this thread. There is clearly no point in going any further into this thought. You clearly refuse to grasp @ concepts and ideas and lack the foresight required to carry on anything other than your attemp @ trying to make me second guess my post about AMD and INTELS "higher-end" processors trading blows across a plethora of benchmarks............Ive now had a good chuckle, and no longer seek your amusement. chow.

[Odins Fist]

Smokeyjedi, on 18 August 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

Man, You are so ramped up in yourself you clearly haven't even considered taking one second to actually objectively(critical thinking skills required) listen to one word any person has said in this thread. There is clearly no point in going any further into this thought. You clearly refuse to grasp @ concepts and ideas and lack the foresight required to carry on anything other than your attemp @ trying to make me second guess my post about AMD and INTELS "higher-end" processors trading blows across a plethora of benchmarks............Ive now had a good chuckle, and no longer seek your amusement. chow.

"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."

Yes the argument was over before it began...
And "FOOLS" are often easily amused..

Price was never part of my question that was side stepped post after post...

Edited by Odins Fist, 18 August 2013 - 05:48 PM.

[Havok1978]

Odins Fist, on 18 August 2013 - 05:37 PM, said:

CUZ poor and Jealous....

LEAVE PRICE OUT OF IT, i'm not asking about price...

You can't/won't answer the question... I see

I'll make it an easy question for you. "Which is the better overall performer, price not an issue?"

ROFL ID rather be poor and jelly than rich and stupid... but I CALL BS here, cuz #1 im not poor and #2 im defintely not jealous. I just dont wish to spend 3000$ to get a product that a 750$ product can do just as well.
and in the reality of all this, gaming does not and will not use the best of the best of the best sir... to perform at its best....
so spending 3k to get the same experience you can get for 750.. thats well.. n/m it is what it is... hahaha

oh and while on the subject of gaming.. so we all know and kinda hate that consoles dictate the direction developers use to make games these days ya? and the main edge intel has in this aspect as its been said many times is single threaded operation, and AMD does multi-threaded ops much better...

so I guess what i would say now is.. how about those new consoles with thier AMD/ATI chipsets eh eh am i right?
do you see multi-threading being used during gaming in your future?

[Odins Fist]

Havok1978, on 18 August 2013 - 05:50 PM, said:

....................

I see, you are incapable of answering a simple question...

Odins Fist, on 18 August 2013 - 05:37 PM, said:

LEAVE PRICE OUT OF IT, i'm not asking about price...

You can't/won't answer the question... I see

I'll make it an easy question for you. "Which is the better overall performer, price not an issue?"

"Which is the better overall performer, price not an issue?"

Havok1978, on 18 August 2013 - 05:50 PM, said:

so I guess what i would say now is.. how about those new consoles with thier AMD/ATI chipsets eh eh am i right?
do you see multi-threading being used during gaming in your future?

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..???

You were saying something about the "Future"..??

Edited by Odins Fist, 18 August 2013 - 05:59 PM.

[Havok1978]

you demand price be left out of your bias, I demand price be included thus the answer is spoon....
its not an incapability, it is a deciding factor of what makes a logical choice.

and there is no war anymore as intel was fighting that war dirty to begin with... they intentionally impaired AMD proccessors and after AMD won that lawsuit they stopped warring with each other openly...
but for whatever reason you threw THAT qoute in it doesnt change the fact that AMD/ATI chipsets are in the new consoles and that AMD heavily favors multi-threading, its also not a mystery that crysis 3 uses 9 threads.. so multi-threaded gaming is already on your doorstep.

but inevitabley as you will say .. there can be only intel...
the only aspect i have constantly pushed here is not that AMD is uber pro best... which you have missed the entire time... is that my 750 rig out performs an intel i7 3000$ rig, those benchmarks have already been posted... that debate is over.. its been proven... so then you wish to compare my 750$ rig to a proc that costs 1k alone and then say its just cuz im poor... lol
would you like a compass to find your common sense? you obviously need one.

Edited by Havok1978, 18 August 2013 - 06:33 PM.

[Odins Fist]

Havok1978, on 18 August 2013 - 06:20 PM, said:

you demand price be left out of your "QUESTION", I demand price be included

Translation: "WON'T" answer question.

http://www.cpubenchm...X-6300+Six-Core

But that will.

Your continued denial to answer a simple question speaks more than volumes...
.
.
"Which is the better overall performer, price not an issue?"

Cat still got your tongue..??

Edited by Odins Fist, 18 August 2013 - 06:30 PM.

[Havok1978]

nah was busy looking at facts and making meme's
nice link think ive seen that before...
still doesnt answer my or your questions though does it? obviously not cuz you wouldnt still be here..

the answer is still spoon btw...

Edited by Havok1978, 18 August 2013 - 06:40 PM.

[Odins Fist]

Havok1978, on 18 August 2013 - 06:35 PM, said:

the answer is still...

Exactly, you won't answer because you already know that Intel is the better overall performer. (price as a non issue)

Thanks for confirming what everyone in the industry already knows.

Edited by Odins Fist, 18 August 2013 - 06:54 PM.

[Havok1978]

no the answer is still spoon becuse you continue to insist price isnt an issue when i say it is.. so therefore.. spoon

[Odins Fist]

Havok1978, on 18 August 2013 - 06:55 PM, said:

no the answer is still spoon because...

Because of lead paint chips consumed as child..?? Roger That...

[Havok1978]

no, no room for lead paint chips, cuz im full on intel tears...

actually here ill throw you a bone, if you want to try to win this arguement then you can say well your comparing an OC'ed AMD chip to a stock clocked intel chip, but even then its still down to the price

[Byzan]

Havok1978, on 18 August 2013 - 04:40 PM, said:

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.

well if you can be bothered to set it up you can configure a PC to use the intel GPU for basic tasks you woulf not notice the difference on and reserve descrite graphics for high demand tasks. It's pretty easy. but I guess if you buy any one of a big part of the AMD range then your not concerned with power usage anyway...

and as cost goes i always compare cpus in the same price range - within $20-30

[Havok1978]

understood byzan, and what about the amd apu's? such as the A-10?

also to note the rig i use isnt power hungry at all...

[Catamount]

Well since price is a non issue, actually Odin would be wrong about Intel being the best performing chip one could get. The optimal performer would be a custom built chip created by amassing enormous sums of money to make one's own processor company (and maybe buy a major semiconductor fabrication company) for the sole purpose of designing an exorbitantly expensive chip that no one would ever have any use for, but just happens to be more powerful than any extant processor.

Is that absurd? Money is no object, so why should it be? If the line isn't drawn at $500, or a thousand dollars, why should it be drawn at a purely arbitrary point like a trillion or so dollars? Sure, at this point that's comparing an extant chip to a hypothetical one, but money is no object, remember? So therefore we can assume that one has the money to go make a hypothetical chip real and almost arbitrarily powerful, in an almost arbitrarily short period of time (which will just take more money, which isn't an issue).


If someone is in the market for an FX-6300, the i7-8320 isn't relevant to them anymore than notions of founding one's own CPU company is relevant to them. Is the 8320 a better performer than the 6300? Sure. Is that relevant in any way, shape or form? I don't know, to whom would it be? So why should an FX-6300 be compared to an i7-8320 when there is basically no one who'd simultaneously have an interest in both for the same application?

Lockheed Martin's fastest extant plane, the F-22, is faster than Boeing's fastest extant plane, the 787, and by a lot. The 787 tops at 515 knots (all models), while the F-22 is capable of flying at an estimated 1300 knots. Congratulations to me; I just pointed something entirely useless out. Why would I ever compare them where there is no one who'd ever be interested in one, for any task, who would consider the other? A consumer isn't going to book a flight on an F-22 to fly from LAX to Charlotte Douglas to visit uncle Frank (even though someone probably could if they had enough money to make it worthwhile to the right people), and no one in the military is going to be using 787s to intercept Chinese J-20s, should the need arise. So exactly who is such a comparison relevant to?

I could likewise say an HK416 with a 4x32 Trijicon ACOG is a "better performer" than a Ruger 10/22 with a UTG 4x32 scope. It fires faster, fires a much more potent round, is carrying a massively superior optic, is more reliable and is more ergonomically adjustable. Again, though, exactly who is such a comparison relevant to when the two would never be considered side-by-side, by anyone, for anything?


By what standard of reasoning is price being "not considered" when there is effectively no one for whom price is not relevant? What purpose is actually served by a "no price" comparison? What useful information is gleamed? Useful to whom?

Edited by Catamount, 18 August 2013 - 08:13 PM.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Catamount, on 18 August 2013 - 07:56 PM, said:

Stuff

IBM chips are kicking both your side's butts!

*runs out*

[Havok1978]

Narcissistic Martyr, on 18 August 2013 - 08:15 PM, said:

IBM chips are kicking both your side's butts!

*runs out*

and suddenlly... a wild fork appears!

[Catamount]

Actually IBM's chips are pretty monstrous power houses. The third most powerful non-distributed computer in the world is a Power-PC, but of course that's preceded by an AMD machine in #2, and an Intel machine in first place (those damned commies)

Of course, those are all mostly GPU-based, so the real moral of the story is that GPGPU is still where it's at. I guess, since money is no object, we all need GPGPU supercomputers and several megawatts to power them... damn and just when I thought I was going to pay off these college loans.

Edited by Catamount, 18 August 2013 - 08:27 PM.