New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by sumitlian

*cough*cough*...it is not when you play at 720p. Nevermind.
Is there any specific reason to go for the number '9' GHz ? because, technically, 8 GHz 256 bit(RX480/580) is already ~18.5% faster memory transfer than 9 GHz 192 bit (GTX 1060).RX 480/580, ( 8 X 256 ) / 8 = 256 GB/sGTX 1060, (9 x 192 ) / 8 = 216 GB/s
This is interesting though.
For not including source as a proof for '50% power efficient' claim. Without a definite proof, title was misleading because wccft's words do not represent such claim if AMD hasn't announced that. I didn't actually mean to report anybody.Well, it is now talk of the past since OP has been updated.
Provide proof for this or you are gonna be reported.
I wonder how corniest and emotionally ignorant you have to be to write and concatenate two sentences like that ? LOLSupporting a certain company for self needs and/or due to performance per price seems healthy fanboyism to me. But You have gone too far.
Fixed!
At least I am doing better than the ones who are justifying 720p gaming performance.
Agree to some extent, but most apps, OS kernels and games were not multithreaded at that time of Q6600. Q6600 may be was obsolete at that time.But current gen Hexa core and Octa core CPUs are definitely going to increase overall performance specially in the games that use 4+ threads since Real Core will benefit in gaming as compared to second HT of a core and other remaining threads will take care of background process. This is why I don't believe much in these graphs...
Why do people still think that AMD is going to launch FX-6390 in 2017 LOL.....that is going to compete with i5 6600k ?
New Posts  All Forums: