Originally Posted by GTR Mclaren
so...people...you get your hardware to PLAY some games or to PLAY CINEBENCH and those other benchmarks ??
Im not telling FX is better, in fact in my position if was about to build a system I would choose the 2500k for the less power consumption
but the FX hate is getting ridiculous
same thing happen months ago with the P67 massive recall
the only different was the actors, AMD fans thinking Intel will meet the creator...
The recall had nothing to do with lackluster performance when great things were promised, and it was fixed and covered by the manufacturer instead of being lied to your face and basically saying "youre doing it wrong, you need more GPU bottleneck."
Honestly, it is true that in the "real world," FX chips will perform fine for all but the most expensive GPU setups. But the same thing can be said for a chip that is half as much money. The real problem comes from the fact that CHEAPER chips also perform BETTER when allowed to stretch their legs, meaning while the FX will perform the same as a 2500K or a Phenom II, it will become obsolete quicker and you paid more money for it. If you want to put some salt on the would it uses more power as well.
I don't see a Phenom II there, theres an Athlon II. Also, that does not show IPC when clocks are different, and on top of that the FX loses to the Athlon II in a few of those.