Originally Posted by Shimme
Isn't it great when people bother to read through threads? Especially short ones!
I'm not an AMD fanboy, in fact if I had the money I wouldn't consider buying from them, but it's disheartening and frustrating to casually dismiss products for reasons that they don't understand while making blanket statements that are clearly uninformed.
As for vishera being faster, benches are showing that in overclocked performance vishera and sandy bridge are very close, yet vishera is cheaper.
No AMD does not compete with Intel's i7s. Yes they use more power for comparable products. However, they are significantly cheaper, than Intel's products, while still offering good, and in some cases excellent performance. To call them a waste of money is sensationalist and untrue.
Exactly, when I built my machine, it was either get an intel processor, and a horrid graphics card, or get a 965, overclock a bit if i need to (dont even really need to yet, but I do), but get a pretty good card ( my 570 ). For gaming, I see AMD as a perfect fit, more specifically, the Phenom lineup. Yeah, they are 45nm, use older tech, runs only up to 1333 DDR3 Dimms, and are '125watts', and are from 2009...but when you get a true quad core at 3.8ghz+ with a higher-mid graphics card or better, I don't think there will be much of a difference. I am looking to upgrade to intel, because I hear they are fun to overclock, as in they can get fairly high clocks compared to my phenom, and preform a lot better. Will that really come into play? Maybe, but either way, my 965 is showing it's age, and AMD has not really given me a reason to stay with them, bulldozer was a mess, most of the things i do would be single threaded, and at the most, games support 4 threads anyways, and for the next few years it should stay like that. The only logical upgrade is at least a sandy bridge, or for a little bit more, an ivy.