Originally Posted by cssorkinman
It's so pervasive you can hardly blame those with very little cross-platform experience. The blue kool-aide brainwashing brigade claims lots of victims.
Well, the last Intel CPU i 've had, was Pentium 200MMX. Still, this doesn't inhibit me from understanding that FX doesn't have a lag problem. Everything i do is ridiculously fast and i am not even using high clock memory, just mundane 1600 C9 RAM. Heck, even the Athlon II with K10Stat doesn't have anything to envy from FX in desktop responsiveness. I mean, with well tuned Windows, even the Athlon 640 FLIES in navigating through folders, opening utilities and such. Games and heavy stuff is different, but general desktop experience is very good. You arrive to a point that it's very difficult to humanly need "more", when you already talk of a few hundred msec.
But, but, but, why isn't he benching at 1024 x768? That's unfair! This way he is GPU limited! I challenge him to repeat the same at 640x480! And... that "Project Cars" is defective, it goes against nature!
Originally Posted by Sgt Bilko
It's possible but as i said, It's not worth me worrying about that much for the sake of a few extra seconds, I'm the type of person that hits the power button then walks away for a while (habit from my old Phenom rolleyes.gif )
Same here, i am back to my "slow" default 22 sec. Heck, like i always say, for me 4Ghz are overkill. There is nothing wrong with an FX at 4Ghz...
EDIT: The Intel octacores, are paying the price that FX was paying for years. Games just can't use them yet. Now you have Intel fanboys ( see comments) yelling "it's not fair, the game can't use 8 cores, that's why FX still hangs on so well". Well, tough luck, fanboy. When you were sneering at AMD for "moar cores" and writing accolades for the "amazeballs" PentiumG, running "like a bullet" in 1 threaded games it was fair, right? Edited by Undervolter - 11/11/15 at 2:16am