Originally Posted by Derp
Originally Posted by KyadCK
You're comparing $170-200 CPUs to $300+ CPUs.... why?
83** competes with i5's just fine, (in fact, the 8350 plays with a 3770 in encoding) and APUs destroy i3's.
Had you said "AMD does not directly compete with Intel in the high-performance segment", then... yes. But to say they don't compete is a lie.
Why am I comparing them? Because they exist and if AMD's CPU line wasn't so slow the price difference wouldn't be massive like it is now. They don't directly compete, why can't you accept that? AMD competes with Intel where it can but it sure as hell isn't directly.
AMD's flagship trades blows with an i5..... Wins in some multithreaded situations and gets destroyed in lightly threaded situations. That is how many CPU's down from Intel's flagship? Give me a break.Would you really say AMD's graphics division was "directly competing" with Nvidia if their flagship was an HD 7850 while Nvidia still had the GTX 690?
Considering the 7850 would directly compete
with a 650TI in both performance and price, even before factoring in overclocking... yes. Duh.
Directly competing means that the price is equal between 2 products, or at minimum they are in the same price range. The 7850 and 650TI are in the same price range. Therefore, they directly compete. The 3570k and 8350 are in the same price range. therefore, they directly compete.
I believe the term you were looking for in the 8350 vs 3960X debate was "indirectly compete", since they are both flagship CPUs, not in the same price range.