Ok now that I am home and not at work I can enter back into the fray. First I went back to the article and read it again to make sure I didn't miss something. First I wanna enter the rest of the quote that has been thrown around here like fact: You could claim that AMD’s push for 5GHz is a desperate move to grab headlines and market share with a CPU that draws far more power than the Intel equivalent and doesn’t sweep benchmark results, even running at a much higher clock speed. You’d be right. You could also claim that pushing to 5GHz gives AMD a marketing opportunity and narrows the performance gap between Sunnyvale and Santa Clara to the smallest it has been in years — and you’d also be right. Personally, I’m impressed that Piledriver yields have improved enough for AMD to launch a 4.7GHz chip with a 5GHz Turbo. I am not a fan of half truths, especially when the whole argument is cut up to give the appearance of failure or in this case desperation. Also reading the article I did get the feeling they were trying to be fair and gave possible reasons for different outcomes namely the chance that the test wasn't compiled so well for AMD but favored Intel. I did have concerns for their difficulty reaching a stable clock. Maybe a bad batch/lot, just so many with just water cooling can do it fairly well. ( Not a condemnation of the article just a thought. Could be they are more at home with Intel OCing and most know it isn't the same for AMD.) Over all I think the article did prove that AMDs 9xxx can compete with haswell. And so most of you can understand Compete does not = beat, trash, overwhelm, and other such arrogant terms.
Another thing I notice still continuing is the inability to grasp Stock to Stock. Stock is the condition in which it is purchased from the manufacturer. In this case the 9xxx is stock at the rated speeds. Now I am sure it will get mentioned so I'll bring it up first and tell you why this assumption is wrong. The 7970 comes in stock speeds and OCed ones as well. And the term STOCK for the overclock would not apply. WAIT FOR IT! That isn't the case here. They aren't releasing a FX 8350 Over Clocked Edition, it is a FX 9xxx. Now I am not so well versed in Intel chips, but they may have this same instance: one could make the argument that the 8350 is just an OCed 8320, both are 8 cores, but I have yet to see that argument made by any of you before, so why make it now. Like I already advised: If you wanna compare OCs and such then start your own thread and stop hijacking this one for your selfish arrogant means.
I apologize to the reasonable AMD and Intel owners and I thank you for your input in this thread. You have brought in intelligent information and we each have become better informed because of it. The rest of you make me ashamed and maybe someday you too will learn to be reasonable and fair without feeling the need to belittle others for their opinions and choices.
Edited by Durquavian - 7/2/13 at 3:54pm