Originally Posted by cssorkinman
You really need to decide which chip you want to compare the 4770k to, it seems like if performance is the question, you choose the 8350. If price is the question, you choose the 9590.
No, actually he doesn't. It's up to the market prices to decide what compares with what.
You might be willing to decide on how to do a counter-argument, by conveniently ignoring some things and conveniently embracing some others, depending on the situation, but reality doesn't work like that.
Proper decisions rely on how close the ones affected are to a global approach of the whole situation. This is nothing close to what happens in this thread.
Some of the things noted:
- I keep seeing comparisons of the initial direct costs involved by the ones who justify what AMD has to offer, while any subsequent costs are blatantly ignored. Is this the "free energy for all" era or something? In that case you can send some of the free energy here if you don't mind.
- The ones who favor AMD interpret the better performance of the FX series (compared to the Intel equivalents) in about 20% of the shown benchmarks as something that makes them competitive. Since when is 1 out of 5 considered competitive? With the same reasoning, an i7 920 is competitive against an FX 8320.
- Some of the ones involved completely disregard the obvious, in order to justify their claims. Take a look at the post above.
Exact quote: "Take a real close look here because apparently you know next to nothing of what you claim to know so much about. Power usage is not so dramatic."
What the "real close look" showed: The FX 9590 @5GHz draws about twice as a 4770k @4.5GHz. That's 150 watts, with the AMD part about at stock, and the intel part having about a 25% overclock.
For that power you run two more stock 4770s or an extra mid-end GPU. Heck, a whole 8 drive RAID array consumes less than that.
I can't counter-argue that. It counter-argues itself.