Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › AMD No longer a viable option for mid-high end?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AMD No longer a viable option for mid-high end? - Page 95  

post #941 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReciever View Post

Then still wouldnt bother looking at AMD offerings when you have older chips like the X5650.
That is a decision of choice rather. I get you love the chip and I am in no way knocking it, I don't like bashing or trashing anyone's choices, but It seems most of the time in here you are the only one singing its praises.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Xeon-X5650-vs-AMD-FX-8350

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Xeon-X5650-vs-Intel-Core-i7-4770

Instruction sets would be a liability to a degree but in my opinion not a huge issue. Other than that it would be a choice. Even here I would recommend the 4770 by far. But like I said it is your choice and I would rather not get into a deep debate on our opinions of it. For the most part the choice of a x5650 would in the minority of choices even below the 6350 by a great deal of users here.
post #942 of 1593
Quote:
And by the way as Mantle and eventual DX12 (if they actual do what they say they will, MS) will make these AMD CPUs viable for far longer.

As long as games don't get more demanding on CPU's this is a good thing, but in the end it's not a solution to poor performance (game runs equally well on stronger and weaker hardware when it's not taxing either of them yay)
Insert Name Here
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6700k Asus Maximus VIII Hero Gigabyte Aorus Xtreme 1080ti Corsair LPX 2x8GB 3200c16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Old Seagate HDD Samsung 850 EVO Thermalright Silver Arrow SB-E SE Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus PG258Q (240hz + Gsync) WASDKeyboards.com v1 semi custom w/ mx browns, ... Superflower Golden Green HX550 Air540 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G Pro Qck+ 
  hide details  
Insert Name Here
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6700k Asus Maximus VIII Hero Gigabyte Aorus Xtreme 1080ti Corsair LPX 2x8GB 3200c16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Old Seagate HDD Samsung 850 EVO Thermalright Silver Arrow SB-E SE Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus PG258Q (240hz + Gsync) WASDKeyboards.com v1 semi custom w/ mx browns, ... Superflower Golden Green HX550 Air540 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G Pro Qck+ 
  hide details  
post #943 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durquavian View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyro999 View Post

The current "high end" such as 780ti are literally capable of beating sli670@1.212v with a single card
Do you know how hard it is to find benches that are current? It was a pain to find what I did. Most high end GPU benches use just one CPU so you can get a read on how they run on differing CPUs. And then there is drivers and whether they were run with current drivers or the parallels were using old runs to compare with. Truly a pain. But the 670 is in no way a low end and the difference in the results were close enough that even with a 780Ti or a 290X the result would not have skewed a great deal. I am trying to be impartial yet fair and reasonable. And work with I can get to show what needs to be shown.

Why do you think I used Techspot's benchmarks? Because they were actually testing with current-gen high-end cards like the 780, Titan, and 290X.

The fact is that at one time, a 670 was a high end card. However, ONE 780Ti or 290X is easily as fast as GTX 670 SLI. That is a huge difference in graphics power, and this is why Techspot's #s show a greater advantage for Intel. As the next generation of graphics cards roll in in a year or two, the cycle will repeat itself, with the high-end cards performing roughly like 780 SLI. By that time, FX is going to be a very significant bottleneck.

Going back to the title of this thread, dealing with whether AMD is viable for high-end.

-FX is already a significant bottleneck with current-gen high-end GPUs
-FX has smaller overclocking headroom compared to Intel chips
-FX has no upgrade path

That's a lot to swallow for someone who is going to spend $1000+ on a high-end rig. And this is why you don't see many high-end rigs using AMD CPUs anymore.

Now some people have said that buying a cheaper FX CPU now will allow more money to be put into a graphics card. Yes, this is true. But what good is having a better graphics card when the FX CPU will bottleneck it anyway? Plus, with an Intel GPU, it is easy to upgrade GPUs in a year or two without the CPU becoming a bottleneck. Not the case with FX.
Edited by 996gt2 - 3/28/14 at 7:56pm
5 GHz SFF Box
(18 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-2700K @ 5.0 GHz, 1.38V Asus Maximus IV GENE Asus GTX 670 DC II 4x4GB Samsung 30nm @ DDR3-2133 9-9-9-21 1.5V 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Plextor M3 SSD WD Velociraptor 500GB WD Caviar Black 1TB WD Caviar Green 2TB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Thermalright HR-02 (GT AP-15 Push/Pull) Windows 7 Pro x64 LG 27" 2560x1440 S-IPS (Calibrated with Eye-One) CM Quickfire Rapid 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X-750 Silverstone SG09 Logitech MX518 Steelseries QcK 
Audio
Asus Xonar DX + Shure SRH840 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Core i5-3570K Gigabyte H61N-USB3 Mini-ITX 2x4GB Samsung 30nm DDR3 Samsung 830 128GB SSD 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
WD Scorpio Blue 500GB Win 7 Pro x64 Antec 90W DC-DC/Delta power brick Antec ISK 110 
  hide details  
5 GHz SFF Box
(18 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-2700K @ 5.0 GHz, 1.38V Asus Maximus IV GENE Asus GTX 670 DC II 4x4GB Samsung 30nm @ DDR3-2133 9-9-9-21 1.5V 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Plextor M3 SSD WD Velociraptor 500GB WD Caviar Black 1TB WD Caviar Green 2TB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Thermalright HR-02 (GT AP-15 Push/Pull) Windows 7 Pro x64 LG 27" 2560x1440 S-IPS (Calibrated with Eye-One) CM Quickfire Rapid 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X-750 Silverstone SG09 Logitech MX518 Steelseries QcK 
Audio
Asus Xonar DX + Shure SRH840 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Core i5-3570K Gigabyte H61N-USB3 Mini-ITX 2x4GB Samsung 30nm DDR3 Samsung 830 128GB SSD 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
WD Scorpio Blue 500GB Win 7 Pro x64 Antec 90W DC-DC/Delta power brick Antec ISK 110 
  hide details  
post #944 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by 996gt2 View Post

Why do you think I used Techspot's benchmarks? Because they were actually testing with current-gen high-end cards like the 780, Titan, and 290X.

The fact is that at one time, a 670 was a high end card. However, ONE 780Ti or 290X is easily as fast as GTX 670 SLI. That is a huge difference in graphics power, and this is why Techspot's #s show a greater advantage for Intel. As the next generation of graphics cards roll in in a year or two, the cycle will repeat itself, with the high-end cards performing roughly like 780Ti SLI. By that time, FX is going to be a very significant bottleneck.
Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it so. Remember I posted real users that were getting great performance, actual real world performance not some half baked attempt to get out a story/review. Benches are nothing more than a reference to be taken with a grain of salt. You should look at it like this: a 20-50% possible error.
post #945 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durquavian View Post

Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it so. Remember I posted real users that were getting great performance, actual real world performance not some half baked attempt to get out a story/review. Benches are nothing more than a reference to be taken with a grain of salt. You should look at it like this: a 20-50% possible error.

On the contrary i would consider people to be more fallible than benchmark measurements, as long as benchmark conditions are detailed

I tend to take both with a whole bag of salt because 60fps "most of the time" is a far cry from maintaining 120 and cpu demands can be vastly different, that's kind of a niche though
Edited by Cyro999 - 3/28/14 at 8:11pm
Insert Name Here
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6700k Asus Maximus VIII Hero Gigabyte Aorus Xtreme 1080ti Corsair LPX 2x8GB 3200c16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Old Seagate HDD Samsung 850 EVO Thermalright Silver Arrow SB-E SE Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus PG258Q (240hz + Gsync) WASDKeyboards.com v1 semi custom w/ mx browns, ... Superflower Golden Green HX550 Air540 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G Pro Qck+ 
  hide details  
Insert Name Here
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6700k Asus Maximus VIII Hero Gigabyte Aorus Xtreme 1080ti Corsair LPX 2x8GB 3200c16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Old Seagate HDD Samsung 850 EVO Thermalright Silver Arrow SB-E SE Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus PG258Q (240hz + Gsync) WASDKeyboards.com v1 semi custom w/ mx browns, ... Superflower Golden Green HX550 Air540 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G Pro Qck+ 
  hide details  
post #946 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durquavian View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by 996gt2 View Post

Why do you think I used Techspot's benchmarks? Because they were actually testing with current-gen high-end cards like the 780, Titan, and 290X.

The fact is that at one time, a 670 was a high end card. However, ONE 780Ti or 290X is easily as fast as GTX 670 SLI. That is a huge difference in graphics power, and this is why Techspot's #s show a greater advantage for Intel. As the next generation of graphics cards roll in in a year or two, the cycle will repeat itself, with the high-end cards performing roughly like 780Ti SLI. By that time, FX is going to be a very significant bottleneck.
Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it so. Remember I posted real users that were getting great performance, actual real world performance not some half baked attempt to get out a story/review. Benches are nothing more than a reference to be taken with a grain of salt. You should look at it like this: a 20-50% possible error.

User opinions: highly subjective. Just look at Newegg reviews, for example.

Benchmarks at least maintain some degree of objectivity.

Show me all the user experiences you want, but at the end of the day, benchmark results >>>>>> user opinions. You want to prove a point but don't have the hard #s to back it up? Sorry, try again.
5 GHz SFF Box
(18 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-2700K @ 5.0 GHz, 1.38V Asus Maximus IV GENE Asus GTX 670 DC II 4x4GB Samsung 30nm @ DDR3-2133 9-9-9-21 1.5V 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Plextor M3 SSD WD Velociraptor 500GB WD Caviar Black 1TB WD Caviar Green 2TB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Thermalright HR-02 (GT AP-15 Push/Pull) Windows 7 Pro x64 LG 27" 2560x1440 S-IPS (Calibrated with Eye-One) CM Quickfire Rapid 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X-750 Silverstone SG09 Logitech MX518 Steelseries QcK 
Audio
Asus Xonar DX + Shure SRH840 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Core i5-3570K Gigabyte H61N-USB3 Mini-ITX 2x4GB Samsung 30nm DDR3 Samsung 830 128GB SSD 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
WD Scorpio Blue 500GB Win 7 Pro x64 Antec 90W DC-DC/Delta power brick Antec ISK 110 
  hide details  
5 GHz SFF Box
(18 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-2700K @ 5.0 GHz, 1.38V Asus Maximus IV GENE Asus GTX 670 DC II 4x4GB Samsung 30nm @ DDR3-2133 9-9-9-21 1.5V 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Plextor M3 SSD WD Velociraptor 500GB WD Caviar Black 1TB WD Caviar Green 2TB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Thermalright HR-02 (GT AP-15 Push/Pull) Windows 7 Pro x64 LG 27" 2560x1440 S-IPS (Calibrated with Eye-One) CM Quickfire Rapid 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X-750 Silverstone SG09 Logitech MX518 Steelseries QcK 
Audio
Asus Xonar DX + Shure SRH840 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Core i5-3570K Gigabyte H61N-USB3 Mini-ITX 2x4GB Samsung 30nm DDR3 Samsung 830 128GB SSD 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
WD Scorpio Blue 500GB Win 7 Pro x64 Antec 90W DC-DC/Delta power brick Antec ISK 110 
  hide details  
post #947 of 1593
Thread Starter 
Benches only fall outside of real world performance in the sense that they don't emulate what a user may be doing specifically. For example, a person may be running other programs and running a render in the background on a lower priority. that's real world usage. But that doesn't mean benchmarks don't reflect real world performance. After all, it's called real world usage, not real world performance -- and it's that way for a reason. You can expect the disparity in a benchmark to be relatively the same in the real world.

I mean if a video encoding benchmark says a certain performance level, you're probably going to see comparable results in real world usage.

Another factor of real world performance can also be hardware components, like SSD vs Mechanical.

I think some people take the 'real world usage' concept a little too seriously. It's a broad term, and not necessarily relevant if you assume the thing you're benchmarking has relatively the same system specs (where applicable).

When I benchmark my memory or SSD for example, I can expect my bandwidth to be in line with those benchmarks, because those benchmarks directly measure my bandwidth, including things like IOPS, 4k rand/seq - read/write, etc. Of course, you'll most likely be reading and writing to memory at the same time in real world, rather than each one by itself, so of course you might not see the full extent of the benchmark results, but that still doesn't change what the memory is capable of over another.....because under that same usage scenario, a lesser memory will obviously do more poorly.
Edited by AMDATI - 3/29/14 at 1:20am
Not Yours
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4790k ASRock Z97E-ITX/AC MSI GTX 1080Ti G.SKILL DDR3  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SAMSUNG 830 OCZ Deneva 2R WD Scorpio Noctua U14S 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Acer XB270HU IPS CM Quickfire Rapid Fractal Design 650w 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Node 304 SteelSeries Rival 700 SteelSeries Qck Sennheiser HD598 
  hide details  
Not Yours
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4790k ASRock Z97E-ITX/AC MSI GTX 1080Ti G.SKILL DDR3  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SAMSUNG 830 OCZ Deneva 2R WD Scorpio Noctua U14S 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Acer XB270HU IPS CM Quickfire Rapid Fractal Design 650w 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Node 304 SteelSeries Rival 700 SteelSeries Qck Sennheiser HD598 
  hide details  
post #948 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyro999 View Post

On the contrary i would consider people to be more fallible than benchmark measurements, as long as benchmark conditions are detailed

I tend to take both with a whole bag of salt because 60fps "most of the time" is a far cry from maintaining 120 and cpu demands can be vastly different, that's kind of a niche though
Think you missed the point. Each of those shows real performance with pics to prove the results were greater and in the realm of Real world whereas Benchmarks are not indicative of end user results. Honestly how many times does a GPU benchmark come out and a poster will question the test data based on how they setup the equipment for the test? Nearly every time. But lets not forget I also posted benches in conjunction that provided the same contradiction to the select information given the member I am rebutting below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 996gt2 View Post

User opinions: highly subjective. Just look at Newegg reviews, for example.

Benchmarks at least maintain some degree of objectivity.

Show me all the user experiences you want, but at the end of the day, benchmark results >>>>>> user opinions. You want to prove a point but don't have the hard #s to back it up? Sorry, try again.
Yeah sure. rolleyes.gif I posted graphs and pics aka: PROOF of users that , and this is becoming glaringly obvious, because it doesn't prove what you want others to see you make baseless claims that they aren't relevant. I also posted other sites Benches and a bench from your preferred and sole site for bias proof, that did more to prove my point than yours.

Again as I stated before you must be on Intels payroll in some form. This sidestepping and steering of a thread is right within the guidelines as one who is. It is obvious you are blind to any facts relevant to the case at hand if it doesn't go so far as to bolster your biased claims. I have stated nothing out of the realm of reasonable and fair. I don't pick and choose benches that only show what I want to prove, case in point the BF4 graph that blew every single point you made out of the water. You ask for proof contrary to yours but then claim arrogantly that since it doesn't have your seal of approval that it has no founding nor valid. Go ahead and live with your head in the sand. lol For all your fist pounding and arrogance I still buy AMD and enjoy it with not a single care for your disposition. thumb.gif
post #949 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durquavian View Post

Think you missed the point. Each of those shows real performance with pics to prove the results were greater and in the realm of Real world whereas Benchmarks are not indicative of end user results. Honestly how many times does a GPU benchmark come out and a poster will question the test data based on how they setup the equipment for the test? Nearly every time. But lets not forget I also posted benches in conjunction that provided the same contradiction to the select information given the member I am rebutting below.
Yeah sure. rolleyes.gif I posted graphs and pics aka: PROOF of users that , and this is becoming glaringly obvious, because it doesn't prove what you want others to see you make baseless claims that they aren't relevant. I also posted other sites Benches and a bench from your preferred and sole site for bias proof, that did more to prove my point than yours.

Again as I stated before you must be on Intels payroll in some form. This sidestepping and steering of a thread is right within the guidelines as one who is. It is obvious you are blind to any facts relevant to the case at hand if it doesn't go so far as to bolster your biased claims. I have stated nothing out of the realm of reasonable and fair. I don't pick and choose benches that only show what I want to prove, case in point the BF4 graph that blew every single point you made out of the water. You ask for proof contrary to yours but then claim arrogantly that since it doesn't have your seal of approval that it has no founding nor valid. Go ahead and live with your head in the sand. lol For all your fist pounding and arrogance I still buy AMD and enjoy it with not a single care for your disposition. thumb.gif

Don't understand your point? Your making the AMD owners look nuts at this point man wink.gif

I like my 9590 for what it is, I really do (being free helps, too). But you have to understand benchmarks are the best thing we have to judge on general real world use aka hopefully nothing in the background, etc.

Don't think anyone is on anyone's payroll here (hopefully). The bottom line is at the mid-high end, Intel has the overall better product, even though in some cases AMD can pull a slight lead, it's easily surpassed generally with a slight bump on the intel side via overclocking. And yes, of course you can overclock AMD too, I've had my 9590 at 5ghz and even that isn't suddenlty going to smash a 4770 or 4670k for that matter, let alone if they are 4ghz+
The Struggle (4k)
(20 items)
 
File Server
(12 items)
 
Lenovo G50-45
(6 items)
 
CPUGraphicsRAMOS
Athlon II X2 250u Nvidia 6150SE  2gb DDR3 1066mhz Windows 10 Home 64 bit 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
AMD A8-6410 AMD R5 Crucial Ballistix 8GB DDR3L 1866 CAS10 Crucial BX100 250gb 
Optical DriveOS
DVD Windows 10 Home 
  hide details  
The Struggle (4k)
(20 items)
 
File Server
(12 items)
 
Lenovo G50-45
(6 items)
 
CPUGraphicsRAMOS
Athlon II X2 250u Nvidia 6150SE  2gb DDR3 1066mhz Windows 10 Home 64 bit 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
AMD A8-6410 AMD R5 Crucial Ballistix 8GB DDR3L 1866 CAS10 Crucial BX100 250gb 
Optical DriveOS
DVD Windows 10 Home 
  hide details  
post #950 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoloCamo View Post

Don't understand your point? Your making the AMD owners look nuts at this point man wink.gif

I like my 9590 for what it is, I really do (being free helps, too). But you have to understand benchmarks are the best thing we have to judge on general real world use aka hopefully nothing in the background, etc.

Don't think anyone is on anyone's payroll here (hopefully). The bottom line is at the mid-high end, Intel has the overall better product, even though in some cases AMD can pull a slight lead, it's easily surpassed generally with a slight bump on the intel side via overclocking. And yes, of course you can overclock AMD too, I've had my 9590 at 5ghz and even that isn't suddenlty going to smash a 4770 or 4670k for that matter, let alone if they are 4ghz+
You have to go back and read each of his posts and you will start to see what I am basing it on. Not to mention the irrational debate of benches. I have not once Stated AMDs performance outside of fact. Fact is if one has no preconceived notions or preference I would say 4770 is the way to go between it and 8350. However if one states they want an 8350 then they should know that it will perform on task and just under the 4770. I do not lie for the sake of my choice nor have I ever.

Ok so here we go again. I will give my assessment with persoanl experiences and rational claims.

Lets start with My PC. An 8350 with 7770x2. At stock setting this would be considered a mid-end rig, probably more to the low-mid-end ( for arguments sake and to make assessments easier each tier has a low and high rank so Mid-end has three inner tiers: Low-Mid / Mid / High-mid). This is not what the debate was. It was Is AMD VIABLE for Mid-to-high End, guessing the intention was Low-High-end. Stock has some play here but this is OCN after all so we must allow for OCing and other means to attain higher levels of performance. Now back to My PC. With OCing and tweaking my PC has gone from that low-Mid-end to high-Mid-end (or atleast up to it). I am not using Mantle for this disignation. Now what is keepiong my PC from getting that Low-High-end disignation is the 7770s, their performance together is still way below a single 290 or 290X or 78Ti and so on. I make no allusion otherwise.

Now I dont see the need to bring Intel in on this outside of where the bar gets set. What an Intel CPU does at a particular price point or clock changes my PCs result none at all. But seeing how some cant do without the comparison, here it is:

The 4770 seems to be the CPU commonly used here for reference, seems X Intel series has not been mentioned or used for reference oddly enough. The 4770 is a better CPU as in more performance across the board with little exception in rare cases. But this is where context must be made and the relationship made clear. The 4770 isnt a Clear performer over the 8350, the 8350 trails but in real world results it is a reasonable 2nd and quite close. Unfortunately some here make it sound like pairing a 500k mile Pinto against a 2015 Corvette, the results would have the Corvette at a huge advantage to where the level of competition is nill in that case. Here with the 8350 and 4770 the race is much tighter. Again as I stated if no preference is made then the 4770K is the better choice minute one if performance is the factor for choice.

But again the 4770 says little of the 8350s performance as far as being able to perform as a Mid-to-High-end PC. I think it is clear from users that have posted plenty of real results backed up with proof(in other words not just saying it but proving it) that indeed it is so that the 8350 is a contender. Benchmarks are great if you are looking at plug and play and mimicking their setups, likely you will find their results somewhat accurate. But I contend that they aren't that accurate in real world assertion simply because of the number of factors involved in achieving that result. No 2 GPUs react exactly the same way nor does any 2 ram or CPUs. Even the bios on the boards can create issues for performance. Many overvolt or undervolt on auto. Beside many of these benches spend very little time and effort in making sure of 100% stability which has huge implications as the load gets higher even if only single thread.

Well that's not too big a deal. As per usual grain of salt, grain of salt. However to discount user experiences completely because of any number of issues is ridiculous. I am not talking about the AMD guy that comes in and says his CPU is better than any Intel and that Intel cheats. I am not a big fan of those, ruins it for the rest of us trying to be as impartial and true to fact as possible. But the benches I posted from users here proved that AMD can in fact perform at levels up to low-High-end, above that Intel is the sole choice, and that longevity may be in the favor of AMD and Intel so much because of Mantle and future DX implementation.

Notice I did not need to be negative about either manufacturer, I just stated the facts and without bias. It isn't that hard. Too many here act as if it was their family honor in question. They spend too much effort in bashing either side, so much so that the debate becomes bastardized. A rule I live by is if the poster uses qualifiers that have a gross negative connotation you can bet the farm they aren't telling you the whole truth. When they post benches that only show their argument in a positive light when other benches, even from the same site they posted from, show contradictory findings then it is obvious they are not in pursuit of truth but of a smear campaign. And then you know there must be something they fear you will find out or they don't want you to know. Then I advise you look for yourself and see what it is.

A post I gave in the other parallel thread to this one (same argument):
Quote:
The 920 is a good chip mind you. But there are always so many variables. In the end it is how you feel about what you have. If you are content and love your setup, then it doesn't really matter what anybody else thinks. Are they gonna buy you a new rig? Then why does their opinion mean any more than a heaping pile of dung on an Arizona highway in July.

Edited by Durquavian - 3/29/14 at 7:34am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD CPUs
This thread is locked  
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › AMD No longer a viable option for mid-high end?