Originally Posted by tweezlednutball
TBH, I like my 8350 better than my 3930k. 8350 at 4.7Ghz and 3930k @ 4.4. the 3930k renders a bit faster but doesnt handle multi-tasking nearly as well and doesn't feel as "snappy".
As an owner of FX and SB-E parts, I'm confident in calling such a claim a complete farce. You have to be doing something very wrong for an eight core FX to perform better than a hex core SB-E in anything outside the most rare of scenarios.
Originally Posted by Stay Puft
Right now a 4770K/Z87 Killer will run you 418.99 AR on newegg. Now unless you're a teenager working for Chick fil a how cant you afford that?
If something can get the job that needs to be done for less, I may well have a better use for the difference. You don't need to be broke to be frugal.
Originally Posted by Liranan
They are compensating for lower single threaded performance through increased speeds. Intel did the same when it came to Netburst.
Both parts had poor IPC relative to their competition, and neither scaleshigh enough in clock speed to overcome this deficit, resulting in objectively poor single threaded performance.
Originally Posted by Liranan
Ever heard of supporting the underdog
I support the underdog whenever the cause is just, or when the underdog is the pragmatic option, not simply because it happens to be the underdog.
AMD was the underdog in the Athlon 64/X2 days, and I bought such chips by the fistful. I only rarely buy or recommend AMD parts for new systems now. They are still the underdog, but they aren't as competitive in as many niches as they used to be.
Originally Posted by PostalTwinkie
The perceivable difference in browsing between an Intel Pentum, versus their i7 brother, is minimal at best. There is a notable difference between something like an Atom and a Pentium, but not so much after the Pentium when it comes to web browsing.
Browsing performance has more to do with your browser and where you keep your cache folders than CPU performance.
My 900MHz Celeron M (about as fast as a 1.2GHz Pentium III) netbook can generally browse the net and word process just as well as my 4.5GHz 4930k as long as I'm actively using less than about twenty tabs.
Originally Posted by Particle
CPU time used in parsing the bloated markup and executing the bloated pile of scripts common on sites today. Noscript and ABP help, but I still hate the modern web. The web browsing situation was much better in the mid 2000s.
I do agree with this. Some sites are bloated far beyond reason, resulting in them eating far more resources than is remotely justifiable.
Originally Posted by Ceadderman
As much as I like the idea of HyperThreading, it's not worth the extra $800. Don't get me wrong if I had the $1000 to chuck into a CPU without night terrors as a result after purchase, I would do it for the e-peen. But c'mon you really believe HT is worth the extra $ for this CPU versus the AMD 8 core CPU?
Hyperthreading doesn't cost $800.
Anyway, raw price vs performance ratios are optimal at very low on the budget scale. The problem with going for best value, to the neglect of everything else, is that you may not reach the minimal level of performance that is acceptable for a desired task/use.
When I was replacing my Gulftown with a new setup for my primary use, I flatly ruled out AMD, not because the price vs. performance wasn't sufficient, but because the absolute fastest AMD setup I could get (an FX-8150 or a Thuban, at the time) was slower than what I already had (a 4.2GHz i7 970, 6c/12t), and what I already had was falling below that minimum acceptable level for what I wanted to do.Edited by Blameless - 3/22/14 at 10:59pm