Originally Posted by Slappa
2 months ago. But it has been sitting below 300 for longer than 2 months. At the time it was extremely competitively priced. Remember. SB is 1 month old.
Benchmarks are benchmarks. Real world I can see encoding being faster. But for games. Absolutely negligable.
And when I bought the 1090T it was right there with the i5-750, but the single thread and gaming performance was lacking. The 1090T was just as fast as the 555 I had, and the 965 I had in almost ever game I played. Why even have a x6? It makes almost no sense for most users. Gamers clearly don't need 6 slow cores.
I would agree the gaming aspect is decent enough on the AMD chips, until you start adding more gpus, at which point they become a massive bottleneck. I already saw a 70% bottleneck in Vantage on my 1090T with 4.4Ghz core, 3.2GHz NB. And that was with a single gtx 470.
Sure you don't need two or three high end gpus, but you don't need an x6 either, so don't try to argue from that vantage point because you'll be in the same spot.
Originally Posted by Artikbot
Yes you do. You're pretending that a chip bought six months later to launch would still keep up with Intel's flagship brand new architecture.
And that sir, is having a logical problem.
You have a point there. Are you going to win... 3 FPS above 60? 12 above 130? Geez, that's useless.
All I've stated was that at the $180-$225 price point INTEL is clearly the better choice, there is currently almost no reason to buy an AMD 965 or higher.
AMD is not your buddy, and they aren't your friend. They're trying to run a business based off making money, and because their performance has been so lacking over the last 6 years they've gained a reputation of providing decent performance at a good price. And while that is nice, it's not because AMD is an angel, it's because they had no other option.