Intel releases Mother-Of-All-FUD doc

I wonder how much Intel paid ATi to make that for them?

WAIT... I have to get a pair of boots on to wade through that crapolla

These things crack me up

Well.

I can see the immaturity level that most of you divulge.

First of all, for those who can't read:

Quote:
Are you kids too ignorant to realize that part? If Intel is going to develop a tool in which their CPU will excel at and not "other".....why such shocker?

Do you think that my 660 will excel at this: AMD N-Bench 3.1.

Should I go and rant about AMD now? Sorry, ignorance is not my forte.

I guess none of you have seen the Pepsi vs Coke commercials here ah?

Zoom-Zoom-Zoom........Mazda being better than Honda, Toyota or Nissan? LOL

Belive what you like, being naive and gullible do hand-in-hand.

Quote:
Clam down my friend youll just insite more arguing, i am personally getting sick of the intel/AMD debates both sides need to get over it and realize NEITHER side is superior indefinatly....

I own both platforms (Intel and AMD) and for me this is the funniest thing I have ever seen. I think someone fast-tracked it through the PR dept as Intel hasn't ever bashed AMD in such a way before. Of course an Intel will beat an AMD at it's own benchmark, duh. What surprises me is the total lack of latencies in their publication. But like I said, owning both I see where one exceeds over the other and it all balances out in the end. One does not "trounce" the other in any way. My highest value folders are OC'd Intels, but my best gamers are my OC'd AMDs. If I want to burn DvDs or encode audio, I use my Intels, they just do it faster. And I play CS:S on my A64 because with my nVidia chipset and card, it just gets more FPS. See? It all balances out! Anywho that was a funny read!

Quote:
I guess I stopped being 15 when I was 15.

The irrationality of being. You have to realize though that most will jump into conclusions right away. Oh well! that's all I had to say 'bout that.

I think its funny how the Intel Pentuim 870 Extreme Edition (or whatever)'s AMD equilelant is the 4400+ X2 and its $600 Less. No matter how much they get whipped, Intel continues to promote the aging P4 CPU. Like AMDs developed a faster CPU, because they had to work to beat Intel (it worked) while intel was being lazy not thinking AMD would do it. Like Dell, they are looked apon as the n00b computer because all they use is Intel chips, you pay a premium for dedicated GFX, i dont think the $6000 XPS system even comes with SLI, and the prices are like $299.99 then the next step is $600. In buisness week Mag, it said Dell would start to ship computers with AMD chips starting mid-2006 (finally). Until Intel comes out with a NEW chip (not counting Viiv) they are going to get whipped every day by AMD.

Higgins - Rox on

Quote:
Right, so can you point me to the exact post in this thread where one single member specifically picked up on that specific point in the article? Didn't think so.

Did you also not read the rest of the article on the Inquirer? Allow me to illustrate some key areas for you:

Quote:
Here Intel claims they beat AMD, while independent sources say otherwise. Clear enough for you?

Quote:
This is where Intel belives that their onboard graphics technology is superior to nVidia and ATi. Do you think this is a reasonable claim?

Quote:
Does that bit need an explanation?

Quote:
Once more, Intel claims a win while the real world says otherwise.

The point you pick out, about the AMD failing the Intel benchmark - do you not see something slightly fishy with that considering the AMD wins in retail tests? Or are you to immature to realise that?

Quote:

So true .

I can't understand what the fuss is about. All the artical represents is the Inquirer reporters opinion, nothing more.

Here is an example;

Quote:
I would have thought that anyone who is even remotely hardware savvy would know that any onboard graphics are inferior to a proper graphics card. It looks to me that Intel are compareing their own onboard graphics to other onboard graphics. Yet the author deems that worthy to "dock points" from Intel. As for slamming the article because Intel are boasting about what is so good about their CPU's I don't suppose anyone remembers that stupid boxing match video when the AMD Opteron came out ontop every time? Marketing pure and simple and yet The Inquirer deems this as worthy of a report. All I can say to the author is get a Pentium D 920 and overclock it, then start complaining.

As for to being able to run games thats also a load of cobblers. A friend of mine has a package PC from Hewlette Packard so he uses that Intel onboard Extreme Graphics but is still able to play DOOM 3. He plays on damn near the lowest settings possible but it still runs at a playable rate. Obviously a 6 series or 7 series card will wipe the floor with the Intel Extreme Graphics.

Quote:
I guess you can't put two and two together? I would suggest you read what my point is so you can "clearly" understand what the meaning was and why such difference are going to be shown for either platform benching in their own tool.

That last part I quoted shows that you haven't, and I just happen to see it that way.

Or should I break it down in pieces so that the puzzle can be a little more obvious? One point, that's all I made, can you see it? And I rarely read the inquirer's articles, that one in particular was made for this type of discussion which I can see in two paragraphs, which is: Intel is better because Intel says so. Then you'll have the entire AMD allegiance starting to get real upset over something that irrelevant. Case in point: this post.

That article is ridiculous, not worth an AMD vs Intel discussion, it's just the view of some poor shmuck that found that God knows where?