Jump to content

34 posts in this topic

Posted

I love the surface and want one so badly I can't even describe it. It's like I'm 5 and Christmas is only a couple days away. I wouldn't buy one with an AMD CPU. I love them in my desktops (and use them exclusively), but I don't like their mobile solutions. I'm sure I'd like their graphics better than Intel's, but it's just not worth it IMO. I do wish they'd use nVidia graphics instead, though, I'm sure they could've done that if they really wanted to. I think these will be capable of some light gaming (hell, I plan on at least trying to play Guild Wars 2 on it, since it seems to run (with slooow load times) on my wife's aging Intel HD 3000-powered laptop) but they aren't being made as portable gaming machines, and I'm ok with that. That's why I have a desktop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='jorel009' timestamp='1340481976' post='594953709']
omg....enough with sandybridge, ivy is less efficient and more power hungry then sandy...dont you get that? i did not say anything about sandy, i was talking about ivy bridge vs trinity power consumption. they could make both options, they dont need to stay with just intel.
[/quote]

You're comparing one CPU to another, comparing a high end Intel, to a lower end AMD one. and then taking it as gospel for the entire series.

/shamelessly stolen by what Pandya's told me over IRC.


[quote name='jorel009' timestamp='1340414896' post='594952001']
you know most people in this thread dont know wtf they are talking about...and its sad.
[/quote]

WUT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Wakers' timestamp='1340305519' post='594948899']
For the same reason that you don't buy a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I thought MS specifically mentioned IvyBridge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Wakers' timestamp='1340440308' post='594952523']
Sorry but - if you want a laptop / desktop replacement, only silly people would consciously choose an amd chip of any description over an i5. It's that simple.
[/quote]

My Laptop begs to differ since with my customizations I tend to be closer to lower ends i7s, and mostly on par with i5, for a fraction of the price and far better graphics power.

Translated: I paid far less money for such an amazing machine. All of the people complaining about APUs surely haven't tested their real power using both overclocking abilities in both CPU and GPU (dedicated)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Arceles' timestamp='1340643140' post='594957673']
My Laptop begs to differ since with my customizations I tend to be closer to lower ends i7s, and mostly on par with i5, for a fraction of the price and far better graphics power.

Translated: I paid far less money for such an amazing machine. All of the people complaining about APUs surely haven't tested their real power using both overclocking abilities in both CPU and GPU (dedicated)
[/quote]

No, you're not. You're deluding yourself because you spent a chunk of money. That's normal.

Intel CPUs are way above and beyond the supposed "competing" AMD CPUs in every range. This is CPU only, mind. Of course, as soon as you get an Intel with a dedicated mobile GPU, it again blows any competing AMD chip out of the water. Anecdotal evidence aside, you only need look at the benchmarks.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='jorel009' timestamp='1340481976' post='594953709']
omg....enough with sandybridge, ivy is less efficient and more power hungry then sandy...dont you get that?
[/quote]

Mega FAIL. Clearly you have ZERO clue of what you are talking about.
Posting the same graph over and over doesn't make any of AMD's stuff better than Intel.

You seriously need to take off the fanboy glasses, dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Wakers' timestamp='1340653230' post='594958079']


No, you're not. You're deluding yourself because you spent a chunk of money. That's normal.

Intel CPUs are way above and beyond the supposed "competing" AMD CPUs in every range. This is CPU only, mind. Of course, as soon as you get an Intel with a dedicated mobile GPU, it again blows any competing AMD chip out of the water. Anecdotal evidence aside, you only need look at the benchmarks.
[/quote]

noone has argued intel isn't faster(if i remember correctly aceles laptop is hardly a laptop anymorr even), the point argued is that AMD is just as good for gaming, and upyou get a far betterr gaming computer for the same amount of money with an AMD.

and my evidence of both the computers I sell and my own home desktop gaming computer is hardly anecdotal.

but then again you just ignore any posts that you can't argue with outside ofyour argument that"AMD sucks". I doubt you've even tried an amd computer in the last few years based on your posts.

you can play any game released today on highest settings for less money on and AMD. and because the requirements on a gaming computer is highly dependent on gpu and very little on cpu when a new game is released that it can't run on highest, it's not because of the cpu and both it and the more expensive intel computer( with an i7 that never gets even close to 50% utilized) will need to be updated.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

There's nothing wrong with AMD processors, they're perfectly performant, and of course you can game on them. They've also got a price/performance sweet-spot in the midrange. They don't have the ultimate performance crown, and they don't have have the performance/watt figures that Intel have, which is why ivy Bridge is the better solution for the Surface (although it will add to the cost). It is amusing though, how much people overspend on Intel based systems and end up getting high end i7s for gaming, which is totally unnecessary. Games stop being CPU bottlenecked well within AMD's performance envelope.

I think the ultimate reason Microsoft went with an Intel solution was as much partner relationship as anything performance/watt of their chips; Intel have been known to do custom spins of certain chips for specific customer requirements (first generation MacBook Airs for example). It might be that kind of custom spin that particularly fits Surface in a way that a more off-the-shelf solution from AMD wasn't able to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.