Jump to content
|Topic||Stats||Last action by|
|Apple Watch starting to win design awards||
|Best current forum software?||
|If S6 fails then Flagship is dead for Android||
|ULA wants the public to name its next rocket||
Posted 16 January 2013 - 19:56
Posted 16 January 2013 - 20:30
Well you claimed an i3 was as fast as an AMD.
as I said, the i3 doesn't come close to the x6. not in general computing, not in gaming and certainly not in heavy computing.
Posted 16 January 2013 - 20:51
Posted 16 January 2013 - 20:57
well, my actual real world experience tells me otherwise.
my i5 sure, that's better than my X6, unless it's heavy multithreaded, but I have yet to see an i3, any generation, that doesn't feel sluggish compared to my X6.
Posted 16 January 2013 - 21:19
Posted 16 January 2013 - 22:03
It would be sad if the X6 WASN'T faster than an i3.
Posted 16 January 2013 - 22:07
Next upgrade I will probably go i5 though, unless AMD offers a CPU offering similar performance for cheaper and with more cores
Posted 17 January 2013 - 08:35
Posted 17 January 2013 - 20:12
See what the Steamroller / Excavator brings to the table. If it has been pushed back to 2014 that's going to blow.
Posted 17 January 2013 - 20:23
Posted 17 January 2013 - 20:56
You missed my point by about a country mile....
Look at INTEL's r&d budget. and then look at AMD's... if intel can push out the holy grail on cpus and then right behind them comes AMD and misses their performance benchmark by a few clicks then its game over. now if AMD had the same budget that INTEL had like it did when the AMD ATHLON 64 Socket 939 intel would have to swallow its pride.
Remember AMD doesn't have the cash that intel does, and with the AMD FX they can either keep up or surpass intel, if I were an INTEL fan, id be ashamed. and oh by the way... how much more do you have to spend to get an CORE I7 vs an AMD FX 8 Core 8350.....exactly!
I rest my case.
Posted 17 January 2013 - 21:01
Posted 17 January 2013 - 21:03
It's a conspiracy