AMD to release 3.5GHz 990 by the end of the year.

[sdlvx]

I don't come back at you with that. It's a direct quote from my earlier post.
Not my fault that you only read half the post.



Wrong. The E8400 will easily do a 5.5% better overclock than a 720. Even you will have to admit that.

Even with linear scaling, a 5.5% increase in clocks will not be able to make up for the deficiency the e8400 is experiencing in most of the games. Even if you were to get your e8400 up to 4.0Ghz, it would not make up for the c2d's lack of performance.

http://pctuning.tyden.cz/index.php?...view&id=12581&Itemid=44&limit=1&limitstart=21

It's going to take a lot more than 5.5% to go from 145 to 185 fps.

 

[Scali2]

Not really sure, on average air I've seen both within 200mhz of each other
E8400 ~ 4ghz, X3 720 ~ 3.8ghz

that said at default the E8400 is already 200mhz faster, so what difference is there now? they are still 200mhz apart,

See my edit above:
Here you go:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1138241
Quite a few reaching 4 GHz there on air, best one even 4.365 GHz.
What's the best a 720 did so far? 3.7?

3.0 -> 4.3 GHz is a 43% overclock.
2.8 -> 3.7 GHz is a 32% overclock.

There's your 5.5%, and more.

 

[huddy]

Flawed overclocking. Proper overclocking is actually in AMD's favor.

Proper overclocking? I didn't know voiding warranties and using coolers other than the stock cooler was proper according to AMD and intel's warranties... lol

I had an Opteron 170 that I OC'd with back in the day so I obviously know a thing or two about proper overclocking... so lemme tell you, when I pushed a Q6600 to 4.0GHz (1.41V ftw) on a really simple water loop and later an E8500 over 4.0 (1.24V ftw) easily on air, I felt really flawed, dirty, and improper when I saw all of my stability tests and benchmarks pass with flying colors.

 

[sdlvx]

See my edit above:
Here you go:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1138241
Quite a few reaching 4 GHz there on air, best one even 4.365 GHz.
What's the best a 720 did so far? 3.7?

3.0 -> 4.3 GHz is a 43% overclock.
2.8 -> 3.7 GHz is a 32% overclock.

There's your 5.5%, and more.

Ha, you've already been reduced to going back and adding more information to your posts.

The true mark of an idiot troll.

Pathetic.

That's still not enough of an increase to make up for the fact that a lot of these games are

Do I have to explain to you that if a program is properly threaded, a CPU with three threads @ 3.5Ghz is going to be faster than a dual are 4.5Ghz?

Do you not get it? Duals are on the way out.

 

[huddy]

Even with linear scaling, a 5.5% increase in clocks will not be able to make up for the deficiency the e8400 is experiencing in most of the games. Even if you were to get your e8400 up to 4.0Ghz, it would not make up for the c2d's lack of performance.

http://pctuning.tyden.cz/index.php?...view&id=12581&Itemid=44&limit=1&limitstart=21

It's going to take a lot more than 5.5% to go from 145 to 185 fps.

and it will take a monitor with a much higher refresh rate, as well as faster visual processing from our senses to appreciate that 145 to 185...

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

See my edit above:
Here you go:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1138241
Quite a few reaching 4 GHz there on air, best one even 4.365 GHz.
What's the best a 720 did so far? 3.7?

3.0 -> 4.3 GHz is a 43% overclock.
2.8 -> 3.7 GHz is a 32% overclock.

There's your 5.5%, and more.

The best the x3 720 has done is over 4Ghz(I'll find the source)
Anandtech got 3.8 on a STOCK PHENOM II 940 HEATSINK
HardOCP Got 3.7

and this is with limited time, as is with most Overclocking results vary

you can't base it on the maximum overlock, why don't you put together a nice spreadsheet and work out the average
if we were working with max then the X3 720 is 32% faster then the E8400

edit: can you people who have nothing more then insults to add just go away thanks!

 

[sdlvx]

and it will take a monitor with a much higher refresh rate, as well as faster visual processing from our senses to appreciate that 145 to 185...

But when you compare higher resolutions, they are all pretty much dead even, which indicates a GPU bottleneck, which makes this whole argument about the CPU null and void.

The whole point of a benchmark at lower resolution is to show how the CPU can handle games without a GPU bottleneck. When GTX300 series and HD 5000 series come out and the GPU bottleneck is reduced or removed, how many of you guys are going to run out and buy a whole new processor?

Without the GPU bottleneck, the Phenom 2 is faster. For an upgrade path, it shows it's the smarter choice. It is irrelevant now, but a year from now, it won't be at all.

 

[sdlvx]

The reason why I am sticking so strongly with the UT3 benchmark is is that even at 1900x1200 the e8400 is the bottleneck, not the GPU. If you were to buy an e8400 instead of a quad, when you upgrade your GPU a year from now, you're not going to see any performance increase, because you're already limited by your CPU. Look at the slope of the e8400 compared to the others.

It's pretty obvious the e8400 is not up to the task of running unreal tournament 3.

Also, all this talk of maximum overclock is irrelevant. The review was meant to show that clock for clock there is very little difference. This was a major argument of yours before, scali2. It seems you've noticed that it's been proven wrong, so you're trying to ignore it.

It doesn't matter if all of these chips were at 5.0Ghz or 2.0Ghz, the differences between the chips would more than likely maintain the same ratios.

You started by claiming the new phenom model @ 3.5Ghz couldn't compete because of the difference in instructions per cycle between the Phenom 2 Arch and the Core 2 Arch.

That was clearly proven false with the benchmarks I enclosed. Now, you've turned this into a battle of overclocking. This thread was never about overclocking or potential. Please stop changing the subject and trying to trick everyone into following you when you lose.

Not all of us are susceptible to your childish trolling mind-games.

 

[Scali2]

The best the x3 720 has done is over 4Ghz(I'll find the source)
Anandtech got 3.8 on a STOCK PHENOM II 940 HEATSINK
HardOCP Got 3.7

and this is with limited time, as is with most Overclocking results vary

you can't base it on the maximum overlock, why don't you put together a nice spreadsheet and work out the average

Well I thought that was the best we could do currently.
The 720 hasn't been around very long, so there aren't really any overclocking results from users on this forum. So we have to take overclocking results from reviews, but those will obviously be maximum overclocks, because the reviewers just want to see how far the CPU will go.
This might actually favour Phenom a bit, because these reviewers will generally have hand-picked engineering samples, which should be very good overclockers. And these reviewers are also very experienced in overclocking a system.

 

[huddy]

But when you compare higher resolutions, they are all pretty much dead even, which indicates a GPU bottleneck, which makes this whole argument about the CPU null and void.

The whole point of a benchmark at lower resolution is to show how the CPU can handle games without a GPU bottleneck. When GTX300 series and HD 5000 series come out and the GPU bottleneck is reduced or removed, how many of you guys are going to run out and buy a whole new processor?

Without the GPU bottleneck, the Phenom 2 is faster. For an upgrade path, it shows it's the smarter choice. It is irrelevant now, but a year from now, it won't be at all.

said the user with an i7... lulz. Isn't smarter choice an AMD marketing phrase iirc?

Most of my apps and games are not multithreaded... I'm not hurt by having an E8500. If I need a chip that can handle more threads, I don't have a dead upgrade path. I go and buy a used Q9550 for $230 or a new one for a bit more or a new Q9650, overclock it, and I'm enjoying multithreaded bliss...

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

Well I thought that was the best we could do currently.
The 720 hasn't been around very long, so there aren't really any overclocking results from users on this forum. So we have to take overclocking results from reviews, but those will obviously be maximum overclocks, because the reviewers just want to see how far the CPU will go.
This might actually favour Phenom a bit, because these reviewers will generally have hand-picked engineering samples, which should be very good overclockers. And these reviewers are also very experienced in overclocking a system.

Not so true in terms of "max" the clocks I listed were all "stable" Maximum Non-Stable was 3.9ghz from a review.

with more time of course more people will figure out tweaks, newer bios revisions etc will only speed up the X3s overclocking, where as the E8400 pretty much peaked in maturity.

as for hand picked samples, who knows, as more people adopt the CPU we can find out more but as it is We have to trust those samples
plus the highest overclock of the reviewers used stock 940 heatsink with the x3 720 .
if that is the same HS that comes with the X3 720, that chalks up at least a $25-$30 advantage for the X3.

 

[sdlvx]

said the user with an i7... lulz. Isn't smarter choice an AMD marketing phrase iirc?

Most of my apps and games are not multithreaded... I'm not hurt by having an E8500. If I need a chip that can handle more threads, I don't have a dead upgrade path. I go and buy a used Q9550 for $230 or a new one for a bit more or a new Q9650, overclock it, and I'm enjoying multithreaded bliss...

i7 is in a league of it's own, I'm not going to lie.

However, the lower markets belong to AMD. My previous system was an AMD and it was a great system. I bought an Opty 165 for 100 dollars, and an Asus a8n32 sli for 150. That was all the money I spent to upgrade my pentium 4 system, and I saw a world of difference.

AMD and Intel both make quality products, but I will not become a fanboy for either company.

However, AMD is getting held in an unfair light by Scali2, and I don't want to see that happen. I do not care if I am not using an AMD right now. Scali2 is lying and spreading FUD, and I don't like to see that coming from ANY camp.

And the whole smarter choice thing was a total accident, I didn't even realize it lol.

 

[BigMacAttack]

Now the forum really serves little purpose on [H]ard|Forum. As Kyle himself said: Phenom II is a loser.

Well, that's just a skewed personal opinion imo. This forum has merit for those interested in the subject matter - which is AMD CPU's. To continually beat the dead horse of Intel's i7 superiority is simply an exercise in e-peenery, at least from where I'm standing as one who is on the outside looking in.

Perhaps Phenom II is a "loser" in comparison to i7 but as the point has been made so often it is ok for some but not all. Let me ask you a question - do you own the very best, fastest or most expensive car in the world or do you drive something less? Heck, do you own a new, top of the line '09 Corvette or do you make do with something a bit less powerful? If you don't own a new 'Vette why don't you? After all, according to Motor Trend it just won a 4 way competition review recently. Can you afford it? Does it meet your needs? Why not buy one now even if you don't need it? After all, it would be "money well spent" wouldn't it?

You argue from your own perspective. There are other points of view that you need to take into consideration and you are failing to do so. I, and many others, buy computers, cars, and everything else based on a much wider range of criteria than just raw performance. I, and everyone else, is brand loyal to a certain degree. You say you buy based on what is best at the time - that is brand loyalty to a degree, too. So quit trying to proselytize and browbeat those who disagree with you and pressure them into your mold. You've made your point. Leave the people who want to talk about AMD products to their forum conversations and stop trying to either win converts or denigrate those whose opinions differ from yours. Not everyone agrees with it. Agree to disagree and quit stirring up strife. You'll feel better and so will everyone else.
BTW - I know the printed word can come across as very negative and caustic but that is not my intention here. It just seems like a lot of bickering and foolishness to me. If I, or anyone else, wants an AMD PII we'll buy it regardless of anyone else's opinion on the matter. If I am viewed as less of a person for that - well it doesn't bother me in the least. And by the same token if you want to get the top dog because its what you need and can afford I will be happy for you. There is room for all these products in the marketplace and each one will fill a niche nicely.

 

[huddy]

AMD and Intel both make quality products, but I will not become a fanboy for either company.

However, AMD is getting held in an unfair light by Scali2, and I don't want to see that happen. I do not care if I am not using an AMD right now. Scali2 is lying and spreading FUD, and I don't like to see that coming from ANY camp.

And the whole smarter choice thing was a total accident, I didn't even realize it lol.

Very true. If I hadn't already had a good Core 2 based machine, I would have given serious consideration to a Phenom II. They are excellent chips.

 

[Scali2]

Most of my apps and games are not multithreaded... I'm not hurt by having an E8500.

That argument is rubbish anyway. The benchmarks I linked to earlier, included 3 games that are known to take good advantage of multithreading (Left 4 Dead, Far Cry 2, Crysis Warhead), as was also indicated by the fact that Core2 Quad CPUs scored considerably better than their Core2 Duo cousins at the same clockspeed.
Regardless, the E8400 was ahead of all Phenom II systems, except for one occasion where the 940 was slightly faster (but all others were still slower).

So it's not like multithreaded games somehow make Phenom II into a mega gaming CPU. They are just not as far behind the Core2 Duo as they would be in poorly threaded games, such as Fallout 3 (where Core2 Duo was actually at the top of the charts).

 

[Scali2]

Well, that's just a skewed personal opinion imo. This forum has merit for those interested in the subject matter - which is AMD CPU's. To continually beat the dead horse of Intel's superiority is simply an exercise in e-peenery, at least from where I'm standing as one who is on the outside looking in.

It's not about Intel's superiority. It's about people making false claims that Phenom II is a better gaming platform than the cheaper Core2 Duo... Yes, Core2 Duo happens to be an Intel CPU.
If you go through my post history you'll also see that back when the original Phenom was up against the 6000+ and 6400+, I pointed out that the dualcores were the better gaming option.
It just so happens that AMD no longer has any competitive dualcores, so we're left with Intel's dualcores as best value for a gaming PC.

Perhaps Phenom II is a "loser" in comparison to i7 but as the point has been made so often it is ok for some but not all.

It wouldn't be an issue if it was a loser compared to i7. It's a loser compared to Core2 Quad aswell, and in many applications, including games (very popular pastime on this forum) it is also a loser to Core2 Duo.

Let me ask you a question - do you own the very best, fastest or most expensive car in the world or do you drive something less? Heck, do you own a new, top of the line '09 Corvette or do you make do with something a bit less powerful? If you don't own a new 'Vette why don't you? After all, according to Motor Trend it just won a 4 way competition review recently. Can you afford it? Does it meet your needs? Why not buy one now even if you don't need it? After all, it would be "money well spent" wouldn't it?

Being an enthusiast has little to do with what you actually own.
I don't own a Core i7 myself. I don't even own a Core2 Quad. That doesn't mean I can't be enthusiastic about the technology, or can't make judgements on what is the best CPU for a certain task.

Your argue from your own perspective. There are other points of view that you need to take into consideration and you are failing to do so.

You need to read the thread better. For quite a few pages now I have actually defended the cheap and outdated Core2 Duo because it is great bang for the buck for games.
This has nothing to do with raw performance.
Open your eyes mate. I advise people about what is the best value for money given their budget and their usage pattern, regardless of whether that's high-end or value.

You say you buy based on what is best at the time - that is brand loyalty to a degree, too.

Yea? How exactly? "Best at the time" is not a brand.

Agree to disagree and quit stirring up strife. You'll feel better and so will everyone else.

I think you shouldn't make such posts, they will never amount to anything good. Especially since you obviously haven't read my posts in this and previous threads properly, and seem to have a distorted view of what I'm all about. This makes me very sad.
I am a very experienced software engineer, with lots of experience with architecture-specific optimization and realtime 3d engines. I like to share my in-depth knowledge with those who like to hear it, and I feel very happy knowing that some people appreciate my posts and learn something from them. It's very rewarding.
There is absolutely no way I could feel happier by not posting.
As for others who don't feel happy about me posting, there is the ignore option.

 

[sdlvx]

That argument is rubbish anyway. The benchmarks I linked to earlier, included 3 games that are known to take good advantage of multithreading (Left 4 Dead, Far Cry 2, Crysis Warhead), as was also indicated by the fact that Core2 Quad CPUs scored considerably better than their Core2 Duo cousins at the same clockspeed.
Regardless, the E8400 was ahead of all Phenom II systems, except for one occasion where the 940 was slightly faster (but all others were still slower).

So it's not like multithreaded games somehow make Phenom II into a mega gaming CPU. They are just not as far behind the Core2 Duo as they would be in poorly threaded games, such as Fallout 3 (where Core2 Duo was actually at the top of the charts).

The benchmarks I linked to told a totally different story.

 

[BigMacAttack]

Scali - you are very brand loyal to Intel right now. You are the type of brand loyal person I call a "camp follower". You jump on any bandwagon that is best. That's ok - but its still brand loyalty because as long as that brand delivers you will be their willing disciple.

I am a very experienced software engineer, with lots of experience with architecture-specific optimization and realtime 3d engines. I like to share my in-depth knowledge with those who like to hear it

You're in the wrong forum methinks. You need to remember where you are - the AMD Forum. Most of the loyal AMD folks could care less about your point of view, really, That's why I said you ought to stop stirring up strife. You just can't let go and leave because you are "right." Congratulations. I'm happy for you. Now, leave those who want to talk about AMD products to their conversations and move on.

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

It's not about Intel's superiority. It's about people making false claims that Phenom II is a better gaming platform than the cheaper Core2 Duo... Yes, Core2 Duo happens to be an Intel CPU.
If you go through my post history you'll also see that back when the original Phenom was up against the 6000+ and 6400+, I pointed out that the dualcores were the better gaming option.
It just so happens that AMD no longer has any competitive dualcores, so we're left with Intel's dualcores as best value for a gaming PC.

It wouldn't be an issue if it was a loser compared to i7. It's a loser compared to Core2 Quad aswell, and in many applications, including games (very popular pastime on this forum) it is also a loser to Core2 Duo.

Being an enthusiast has little to do with what you actually own.
I don't own a Core i7 myself. I don't even own a Core2 Quad. That doesn't mean I can't be enthusiastic about the technology, or can't make judgements on what is the best CPU for a certain task.


You need to read the thread better. For quite a few pages now I have actually defended the cheap and outdated Core2 Duo because it is great bang for the buck for games.
This has nothing to do with raw performance.
Open your eyes mate. I advise people about what is the best value for money given their budget and their usage pattern, regardless of whether that's high-end or value.

Yea? How exactly? "Best at the time" is not a brand.

Still waiting for you to agree on the fact that the X3 720 is a better option then the E8400

just consider 1 thing with scaling in terms of multi-threaded performance and clock speed and having more processing cores.

Theoretically
2.8Ghz 3 core vs 3ghz 2 core
the E8400 has an advantage of 200mhz on 2 out of 3 cores, but the X3 has a 2.8ghz Advantage on a 3rd core.

@ 3.8 vs 4.0ghz
3.8Ghz now the x3 has a third core with 3.8Ghz advantage vs the 200mhz Advantage on the 2 cores the Core 2 has
(not taking into account IPC)

Lets say a third core offers 10% advantage @ 2.8Ghz X3 vs 3ghz Core 2 at 3.8Ghz vs 4Ghz Core 2 the third core should offer >10% advantage.
just a mere scaling issue as you scale the mhz up the advantage in multi-threaded apps should scale in a non linear fashion when more cores are available.

 

[Scali2]

Scali - you are very brand loyal to Intel right now. You are the type of brand loyal person I call a "camp follower". You jump on any bandwagon that is best. That's ok - but its still brand loyalty because as long as that brand delivers you will be their willing disciple.

I think that's a contradiction.
If I jump on whatever bandwagon is best, that means I hop from one brand to the next whenever it suits me, and as such constitutes that I have no loyalty to the brand whatsoever. I'm only being loyal to the concept of getting the product that gives me the best value for money.

 

[BigMacAttack]

I'm only being loyal to the concept of getting the product that gives me the best value for money.

And proselytizing for the company that delivers for you to any and everyone. That's where the brand loyalty part comes in. As long as they are good to and for you, you are loyal to them by buying their product and telling others about it. We all do that. And we'll wait for that company's next product and lean toward it until it is proven inferior.
I'm not trying to slam you, like I said its ok - we all do it. I'm just trying to get you to see the fallacy of believing you are not brand loyal because you are - just like all the rest of us.

 

[Scali2]

And proselytizing for them to any and everyone. That's where the brand loyalty part comes in. As long as they are good to and for you, you are loyal to them by buying their product and telling others about it. I'm not trying to slam you, like I said its ok - we all do it. I'm just trying to get you to see the fallacy of believing you are not brand loyal because you are - just like all the rest of us.

Well, I'll disagree on that.
In the past I would have recommended either brand, depending on which brand was best for the task...
But currently Intel has such a strong lineup, that it's almost impossible to find any scenario where AMD is significantly better. At best, AMD is a few bucks cheaper here, or a few % faster there... but it's just not very convincing.
The only clear-cut case for AMD's current product line is that they can be used in existing Am2+ boards.
AMD has just made it very difficult for themselves by basically only operating in the sub-$200 bracket now. A lot of people simply have more to spend on a CPU (heck, all the AMD CPUs I've owned were well over $200). Like I said before, if you can afford a Core i7 920, it's a no-brainer. It's incredible bang for the buck.

 

[BigMacAttack]

In the past I would have recommended either brand, depending on which brand was best for the task...
But currently Intel has such a strong lineup, that it's almost impossible to find any scenario where AMD is significantly better. At best, AMD is a few bucks cheaper here, or a few % faster there... but it's just not very convincing.
The only clear-cut case for AMD's current product line is that they can be used in existing Am2+ boards.
AMD has just made it very difficult for themselves by basically only operating in the sub-$200 bracket now. A lot of people simply have more to spend on a CPU (heck, all the AMD CPUs I've owned were well over $200). Like I said before, if you can afford a Core i7 920, it's a no-brainer. It's incredible bang for the buck.

Well said. I'll not disagree with your assessment there.

As I said, you still seem to lean toward Intel even on the low priced end where AMD seems to be on a par with Intel. This is why I said it seems that your loyalty lies with Intel.

As for your assessment on AMD's position I agree that AMD is in a tight spot. They do need to ramp up their product if they want to contend for the top spot. But it seems they are willing to just hold the line for the time being. After the Phenom I debacle that may not be a bad position to take for the moment.

A lot of people simply have more to spend on a CPU (heck, all the AMD CPUs I've owned were well over $200). Like I said before, if you can afford a Core i7 920, it's a no-brainer. It's incredible bang for the buck.

I'll agree with you on that. If you can afford it - go for it and wring everything you can from it if that is what makes you happy. I wouldn't begrudge anyone for that.

 

[Scali2]

Well said. I'll not disagree with your assessment there.

You see, it's all just a matter of perspective.

 

[BigMacAttack]

Of course. But for those who don't need/can't afford the top dog there are plenty of little dogs available in both camps that will fill the bill nicely. I think we can both agree on that, too.

 

[Scali2]

Of course. But for those who don't need/can't afford the top dog there are plenty of little dogs available in both camps that will fill the bill nicely. I think we can both agree on that, too.

Well not really.
The i7 920 isn't even Intel's "big dog".
There's still the 940 and 965 above that, and soon the 950 and 975.
Then there's the QX9770, Q9650, Q9550... and then somewhere AMD finally comes in sight.
And as said earlier, if you're only looking at games, that brings the Core2 Duo back in focus, still incredibly good value for money in a gaming machine.

So it's like a lot of dogs from Intel, and a few very very tiny dogs from AMD still trying to find their way in there somehow.
I certainly wouldn't say there are "plenty of dogs" on AMD's side at this time.
It's nothing like back in the Pentium 4 vs Athlon XP days where nearly every CPU had a direct competitor.
Currently there's a whole bunch of nothing above the $200 mark from AMD.
Now I don't know about the rest of you guys here, but I personally have never spent less than $200 on any CPU, simply because under that price point, you generally only got last generation's budget garbage. Buying a last-gen product is just something that I as an enthusiast can't bring myself to do. I generally direct my upgrades so that they are just after a new generation of CPUs (or GPUs for that matter) is released, and some good mainstream/bang-for-the-buck models have arrived. This is how I got my E6600 at the time... or my 8800GTS. Currently the i7 920 would be that part. It's just that I don't feel like upgrading yet, because well... read back the thread... I've been saying that the E8400 is a great gaming CPU... my E6600 running at 3 GHz is pretty much the same thing. Still plenty of juice for the latest games. So I'll just keep my money in my pocket for now. I could afford an i7 920, but I could also stick it out for another year, and then I can get the 32 nm equivalent for the same amount of money then.

 

[BigMacAttack]

There you go again...

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

Well not really.
The i7 920 isn't even Intel's "big dog".
There's still the 940 and 965 above that, and soon the 950 and 975.
Then there's the QX9770, Q9650, Q9550... and then somewhere AMD finally comes in sight.
And as said earlier, if you're only looking at games, that brings the Core2 Duo back in focus, still incredibly good value for money in a gaming machine.

So it's like a lot of dogs from Intel, and a few very very tiny dogs from AMD still trying to find their way in there somehow.
I certainly wouldn't say there are "plenty of dogs" on AMD's side at this time.
It's nothing like back in the Pentium 4 vs Athlon XP days where nearly every CPU had a direct competitor.
Currently there's a whole bunch of nothing above the $200 mark from AMD.

sure about $200 but below $200 AMD has a fair bit of competitors just like the amazing X3 720

 

[Scali2]

There you go again...

What exactly is that supposed to mean?

 

[BigMacAttack]

I like the "budget garbage" myself (in case you didn't notice my sig ). "One man's trash is another man's treasure." Just because one can't keep up with the latest and best hardware doesn't make one any less [H]ard it just makes him less fortunate.

 

[maxius]

PUT THE COMPUTER DOWN and go outside jesus and yes the am3 platform is still in its infancy it has room grow and become a better platform. new am3 chips will come amd is on 45nm till q4 of 2010 what is out now is not the only feather in the hat. again go outside

 

[BigMacAttack]

What exactly is that supposed to mean?

Proselytizing for the Intel camp again...
Sorry Maxius - but you just cracked me up!

 

[Scali2]

Proselytizing for the Intel camp again...
Sorry Maxius - but you just cracked me up!

Okay, I'm getting tired of this. I merely stated some facts. It seems you are the one that's overly sensitive to these facts, and are trying to shoot the messenger.

 

[BigMacAttack]

Dude, chill. I offered what I thought was a pertinent assessment of the market and you came back with "not really" and proceeded to go on and on about your wonderful Intel lineup. Why is it so hard for you to agree that Intel isn't the only option available and desireable in the lower end market? If I am "overly sensitive" then you are "overly critical" and unable to come into any kind of agreement with anyone who disagrees with your point of view. If I may quote the late Larry Norman; "curb your dogma."

 

[Scali2]

Dude, chill. I offered what I thought was a pertinent assessment and you came back with "not really" and proceeded to go on and on about your wonderful Intel lineup. Why is it so hard for you to agree that Intel isn't the only option available and desireable in the lower end market? If I am "overly sensitive" then you are "overly critical" and unable to come into any kind of agreement with anyone who disagrees with your point of view.

Look mate, I am an engineer. I only care about technical discussion, as such I will stick to facts and logic in my posts. Even when I give my opinion, I will support this opinion with a good breakdown of the facts and logic that formed this opinion.
You however are constantly attacking me personally for this. Don't make it personal. Don't say things like "your wonderful Intel lineup", because Intel has nothing to do with me, I am in no way affiliated with Intel, so as such in no way is it "my Intel lineup".

So I am fed up with you trying to derail this into a personal thing with your thinly veiled insults. You've had your last chance.
If you don't agree with me, fine. But that is in no way any kind of excuse for your behaviour. I cannot come to an agreement with you because you won't let me. You constantly bring up new points of discussion, and then somehow find it strange when I respond?
Do not EVER make things personal, that is against forum rules. If you want to argue, do as I do... Do it with facts and logic, and be respectful to others. Don't make things personal, don't try to give them some "psycho-analysis". That is considered very poor form and hugely insulting.

In fact, look at what I did with Digital-Viper-X. We can't seem to reach an agreement on whether the E8400 or the X3 720 is the better value for money. There aren't enough facts to reach a decision either way. So I just agreed to disagree with him, even though he seems to want to continue the discussion. I just didn't have more to add at this point.
Or with sdlvx... I just ignored most of what he said, because I didn't think further discussion would lead anywhere.

 

[Atech]

Look mate, I am an engineer. I only care about technical discussion, as such I will stick to facts and logic in my posts. Even when I give my opinion, I will support this opinion with a good breakdown of the facts and logic that formed this opinion.
You however are constantly attacking me personally for this. Don't make it personal. Don't say things like "your wonderful Intel lineup", because Intel has nothing to do with me, I am in no way affiliated with Intel, so as such in no way is it "my Intel lineup".

So I am fed up with you trying to derail this into a personal thing with your thinly veiled insults. You've had your last chance.
If you don't agree with me, fine. But that is in no way any kind of excuse for your behaviour. I cannot come to an agreement with you because you won't let me. You constantly bring up new points of discussion, and then somehow find it strange when I respond?
Do not EVER make things personal, that is against forum rules. If you want to argue, do as I do... Do it with facts and logic, and be respectful to others. Don't make things personal, don't try to give them some "psycho-analysis". That is considered very poor form and hugely insulting.

Don't worry, that can't beat the facts, so they try with fallacies...typical fanboyism

 

[BigMacAttack]

Look mate, I am an engineer. I only care about technical discussion, as such I will stick to facts and logic in my posts. Even when I give my opinion, I will support this opinion with a good breakdown of the facts and logic that formed this opinion.
You however are constantly attacking me personally for this. Don't make it personal. Don't say things like "your wonderful Intel lineup", because Intel has nothing to do with me, I am in no way affiliated with Intel, so as such in no way is it "my Intel lineup".

So I am fed up with you trying to derail this into a personal thing with your thinly veiled insults. You've had your last chance.
If you don't agree with me, fine. But that is in no way any kind of excuse for your behaviour. I cannot come to an agreement with you because you won't let me. You constantly bring up new points of discussion, and then somehow find it strange when I respond?
Do not EVER make things personal, that is against forum rules. If you want to argue, do as I do... Do it with facts and logic, and be respectful to others. Don't make things personal, don't try to give them some "psycho-analysis". That is considered very poor form and hugely insulting.

Just because you are an engineer doen't make it ok for you to look down or denigrate others just because they disagree with you. You are no better than anyone else so get off your high horse and stop the arrogance.

I tried to offer a point of agreement which you promptly shot down. Get over yourself for one minute and go on back where you belong in the Intel side of the forum. If you want to make it personal go ahead - that wasn't my intention but if you feel that way I can't change your mind.

Take your facts to a place where someone gives 2 cents for them. Speaking as a single AMD enthusiast in this thread I can say plainly that I have had well enough of your arrogance. I tried to come to a place of agreement and you would have none of it. Go somewhere else where the members will stroke your gigantic ego.

Or, as you menioned in a previous post for someone to do to you, just put me on mute.

 

[BigMacAttack]

Don't worry, that can't beat the facts, so they try with fallacies...typical fanboyism

I am not disagreeing with his assessment that Intel holds the top spot with i7 - its a well known fact. However, his assessment on other products is a bit less factual and is based on his personal preference, which has been clearly established. There is competition in certain market segments whether some wish to believe it or not. Contending so strenuously for the rival of the Forum objective (being AMD CPU's) seems rather like rowing upstream against a moving current. Of course there is going to be opposition. I don't frequent the Intel Forum because it doesn't interest me and I am not going to start contention over there. Seems to me that some folks don't have the good sense to do likewise in here.

 

[Scali2]

Just because you are an engineer doen't make it ok for you to look down or denigrate others just because they disagree with you. You are no better than anyone else so get off your high horse and stop the arrogance.

I disagreed with you, nothing more (I certainly didn't make it personal and say anything like 'Wow I think you're pretty stupid for thinking something like that'). If you think that's arrogant, that says more about you and how you see yourself as being better than others.

I tried to offer a point of agreement which you promptly shot down.

Well obviously, as my point clearly points out that your assessment was slanted. At one point we are discussing the Core i7 920, the next point you are calling it Intel's "top dog", which it clearly isn't.
Here's a tip: If you want to come to an agreement with someone, don't try to do it with statements that are highly debatable, and not likely to be accepted by the other party.

 

[BigMacAttack]

If I may - this is what I said:

But for those who don't need/can't afford the top dog there are plenty of little dogs available in both camps that will fill the bill nicely. I think we can both agree on that, too.

You are the one who views this as "highly debatable" so who is the more sensitive? I was trying to come to an amiable agreement with you and all you had to say was either nothing at all or "perhaps in certain segments" or some such thing. But that is not what happened, now is it? You could have let it go but didn't. All I said was "there you go again..." (after your lengthy response) with a smiley in front of it hoping you'd get the humor in what we had just talked about concerning brand loyalty but you missed it entirely and got your feathers all ruffled.
Here is a tip for you - learn some tactfulness and discernment - it will take you a long way.

And sorry - I didn't realize the i7 920 wasn't the big dog. I stand corrected. To me the i7, any i7, is the "big dog" because its the leader in performance right now.