No. I don't get free hardware, I pay for it.
@octoberasian:
I'm not going to requote your horrible rant, but get this through your head: you don't know anyone here. 40+ FPS may matter to some, slightly less encoding time may matter to some, slightly lower temps may matter to some, etc.
Sorry for the rant . For what it's worth I edited out the objectionable part. But whether or not above 40 fps matters to somebody science shows it is useless. You have to have some objective scientific standards to determine whether a benchmark means something in the real world OBJECTIVELY, not subjectively. The above 40 fps is USELESS and of NO significance to the human eye ,case closed. The lower temps may be more important an issue but probably less power is the only REAL issue that Intel is ahead on right now. That will change after the 28 NM process is completed at Global Foundries. That process produces a better thermal result than .22 nm Intel chips according to the GF technical advisories. The reason for the delay in .28 nm process at this foundry was soley due to the change of the business model there when they were spun off by AMD. This set them back a good year. If AMD ever gets the Steamroller cpu taped out, the rest should now fall in line smoothly. Yes the Intel cpu has some advantages , the AMD has others . But in real terms the differences are meaningless to 99% of all computer users. The FPS issue is totally bogus though. Nobody has proven the importance having higher than 40 fps
in a game, only rantings that I "like it better"or "I feel more comfortable with it". Subjective fantasy vs objective reality standards.