EPTAMD vs Intel - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
zgl
United States1055 Posts
| ||
|
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
| ||
|
writer22816
United States5775 Posts
| ||
|
Ecael
United States6703 Posts
Actually, Haduken, if it costs 5k, I am willing to bet it isn't something that'd appeal to audiophiles. The more I think the odder I find it, Audiophiles would probably want a Xonar Essence or simply have a complete build using outside components, the former is nowhere near 5k (in fact, it isn't a far cry from 4 digits), and the latter isn't a card. Blowing 5k on a complete system is one thing, on one sound card...? | ||
|
EGMachine
United States1643 Posts
| ||
|
uNcontroLable
United States1180 Posts
Ever. greatest.. | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
Thanks Intel. I love you. | ||
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
| ||
|
zgl
United States1055 Posts
On October 10 2009 13:38 Ecael wrote: What sound card cost 5k? There isn't enough space physically to put $5k's worth of components on it afaik... Actually, Haduken, if it costs 5k, I am willing to bet it isn't something that'd appeal to audiophiles. The more I think the odder I find it, Audiophiles would probably want a Xonar Essence or simply have a complete build using outside components, the former is nowhere near 5k (in fact, it isn't a far cry from 4 digits), and the latter isn't a card. Blowing 5k on a complete system is one thing, on one sound card...? Who says it has to go inside the computer :p Its this DAC http://www.msbtech.com/products/gold4.php | ||
|
Husky
United States3362 Posts
It used to be so easy to compare them, now I'm totally lost. Trying to wade through all the posts to make a good decision... | ||
|
Saddened Izzy
United States198 Posts
On October 09 2009 12:58 motbob wrote: I love AMD... they forced Intel to get their act together near the end of the Pentium 4's lifecycle. Now Intel is generally blowing them out of the water but that's a good thing for the consumer.  History - AMD was seeded by ibm to creative competition with intel in proving them chips. AMD is atleast doing something now that is worth mentioning. Frankly for the past several years they seemed to be more of a failure in providing good competition after intel's crappy Pentium cycle AMD seemed great. But i mean when C2D hit the shelves it just blew the shit out of amd in performance they amd bleed red ink for several years and still does even with buying of ATI carrying some decent profits. C2D and C2Q up until what? a year ago was undisputed in performance esp with AMD shitty start with their phenom line. Thankfully Phenom II performed quite nicely against C2Q. Still intel is king at lower end esp wolfdale chips to enthusiasts you can oc one of those suckers to death of a pretty cheap board at v1.45 on air without too much risk. Lucky now the basically butchered decent chips from their quad core line proves better performance at stock speeds. Making AMD a good market choice $50-$130 range for those who wont OC. Intel is still pretty far again with i5 and i7 in games the best of AMD can keep up but else where they just get totally slaughter. But keeping up in gaming performance is basically what AMD's fans have been begging for. Also 955 and 965 is hardly competition for i5 i7 line up it bests cheapest chip in games but that's it else were it just get again demolished. Frankly AMD is amazing how they can constantly bleed red ink for years now and still be afloat. I really wish AMD will pick it up in their design i know they don't have the budget Intel has but it's intel only competition in the x86 cpu biz AMD at least isn't hurting their fans anymore in gaming performance but most people do want more and the lure of intel line up is pretty dam good Also comment i3 most likely will have disabled HT to keep the price/performance clean for itnel although form a design standpoint the i5 didn't have to have HT disabled nothing is stopping it from having HT it's mainly done so intel doesn't undermined itself like AMD is, their price/performance board is so cluttered now 50-180 dollars so many cpu's to fit your needs from AMD HT isn't important in games currently but i love it as an multi-tasker and someone that does encoding etc. | ||
|
zeroimagination
18 Posts
On October 10 2009 15:46 Saddened Izzy wrote: Also comment i3 most likely will have disabled HT to keep the price/performance clean for itnel although form a design standpoint the i5 didn't have to have HT disabled nothing is stopping it from having HT it's mainly done so intel doesn't undermined itself like AMD is, their price/performance board is so cluttered now 50-180 dollars so many cpu's to fit your needs from AMD HT isn't important in games currently but i love it as an multi-tasker and someone that does encoding etc. The rumor going around is that both the i5 and i3 will have HT. It's makes a lot of sense, it allows Intel to compete with AMD's physical core advantage for those who don't necessarily need more cores but would like the added multitasking ability. The bottom end Pentium will, however, have HT disabled. I don't see HT cutting significantly into i5-750 territory and I definitely don't see it saturating itself. | ||
|
Aerox
Malaysia1213 Posts
On October 09 2009 12:42 zeroimagination wrote: But what about those gamers who also multitask heavily? Intel answers that in the form of Hyper-Threading which turns Clarkdale into a virtual quad core. This practically destroys most of the incentive for the average gamer to go with Phenom II. A higher clocking dual core is going to perform better than a lower clocking quad core while consuming less power and producing less heat, and unless you are doing something that requires 100% of one core, Hyper-Threading will provide adequate real world multitasking. This is actually in response to the current AMD Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition which can be unlocked into 4 cores. The core speed is 3.2GHz and can be overclocked to 3.6GHz. It is CURRENTLY being sold for about USD100 comparing to Clarkdale's i5 at the same speed costing USD176 which will launch next year... which is still a long while. AMD can win if more consumers are intelligently informed IMO. Therefore, AMD just needs to do more marketing as well as capitalize their limited eehan timing window to capture the consumers' hearts right now until the end of this year. | ||
|
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
What did AMD do in terms of marketing? a poster on your local shop's wall or google ad is as far as they go while Intel logos are splashed everywhere and the deals and arrangement that Intel have with vendors like HP, Lenovo, Acer etc etc... They will do well if you can convince major vendors to take their line up (very difficult to do) but why would vendors care when Intel more than likely match whatever offer AMD will give. I think AMD's future lies in GPU/CPU integration, if they can make a significant play in this area then we will see some bounce back. | ||
|
Adeeler
United Kingdom764 Posts
If however you actually need the highest possible processing speed and not numbers of cores i.e. single thread compiling then just chose the highest 'speed' ignoring the numbers or cores etc. So for a programmer this is more ideal though a renderer its not as ideal as more cores as long as your software supports multiple cores. I.e. for me to compile I can do it in the same time on a £100 or £1000 PC atm as speeds have plateau'd around 2-3+Ghz Nvidia v Ati: Ati cards are significantly cheaper for there performance so they are the best value for money. Nvidia cards are good too but there is no reason to take one or the other. In fact Ati will have the 1st DX 11 cards which run extremely well and Physx may very well die as a standard as DX Compute may simply take over entirely though a few devs have used it sparingly but to little effect. DX Compute may very well become the prefered method overnight for furture games nvidia will most likely want to have the DX 11 stamp on the next range of cards so may adopt DX Compute also effectively giving up Physx unless its stubburn but Microsoft won't care so DX Compute will eventually become standard regardless though it will take a long time think 2-3 years before we even see anything significant. Luckily my m8 gave me 2x 8800 GTX's so I can SLI for Starcraft 2 if need be, but I will probably buy the top Nvidia card or the day depending on Starcraft 2's performance on both being the deciding factor. Unfortunately I have a 24" widescreen Dell Ultrasharp which runs are 1920x1200 so I need to have significant g-card to make using it comfortable which those 8800's do but dunno for how long. The best decision you can make atm is to not make a decision until Starcraft 2 comes out or Beta comes out and some benchmarks are made. | ||
GTR
51693 Posts
| ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17845 Posts
Seriously, I am willing to overpay sometimes if I know it's going to save me a lot of compatibility issues, shitty support etc. Besides, I wonder why people even consider buying ATI cards now since most new games are using PhysX which is nVidia stuff (sure, you can launch games that use PhysX without it, but the difference is dramatic). | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On October 10 2009 22:28 Manit0u wrote: most new games are using PhysX which is nVidia stuff (sure, you can launch games that use PhysX without it, but the difference is dramatic). Batman Asilyum and ? o,o Dx11 man ... | ||
|
Pakje
Belgium288 Posts
On October 10 2009 22:28 Manit0u wrote: I've had enough problems with my AMD and ATI hardware in the past. Then I made a brilliant move and decided to stick to Intel + nVidia and all of the problems went away... Seriously, I am willing to overpay sometimes if I know it's going to save me a lot of compatibility issues, shitty support etc. Besides, I wonder why people even consider buying ATI cards now since most new games are using PhysX which is nVidia stuff (sure, you can launch games that use PhysX without it, but the difference is dramatic). you are so blind. i dont even need to give arguments simply go google a bit | ||
|
furymonkey
New Zealand1587 Posts
Sorry i'm not very good with hardwares. | ||
| ||
