EPTComputer Build Resource Thread - Page 649
| Forum Index > Tech Support |
When using this resource, please read FragKrag's opening post. The Tech Support forum regulars have helped create countless of desktop systems without any compensation. The least you can do is provide all of the information required for them to help you properly. | ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
| ||
|
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
On October 13 2011 05:43 nam nam wrote: It's very hard to distinguish sarcasm and stupidity in written form. If you really think that I'd think those prices are competitive. As I said I'm good at recognizing and many people aren't so I wonder why that is | ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
| ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
![[image loading]](http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/5585/smiley2mt1.jpg) | ||
|
jacosajh
2919 Posts
On October 12 2011 23:49 Bambipwnsu wrote: Don't worry you only missed a massive letdown which was followed by everyone going to bed out of dissapointment. It hurt to watch this: WOW. They compare the cost of an i7-980x build to the FX-8150 build. $1279 vs $515 - "SAVE $764 FOR THE SAME PERFORMANCE" it says. Not a 2500k or 2600k build which would be about the same. Then compare it to a 2500k for multi-threaded performance. They both completed at the same time. 4 vs 8 cores, yeah that's something to be proud of. Head to Head video processing, rofl same as 2600k. Also 4 vs 8 cores. Unrivaled. Unlocked. Unbelievable. ROFLOLMAO. What a joke. If anything this just proves how bad AMD is relying on misinformation to sell its products. If I wasn't an Intel fanboy, I am now. Really, how about you just be honest and say you can't compete at this current moment, instead of trying to get people to spend their hard-earned money on your useless garbage by throwing out misinformation. 200 likes, 400 dislikes on this video. No wonder comments have been disabled. | ||
|
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
| ||
|
Medrea
10003 Posts
There's only a single Bulldozer die. The 6 and 4 core versions simply feature cores disabled on the die. AMD insists this time around, core unlocking won't be possible on these harvested parts. In other words 6 and 4 core bulldozer are defective 8 cores. I guess I should say defective/out of performance specs. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On October 13 2011 10:16 Medrea wrote: + Show Spoiler + There's only a single Bulldozer die. The 6 and 4 core versions simply feature cores disabled on the die. AMD insists this time around, core unlocking won't be possible on these harvested parts. In other words 6 and 4 core bulldozer are defective 8 cores. I guess I should say defective/out of performance specs. If they're using the 8 cores that can't handle performing with 8 cores for x6 and x4, I'm surprised they have any 8 cores to sell... By the way, anyone else tired of hearing "It's only really meant for server market, of course it's not as good for gaming" after all the gaming performance hype during IPL and shit? | ||
|
Medrea
10003 Posts
On October 13 2011 10:20 JingleHell wrote: If they're using the 8 cores that can't handle performing with 8 cores for x6 and x4, I'm surprised they have any 8 cores to sell... By the way, anyone else tired of hearing "It's only really meant for server market, of course it's not as good for gaming" after all the gaming performance hype during IPL and shit? Its just a fanboy rebuttal really. Of course its an all purpose CPU. AMD already has dedicated architectures for servers. I highly doubt AMD wanted to polarize there own community by offering a processor that can't even outperform the Phenom II, which makes consumers decide between gaming, or everything else. Thats like major Scooby Doo logic. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
On October 13 2011 10:20 JingleHell wrote: If they're using the 8 cores that can't handle performing with 8 cores for x6 and x4, I'm surprised they have any 8 cores to sell... By the way, anyone else tired of hearing "It's only really meant for server market, of course it's not as good for gaming" after all the gaming performance hype during IPL and shit? Well if you look at the decisions made, it is true that it was meant for servers primarily and would not necessarily be as good for gaming. You have to make tradeoffs in any design and live with them. If the tradeoffs don't work in your favor, that's your fault. It's just the poor performance off of original expectations (the architectural changes resulting in relatively poor IPC, and lower-than-hoped clock speeds) and blatent mis-marketing and obfuscation that's bad. | ||
|
Medrea
10003 Posts
Seeing as how the tech5 engine scales well with cores, in a way that reminds me of bitcoin mining in fact, sits really well with me. PC games need to be freed of DVD and even Blu ray constrictions as well. And while my own frustration with Tech5 is no secret I think it has something really special at hand. Obviously AMD botched it this time around but the fact remains I believe. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On October 13 2011 10:34 Medrea wrote: Honestly I think a lot of the blame is to be put on the PC gaming market itself. Support for more cores is something we should already have now. Seeing as how the tech5 engine scales well with cores, in a way that reminds me of bitcoin mining in fact, sits really well with me. PC games need to be freed of DVD and even Blu ray constrictions as well. And while my own frustration with Tech5 is no secret I think it has something really special at hand. Obviously AMD botched it this time around but the fact remains I believe. Get us escaped from the whims of the damned console market and maybe there's a chance of that. | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
| ||
|
Medrea
10003 Posts
On October 13 2011 10:36 JingleHell wrote: Get us escaped from the whims of the damned console market and maybe there's a chance of that. Im sure once the consoles get so old and PC games start to become more dominant, new consoles will come out lifting the ceiling once again. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On October 13 2011 10:42 Medrea wrote: Im sure once the consoles get so old and PC games start to become more dominant, new consoles will come out lifting the ceiling once again. Not these days. They're heading towards merging completely, but they're going to keep sticking us with mostly ports. | ||
|
Medrea
10003 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
Brute force technological improvements don't make for better games. Better game design makes better games. Further advances in processing power mostly just allow you to make things prettier. Or compute more unrealistic-looking ragdoll physics effects. At least, that's what most game designers decide to do with the extra power. That's why I'm not so interested in the whole "oh no we're being held back by consoles" idea. edit: though in practice, because designers want to make console games further along in a generation look better even though they're on the same hardware, they're really stretching the limits of the platform by the end. So it reality there is a limitation because people want better graphics. Now, I'm sure the above isn't quite true, and some hardware advances have made some new genre or paradigm possible in the last ten years, but nobody's yet shown up with the creativity and courage to come up with something to prove me wrong. | ||
|
JJGamer
United States76 Posts
| ||
| ||
