|
MaxxBot posted:I agree that AMD makes some great value processors and that they're just fine for gaming but yes paying $50-100 more to get a 2500k will net big improvements in performance if you do much other than gaming. From every benchmark I've seen, it'll net you big improvements in gaming as well.
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2011 08:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 12:17 |
|
|
MeramJert posted:Ok, I shouldn't have said "absolutely", but I still wasn't talking out of my rear end. An Athlon II system will very likely be more than $100 cheaper than a 2500k system. Does it really matter? The AMD Athlon X4 system is going to be substantially slower. You'd only buy it if you can't afford the Intel. It's not even a "bang-for-your-buck" solution. It's just what you buy if you can't afford better.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2011 18:23
|
|
|
spasticColon posted:So is Bulldozer going to be AMD's big comeback? My E8400 is three years old now and I would like to upgrade soon but I feel obligated to wait until Bulldozer is benchmarked against Sandy Bridge to see if Bulldozer is worth waiting for. I use my system primarily for gaming and AFAIK there are zero games that take advantage of eight cores. I guess eight cores would come in handy if you want to game and encode video at the same time. I'm in your same position - rocking an E8400. Frankly, I would be surprised if AMD catches up to current Sandy Bridge products. Zacate is nice and all but per-clock its barely better than Atom on the CPU side. That has me skeptical. Zacate is a cheap part but come on. Atom wasn't even new tech when it was released. The fact is that the cards are stacked against AMD. They don't have the money to invest in great engineers and great research and etc. Bulldozer is the underdog, and while no one can predict performance before a product is actually out, I think it would be a huge surprise if Bulldozer was on-par with current Intel Sandy Bridge products. I think we'll have to consider Bulldozer a relative success if they manage to catch up to Nehalem. I will likely buy a Bulldozer anyway, because I'm an AMD fan-boy. But I'm not getting my hopes up.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2011 07:39
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:It's not marketing bullshit. That's just with Llano. Sandy Bridge doesn't see much benefit from faster RAM. So it is precisely marketing bullshit, albeit bullshit that does have a performance impact when you have a specific choice of components. And really, who goes Llano without discrete graphics for gaming, then buys faster memory for the performance impact? Don't everyone raise your hands at once, now...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2011 23:27
|
|
|
BlackMK4 posted:Laptops. These benchmarks are not for laptops. But even if we go out on a limb and assume the impact is the same, having to buy new RAM to extract the most out of your brand new laptop is not exactly appealing. Edit: And as pointed out a lot of laptops don't even support faster RAM, so... Tragic Otter fucked around with this message at 10:15 on Dec 1, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2011 10:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 12:17 |
|
|
Factory Factory posted:Part of the point here is that AMD makes and sells Llano and not Sandy Bridge. And adding faster RAM to Llano improves its value vs. Sandy Bridge solutions. Yea, so it's exactly marketing bullshit. A tie-in between products, to make the processor look more appealing. We're splitting hairs here but that seems like a marketing move to me, otherwise what is the point of putting the AMD logo on it? Not that it ultimately matters because, like I said, the number of folks who know how to upgrade their RAM, but would also buy a Llano APU and game on it using only the integrated graphics is...zero. That's what the benchmark was showing. It was on a Llano system using only integrated graphics. Once you throw in a discrete graphics card all of that performance benefit from RAM probably goes out the window.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2011 10:14
|
|