|
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. There is absolutely no way getting a 2500k will only cost you $50-$100 more than an Athlon II x4 system
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2011 08:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 14:16 |
|
|
Universe Master posted:At Newegg, the 2500k is $125 dollars more than the cheapest Athlon II x4, and $85 dollars more than the most expensive. Yeah, but you're not going to be dropping $175 on a motherboard for an Athlon II system like that guy up there. e: so basically no, I wasn't talking out of my rear end. That's one of the most expensive AM3 motherboards you can possibly buy on newegg, like in terms of place in the market you'd be going for a >$250 motherboard for the Intel processor fart simpson fucked around with this message at 10:31 on Apr 1, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2011 10:29
|
|
|
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. I mean, you picked a more expensive motherboard for the AMD system than you did for the Intel system. That's straight up dishonest. e: with your updated parts, you're not even correct about the final cost. Add up the numbers again, with the parts you've picked out the AMD system is $152 cheaper, not $105. fart simpson fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Apr 1, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2011 17:02
|
|
|
pienipple posted:An SSD for the OS drive is going to make a much more user perceivable difference in performance than the jump from an AMD chip to an Intel one. Yeah, I'd take the AMD system with an SSD over the Intel system without an SSD for the same price if I had a budget limit.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2011 00:40
|
|
|
Couldn't you get a SiS chipset (lol) too, or did they come out after nforce?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2011 18:04
|
|
|
I had an ECS L7S7A2 back then that I got for dirt cheap and it lasted me 5 years with no stability problems. The audio in port on the back failed after 2 years but other than that it was perfect.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2011 10:09
|
|
|
Bloody Antlers posted:If BD stinks at launch, we could see another Phenom -> Phenom II type transition where engineers save the day by fine tuning the design and dramatically increasing performance. Yeah, but only if you define "eventually" as "so far in the future that both companies no longer exist". There's no guarantee of parity in the short or medium term, here
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2011 00:40
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:Also, it does indeed look like there will be process scheduling issues in Windows analogous to Hyperthreading inefficiencies, and though Microsoft is on the case, that there will be some time before they are resolved. As such, all benchmarks we see (which I haven't even gotten to yet, personally) will be filling threads inefficiently. Well, you did pick the single worst performing benchmark. It's not like the single-threaded performance really is as bad as this across all of them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2011 06:04
|
|
|
WhyteRyce posted:The Linux kernel patch has been benchmarked Am I misreading something or does this patch do literally nothing
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2011 16:49
|
|
|
Well, I guess after 10 years of using them, this is my last AMD based desktop.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2012 21:45
|
|
|
I'm looking forward to the eventual Intel/AMD monopolies!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
movax posted:I wouldn't go Intel because I play games (if I didn't game I would not even bother with a discrete GPU unless I needed more displays), but I won't go ATI/AMD because their drivers are awful compared to nvidia. Their Radeon 7500/8500 "drivers" left a very sour taste in my mouth. The gaudy, bloated CCC (do they still do that?) doesn't help either. Hey this driver thing isn't true anymore and hasn't been for a while! And anecdotally, the worst driver support I've ever had for any product was an nvidia 7950 GX2 that would literally take me 6+ hours to upgrade to a newer driver version. (PS. the Radeon 7500/8500? That was eons ago...)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2012 16:09
|
|
|
There's basically no reason to upgrade a GTX 580 unless you're gaming multiple monitors.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2012 18:20
|
|
|
What happened to all that stuff from a while back where nvidia was disabling part of the Fermi core in order to meet the PCI-E power draw spec? 700W 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2012 04:31
|
|
|
LiftAuff posted:Do you actually believe that number? A GTX590 draws around 550W so something around that number sounds much more realistic. No, I knew it was just an estimate but still, the fact that people can estimate it being potentially that high is ridiculous. 550W is crazy too
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2012 06:04
|
|
|
movax posted:I don't remember off-hand what TVs are doing with 3D at the moment. I know in some cases, you need a higher-revision HDMI cable to support the extra bandwidth. Maybe 120FPS isn't necessary if they run at half-resolution or something, and combine the frames. I should really brush up on that. There's 2 different methods for 3D like that: side by side and top and bottom. They literally just half either the width or height and show 2 images per frame and 3D TVs are able to combine it correctly. But as far as I know, the PS3 games use frame packing for their 3D, which is the one that you need HDMI 1.4 for.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2012 02:05
|
|
|
I really don't understand nvidia's naming. Seriously, how do they come up with stuff like that? Why would they name 3 totally different cards the same name? I almost always understand AMD's naming system, but nvidia's is just stupid
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2012 14:49
|
|
|
On the other hand, I'm still using an Athlon X4 and I feel exactly 0 exasperation about my processor. I can play my games and use my computer just fine and feel no reason to upgrade now. And I'm guessing if he thinks he can get by for a while with integrated graphics then he's not expecting to max new games at 1440p, either, so he might be just fine.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2012 03:21
|
|
|
Well obviously if I was building a new computer now, I'd go with Intel. But I have used newer computers with i5 and i7 processors fairly extensively and it's really not a night and day difference to me. It's moderately faster, but honestly it really doesn't matter that much to me (or to most real life people I know). Going from my netbook to my desktop is a night and day difference; the speed discrepancy is so great that it fundamentally changes the kinds of things I can do with my computer. Going from an Athlon X4 640 to an i5 is not; it doesn't unlock any new possibilities for me, it just does everything slightly faster. That said, I'll probably upgrade my computer in 2013 and unless AMD really pulls something out that nobody is expecting then it will be the first time in a decade that I'll own an Intel-based computer as my primary machine for personal use.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2012 15:17
|
|
|
Riso posted:Let me be the first to admit to still use an AMD Athlon II x4 640. Me too and I don't see much of a reason to upgrade at the moment. If I did upgrade though, I'd pretty much have to go Intel for the first time in over 10 years.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2013 13:36
|
|
|
WhyteRyce posted:Even at the peak of their popularity, consumers are dumb and didn't know any better. Only nerds gave a poo poo about benchmarks and a sizable portion of buyers probably stuck to what brands they recognized. It didn't help that earlier non-Intel chips were poo poo. I had a hell of a time convincing people I knew who trusted my opinion to buy AMD at the time, I can't even imagine what it was like for your average consumer asking the Circuit City guy for help. Back in those days I watched a Circuit City guy tell someone to get a Pentium 4 system if he wanted great performance because AMD was a cheap budget brand.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:AMD was/is a cheap budget brand. They always have been. Yeah but back then AMD had a competitive if not outright superior product. You know why a salesman framing it that way was unfair.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
I recently found out our IT pays more to buy hdd rather than ssd laptops for everyone because our backup system is emergency hard drive recovery and they don't have an ssd story for that
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
Flipperwaldt posted:They don't have backups at all and some hdd failure modes allow you to recover some data, which is what they use as their retarded safety net, whereas this is a lot less likely to be possible with ssds because they tend to crap out suddenly and entirely without warning. Is what I took from that. Yes, this. Also we only get like 500 mb of network drive storage. And it's not even an IT guy. We're a multinational corporation with 28,000 employees
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
The dual core with hyperthreading mobile i5 I have in my work laptop is garbage.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 08:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 14:16 |
|
|
The Lord Bude posted:I've actually had the file association thing happen - whenever I do a major update (the ones that are essentially in place OS upgrades, not just patches. They also tend to reenable all the advertising crap in the start menu, and re download all the junk apps and games that I delete as soon as I've installed windows. Basically windows is taking a leaf out of the old school android handbook at this point, and I'm not at all amused. You're holding it wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 03:19
|
|