What I see here are people bashing amd, I'm not an amd fanboy.
I have said intel has a better cpu, I have seen his in action but what I see is the same thing that happens in the console wars, I see someone saying Wii is better then 360 or ps3 better better then the other 2. I have seen it like that since days in the 16 bit era but I have always owned both and loved both. But can't everyone just get along and let him show it in action without bashing it? Hell if I had the money to put on an I7 extreme edition I would do it but I stick with amd for the reason is without amd there where would Intel be? Just like what competes with windows? Nothing and Linux isn't easy to use for a lot can't use it.
Linux is as easy to use as windows. It's just different.
In fact installation of modern linux distros can be a LOT easier, like select language->partition drive->set user password, reboot and you got system up and running with most of the software you need to browse net, movies and music and work with documents.
Only thing that really harder is running windows apps, but that's normal for any kind of emulation/virtualization etc. You can't expect every program run as smooth native one. But sometimes it's the opposite, running in wine is faster and easier.
Main problem with both windows and linux is the PC hardware zoo. Unlike consoles or macs you have to deal with a lot of hardware configurations, some just won't work together very well, that's why it's always better not to but a PC but build from parts which known to work well together in particular OS.
Back on topic - AMD just stepped in same cow pie like Intel did with NetBurst. Intel wanted more GHz, AMD decided to get stuff optimized for multi-threaded thinds and forgot that most consumer apps are single-threaded, and you rarely see anything using more than 4 threads.
(06-10-2012, 07:19 PM)ShadowFlash Wrote: [ -> ]Linux is as easy to use as windows. It's just different.
In fact installation of modern linux distros can be a LOT easier, like select language->partition drive->set user password, reboot and you got system up and running with most of the software you need to browse net, movies and music and work with documents.
Only thing that really harder is running windows apps, but that's normal for any kind of emulation/virtualization etc. You can't expect every program run as smooth native one. But sometimes it's the opposite, running in wine is faster and easier.
Main problem with both windows and linux is the PC hardware zoo. Unlike consoles or macs you have to deal with a lot of hardware configurations, some just won't work together very well, that's why it's always better not to but a PC but build from parts which known to work well together in particular OS.
Back on topic - AMD just stepped in same cow pie like Intel did with NetBurst. Intel wanted more GHz, AMD decided to get stuff optimized for multi-threaded thinds and forgot that most consumer apps are single-threaded, and you rarely see anything using more than 4 threads.
I know Linux is easy to use unless your a beginner, I would rather go full Linux myself but a lot of mmorpg's don't work under Linux or at least great using wine so I just dual boot
And your are right Amd messed up and Intel has in the past too.
I hope Piledriver does a better job, but like you said there are so many configs with computer parts maybe helps d3monr3no's games run fine on his.
I have seen it as I have stated before and there are slow downs but its team viewer causing the problem. All he is trying to say is Fx is underrated and he will be posting videos of it soon.
xenowildfire Wrote:All he is trying to say is Fx is underrated
It's overpriced garbage.
Anyone paying €250 for the 8150 over €194 for a 2500K is insane.
(06-10-2012, 09:53 PM)Garteal Wrote: [ -> ]xenowildfire Wrote:All he is trying to say is Fx is underrated
It's overpriced garbage.
Anyone paying €250 for the 8150 over €194 for a 2500K is insane.
Sounds to me like an Intel fanboy.
(06-10-2012, 09:53 PM)Garteal Wrote: [ -> ]xenowildfire Wrote:All he is trying to say is Fx is underrated
It's overpriced garbage.
Anyone paying €250 for the 8150 over €194 for a 2500K is insane.
By the way you need to check the prices again. the 8150 is $199.99
Compared to 2500k $219.99
Like I said sounds like an Intel fanboy to me.
$20 difference for almost 30% better performance, my money's on the intel anytime
@xenowildfire
LOL You sir do not know what you are talking about
A fanboy would buy a product without thinking it's good or bad
xenowildfire Wrote:Sounds to me like an Intel fanboy.
I'm a 'fanboy' for paying much less and receiving much better performance?
You sound desperate.
xenowildfire Wrote:By the way you need to check the prices again. the 8150 is $199.99
Compared to 2500k $219.99
Are you really this dumb? Are you unable to see the
€?
It obviously indicates that we're from different parts of the world.
Converting the prices results in the 2500K at $242, while the 8150 is $312.
The $219.99 is a great deal.
its because i am an amd fan, that i am entitled to BASH them, judge them, criticise them, and boycott them when their direction and product capabilities fall short of my expectation.
This isn't the Apple iCrap, where fans don't know how to be critical
Quote:What I see here are people bashing amd, I'm not an amd fanboy.
I have said intel has a better cpu, I have seen his in action but what I see is the same thing that happens in the console wars, I see someone saying Wii is better then 360 or ps3 better better then the other 2. I have seen it like that since days in the 16 bit era but I have always owned both and loved both. But can't everyone just get along and let him show it in action without bashing it? Hell if I had the money to put on an I7 extreme edition I would do it but I stick with amd for the reason is without amd there where would Intel be? Just like what competes with windows? Nothing and Linux isn't easy to use for a lot can't use it.
First of all we're not bashing AMD (not directly anyways), we're bashing the god awful bulldozer microarchitecture which happens to have been designed by AMD.
Second of all this is nothing like a console war since with microprocessors the comparison is objective rather than subjective.
Third of all intel has to continuously provide significant improvements over existing microarchitectures to get people to upgrade regardless of how much competition they have.
Quote:By the way you need to check the prices again. the 8150 is $199.99
Compared to 2500k $219.99
Like I said sounds like an Intel fanboy to me.
Please provide a legitimate argument as to why bulldozer isn't overpriced crap. And remember to back it up with professional sources like we have. If an architecture is much slower and less energy efficient is should be much cheaper as well, but it isn't in this case.
Unfortunately none of us are able to hold any kind worthwhile conversation or debate with the OP since all of his posts are a barely readable mess that aren't even worth trying to respond to.