Originally posted by shaffaaf:

---

was looking at a sb review, forgot how much more powerful the 2500k at stock is than a 6 core AMD at 4.2 GHz

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2...bridge-review/8

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

Pretty sure bit-tech's test has been a standard, neutral test formula for years. If the tests they use happen to favour Intel, that probably means that Intel are the better choice for the majority of applications. Just because I don't see the result I want to see from a test doesn't mean I call it skewed, I look at the explanations for the differences first.

---

Originally posted by Estuansis:

---

Actually there's been proof for years that a large amount software is Intel biased. There was a lawsuit if you remember. SuperPi being a good example where Intel CPUs score disproportionately well, even taking into account their own speed advantages with number crunching.

While I agree with Sam that no matter what, Intel CPUs will be faster, I also have to agree with Russ that the entire AMD CPU lineup could stand to be re-tested on 990X boards. It's well known that every new AMD chipset since 690/SB600 has brought about significant performance jumps. At least enough to change the balance of power a bit.

---

Originally posted by shaffaaf:

---

but when the majority are saying one thing, then what?

---

Quote:

---

Yeah but what in? The performance increase may manifest itself in some, but not all applications. The superpi lawsuit is news to me. Suffice to say though, calling every test in a review biased, sounds like bullshit to me.

---

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:

---

Sam,

Even though Russ has made some very good arguments I think there is some truth to the validity of the 970-990 Intel's being worth the extra expense so even though I've hacked on you some, I also think your point on the new i7's is correct and it isn't fair for us to gang up on you due to the fact that you are not totally off base.

Stevo

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

I don't know about the temps you quoted Russ, but remember what cooler the i7 980X and 990X ship with (not the 970) - it may be the most hideously noisy cooler in existance, but it's very powerful as stock coolers go, probably better even than the Arctic Freezer coolers.
Ultimately though, you're right, I would almost never advocate the i7 970/980X/990X over an i7 2600K or i5 2500K because of the latter's innate speed and overclocking potential, and that's for the exact same reason I'd recommend the 2500/2600 over a Phenom II X6. 4 faster cores, in the majority of cases, are better than 6 slower ones.
As far as value is concerned, AMD don't sell anything that's overpriced, because they can't. Nothing AMD can produce (until Bulldozer comes out at least) is worth charging much for, hence there's nothing they make that's expensive. Since Intel have an absolute performance lead, they can and do charge whatever they like for their top performers, because people who want the best, will pay it.
In the midrange though, I don't necessarily think AMD offer substantially more value than Intel. For its price, the i5 2500K is a ridiculously powerful CPU. It holds true with the new i3s and i5 duals too, they're very powerful for what they are.

I'm not going to concede about the bit-tech review. I think it's a perfectly fair test. Since THG are well known to live off company bribes, I really do have to hold anything they post in question.
If you want a more comprehensive test that I do trust, how about
http://techreport.com/articles.x/20188/12

I'm seeing similar trends here tbh

---