Originally posted by sammorris:

---

Originally posted by theonejrs:

---

Originally posted by shaffaaf:

---

Russ what wrong with the games?

crisis is still regarded as one of the most intense games to run, very CPU intensive,

---

Shaff,

Two games total, don't tell you a lot about how well a computer plays games. There were 8 games in the THW review I posted.

Russ

---

Techreport posted a lot more than two games. Don't tell me, they're all Intel-biased?

---

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:

---

Definitely the Intels overclock better than the AMDs right now. and they should be stock testing although sometimes they do OC tests, but they'll still do factory tests too.

If AMD is saying 10% increase that isn't very much and is still short of the Sandy, the way AMD was talking a while back I thought for sure they were going to have a contender if not exceed Intels products.

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

Bit-tech is not techreport.

---

Originally posted by theonejrs:

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

Bit-tech is not techreport.

---

Sam,

No it's not. We were discussing Bit-Tech, in particular the two games they reviewed in the link I posted. I guess you decided to throw a different outfit, techreport into the mix. Why I have no idea, and I didn't snap to it. What does techreport have to do with bit-tech only using Crysis and X3:Terran Conflict as their only game tests. That was my question, and you popped up with techreport??

Russ

---

Quote:

---

to quote someone else, "one small step for AMD, one big LOL for intel"

---

Originally posted by theonejrs:

---

That's a lot of bang for the buck given that low a price. No fire sale either, as the Debebs have already paid for themselves. Most are going to buy the llano over the Sandy Bridge, for less money because of the superior HD 6550D Graphics. The cheapest Sandy Bridge Quad core, the 2.8GHz i5-2300 costs $179, the top 2.9GHz Llano A8-3850 Quad Core costs $139. People who don't overclock, are going to go by the graphics and the $40 lower price tag!. I don't even begin to understand the thinking of someone buying one, and then installing a dedicated video card or cards, although a number of people seem to do it. I have this thing about not wasting money on things I can't use.

---

Originally posted by theonejrs:

---

Oh, one more thing. If someone does have a Sandy Bridge and has to RMA it back to Intel, be advised that when they ask you for the model and make of your memory, have a brand and model number handy that is not over 1333MHz. If you tell them it's 1600 memory, it will void your warranty immediately, and you don't get an RMA, or a second chance as the warranty is void for that serial number for good, effective now! Intel threatened to void my warranty because I didn't use the stock cooler, when I sent my E6750 back for replacement. That was the deciding factor in my making the switch from Intel to AMD. I haven't regretted it yet, especially with the performance boost I got after switching to the GigaByte 990XA-UD3 AM3+ motherboard. It's more than fast enough for me!

---

Originally posted by omegaman7:

---

I don't like intel's way of doing things. I'm sure if they had new tech, a new cpu would be 1500 - 2000USD. That's completely ridiculous. Unless your a big spending business.
I can't see spending 750$ more on just the cpu, for what I Consider to be minimal gains :P

Besides it looks like 8150 does well enough for X264 encoding. I will of course be waiting til February. They will likely be introducing a new chip by then.

---