Originally posted by Mr-Movies:

---

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.

---

I do have E-Blast so like you I get those specials. It will probably be next month when I do some posturing with new gear and will consider that.

I do normally get embedded GPU's even if I'm going to use it for gaming with a add-on card(s) for redundancy as it doesn't really cost much more for that type of board and if I have problems with my video card I can still use the computer. It's really a smart move for the very little cost difference.

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!

---

That really doesn't surprise me at all and is one of the reasons I stay away from Intel solutions. As I've stated before the Intel team is EXTREMELY arrogant just like IBM was years ago and unlike IBM I'm very surprised they haven't been knocked off their pedestal yet. However there time will come.

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.

---

That is very true and is why Shaff is off with his statement. Sure AMD has a high price when they first come out but it is always much lower than Intel's EVEN when AMD was out performing Intel. Also when AMD says 10% increase they are normally around that unlike Intel who would bolster 30% for a possible 10% real increase. Intel is a really shatty company and if they don't stay ahead of the game they could go down.

Still with that said I could see going to the 990 if I had the ching to make the jump.

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

Intel never even post speculative performance increases with their new products, all you ever hear is conjecture form the general public - you can't lie if you don't say anything!

---

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

Intel never even post speculative performance increases with their new products, all you ever hear is conjecture form the general public - you can't lie if you don't say anything!

---

That is absolutely not true I've heard it right from the Sales team lips, personally! Not only that but I have seen it posted by Intel, not speculative from a 3rd party. Like I said I worked with the top teams from Intel, AMD, and NVidia so this is not hearsay!

---

Originally posted by shaffaaf:

---

my Q9550.

best thing about it was on the return i was given an E0 stepping IICR. which you paid a premuim for from the US a few weeks prior. haha

didnt it caus a shut down on your P35 mobo aswell?

---

Originally posted by shaffaaf:

---

i remember finding my E1240 on the floor, my brother had dropped it a few months before, and it was covered in dust, on carpet. i removed the dust, banged it in a mobo and it worked perfectly, and clocked to 3.2 from 1.6. solid.

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

Links please? Personal contact doesn't count, and in any case, staff leaking information about a future product sounds very suspicious, unless they're telling you how much faster their CPUs are than AMDs (why are you even asking them?), in which case it's totally variable depending on the test, far more so than it ever is with GPUs.

---

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:

---

Not only that but I have seen it posted by Intel, not speculative from a 3rd party.

---

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:

---

Apparently you don't go to Intels site and read white papers and what not. Plus Intel has released speculative numbers to the press just like AMD and others.

Like I said before I'm not going to waste my time finding links to Intels lies just to appease you. Regardless of your 40,000 post career, mine goes much further than yours does and I don't need to use that to convince you of my experience either.

Also you don't mandate or dictate what I can or can't post either, you're not that big son!

Again it is your prerogative what you believe or don't, your loss. You are so biased by your Intel love that you can't see the sun through the trees, sad but true.

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:

---

Apparently you don't go to Intels site and read white papers and what not. Plus Intel has released speculative numbers to the press just like AMD and others.

Like I said before I'm not going to waste my time finding links to Intels lies just to appease you. Regardless of your 40,000 post career, mine goes much further than yours does and I don't need to use that to convince you of my experience either.

Also you don't mandate or dictate what I can or can't post either, you're not that big son!

Again it is your prerogative what you believe or don't, your loss. You are so biased by your Intel love that you can't see the sun through the trees, sad but true.

---

Because that's why I bought and advocated AMD exclusively prior to the Core 2's arrival is it? When AMD produce something truly competitive, I'd be happy to recommend it over Intel's equivalent CPUs for new builds. I was hoping Bulldozer would be that, but sadly it isn't the case. Let's not forget the Radeon family is as much a part of AMD as the CPUs, and I use and recommend those almost exclusively because in most ways they are better than the competition. There are a few situations where that's not true of course.

It's the same old story, if I don't say what you want to hear, I must be a fanboy for whichever company I'm supporting in this case. It would seem surprising that Intel would reference AMD's CPUs in their white papers (which I have read some of), rather than just comparisons to their own chips. Still, with Intel's development history, it's not so easy to go picking through years of their various different products just to verify the claim you can't be bothered to back up. So for now, I'm just going to stick with not believing it.

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

I find HP ink tends to cost the most. Then I realised inkjet printers were crap and bought a 10 year old HP LaserJet off ebay for half the price of a set of cartridges for my Lexmark. It even came with a toner in it, so far it's done 1000+ pages without needing to change the toner, which doesn't cost any more than a pair of ink cartridges. It might be the size of a whole computer by itself, but it's a vast improvement on inkjets.
My anger with epson is the whole lasting 369 days before colossal failure.

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

I actually do prioritise bang for buck, believe it or not. There's no sense devoting 100% to that, otherwise you'd never buy a CPU in the first place - 0 dollars for not buying a new CPU is infinitely good value for money! If you can get 40% better performance for 50-60% higher price, a lot of people will go for it, because it'll be a tangible benefit that's worth paying extra for.

---

Originally posted by theonejrs:

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

I actually do prioritise bang for buck, believe it or not. There's no sense devoting 100% to that, otherwise you'd never buy a CPU in the first place - 0 dollars for not buying a new CPU is infinitely good value for money! If you can get 40% better performance for 50-60% higher price, a lot of people will go for it, because it'll be a tangible benefit that's worth paying extra for.

---

Sam,

$0 for not buying a new CPU is not good value for the money. The value is the same as the $0, because there is no value to be had by not buying anything.

BTW, I did take responsibility for the techreport screw up. I said that I didn't snap to the fact that the outfit was different. In all fairness, I've never heard of Bit-Tech or techreport. I've done a little reading at Bit-Tech and they seem to be front runners, meaning whatever they test they seem to go about their tests to favor that particular product. They seem to be the "Spin Doctors" of computer components!

Best Regards,
Russ

---