|
The Official PC building thread -3rd Edition
|
|
|
Any Flaming Results in a Temp Ban or Worse. Your Choice!!!
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
12. February 2010 @ 17:43 |
Link to this message
|
Thanks guys. Very nice to see crucial coming back up in the world. I have some older Ram of theirs. They used to be very good with ram. As of late, I've heard the opposite with the newer DDR2/DDR3 modules. Perhaps they're making a comeback. Quite the leap from the intel drive. I almost wish I had waited :p No big deal though. I'm sure my drive will impress me.
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. February 2010 @ 17:50 |
Link to this message
|
i'll never buy crucial memory again as long as i live. ive gone threw 4 sets of mem before i got 1 set that worked and i only used them for about a week cause it was about the same time span the others went out. their ddr2 1066 mem was so crappy and they new it they offered me some 2 year old double sided ddr2 800 mem in replacement.yea gave me some $35 cheap mem and thought it was a fair deal.. yea they went bad also.. well 1 stick did
ok maybe im stupid here and no i havent done any research on the topic but how does intel make a AMD's complier codes? doesnt AMD make their own? so im supose to beleive that intel has screwed with all benchmarking test (the hundreds of different ones) to make their product look better? nope dont buy it. like i said i dont really know much about it, TBH sounds like one company/persons just upset with there lack of technology and putting the blame on someone else. typical human way.
another conspercy theory...that like toyota blaming ford for making their faulty gas pedal????????? i know i'll take the beat down now and wont post for awhile again.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. February 2010 @ 17:58
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
12. February 2010 @ 19:06 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by cincyrob:
i'll never buy crucial memory again as long as i live. ive gone threw 4 sets of mem before i got 1 set that worked and i only used them for about a week cause it was about the same time span the others went out. their ddr2 1066 mem was so crappy and they new it they offered me some 2 year old double sided ddr2 800 mem in replacement.yea gave me some $35 cheap mem and thought it was a fair deal.. yea they went bad also.. well 1 stick did
ok maybe im stupid here and no i havent done any research on the topic but how does intel make a AMD's complier codes? doesnt AMD make their own? so im supose to beleive that intel has screwed with all benchmarking test (the hundreds of different ones) to make their product look better? nope dont buy it. like i said i dont really know much about it, TBH sounds like one company/persons just upset with there lack of technology and putting the blame on someone else. typical human way.
another conspercy theory...that like toyota blaming ford for making their faulty gas pedal????????? i know i'll take the beat down now and wont post for awhile again.
Rob,
Come on man, wake up and smell the coffee! The software is used to compile the programs used in a computer. Most use Intel's compiler, so all those programs will force AMD's CPU to run at reduced performance by using the slowest codes that work.
The lawsuit and decision is a matter of public record, based on the facts presented in the suit. Why do you think that Intel paid off AMD to the tune of 1.25 Billion dollars so quickly? There is no conspiracy! Intel broke the law, and got caught! While it's perfectly legal to optimize codes for your own products, it's not legal to cripple another companies products performance to make your own product appear better than it really is!
Respectfully,
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
 |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. February 2010 @ 19:22 |
Link to this message
|
S-ATA3 for SSDs is eventually going to need to become compulsary, but for the time being it is of little benefit. As for the Crucial in particular, I've not heard anything that makes theirs particularly revolutionary. I'm still sticking with Intel as my recommendation for the moment as they are pushibg by far the best performance where it counts (random and small-sector write). The size of the drive hints it'll cost an absolute fortune though, so it doesn't excite me for the time being. X25-MG2s are expensive enough as it is.
I still don't trust Crucial for memory, it's too soon since their last absolute failings.
As far as the Intel antitrust goes, I'll say again, companies are always doing stuff like thus. Yes, it's wrong, and yes, Intel should be punished for it, but it's far from unprecedented, and sadly, it's just expected in today's business environment.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. February 2010 @ 19:28 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by theonejrs While it's perfectly legal to optimize codes for your own products, it's not legal to cripple another companies products performance to make your own product appear better than it really is!
Respectfully,
Russ[/quote:
thats just it right there. how is intel crippleing amds products? intel isnt makeing AMDs stuff. intel doesnt make the hundreds of software programs that people use to benchmark stuff. so there is only benchmarking programs that are only made for intel??? bullcrap i dont bye it. how long has AMD and intel been makeing cpus, and AMD cant make a program of there own to show off what they can do? or they dont want one because of what they cant do? im not blind i know intel isnt totally honest but what manufacture is when it comes to their own product. and when they cant compete with their rival they start to make stuff up... just like ASUS does against gigabyte, so to say.
once again i dont know anything about it only what i see on the surface and what i see is jelousy from one company that wants what another has. been like that since the begining of time. ok INTEL paid AMD 1.2billion to keep their mouths shut. nothing was proven in court right or wrong. micheal jackson paid a kid and his parents 7mil to keep their mouths shut that he didnt do something improper with the 13yo boy. never got to court nothing was proven right or wrong???? the public will never know the truth behind anything like this that goes on....
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. February 2010 @ 19:39 |
Link to this message
|
Rob, what has happened here is a competitive advantage intel has achieved by getting a program compiler popularised. Since most people tend to use Intel's compiler for their software, Intel have the ability to do whatever they like with the performance of all these programs on various CPUs. Intel therefore chose to reduce the performance of AMD CPUs at these particular tasks. Cripple is a strong word, but it does have an appreciable impact. Doing this is wrong, however, as I said before, it does not stop AMD users from being able to do anything, it just means that programs written with Intels in mind will run better on Intels. They have used an illegitimate means of doing such, but that's all that's happened. In many other cases, the Brand B product isn't even able to do what the Brand A product can because it's outright disabled. That hasn't happened here, and until it does, I'm not boycotting Intel. If it were enough to make me do so, I would have done it a long time ago, as it's stuff like this that brought about AMD's formation in the first place, they were ex-Intel employees who wanted to do things their own way.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. February 2010 @ 19:56 |
Link to this message
|
Sam i understand what your say and what russ is saying, but i just dont believe AMD doesnt have any, hell even 1 program that shows anythign different than what has been shown with the programs that are being used... if i made a product and wanted more people to buy it and didnt have a way to show off what i can do, i myself would create or have someone for me do just that. just so i could prove what i can do. beside that, everyone here knows that the benchmarking stuff is just a numbers game, there are to many ways to make the NUMBER say what you want them too. like everyone else has said its what happens in real life/time. and anyone with any common sense knows how well AMD performs. ive never had a amd (well a old amd duron) but i know they are good CPU's if they wasnt why are so many millions of them being sold??? once again common sense. ok yea intel has all the NUMBERS to prove what they can do. so what that dont mean crap if i buy the product and it falls on its face, as im sure it has and does and will do again. its that way for both companies. the one thing that has kept me away from AMD is all the locked cores and little tricks you have to do to get them to work properly. the guy i work with that just did the I5 build his amd 9850 wasnt a quad like it said it was. it was only 3 cores once broke down. the so called 3rd core was bigger than the other 2 so AMD called it a QUAD.. now isnt that lieing to the public???
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. February 2010 @ 20:00 |
Link to this message
|
The AMD Quad cores were more quad cores than Intel's. Until the new i5 and i7 architectures, Intel's quads were almost 'copy and paste' of their dual cores, whereas AMD CPUs were designed to be quads from the outset. Your friend was probably commenting that the 9850 was so slow it performed like it only had three cores :P
As for numbers, they're nice, but real world numbers are where it matters. SuperPi is hardly a real-world instance, and nor is 3dmark.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
12. February 2010 @ 20:06 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
The AMD Quad cores were more quad cores than Intel's. Until the new i5 and i7 architectures, Intel's quads were almost 'copy and paste' of their dual cores, whereas AMD CPUs were designed to be quads from the outset. Your friend was probably commenting that the 9850 was so slow it performed like it only had three cores :P
As for numbers, they're nice, but real world numbers are where it matters. SuperPi is hardly a real-world instance, and nor is 3dmark.
FRIKKIN AYYYY!! That's what I was trying to say earlier I think. LOL.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. February 2010 @ 20:06 |
Link to this message
|
i will try and find the artical he showed me where it broke down the 9850 and showed the inside of it. he isnt here tonight to ask him about it or i would.
as for the numbers game goes. they are nice to look at thats all. just like over in the scan thread. those scans mean crap its just something to go by as to see what you have. its all about what the product does when im useing it. thats what sells me. yea the numbers get your attention buy performance is the seller. thats why i find it so hard to beleive that AMD doesnt or cant create some software showing their abillities, 1. they dont feel the need to prove themselves like that,2. they dont want the truth to be shown that they are in fact not as powerful as intel. i hope it is the first of the 2, but who knows?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. February 2010 @ 20:11 |
Link to this message
|
Intel didn't create software to 'big themselves up' though, they merely created the compiler that everyone else uses to write their programs with. Had AMD had the same success they would be in a similar situation, but probably not getting fined since they don't abuse privileges like Intel do. Or so we think.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. February 2010 @ 20:52 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
Intel didn't create software to 'big themselves up' though, they merely created the compiler that everyone else uses to write their programs with. Had AMD had the same success they would be in a similar situation, but probably not getting fined since they don't abuse privileges like Intel do. Or so we think.
thats my whole point right there if AMD was so worried that intel was doing this then why didnt AMD make their own complier to show off what they can do???
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. February 2010 @ 20:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
My thinking too, I'd offer my insight but in reality, I don't tend to look at this side of the industry much, so I don't have anything to say. For all I know they might have in the past...
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
12. February 2010 @ 21:45 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by cincyrob:
Sam i understand what your say and what russ is saying, but i just dont believe AMD doesnt have any, hell even 1 program that shows anythign different than what has been shown with the programs that are being used... if i made a product and wanted more people to buy it and didnt have a way to show off what i can do, i myself would create or have someone for me do just that. just so i could prove what i can do. beside that, everyone here knows that the benchmarking stuff is just a numbers game, there are to many ways to make the NUMBER say what you want them too. like everyone else has said its what happens in real life/time. and anyone with any common sense knows how well AMD performs. ive never had a amd (well a old amd duron) but i know they are good CPU's if they wasnt why are so many millions of them being sold??? once again common sense. ok yea intel has all the NUMBERS to prove what they can do. so what that dont mean crap if i buy the product and it falls on its face, as im sure it has and does and will do again. its that way for both companies. the one thing that has kept me away from AMD is all the locked cores and little tricks you have to do to get them to work properly. the guy i work with that just did the I5 build his amd 9850 wasnt a quad like it said it was. it was only 3 cores once broke down. the so called 3rd core was bigger than the other 2 so AMD called it a QUAD.. now isnt that lieing to the public???
Rob,
You would have to show me that Quad core! I've never even heard anything about it, and that's pretty remarkable in itself. I've never once heard a word about any triples being represented as Quad Cores, and the triples were first reported here on AD by me, long before they were produced.
As far as the one core being bigger, that's nonsense. The cores are all the same size. He was probably looking at the on chip cache in a picture. There was a 9850 Quad core, but no triple core 9850 at all! Your friend doesn't know what he's talking about!
As far as unlocking cores, you are being a bit silly! Unlocking cores is only a sometimes Bonus when buying AMD Quad core based Dual or Triple core CPUs. AMD makes no claims for them, and they are not sold with the promise of being a Quad core. Given that the wafer yields have gotten so good that many triples are Quads with a core turned off, with some chips it's almost a certainty that you can unlock the shut down cores. It's easy enough to do if you buy one!
The Intel compiler in question takes the information embedded in the software from the CPUID, and in the case of higher end AMD CPUs, uses the slowest code that will run, effectively slowing down the performance of the CPU. The people making the software had no idea that this was going an. It just became a known and accepted fact that AMD was slower than Intel, all because of this illegal code, and the can of worms it opened. It's as simple as that! My Athlon x2 7750 was faster than my E6750 in everything but benchmarks, and I dearly love my Quad core, as it's easily twice as fast as the dual Core 7750! It will be nice to see what it can really do, when they get this mess all sorted out!
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
12. February 2010 @ 22:00 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by cincyrob:
i will try and find the artical he showed me where it broke down the 9850 and showed the inside of it. he isnt here tonight to ask him about it or i would.
as for the numbers game goes. they are nice to look at thats all. just like over in the scan thread. those scans mean crap its just something to go by as to see what you have. its all about what the product does when im useing it. thats what sells me. yea the numbers get your attention buy performance is the seller. thats why i find it so hard to beleive that AMD doesnt or cant create some software showing their abillities, 1. they dont feel the need to prove themselves like that,2. they dont want the truth to be shown that they are in fact not as powerful as intel. i hope it is the first of the 2, but who knows?
Rob,
The AMD chips do pretty well against the more expensive Intels, even when crippled. When all this is straightened out, I'm sure there will be a number of surprises when both Intel and AMD are compared honestly, without the slowdowns that some software that used the Intel compiler impose on the AMDs. Had someone not had the idea to change AMD's CPUID to a Genuine Intel and then check the performance, the world may never have known there was a problem deliberately created by Intel!
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
12. February 2010 @ 22:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
12. February 2010 @ 22:14 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
(sammorris)They have used an illegitimate means of doing such, but that's all that's happened. In many other cases, the Brand B product isn't even able to do what the Brand A product can because it's outright disabled. That hasn't happened here, and until it does, I'm not boycotting Intel.
Sam,
In effect, it has disabled some on chip instructions or at least crippled them so badly that they run slower than mud, effectively negating the function.
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. February 2010 @ 22:45 |
Link to this message
|
once again all im saying is IF amd knew/knows INTEL is/was doing this why didnt/DONT they come out with their own complier, or their own software to measure what they can do???? its that simple. if i owned a company and my arch rival was slinging mud about me and my product i would do everything i could to prove them wrong... unless what the rival was saying is true???? it dont get no easier than that... i know its a proven fact that for day to day stuff there isnt much difference in the 2 cpu's except for the numbers game that has caught so many people in there loop. dont get excited over a man made number. ive been to missouri, you have TO SHOW ME... let me see the performance thats all anyone has to see and then you know the numbers DO lie. i cant see it any other way
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
12. February 2010 @ 23:50 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by cincyrob:
once again all im saying is IF amd knew/knows INTEL is/was doing this why didnt/DONT they come out with their own complier, or their own software to measure what they can do???? its that simple. if i owned a company and my arch rival was slinging mud about me and my product i would do everything i could to prove them wrong... unless what the rival was saying is true???? it dont get no easier than that... i know its a proven fact that for day to day stuff there isnt much difference in the 2 cpu's except for the numbers game that has caught so many people in there loop. dont get excited over a man made number. ive been to missouri, you have TO SHOW ME... let me see the performance thats all anyone has to see and then you know the numbers DO lie. i cant see it any other way
Rob,
While it's been suspected for years, no one had any proof that Intel was manipulating the conditions to exclude AMD from better performance. It was only discovered by accident, when someone wrote some code to change the Genuine AMD CPUID to an Intel CPUID, and ran the same benchmarks, only to discover that they got much better scores with the AMD when it was identified as an Intel.
As far as the performance goes, any AMD owner will tell you that the numbers lie. I figured that out by the end of my first full day of using my 7750BE, as it was noticeably faster than the E6750, doing the same work. The 7750BE was at least as fast and in many instances faster than the E6750, running at a slower clock speed. My 630Quad is more than twice as fast, and at the moment falls behind Will's 9550, 60,000 MIPS to my 54,000 MIPS. I'll see how long that advantage lasts after I mod the NB and VRM heatsinks with Ceramique. By doing that, I'm pretty sure I can lower the motherboard temps enough to reach 3.8GHz or higher, and that's with the "Intel compiler problem" still there! Time will tell!
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
13. February 2010 @ 07:57 |
Link to this message
|
The one thing that's being overhyped here is the suggestion that AMD CPUs are slower than Intels entirely due to this compiler incident. That isn't true. Not every program is written using Intel's compiler. The programs that have a massive advantage for Intels are the examples here. Even when this matter is resolved, AMD CPUs aren't suddenly going to be as good as or better than Intels, they are still behind. Eliminating this scenario merely eliminates the excessively biased programs.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
13. February 2010 @ 10:53 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
The one thing that's being overhyped here is the suggestion that AMD CPUs are slower than Intels entirely due to this compiler incident. That isn't true. Not every program is written using Intel's compiler. The programs that have a massive advantage for Intels are the examples here. Even when this matter is resolved, AMD CPUs aren't suddenly going to be as good as or better than Intels, they are still behind. Eliminating this scenario merely eliminates the excessively biased programs.
Oh.. now that's great.. so you mean that when I do my next system in a few years I'll still have to decide which company I want to go with?? ROFL.
Good point Sammy.. I'm sure this will be one of the better posts I read today. ;)
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
13. February 2010 @ 11:46 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
My Athlon x2 7750 was faster than my E6750 in everything but benchmarks, and I dearly love my Quad core, as it's easily twice as fast as the dual Core 7750! It will be nice to see what it can really do, when they get this mess all sorted out!
I loved that Athlon X2 dearly for the short time I had it. And it may in fact be coming back my way for $20. Good deal because I effectively already sold it to him. But he's since upgraded the PC. I would have put it as a clock-for-clock near-equal to the E6750 in games at least. My E6750 did OC higher though. I was able to do 3.6 stable and cool.
I'm intrigued by this whole Intel/AMD Antitrust situation. Does this mean I will start seeing better application and gaming performance? I know quite a few games are Intel affiliated, so maybe they are using this same code as well?
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388 |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
13. February 2010 @ 13:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
The 7750 is probably a clock for clock equal to the 6700, not sure about the 6750, but I'd guess it's quite similar. I think the 7750s usually clock to 3.1-3.4. The E6750 should get 3.6-3.8 though, from how I remember them managing.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
13. February 2010 @ 16:34 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
The one thing that's being overhyped here is the suggestion that AMD CPUs are slower than Intels entirely due to this compiler incident. That isn't true. Not every program is written using Intel's compiler. The programs that have a massive advantage for Intels are the examples here. Even when this matter is resolved, AMD CPUs aren't suddenly going to be as good as or better than Intels, they are still behind. Eliminating this scenario merely eliminates the excessively biased programs.
Sam,
I agree entirely, and I wasn't implying that this compiler incident was the cause of all the problems that AMD has encountered. I think what will change is the positioning of the AMD chips, compared to Intel. For instance, the 630 Quad I have, was said to be competitive with a Q8200-Q8300, and it totally smokes both of them. The 630 seems to be fairly close to a Q9450 in real world use. I've spent some time with the Q9450, and it's overall performance seems slightly better than the 630, so where will that leave the 630 when the knackered compiler issue is resolved and everything runs at full speed again?
I wouldn't quite say that eliminating the scenario merely eliminates the excessively biased programs, because removing the scenario will improve the chips performance using these excessively biased programs. At this point, who can say what programs are affected. We already know that the Intel compiler slows down benchmarking for AMD chips through the use of CPUID to identify the chips. That was it's intended purpose when the function was first slipped into the compiler back in 2003, to counter the better performance of the then new Opteron chips. What effect will this have for the Phenom II 940BE or the new 955BE and 965BE, "GM" chips with honest benchmarks and faster running real world programs? The way it is now, Intel and AMD are in a race where the Intel's get to run on the super highway, while AMD get's the handicap of having to use the surface streets! What sort of improvement will there be for AMD when both get to run on the same super highway? Intel's performance will not go down, but AMD's performance will go up!
The affect is far more profound than you might think, given that 90% of all PCs sold are not overclocked at all, so what will be the difference at stock speeds. That's the main reason our Government is not accepting Intel's "band-aid fix" for the problem, because Intel would still have an unfair advantage for several years to come, until through upgrading, programs no longer have the offending code in them.
Best Regards,
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
13. February 2010 @ 16:46 |
Link to this message
|
No, I'm afraid I disagree entirely. The Q8200 and Q8300 comparing to the X4 630 was a typical result. What this does is remove the outliers, the 630 is still not going to outperform the Q8300 by very much if at all, but it will no longer be vastly behind them in certain programs.
I don't see the state of play changing much here at all, rather that certain programs that ran terribly on AMDs may no longer do so. I know AMD fans will be hoping for this to be a 'magic bullet' to vastly increase their performance, but it won't, as there isn't extra performance there to untap. I perceive the Intel situation to have a slightly less profound impact than some, and I'd be surprised if it turns out different to that.
|
