PDA

View Full Version : Battlefield 2: Will it work with AMD processors?


darkpower
06-01-2011, 02:06 PM
Sorry if this has been discussed before, but didn't see it asked anywhere.

I'm wanting to try this game out, but I see in the system requirements that it only says "Intel" in the CPU requirements. Was this just an oversight, did they get lazy when listing requirements, or did EA actually screw over AMD fans like me?

MbK The GLow
06-01-2011, 02:14 PM
Dont worry mate.

In my old pc I had an AMD 64FX53, and it ran fine.

darkpower
06-01-2011, 02:18 PM
Dont worry mate.

In my old pc I had an AMD 64FX53, and it ran fine.

I have a Phenom x4 (it's a first edition, though that will change soon since it bottlenecks my GPU - Radeon 6870 - with possibly a P2 or 6 core).

Glad to see it will work good.

Moragami
06-01-2011, 03:19 PM
Lol. Yeah, I'm sure Intel would love for you to think that they're the only CPU's that can run Battlefield games. Fortunately, AMD CPUs are just as good for gaming as Intels, and their price to performance ratio is WAY better.

iceman087
06-01-2011, 04:21 PM
Lol. Yeah, I'm sure Intel would love for you to think that they're the only CPU's that can run Battlefield games. Fortunately, AMD CPUs are just as good for gaming as Intels, and their price to performance ratio is WAY better.

there not as good as intel but there ok.....

MunkiLord
06-01-2011, 04:59 PM
there not as good as intel but there ok.....

Dollar for dollar they are. At least that was the case a little over a year ago when I bought my CPU. The super high end belongs to Intel, but I don't see a legitimate reason to spend five hundred dollars on a CPU.

Of course that all could have changed over the last year since I stopped looking.

<AvA>Duff5000
06-01-2011, 05:36 PM
Dollar for dollar they are. At least that was the case a little over a year ago when I bought my CPU. The super high end belongs to Intel, but I don't see a legitimate reason to spend five hundred dollars on a CPU.

Of course that all could have changed over the last year since I stopped looking.

my $100 phenomII quad @ 3.7 agrees.

DeadlyFred
06-01-2011, 06:44 PM
AMD destroyed Intel back in the day, true fact. Lately Intel is picking back up and I think has a bit of an edge in most cases, not sure how the pricing split is these days though.

2IS
06-01-2011, 07:43 PM
It'll work with AMD processors but those original Phenom's left a lot to be desired. Performance wise they often only performed as good as a higher end Core 2 Duo.

Connormast12
06-01-2011, 10:07 PM
there not as good as intel but there ok.....

@iceman, you are dead wrong.

@OP, Yes, AMD chips will run fine.

2IS
06-01-2011, 10:30 PM
@iceman, you are dead wrong.

@OP, Yes, AMD chips will run fine.

He's not wrong at all. They are absolutly not as good as intel. You're either fooling yourself or simply don't know what you're talking about if you think otherwise.

Connormast12
06-01-2011, 10:32 PM
He's not wrong at all. They are absolutly not as good as intel. You're either fooling yourself or simply don't know what you're talking about if you think otherwise.

My AMD Phenom II X6 1090T @ 4.6 will destroy any intel CPU in video rendering.

Just because it may not out perform Intel in terms of gaming performance doesn't mean it sucks. They both have their strengths and weakness.

2IS
06-01-2011, 10:37 PM
My AMD Phenom II X6 1090T @ 4.6 will destroy any intel CPU in video rendering.

No, actually it won't. I guess it's the latter, you have no idea what you're talking about.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3674/amds-sixcore-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-1055t-reviewed/6

We didn't say it sucks, we're saying it's not as good as intel, and it isn't. The ONLY thing it beats intel in is price, nothing else. Get over it.

The 1090t can't even beat the 975 and that's just a quad core vs your 6 core.

Connormast12
06-01-2011, 10:44 PM
No, actually it won't. I guess it's the latter, you have no idea what you're talking about.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3674/amds-sixcore-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-1055t-reviewed/6

We didn't say it sucks, we're saying it's not as good as intel, and it isn't. The ONLY thing it beats intel in is price, nothing else. Get over it.

You're wrong.

EDIT: I deleted what I typed here because I realized that you are not going to even attempt to admit that Intel processors do not always beat AMD. Instead of filling this board with biased opinions about something unrelated to the original topic, i'm going to leave this thread and never look back.

2IS
06-01-2011, 10:47 PM
Right, I'm wrong... I hacked anandtech and manipulated EVERY SINGLE benchmark showing Intel outperforming AMD... Leaving this thread is the best idea you've come up with.

<AvA>Duff5000
06-02-2011, 08:22 AM
Who makes the fastest cpu really doesnt bother me at all.

Who gives me the best bang for buck does. A few years back it was the core2duo. 2.5ghz stock cheap cpu @ 3.5 with an old p4 cpu cooler.

When it was time to upgrade. AMD was ahead, 555 unlocked and overclocked for $100.

GLaw
06-02-2011, 08:38 AM
I too strayed from intel to AMD this time around. Price per performance ratio.

My 1090 @ a meager 3.8 eats this game up.

Moragami
06-02-2011, 09:31 AM
The meager performance increase one gets from an Intel CPU just doesn't justify the incredibly high prices. Whatever though, game on what you like, to me price to performance ratio outweighs performance alone.

A fool and his money are soon parted, usually because they feel a need to have the best, and, of course humblebrag to everybody about it.

2IS
06-02-2011, 10:37 AM
If the debate was about price/performance that's one thing. It wasn't. The claim made was very clear. That the 1090t would "destroy" ANY Intel CPU in encoding. It doesn't. In fact it gets outclassed by Intel's top of the line quad core, not only in encoding but quite literally everything else.

I'm not one to drop a cool G on a CPU either, heck I'm still on an OCed Q6600. I will however, raise the BS flag when the situation calls for it.

lilbabycat
06-02-2011, 02:35 PM
Really the argument about Intel vs AMD came to $$$ / performance, and for a long time, intel was way ahead in performance, at the expense of not the CPU, but in other components, namely the RAM+Mobo.

The difference in price for the CPU was maybe ~$25-40. The intel motherboards though, they were upwards of $160-200, versus AMD ones at ~$100-120. Memory for the intel processors was *slightly* more nitpicky, and you'd be much safer paying an extra $10-20 for a slightly higher quality ram. The net difference in cost between an intel and amd barebones (CPU+MOBO+RAM) was ~$100-120.

As it stands, Intel still holds the performance crown. The Core 2 Duo is/was an awesome CPU. It it my 2nd favorite to the original Athlon which were awesome on their own accord, but even better because the overclocking varied wildly between each individual cpu, so you could very well buy one and do a 50% OC on Air. Twas fun times for tinkerers.

The I-series has been ok (I own an i5 @ 4ghz) and Sandybridge is supposedly pretty nice, but it was really doesn't do much for me. I've stayed away from the AMD camp, as there was a significant time when the X-series had some weird low-level computation issues, though I believe most of them have been resolved. (I never bothered reading too much into it).

As far as AMD being ahead in some video rendering benchmark... Umm 5fps means more to me than 5 seconds of encoding time.

Moragami
06-02-2011, 02:59 PM
If the debate was about price/performance that's one thing. It wasn't. The claim made was very clear. That the 1090t would "destroy" ANY Intel CPU in encoding. It doesn't. In fact it gets outclassed by Intel's top of the line quad core, not only in encoding but quite literally everything else.

I'm not one to drop a cool G on a CPU either, heck I'm still on an OCed Q6600. I will however, raise the BS flag when the situation calls for it. Sure, I guess you can dispute that claim. I have to say though from what AMD is showing of the 2nd Gen Bulldozer Komodo, you may not be right for much longer.

2IS
06-02-2011, 03:03 PM
Sure, I guess you can dispute that claim. I have to say though from what AMD is showing of the 2nd Gen Bulldozer Komodo, you may not be right for much longer.

My post will always be right actually. Not only is it time stamped but this was specific to the 1090 which I also specified.

I'm not against AMD, I'm against BS. I welcome the day AMD can get the performance crown back.

preefix
06-02-2011, 03:21 PM
Prior to Intel's Sandy Bridge it wasn't a bad choice to go with AMD's x6 (six core) line.

I'm an AMD fan <3 (although hate ATI) & frankly i still enjoy AMD's chipsets, features, tweaking etc. more than Intel.

I find there's just less "BS" involved with AMD systems.

No one can really deny the Sandy Bridge quad cores crushing the AMD x6 line. Overclocked x6's have yet to touch the 2500k/2600k cpus.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

AMD has Bulldozer coming out really soon which should catch up to 80-90%+ of Sandy Bridge. This is where AMD's bang for buck should kick back in. (& should shove down the x6 prices)

At this exact moment, it just doesn't make sense to go with AMDx6 price/performance wise.

----------------------

Crunching the #'s ..

AMD 1100 CPU + (890FX) Board comes to ~$350 (brand name micro board)

http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=13892591

Intel 2500k CPU + (P67) Board comes to ~$340 (brand name micro board)

http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=13917511

----------------------

I'm not exactly sure about stock 2500k performance but an overclocked 2500k (or 2600k) pulls so far away from a (stock or OC'd) 1100 one COULD say there is "no comparison"

On the other hand if you really want to blow money a 2600k+Board comes to around $430 (not really the best bang for buck combo)

Generally speaking there isn't anything new here. Once Intel chimes in they are on top, once AMD chimes in they are on top.

I prefer to give my money to AMD but there are gaps (like now) where it just doesn't make sense.

Espionage724
06-02-2011, 03:24 PM
AMD fan here. I would honestly trust a completely AMD/ATI system then an Intel/AMD or Intel/Nvidia system, and not to mention an AMD/Nvidia system... But thats a bit off-topic.

As for the OP, yea BF2 will run on AMD CPU's :p

iceman087
06-02-2011, 03:29 PM
Right, I'm wrong... I hacked anandtech and manipulated EVERY SINGLE benchmark showing Intel outperforming AMD... Leaving this thread is the best idea you've come up with.

your right,we didnt say they were garbage,they do the trick but like everything else,you get what you pay for.intel is more expensive for a reason,there better.

<AvA>Duff5000
06-02-2011, 05:39 PM
AMD fan here. I would honestly trust a completely AMD/ATI system then an Intel/AMD or Intel/Nvidia system.

intel is more expensive for a reason,there better.

the BS just keeps coming....:eek:

Lfinal
06-03-2011, 12:01 AM
definitely not

Razoride
06-03-2011, 12:17 AM
Haha! These CPU threads crack me up.:D

For the OP: Try out the demo, it's still floating around. That should do a better job of answering any questions about running it, better than any Hammer Legion Member infested forum ever could.

uncivilised
06-03-2011, 12:28 AM
My AMD Phenom II X6 1090T @ 4.6 will destroy any intel CPU in video rendering.

Just because it may not out perform Intel in terms of gaming performance doesn't mean it sucks. They both have their strengths and weakness.

seriosly? a thuban at 4.6? 90% of them hit a wall at 4.2-4.3 on air FULLY stable. Unless you provide a screenie of hit with it doing prime95 for at last 5-6hrs then i call bs. Also you seem to neglect the fact that Intel has the fastest cpu on the market. Sure they may not be the best in terms of price/performance but that does not discard the fact that Intel has faster cpu's. You do realise the thuban is just a standard phenom with two more cores on the die with a few tweaks. The core i7 series are still a lot faster clock for clock and the new sandy bridge series are awsome value.
Also FYI i am not an Intel Hammer Legion Member, I have used many amd cpu's and havnt had a problem with them. It is safe to say at least for this generation that Intel has the lead.

lilbabycat
06-03-2011, 03:46 AM
AMD fan here. I would honestly trust a completely AMD/ATI system then an Intel/AMD or Intel/Nvidia system, and not to mention an AMD/Nvidia system... But thats a bit off-topic.


I don't think we're talking about the ultra-low end, which no one really cares about, Mr. 800x600. http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1908039

<AvA>Duff5000
06-03-2011, 05:09 AM
I don't think we're talking about the ultra-low end, which no one really cares about, Mr. 800x600. http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1908039

lol nice pickup :) I would give you rep but it isn't letting me

SpunkyKuma
06-03-2011, 05:39 AM
there not as good as intel but there ok.....

In video gaming, AMD are way better than Intel and at a fraction of the cost of an Intel CPU.

Although Intel released Sandy Bridge to get into AMD's price range and market.

<AvA>Duff5000
06-03-2011, 06:37 AM
In video gaming, AMD are way better than Intel and at a fraction of the cost of an Intel CPU.

Although Intel released Sandy Bridge to get into AMD's price range and market.

No they are not "better than intel". They may have better price per unit of perfprmance but you cant just say AMD are better than intel.

If $$ were not an issue, intel will give you the best performance atm.

Disclaimer: I use either amd or intel.

SpunkyKuma
06-03-2011, 03:38 PM
I use both as well, for gaming AMD is the way to go, much cheaper and games don't need hyperthreading so you're wasting money on an i7 for that purpose. The i5 Sandy Bridge is on par with the AMD Phenom II X4 and X6's but the Bulldozer might change that.

Moragami
06-03-2011, 04:04 PM
My post will always be right actually. Not only is it time stamped but this was specific to the 1090 which I also specified.:rolleyes:

2IS
06-03-2011, 05:56 PM
:rolleyes:

oh snap! you rolled your eyes. Unfortunately for you that changes nothing.

Moragami
06-03-2011, 09:36 PM
oh snap! you rolled your eyes. Unfortunately for you that changes nothing.Again, :rolleyes:. If you want somevbody to agree with you and tell you you're awesome, I suggest you call your mom, or a hooker. For some people that can be done in one call.

Japancakes
06-03-2011, 09:57 PM
ITT: Fanboys

2IS
06-03-2011, 10:14 PM
Again, :rolleyes:. If you want somevbody to agree with you and tell you you're awesome, I suggest you call your mom, or a hooker. For some people that can be done in one call.

Like I said, my post is time stamped and I specified the products i'm talking about. I don't need anyone to tell me I'm right, it's all in writing with benchmarks to back it up. What do you have? I mean, besides nothing, what do you have?

Keep rolling, you're still wrong.

Ryno
06-04-2011, 07:33 AM
Yes.
My old AMD ran it perfectly.

Grunt7684
06-04-2011, 12:10 PM
If the debate was about price/performance that's one thing. It wasn't. The claim made was very clear. That the 1090t would "destroy" ANY Intel CPU in encoding. It doesn't. In fact it gets outclassed by Intel's top of the line quad core, not only in encoding but quite literally everything else.

I'm not one to drop a cool G on a CPU either, heck I'm still on an OCed Q6600. I will however, raise the BS flag when the situation calls for it.

Putting money out of the equation of ANYTHING is downright ridiculous. MOST people live in a world that is money-limited. Because of that, omitting the cost of anything in an argument makes it worthless, unless that argument happens to be between super-billionaires. Here is an example:

- "They only sell that video card in Taiwan. It's the model I want, but I'll stick with something I can get in North America"

- "Why don't you send someone on your private jet and pick it up, since that's the one you want?"

Geddit?

Or... "Do I need to Triple-crossfire my 6970s?" reply: "of course you do, otherwise you will not be able to max settings on your 120hz, 6x1080p video wall" reply: "uh, I game on a single 1080p" reply: "But why, it is so much nicer on a video wall with 6 projectors and a 1,000-watt, super-hi-fi 9.2 sound system"

Geddit?

So yeah, Intel is able to outperform AMD. But if you factor in something from the real world, which is MONEY, then nope, Intel isn't able to outperform AMD. And please, keep the price/performance argument on the CPU only to yourself. Again in the REAL world, you need a mobo, ram, etc. And if you factor in the cost of the upgrade path, for which Intel platforms are notoriously terribly expensive, the balance is so far in the favor of AMD-based systems that it isn't funny.

2IS
06-04-2011, 12:45 PM
Putting money out of the equation of ANYTHING is downright ridiculous. MOST people live in a world that is money-limited. Because of that, omitting the cost of anything in an argument makes it worthless, unless that argument happens to be between super-billionaires. Here is an example:

- "They only sell that video card in Taiwan. It's the model I want, but I'll stick with something I can get in North America"

- "Why don't you send someone on your private jet and pick it up, since that's the one you want?"

Geddit?

Or... "Do I need to Triple-crossfire my 6970s?" reply: "of course you do, otherwise you will not be able to max settings on your 120hz, 6x1080p video wall" reply: "uh, I game on a single 1080p" reply: "But why, it is so much nicer on a video wall with 6 projectors and a 1,000-watt, super-hi-fi 9.2 sound system"

Geddit?

So yeah, Intel is able to outperform AMD. But if you factor in something from the real world, which is MONEY, then nope, Intel isn't able to outperform AMD. And please, keep the price/performance argument on the CPU only to yourself. Again in the REAL world, you need a mobo, ram, etc. And if you factor in the cost of the upgrade path, for which Intel platforms are notoriously terribly expensive, the balance is so far in the favor of AMD-based systems that it isn't funny.

Read the thread, the original argument had nothing to do with cost OR value it had to do with straight performance and was not even brought up by me, I simply responded to it.

Geddit?

It matters not anyway. A 2600k will wipe the floor with AMD's top offerings in the vast majority of games and applications and the cost difference is negligible.

Geddit?

On this date, Intel > AMD

Geddit?

Perhaps you AMD fans should refrain from posting until Bulldozer actually arrives, maybe then your arguments will have at least some validity.

<AvA>Duff5000
06-04-2011, 06:41 PM
- "They only sell that video card in Taiwan. It's the model I want, but I'll stick with something I can get in North America"

- "Why don't you send someone on your private jet and pick it up, since that's the one you want?"


That is a really really bad analogy. Both products in question are readily available and the cost isn't something that only billionaires would pay. Plenty of people of these forums would be using high end Intel chips.



So yeah, Intel is able to outperform AMD.

So you agree with him.

Disclaimer again: I use an AMD atm, i am just not blind to suggest AMD are market leaders in performance atm. Performance in my budget, yes, other peoples budget, no.

Grunt7684
06-04-2011, 08:18 PM
That is a really really bad analogy. Both products in question are readily available and the cost isn't something that only billionaires would pay. Plenty of people of these forums would be using high end Intel chips.

So you agree with him.

Disclaimer again: I use an AMD atm, i am just not blind to suggest AMD are market leaders in performance atm. Performance in my budget, yes, other peoples budget, no.

Not a bad analogy at all. Leaving cost out of the equation implies that money is in no way a constraint. This is false in almost all cases. As for your "Plenty of people of these forums would be using high end Intel chips.", it is not valid. That they do, doesn't make them right (or wrong) to do so, they just do. It doesn't mean they have unlimited funds, it just means they forked out what it cost. I could build myself a rig using an intel 6-core, but I don't. Does that make me right or wrong? Neither.

However, having done a full cost/performance analysis of AMD/Intel over a term of ownership of the hardware, the answer to the question of better performance [in the (real, money-limited) world where spending $1200 more for 15% more performance makes little sense for a gamer] between the two made AMD come out on top.
Read the thread, the original argument had nothing to do with cost OR value it had to do with straight performance and was not even brought up by me, I simply responded to it.

Geddit?

It matters not anyway. A 2600k will wipe the floor with AMD's top offerings in the vast majority of games and applications and the cost difference is negligible.

Geddit?

On this date, Intel > AMD

Geddit?

Perhaps you AMD fans should refrain from posting until Bulldozer actually arrives, maybe then your arguments will have at least some validity.

In a hypothetical world where money doesn't matter, we all have 6-projector video walls.

Well, guess what? WE DON'T. GEDDIT???

It's like saying "The Corvette is the fastest"... Well, maybe at its price point, but Lockheed Martin makes a faster vehicle dubbed the SR-71. Oops that's in a world where money is unlimited and practicalities don't matter. THAT WORLD IS NOT THE REAL WORLD.

So you choose: do you live in a world where money is de facto unlimited, or in one where by and large, it is?

I live in the real world, Bozo.

2IS
06-04-2011, 08:38 PM
Are you sure you live in the real world? Because I do and here's what I know to be true...

In the "real world" Intel holds a significant market share over AMD... Clearly people can afford them. Guess that kills your theory. 2600K is easily affordable and AMD has no answer for it. End of story.

Apparently you don't live in the real world. In your world AMD should have majority market share and Intel merely a niche market.

You speak of "real world" but provide anecdotal evidence. I provide facts like market share and benchmarks neither of which you can dispute. You know, "real world" verifiable things.

Like I said, do yourself a favor and stfu until you have an argument that actually holds water.

Grunt7684
06-04-2011, 08:44 PM
Are you sure you live in the real world? Because I do and here's what I know to be true...

In the "real world" Intel holds a significant market share over AMD... Clearly people can afford them. Guess that kills your theory. 2600K is easily affordable and AMD has no answer for it. End of story.

Apparently you don't live in the real world. In your world AMD should have majority market share and Intel merely a niche market.

You speak of "real world" but provide anecdotal evidence. I provide facts like market share and benchmarks neither of which you can dispute. You know, "real world" verifiable things.

Like I said, do yourself a favor and stfu until you have an argument that actually holds water.

In your fantasy world, consumers make informed and well-researched decisions based on logic rather than sentiment, hearsay and following the herd? Yeah I've heard of that fantasy world.

I never said people can't afford them. I said if you take price/performance into account, AMD-based systems come out on top. Taking this into account means cost of CPU, RAM & Mobo, as well as (obviously?) the cost of upgrading later when faster parts come out. That is one of intel's greatest failings what with their new incompatible socket every 6 months or so. That's how a real world financial cost/benefit analysis is done and if you do the calculations yourself, you will see that AMD systems come out on top by a fairly wide margin.

Doubt me? Just run the calculations.

2IS
06-04-2011, 09:01 PM
Clearly the majority of the "real world" does not share your opinion or make their purchasing decisions based on your values. If they did, AMD would be the major player over Intel, they're not. That's a fact and won't change no matter how passionate you are about your opinion.

So yeah, if you're going to use the "real world" as evidence to try and solidify your position, try and make sure it actually backs you up and not me.

<AvA>Duff5000
06-04-2011, 10:37 PM
Are you serious or just on drugs?Not a bad analogy at all. Leaving cost out of the equation implies that money is in no way a constraint. This is false in almost all cases.


Your analogy was stupid, have you not heard of postage? We are not talking about thousands of dollars difference here.


As for your "Plenty of people of these forums would be using high end Intel chips.", it is not valid. That they do, doesn't make them right (or wrong) to do so, they just do. It doesn't mean they have unlimited funds, it just means they forked out what it cost.

My point is that many people here do have them as you seem to agree. They are not billionaires like you make out they would have to be.



However, having done a full cost/performance analysis of AMD/Intel over a term of ownership of the hardware, the answer to the question of better performance [in the (real, money-limited) world where spending $1200 more for 15% more performance makes little sense for a gamer] between the two made AMD come out on top.

If you read the thread you would see I have an AMD because they had the best value for the $$ I would put in.


GEDDIT???

You realise how silly it makes you look when you keep saying that? stop it, its lame.


It's like saying "The Corvette is the fastest"... Well, maybe at its price point, but Lockheed Martin makes a faster vehicle dubbed the SR-71. Oops that's in a world where money is unlimited and practicalities don't matter. THAT WORLD IS NOT THE REAL WORLD.

yet another stupid analogy.

This one is far closer to this discussion:
You: "A 350Z is the fastest car int he world"
Others: "Er, no it isnt."
You: "yes it is becase the others cost more."
The rest of the world: :rolleyes:


So you choose: do you live in a world where money is de facto unlimited, or in one where by and large, it is?


Once again with the "you need unlimited $$ to by an intel chip".



I live in the real world, Bozo.

I really doubt that.

Grunt7684
06-05-2011, 05:53 AM
Are you serious or just on drugs?I am serious and you will eventually realize that you are wrong and that I am right.

Your analogy was stupid, have you not heard of postage? We are not talking about thousands of dollars difference here.The analogy wasn't about amounts of money, it was about whether or not one considers money to be available in unlimited quantities or not. I know, the difference may appear subtle.

My point is that many people here do have them as you seem to agree. They are not billionaires like you make out they would have to be.Only mega-billionaires generally hold that money is no object, no matter what. Why do you keep arguing this? What other kinds of people hold such views?

If you read the thread you would see I have an AMD because they had the best value for the $$ I would put in.BRAVO. Unlike the great masses, instead of following the herd, you did a careful cost analysis and quickly realize where you could get the most bang for your buck. I congratulate you.

You realise how silly it makes you look when you keep saying that? stop it, its lame.Well, of course it is, just like the 'argument' it responds to. I use it to highlight the lameness of said 'argument'.

yet another stupid analogy.

This one is far closer to this discussion:
You: "A 350Z is the fastest car int he world"
Others: "Er, no it isnt."
You: "yes it is becase the others cost more."
The rest of the world: :rolleyes:
I never wrote anything like that. I know, subtlety is difficult for you, you have made that abundantly clear. I wrote that MONEY CANNOT BE DISCOUNTED IN REAL WORLD DISCUSSIONS. I never said AMD made faster chips than Intel. Stop making things up.

Once again with the "you need unlimited $$ to by an intel chip".
Once again you reveal a staggering lack of understanding of what is clearly written. What I have been writing is that the only people who can fully ignore the cost of things are billionaires.

Why are you arguing? You seem completely unable to understand that.

Grunt7684
06-05-2011, 05:54 AM
Clearly the majority of the "real world" does not share your opinion or make their purchasing decisions based on your values. If they did, AMD would be the major player over Intel, they're not. That's a fact and won't change no matter how passionate you are about your opinion.

So yeah, if you're going to use the "real world" as evidence to try and solidify your position, try and make sure it actually backs you up and not me.

In the 'real world', the one I live in anyway, most people can't be bothered to learn the ins and out of technology and instead pop into a store and come out with whatever the salesman convinced them would work for them.

Oh, the real world backs me up just fine. :)

<AvA>Duff5000
06-05-2011, 06:13 AM
Once again you reveal a staggering lack of understanding of what is clearly written. What I have been writing is that the only people who can fully ignore the cost of things are billionaires.

Why are you arguing? You seem completely unable to understand that.

You have written time and time again that ignoring cost is only applicable to people with unlimited funds. It is just not the case when talking about who makes the current faster cpu, amd or intel.

My analogy is pretty much spot on to the discussion. Go back and read the thread.

It started with this comment:
My AMD Phenom II X6 1090T @ 4.6 will destroy any intel CPU in video rendering.

And the reply was:
No, actually it won't.

You them chime in with:
Putting money out of the equation of ANYTHING is downright ridiculous. MOST people live in a world that is money-limited.


That is exactly my analogy re cars.

- "A 350Z is the fastest car int he world"
- "Er, no it isnt."
- "yes it is becase the others cost more."

2IS didnt come in and say some special one off $20000 intel cpu was quicker, just a regular high end intel chip.

If Connormast1 had said his cpu would beat any intel chip under $200 (random number example) then he might have a point.

I could say my PhenomII 555 @ quad 3.7 is the fastest CPU. It doesnt make me right.

Just so you know nobody has suggest price doesnt matter. you even quoted 2IS saying it.


I'm not one to drop a cool G on a CPU either, heck I'm still on an OCed Q6600. I will however, raise the BS flag when the situation calls for it.

And my comment from page 2:
Who makes the fastest cpu really doesnt bother me at all. Who gives me the best bang for buck does.

SpunkyKuma
06-05-2011, 09:15 AM
and _MY_ argument is bang for buck, if you're just using your PC for surfing the web, reading emails, watching youtube and playing games then why spend the extra $100-400 on an i7? Sure i7's are better suited if you encode videos and do CAD/CAMs and programming due to its hyperthreading (better than even Phenom II X6's). I'm currently using a Phenom II X4 965 (no point in X6's since they aren't that much better) but I plan to get a Sandy Bridge i5 soon after I move (but I'll wait for Bulldozer too), I've used an i7 and yes it has lots of muscles but again no need for the extra cost.

On Newegg.ca Phenom II X4 965 is $129 (975 $179), Sandy Bridge i5 2500K is $219 and i7 2600K is $309, oh hum decisions!!! :rolleyes:

2IS
06-05-2011, 09:40 AM
On Newegg.ca Phenom II X4 965 is $129 (975 $179), Sandy Bridge i5 2500K is $219 and i7 2600K is $309, oh hum decisions!!! :rolleyes:

You're right, not a hard decision. 2500k easily wins that one. A much better processor for $40 more is a no brainer. (no need for the 2600k to outgun the 975)

Circlestrafe
06-05-2011, 04:10 PM
Intel is definitely faster than AMD at this point in time. It's a simple fact.

Intel's relatively more expensive depending on just how fast you want your PC to be.

They both have very capable processors, buy the one that works for you. Personally, I've just been an AMD customer for years, maybe someday I'll switch, maybe not. Arguing that AMD is just as fast or faster than Intel is ridiculous.

TmDevice
06-05-2011, 04:32 PM
Intel CPUs are like MACs.
You pay a LOT more to have less (http://i.imgur.com/7k8up.png).
But at least Intel has those pointless fifty-cores CPUs that cost 10000$ and run lighting fast, so there is actually a reason to buy them, unlike macs.