AMD or Intel?

[Apokalipse]

You use unsubstantiated evidence more than I.

I don't think so. You posted things that were wrong, and I proved to you they were wrong.
Such as q6600 is $100 cheaper (which it isn't) or Q6600 is faster (which, in games, 9950 is)

You always say things like "I think phenom wasn't meant for 65nm"

which is a more minor point and not even what the debate is about.

or "I have seen reports of insert unrealistic claim here" Most of your argument is based on opinion.

funny that you only named one thing, and it was a very minor one.

At least I have some benchmarks.

Which showed that the 9950 was faster in games than Q6600
Then I showed that it's also cheaper
and then gave suggestions for a motherboard to go with it, and simply pointed out that it has an SB750 southbridge and a good IGP (which wasn't even the main point), which along with the CPU is at a cheap price

Then you started arguing that it's bad to use an IGP, and pointed out that I don't like Intel, which was and is entirely besides the point.

They don't buy phenom systems. But its a fair reflection of the QC in general.

Who doesn't? People who buy laptops?
Phenom's are not laptop chips.
Besides, it's still av ery small scale piece of anecdotal evidence:

they do have some gateway laptops with Turions and a few of them are out of action

For all I know, they could have all been using 8600M's or 8400M's (which are not from ATI, and which do have high failure rates right now)

That is a poor reason. By purchasing inferior products

That's begging the question.

By rejecting the competition in your mind you are curbing capitalism.

Actually, I'm doing exactly the opposite. I'm buying from the unpopular company.

Its economic survival of the fittest. If a company can't compete then they don't deserve

Says who? what if the only reason they can't compete is not because they had bad products, but because their competition threatens/bribes OEM's not to sell their products, among other things, thus resulting in lost revenue which they can't use for R&D into future products - which your competition capitalises on.
Yeah, sure, that company really deserves to die. And we the consumers deserve to have to pay more for mediocre products and slower advances.

Only if you think that we aren't supposed to recommend the best to the forum goers.

So, basically, we need to recommend everybody gets 3 x GTX 280's in SLI, and 4 x quad core CPU's @ 5.5GHZ using LN2, and 32GB RAM. Got it.

*note Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which the person makes an assumption that has not been established. eg. "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
I was actually pointing out that what I was recommending is high-end

You know I thought about grabbing the definition of high performance but I realized its useless. You are arguing semantics with me because you know you cant argue facts.

You're the one who said that it's not high-end, based on your arbitrary definition of high-end.

It is a generally accepted notion in the enthusiast community that IGPs are not high performance.

And normally I'd agree.
But the 790GX is the best of the IGP's, and can play Crysis on more than low settings at playable framerates.
And it comes free with the board.
But the fact that you're arguing against the 790GX IGP is still, and always has been, a red herring. I wasn't even suggesting he use the IGP of the board over a dedicated card.

By questioning my arbitrary definition of high performance you completely dodge the issue of IGP's having lower performance than dedicated cards

The whole debate wasn't even about whether IGP's are better than dedicated cards. It was about what motherboard and CPU he should get.
And I recommended him a 9950 and 790GX board, which just happens to have the best IGP on the market.

and call into question the competence of power users the world around.

Right, because clearly pointing out the subjectivity of a particular term is the same as saying that power users are stupid people that you shouldn't listen to.

If IGPs were so good don't you think every one would be using them?

Actually, most people are using IGP's. Just not usually gamers.
But the ones that do, are probably using the 780G or 790GX.
But again, that isn't even what the debate is about; it's still a red herring to point out that IGP's have lower performance in general than dedicated cards when the whole topic is actually centered around what motherboard and CPU he should buy.

It IS a fair comparison between IGPs and Video cards because they are both GPUs and fulfill the same task.

One of which, in this case, comes free with a motherboard that also has 2 x PCI-E 16X slots which you can also use for dedicated cards.

Also, haven't you taken into consideration that if AMD were in the position Intel is in that they would exactly the same?

From what I've seen, they actually wouldn't.

They aren't some prefect little under dog company.

I never said they were perfect. I just said they're not Intel.

 

[Drizzt]

It's not like AMD is trying to be lazy and not release products that smoke Intel.

And Intel makes no secret of the fact that they want to destroy AMD. They are also trying to destroy AMD before they go to court in 2010 right? I'm going to see if I can get my parents to get a 3rd system in the house and It will be Deneb.

 

[Hussein19891]

It's not like AMD is trying to be lazy and not release products that smoke Intel.

And Intel makes no secret of the fact that they want to destroy AMD. They are also trying to destroy AMD before they go to court in 2010 right? I'm going to see if I can get my parents to get a 3rd system in the house and It will be Deneb.

AMD vs Infidel..... I m sorry I meant Intel.

Would really love to see AMD destroy Intel both in Processing power and in court.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

IAnd normally I'd agree.
But the 790GX is the best of the IGP's, and can play Crysis on more than low settings at playable framerates.

I have a 780g based system with a Athlon X2 4600+ and while it is good for a IGP I would hardly call it high performance. There is no way it is running Crysis at anything above low settings with what I would consider playable fps. The HD 3300 on the 790gx is pretty much an overclocked HD 3200 so I don't see it doing that much better.

This discussion seems pretty pointless since you have already admitted being biased against Intel. No offense, but it doesn't matter what is said you will still support AMD.

It's not like AMD is trying to be lazy and not release products that smoke Intel.

And Intel makes no secret of the fact that they want to destroy AMD. They are also trying to destroy AMD before they go to court in 2010 right? I'm going to see if I can get my parents to get a 3rd system in the house and It will be Deneb.

Allot of AMD's current problems could be seen as the result of 'laziness". They were content to sit on the success of K8 and gave Intel plenty of time to come up with a superior competitor. Intel has no desire to destroy AMD, they know that if they did they would have to deal with anti trust regulations since it would be a monopoly. That said it is a business and Intel's goal is to make money and they would be stupid not to try to get ahead. That's they way capitalism works.

 

[Apokalipse]

I have a 780g based system with a Athlon X2 4600+ and while it is good for a IGP I would hardly call it high performance. There is no way it is running Crysis at anything above low settings with what I would consider playable fps. The HD 3300 on the 790gx is pretty much an overclocked HD 3200 so I don't see it doing that much better.

the fact remains that the 780G and 790GX are better than all other IGP's

This discussion seems pretty pointless since you have already admitted being biased against Intel. No offense, but it doesn't matter what is said you will still support AMD.

Yes it does.
Just because I won't recommend Intel, doesn't mean my recommendations won't be for products that are worthwhile.

In fact, what I've specifically stated multiple times, is that I will only recommend things on the condition that they are both not from Intel and competitive in terms of performance/cost/quality.

Allot of AMD's current problems could be seen as the result of 'laziness".

Or, lack of R&D budget because a certain competitor specifically blocked them out of OEM markets.

They were content to sit on the success of K8

K8 didn't just remain the same thing throughout its life. And K10 was actually planned before we even knew about Core 2.

and gave Intel plenty of time to come up with a superior competitor.

Actually, that was basically a result of AMD actually starting to eat away at Intel's market share, despite Intel using unethical tactics to block them out of key market segments. So Intel, being a giant company with lots of resources, threw heaps of it into R&D. Something that AMD can't do to the scale that Intel can.

Intel has no desire to destroy AMD

Not completely, but only because antitrust laws exist. But they definitely want to push AMD into a small fringe of the market and be the big dominant player.

That said it is a business and Intel's goal is to make money and they would be stupid not to try to get ahead.

Yeah, but you're supposed to do that by providing better products. Not by threatening/bribing OEM's not to use your competition, or making compilers that produce alternate codepaths that run unnecessarily slower on your competitors products.

Core 2's weren't even supposed to exist at one point. Intel had a very different roadmap, based on Netburst, That changed specifically because of AMD's K8 architecture actually taking market share off Intel.

Which just says something about what we would have without AMD. Probably $500 for a 2.5GHZ Pentium 4 and $300 for a Celeron. Single core.

 

[zmatt]

Yeah, but you're supposed to do that by providing better products. Not by threatening/bribing OEM's not to use your competition, or making compilers that produce alternate codepaths that run unnecessarily slower on your competitors products.

I would contend to say that in a capitalistic society you do whatever is the easiest and most effective to get ahead. In a truly free and open market the only people complaining about the ethics are the losers. I have said it before and I will say it again to your deaf ears. AMD is just as evil as Intel. The only reason why they are not using the same exact tactics is because they are the under dog. The things that Intel does can only be done if you are on top. They are simply looking out for their profit margin. To not do so would be naive'. I'm not worried about their lack of ethics. If you want to have a witch hunt over an evil electronics company pick one like Foxconn that runs sweat shops. At least then you will have my sympathy.

 

[Ventriac]

Ethics are a huge ordeal to people of a significant matter.

 

[Hussein19891]

I would contend to say that in a capitalistic society you do whatever is the easiest and most effective to get ahead. In a truly free and open market the only people complaining about the ethics are the losers. I have said it before and I will say it again to your deaf ears. AMD is just as evil as Intel. The only reason why they are not using the same exact tactics is because they are the under dog. The things that Intel does can only be done if you are on top. They are simply looking out for their profit margin. To not do so would be naive'. I'm not worried about their lack of ethics. If you want to have a witch hunt over an evil electronics company pick one like Foxconn that runs sweat shops. At least then you will have my sympathy.

Its not only ethics lol. What they have done was illegal, there is a difference between making a profit and completely shutting out your competitor by using illegal methods which also happen to have been unethical.

 

[zmatt]

What exactly did they do that was illegal?

 

[35g700]

It doesn't matter how Intel came to be the best they offer the better product. Right now Intel is better then AMD plane and simple. People care about is how fast and reliable there computer is not weather or not the brand they bought it from has good ethnics.

Right now Intel is better then AMD, 2 years from now AMD may be better, but all that matters is now Intel is better then AMD.