Fx-62

[maroon1]

If Intel is supposed to have pulled out an AMD killer, why doesn't ALL the benchies show this?
.

LOL !!!

From the way you are talking it seems that 2 years ago AMD Athlon64 was faster that P4 in all benchmarks !!!

P4 was better than Athlon64 in many things in multi-tasking, encoding..... even some new multithreaded games P4 can match the performance of Athlon64

Athlon64 was never P4 killer

..........................

I was comparing E6750 to 6000+ in my previous posts, E6750 destroys 6000+ in nearly all benchmarks (except in cinebench). And E6750 consume half the power, and overclocks way much better. There is no reason to get 6000+ over E6750 if you are building a new build.

If you already have AM2 mobo then thats a different story............

If you want to buy a cheap CPU that cost $70 or less then this is also a different story..........

 

[Nagasama]

once again we ignore the strong points of amd, in which amd certainly has a distinct advantage.
but, whatever.
there's no reason to get EITHER if you are making a new build. especially if it is a gaming build. like i said before, my 60 dollar 3600 performs JUST AS GOOD as the 6000 or 6750 in most current games. i mean...we're talking a totally insubstantial difference in frames, especially if your graphics are up to snuff. so, if you have sense enough to overclock, why spend that much on either one (if it is primarily a gaming/net build)? that makes no sense. if you are doing photo editing and compression, then yeah, you should step up.
the thing is, not one of us has said that the 6000 is superior to the 6750. i dont know why it is being repeated over and over and over and over and over that it is.
we have just stated that amd has advantages over intel that are rarely pointed out. never really by anyone except 3 or 4 of us. thats what we are saying. and that the advantages that intel currently has over amd are not all-encompassing, and not nearly as substantial as most people who point it out make it out to be. if you dont agree with that, lol ok...but you're wrong.
dude why cant you understand that an 8-15% difference is a difference, for sure. but it is not nearly substantial enough to qualify as "destroy" lol. now, the 30+% in the supreme commander bench (which isnt fps like all the other gaming benches hmmm) qualifies. but 9%? 7.5%? 10%? 13.5%...an average (INCLUDING the 30% difference of sup. com.) of ALL the benches in your post? lol i think not. i suggest that qualifies as "a slight advantage".
a 25-30% average improvement? THAT would be a trouncing. but that aint the case.

EDIT: i just thought of this...
i can run my 3600 at almost 3.2ghz stable. thats an overclock of 60%.
if i was to overclock an e6750 60%, it would run at about 4.25ghz. does that happen?
not really that often, or at least i dont think i have seen one here that has in any event. but 3600 brisbanes will almost certainly clock past 3ghz.
so in principal, my 60 cpu overclocks "better" than that one, costing 225. an interesting observation. it may consume more power, if the e6750 would hit 4.25 on 1.425V(my 3600 @ 3.2). but the 6750 will probably clock better (percentage wise) than a 6000+. i think apokalipse has his at 3.5ghz., a little under 20%. that (20%)would be about 2.65 for the 6750, which it would surely do.

 

[Camshaft]

just a question. When was the 6000+ released and when the E6750? so offcorse the the E6750 should have an advantage

and this that your are talking about DESTROY here's a question for you
Do you have both that chips so you can really compare? NO

 

[BlueHeaven]

once again we ignore the strong points of amd, in which amd certainly has a distinct advantage.
but, whatever.
there's no reason to get EITHER if you are making a new build. especially if it is a gaming build. like i said before, my 60 dollar 3600 performs JUST AS GOOD as the 6000 or 6750 in most current games. i mean...we're talking a totally insubstantial difference in frames, especially if your graphics are up to snuff. so, if you have sense enough to overclock, why spend that much on either one (if it is primarily a gaming/net build)? that makes no sense. if you are doing photo editing and compression, then yeah, you should step up.
the thing is, not one of us has said that the 6000 is superior to the 6750. i dont know why it is being repeated over and over and over and over and over that it is.
we have just stated that amd has advantages over intel that are rarely pointed out. never really by anyone except 3 or 4 of us. thats what we are saying. and that the advantages that intel currently has over amd are not all-encompassing, and not nearly as substantial as most people who point it out make it out to be. if you dont agree with that, lol ok...but you're wrong.
dude why cant you understand that an 8-15% difference is a difference, for sure. but it is not nearly substantial enough to qualify as "destroy" lol. now, the 30+% in the supreme commander bench (which isnt fps like all the other gaming benches hmmm) qualifies. but 9%? 7.5%? 10%? 13.5%...an average (INCLUDING the 30% difference of sup. com.) of ALL the benches in your post? lol i think not. i suggest that qualifies as "a slight advantage".
a 25-30% average improvement? THAT would be a trouncing. but that aint the case.

EDIT: i just thought of this...
i can run my 3600 at almost 3.2ghz stable. thats an overclock of 60%.
if i was to overclock an e6750 60%, it would run at about 4.25ghz. does that happen?
not really that often, or at least i dont think i have seen one here that has in any event. but 3600 brisbanes will almost certainly clock past 3ghz.
so in principal, my 60 cpu overclocks "better" than that one, costing 225. an interesting observation. it may consume more power, if the e6750 would hit 4.25 on 1.425V(my 3600 @ 3.2). but the 6750 will probably clock better (percentage wise) than a 6000+. i think apokalipse has his at 3.5ghz., a little under 20%. that (20%)would be about 2.65 for the 6750, which it would surely do.

I was looking and comparing the benchmarks of the two the other night. And depending on which bench mark your looking at, the differences range from slight to moderate. You will see where the extra 60 bucks goes if your are doing more than just gamin 24/7 (and I really hope you are or else thats just a waste of a computer). For me, on top of gaming, I also do music recording (thru Sonar), video editing (Vegas) watch movies, use winrar like theres no tommorow (compressing and extracting). Thats where it seems the biggest difference between the two exist.

 

[Nagasama]

You will see where the extra 60 bucks goes if your are doing more than just gamin 24/7 (and I really hope you are or else thats just a waste of a computer)

okay yeah, the next time you buy my computer, i will take that into consideration. but where did the arbitrary number of 60 bucks come from?
but anyways, yeah i encode music and download and all that. and of course i do my tech forums stuff. not too much video encoding. in any event, i SAID if you were doing a large amount of video encoding or compression it would be a wise idea to step up to the higher end cpus.
i dont, therefore my opinion is what it is. thanks for uhhhh reiterating what i said?, though.
i do use winrar, though. and my rig decompresses and opens the majority of them in just about a blink of an eye. but i definitely can see the advantage of doing that in half a blink of an eye, oh yes, indeed. what would i do with all that extra time, tho

 

[BlueHeaven]

okay yeah, the next time you buy my computer, i will take that into consideration. but where did the arbitrary number of 60 bucks come from?
but anyways, yeah i encode music and download and all that. and of course i do my tech forums stuff. not too much video encoding. in any event, i SAID if you were doing a large amount of video encoding or compression it would be a wise idea to step up to the higher end cpus.
i dont, therefore my opinion is what it is. thanks for uhhhh reiterating what i said?, though.
i do use winrar, though. and my rig decompresses and opens the majority of them in just about a blink of an eye. but i definitely can see the advantage of doing that in half a blink of an eye, oh yes, indeed. what would i do with all that extra time, tho

I was actually just reafirming what you posted. As always it comes down to price and compatability.

 

[Nagasama]

absolutely. thank you for your support (seriously).

 

[Apokalipse]

First: I was talking about overall performance

E6750 is better than 6000+ and FX-62 in every way

Second: E6750 beats 6000+ in every game benchmark, just look at the review that I posted

Third: Yes E6750 is better in ever way, E6750 beats it in gaming, overall performance, power consumption and overclockabilty

memory bandwith? floating point instructions? cinebench?
forth, please read my post again to see what my actual point was

If the Core 2 was better in every way, they'd have an onboard memory controller, and a quad core chip with four cores on one die. That's just two examples.

Two years ago I remember that many people here were recommending Athlon64 over P4 and claiming that Athlon64 is better in every way !!!, Yet P4 was better than Athlon64 in many things like multitasking, encoding.......

I wasn't one of those people who claimed it was better in every way.
So why do you?

Who cares bout onboard memory controller ? what is its advantage ? !!

If you're really going to ask this, it clearly tells me that your eyes are shut.
I hope that doesn't include K10, aswell.

A quad core in one die !!! Who cares ?? The most important thing is the overall performance !!

What's most important is subjective. And see above.
What about price/performance?

If we have quad core in two dies that performs better than quad core in one die, then the quad core in two dies

Care to read my actual point again?

My point was that the Core 2 is not better in every way, like you claim it is.

 

[Vaanish]

AMD (and ATi) FTW!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who were the first to have an on die memory controller? AMD.

Who were the first to release 64 bit CPUs? AMD.

Who were the first to get rid of the out-dated FSB? AMD

Who were the first to realise that arcitechture is more important that GHz? AMD

What im saying is that AMD are the pioneers of the CPU industry, and Intel just always steal their ideas.