because Intels best mobile CPU is a 6-core i7, totally the same as the desktop-version, and with a ht-boost of at least 30% per core, while the amd 8x cpu you called is just an quadcore with an boost up to 80 % per core (through some doubled parts). In pure performance that would be: Intel 6x +30% (7,8) and Amd 4x +80% (7.2).
Youre probably right, man.. you just should spend 40% more of your money to Performance while you're just using 20% of it :P
@dragonmastershow I love how knowledgless trolling fanboys chime in and not even say anything relevant lmfao, don't hate on me cause AMD dropped the ball with faildozer
I have a gigabyte 990fxa-ud3 motherboard and a gainward gtx 570 phantom, but i cant get the GPU to work in the PCIE16x slot, I believe it is a option in the BIOS and if i change that it will work, i know it is n ot a fualty slot as i tried a diffrant GPU in it. please help any suggestions wanted :D plz INBOX REPLIES
i have intel 2 duo core E8400 3.0 Ghz + nvidia GTX 550 TI. and running crysis 2 in max setting.. and play batter. and i can play battlefield3 too. ahHH!!! just go and fuck you self. if you want a batter FPS on game.. just buy the batter graphic card. you so wrong about this.
intel is focused on high end, AMD on low-midrange segment, these are onboard video comparisons and no processor comparisons, Q6600 rapes the Phenom 9500! ;)
@trisanosh my dad's a computer technician and we have TONS of computer components all over the place. i have 4 computers in my room alone, i know my computers ok? don't even go there with me. i have intel and amd computers and amd lasts longer and performs better for my games. my cheap amd phenom II 955 black edition can run bf3 max graphics, and that things only around 100 bucks.
@TheCrackerBrony Ok, if it comes to price/performance, AMD will win, cause of the good ratio, but if you just look performancewise, Intel is definitely better ;)
I have many computers too (all custom build) so don't think you're a smart guy or what else... do you ever know where this video is about?! I don't think so, otherwise you wouldn't post such stupid comments...
@trisanosh intel makes processors that are more powerful then anyone would ever need is what im saying. and im not posting stupid comments i just pointed out that amd is better with price/performance ratio. if it's a stupid comment how come im so right and you're so wrong? and yes i am a smart guy, im even taking my third year in computer science bud. and amd processors can have like 5 monitor gameplay max graphics, why would you WANT more? that's is just stupid. amd ftw intel can suck it
@TheCrackerBrony You did not anwer my question... this is just a comparison between the AMD 780G onboard graphics and the Intel G35 onboard graphics... just not a real comparison between de Phenom 9500 and the Q6600.... Q6600 is way faster an way better overclock ability... that featre is called eyefinity which is part of the graphics cards and not CPU's even not intel but Nvidia vs AMD...
@TheCrackerBrony why would you connect 3 or 6 screens to one card if it cannot even handle the latest games on that resolution... just buy 2 Nvidia casrds and you can hook up 3 monitors and you can play the latest games maxed ;)
sorry bud, your're not fully correct... and I bet for sure there are people out here, can confirm my statement...
@trisanosh dude amds bulldozer 8 core proccesor is the beast proccesor it even beats intels fastest i7 core and [plus its freaken cheeper than intel! ITS LIKE HAVING TO BUY A FREAKIN XBOX FROM SOMEONE THAT FUCKED IT UP FOR 400 AND GETTING A NEW ONE FOR 300
@megachin1234able LOL! AMDs bulldozer failed. It was close to the i5 2500k but couldnt touch the 2600k. FAR from it. Plus I think amds 8 core cpu is more expensive then the 2500k.
@DanielMosey ? where are you getting your facts from? newegg's bulldozer AMD FX-8150 Zambezi 3.6GHz 8 core is currently at 269.99$ while i7 Sandy Bridge 2600K 3.4GHz is at 319.99$... Why you might be saying that if failed is because the motherboards in stock and Windows 7 are not programmed to run the Bulldozer technology at full potential but Win7 is releasing a patch with hotfixes already out and ASUS is making new boards. On top of it Bulldozer 8150 performs better than 2600K i7...its a fact.
@ChronoLogicalDream If you read what I said, Bulldozer is more expensive then the 2500k, NOT 2600k. Read mate.
And dont come with bullshit about windows 7 and motherboards aint compatible. So AMD will create a motherboard (AM3+) that DOESNT work properly with a product THEY created?
plus, intel has had 8 core cpus for many years on windows vista and 7 and all works fine. Yes its HT but never the less it works.
@DanielMosey ...I work with hardware and soft all day long. If you would just put your fanboy area of the brain aside (think about it) maybe you will listen to words instead of brushing them off. Win7 and almost all motherboards were NOT compatible with bulldozer in the beginning of the testing that's why the results came out less then poor. Now that they have been tested on par, bulldozer measures up to Intel's best i7's with a knock off the price. Go learn bud.
I'm not a fan boy, I just know who is better.Since the core2duo from Intel, AMD has failed to provide any useful chips to the mass market.
I dont believe that it was not compatible.It has 8 cores.Well 2x4 nodes.How is windows NOT compatible with 8 cores seeing as Intel had no problems? Windows has released 2 patches, both did not help.AMD3+ has been out for donkeys years, long enough to make it compatible.
@DanielMosey 1 "module" on the fx cpu that your referring to is NOT the same as one core on a traditional cpu. It is an entirely new design so therefore there will be hiccups in the way an os "see's" the cpu (its way too complex for me to explain in a youtube comment, suffice to say read up on how the "modules" are different). And am3+ hasnt been out years, only a few months its am3 has been out years big difference.
@calumknight1984 Im sure am3+ has been out for a long time now. Ever since Bulldozer was supposed to be released, but didnt make it, the motherboards where still released though.
I know what a node is. I still see it as a core+HT. although it may be two physical cores it shares the same resources. I think thats where AMD failed the most.
The cpu itself has to assign tasks. Fetch, Decode, Execute, and Writeback, the Bulldozer is too slow to complete any of those.
@DanielMosey no am3+ has only been out since sometime the end of last year not years, am3 has been out for ages now. And not too sure about what the problem is we'll get more of an idea with the win7/win8 fixes when they reach us (finished), but I do get the feeling the main issue is they rushed out the desktop varients it does to me seem like they flogged out the server chips to us rather than say the FX chips wont be out on time and tell us they'll be done when they're done.
@calumknight1984 I personally dont see why Windows should make their OS compaitable with Bulldozer, it should be the other way around. Or let AMD find a fix as thats whats great about windows, drivers.
AMDs prority is servers, companys. Normal users are just a bonus and because of that I think it will always be rushed.
@DanielMosey What i mean is the FX chips seem to me to be either based off or they literally are the opteron versions with a few parts deactivated (crap at single threaded, great at heavily threaded apps seems a bit suss to me). Either way Im holding back as ive got a ton of single threaded old games I dont want hampered by FX performance Im holding out for a revision (the good thing is the cpu is modular they can tweak the layout to their hearts content)
@calumknight1984 AMD tried going back to the FX chips they sold so many years ago, when they where clearly the king of the CPU market. AMD has always failed at single cores (1 core intel vs 1 core AMD) so thats why they rely heavily on adding more cores, thats goes for AMD and ATI (although ATI hasnt always been AMD as we all know).
AMD needs to forget about the nodes, leave them behind and give each cpu its own resources, then they can catch up, but until then they will lose.
@Dragst3er agreed, they market it as 8 cores but it aint. At least intel had the 'balls' to say heres an i7, its not 8 cores but 4 are physical and 4 HT.
@FinnishVodkaFish You dont know anything!, Bulldozer is the next generation cpu and build from the ground up which is ahead of it's time. Bulldozer is design for windows 8 and power not speed!!
@FinnishVodkaFish if you say so but i believe it is doing very well with game and program, in term of power but speed is average. More powerful Bulldozer coming in near future 2nd generation Piledriver, 3rd Generation Steamroller, 4th Generation Excavator :-)
@dragonmastershow Lol. 'More powerful bulldozer in the near future'. well by then Ivy will be out, lets forget about then as sandy wins now.
plus have you seen Ivy bridge? 10 cores, 20 threads, 22nm, 3D transistors? AMD cant keep up. They where designed for servers, companys. Not the normal user. Now they are being shown where they belong. In no where but a server doing spreadsheets.
The new bulldozers had better be made out of dimond to actually beat intel Lol.
nothing touch Bulldozer in term of power or core for ton aps running at the same time which they call APU and right now intel are copying amd for their Apu.
@dragonmastershow No, it doesnt matter how many cores bulldozer has, it executes things too slow. Bulldozer has 8 cores, but lets say it can only execute one app per core per second (a cpu can only do one thing at any one time) so thats 8 apps per second.
but now intel comes along and can execute 2 apps per second (2600k) thats 16 apps per second. making it twice as fast.
Intel had it on Sandy BEFORE bulldozer. Plus built in gpus have been around for a long longgggg time mate!
@DanielMosey oh and im not saying that the times i used are offical. Im just showing that just because one has more cores then the other doesnt mean one can do more work per second. Its all about how it handles the load, and atm AMDs bulldozer can handle anything. It was built from the ground up to do nothing but fail.
@DanielMosey dude you are never going to get it if you dont sit down and think properly what bulldozer is capable of!! You just dont get it do you? just pure ego
@dragonmastershow bulldozers are good, but intels i5-2540k's are better, half as many cores and lower clock but it still wins, explain how amd is better now
@088mac Well amd Bulldozer is designed for power to deal with many application without lag and more core the better it is for future proof, now intel are designed with speed in mind to run faster but not so much about power since they have less core, the whole benchmark thing is based on how fast a processor can run and to be honest there isnt a big difference in speed between Bulldozer and Intel Core i7 980X 20% improvement on stock and 40% overclock!
@megachin1234able the faildozers are just a fail, the real-time comparosons show youit cannot even beat the I5 2500(k) on stock which is even cheaper than AMD's FX8150...
don't comment if you don't know what you're talking about!
@trisanosh please read my comment as to why bulldozer got bad reviews. I dont care if you are an xfx/intel or amd/asus guy. It doesnt matter. Im just here to update. Windows 7 did not support Bulldozer tech and that made them perform as low as the i5's 2500K. with the new hotfixes already out and a patch on the way from Win 7 they are already beating the 2600K i7's with even more potential with the new ASUS boards designed for 6/8+ cores.
@ChronoLogicalDream Could you please link me some results which show that bulldozer does better? I'd rather pay $30 more for a lot more power. The bulldozer does better than the 2500k, but it's behind 2600k.
@JARMOPOWER well to tell you the truth I got a little heated because people hate on the bulldozer for no reason as it is a very good CPU. It's the intermediate between i5 and i7 and the price is also in between them. The only thing is that a stock FX-8150 will run same maybe even better than the i7 Sandy Bridge (read a few articles about it jsut to check) BUT! if overclocked, sandy bridge tears FX-8150 a new one.
@ChronoLogicalDream at the same time ive only seen pre Win7 patch stress tests + function + fps tests from October so im not too sure what's the deal right now ill look into it.
Intel graphics cant even beat AMD's integrated graphics, or specifically their APUs, Fusion. Not only that Fusion now are even cheaper and faster than Intel
i have an intel t4300 2.1ghz.... 4gb ram and an nvidia gt 120m 1gb, and i can run skyrim in medium at 15-25 fps... and skyrim cannot even be comparable (graphics-wise) to farcry or halflife 2... so this video just gives wrong information.
You guys need to read. He's just using the integrated graphic card. Not everyone is going to bug a dedicated graphics card. If you do some casual gaming on the side, and you don't wanna shell out for a graphic card, AMD is probably gonna be better. No need to get defensive intel fanboys (btw, I have an intel and a dedicated graphic card, so don't freak)
Hahaa what a failure he slowed down the AMD video, my old Phenom played Farcry at double the FPS of the intel, AND when it lags, you don't move slower, it's jsut jumpy.
This dudes a fucking gay ass amd fan he didn't use the same graphics cards my intel pentium D with my nvidia graphics card would do better than his amd shit
I will explain it like that. If you dont have money to buy really expensive CPU but you are still looking for good gaming PC go for AMD, If you are someone who have lots of money and want to have the highest possible fps go for Intel, the GPU is no longer an very much difference... oh and about this video, Is just piecie of shit showing that author of it is just fanboy of AMD, last thing, AMD APUs beats Intel HD graphics, and dont say to me to test with some decient graphic card because
wow i just looked at some comments and i cannot stop from laughing "Intel is better, no AMD is better. Intel burns, no Amd burns" LOL if you are using decient cooler it wont bbbburn you retarted fucks! Speaking of which company is better, hgm... I'm now using AMD processor with ATI graphics card (yes ATI) but i also have an Intel and Nvidia gaming setup, and I must say that for less money spend on AMD/ATI build I had not as good results as with Intel/Nvidia setup but thats to be expected
@TheStuffyBear are you stupid or what? Why the hell it says : Intel Q6600 then? It doesn't have a video chip on it! It should say - Intel X4500 or whatever vs AMD HD3200 or something...Stupid people for duck sake.
actually its such bs because the q6600 is in the pc i use when on the internet and when playing oldergames such as gtaiv, mw2,mw,w@w, battlefield bad company 2.... and i play on max settings with no lag so i think ur just afan boy
@DakoHawk1 actually the video card has little to do with the performance on this...more ram and a good cpu will boost your performance...the video card just delivers the video data much faster than onboard video
@DakoHawk1 hahahahahahahaha. Entirely pointless testing. There are 0 constants in this test, it appears everything is a variable except the game being played.
He is comparing the ONBOARD GPUs. So they are in direct competition with each other. Although he didn't list which onboard solutions are used on these mobos, that can easily be found by looking up the board. THe average PC user either doesn't have a clue that dedicated GPUs exist or that they do anything sot they just buy prebuilts that only have the onboard gpu. So it's not an invalid test, although both intel and amd have more than one OBGPU.
@TheKingoffag Then why Intel rapes AMD in all the benchmarks? Integrated graphics are bullshit, none of the performance users/gamers use integrated graphics. When it comes to raw CPU power, Intel is leagues ahead of AMD. Always buy Intel for CPU, for graphics card both AMD Radeon or Nvidia GeForce are good.
Who the fuck uses integrated graphics anyway? Intel CPU's do better CPU's job, AMD ones have better integrated graphics so what? Gamers and people who play games most likely have dedicated graphics card. Buy intel + nvidia or amd/ati and you're good to go.
@Dex1n very true my friend. i'm an intel +nvidia for now. and i put low settings :)) its shitty in skyrim 5 can't really enjoy but fnck. it won't stop me from playing it :D
Listen, those who are arguing. Make a bet. $1000, build a rig each. Rules, must have psu/mobo/cpu/ram/gpu (case and hdd must be the same, the rest is up to the builder, including amount of ram, cpu type etc.), and overclock to your hearts content, then compare in various tests, the winner gets the other guys built rig. Intel guy can't use ATI GPU. Easy. AMD will destroy you Intel fanboy, u have balls 2 take bet? Yes, Intel will win in unlimited cash, but I don't want to spend 10K on a rig.
hahaha this guy is fun man! ;) i did game test bf3 same GPU GTX290 SLI and ram and intel ssd 320 serie! with win7, Intel Q6600 vs amd 1090T. Intel got 57 fps and amd got 49 fps. guyz are u for game so buy intel! only for eazy media buy amd!!
@Destroyer198512 Intel has always performed poorly, you can't say that intel got more FPS when i know (proven in so many ways) that it hasn't. speaking falsely gets you nowhere.
@hardstyle905 oh oh let me guess... you had to overclock it to get it to equal out to my (once stock) CPU, and then water cool it so it wouldn't over heat and burn up? yep sounds about right, listen kiddo.. i've used intel and amd, AMD performes better all around in video games, intel performs better in well... sitting there to look at. Wanna compare the two? get a real computer, top notch intel and then we'll compare it to my mediocre AMD.
@RiddleMeThis19 What kind of games do you play? Tetris and Minesweeper? Sorry bud. I play Crysis at 1920x1080 + highest settings at >70 FPS. My CPU runs at 35C idle and won't even hit 50C under full load. Jealous little AMD boy can't afford some real hardware.
@hardstyle905 Can't afford real hardware? I'm running phenom II x4 975 BE (beat that ;)) ATI Radeon HD 4870 x2, 1920x1080 + highest @ 70? highly unlikely, get real with your stats ;) minesweep and tetris? no. I play top notch games ;) Crysis is outdated now, your CPU holds at 35C idle? cool story, mine holds 36 idle, full load it barely tops 42C. So intell is better HOW? you've yet to prove anything cept intel sucks. (BTW, officially tested. crysis 2 @ 68 FPS.) Wanna cry more?
@hardstyle905 I give props to AMD for building the worlds first 8/12/16 core CPU's but i refuse to buy them ;) phenom II does everything the world needs for gaming (look at the stats in comparison.) you're an intel fanboy, i get there... though for me i can never respect intel for taking AMD's arch. (been a few years.) and using it for themselves... as well as building a chipset that burns up far too easy. I will always be on AMD's side :)
@hardstyle905 I have sticked with Intel and Nvidia so far, I just tend to like them more. Its a matter of personal opinions and most of AMD fanboys dont tend to realize they are both companies trying to suck their hard earned money. My friend sold me his 2600k for 150e to get a Bulldozer, played for a week
BS. intel > i bet you had a diff gfx card
r2hMisTaKeN 3 hours ago
Anyone else wondering why he's comparing 2.2-2.4 Ghz Processors that seem to be like 3 years old?
FlentMan 1 day ago
AMD is the Best good video!
Jonas046 3 days ago
btw the Video is Bullshit. I play Crysis with an dual core e6600 with average 30 fps. Think again
In addition to my last Post
everyone knows that the i7 sixcores with HT are better than the AMD fxs. But there are also other requirements (and prices!) to the fx...
My next will be such a fx :D
DuringDariusHappened 1 week ago
intels best mobile cpu is better than the best 8 core fx cpu
465fire 1 week ago
@465fire
because Intels best mobile CPU is a 6-core i7, totally the same as the desktop-version, and with a ht-boost of at least 30% per core, while the amd 8x cpu you called is just an quadcore with an boost up to 80 % per core (through some doubled parts). In pure performance that would be: Intel 6x +30% (7,8) and Amd 4x +80% (7.2).
Youre probably right, man.. you just should spend 40% more of your money to Performance while you're just using 20% of it :P
DuringDariusHappened 1 week ago
Comment removed
465fire 1 week ago
dont use intel graphics for gaming as this shows.
kingofthecloset67 2 weeks ago
my pc can but rape this little ity bity bitch you call a pc
trashypickles 3 weeks ago
Wow, I like how all we see is the CPU, no GPU, RAM and such ?
Fail, for all we know you could've ran both on different GPU's.
AdayDr1en 3 weeks ago
@AdayDr1en RAM is 2GB DDR2-800 CL4 from Corsair. GPU's are onboard, that's why he's comparing AMD vs Intel.
bgioni 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AdayDr1en RAM is 2GB DDR2-800 CL4 from Corsair. GPU's are onboard, that's why he's comparing AMD vs Intel.
bgioni 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AdayDr1en RAM is 2GB DDR2-800 CL4 from Corsair. GPU's are onboard, that's why he's comparing AMD vs Intel.
bgioni 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AdayDr1en RAM is 2GB DDR2-800 CL4 from Corsair. GPU's are onboard, that's why he's comparing AMD vs Intel.
bgioni 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AdayDr1en RAM is 2GB DDR2-800 CL4 from Corsair. GPU's are onboard, that's why he's comparing AMD vs Intel.
bgioni 3 weeks ago
IGP ..
Nddesh 3 weeks ago
Unless you overclock
sileysut8991 3 weeks ago
Bulldozer is not that great, for multithreaded progs its pretty good but for normal everyday use you can't beat the 2500k
jeffel80 3 weeks ago
@jeffel80 keep dreaming!!
dragonmastershow 2 weeks ago
@dragonmastershow I love how knowledgless trolling fanboys chime in and not even say anything relevant lmfao, don't hate on me cause AMD dropped the ball with faildozer
jeffel80 2 weeks ago
3:02 what is this music?
INeedToLiveLonger 1 month ago
lol>>> not amd phenom vs intel i2..... intel i7 vs amd phenom... just a little crappy
nuim2011 1 month ago
Nice try AMD...
KoGuboy 1 month ago
if i had a penny for every pixel in this video id have a dollar....
staIlowned 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I need help:
I have a gigabyte 990fxa-ud3 motherboard and a gainward gtx 570 phantom, but i cant get the GPU to work in the PCIE16x slot, I believe it is a option in the BIOS and if i change that it will work, i know it is n ot a fualty slot as i tried a diffrant GPU in it. please help any suggestions wanted :D plz INBOX REPLIES
Thank you
mckey54 1 month ago
Ok, now compare the 3960x to the 1090t (bulldozer is slower then a 1090t)
MrIwesseli 1 month ago
i have intel 2 duo core E8400 3.0 Ghz + nvidia GTX 550 TI. and running crysis 2 in max setting.. and play batter. and i can play battlefield3 too. ahHH!!! just go and fuck you self. if you want a batter FPS on game.. just buy the batter graphic card. you so wrong about this.
MrNeowarrior 1 month ago
this video is shit and fake!!!
ELBOMB4RO 1 month ago
intel =extreme performance and cost, amd =good performance and cost
ELBOMB4RO 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Faildozer (Bulldozer AMD 8 cores) Can barely keep up the intel i5 (4 cores) and are miles away from the i7 (4 cores 8 treads 2600K and 2700K)
The new INTEL Sandy bridge (6 cores 12 tread) is light years far beyon the Faildozer 8 cores of AMD.
Nemerok 1 month ago
Faildozer (Bulldozer AMD 8 cores) Can barely keep up the intel i5 (4 cores) and are miles away from the i7 (4 cores 8 treads 2600K and 2700K)
The new INTEL Sandy bridge (6 cores 12 tread) is light years far beyon the Faildozer 8 cores of AMD.
Nemerok 1 month ago
Faildozer (Bulldozer AMD 8 cores) Can barely keep up the intel i5 (4 cores) and are miles away from the i7 (4 cores 8 treads 2600K and 2700K)
The new INTEL Sandy bridge (6 cores 12 tread) is light years far beyon the Faildozer 8 cores of AMD.
BESIDE, INTEL motherboard support MORE hardware and are WAY MORE STABLE !!.
AMD are very good for the price and you can have a gaming rig for cheap.
INTEL are for those who want the best performance and technology.
AMD = Quantity
INTEL = Quality
Nemerok 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Faildozer (Bulldozer AMD 8 cores) Can barely keep up the intel i5 (4 cores) and are miles away from the i7 (4 cores 8 treads 2600K and 2700K)
The new INTEL Sandy bridge (6 cores 12 tread) is light years far beyon the Faildozer 8 cores of AMD.
BESIDE, INTEL motherboard support MORE hardware and are WAY MORE STABLE !!.
AMD are very good for the price and you can have a gaming rig for cheap.
INTEL are for those who want the best performance and technology.
AMD = Quantity
INTEL = Quality
Nemerok 1 month ago
Faildozer (Bulldozer AMD 8 cores) Can barely keep up the intel i5 (4 cores) and are miles away from the i7 (4 cores 8 treads 2600K and 2700K)
The new INTEL Sandy bridge (6 cores 12 tread) is light years far beyon the Faildozer 8 cores of AMD.
BESIDE, INTEL motherboard support MORE hardware and are WAY MORE STABLE !!.
AMD are very good for the price and you can have a gaming rig for cheap.
INTEL are for those who want the best performance and technology.
AMD = Quantity
INTEL = Quality
Nemerok 1 month ago
Lol i don't know where you bought your Intel, But my old P4 single cores at 2Ghz was running Half life 2 at 60 FPS and no lag.
Nemerok 1 month ago
i have amd and an intel i7 sandy bridge and i think intel was better
l4dxpert1 1 month ago
@l4dxpert1 is the amd 8 core good?
Michaelokupejr 1 month ago
@Michaelokupejr yeah its great, Intel i think is only better by a little bit. But yeah go for the amd, its cheap and great for overclocking and games
l4dxpert1 1 month ago
intel is focused on high end, AMD on low-midrange segment, these are onboard video comparisons and no processor comparisons, Q6600 rapes the Phenom 9500! ;)
trisanosh 1 month ago
@trisanosh amd is better for gaming, and is cheaper >.>
TheCrackerBrony 1 month ago
@TheCrackerBrony No mate, I think you mixed some thing up... find out for yourself and you will know I was right ;)
trisanosh 1 month ago
@trisanosh my dad's a computer technician and we have TONS of computer components all over the place. i have 4 computers in my room alone, i know my computers ok? don't even go there with me. i have intel and amd computers and amd lasts longer and performs better for my games. my cheap amd phenom II 955 black edition can run bf3 max graphics, and that things only around 100 bucks.
TheCrackerBrony 1 month ago
@TheCrackerBrony Ok, if it comes to price/performance, AMD will win, cause of the good ratio, but if you just look performancewise, Intel is definitely better ;)
I have many computers too (all custom build) so don't think you're a smart guy or what else... do you ever know where this video is about?! I don't think so, otherwise you wouldn't post such stupid comments...
trisanosh 1 month ago
@trisanosh intel makes processors that are more powerful then anyone would ever need is what im saying. and im not posting stupid comments i just pointed out that amd is better with price/performance ratio. if it's a stupid comment how come im so right and you're so wrong? and yes i am a smart guy, im even taking my third year in computer science bud. and amd processors can have like 5 monitor gameplay max graphics, why would you WANT more? that's is just stupid. amd ftw intel can suck it
TheCrackerBrony 1 month ago
@trisanosh and im not reading anything more by you you're blind to the obvious. and i've made my point, amd>intel all day.
TheCrackerBrony 1 month ago
@TheCrackerBrony You did not anwer my question... this is just a comparison between the AMD 780G onboard graphics and the Intel G35 onboard graphics... just not a real comparison between de Phenom 9500 and the Q6600.... Q6600 is way faster an way better overclock ability... that featre is called eyefinity which is part of the graphics cards and not CPU's even not intel but Nvidia vs AMD...
trisanosh 1 month ago
@TheCrackerBrony why would you connect 3 or 6 screens to one card if it cannot even handle the latest games on that resolution... just buy 2 Nvidia casrds and you can hook up 3 monitors and you can play the latest games maxed ;)
sorry bud, your're not fully correct... and I bet for sure there are people out here, can confirm my statement...
trisanosh 1 month ago
@trisanosh dude amds bulldozer 8 core proccesor is the beast proccesor it even beats intels fastest i7 core and [plus its freaken cheeper than intel! ITS LIKE HAVING TO BUY A FREAKIN XBOX FROM SOMEONE THAT FUCKED IT UP FOR 400 AND GETTING A NEW ONE FOR 300
megachin1234able 1 month ago
@megachin1234able LOL! AMDs bulldozer failed. It was close to the i5 2500k but couldnt touch the 2600k. FAR from it. Plus I think amds 8 core cpu is more expensive then the 2500k.
DanielMosey 1 month ago
@DanielMosey ? where are you getting your facts from? newegg's bulldozer AMD FX-8150 Zambezi 3.6GHz 8 core is currently at 269.99$ while i7 Sandy Bridge 2600K 3.4GHz is at 319.99$... Why you might be saying that if failed is because the motherboards in stock and Windows 7 are not programmed to run the Bulldozer technology at full potential but Win7 is releasing a patch with hotfixes already out and ASUS is making new boards. On top of it Bulldozer 8150 performs better than 2600K i7...its a fact.
ChronoLogicalDream 1 month ago
@ChronoLogicalDream If you read what I said, Bulldozer is more expensive then the 2500k, NOT 2600k. Read mate.
And dont come with bullshit about windows 7 and motherboards aint compatible. So AMD will create a motherboard (AM3+) that DOESNT work properly with a product THEY created?
plus, intel has had 8 core cpus for many years on windows vista and 7 and all works fine. Yes its HT but never the less it works.
AMD failed, prove me wrong.
DanielMosey 3 weeks ago
@DanielMosey ...I work with hardware and soft all day long. If you would just put your fanboy area of the brain aside (think about it) maybe you will listen to words instead of brushing them off. Win7 and almost all motherboards were NOT compatible with bulldozer in the beginning of the testing that's why the results came out less then poor. Now that they have been tested on par, bulldozer measures up to Intel's best i7's with a knock off the price. Go learn bud.
ChronoLogicalDream 2 weeks ago
@ChronoLogicalDream oh, and I dont work with H/W and S/W all day long?
I'm not a fan boy, I just know who is better.Since the core2duo from Intel, AMD has failed to provide any useful chips to the mass market.
I dont believe that it was not compatible.It has 8 cores.Well 2x4 nodes.How is windows NOT compatible with 8 cores seeing as Intel had no problems? Windows has released 2 patches, both did not help.AMD3+ has been out for donkeys years, long enough to make it compatible.
DanielMosey 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
calumknight1984 2 weeks ago
@DanielMosey 1 "module" on the fx cpu that your referring to is NOT the same as one core on a traditional cpu. It is an entirely new design so therefore there will be hiccups in the way an os "see's" the cpu (its way too complex for me to explain in a youtube comment, suffice to say read up on how the "modules" are different). And am3+ hasnt been out years, only a few months its am3 has been out years big difference.
calumknight1984 2 weeks ago
@calumknight1984 Im sure am3+ has been out for a long time now. Ever since Bulldozer was supposed to be released, but didnt make it, the motherboards where still released though.
I know what a node is. I still see it as a core+HT. although it may be two physical cores it shares the same resources. I think thats where AMD failed the most.
The cpu itself has to assign tasks. Fetch, Decode, Execute, and Writeback, the Bulldozer is too slow to complete any of those.
DanielMosey 2 weeks ago
@DanielMosey no am3+ has only been out since sometime the end of last year not years, am3 has been out for ages now. And not too sure about what the problem is we'll get more of an idea with the win7/win8 fixes when they reach us (finished), but I do get the feeling the main issue is they rushed out the desktop varients it does to me seem like they flogged out the server chips to us rather than say the FX chips wont be out on time and tell us they'll be done when they're done.
calumknight1984 2 weeks ago
@calumknight1984 I personally dont see why Windows should make their OS compaitable with Bulldozer, it should be the other way around. Or let AMD find a fix as thats whats great about windows, drivers.
AMDs prority is servers, companys. Normal users are just a bonus and because of that I think it will always be rushed.
DanielMosey 2 weeks ago
@DanielMosey What i mean is the FX chips seem to me to be either based off or they literally are the opteron versions with a few parts deactivated (crap at single threaded, great at heavily threaded apps seems a bit suss to me). Either way Im holding back as ive got a ton of single threaded old games I dont want hampered by FX performance Im holding out for a revision (the good thing is the cpu is modular they can tweak the layout to their hearts content)
calumknight1984 2 weeks ago
@calumknight1984 AMD tried going back to the FX chips they sold so many years ago, when they where clearly the king of the CPU market. AMD has always failed at single cores (1 core intel vs 1 core AMD) so thats why they rely heavily on adding more cores, thats goes for AMD and ATI (although ATI hasnt always been AMD as we all know).
AMD needs to forget about the nodes, leave them behind and give each cpu its own resources, then they can catch up, but until then they will lose.
DanielMosey 2 weeks ago
@DanielMosey AMD Bulldozer FX-8150 is a 4 core CPU with SMT like the 2600k
but yo right the Bulldozer is not a good cpu
Dragst3er 4 weeks ago
@Dragst3er agreed, they market it as 8 cores but it aint. At least intel had the 'balls' to say heres an i7, its not 8 cores but 4 are physical and 4 HT.
DanielMosey 3 weeks ago
@DanielMosey was actually weaker then the 2500k except for cinebench because of the more cores
BreakingLaPorte 3 weeks ago
@DanielMosey exactly! the best bulldozer and the i5 2500k are on the same level, 2600k, 2700k, or I go further, lga2011 ROCKS THE SHIT OUT OF THE AMD
94mark01 3 weeks ago
@94mark01 Nothing so far today is on the same level as the bulldozer.
Bulldozer speciality is power as for intel is speed.
let that be your education for today.
I personally will go for power which is Amd Bulldozer
dragonmastershow 2 weeks ago
@DanielMosey Its called Faildozer not bulldozer
FinnishVodkaFish 2 weeks ago
@FinnishVodkaFish You dont know anything!, Bulldozer is the next generation cpu and build from the ground up which is ahead of it's time. Bulldozer is design for windows 8 and power not speed!!
dragonmastershow 2 weeks ago
@dragonmastershow Yeah but still bulldozer isnt good as intel with games. Bulldozer are made for multicore softwares
FinnishVodkaFish 2 weeks ago
@FinnishVodkaFish if you say so but i believe it is doing very well with game and program, in term of power but speed is average. More powerful Bulldozer coming in near future 2nd generation Piledriver, 3rd Generation Steamroller, 4th Generation Excavator :-)
dragonmastershow 2 weeks ago
@dragonmastershow Lol. 'More powerful bulldozer in the near future'. well by then Ivy will be out, lets forget about then as sandy wins now.
plus have you seen Ivy bridge? 10 cores, 20 threads, 22nm, 3D transistors? AMD cant keep up. They where designed for servers, companys. Not the normal user. Now they are being shown where they belong. In no where but a server doing spreadsheets.
The new bulldozers had better be made out of dimond to actually beat intel Lol.
DanielMosey 2 weeks ago
@DanielMosey dude you are so wrong!
nothing touch Bulldozer in term of power or core for ton aps running at the same time which they call APU and right now intel are copying amd for their Apu.
dragonmastershow 2 weeks ago
@dragonmastershow No, it doesnt matter how many cores bulldozer has, it executes things too slow. Bulldozer has 8 cores, but lets say it can only execute one app per core per second (a cpu can only do one thing at any one time) so thats 8 apps per second.
but now intel comes along and can execute 2 apps per second (2600k) thats 16 apps per second. making it twice as fast.
Intel had it on Sandy BEFORE bulldozer. Plus built in gpus have been around for a long longgggg time mate!
DanielMosey 2 weeks ago
@DanielMosey oh and im not saying that the times i used are offical. Im just showing that just because one has more cores then the other doesnt mean one can do more work per second. Its all about how it handles the load, and atm AMDs bulldozer can handle anything. It was built from the ground up to do nothing but fail.
DanielMosey 2 weeks ago
@DanielMosey dude you are never going to get it if you dont sit down and think properly what bulldozer is capable of!! You just dont get it do you? just pure ego
grow up dude!!
dragonmastershow 2 weeks ago
@dragonmastershow ok, please tell me how bulldozer is better then sandy. Show me pure facts that its better all round, thats its worth its money.
Im listening.
DanielMosey 2 weeks ago
@dragonmastershow bulldozers are good, but intels i5-2540k's are better, half as many cores and lower clock but it still wins, explain how amd is better now
088mac 2 weeks ago
@088mac Well amd Bulldozer is designed for power to deal with many application without lag and more core the better it is for future proof, now intel are designed with speed in mind to run faster but not so much about power since they have less core, the whole benchmark thing is based on how fast a processor can run and to be honest there isnt a big difference in speed between Bulldozer and Intel Core i7 980X 20% improvement on stock and 40% overclock!
dragonmastershow 2 weeks ago
@dragonmastershow i suppose so but for quality gaming on up to 3 screens id say intel, would you agree?
088mac 2 weeks ago
@088mac @088mac yea i suppose!
dragonmastershow 2 weeks ago
@megachin1234able the faildozers are just a fail, the real-time comparosons show youit cannot even beat the I5 2500(k) on stock which is even cheaper than AMD's FX8150...
don't comment if you don't know what you're talking about!
trisanosh 1 month ago
@trisanosh please read my comment as to why bulldozer got bad reviews. I dont care if you are an xfx/intel or amd/asus guy. It doesnt matter. Im just here to update. Windows 7 did not support Bulldozer tech and that made them perform as low as the i5's 2500K. with the new hotfixes already out and a patch on the way from Win 7 they are already beating the 2600K i7's with even more potential with the new ASUS boards designed for 6/8+ cores.
ChronoLogicalDream 1 month ago
@ChronoLogicalDream Could you please link me some results which show that bulldozer does better? I'd rather pay $30 more for a lot more power. The bulldozer does better than the 2500k, but it's behind 2600k.
JARMOPOWER 4 weeks ago
@JARMOPOWER well to tell you the truth I got a little heated because people hate on the bulldozer for no reason as it is a very good CPU. It's the intermediate between i5 and i7 and the price is also in between them. The only thing is that a stock FX-8150 will run same maybe even better than the i7 Sandy Bridge (read a few articles about it jsut to check) BUT! if overclocked, sandy bridge tears FX-8150 a new one.
ChronoLogicalDream 2 weeks ago
@ChronoLogicalDream at the same time ive only seen pre Win7 patch stress tests + function + fps tests from October so im not too sure what's the deal right now ill look into it.
ChronoLogicalDream 2 weeks ago
Different cards hahahahahaha !
ODOSS 1 month ago
@WinglyDragoon Amd doesn't have an eight core processor, their "eight core" processor has only four cores.
superkreuk 1 month ago
@superkreuk
Yes they do.
It just sucks
Hero0fWarr 1 month ago
Fake
BrianisDin 1 month ago
Once I went from Intel to AMD I mostly never went back to Intel.. fucking hated their performance in games.
I loved AMD and I am going back to AMD again..
Dorisequador 1 month ago
intel is THE BEST
mrshadowwindows 1 month ago
fuck yuuu allll
i have intel i3 and integrated graphics and i play farCry for high settings with 30 to 40 FPS!!!
mrshadowwindows 1 month ago
@mrshadowwindows
FarCry is almost a decade old.
Nsixtyfourlink 1 month ago
I have an AMD Phenom 9500 2.2GHz xD I win.
SwiftHDX 1 month ago
Intel is just paying for the name. Anything an Intel can do, an AMD can do more for less money. Like AMD has an 8-core processor, Intel doesn't.
WinglyDragoon 1 month ago
@WinglyDragoon
wow well let's see their eight core hold up against the i5 2500k
Some people are idiots
Hero0fWarr 1 month ago
Intel graphics cant even beat AMD's integrated graphics, or specifically their APUs, Fusion. Not only that Fusion now are even cheaper and faster than Intel
AkemiHomura93 1 month ago
i have an intel t4300 2.1ghz.... 4gb ram and an nvidia gt 120m 1gb, and i can run skyrim in medium at 15-25 fps... and skyrim cannot even be comparable (graphics-wise) to farcry or halflife 2... so this video just gives wrong information.
y67uuj 1 month ago 10
@y67uuj dooo he is recording d asss
bossliberatorx 1 month ago
@y67uuj what part of integrated graphics comparison do you not understand
mayatk1 1 month ago
@y67uuj They arent comparing cpus, they are comparing intergrated gpus here.
TheOnlyDuST 1 month ago
@y67uuj no sir skyrim does not play nice with dual core cpus and that gpu is terrible. dont buy skyrim
jeff9559 3 weeks ago
@y67uuj
It's an IGP comparison, not a processor speed comparison.
eltocliousus 3 weeks ago
AMD's integrated graphics have always been better than intel's. Intel's CPUs have always been better than AMD's.
AlEX95RbT 1 month ago
@AlEX95RbT
No...
intel 3000 graphics are better than AMD's.
But only is the last few years has intel been better than AMD
Hero0fWarr 1 month ago
@Hero0fWarr No, AMD APUs are faster than intel 3000 graphics!/watch?v=aoq-RBOOQc0&feature=related
reaper57abvbg 1 month ago
@reaper57abvbg Ohh, and watch?v=QUkvhOhrDVk&feature=relmfu
reaper57abvbg 1 month ago
@reaper57abvbg
Oops,
You're right.
But intel have been better than AMD only the last few years.
In terms of cpu's in whole not just intergrated graphics
Hero0fWarr 1 month ago
@Hero0fWarr Yes, but AMD aren't bad!
reaper57abvbg 1 month ago
This is why you DON'T run games on intergrated graphics...
Loo0Lzz 1 month ago
AMD SUCKS MOBILITY AWESOME
geraldd121 1 month ago
For those games CPU is not THAT important, The question is which videocards (onboard or dedicated) were used for this video?
Sergiocrivelin 2 months ago
@Sergiocrivelin I am lead to believe that they are both integrated.
TheHamishbatten1995 1 month ago
G35 is one of the oldest Intel graphics cards.
XxUpliftingTranc3xX 2 months ago
Graphics looks so ugly in these games compared to new, can't even imagine how far the industry have gone.
BrikStudio1 2 months ago
You guys need to read. He's just using the integrated graphic card. Not everyone is going to bug a dedicated graphics card. If you do some casual gaming on the side, and you don't wanna shell out for a graphic card, AMD is probably gonna be better. No need to get defensive intel fanboys (btw, I have an intel and a dedicated graphic card, so don't freak)
WeyermannX 2 months ago
Hahaa what a failure he slowed down the AMD video, my old Phenom played Farcry at double the FPS of the intel, AND when it lags, you don't move slower, it's jsut jumpy.
FtsUnknown 2 months ago
@FtsUnknown Sorry, other way around. The intel was the one messed with.
FtsUnknown 2 months ago
lol the intel looks better but btw you messed with the intel video u fag
TheQuantumGamers 2 months ago
You are just stupid! Don't use different graphics cards if you want to show off the difference of the CPU's...
Henoik 2 months ago
Im am for AMD but that is really unfair to use a different graphicscard :(
Kaiflaver 2 months ago
This dudes a fucking gay ass amd fan he didn't use the same graphics cards my intel pentium D with my nvidia graphics card would do better than his amd shit
TheDrNate 2 months ago
I'm talking about intergrated graphics not dedicated graphics.
Xardas955 2 months ago
I will explain it like that. If you dont have money to buy really expensive CPU but you are still looking for good gaming PC go for AMD, If you are someone who have lots of money and want to have the highest possible fps go for Intel, the GPU is no longer an very much difference... oh and about this video, Is just piecie of shit showing that author of it is just fanboy of AMD, last thing, AMD APUs beats Intel HD graphics, and dont say to me to test with some decient graphic card because
Xardas955 2 months ago
wow i just looked at some comments and i cannot stop from laughing "Intel is better, no AMD is better. Intel burns, no Amd burns" LOL if you are using decient cooler it wont bbbburn you retarted fucks! Speaking of which company is better, hgm... I'm now using AMD processor with ATI graphics card (yes ATI) but i also have an Intel and Nvidia gaming setup, and I must say that for less money spend on AMD/ATI build I had not as good results as with Intel/Nvidia setup but thats to be expected
Xardas955 2 months ago
lol my core 2 duo is faster then both of them
Wegansplit 2 months ago
lol showing far cry 1??? I run that game on max with my 2.00ghz processor with 8400gs graphic card xD
rohanseth8 2 months ago
@milzeh none if you do ur windows updates patched :)
gmrxtr 2 months ago
I bought a bulldozer 6 core by mistake. How many FPS will I be loosing on BF3 compared to an I5 equivalent?
milzeh 2 months ago
who the fuck uses onboard graphics these days?
Xilarating 2 months ago
@Xilarating people that dont play games ,pretty fucking obvious
girlsdrinkfeck 2 months ago
muahahahaha so fake results...AMD, especially AMD Phenom X5 9500 sucks in big time :D
zorandesign 2 months ago
@zorandesign @TheQuantumGamers this video is comparing the integrated graphic in both cpu.
TheStuffyBear 2 months ago
@TheStuffyBear are you stupid or what? Why the hell it says : Intel Q6600 then? It doesn't have a video chip on it! It should say - Intel X4500 or whatever vs AMD HD3200 or something...Stupid people for duck sake.
zorandesign 2 months ago
actually its such bs because the q6600 is in the pc i use when on the internet and when playing oldergames such as gtaiv, mw2,mw,w@w, battlefield bad company 2.... and i play on max settings with no lag so i think ur just afan boy
TheQuantumGamers 2 months ago
AMD ! AMD ! AMD ! ^^
robrik31 2 months ago
amd is great!!!!!!!!!!!
samruddha09 2 months ago
amd graphic is better then intel but performance lose intel.
SUCKERFVCKER 2 months ago
i love how the two top comments are made by two ignorant people while the legitimate comments below are completely ignored.
MrGGFluffy 2 months ago
You just cant do this completly with processor. GPU has been used.
Richdadful 2 months ago
im willing to bet all my money that this idiot used 2 completely different graphics cards lol.
Tullerion 2 months ago
@Tullerion You are completely stupid to watch this video if you didnt understand its perpose... Its about the intergrated GPU's.
Umbra360 2 months ago
that make no sense what graphic card u using in amd? and what graphic card u using in intel?
alexjun98 2 months ago
thats why mac should use amd proc not intel!
denayndra 2 months ago
its a great video to watch! thanks!
bubblyschickk27 2 months ago
So you ran games to test cpu's but used different graphics cards....Lol you would fit in well with the christian scientist crowd.
DakoHawk1 2 months ago 56
@DakoHawk1 actually the video card has little to do with the performance on this...more ram and a good cpu will boost your performance...the video card just delivers the video data much faster than onboard video
LegitVisionz 2 months ago
@DakoHawk1 Are you trying to offend me with the Christian scientist "crowd?"
RedstoneWiring 2 months ago
@DakoHawk1 Is there anything wrong with being a scientist and a Christian? What do you mean by Christian scientist?
giorgiv18 1 month ago
@DakoHawk1 hahahahahahahaha. Entirely pointless testing. There are 0 constants in this test, it appears everything is a variable except the game being played.
YourPalHDee 1 month ago
@DakoHawk1
He is comparing the ONBOARD GPUs. So they are in direct competition with each other. Although he didn't list which onboard solutions are used on these mobos, that can easily be found by looking up the board. THe average PC user either doesn't have a clue that dedicated GPUs exist or that they do anything sot they just buy prebuilts that only have the onboard gpu. So it's not an invalid test, although both intel and amd have more than one OBGPU.
Nsixtyfourlink 1 month ago
This was a shit test... the Intel was more powerful and probably cost more...
HAZZA24937 2 months ago
intel i7 2600k at 4.75 Ghz all the way mate with dual gtx480
cip315 2 months ago
Intel sucks and expensive.
TheKingoffag 2 months ago
@TheKingoffag Then why Intel rapes AMD in all the benchmarks? Integrated graphics are bullshit, none of the performance users/gamers use integrated graphics. When it comes to raw CPU power, Intel is leagues ahead of AMD. Always buy Intel for CPU, for graphics card both AMD Radeon or Nvidia GeForce are good.
Dex1n 2 months ago
what a shit test
hollandrules95 2 months ago
Who the fuck uses integrated graphics anyway? Intel CPU's do better CPU's job, AMD ones have better integrated graphics so what? Gamers and people who play games most likely have dedicated graphics card. Buy intel + nvidia or amd/ati and you're good to go.
Dex1n 3 months ago
@Dex1n very true my friend. i'm an intel +nvidia for now. and i put low settings :)) its shitty in skyrim 5 can't really enjoy but fnck. it won't stop me from playing it :D
chaoshart 2 months ago
The only thing intel is faster at is sucking your money from you
dave777blaster 3 months ago
Listen, those who are arguing. Make a bet. $1000, build a rig each. Rules, must have psu/mobo/cpu/ram/gpu (case and hdd must be the same, the rest is up to the builder, including amount of ram, cpu type etc.), and overclock to your hearts content, then compare in various tests, the winner gets the other guys built rig. Intel guy can't use ATI GPU. Easy. AMD will destroy you Intel fanboy, u have balls 2 take bet? Yes, Intel will win in unlimited cash, but I don't want to spend 10K on a rig.
freethinker4liberty 3 months ago
I LOVE AMD magny cours x12 opteron muahah awasome!
K2Mexicans 3 months ago
hahaha this guy is fun man! ;) i did game test bf3 same GPU GTX290 SLI and ram and intel ssd 320 serie! with win7, Intel Q6600 vs amd 1090T. Intel got 57 fps and amd got 49 fps. guyz are u for game so buy intel! only for eazy media buy amd!!
Destroyer198512 3 months ago
@Destroyer198512 Intel has always performed poorly, you can't say that intel got more FPS when i know (proven in so many ways) that it hasn't. speaking falsely gets you nowhere.
RiddleMeThis19 3 months ago
@RiddleMeThis19 My Intel PC destroys your pathetic AMD shit any day.
hardstyle905 3 months ago
@hardstyle905 oh oh let me guess... you had to overclock it to get it to equal out to my (once stock) CPU, and then water cool it so it wouldn't over heat and burn up? yep sounds about right, listen kiddo.. i've used intel and amd, AMD performes better all around in video games, intel performs better in well... sitting there to look at. Wanna compare the two? get a real computer, top notch intel and then we'll compare it to my mediocre AMD.
RiddleMeThis19 3 months ago
@RiddleMeThis19 What kind of games do you play? Tetris and Minesweeper? Sorry bud. I play Crysis at 1920x1080 + highest settings at >70 FPS. My CPU runs at 35C idle and won't even hit 50C under full load. Jealous little AMD boy can't afford some real hardware.
hardstyle905 3 months ago
@hardstyle905 Can't afford real hardware? I'm running phenom II x4 975 BE (beat that ;)) ATI Radeon HD 4870 x2, 1920x1080 + highest @ 70? highly unlikely, get real with your stats ;) minesweep and tetris? no. I play top notch games ;) Crysis is outdated now, your CPU holds at 35C idle? cool story, mine holds 36 idle, full load it barely tops 42C. So intell is better HOW? you've yet to prove anything cept intel sucks. (BTW, officially tested. crysis 2 @ 68 FPS.) Wanna cry more?
RiddleMeThis19 3 months ago
@RiddleMeThis19 Cool story 'Bro. At least you're not on that Bulldozer FX crap. Props for that.
hardstyle905 3 months ago
@hardstyle905 I give props to AMD for building the worlds first 8/12/16 core CPU's but i refuse to buy them ;) phenom II does everything the world needs for gaming (look at the stats in comparison.) you're an intel fanboy, i get there... though for me i can never respect intel for taking AMD's arch. (been a few years.) and using it for themselves... as well as building a chipset that burns up far too easy. I will always be on AMD's side :)
RiddleMeThis19 3 months ago
@hardstyle905 I have sticked with Intel and Nvidia so far, I just tend to like them more. Its a matter of personal opinions and most of AMD fanboys dont tend to realize they are both companies trying to suck their hard earned money. My friend sold me his 2600k for 150e to get a Bulldozer, played for a week