what is the purpose of running tests for an AMD vs. Intel CPU if they aren't even equal?
CPU 1 @ 3.0ghz vs CPU 2 @ 4.0+ghz..regardless if they are dual core look at the speed..even though they are dual core, CPU2 still has 1ghz more than CPU1 thats a big advantage, so how could anyone actually say "CPU2 is now the kill of dual core!!"
try comparing two dual core CPUs at the same ghz..then try, don't give one 800+ mhz more and expect the slower one to win.
i see that being unfair, i would have the same opinion if it was reversed and someone tested an AMD 3.0 vs. Intel 1.8..try and keep the ghz close together and test before you go and claim a faster cpu the new king of the hill.
AMD 3.0 FX-62 vs. Intel Core 2 Duo EE 3.78+..hmm almost 800mhz faster there..yeah i see the fair fight there
if AMD had a 3.78 FX-62 THEN compare and see the new results..if intel still wins then thats just fine with me.
CPU 1 @ 3.0ghz vs CPU 2 @ 4.0+ghz..regardless if they are dual core look at the speed..even though they are dual core, CPU2 still has 1ghz more than CPU1 thats a big advantage, so how could anyone actually say "CPU2 is now the kill of dual core!!"
try comparing two dual core CPUs at the same ghz..then try, don't give one 800+ mhz more and expect the slower one to win.
i see that being unfair, i would have the same opinion if it was reversed and someone tested an AMD 3.0 vs. Intel 1.8..try and keep the ghz close together and test before you go and claim a faster cpu the new king of the hill.
AMD 3.0 FX-62 vs. Intel Core 2 Duo EE 3.78+..hmm almost 800mhz faster there..yeah i see the fair fight there
if AMD had a 3.78 FX-62 THEN compare and see the new results..if intel still wins then thats just fine with me.