After being here a couple of months, and of course seeing all levels and qualities of comments of all variety, I can reasonably conclude there is a pervasive pro-Intel bias in the forum, even among many of the most knowledgeable members.
That is, there are many who seem biased, along with many who do not, and that goes for both Intel and AMD, but more often for Intel.
By bias, I mean a preference for Intel even in certain situations where Intel chips do not have an advantage. For instance, a very careful review linked in the "[H]ardOCP Real-World Gaming CPU Comparison with 8800 GTX SLI" thread does careful comparisons both with all things being equal, and also with differences, in order to draw a very complete picture, but even some very knowledgable folks whom I find to generally make great posts here saw it as just biased, because they could not imagine otherwise?? (or perhaps just didn't read though it carefully).
[edit: I think they did catch that error later, but what is interesting is exactly that they made the initial error! That's bias.]
It's like it's hard to admit that for certain price points, there are AMD chips that are good bargains in terms of price/performance, using the Tom's Hardware metric in their price/performance reviews, for example.
Like, even if that was true (it often has been and is), we'd be careful to imply otherwise (misleadingly)!
Like we would not ever want to ever admit some AMD chip is a good choice for anyone right now. Instead, we must guide them to a C2duo setup.
We'd recommend a C2duo even to someone who already had a AM2 board and was looking to upgrade their game performance. I've actually seen that!
So what's the deal?
It's ok, in fact, it's great, if these are Intel system builders, or engineers, or whatever. That's great, and I love the detailed knowledge.
But this isn't the "Intel Forum", it's the "CPU forum".
For the record, I own both Intel and AMD stock, and have owned Intel longer, and am delighted with the great Intel improvements!
But of course Intel is losing a lot of profits right now (and the stock price shows that), since Intel has sacraficed profits with a price war, possibly due to poor planning, possibly to some other reason.
So I like Intel and AMD both, and I won't even bother to respond to any flames here.
Instead, I'm curious about whether I'm right about the pervasive bias.
That is, there are many who seem biased, along with many who do not, and that goes for both Intel and AMD, but more often for Intel.
By bias, I mean a preference for Intel even in certain situations where Intel chips do not have an advantage. For instance, a very careful review linked in the "[H]ardOCP Real-World Gaming CPU Comparison with 8800 GTX SLI" thread does careful comparisons both with all things being equal, and also with differences, in order to draw a very complete picture, but even some very knowledgable folks whom I find to generally make great posts here saw it as just biased, because they could not imagine otherwise?? (or perhaps just didn't read though it carefully).
[edit: I think they did catch that error later, but what is interesting is exactly that they made the initial error! That's bias.]
It's like it's hard to admit that for certain price points, there are AMD chips that are good bargains in terms of price/performance, using the Tom's Hardware metric in their price/performance reviews, for example.
Like, even if that was true (it often has been and is), we'd be careful to imply otherwise (misleadingly)!
Like we would not ever want to ever admit some AMD chip is a good choice for anyone right now. Instead, we must guide them to a C2duo setup.
We'd recommend a C2duo even to someone who already had a AM2 board and was looking to upgrade their game performance. I've actually seen that!
So what's the deal?
It's ok, in fact, it's great, if these are Intel system builders, or engineers, or whatever. That's great, and I love the detailed knowledge.
But this isn't the "Intel Forum", it's the "CPU forum".
For the record, I own both Intel and AMD stock, and have owned Intel longer, and am delighted with the great Intel improvements!
But of course Intel is losing a lot of profits right now (and the stock price shows that), since Intel has sacraficed profits with a price war, possibly due to poor planning, possibly to some other reason.
So I like Intel and AMD both, and I won't even bother to respond to any flames here.
Instead, I'm curious about whether I'm right about the pervasive bias.
) under almost all situations...sort of killing the Intel bias theory. 
like people said if the new amd chips are better than Core 2 than well i will follow my bias and go green or is it red or both.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram