Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

An Intel Fanboy gets caught LYING

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 15, 2008 6:49:22 PM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGiv9Dtrc5Q

In the above video, you will see an AMD representative
demo the quad-core Barcelona in relation to a dual core Opteron.

The dual core Opteron is on the left and the quad core
Barcelona is on the right. Dual is 2, Quad is 4 which gives a total of 6 cores.

NOW, in the below video, an Intel fanboy uses the
SAME video above and LIES about the total number of cores:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1_c-9i5-Ao

He claims the AMD setup has 16 cores.
Again Dual core + Quad core = 6 cores, not 16.
He's off by 10 cores.
Of course we both know he's a liar, right?

Why would anybody feel so threatened by AMD that they have to spread falsehoods?
The truth is perfectly clear.
July 15, 2008 6:54:45 PM

Right. We all know that AMD is faster clock for clock than Intel's Core processors, offers higher overall clock speeds and has the most overclocking headroom. AMD FTW!

Oh, and they make the most money and have the most money in the bank! *snicker*
a c 123 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 15, 2008 6:57:24 PM

^LMAO!!!!!!!

And your avitar goes with it just great too hehe.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
July 15, 2008 7:00:27 PM

Yep your an AMD fanboi, it is perfectly clear.
a b à CPUs
July 15, 2008 7:05:14 PM

Nice flamewar thread. Do you go looking on YouTube for things like this in your spare time?
July 15, 2008 7:08:58 PM

9inch? Is that you?
July 15, 2008 7:11:28 PM

Um...that is a 4 socket system running. Hence, 16 cores. Even the youtube title says "AMD quad core 4 socket: twice as fast!" You can even see how the left system has 8 task manager performance boxes up, compared to the right system, which has 16. Even Randy Allen, before the demo starts, stated that it was a 4 socket system being used.

I'm not sure who you are claiming to be lying.
July 15, 2008 7:13:20 PM

Self pwnage.

Karma is a bitch, eh?
a c 123 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 15, 2008 7:28:53 PM

Freakazoid says:



EP!C FA!L
July 15, 2008 7:29:31 PM

Conumdrum said:
Yep your an AMD fanboi, it is perfectly clear.

No,I'm an AMD fanboi.Op is an AMD fantasy boi.Big difference
July 15, 2008 7:49:40 PM

Man... brent is going to be pissed...
a b à CPUs
July 15, 2008 7:53:11 PM

OP: Crawl yourself out of your parents' basement and get a life. Stop digging through YouTube for questionable content videos starting flame wars over some n00b pwnage omg wtf haxors junk.

Sorry. I couldn't resist.

OMG! Can you believe it! Britney's sister and Angelina had their babies!

Can you find that video?
July 15, 2008 7:58:22 PM

yomamafor1 said:
Man... brent is going to be pissed...

What he don't know, won't kill me.
July 15, 2008 8:05:46 PM

I don't know... maybe some n00b would pop up.

*clubs Seal
July 15, 2008 8:08:25 PM

enigma067 said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGiv9Dtrc5Q

In the above video, you will see an AMD representative
demo the quad-core Barcelona in relation to a dual core Opteron.

The dual core Opteron is on the left and the quad core
Barcelona is on the right. Dual is 2, Quad is 4 which gives a total of 6 cores.

NOW, in the below video, an Intel fanboy uses the
SAME video above and LIES about the total number of cores:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1_c-9i5-Ao

He claims the AMD setup has 16 cores.
Again Dual core + Quad core = 6 cores, not 16.
He's off by 10 cores.
Of course we both know he's a liar, right?

Why would anybody feel so threatened by AMD that they have to spread falsehoods?
The truth is perfectly clear.




This post also displays the intellegence of an AMD fanboy. They know how to count, but multiplication isn't their best.


THE VIDEO TITLE SAYS: "AMD quad-core 4 sockets demo: twice as fast!"

Now here comes the hard part:

Quad Core processors = four cores per socket

4 Sockets = four places to put aforementioned quad-core processors

And now the REALLY hard part:

4x4 = 16


I don't even know where you got 6 from. Hell, if you even added the numbers you'd get 8. You just plain fail.












Sorry about all the pictures, I'm not used to fails that epic.
July 15, 2008 8:12:32 PM

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

Well done TC.
a c 123 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 15, 2008 8:13:03 PM

Hehe...... mine was a good one too so add mine + yours = freaktastic.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 15, 2008 8:31:33 PM

This is funny I go for longevity thats why I stick with AMD plus I hear Intel has exclusive rights to outperform AMD when it comes to Benchmarks. Would someone pls break down how synthetic benchmarking shows 100% CPU utilization and then explain to me how does it compare to the real world. I might be wrong I might be right. Get serious why would you buy a CPU over 5 or maybe 10% increase in performance. What do you do play video games?
July 15, 2008 8:31:38 PM

Whoa whoa whoa....so, what you're saying is....4 multiplied by 4 really is 16? So 4 sockets and 4 cores doesn't actually = 6? Lol, Maybe I should have paid more attention in math. :??: 
a c 123 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 15, 2008 8:35:08 PM

Quote:
This is funny I go for longevity thats why I stick with AMD plus I hear Intel has exclusive rights to outperform AMD when it comes to Benchmarks. Would someone pls break down how synthetic benchmarking shows 100% CPU utilization and then explain to me how does it compare to the real world. I might be wrong I might be right. Get serious why would you buy a CPU over 5 or maybe 10% increase in performance. What do you do play video games?


Synthetic means nothing. I always use real world over synthetic.
July 15, 2008 8:40:40 PM

enigma067 said:
...
The truth is perfectly clear.


evidently not
July 15, 2008 8:43:52 PM

Quote:
This is funny I go for longevity thats why I stick with AMD plus I hear Intel has exclusive rights to outperform AMD when it comes to Benchmarks. Would someone pls break down how synthetic benchmarking shows 100% CPU utilization and then explain to me how does it compare to the real world. I might be wrong I might be right. Get serious why would you buy a CPU over 5 or maybe 10% increase in performance. What do you do play video games?


Intel seems to own the real world tests as well.

How's your 939 Slot Processor Doing?
AMD has changed Sockets more recently than Intel.
July 15, 2008 8:45:45 PM

To sum this thread up,

July 15, 2008 8:53:37 PM

lolz, Check your source before automatically flaming others. I not an intel or amd fanboy, I just go with whoever is better at the time.

Intel has been for the last couple years so recently I've gone with them.

Does this mean Amd sucks? no It merely means they need to do more RnD to catch up.

Does this make all Amd fanboys suck? no, but it does mean I can laugh at them whilst my intel processor speeds by.

Of course, if Amd created a processor to outperform intel, then I would switch to that and laugh at the intel fanboys.
July 15, 2008 9:06:59 PM

Very funny thread. I feel so stupid.
I watched the whole thing, read it. and said ... wow.
July 15, 2008 9:56:00 PM

Quote:
Lets change the name of the thread:

"An AMD Fanboy gets caught STUPID"

Quote:
Of course, if Amd created a processor to outperform intel, then I would switch to that and laugh at the intel fanboys.


You mean like 2003-2006 when Athlon64 ruled the world?

Yeah, those were the days...



Total agreement with Bytch.

I loved the FX processor days (not counting the FX quadfather). Back when AMD had head room and Intel had none. Everytime Intel was able to squeeze out a few more MHZ AMD would just dip into their headroom and release a new processor that was clocked higher. The good 'ole days.
July 15, 2008 9:59:10 PM

Man....that guy is gonna get so much crap if he ever posts again...lol
July 15, 2008 10:55:02 PM




figured i'd add a few of my own.
July 15, 2008 10:58:47 PM

actually, IF I remember right, back in the 90's, it was Intel that couldn't count correctly.


a b à CPUs
July 16, 2008 8:47:28 PM

Need to find good photo for this guy..

You failed big time op

a b à CPUs
July 16, 2008 8:52:41 PM



Heres one

Complete fan failure
!