Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Any reviews for the FX-4170 yet???

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 17, 2012 7:32:54 PM

I have looked everywhere. Has anyone seen any reviews for the new FX-4170?

More about : reviews 4170

a b à CPUs
March 17, 2012 8:16:15 PM

i have not seen any, or even the chip for sale, but expect similar ballpark results as the FX-4100.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 17, 2012 8:45:01 PM

No but I've seen reviews of the FX-4100 at 4.5ghz, which is faster than the 4170. Even at 4.5ghz, it still get's embarrassed in gaming by a stock i3-2100.
Score
0
Related resources
March 18, 2012 12:29:45 AM

Yea its on newegg... but im curious how its reviewed as well.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 18, 2012 1:28:07 PM

campdude said:
Yea its on newegg... but im curious how its reviewed as well.


Did you read my post? That's all the review you need. :hello:  Even at 4.5ghz it get's owned by a stock i3-2100.
Score
0
March 19, 2012 3:16:39 PM

It does not get "owned". The benchmarks are all very close. And the FX-4100 can be pushed to 4.7 or more with ease. Seeing as they are the same price point, and the benchmarks are so close they are a pretty similar buy. The only difference is the i3 generally comes with the attitude of an intel fanboy.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2012 3:52:46 PM

^^ But thats the point; an overclocked quad core 4100 gets beaten by a stock duo core i3-2100.
Score
0
March 19, 2012 4:06:45 PM

They are on the same level lol. The benchmarks go back and forth, either way they are close to the same. For a gaming platform CPU doesn't really matter much anyways, most games depend on the GPU. Plus, AMD tends to be better for upgrade paths. Sockets last longer.
This wasn't a "Let's talk about intel fanboy garbage" thread. This was a thread asking for any actual reviews on the FX-4170. So if you don't have anything to ADD to that topic, beat it.
Score
0
a c 186 à CPUs
March 19, 2012 4:20:58 PM

full_out said:
They are on the same level lol. The benchmarks go back and forth, either way they are close to the same. For a gaming platform CPU doesn't really matter much anyways, most games depend on the GPU. Plus, AMD tends to be better for upgrade paths. Sockets last longer.This wasn't a "Let's talk about intel fanboy garbage" thread. This was a thread asking for any actual reviews on the FX-4170. So if you don't have anything to ADD to that topic, beat it.

AM3+ and AM3 are now dead sockets. Piledriver will not use those sockets. Intel has a much better upgrade path than amd, with socket 1155.
Score
0
March 19, 2012 4:22:41 PM

Sure, whatever. Get back on topic.
Score
0
a c 186 à CPUs
March 19, 2012 4:25:27 PM

No point of upgrading, if your fx4110 is already at 4.7ghz. I am sure the fx-4170 is just a higher clocked chip.
Score
0
March 19, 2012 4:30:18 PM

I was thinking that also, but if I could flog my current one off and spend a minor amount to upgrade then I wouldn't mind. It's two levels up on the hierarchy chart. So I figured if it had a particularly good review it might give me a boost I could see.
Score
0
a c 186 à CPUs
March 19, 2012 4:31:47 PM

Hierachy chart? Anyways, the only upgrade I can see is to an fx-8xxx series cpu. Basically a waste to upgrade to any newer fx-4xxx cpu's, unless they seriously change them instead of launching them at higher clocks.
Score
0
a c 83 à CPUs
March 19, 2012 4:49:44 PM

amuffin said:
Hierachy chart? Anyways, the only upgrade I can see is to an fx-8xxx series cpu. Basically a waste to upgrade to any newer fx-4xxx cpu's, unless they seriously change them instead of launching them at higher clocks.


And that's only an upgrade for applications since games won't use the additional cores.
Score
0
March 19, 2012 4:58:39 PM

I use my machine for watching videos and gaming only. So any more than four cores isn't an option for me.
That's why I was looking for a review, to see if it is much better stock and if it overclocks well over 5ghz
Score
0
a c 79 à CPUs
March 19, 2012 5:15:29 PM

amuffin said:
AM3+ and AM3 are now dead sockets. Piledriver will not use those sockets. Intel has a much better upgrade path than amd, with socket 1155.


http://www.nordichardware.com/news/69-cpu-chipset/44317...

AM3+ is not dead at all. Piledriver (non apu) will still be based on AM3+. It is only the APU chips (llano replacements) That will be on a new socket and that will be FM-2 moving on from FM-1 for better usage of the APU architecture.
Score
0
March 19, 2012 5:20:51 PM

Thank you. I wasn't going to start arguing that point, so thank you for being another sane post in amongst the fanboy-ism
Score
0
a c 79 à CPUs
March 19, 2012 5:39:21 PM

full_out said:
I use my machine for watching videos and gaming only. So any more than four cores isn't an option for me.
That's why I was looking for a review, to see if it is much better stock and if it overclocks well over 5ghz


I'm gonna sound like kind of a hipocrite here but I would advise you to pass on the current FX cpu's. I used to have an FX-4100 @ 4.5Ghz and I would defend it against all the intel fanboys saying their i3 can beat up my FX. Well I finally came to the truthful realization that in most cases the i3 is a better CPU than the FX-4100 due to the fact the FX is not a true "quad core". So I went out and picked up a Phenom II 960T X4 for $99.99 from microcenter. These CPU's are a Thuban 6 core die with 2 cores disabled either because they were dis-functional or simply because AMD needed to fill a quad core quota. The chances of you getting an un-lockable chip are about 65%. If you can unlock this chip and throw a decent (3.6-4.0 Ghz) overclock on it you will sitting in i5 2500K territory when it comes to most everything. Even if you cant unlock the extra cores on the 960T just throw a decent clock on it and you will shitting your pants in public embarrass an i3-2100 while still saving yourself $25. Sit with the phenom until we see if piledriver is any good.
Score
0
a c 79 à CPUs
March 19, 2012 5:46:11 PM

full_out said:
Thank you. I wasn't going to start arguing that point, so thank you for being another sane post in amongst the fanboy-ism


Not trying to hate on you chip man. Honestly it worked just fine for pretty much anything I ever threw at it. The only reason I brought it back was because it was not a true quad core like I wanted (and paid $100.00 for) and just so happened to be presented with the 960T option. An FX at 4.5 Ghz will still edge out an i3-2100 at pretty much anything but games based on the "havok" engine... that intel own's... hmm I wonder why these are always the comparison titles that the intel boys throw out there...
Score
0
March 19, 2012 5:59:33 PM

I built my system before bulldozer dropped on 3 facts. AMD is better for a budget build, Sockets seem to be usable for longer, and bulldozer was SUPPOSED to be badass. Seems the third fact went to the negative side off supposed to be badass.
I'm really hoping that piledriver will be significantly better. If not, oh well. On my setup I can still play all games maxed out with ultra settings at 60 FPS, except of course BF3 I had to turn down the MSAA a few notches.
But back to point, I was hoping for a review on the 4170 hoping that it would be worth a few bucks to upgrade for the time being. I'm not squeezing pennies, so if I have to spend $50 for a bit more performance, it's no big deal for me.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2012 7:02:23 PM

4170 reviews have been around since Bulldozer launched.

There's no new stepping in the 4170 so any Bulldozer (4/6/8 core) can be clocked to the same specification. All FX processors are unlocked.
Score
0
March 19, 2012 8:35:43 PM

cmi86 said:
I'm gonna sound like kind of a hipocrite here but I would advise you to pass on the current FX cpu's. I used to have an FX-4100 @ 4.5Ghz and I would defend it against all the intel fanboys saying their i3 can beat up my FX. Well I finally came to the truthful realization that in most cases the i3 is a better CPU than the FX-4100 due to the fact the FX is not a true "quad core". So I went out and picked up a Phenom II 960T X4 for $99.99 from microcenter. These CPU's are a Thuban 6 core die with 2 cores disabled either because they were dis-functional or simply because AMD needed to fill a quad core quota. The chances of you getting an un-lockable chip are about 65%. If you can unlock this chip and throw a decent (3.6-4.0 Ghz) overclock on it you will sitting in i5 2500K territory when it comes to most everything. Even if you cant unlock the extra cores on the 960T just throw a decent clock on it and you will shitting your pants in public embarrass an i3-2100 while still saving yourself $25. Sit with the phenom until we see if piledriver is any good.

I'm not a fan of either side, I just use what works best at the time. Currently on the low end, I almost always suggest i3's over 4100's though. For a bit of insight on why it might not always be fanboyism, here's the reasons.
Most people will never overclock their processor, weird, I know. And at stock clocks, a 4100 generally can't beat a 2120 from what I've seen.
The second is, at 4.5Ghz, where it can handily beat an i3, you're sitting at nearly a 120w TDP (assuming stock vcore) vs the 65w i3. They are simply inefficient.

Now, back on the thread topic. This thread might have the answers you're looking for. http://www.overclock.net/t/1221990/geek-amd-launches-th...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2012 9:03:46 PM

A fanboy calling a fanboy a fanboy, typical of this forum.

How bout I just give you kiddies the facts.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...


The facts are the AMD chips can't even hang with a Pentium G series in gaming. At 4.5ghz the 4100 lags behind the stock i3-2100, while the 2100 is consuming about 30w the 4100 is pulling about 130w.

Tom's Hardware:

Quote:
With the sub-$100 Pentiums performing so well, Intel's $125 Core i3-2100 easily beats more expensive Phenom II and FX models. And the $190 Core i5-2400 dominates the sub-$200 landscape without challenge, really. As such, we're almost-shockingly left without an AMD CPU to recommend at any price point.

While it’s true that AMD’s multiplier-unlocked models appeal to tweak-happy power users, the company's overclocked game performance manages to either hang close to or fall just behind Intel's stock Core i3-2100. Pumping up voltage, multipliers, and, consequently, power usage seems like a futile exercise just to keep pace with an efficient $125 budget-oriented chip running at its default settings.

The biggest flaw with Intel's low-end offerings is that the Pentium family limits you to dual-core configurations. Our concern is that, outside of a game, you're going to find situations where the two cores hurt performance in other applications. Having said that, the Pentium G630- and G860-based machines were snappy throughout testing, and their lack of Hyper-Threading didn't negatively impact our experience.

AMD’s Phenom II X4 955 and FX-4100 could certainly appeal to buyers who insist on the ability to handle four threads at a time. At their $125 and $110 respective price points, however, they’re too close to the Hyper-Threaded Core i3-2100 to earn a distinguished recommendation. In our last sub-$200 gaming CPU round-up, we showed that the Core i3-2100 can match AMD's Phenom II X4 955, even while background tasks run in parallel with a game. So, we couldn't even speculate that Intel's Core-i3 2100 might disappoint in a real-world environment with applications running in the background.


Lets get real, the i3-2120 is yet 200mhz faster than the 2100, and usually running the same price or in some cases cheaper than the 2100, which makes it an even better choice. The FX4100 needs to be about $75 to be priced competatively.

As a huge AMD fan myself, nobody is disappointed by these FACTS more than I am.
Score
0
March 21, 2012 5:33:32 PM

Guess there isn't any new reviews other than the old ones from when bulldozer originally dropped.
Guess I'll just have to wait and see if piledriver makes up for what bulldozer left me longing for... Guess that's what happens when you put faith in something before seeing what the true potential is. Well, I'm stuck with the AM3+ socket for a while *crosses fingers*... Come on piledriver, don't let me down.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2012 1:55:56 PM

full_out said:
Guess there isn't any new reviews other than the old ones from when bulldozer originally dropped.


Are you for real dude?? There are tons of reviews.......have you not been following your own thread?? :hello: 
Score
0
March 22, 2012 2:16:27 PM

geekapproved said:
Did you read my post? That's all the review you need. :hello:  Even at 4.5ghz it get's owned by a stock i3-2100.


The benchmark may suggest that, but in reality says a different story. I have the FX-4170 CPU and I can say it feels much faster than an i3-2100. The AMD FX-4170 just opens programs much faster. Gaming is also fast and stable with the FX. Sometimes you can't go by the benchmark. I doubt the accuracy in some of those.
Score
0
March 22, 2012 4:00:58 PM

geekapproved said:
Are you for real dude?? There are tons of reviews.......have you not been following your own thread?? :hello: 


A bunch of people saying "i3s are better!" aren't reviews. I want an actual review with the 4170, not the 4100. I've only been able to find one actual review. I like to have a few to look through so I'm not just getting one set of benchmarks hand picked by one site.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2012 6:51:40 PM

full_out said:
A bunch of people saying "i3s are better!" aren't reviews. I want an actual review with the 4170, not the 4100. I've only been able to find one actual review. I like to have a few to look through so I'm not just getting one set of benchmarks hand picked by one site.


Wow. This guy is slower than the average Tom's Hardware noober.

As if the THREE, modern game benchmarks at 1080p (reality) I posted, and the best budget gaming cpu article I posted are all one "handpicked" bench. LOL

The reason your not seeing 4170 benchmarks is cause they've already tested the 4100 at the same clock speeds and higher, so it would be absolutely pointless except to appease the tiny brain of someone like yourself who just doesn't get it.

Not only that, it uses 3-4x the electricity of the i3 while still losing badly and the platform (s1155 for you slow people) is compatible with the upcoming Ivy Bridge. AM3+ MAY be compatible with the upcoming PileDriver or PileOfDooDoo, which ever you prefer.
Score
0
a c 983 à CPUs
March 22, 2012 10:12:26 PM

Let's knock off the insults!
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 23, 2012 3:07:10 PM

geekapproved said:
The FX4100 needs to be about $75 to be priced competatively.



They could do that if the FX4100 wasn't truly a FX8100 with half the cores disabled.

The die would be smaller and cheaper to make.
Score
0
a c 78 à CPUs
March 28, 2012 7:08:34 PM

geekapproved said:
Did you read my post? That's all the review you need. :hello:  Even at 4.5ghz it get's owned by a stock i3-2100.



Really?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...

Well by your own post I see the gaming performance is almost IDENTICAL in overclocking conditions to the i3. With a 2 or 3 FPS difference. Oh yea.... FX is totally being owned. :sarcastic: 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not too thrilled with the FX processors either. But lets cut the crap, drop the childish insults and behave like adults.

Currently the i3 2105 and 2120 are priced aroud 135 bucks from Newegg, so lets look at a Cost vs Performance comparison.
The FX-4100 is 100... FX-4170 is about 140.

Yes, I'm cherry picking, but my reason for that is because you're cherrypicking your results too. Don't be hypocritical.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/7/ A handbrake benchmark The FX-4100 (not 4170) comes out on top against an i3-2105

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/8/ POV-Ray... Again.. the FX-4100 is the winner.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/9/ Cinebench.. They're about on-par with each other with very little practical difference.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/10/ PC Mark7.... FX-4100 beats the i3-2120 again, still on par.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/11/ 3D Mark Vantage- the FX-4100 performs dismally here. Just to be fair.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/12/ Resident Evil 5.. The FX-4100 has nearly 20FPS on the i3


Now, to reiterate, before you start disrespecting me like you've already done to others in this thread, I'm not a fan of the FX, I think AMD has a lot of work they need to do to improve them. But if you're going to bash something, do it accurately.

No, I don't want to hear about blah blah it uses more electricity. Its completely irrelevant considering in terms of your electric bill I'd be surprised if the difference managed to equate to 1 dollar a month. Lets call it the difference of running a 60 watt lightbulb, thats close enough to the wattage difference. With average electricity cost from Baltimore Gas and Electric that equates to about 11 cents a day if you were running your computer under load 24 hours straight.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 28, 2012 8:03:09 PM

geekapproved said:
A fanboy calling a fanboy a fanboy, typical of this forum.

How bout I just give you kiddies the facts.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...


The facts are the AMD chips can't even hang with a Pentium G series in gaming. At 4.5ghz the 4100 lags behind the stock i3-2100, while the 2100 is consuming about 30w the 4100 is pulling about 130w.

Tom's Hardware:

Quote:
With the sub-$100 Pentiums performing so well, Intel's $125 Core i3-2100 easily beats more expensive Phenom II and FX models. And the $190 Core i5-2400 dominates the sub-$200 landscape without challenge, really. As such, we're almost-shockingly left without an AMD CPU to recommend at any price point.

While it’s true that AMD’s multiplier-unlocked models appeal to tweak-happy power users, the company's overclocked game performance manages to either hang close to or fall just behind Intel's stock Core i3-2100. Pumping up voltage, multipliers, and, consequently, power usage seems like a futile exercise just to keep pace with an efficient $125 budget-oriented chip running at its default settings.

The biggest flaw with Intel's low-end offerings is that the Pentium family limits you to dual-core configurations. Our concern is that, outside of a game, you're going to find situations where the two cores hurt performance in other applications. Having said that, the Pentium G630- and G860-based machines were snappy throughout testing, and their lack of Hyper-Threading didn't negatively impact our experience.

AMD’s Phenom II X4 955 and FX-4100 could certainly appeal to buyers who insist on the ability to handle four threads at a time. At their $125 and $110 respective price points, however, they’re too close to the Hyper-Threaded Core i3-2100 to earn a distinguished recommendation. In our last sub-$200 gaming CPU round-up, we showed that the Core i3-2100 can match AMD's Phenom II X4 955, even while background tasks run in parallel with a game. So, we couldn't even speculate that Intel's Core-i3 2100 might disappoint in a real-world environment with applications running in the background.


Lets get real, the i3-2120 is yet 200mhz faster than the 2100, and usually running the same price or in some cases cheaper than the 2100, which makes it an even better choice. The FX4100 needs to be about $75 to be priced competatively.

As a huge AMD fan myself, nobody is disappointed by these FACTS more than I am.


I agree and more so that I am moving on. Instead of sidegrading I kept my p2 x4 820 (unlocked to 6mb) and just lived with it's weaknesses. Later put together a cheap 1156 build with an i5 760. Both hold up very nicely but I will never forget this disaster of confidence that AMD and Global Foundries have cursed us with. Crappy manufacturing process kept Llano from being what it should have been while inflating the power consumption of BD even further than it's design alone would have suggested.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 4, 2012 1:37:36 AM

The 4170 is not an overclocked 4100. The 4100 is a 95w part, while the 4170 is 125w. You can get a 4100 to 4170 specs, and it might perform the same as a stock 4170, but it won't go much higher than that. I've got my 4170 running at 4.8 ghz on air right now, and that benches higher than the i3-2120 in everything I've thrown at it so far.

I'd Imagine the same holds true between the 6100 and 6200, being 95w and 125w parts respectively as well.

That having been said, the 4170 does need to be $15 or so cheaper. If I didn't already have an AMD board prior to bulldozer (originally had an x3 435 in), I would have gone with the i3.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 4, 2012 1:45:39 AM

Quote:
now you need to sell your (3 X HD 6770) and go for a stronger single card solution.
less power draw and heat I assume, wouldn't it.?
HD 7950 or better.


Not at all. the 3x6770 performs exactly the same as a 7950, for $330. By having 3 cards instead of 2, i can avoid microstuttering issues.

When I'm not gaming, I turn off crossfire, and it draws less power than the 7950 as well.

Also, the 6770 is about the fastest card you can get that's not hamstrung by 4 pci-e lanes.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 4, 2012 2:31:53 AM

Admittedly, If you have the budget for resolutions above 1920x1080, then the 7950 is the better solution. The xfire runs into memory issues at 2550x1440. Since the data is replicated to all cards, the xfrire solution effectively only has 1 gb of memory.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 4, 2012 6:59:57 AM

Nice argument...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 5, 2012 9:21:50 AM

cmi86 said:
I'm gonna sound like kind of a hipocrite here but I would advise you to pass on the current FX cpu's. I used to have an FX-4100 @ 4.5Ghz and I would defend it against all the intel fanboys saying their i3 can beat up my FX. Well I finally came to the truthful realization that in most cases the i3 is a better CPU than the FX-4100 due to the fact the FX is not a true "quad core". So I went out and picked up a Phenom II 960T X4 for $99.99 from microcenter. These CPU's are a Thuban 6 core die with 2 cores disabled either because they were dis-functional or simply because AMD needed to fill a quad core quota. The chances of you getting an un-lockable chip are about 65%. If you can unlock this chip and throw a decent (3.6-4.0 Ghz) overclock on it you will sitting in i5 2500K territory when it comes to most everything. Even if you cant unlock the extra cores on the 960T just throw a decent clock on it and you will shitting your pants in public embarrass an i3-2100 while still saving yourself $25. Sit with the phenom until we see if piledriver is any good.

the core scaling of the bulldozer cpus is pretty much on par with phenom. The FX4100 will perform like any quad core cpu.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 5, 2012 4:17:04 PM

If AMD shrink Deneb and Thuban, and putting more transistor in it, imagine how fast it'll be. Phenom II sometimes are still catching up with SB in some cases, while if they shrink deneb and thuban, with putting more transistor, It's not hard for that to outperform SB...
Score
0
a c 78 à CPUs
April 5, 2012 4:36:44 PM

refillable said:
If AMD shrink Deneb and Thuban, and putting more transistor in it, imagine how fast it'll be. Phenom II sometimes are still catching up with SB in some cases, while if they shrink deneb and thuban, with putting more transistor, It's not hard for that to outperform SB...



I think AMD has completely discontinued Phenom II. Anyone who wants one should pick one up while supplies last.
Score
0
a c 186 à CPUs
April 5, 2012 7:32:59 PM

AMD: Let's clock these cpu's up just a little bit more....
Average common consumer: Higher GHZ MOAR BETTER!!!
????
Profit. $$$$
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 5, 2012 7:40:37 PM

I don't think it's purely like that. I think it's like where you get better clocks, like 1090T to 1100T. I don't see why you need to write that.
Score
0
a c 79 à CPUs
April 5, 2012 9:34:13 PM

esrever said:
the core scaling of the bulldozer cpus is pretty much on par with phenom. The FX4100 will perform like any quad core cpu.


The IPC of the FX processors is less than the phenom II's (or most any quad core for that matter) I owned an FX-4100 even at 4.5Ghz my 960T at 4.25Ghz stomps it in just about every way.

Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 5, 2012 9:39:30 PM

cmi86 said:
The IPC of the FX processors is less than the phenom II's (or most any quad core for that matter) I owned an FX-4100 even at 4.5Ghz my 960T at 4.25Ghz stomps it in just about every way.

The 2 cpu should be pretty much performing the same at those frequencies. There would be no real world difference between those.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 5, 2012 11:41:07 PM

IPC matters to a degree.

The bulldozer ipc is only 10% slower than phenom and at those speeds the scaling of bulldozer are much better than phenoms.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 6, 2012 12:32:40 AM



157 sec for bulldozer and 135 sec for phenom, 14% slower



about 7-8% slower
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 6, 2012 1:01:25 AM

I would say the 980BE would be faster but you'd probably be hard pressed to find any difference just using the 2 computer unless you ran very specific benchmarks.

All I could fine was cinebench which doesn't run well on bulldozer. The 4100 OC'ed to 4.6 comes barely under the 980 at stock

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/16/

bulldozer cores have a very bad time on cinebench it seem as each core is only about 0.7 of a core. In many other apps the cores are much closer to the 0.9 you'd expect from real cores.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_...
Score
0
a c 78 à CPUs
April 6, 2012 1:20:56 AM

amuffin said:
AMD: Let's clock these cpu's up just a little bit more....
Average common consumer: Higher GHZ MOAR BETTER!!!
????
Profit. $$$$


Intel fanboy: My CPU r bettur cuz it plei game at 110 FPS and u AMD processer ony dew 73FPS

Informed Consumer: Orly? Whats the refresh rate on your monitor?

Intel fanboy: 60hz

Informed Consumer: *facepalm*

Disclaimer: Once again, I'm not a fan of Bulldozers either.
Score
0
!