Humans are smart but most don't care or do any research into buying a computer. One friend says "give me the lastest Pentuim under $500 (AUD)" I had to convince him that Intel wasn't the ONLY CPU manufacturer (He ended up happy with an Athlon X2). Some consumers still get amazed at "stunning life-like visuals with the awesome performance for a high end gaming experince that rivals the most elite systems" (intel GMA 950 + Celeron 420 + 512MB RAM). Then they gloat for hours until I ask them to play "World in COnflict". Most consumers are dumb okay, my aunty said "My computer is better than yours because mine's a HP" (athlon classic 128MB RAM). Then when she wants a new computer she chooses HP over me because "she's used to her files being in My Documents", when she realizes that it not she kills me.
its not that human is dumb is just that they are happy with the stock or doesnot play game with intensive graphics.Intel is much better for overclockers since we can get the true capability of the CPU.old people or middle ages people like your aunty choose that is because she feel its enough what she is got.but that does not reflect that its a better system to have compare to something similar offer by Intel.
and when you say pentium.how old is this example you are giving?if its not recent then ask hom again what build does he want?but first show him what both company can do.i guess the answer will be Intel if i guess.
as i have pointed out here and other post as well that for a low-mid build the AMD is the one to go for.i suggest so many people who are into casual gaming or HD content to go for the Athlon X2 + 780G.thats thing setup i admire about AMD and its unbeatable for the price and what you getting.
but if you want true performance nothing gets close to Intel's lineup.
iluvgillgill, I was going to reply, but I was at a point of responding to 10 of your replies to explain where you are wrong, but to be honest, I can't be arsed.
Your knowledge of AMD/ATi/DX10/DX10.1 isn't enough to argue a valid case.
Please read up on these before you bother arguing about them.
You sound like an Intel/Nvidia fanboy and are quite happy to kick out at AMD regardless of what anyone says.
Thats fine, but don't do it near me
Right, I believe you
http://images.tomshardware.com/200 [...] ayback.png Clock for Clock Phenom wins but anyway the point is that he's wrong and that's all that matters
Disclaimer: 1.0 I do not support or work for AMD in and post in a negative or abusive (swearing) way 1.1 I do not work for any Russian Intelligence Agency such as KGB, MRU, CIA, FBI or Intel..............
I don't like that benchmark, it just seems kinda wierd!
Right, I believe you
Clock for Clock Phenom wins but anyway the point is that he's wrong and that's all that matters
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your graph, but that appears to show the best Phenom running at least 20% slower than the best Core 2 Quad.
Since video decoding is generally highly parallel and is probably mostly using SSE instructions, it's no surprise that any half-decent quad core x86 CPU is much better at it than any dual core x86 CPU at a similar clock speed.
It's interesting that adding an extra core to the X3 doesn't seem to make much difference in that test: is it clocked significantly faster than the X4 Phenoms?
LOL thats a processor load percent benhcmark. Thats mainly only for blu-ray thus it would be best suited towards the HTPC crowd. Heck 21.5% is not bad for any chip. But its one thats decent for the Phenom X3's but noit the X4's. Wait, how does a tri core beat a quad core in a supposive multi-threaded benchmark?
That is an odd benchmark though, CPU usage while playing a blu-ray disc! I just don't get the whole fascination with clock-for-clock. WHO CARES WHAT SPEED IT RUNS AT!?!? All I care is how fast will it go. Back when AMD was beating Intel silly using procs clocked a whole gigahertz less I used them. Now AMD is being beat by high clocked processors. In the end, who cares about clock speed!? I want to know how fast will it run my applications. Overclockers will want to know how fast it will run apps and how much headroom it has.
Phenom is running @ 2.4GHZ whilst the Core 2 is running at 3GHZ therefore the Phenom is winning clock for clock
Barely, and Phenom didn't in earlier tests. I'd guess that it's something specific to running such a highly parallel test with a lot of memory access and using SSE instructions.
The big problem is that almost no-one cares about 'clock for clock' performance; absolute performance, yes, performance per watt, yes, performance per dollar, yes, but performance per clock... not really.
And it's still 20% slower, because Intel chips clock better. Probably more than 20% cheaper though... but having to sell at a bargain price is not good for AMD.
Then they gloat for hours until I ask them to play "World in COnflict". Most consumers are dumb okay, my aunty said "My computer is better than yours because mine's a HP" (athlon classic 128MB RAM). Then when she wants a new computer she chooses HP over me because "she's used to her files being in My Documents", when she realizes that it not she kills me.
