Check this :D
I don't care of AMD's apparent 'fails' with the CPU's. The clock speeds speak for themselves :D 5.0Ghz. Imagine that :o. The guy said it himself. Intels highest is 3.9 on the i7. Anyone seen or checked AMD recently? :P my main point xD go home Intel fanboys xD
changed the topic title :)
nek minnut
*electricity bill raises by 200%*
Still, intel is more reliable. None of my server's CPUs had ever problems which used intel CPUs, AMD however. One lasted for 2 years and then it died. Who gives a shit about 5Ghz CPU. That is for those benchmarkers and overclockers who just want to show off how small dick they got. This is the crap they are pulling off. They are developing bunch of crappy CPUs to just 'compete' with intel.
I rather have a bit slower CPU but which is more stable and reliable than a 800$ CPU that will do a suicide in few years.
I thought the world record was 7.102ghz...?
Quote from: Dr_dog on May 02, 2013, 12:45
Still, intel is more reliable. None of my server's CPUs had ever problems which used intel CPUs, AMD however. One lasted for 2 years and then it died. Who gives a shit about 5Ghz CPU. That is for those benchmarkers and overclockers who just want to show off how small dick they got. This is the crap they are pulling off. They are developing bunch of crappy CPUs to just 'compete' with intel.
I rather have a bit slower CPU but which is more stable and reliable than a 800$ CPU that will do a suicide in few years.
Our low GHz CPU's will run this world! (not)
Too bad I'm stuck with an AMD CPU which sucks balls, I'd change it to an Intel if I could.
Quote from: Dr_dog on May 02, 2013, 12:45
Still, intel is more reliable. None of my server's CPUs had ever problems which used intel CPUs, AMD however. One lasted for 2 years and then it died. Who gives a shit about 5Ghz CPU. That is for those benchmarkers and overclockers who just want to show off how small dick they got. This is the crap they are pulling off. They are developing bunch of crappy CPUs to just 'compete' with intel.
I rather have a bit slower CPU but which is more stable and reliable than a 800$ CPU that will do a suicide in few years.
True :) but i'd rather save money :P (AMD :) )
Quote from: TheSandman on May 02, 2013, 12:47
I thought the world record was 7.102ghz...?
8.67Ghz on an AMD FX-8350 (http://rog.asus.com/183622012/overclocking/8-67ghz-fx-8350-and-more-as-rog-smashes-world-records/)
Quote from: Shake. on May 02, 2013, 12:48
Quote from: Dr_dog on May 02, 2013, 12:45
Still, intel is more reliable. None of my server's CPUs had ever problems which used intel CPUs, AMD however. One lasted for 2 years and then it died. Who gives a shit about 5Ghz CPU. That is for those benchmarkers and overclockers who just want to show off how small dick they got. This is the crap they are pulling off. They are developing bunch of crappy CPUs to just 'compete' with intel.
I rather have a bit slower CPU but which is more stable and reliable than a 800$ CPU that will do a suicide in few years.
Our low GHz CPU's will run this world! (not)
Too bad I'm stuck with an AMD CPU which sucks balls, I'd change it to an Intel if I could.
AMD = Cheap
Intel = rip off ;)
All in all: i personally think, your CPU, if looked after right, will work like a charm 3 years down the line :)
Intel still better!
Quote from: Viper. on May 02, 2013, 13:03
Intel still better!
Clock speed, and video tests say otherwise :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQn19kV8p4k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgFBYL1OI-8 < the beast i'll own in a week or so
who gives shit about those "tests" They should run like 24/48 hour stress tests etc not some quick benchmarks. Ask Smashon, ask Shake.
AMD is for budget builds. It is unreliable for long term of use.
Intel, you pay for the reliability and that it will serve you for years (Mind you, I got still dual Pentium 3 Firewall running for like 11 years now in non stop really. (Its a firewall/router so it has to be up all the time)
Thats a fucking reliability in there. I never had any of my AMD processors serve me even half of that time.
Come back in few years and tell us how you dislike your AMD.. (Hai smashon ;P)
intel cpu + nvidia gpu = the best and reliable pc you ever get.
AMD 10-5800k + Nvida 660ti Boost = Best gaming PC ;)
Quote from: Dr_dog on May 02, 2013, 13:29
who gives shit about those "tests" They should run like 24/48 hour stress tests etc not some quick benchmarks. Ask Smashon, ask Shake.
AMD is for budget builds. It is unreliable for long term of use.
Intel, you pay for the reliability and that it will serve you for years (Mind you, I got still dual Pentium 3 Firewall running for like 11 years now in non stop really. (Its a firewall/router so it has to be up all the time)
Thats a fucking reliability in there. I never had any of my AMD processors serve me even half of that time.
Come back in few years and tell us how you dislike your AMD.. (Hai smashon ;P)
Would you really need to run stress tests for 48 hours? 12 hours maybe, but who would run a setup specifically for gaming for 48 hours? :P Especially stress testing. It wouldn't be on that long, or using as much power as the stress test. :) i don't understand the point of it :D
But once my AMD build is complete, ima post results of the stress test :)
CPU:-
AMD A10-5800K Black Edition 3.80GHz (Socket FM2) APU Trinity Quad Core Processor **FREE SIMCITY PC GAME** (AD580KWOHJBOX)
£95.99 inc VAT
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-327-AM
Motherboard:-
Gigabyte F2A75M-D3H AMD A75 Chipset (Socket FM2) DDR3 Micro ATX Motherboard
£69.98 inc VAT
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MB-421-GI&groupid=701&catid=1903&subcat=2399
RAM:-
Corsair Vengeance RED 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 PC3-15000C9 1866MHz Dual Channel Kit (CMZ8GX3M2A1866C9R)
£65.99 inc VAT
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MY-359-CS&groupid=701&catid=8&subcat=1387
PSU:-
Cooler Master GX 750W '80 Plus Bronze' Power Supply
£79.99 inc VAT
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CA-202-CM&tool=5
Case:-
Cooler Master K380 Midi Tower Black Windowed Case - Black (RC-K380-KWN1)
£39.98 inc VAT
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CA-307-CM&tool=5
HDD
Crucial V4 32GB 2.5" SATA-II Solid State Hard Drive
£43.99 inc VAT
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=HD-018-CR&groupid=701&catid=2104&subcat=910
Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000.C 1TB SATA-II 32MB Cache - OEM (0F10383)
£68.99 inc VAT
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=HD-067-HI&tool=3
Quote from: Dr_dog on May 02, 2013, 13:36
Quote from: Dobby on May 02, 2013, 13:34
AMD 10-5800k + Nvida 660ti Boost = Best gaming PC ;)
Goodbye reliability and functionality.
Intel + Nvidia is OK but AMD + Nvidia.
I trust AMD on Graphics not the CPUs. (Nvidia killed open source drivers)
Thats why im going for an APU :) best of both xD seriously :) check out the 5800k. or the Kaveri, you may like it :)
Quote from: Dobby on May 02, 2013, 13:34
AMD 10-5800k + Nvida 660ti Boost = Best gaming PC ;)
Goodbye reliability and functionality.
Intel + Nvidia is OK but AMD + Nvidia.
I trust AMD on Graphics not the CPUs. (Nvidia killed open source drivers)
Hax is winning...
D: you replied as i posted :(
Stress tests are to make sure the fucking CPU works as it should. I dont think AMD tests their CPUS when they exit the factory? Do they?
I know intel runs really heavy stress tests on their Xeon line atleast to throw away malfunctioning ones.
I dont like APUs either. I need a proper graphic card. I just dont belive it.
When im overclocking CPU or GPU. I run prime95 for like 24 hours atleast to make sure it is stable with the speeds. Only idiot belives that the CPU is stable if it boots to windows with the overclocks.
Also what happens when AMD overheats? it just burns away. Intel shuts itself down to prevent the damage. (experienced on Athlon 2400 and then i5 2500k which was using the stock cooler temporary, I didnt push the stock cooler in properly so the heat was at 100C constantly. It raised to 110 and shut itself down.)
Quote from: Dr_dog on May 02, 2013, 13:42
Stress tests are to make sure the fucking CPU works as it should. I dont think AMD tests their CPUS when they exit the factory? Do they?
I know intel runs really heavy stress tests on their Xeon line atleast to throw away malfunctioning ones.
I dont like APUs either. I need a proper graphic card. I just dont belive it.
When im overclocking CPU or GPU. I run prime95 for like 24 hours atleast to make sure it is stable with the speeds. Only idiot belives that the CPU is stable if it boots to windows with the overclocks.
Also what happens when AMD overheats? it just burns away. Intel shuts itself down to prevent the damage. (experienced on Athlon 2400 and then i5 2500k which was using the stock cooler temporary, I didnt push the stock cooler in properly so the heat was at 100C constantly. It raised to 110 and shut itself down.)
Why would you need a Xeon? aren't they server based CPU's? I'm overclocking once i save up enough money to buy a decent watercooling kit, then i'm gonna stress it like a boss :D
I'm sure you can enable/disable that sort of thing in the BIOS, seeing as i was looking at a friends AMD build the other day and he can :o how old is the Athalon 2400? D:
I have a laptop with an AMD CPU and one with an Intel CPU. The one with the Intel CPU is a few years older. Granted the AMD laptop has better graphics, it is much slower in comparison to the Intel laptop. Both have the same number of cores and about the same GHz. The Intel laptop turns on faster, launches programs faster and is just plain better than the AMD laptop. The Intel laptop also has less RAM.
Quote from: The Hobo on May 02, 2013, 16:09
I have a laptop with an AMD CPU and one with an Intel CPU. The one with the Intel CPU is a few years older. Granted the AMD laptop has better graphics, it is much slower in comparison to the Intel laptop. Both have the same number of cores and about the same GHz. The Intel laptop turns on faster, launches programs faster and is just plain better than the AMD laptop. The Intel laptop also has less RAM.
Meh :P i'll take that one, as AMD aren't good at laptops xD i'll win this one :D What specs are the laptops? :)
Wait. You're a hobo :o you're not supposed to own laptops D:
Quote from: Dobby on May 02, 2013, 16:18
Quote from: The Hobo on May 02, 2013, 16:09
I have a laptop with an AMD CPU and one with an Intel CPU. The one with the Intel CPU is a few years older. Granted the AMD laptop has better graphics, it is much slower in comparison to the Intel laptop. Both have the same number of cores and about the same GHz. The Intel laptop turns on faster, launches programs faster and is just plain better than the AMD laptop. The Intel laptop also has less RAM.
Meh :P i'll take that one, as AMD aren't good at laptops xD i'll win this one :D What specs are the laptops? :)
Wait. You're a hobo :o you're not supposed to own laptops D:
No idea on the specs as I'm at school and leaving town until tomorrow. I'll update you when I get home.
And I have 3 laptops and one desktop. 2/3 laptops have Intel CPU's and the desktop has an Intel CPU.
AMD has nothing on Intel in the test of raw power, just look at benchmarks and you'll see for yourself. AMD does have the upper hand in the number of cores, but as it stands not a lot of applications use more than 4-cores now so on a per-application basis only the raw power of the CPU is reflected. It is nice having 8 cores with AMD since the OS can then assign applications to their own core, but each of those cores are weak in relativity with a core from a Intel CPU so you'll get all of your applications running at the same time with a AMD CPU, just wouldn't be as fast as a Intel CPU. Also OS schedulers are smart enough to make the most out of anything, so really the Intel CPU would win the multi-tasking trophy since it probably has more combined power than a AMD CPU.
Clock speed isn't the only factor in the performance of a CPU, don't forget higher clock speeds mean higher temperatures and as all physics/electronics-interested people will know, higher temperature = higher resistance in the "wiring" (it isn't wires but I'll call it that) = exponential temperature growth. Depends on your cooling system really.
Add more factors like cache speed + size, memory controller specs, and so on and you'll probably realise that the numbers you should be looking at are benchmarks, preferably for practical things like gaming, video / photo editing and so on.
CPU performance ≠ numbers of cores * clock speed
Also, this is a new processor so it would be unfair to compare old with new, let's wait until Intel gets Haswell going, and then get some benchmark figures otherwise it's like saying the PS4 will beat the 360... no shit Batman.
Quote from: The Hobo on May 02, 2013, 16:22
Quote from: Dobby on May 02, 2013, 16:18
Quote from: The Hobo on May 02, 2013, 16:09
I have a laptop with an AMD CPU and one with an Intel CPU. The one with the Intel CPU is a few years older. Granted the AMD laptop has better graphics, it is much slower in comparison to the Intel laptop. Both have the same number of cores and about the same GHz. The Intel laptop turns on faster, launches programs faster and is just plain better than the AMD laptop. The Intel laptop also has less RAM.
Meh :P i'll take that one, as AMD aren't good at laptops xD i'll win this one :D What specs are the laptops? :)
Wait. You're a hobo :o you're not supposed to own laptops D:
No idea on the specs as I'm at school and leaving town until tomorrow. I'll update you when I get home.
And I have 3 laptops and one desktop. 2/3 laptops have Intel CPU's and the desktop has an Intel CPU.
Nice :D and ok then :)
You Intel fans will change your mind once my build is complete :) if i dont convince you AMD is 30% better than originally though :D im going to pay each one, $1,000,000 In game money :)
Quote from: Joshy on May 02, 2013, 16:49
AMD has nothing on Intel in the test of raw power, just look at benchmarks and you'll see for yourself. AMD does have the upper hand in the number of cores, but as it stands not a lot of applications use more than 4-cores now so on a per-application basis only the raw power of the CPU is reflected. It is nice having 8 cores with AMD since the OS can then assign applications to their own core, but each of those cores are weak in relativity with a core from a Intel CPU so you'll get all of your applications running at the same time with a AMD CPU, just wouldn't be as fast as a Intel CPU. Also OS schedulers are smart enough to make the most out of anything, so really the Intel CPU would win the multi-tasking trophy since it probably has more combined power than a AMD CPU.
Clock speed isn't the only factor in the performance of a CPU, don't forget higher clock speeds mean higher temperatures and as all physics/electronics-interested people will know, higher temperature = higher resistance in the "wiring" (it isn't wires but I'll call it that) = exponential temperature growth. Depends on your cooling system really.
Add more factors like cache speed + size, memory controller specs, and so on and you'll probably realise that the numbers you should be looking at are benchmarks, preferably for practical things like gaming, video / photo editing and so on.
CPU performance ≠ numbers of cores * clock speed
Also, this is a new processor so it would be unfair to compare old with new, let's wait until Intel gets Haswell going, and then get some benchmark figures otherwise it's like saying the PS4 will beat the 360... no shit Batman.
Haswell looks great, but we'll see when it's released :P until then, i refuse to pay an extra £100 for something i can get for under £100.
Yes higher clock speed may contribute to more heat, easy way to counter it, make sure you have a failsafe there just incase it overheats, and it'll turn off automatically. Stick in a decent cooler that isn't stock. there :) nice easy solution. But as you said, depends on the cooling system :) i do plan on going full watercooled eventually :)
Im comparing that CPU because it just looks amazing :O Yeah Intel may have Haswell on the way. But 5.0Ghz :o if that's stock, i may start saving now!
Imagine that paired with a GTX Titan :o
Edit: just been checking out the Kaveri
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2013/3/5/amd-kaveri-unveiled-pc-architecture-gets-gddr5.aspx
Quote from: Dobby on May 02, 2013, 16:55
You Intel fans will change your mind once my build is complete :) if i dont convince you AMD is 30% better than originally though :D im going to pay each one, $1,000,000 In game money :)
AMD is, and always will be in Intel's shadow. Looking forward to my million. :)
Quote from: Sveki on May 02, 2013, 17:06
Quote from: Dobby on May 02, 2013, 16:55
You Intel fans will change your mind once my build is complete :) if i dont convince you AMD is 30% better than originally though :D im going to pay each one, $1,000,000 In game money :)
AMD is, and always will be in Intel's shadow. Looking forward to my million. :)
Quote from: Sveki on May 02, 2013, 17:06
Quote from: Dobby on May 02, 2013, 16:55
You Intel fans will change your mind once my build is complete :) if i dont convince you AMD is 30% better than originally though :D im going to pay each one, $1,000,000 In game money :)
AMD is, and always will be in Intel's shadow. Looking forward to my million. :)
Give me proof. Upcoming solid hard proof. ;) until then, my point remains strong. Also, while you're checking the google for upcoming Haswell specs. Feel free to check for AMD too :) gotta make it fair ;)
Quote from: Dobby on May 02, 2013, 13:47
Why would you need a Xeon? aren't they server based CPU's? I'm overclocking once i save up enough money to buy a decent watercooling kit, then i'm gonna stress it like a boss :D
I'm sure you can enable/disable that sort of thing in the BIOS, seeing as i was looking at a friends AMD build the other day and he can :o how old is the Athalon 2400? D:
Because most boards require Xeon i use. Also Xeon requires most of the time Buffered ECC ram. Its all just for reliability and redundancy. Xeons are generally more reliable because they are enterprise hardware. Made from better parts and built to last. Same goes with the enterprise hard drives. The motors and parts are better quality than consumer. I would say a dual Quad core Xeon beats your single 8 core AMD.
Disable what in BIOS?
Athlon 2400 is from like 2003 i would say.
(the dual pentium III server is from 1999 when P3 was introduced)
---
Know what? a 3.0Ghz Single core is better than 2.3 Ghz dual core.
---
Quote from: Joshy on May 02, 2013, 16:49
AMD has nothing on Intel in the test of raw power, just look at benchmarks and you'll see for yourself. AMD does have the upper hand in the number of cores, but as it stands not a lot of applications use more than 4-cores now so on a per-application basis only the raw power of the CPU is reflected. It is nice having 8 cores with AMD since the OS can then assign applications to their own core, but each of those cores are weak in relativity with a core from a Intel CPU so you'll get all of your applications running at the same time with a AMD CPU, just wouldn't be as fast as a Intel CPU. Also OS schedulers are smart enough to make the most out of anything, so really the Intel CPU would win the multi-tasking trophy since it probably has more combined power than a AMD CPU.
Clock speed isn't the only factor in the performance of a CPU, don't forget higher clock speeds mean higher temperatures and as all physics/electronics-interested people will know, higher temperature = higher resistance in the "wiring" (it isn't wires but I'll call it that) = exponential temperature growth. Depends on your cooling system really.
Add more factors like cache speed + size, memory controller specs, and so on and you'll probably realise that the numbers you should be looking at are benchmarks, preferably for practical things like gaming, video / photo editing and so on.
CPU performance ≠ numbers of cores * clock speed
Also, this is a new processor so it would be unfair to compare old with new, let's wait until Intel gets Haswell going, and then get some benchmark figures otherwise it's like saying the PS4 will beat the 360... no shit Batman.
Amen, software guy.
8 Core AMD < 4 Core intel
---
Quote from: Dobby on May 02, 2013, 16:55
You Intel fans will change your mind once my build is complete :) if i dont convince you AMD is 30% better than originally though :D im going to pay each one, $1,000,000 In game money :)
Watch out, your AMD crap build will bite in your ass eventually..
I will never ever use AMD in my builds unless it was given for free to me.
Underlining the text isnt doing anything :P i've already gone over it in a previous post :P
It's hardly crap :o since it sh**s on most modern day builds :P and you can enable a temperature thing to shut off the computer at a certain temperature
Care to back up the 3.0Ghz statement? :P
Quote from: Dobby on May 02, 2013, 18:21
Underlining the text isnt doing anything :P i've already gone over it in a previous post :P
It's hardly crap :o since it sh**s on most modern day builds :P and you can enable a temperature thing to shut off the computer at a certain temperature
Care to back up the 3.0Ghz statement? :P
Ah for fuck sakes, i hit previous page and lost most of what i just wrote. Too lazy to write it all over so i just write most important things
I read the topic late so i just quoted whole Joshy's post over again and highlighting the important sentences.
AMD comes with possibility to ENABLE that feature (Must be in the newest CPUs only, I cant find such ability from my Opteron server)
Intel has it by default on and i belive you cant even disable it.
I derped with the sentence about single core vs quad core. Actually ment 3.0Ghz single core is better than 2.3 Ghz Dual core. No porgram can efficiently use multiple cores. (I noticed this huge impact on performance when i upgraded from Pentium 4 based server to Core 2 Duo, when the Core 2 was the newest line of CPU. The hardware was same, no more ram added or removed, nothing else than a CPU upgrade and motherboard.)
Quote from: Dobby on May 02, 2013, 17:21
Quote from: Sveki on May 02, 2013, 17:06
Quote from: Dobby on May 02, 2013, 16:55
You Intel fans will change your mind once my build is complete :) if i dont convince you AMD is 30% better than originally though :D im going to pay each one, $1,000,000 In game money :)
AMD is, and always will be in Intel's shadow. Looking forward to my million. :)
Give me proof. Upcoming solid hard proof. ;) until then, my point remains strong. Also, while you're checking the google for upcoming Haswell specs. Feel free to check for AMD too :) gotta make it fair ;)
Your point is based on this: "AMD has higher clock speed, therefore it is better." I am sorry, but i don't see that as valid.
About the price, you are right. Intel is more expensive, but there is a reason for that, don't you think? ;)
Noo :O what gave you that impression? :D
Would any of you guys say that a 1000w PSU is overkill? :P I do plan on shoving 3tb HDD's in there, along with GPU, CPU, RAM and whatnot.
Totally overkill. 850 will do fine
1000W is enough for my 24 HDD file server. Though the 12 volt rail cant handle the drive spinup so i had to use 1500W so it wont overload everytime i boot it.
GPU = 140-200W
HDD = <10W
CPU = 95W (Check TDP)
RAM = 4W (stick)
Those are about numbers
There's nothing wrong with amd cpus. Both intel and amd have there advantages and disadvanges. I have an amd 6300 that has been working fine ever since i built my pc. But I did have about a $600 budget. If I had a bigger budget I would of gone with the intel 3770k. I still have a pc with a intel celeron clocked at 1.4ghz or something and it still works perfectly fine.
Quote from: droctogonapus on May 02, 2013, 21:50
There's nothing wrong with amd cpus. Both intel and amd have there advantages and disadvanges. I have an amd 6300 that has been working fine ever since i built my pc. But I did have about a $600 budget. If I had a bigger budget I would of gone with the intel 3770k. I still have a pc with a intel celeron clocked at 1.4ghz or something and it still works perfectly fine.
Now i wouldn't mind getting the 3770k or even a haswell CPU when it comes out. But i'm awful at saving. Plus as i stated :P i don't believe in spending money for something i can get for cheaper elsewhere :)
@Dr_Dog, what are your gaming PC specs? or is it the same as the HD file server? by the way :D that sounds like a beast. Is it some kind on LAN? (local area network)
Intel=shit graphics, best processors.
AMD=best graphics, shit processors.
Quote from: KangarooAUS on May 03, 2013, 04:37
Intel=shit graphics, best processors.
AMD=best graphics, shit processors.
that sums it up
Quote from: Dobby on May 02, 2013, 23:36
@Dr_Dog, what are your gaming PC specs? or is it the same as the HD file server? by the way :D that sounds like a beast. Is it some kind on LAN? (local area network)
Intel Core i7-2600 QuadCore @ 3.4GHz
G.Skill Ripjaw 8GB 1600Mhz
x2 WD Blue 160GB raid 1 | 2x 2TB WD RE4
ASUS SABERTOOTH Z77
XFX Radeon HD 7770 Double Dissipation Edition
Lian Li PC-P80
The file server runs freenas 8 with
dual Xeons 2.0Ghz quad cores
4GB of Kingston ram
Intel pro 1000 PT Quad port ethernet card.
Some old tyan motherboard.
Norco 4224
16x WD Black 1TB
6x WD RE2 2TB
Areca ARC 1680ix SAS controller - Probably most expensive part of the build apart from hard drives
Yes it is on LAN for now, But i belive i might even coloco that.
I have a laptop that has stuff in it to make it run, :herpderp: sorry for bursting your guy's bubble, get on my level of pc tech.
(http://puu.sh/2MARj.jpg)
Haswell CPU (source (http://www.eteknix.com/intel-i7-4770k-gets-overclocked-to-7ghz-required-2-56v))
Nice. Bet that's gonna cost like what? £400?. That's the thing with Intel, they charge a chunk load of money for something you can get from AMD for a better price, and the only difference is like 10 FPS. Not worth the extra money IMO.
Quote from: Dobby on May 04, 2013, 19:02
Nice. Bet that's gonna cost like what? £400?. That's the thing with Intel, they charge a chunk load of money for something you can get from AMD for a better price, and the only difference is like 10 FPS. Not worth the extra money IMO.
The thing is those 8 core cpu's will only scrape the surface of performing equal to an entry level i7.
Also that top of the line intel that was posted according to rumours will surface at about 209 pounds + VAT it might be more as they are only rumoured pricing. Probably Amazon and other places will have the prices for UK ready in late may
The shitposting has returned!
Anyways, AMD has been verified for shared resources of cores, they aren't completely separated, hence creating a bottleneck and lack in cache and computational power.
Also, clock speed means pretty much shit without the transistor count. You can overclock a Pentium 4 as far as you wish, but it still wouldn't out perform most of the processors today, even at a lower clock speed. Why is that? Transistors, mayun.
Also Intel > AMD.
If you can't afford it, you can't complain about it.