• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Hint at more deliver less...

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
I agree, and I feel like other than diehard AMD fans, most people feel like they're missing the mark.
 
He is a bit harsh but I can't disagree

QFT!

I agree, and I feel like other than diehard AMD fans, most people feel like they're missing the mark.

I think that AMD has been missing the mark for almost 2 years now. They sat on their butts when socket 939 was king of the roost instead of getting seroious about the next gen parts and ever since C2D came out it has been showing badly. And I'm not an Intel or AMD fanboy either, just a fanboy of my wallet. :D I will run whoever's processor suits my needs best at the moment and for the last year Intel has done so with some great processors.
 
QFT!



I think that AMD has been missing the mark for almost 2 years now. They sat on their butts when socket 939 was king of the roost instead of getting seroious about the next gen parts and ever since C2D came out it has been showing badly. And I'm not an Intel or AMD fanboy either, just a fanboy of my wallet. :D I will run whoever's processor suits my needs best at the moment and for the last year Intel has done so with some great processors.


I have to disagree. AMD and Intel are pretty close right now as far as performacne goes. you need a slightly faster AMD chip then an intel chip to be competitive. But that is why you have #GHz AMD chips now and NO 3 GHz intel chips.

However grabbing 100% OCs on the intels is blowing amd out of the enthusiast market which does trickle down to the mainstream over time.
 
But that is why you have #GHz AMD chips now and NO 3 GHz intel chips.

intel had had 3ghz core 2 parts for a while. while they are LGA771 server chips, duals and quads.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...6+1051122421+105101317&name=3.0GHz+and+higher
then dont forget this new QX6850 3ghz quad....
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115026

if you had said the same about amd when i knew they had them i would have been posting the same thing...
 
Neur0mancer, you're going to quibble over 60 MHz? When C2D launched the X6800 was a 2.93 GHz part and it could have been higher with no problem. Intel just didn't need any more than that to thoroughly trounce anything AMD had out, even now. When Conroe launched, I bought an E6300 and an E6600. Both of those cheaper processors can clock well above 3 GHz with stock vcore. I really don't know what the max is for the E6300 because the motherboards I have run out of fsb headroom before the processor pukes. I've had it over 3.5 GHz and I've run my E6600 at 3.6 GHz. Even now, a year after the launch of Conroe you have a hard time finding an AMD proc that can clock in that range. So your argument about the AMD procs just needing a few hundred more MHz isn't valid, since they can't clock high enough to make up the difference. And AMD's Phenom/Barcelona fiasco is just ridiculous the way they keep postponing having any competition for Intel in quad core. Their native quad core might be more elegant than Intel's glued together quads, but if you can't execute then the point is moot. Mind you, I don't want to see AMD keep pushing back Phenom, but the picture isn't looking too spiffy right now.
 
I felt the same way when I saw those new roadmaps with everything pushed back.

Now with Intel coming out dual celerons most of their Athlon LE and Sempron have to get cut out and get cheaper brisbanes to match intel in value.

Top end is out of the question for a while, in midrange Intel keeps them on prices where they won't make money.
AMD really needed this K10 and it doesn't seem to be able to deliver.
 
Back