View Single Post
  #40 (permalink)  
Old October 5, 2012, 06:38 AM
terrybear terrybear is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: midland, ontario
Posts: 519
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisk View Post
Waiting for the heat and power to drop for similar performance on AMD stuff. I have done the research for the things I do and I am waiting for AMD
Strike 2: Hotter
Honestly there has never been a heat issue with cpu's from either company since moving to 32nm ... especialy if your talking enthusiest & aftermarket cooling

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisk View Post
So, with my typical usage, I find that the typical user for me has the following requirements:
3. Some transcoding (people tend to have some software like Nero for taking videos and compressing/transcoding for use in a mobile phone)
4. Quiet, and cool

So with my suggestions above, I typically still fall back to an Intel i3 or i5 setup. So seriously (I am not being coy), how does AMD compete on the above now? I am especially concerned about #3 and #4 in my list above. I have not looked at AMD in ages, so I am honestly looking for a good review or comparison here with regards to the latest AMD stuff.
The 1-2 "trinity" reviews I have read mobilewise has been positive with top end trinity cpu's vs i3/i5's & some instances in the 1 review bump close to the i7's too .... BUT again, with the variety of hardware out there its hard to fully conclude good or bad how it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilauea View Post
Depending on our needs and priorities, Intel may (usually is) the way to go simply because AMD failed to improve enough. If Bulldozer was a - more - decent improvement over Phenom II (but still behind Intel) I'm quite sure more of us would go for it. But the fact is that we know that for the most part, if you go for Bulldozer, you choose to buy something that is the equivalent of a few years old processor. That doesn't compute with enthusiast, which is why here Intel is the way to go.

I do not consider myself as a real fanboi, but if I had to chose between 2 similar processors and everything was equal, but the small guy was a little underperforming, I'd go for the little guy (granted there was some sort of advantage for my wallet). But as it is now, I'd choose Intel because of how I know I use my computer.

Back to the point, for average Joe, I don't think it matters much. A few months ago, my cousin asked me for a suggestion for a cheap laptop to do basic office, web browsing stuff and that would be plugged most of the time. All I told her is not to get Atom, C-series or Zacate, but anything else would do fine for her needs independently of the price. I don't think she complained at all, because that is what the average Joe needs: something cheap that works. The rest is not important.
You know I won a Dell pc that had a intel i7 860 in it 2-3 years ago, same amount of ram & speed that i had in my X4 955 BE & simularely configured hardwarewise .... when I sat there & just did generalized things like opening folders n such ..... you know how much diffrence I noticed between the 2 .... absolutely NONE ... And thats always been my point ... no one NEEDS to buy specificaly & ONLY intel to have a general usage pc/device & be happy with it. Just like your latter point of your post ... ultimately in the end it shouldnt matter what is in it intel/amd/ibm & ect ..... as long as it does what it needs to do.
Reply With Quote