I read all hardware reviews religiously and am an active member in many of those forums. How is that even a fair comparison? WinRAR eats up multicores and it's a two vs four situation there. Not exactly a good review if that is so. And if the E8400 comes close then wow. That's actually bad for AMD. Wow really? Source please. By the way a Q9550 @ 3GHz is like a Phenom II at 3.5GHz during gaming benchmarks. The GHz isn't everything that makes things fast.
It is a fair comparison, because all is about price. Core E8400 and 720 X3 are in the same price range. Unlock X3 to X4 then oc, oc E8400@E9000 and start the battle. Everyone can do this test with ease. No that is very good pr for AMD. We don´t talk about gaming here, encryption for example is very important for security guys and Amd is crown in this scope. BTW Why removed?
The Defense+ was giving me a lot more trouble than it was worth. That's why. I've had it for over 4 months now and never has it had any use to me. So I removed it. By the way this is off topic.
Clock speeds are by no means a reliable measure of performance across products, Arup. Sure, the Phenom II can reach 6.0 ghz, however that is with liquid nitrogen and is not practical in the long-term and the processor will have a greatly reduced lifespan because of dramatic temperature changes. AMD chips are fine. So are Intel chips. The AMD 9100e, is a 1.8ghz quad-core with a 65 watt TDP. Obviously, AMD is leveled towards the value-oriented consumer. If you backtrack a couple years, AMD had the upper hand over Intel's P4s. Intel was forced to innovate, starting with the Core Duos, which were well .... fairly respectable. So, ask yourself, what difference does that -1.4 seconds when compressing a file or that +10 FPS when playing COD4 online .. make?
They both share technologies based on cross-licence, but it also causes problems, x86 licence belongs to Intel, but 64-bit and memory controller to AMD. So, if Intel would claim its licences, so would AMD and they would both have to stop selling CPUs. They are not happy about it, but they can not do much about it. Source: Intel to AMD: Your x86 License Expires in 60 Days - Update! Report: AMD Says Intel is in Breach.
i have always used amd simply because i find them much better value for money. My mate spent nearly a thousand pounds on an intel cpu (that died without any overclocking in less than 18 months) ok he got better benchmarks than my then 9850be but no game played any smoother to the human eye. i have a 940be and a 1090t be 6 core now. together they cost £400. im not rich and could not justify spending more on a cpu than my car cost.
AMD for price. I can buy 3 AMD Phenom-II 6 core cpu's for what 1 Intel i7 6 core goes for. That makes Intel a 3 to 1 underdog. I don't like underdogs! Would be nice if AMD were the first to use a diamond substrate in place of silicon, then overclocking over 6ghz will be easy on air cooling.
Intel Always Intel . Two hands up for Intel ! I have experience with Intel's competition and Intel always wins when it comes to quality.
Yes that's is definitely true Intel® Core™ i5-430M 2.26Ghz, 4Threads, turbo boost up to 2.53 .... my laptop is on fire
I use an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ @2,2 GHz, but if I would be building a computer with a large budget I'd get an Intel Core i7. However I usually prefer AMD processors if I don't have much money.
intel intel intel intel intel intel intel intel intel maybe i will use amd when my money finish maybe i will use amd when they make cpu better than intel
