Advice on i5 or an AMD piledriver

[almighty15]

Shame you never got my cherry picked 1055T really

Also, that was when AMD was banging the "AM3 IS THE FUTURE, BULLDOZER IS FTW'S" drum, which adds context.

I would have killed for that Phenom 2 you had matey, if hit it 4.3Ghz on water I could only imagine what I would have got it up too...

That could have been a 5Ghz+ CPU easily...

 

[ALXAndy]

Whiffy guff.

How very interesting. Did some one blow off?

You do realise you're making yourself look like an idiot with that quote in your sig son't you?

I'll let others be the judge of that oh master, ruler of the computing world.

Some one really did blow off, for the life of me I can't work out what that smell is.

 

[ALXAndy]

I despair when I read your posts mate. Seriously, what are you smoking?

Posts of yours like post #46 demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of benchmarks and reviews. People reading them with less knowledge than us are likely to make decisions that are based on rubbish advice (i.e. yours) and spend far more than they need to on mid-range systems. Based on your comments, I should be really unhappy that my 3930k is only going to be 0.6 fps faster than an i3 2100 on Far Cry 3 (first graph) and will actually be slower than an i5 3550! Seriously, stop being totally idiotic.

To the OP, you need to be aware that there are a one or two members in this forum that are determined to put down FX Piledriver CPUs (either 6 or 8-core) due to their slower single-threaded performance. Whilst the latter is true compared to Sandy, Ivy and Haswell Intel CPUs, what is often forgotten is that FX CPUs overclock far better than non-delidded Ivy and Haswell i5s. In addition, in real world terms, there will be virtually no noticeable difference between an FX 8-core system an i5/i7 system unless in really specific situations (e.g. multi-GPU systems).

I have a high end Intel system (as per sig) and also an FX 8-core system which was previously paired with a 7990 and now a 780 classified. Even in single/2-threaded games like WoW and Skyrim (both of which I play a lot of), I honestly do not notice any difference between the 2 systems and both are run on ultra settings. Yes, I know that the 2 systems are run on different resolutions, but my FX system is quite representative of what a mid-range gamer would get.

I am lucky that a budget is almost never a consideration in what I buy but if I did have to think about budgets, I would not hesitate using and recommending a pildriver FX 6 or 8 core at the moment. More and more games are becoming heavily multithreaded and with Mantle out in almost 1-2 weeks, the FX CPUs will represent an even bigger bargain (the FX 8320 can be bought for <£110 new!). The money saved on them, is far better spent on a better single GPU in many cases.

Man don't try and talk sense to it. That only makes the smell worse

 

[Doomedspeed]

This thread has turned into a trainwreck..

I've said my bit of previous pages.

I'm out of here, and i suggest the rest of you do so too, unless you're going to calm down and start giving some real advice to the OP rather than argue with each other..

This is meant in the nicest possible way.. To all!

 

[Tohrazer]

This thread has turned into a trainwreck..

I've said my bit of previous pages.

I'm out of here, and i suggest the rest of you do so too, unless you're going to calm down and start giving some real advice to the OP rather than argue with each other..

This is meant in the nicest possible way.. To all!

well i did try to be serious on the page before this one

 

[Martini1991]

I would have killed for that Phenom 2 you had matey, if hit it 4.3Ghz on water I could only imagine what I would have got it up too...

That could have been a 5Ghz+ CPU easily...

I didn't realise this, but going through some old threads, it benched at like 4.45GHZ or something, and I also had some of that AMD flame memory

Fat Rakoon owns it now, I've inquired about getting it back, but no answer .
I was going to test it in Cinebench overclocked, and I bet with its FPU performance it'd probably be beating FX6300's which are also clocked.

Anyway, this thread is moot, it looks like OP's just going AMD anyway by his PSU post

 

[Phixsator]

What has Phix got to do with this? What game was it? How much did Phix outlay?

Nah that would be twisting words here as I am as intrigued to Phix (don't recall calling him a nut) and this switch, was it a post, was it private discussion? Either way one example, all it proves is if he had to get an i7 to improve then he misjudged the origninal build to his requirements.

As you say 700 is 280X, I would like to see where an overclocked FX is bottlenecked by this card. Again the ball is in your court. It's over there next to all them other balls that you have yet to return!

Let me start by saying that i did not musjudge my original build one bit. I'll give you my rough purchase history for the last year and perhaps it will become clear.

around march 2013 my i7 920 dies, couldnt get the part i really wanted and needed a cheap pc fast that didnt totally s*cked so i purchase an fx-8350. This was to run with my single 7950. Then i bought another 7950 2 months later to crossfire. In november I bought a 780 lightning and in december a sabertooth z87 paired with a 4770k.

I quickly find out with my 8350 setup that BF3 MP was bottlenecked as low as 60% on both GPUs(7950s). Singleplayer was perfect though but i didnt play that. I also got some bottlenecking in Crysis 3 but nothing as severe. Then addon the ton of other games like Skyrim, marvel Heroes, FarCry 2(yes 2)and all the small games i didnt play for long, which suffering in one way or another from CPU bottlenecking.

Let me be perfectly clear, i love the 8350. Its an awwsome chip. But people forget its original purpose. Its pretty good at games but fare from the best. Its released as a enthusiast/workstation chip with server in its veins. I still have it and its running as my server at 3,0ghz@1 volt(i havent tried less yet) using stock cooler without a fan attached with only a 140 blowing from the distant on it..its awwsome.

The next question would be: Why did i buy an i7 setup if i love the fx-8350. Answer is i wanted more fluid performance. a heavy modded Skyrim saw roughly a 25% boost in minimum FPS from 35 to around 44-45(using the same save spot looking into a village) going from a 4,8ghz FX-8350 to a stock 4770k boosting to 3,9ghz and the intel even had the disadvantege of running on the same installation as my 8350 did with only chipset driver installed.

Sure there will be games where the differences in benchmark results between an fx-83x0 and an i7 will be close, but my experience so fare with my i7@4,5 is that the FPS has been more consistent, less drops, better minimums and since i am using a 780 as my renderer and since my renderer was bottlenecked there was no point in me keeping the 8350 as my main rig since i wouldnt be able to take advantage of mantle when it comes out and even if i could it wouldnt be useful for all games.

I do not hate AMD or love Intel/nvidia. I will correct intel fanboys when they start howling but i will also like to remind the AMD users that the FX lineup is fare from the very best there is and there is no reason to get butthurt over owning such a product to the point where you(random AMD user) have to defend it no matter the cost, spite being right or wrong. We do not owe the companies anything, if any they owe us for buying their darn products.

There is no reason to compare the 83x0 to the 4x70k because its was made way before that and even though it was after the 3x70k hit the market you have to consider the smaller R'n'D budget, the smaller team and the larger process node. For what AMD had to work with being in a big pile of money problems i think they did a good job and they managed to put something out that could compete with a 2500/2600k in most titles, heck even give a 3570k a run for it money at times. Put things in the correct boxes. In the end we are all either gamers or enthusiasts or perhaps both and instead of fighting eachother over who has the biggest epeen perhaps the convo should be changed to something a bit more constructive.

This wasnt all meant for you Th0nt but also as a broad shoutout. Cheers

 

[gpuerrilla]

Thanks for the post Phix, at least we can digest what happened rather than assuming. I still stand by comparing an i7 to an FX is hardly a fair one given their price points.

If there was performance issues then your experience has shown it to be existing. I don't know if there was anything else that played it's part, when did you do the swap and what iteration of drivers were you using?

I only mention this as crossfire started to get some love middle of '13 but I am not here to defend something on assumption.

This thread was about a request with a £700 budget, in the light of martins comment in my sig, the fact that he wont be able to afford two 7950's and the price of the FX being just over £100 - then to me it was a no brainer.

Some went about rubbishing the FX and used words like 'nosediving' for example which is where the fables and the brand boys took it off-topic. For most people the FX is adequate and seems to do well. I would much rather live in a world where we had choice instead of just intel, however if you believe some of the jive on here then you would have course never buy AMD - which to me and this thread is just poor advice.

 

[Martini1991]

I never actually said anything about not getting an FX8320, just that nose dive is the correct term to use in which you go from i7 performance to under i3 performance, the end result is somewhat irrelevant to the description, what other word is there when you go from the highest of the highs to under i3's? Collapse? Like Man UTD

That's how I got dragged into it.

Didn't mean to drag you in Phix, but you don't live in ignorance of bottlenecks (You've said your piece about bottlenecking 7950 Crossfire, but you've got people adamant the FX83 overclocked doesn't bottleneck a 7990, I know internal crossfire can take a hit, 5850's in Crossfire were nigh on the same as a 5970 etc but still )

 

[ALXAndy]

Let me start by saying that i did not musjudge my original build one bit. I'll give you my rough purchase history for the last year and perhaps it will become clear.

around march 2013 my i7 920 dies, couldnt get the part i really wanted and needed a cheap pc fast that didnt totally s*cked so i purchase an fx-8350. This was to run with my single 7950. Then i bought another 7950 2 months later to crossfire. In november I bought a 780 lightning and in december a sabertooth z87 paired with a 4770k.

I quickly find out with my 8350 setup that BF3 MP was bottlenecked as low as 60% on both GPUs(7950s). Singleplayer was perfect though but i didnt play that. I also got some bottlenecking in Crysis 3 but nothing as severe. Then addon the ton of other games like Skyrim, marvel Heroes, FarCry 2(yes 2)and all the small games i didnt play for long, which suffering in one way or another from CPU bottlenecking.

Let me be perfectly clear, i love the 8350. Its an awwsome chip. But people forget its original purpose. Its pretty good at games but fare from the best. Its released as a enthusiast/workstation chip with server in its veins. I still have it and its running as my server at 3,0ghz@1 volt(i havent tried less yet) using stock cooler without a fan attached with only a 140 blowing from the distant on it..its awwsome.

The next question would be: Why did i buy an i7 setup if i love the fx-8350. Answer is i wanted more fluid performance. a heavy modded Skyrim saw roughly a 25% boost in minimum FPS from 35 to around 44-45(using the same save spot looking into a village) going from a 4,8ghz FX-8350 to a stock 4770k boosting to 3,9ghz and the intel even had the disadvantege of running on the same installation as my 8350 did with only chipset driver installed.

Sure there will be games where the differences in benchmark results between an fx-83x0 and an i7 will be close, but my experience so fare with my i7@4,5 is that the FPS has been more consistent, less drops, better minimums and since i am using a 780 as my renderer and since my renderer was bottlenecked there was no point in me keeping the 8350 as my main rig since i wouldnt be able to take advantage of mantle when it comes out and even if i could it wouldnt be useful for all games.

I do not hate AMD or love Intel/nvidia. I will correct intel fanboys when they start howling but i will also like to remind the AMD users that the FX lineup is fare from the very best there is and there is no reason to get butthurt over owning such a product to the point where you(random AMD user) have to defend it no matter the cost, spite being right or wrong. We do not owe the companies anything, if any they owe us for buying their darn products.

There is no reason to compare the 83x0 to the 4x70k because its was made way before that and even though it was after the 3x70k hit the market you have to consider the smaller R'n'D budget, the smaller team and the larger process node. For what AMD had to work with being in a big pile of money problems i think they did a good job and they managed to put something out that could compete with a 2500/2600k in most titles, heck even give a 3570k a run for it money at times. Put things in the correct boxes. In the end we are all either gamers or enthusiasts or perhaps both and instead of fighting eachother over who has the biggest epeen perhaps the convo should be changed to something a bit more constructive.

This wasnt all meant for you Th0nt but also as a broad shoutout. Cheers

Nobody here with a ounce of sense will compare a £106 chip (at the last price check) to a £240 one unless they're really, worryingly stupid.

If we all had I7 money then no doubt we would have I7s. Or, we would have I7s if we needed them.

TBH you've made it hard to compare any data because you've not really presented any. No offence and I'm not having a dig here but you would 'notice' a difference changing from an FX to an I7 because you paid for that difference. It's referred to as new purchase syndrome.

Now I would love to see my rig bottle necking but it's been pretty much impossible for me. My FX has been clocked to 4.7GHZ + since I bought it and I have yet to see it bottle necking per se. I've seen poor GPU usage, and I've seen poor CPU usage but neither are down to a lack of hardware or its prowess, they're usually down to how a game is coded. For example, Metro Last Light only allows my GPUs to hit 90%, not 100%. But then when I look at what my CPU is doing I only see that hitting at best 55% over 8 cores. (Edit. I would like to point out at this stage that I actually sit down and play my games, sans any FPS monitoring software and only tend to bother with stuff like that when I'm proving to an idiot that he's telling lies)

So how does one define bottle necking? is it when the CPU isn't being loaded to 100%? or is it because the GPUs are not being loaded to 100%?

In these cases have you thought that it could simply be down to the way the code runs underneath the game?

I mean don't get me wrong, you're bound to benefit in games that are poorly threaded (I'm referring to Skyrim here) but only so much of that comes back to hardware. 99% of PC game issues are with the game code. Devs spend a year or more perfecting that code for a console, then go and release it for the PC before they've even ironed out all of the bugs and issues with that game. Nearly all PC games are subject to heavy patching soon after they launch, and with titles like BF4 you end up finding out that you've literally bought a lemon. I mean an incomplete, broken buggy mess.

There was a time (once upon a time) where I would see an issue with something on a PC and then throw money at it. The problem I found with that is that you never find yourself happy with anything any more.

Any way, thanks for your post.

 

[gpuerrilla]

...but you've got people adamant the FX83 overclocked doesn't bottleneck a 7990, I know internal crossfire can take a hit, 5850's in Crossfire were nigh on the same as a 5970 etc but still )

I have never said it wouldn't (an FX) bottleneck especially a 7990, however in other threads all I have asked for would be more evidence. I do however think that anything less than a 290 would not bottleneck an FX unless it was a terrible game or the system not being setup correctly.

As is the case with a £700 budget you will be lucky to sneak in a 280x if your buying a complete system. Where on earth you think a guy will get a 290 or a 7990 is obviously in the same land with your unicorns.

 

[alex_123_fra]

I think we should also qualify here that statements like "an FX 8 core will bottleneck a 7990" are not true for all games. In heavily multithreaded titles like BF4 (which granted are a minority but which use all 8 threads) I have shown fps charts with my FX 8320 (at various clocks) and 7990 and I believe so has Andy. That was also when the game was first released and my results were with Win7 (Andy's Win8 and are much better). I couldn't see overwhelming evidence that the 8320 was bottlenecking the system and I'm sure if I still had the 7990, after several driver updates and game patches, the results would be even better in raw fps terms.

 

[ALXAndy]

I think we should also qualify here that statements like "an FX 8 core will bottleneck a 7990" are not true for all games. In heavily multithreaded titles like BF4 (which granted are a minority but which use all 8 threads) I have shown fps charts with my FX 8320 (at various clocks) and 7990 and I believe so has Andy. That was also when the game was first released and my results were with Win7 (Andy's Win8 and are much better). I couldn't see overwhelming evidence that the 8320 was bottlenecking the system and I'm sure if I still had the 7990, after several driver updates and game patches, the results would be even better in raw fps terms.

Well I have yet to see it. To be quite frank the day I see an issue with this CPU I'll be sure to post about it.

Mind you, I guess you have to be pretty damn open minded to buy an AMD CPU and trust your own instincts these days any way, with god knows how many little plebs infecting forums and spouting their bile.

And it's once you do that and actually shove in an AMD CPU that you realise it's all BS.

I just installed the latest Cat Beta. BF4 is working again but I'm pretty sure that would be the 4.3gb update it installed after breaking itself just before Christmas. I wouldn't even mind but the game worked flawlessly for me on both of my PCs until they released that update that supposedly fixed SLI and it borked the game on my SLI rig and my Crossfire rig

 

[gpuerrilla]

I think we should also qualify here that statements like "an FX 8 core will bottleneck a 7990" are not true for all games.

I run BF4 and do not see any bottleneck with this setup. In fact I cant wait to try out mantle and see if any difference is made to the non-bottleneck. All this proves is games can be compiled to run well if all available hardware vendors are considered without any outside influence. The '99% of games' misquote has suddenly grown to quite a few now that actually use multi-core well and will continue this way for the foreseeable future. So instead of 1% it must now be at least 5%.

Oh wait, you know that game that someone else plays, that I do not from a few years back - well it runs far better on an intel. Why didn't you buy an intel?

Well I have yet to see it. ...Mind you, I guess you have to be pretty damn open minded to buy an AMD CPU and trust your own instincts these days

It seems you have to be rather thick skinned and not take in a lot of the blinkered guff and actually stick to your guns on what you want your system to do. It wouldn't surprise me that if all you did was browse the web some fool would come on here and tout an i5 because it's what they have.

 

[Phixsator]

TBH you've made it hard to compare any data because you've not really presented any. No offence and I'm not having a dig here but you would 'notice' a difference changing from an FX to an I7 because you paid for that difference. It's referred to as new purchase syndrome.

Im a little offended, just slight, by that last comment, but dont you worry about that . I understand why you are saying it as many go by their impressions alone instead of hard numbers but let be clear i am not one of those people. I deal in numbers ontop of the "experience". Im well aware of placebo effects and i would actually say that im well versed in it due to other stuff in my personal life that i wont go further into. Here is some numbers i did on the day i got my new rig.

Metro Last Light @ 1080p, Everything Maxed, PhysX=ON, Min Avg Max
FX8350 @ 4,8ghz Win7 13.02 | 38.95 | 80.65
4770k @ stock win7 20.05 | 40.65| 82.22


Metro Last Light @ 1080p, Everything Maxed, PhysX=OFF, SSAOO=OFF, Min Avg Max
FX8350 @ 4,8ghz Win7 13.12| 68,00 | 136.67
4770k @ stock win7 28.02 | 71.08 | 135.43


Company of Heroes 2 @ 1080p, everything maxed, AA=OFF, Vsync=OFF , Min Avg Max
FX8350 @ 4,8ghz Win7 37.94 | 53.52 | 87.86
4770k @ stock win7 42.65 | 60.12 | 99.19
4770k @ 4,5ghz Win7 45.1 | 72.83 | 120,00

These were done on the same OS install, so you may even say the intel part was done with a disadvantage of not being a clean OS install(but i personally wont go there, it worked flawlessly). As i said in my previous post, i changed because i wanted better minimums and less stuttering and i got that. You can ofcourse never completely protect yourself against those simply because some games are horribly coded, but overall whenever i have runned the numbers i have gotten what i wanted from the purchase. I also did the upgrade incase i ever wanted to go SLI 780ish(doubtful but you never know).

What i would like to know is do you have any personally experience with the i5/i7 series? or are you going about your claims based on website info/benchmarks? I would like to know where you are coming from with these opinions of yours so i can better understand them.

 

[gpuerrilla]

Thanks for the stats Phix, some interesting figures there. One of the posters above (Alex) has both an FX and i7 with testing and feedback has input to these debates quite a bit.

With more people adding to this be it switchers (like you), lucky sods (like alex) and downgraders/sidegraders (was a couple I seen) you get a far balanced picture. What we are trying to get is reason and the night & day exaggerations some people spout are from people who dont have access to an FX to compare it to.

I have read it myself and believe it that i5/i7 in some circumstances would no doubt be better than an FX with lets call it playable experience in game. Some people don't want to believe that the gulf is not that large though. No matter how much information you present.

This is why when people can test and test fairly it should be done to provide so hard evidence. Like some people have mentioned, a game that plays at 180 fps on intel and a mere 155 fps on an AMD is not really going to 'experience' anything different other than a figure presented before their eyes by a frame counter. The actual game still plays the same.

 

[Boomstick777]

Please ignore all previous comments and just read this one.

Go for the Intel CPU, the CPU is better, the platform is better, the power use is better, the upgradability is better. The gaming performance is better, the program performance is better.

It's 2014, the only real reason to consider buying an AMD FX chip is if you're a mongoose, and thus not capable of rational thought. See ALXAndy posts for an example on this.

Don't need to thank me.

 

[gpuerrilla]

Why in bold though? It's like you are shouting which is just shake head time!

 

[ALXAndy]

Im a little offended, just slight, by that last comment, but dont you worry about that .

It happens to me tbh, so please don't take offense by it. It's basic human nature and what makes us tick. I've done a lot of reading into psychology, peer pressures and human reactions.. We don't buy something and immedately think "Hey this is terrible" we usually want it to be good at least, so will try and be happy about it. Well, unless you suffer from Unipolar Depression of course, then you might think it's a bit chit

I understand why you are saying it as many go by their impressions alone instead of hard numbers but let be clear i am not one of those people. I deal in numbers ontop of the "experience". Im well aware of placebo effects and i would actually say that im well versed in it due to other stuff in my personal life that i wont go further into. Here is some numbers i did on the day i got my new rig.

Metro Last Light @ 1080p, Everything Maxed, PhysX=ON, Min Avg Max
FX8350 @ 4,8ghz Win7 13.02 | 38.95 | 80.65
4770k @ stock win7 20.05 | 40.65| 82.22


Metro Last Light @ 1080p, Everything Maxed, PhysX=OFF, SSAOO=OFF, Min Avg Max
FX8350 @ 4,8ghz Win7 13.12| 68,00 | 136.67
4770k @ stock win7 28.02 | 71.08 | 135.43


Company of Heroes 2 @ 1080p, everything maxed, AA=OFF, Vsync=OFF , Min Avg Max
FX8350 @ 4,8ghz Win7 37.94 | 53.52 | 87.86
4770k @ stock win7 42.65 | 60.12 | 99.19
4770k @ 4,5ghz Win7 45.1 | 72.83 | 120,00

Thanks for that, appreciated. I really must get this COH2 and give it a go.

These were done on the same OS install, so you may even say the intel part was done with a disadvantage of not being a clean OS install(but i personally wont go there, it worked flawlessly). As i said in my previous post, i changed because i wanted better minimums and less stuttering and i got that. You can ofcourse never completely protect yourself against those simply because some games are horribly coded, but overall whenever i have runned the numbers i have gotten what i wanted from the purchase. I also did the upgrade incase i ever wanted to go SLI 780ish(doubtful but you never know).

Were you running Windows 7 per chance? Because to be quite honest you can't really get any solid accurate data regarding AMD PD with 7. Microsoft did at one point issue a patch to make the core parking work as it should, and the cache queuing work as it should but there must have been an issue with them as they were pulled shortly after. I guess they had an ill effect on certain rigs.. Mind you if I know MS it was so that you'd be forced into buying Windows 8.

Any way, I have a 4.8ghz profile so I'll be sure to run some tests

What i would like to know is do you have any personally experience with the i5/i7 series? or are you going about your claims based on website info/benchmarks? I would like to know where you are coming from with these opinions of yours so i can better understand them.

My last two CPUs (well, different ones, not counting the two 8320s I have) were Intel. Going retrospectively, Xeon E3 1220, I7 950 @ 4ghz.

The I7 at stock speed was suffering in BF3. I overclocked it, but I had a duff chip. At 4ghz I was posting Prime temps of low 90s (NH-D14). My rig was using over 200w on the CPU alone and things were getting really hot. I upgraded to the Xeon E3 1220 (A Sandybridge I5 2400 with no IGPU and more cache) and did see immediate improvements. However, just over a year later Crysis 3 released and it simply couldn't cope. I was running a pair of 670s and seeing min FPS of 23 which is not acceptable.

So I had a choice. Either pay £170 for a I5 3570k and a board to overclock with, or, go AMD. After reading this article -

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen

I decided to give an FX 8 a try. I initially bought a cheap board and the FX 8320 for £200. Overclocks were limited somewhat, but I did manage to get the CPU to 4.2ghz and immediately saw massive improvements in all of the games the Xeon was struggling with. Bear in mind of course that certain games such as Tomb Raider showed no improvement, nor did they become worse, but CPU bound games like Crysis 3, Sleeping Dogs, Hitman and others (FC3 and even BF3) showed massive improvements.

Now remember, at any time I could have DSR the AMD. However the improvements in multi threaded games (which was why I needed to upgrade in the first place, given the Xeon, like the I5 2400 was locked) were such that I decided to keep the AMD stuff, rather than returning it and spending more like £300 at that time for a decent SLI board and 3570k. Try and remember that with Z77 you got a lot less for your money than you did with Z87. IE - a board that is half decent that overclocks and has SLI support cost a lot more than the equivalent 990 board.

Then the board (and the entire PC it was in) went bang due to a bad cable extension and once again I had the chance to return to Intel. However, based on my experience (which seems to wildly differ from the utter rubbish that some people spout around here, not you of course !) I decided to buy a CHFZ and another 8320. I could have easily afforded a 3570k and board but I felt for the same price I could get a top end board (pretty much the best 990 board) and 8320 that had been serving me well for five months and overclock it much farther than before.

Now look. I want to tell you this as you seem like a decent chap. At no point have I, nor will I, bash on Intel CPUs. There are a few things I don't like about the company (like locking everything but their more expensive models and so on, typical corporate hatred) but I don't make a habit of going around making things up as I go. Intel make perfectly good CPUs, and, at I7 level great CPUs. However, just because that's so does not mean I have to go around telling lies.

I refer, of course, to the utter tripe that Almighty continually spouts. Usually I will just post a link to make him look stupid (like I did the other day with Arma III) but today I felt like poking him a bit harder. Imagine my comedy delight when he tried bragging about the hardware he's had because he got caught with his pants down and figured he could 'style his way out of it'.

 

[ALXAndy]

Why in bold though? It's like you are shouting which is just shake head time!

He's doing the 'la la la' routine with his fingers in his ears.

I wouldn't worry too much about it. Just the norm for him.