-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Haswell -E Core i7-5960X, 5930K, 5820K specifications
- Thread starter Boomstick777
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,290
- Location
- Dormanstown.
The first chart, I didn't look after that (Why would I?). So my bad. Interesting you conveniently left out where they do what you profess they don't (And as below, there is a reason for why they've done it)
But....
The reason isn't what you think it is (That doesn't excuse it, but it's a reason why), they've benched the newer CPU's, not the old ones, bearing in mind this is a new version of Cinebench (Although somewhat inconsistently, they've not clocked the i5 4670K, but they've clocked the 3930K
but I'm not taking that as rubbishing the i5 4670k. But they explain the reason for that anyway, they simply might not have those CPU's anymore)
So it's not to pander to Intel and make them look better.
They probably don't have the updated figures of clocked results.
If we take your logic then one could say "Look at Bit Tech rubbishing the i7 2600K!, getting beaten by the FX8350!"
I almost ended up with egg on my face, good recovery if I don't say so myself. Either way, you're twisting to suit your agenda.
But....
The reason isn't what you think it is (That doesn't excuse it, but it's a reason why), they've benched the newer CPU's, not the old ones, bearing in mind this is a new version of Cinebench (Although somewhat inconsistently, they've not clocked the i5 4670K, but they've clocked the 3930K
but I'm not taking that as rubbishing the i5 4670k. But they explain the reason for that anyway, they simply might not have those CPU's anymore)So it's not to pander to Intel and make them look better.
They probably don't have the updated figures of clocked results.
If we take your logic then one could say "Look at Bit Tech rubbishing the i7 2600K!, getting beaten by the FX8350!"
I almost ended up with egg on my face, good recovery if I don't say so myself. Either way, you're twisting to suit your agenda.
Last edited:
The first chart, I didn't look after that (Why would I?). So my bad.
But....
The reason isn't what you think it is (That doesn't excuse it, but it's a reason why), they've benched the newer CPU's, not the old ones, bearing in mind this is a new version of Cinebench (Although somewhat inconsistently, they've not clocked the i5 4670K, but they've clocked the 3930K
So it's not to pander to Intel and make them look better.
They probably don't have the updated figures of clocked results.
If we take your logic then one could say "Look at Bit Tech rubbishing the i7 2600K!, getting beaten by the FX8350!"
I almost ended up with egg on my face, good recovery if I don't say so myself. Either way, you're twisting to suit your agenda.
I'm not twisting anything, they are.
And it's an incredibly common occurrence, too.
But hey, excuse it all you like. I'm not blind, dude.
Good going Mr Brainwashed. I bet the Intel reps love you.
Actually, why not saunter over to Linus Tech Tips, where you can join the Intel Response Squad. You'd love it, they basically go around the forums brain washing every one who posts asking about AMD CPUs.
Oh wait no, they stopped that because it was, you know? illegal.
the intels are much higher........but they're much more expensive too, but considering that AMDs cards are so good, it's a bit surprising that their CPUs arent either.
if you see that chart the AMD is faster than the i5, but it's not this that's the problem, the i5 is 50% faster in terms of data solving and number crunching..... this is mentioned in many reviews
if you see that chart the AMD is faster than the i5, but it's not this that's the problem, the i5 is 50% faster in terms of data solving and number crunching..... this is mentioned in many reviews
Last edited:
no AMD's cards are not "so good"
they're hotter, unable to keep up the performance per watt to Nvidia and older tech sold cheaper to make it seem they are good but really are behind in performance and profit.
It's just annoying that Nvidia are doing similar things to Intel. Their cards are lower wattage and therefore capped for commercialisation rather than for performance advantage. Like Intel profit is the goal and so leave a lot in the "tank"...
Last edited:
oh for God's sake shut up, you're talking rubbish
lol truth hurts...
Did you listen to a single word 8 Pack said about Nvidia GPUs and how they are poorly made and have terrible VRMs?
Where do you get your info from? the Ernest Hemmingway BOB?
I do personally find benchmarks a mine field
Sometimes a cpu is oced
Sometimes only a little. Sometimes a lot
Sometimes it is in one bench, not in another
With my new cpu I can afford to wait and see what the new Intel brings
And also let prices drop.
I do really want more cores. I've been assessing my needs further
Long as 6 core haswell e are faster than 4 cores 4790k(max oc etc) when they are fully utilized by more than 15pc is probably worth it
But if one of those 6 cores vs one of those 4 cores is too much slower I would end up spending a lot of cash for swings and roundabouts
Sometimes a cpu is oced
Sometimes only a little. Sometimes a lot
Sometimes it is in one bench, not in another
With my new cpu I can afford to wait and see what the new Intel brings
And also let prices drop.
I do really want more cores. I've been assessing my needs further
Long as 6 core haswell e are faster than 4 cores 4790k(max oc etc) when they are fully utilized by more than 15pc is probably worth it
But if one of those 6 cores vs one of those 4 cores is too much slower I would end up spending a lot of cash for swings and roundabouts
I don't trust you nor do i trust "8 pack" or any other person claiming AMD are anywhere near their competition.
simply put find any comparison between similar performance cards and you will always see the performance per watt is always in Nvidias side. the 295x is just a joke. Stick 2 inefficient GPUs together and to make it run at all it HAS to be watercooled and at 1200W xfire ?? what is that bull?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 4,504
- Location
- Wales
What card do you use?
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Mar 2012
- Posts
- 1,737
The 295X is awesome and I'd love to have one. Nothing wrong with AMD GPUs. 290 and 290Xs are very impressive and capable with bags of bandwidth. Who seriously cares about wattage in this hemisphere of performance. Re: cooling, decent aftermarket coolers do well with Nvidia and AMD high-end GPUs. Watercooling results are consistent in both brands.
the point was that Nvidia are "holding back" like intel. The wattage used for performance is based on comercialisation rather than the pursuit of performance for the consumer.
this is so bad...........now lets look at the Titan and Titan Z......the Z is way too much money, so that looses your arguement straight away and the Titan is too average and dull......... but the Z is the worst, because that has a very poor price to power ratio
now you compare this to an MSI Lightning 290X, it's brilliant, it's mean and sexy and overclocks like crazy........finally, we have the 295X2 which is actually not too expensive and with Water cooling; it'll overclock as well, this one runs cool.............but for 1080p only, i dont need it to be overclocked... it'll last me for 3 years and run as lazy as anything.
i'll give you something though..... the Devil 13 is **** yes, but that's a rubbish Chinese Powercool ``toy`` card, so this **** up isn't AMD's fault is it.
finally, many of the other 290X are great as well, esp the Sapphire.... or even the standard MSI version....cheap too
Nvidia look dull, the only good one was the GTX 8800 and that was REALLY GOOD !
Last edited:
nothing to what u've said is relevant to what im saying and completely opinion based...
Nvidia is just like a Rolls Royce, it's well built but boring, an AMD is more like a Shelby Mustang ...... not much more to say really
except, realising this, i am surprised that their CPUs are just as bad now as 3 years ago
no you only have to read the reviews about the 290Xs to realise how good they are....read them for yourself, nobody here gives a damn if you need a 1000 watt PSU, instead of an 800Watt.
so where do i stand?......... i'm waiting for next year, but it'll still be AMD
Last edited: