The Intel Witnesses are in strange denial.
Only and I repeat; only when you skew the benchmarks and cherry pick does the I3 win in anything. And the reason behind it is quite clear - bad game support.
It's no wonder who is in charge of our country when there are so many deluded people out there who don't seem to understand that if a CPU isn't supported correctly then guess what? it won't work properly !
FFS how can you take a game that supports two cores, ignores the other six and even so much as think it's even partially fair?
If I took three of the wheels off your car and it refused to budge would you blame the engine? or would you logically and intelligently deduce that the wheels are missing so there is nothing the engine can do about it?
Look. The internet has been around for a very, very long time now. 1/8 of your natural life. If you haven't figured out now that people on there abuse statistics and bend and warp the truth then I feel awfully, horridly sorry for you.
pmsl I might have that one for my sig. You really want them to do well yet you're on here, day after day, ****ging off their processors when you have no actual grasp of how a processor works, nor how software can totally and utterly make or break it, regardless of how bad or good the CPU is.
You're a fanboy and fanboys will stop at absolutely nothing to drive their point home, even if it's as bent as a nine bob note.
Your car analogy doesn't make sense, in my opinion.
Whilst it's true that the FX's shine if a game uses all 8 threads, the fact of the matter is that there are plenty of games out there that don't use more than one or two cores.
AMD knew full well when they introduced Bulldozer, that the majority of games and applications used by mainstream users are not well threaded. They chose to bet on their modular cripple cores, in the hopes that software would change quickly.
Software didn't change quickly, even today we have games developed and released that are not well threaded. This is no-one's fault but AMD's.
I'm not going to get into an argument with you Andy, whether you see me as an Intel fanboy or not doesn't bother me. I've already said that I've owned AMD graphics cards for years, plus I've owned many AMD CPU's in the past, when they were highly competitive with Intel or outright superior.
If Zen is competitive, I'll be sure to consider it if I'm in need of an upgrade.
You questioned whether I could afford an AMD setup as well as an Intel setup - yes I could, since the AMD FX series are very cheap. I however have no use of another PC, beyond my two Intel rigs (I7 gaming PC, Core2 duo server/media streaming PC). My old AMD rigs were sold, though I turned my good old FX-60 CPU into a keyring
Oh, it was mentioned in one of the above posts that I didn't consider the FX range of CPU's as having a place in a budget build. This is simply not true - I've stated several times that those who cannot afford the extra £110 or that a I5 4690k and Z97 costs should get an FX series CPU/motherboard.
I'd still recommend that someone in that situation saved up for the i5 though
), followed by athlon xp, 'barton', the original FX dual core.
