-
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.
Intel Core i3 4340 Review – Beating AMD At Their Own Game
- Thread starter Boomstick777
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,619
- Location
- Planet Earth
It looks like they needed to retest the IGPs again:
http://www.hardcoreware.net/hcw-reviews-cpu-review-updates/
http://www.hardcoreware.net/hcw-reviews-cpu-review-updates/
lmao. Bloody noobs.
and the Core i3 4340 is probably the cheapest CPU you can get that allows high end GPUs to run at full potential without overclocking.
ahahahahahahahahahahahaha *takes breath*
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa *wipes tears*
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Still, I suppose it gives people like Boomstick something to read.
Last edited:
I'm ecstatic with my 8320. And for the pittance I've paid for it.
We understand that you're a fan of AMD. Stop trying to make an excuse to explain why an out of the box i3 might outperform an equally stock 8350, but is still inferior to AMD's offering.
We all know that encoding and other intensive tasks would see the tables turn by quite a lot. They both have their own advantages and are suited best at different roles.
In short, the AMD 8 Core's > Intel's dual cores.
Very funny. You must be a comedian. Are you for hire? I could do with a jester to sit in the corner making me laugh.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 3,417
Not surprised to see the i3 beating on the 8 'core' FX chips.
Only they won't.
Intel totally railroad any form of overclocking now to a small handful of CPUs.
Which tbh? is what have given AMD a foothold back into the mid range arena. The last time Intel allowed an I3 to be overclocked they got serious slathers of egg on their face. The Clarkdales were brilliant.
Locking CPUs IMO is an *******'s game. Even selling an unlocked multiplier sucks ass, because it's nothing but air.
Mind you the way things are heading now two cores, no matter how fast, ain't gonna cut it. Had Intel left the Celerons and so on unlocked they could have gotten rid of AMD completely.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
Lol if they unlock these i3s again, expect a premium price bump to get rid of what makes people consider them good value.
My first intel was a e2140 1.6ghz clocked to 3.2 for £38. Bargain chip and embarrassed pretty much all my high end amd gear
I used Intel from 2002 to 2012. I strayed once, to a Phenom 2 940 but only because the comparative Intel quads were pretty pants at overclocking.
I then went back to Intel (I7 950) and finally a Xeon E3 1220. The Xeon was locked, and made me vow never to buy another Intel CPU. My E4500 was an animal. 3.4ghz all day long from the stock 2.4.
My 1.8ghz Allendale was fantastic too, though I bought a cheap board that couldn't split the bus so due to my ram being 667 I could only get it to 2.4ghz instead of the 3ghz they were known for.
Intel totally and utterly lost the plot when they started locking CPUs. They're literally giving the enthusiast one choice and one price point.
They can take a running jump if they think I'm buying another derpy locked disposable CPU. I had my Xeon 11 months and then games started to make it say uncle and I couldn't overclock it.
Total waste of money.
They won't do it, so forget about it. All of this R&D into shrinking dies so they can compete in mobile devices costs money. Money they get returned by screwing their customers into practically one CPU choice at one price.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 6,586
Ha, so you're on a vendetta with Intel, because you didn't bother to look to see if it was locked? 
Lol, makes me laugh
Lol, makes me laugh
Ha, so you're on a vendetta with Intel, because you didn't bother to look to see if it was locked?
Lol, makes me laugh
How assumptive.
I knew it was locked. I knew it couldn't be overclocked. I just expected it to be better, because, you know? Intel are teh best thx m8 gr8. Sandybridge was supposed to be all kinds of epic, then I found out that due to it being locked it was completely rubbish. Which bothered me, because had I bought the I5 equivalent (I5 2400 only I had more cache) I would have been equally as urinated off. These were supposedly fine gaming CPUs, right up until anything that wanted threads turned up.
I'm not on a vendetta either. I simply sold it, bought an 8320 with a cheap board for the exact sum I sold it for and bingo bongo, much higher min FPS, even with the 8320 at a held back 4+1 vrm 4.2ghz.
All the time AMD can offer good performance for less money? then they'll get my money. Up until Sandybridge Intel were doing absolutely everything right, and I wouldn't have bought an AMD even with your money.
Sadly, like internet providers who cap bandwidth and then charge for it (you know, disappear up the anus of greed) they let their successes go to their heads, and thought they were so far above themselves that they could start railroading enthusiasts into buying one product.
Which whatever company you may have once loved, totally sucks anuses.