• 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.

Sorry AMD.

Wucked said:
Taken from dictionary.com:
*snip*
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be used in a medical context.

A placebo is a measure designed merely to humour or placate someone.

In this context it's a case of what you see and what you think being separate realities, yes it's measurable through benchmarking, but the majority of people not playing games would not notice a difference and therefore 'everything' isn't faster.

In fact everything is pretty much similar where everything doesn't include playing games.
 
Martini1991 said:
Noticing a difference in everything would be the effect of the placebo due to the upgrade.
The Intel stuff probably is faster in pretty much everything, but not to a scale of noticing it in everything.

In general usability with an SSD you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between a 2500k and an Athlon X2 6000+
Click to expand...

Sense.
 
bemaniac said:
The minute you popped winrar or tried to stream some HD you'd know it right away though and we all do both of these daily these days. You wouldn't even get the flash performance on facebook you are used to.
Click to expand...

If you started something stuff like that, yeah you'd tell the difference pretty quickly.
Even between a Phenom II X4 and 2500k.

Not much difference between a Phenom II X6 and 2500k in Winrar in perception.
 
Win RAR = Phenom II x6 <> 2500K, Online flash is GPU not CPU these days.

If your rendering or encoding the 2500K is significantly faster, unless your using fully threaded apps for that it is again Phenom II x6 <> 2500K

The same goes for games, fully threaded FPS etc... is Phenom II x6 <> 2500K

Single / low threaded games the 2500K is again way faster.
 
Wish people would stop saying single threaded games.
Because they're not single threaded (At least, not in the last half a decade/Longer)

What's a fully threaded game? Some made up term.

In CPU intensive games the Intel stuff is still better, there's some freak games (These are in the vast minority) that are well threaded so the extra low performing BD Cores can equate same performance as the Intel stuff, BF3 for example.
 
Last edited:
bemaniac said:
The minute you popped winrar or tried to stream some HD you'd know it right away though and we all do both of these daily these days. You wouldn't even get the flash performance on facebook you are used to.
Click to expand...

Are you telling me that streaming HD is 'faster' on the Intel?

Surely if it plays and runs at the desired frame rate, you can't tell the difference? I really can't remember having any issues running anything full screen HD on my PC, my netbook sure, but not my PC.

Genuine question because I don't quite understand that point (I might be missing it).
 
Also remember that people using their PC for mainly games is very slim, we're on a enthusiasts forum where we tend to use our PC in a heavier way.

For the majority of people loading a browser, email client, desktop publishing app etc the difference (the extra 'power' of the i5 and i7) is negligible because the weakest link isn't the CPU.
 
Bleek said:
Are you telling me that streaming HD is 'faster' on the Intel?

Surely if it plays and runs at the desired frame rate, you can't tell the difference? I really can't remember having any issues running anything full screen HD on my PC, my netbook sure, but not my PC.

Genuine question because I don't quite understand that point (I might be missing it).
Click to expand...

You can run full HD youtube on an Old Athlon x2 just as well as you can on an i7-3960X.

I built a Desktop for my mother around a 6 years used Athlon x2 5200+, 4GB of RAM, £40 Motherboard and an nvidia GTX 550. For what she uses it for nothing is better, including full HD youtube.
 
Last edited:
Bleek said:
Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking! :confused:
Click to expand...

There is the odd occasion where cpu age starts to show with regards to flash video and HD.

Embedded videos for example, you click on a site where half a dozen videos are embedded, it can floor some older processor. My AMD Turion II X2 for instance.

I would put that situation under a normal example of every day use, And it shows some limitations.
 
wannabedamned said:
There is the odd occasion where cpu age starts to show with regards to flash video and HD.

Embedded videos for example, you click on a site where half a dozen videos are embedded, it can floor some older processor. My AMD Turion II X2 for instance.

I would put that situation under a normal example of every day use, And it shows some limitations.
Click to expand...

A very old 1.6Ghz laptop CPU is hardly relavent where we are talking about more up to date Intel / AMD CPU's and Youtube. that's going into extremes and i would think Intel generation 1 mobile Celeron's would have the same problems.
 
wannabedamned said:
There is the odd occasion where cpu age starts to show with regards to flash video and HD.

Embedded videos for example, you click on a site where half a dozen videos are embedded, it can floor some older processor. My AMD Turion II X2 for instance.

I would put that situation under a normal example of every day use, And it shows some limitations.
Click to expand...


Sure but that's not comparing apples with apples.

In the above scenario a current gen AMD versus similar priced current Intel wouldn't reveal any differences in [perceived] performance.
 
humbug said:
A very old 1.6Ghz laptop CPU is hardly relavent where we are talking about more up to date Intel / AMD CPU's and Youtube. that's going into extremes and i would think Intel generation 1 mobile Celeron's would have the same problems.
Click to expand...

You brought up an old athlon X2, I simply expanded on that pointing out that infact an old athlon x2 would see limitations now with regards to normal expected desktop capabilities. Like browsing a forum with multiple embedded video.

A single 1080p video runs fine btw.
 
wannabedamned said:
You brought up an old athlon X2, I simply expanded on that pointing out that infact an old athlon x2 would see limitations now with regards to normal expected desktop capabilities. Like browsing a forum with multiple embedded video.

A single 1080p video runs fine btw.
Click to expand...

For a start a 2.8Ghz Athlon x2 is not a 1.6Ghz Turion, and is does not have those problems unless you start piling them up. In which case you are better off with more cores / threads. Apples to Apples.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
For a start a 2.8Ghz Athlon x2 is not a 1.6Ghz Turion, and and is does not have those problems.
Click to expand...

Where have you gotten 1.6ghz from? It's 2.4ghz. And secondly, it's strange how yours doesn't suffer the problems, yet my old Opteron [email protected] ghz did struggle.

It's the main reason I've noticed it. 2 separate processors both dual cores, both struggling with multiple embedded youtube videos.

Are you guessing that it wouldnt struggle? Or have you physically seen it not struggling. 1/2 embedded is fine, But you jump on a thread with 4+ and it takes a while to come to terms with it.
 
wannabedamned said:
Where have you gotten 1.6ghz from? It's 2.4ghz. And secondly, it's strange how yours doesn't suffer the problems, yet my old Opteron [email protected] ghz did struggle.

It's the main reason I've noticed it. 2 separate processors both dual cores, both struggling with multiple embedded youtube videos.

Are you guessing that it wouldn't struggle? Or have you physically seen it not struggling. 1/2 embedded is fine, But you jump on a thread with 4+ and it takes a while to come to terms with it.
Click to expand...

Wikipedia. Probably looking at the wrong thing anyway.

Still, what i said was the Athlon x2 plays Youtube at Full HD just fine, its an illustration of just how little of importance the CPU is in Youtube, expanding that into lower clocked Laptop models and piling multiple Videos ontop of eachother is not what i said and just argument for arguments sake.

A modern Intel does no better in Youtube than any modern AMD, Unless (and i'm sure you would argue) you start piling a mass of videos ontop of eachother, and even then if i was to do that for some insane reason i will take the 6 core Phenom II.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
Wikipedia. Probably looking at the wrong thing anyway.

Still, what i said was the Athlon II plays Youtube at Full HD just fine, its an illustration of just how little of importance the CPU is in Youtube, expanding that into lower clocked Laptop models and piling multiple Videos ontop of eachother is not what i said and just argument for arguments sake.

A modern Intel does no better in Youtube than any modern AMD, Unless (and i'm sure you would argue) you start piling a mass of videos ontop of eachother, and even then if i was to do that for some insane reason i will take the 6 core Phenom II.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing for the sake of it you know. I'm just pointing out that some mediocre desktop tasks are now causing problems for older processors. Visiting webpages is essentially job number 1 on a desktop computer for most. Webpages often have multiple embedded videos now. So older systems are struggling, even dual cores.

Your comparison before of a X2 vs a I7. I was just saying yes they are neck and neck for some tasks, but some of the more basic tasks are starting to make the older chips struggle. And embedded youtube is basic
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom