New Processing CHIP for extreme gaming

[Rau]

Anyone else notice that the subtitles in that video had a lot of weird crap in it? Like they were written by someone who doesn't speak english but knows a bunch of english words...

"because the performance premix is yet swimming lesson rental so let's start." 00:43

That's youtube automatic captions. It guesses the word based on the sound they make.

[Ferth]

That's youtube automatic captions. It guesses the word based on the sound they make.

Ah, very silly.

[Valmonte]

The APU is hands down the best thing that has happened to "laptops", For desktops there isn't an IGP in the world that can best a discreet Mid to High Range-Graphics Card.

[Alhanelem]

It doesn't change the fact that you have paid for a CPU that have a worse performance/price ratio (and overclocking potential) than its Intel counterparts :s

The thing is, you're kind of comparing apples to oranges. Each extra ounce of performance doesn't really have the same value or ability to percieve such performance (and different CPUs in some cases have different features that go beyond simply processing more instructions per second). If the specs of your hardware exceeds what is necessary for optimal performance of the software you're running. I frankly consider the price/performance ratio to be a dubious statistic. all it is is the price over instructions per second, and that value alone is not enough to assess the worth of the CPU.

If you don't need the latest i5/i7, why pay for it? The mainstream AMD CPU is cheaper and will work just as well for most people in most situations. Only if you're a really hardcore user does most of this even matter. Even if you buy the more expensive or better "price/performance ratio" CPU, you're still going to replace it just as / nearly as often, so are you really saving money? Answer: Probably not.

[Soukyuu]

If you don't need the latest i5/i7, why pay for it? The mainstream AMD CPU is cheaper and will work just as well for most people in most situations. Only if you're a really hardcore user does most of this even matter. Even if you buy the more expensive or better "price/performance ratio" CPU, you're still going to replace it just as / nearly as often, so are you really saving money? Answer: Probably not.

You are right if you assume that people upgrade often (which most do, I guess). For me however, I buy once and use it as long as I can. So for me, going with the best price/performance ratio is best.

My Phenom II X4 isn't a bad CPU. It was the best AMD had to offer back then, with Intel's i5 having nearly the same performance and being only marginally more expensive. The only thing that annoys me is that it's running so damn hot and that I'm bound to shitty AMD chipsets which still have problems booting efficiently (aka "I'll stop booting for whatever reason and sit there doing nothing for 15 seconds").

For example, using the same SSD (SATA II) on the same board, with it being attached to the AMD chipset, it would boot in 45 seconds and everything felt sluggish. Attaching it to the Marvell controller didn't make any difference. After disabling the AMD chip, the system suddenly boots in under 30 seconds and feels way faster. This is a known problem since SB750 and they have been working on it since then. It got better (only 5 seconds delay) with the SB950 I'm using now, but it's still annoying.

[Timotheus]

The whole thing is: Why pay more for the function you never use? What is the point of "price/performance ratio" if they are "blank" performance?

tl;dl Buy the CPU that suits your own use. It is always as simple as that.

[Antipika]

The whole thing is: Why pay more for the function you never use? What is the point of "price/performance ratio" if they are "blank" performance?

tl;dl Buy the CPU that suits your own use. It is always as simple as that.

The point is, if you have a set amount of money and can get more for the same price (or the same, for less money), why wouldn't you go for the manufacturer that isn't leading?

No one ever said that you should purchase something that you don't need. Actually I even said the contrary by giving the i5/i7 example for gaming. The performance boost in games offered by the i7 doesn't worth the extra bucks that need to be spent.

Finally, lot of people don't buy a CPU for a month, that's an investment supposed to last couple of years, so you want to consider how long your CPU will last. It's the same with buying a mobo using a socket that is near the end of its life cycle. If you are planning to upgrade, then it means that you will be forced to change mobo.

[Coldfire]

Don't forget you also need a mainboard that fits the CPU and Intel-based mainboards are usually way more pricey. Also some people don't like supporting companies that play dirty.

[Antipika]

Don't forget you also need a mainboard that fits the CPU and Intel-based mainboards are usually way more pricey. Also some people don't like supporting companies that play dirty.

Usually it is a bit yes, but it really depends what kind of features you need on your mobo as well and how hardcore you are regarding o/c'ing. When I see people purchasing $200 motherboard to run an i7 @4.4Ghz and not using any of the advanced mobo features, I just don't understand.

If you keep a moderate o/c, don't need anything fancy on your mobo, then both AMD/Intel are really cheap.

[Alhanelem]

You are right if you assume that people upgrade often (which most do, I guess). For me however, I buy once and use it as long as I can.

You know, a lot of people say this, but in reality, the bleeding edge CPU doesn't last that much longer than the less expensive model, making pirce/performance an almost irrelevant statistic.

I'm bound to shitty AMD chipsets which still have problems booting efficiently (aka "I'll stop booting for whatever reason and sit there doing nothing for 15 seconds").

I've never had a problem like this. You must have gotten a bad board or something.