The same could be said for the "henpecked" Intel husbands Chad Boga! :rofl:
Printable View
The same could be said for the "henpecked" Intel husbands Chad Boga! :rofl:
Heh, The Intel husband's are quite unfaithful and will stray if an AMD mistress is very hot(in performance ;) ), whereas the AMD husband's are the one mate for life type, no matter how much of a biatch the wife is. :ROTF::ROTF::ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveburt714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Well it's nice to see that the man who's been running Intel since '86 takes his cues from Theo. So in truth I guess you didn't really know.
Openess and Olympic spirit eh? Let's see how open and how honest you really are. Why don't you answer these questions for us peons.
Why is everyone else killing themselves trying to get to 5 GHz with core i7 with LN2 and phase but you've done it on air?
Why is Fugger the only person to clear 5 GHz on a core i7?
Tell me where I can buy a core i7 that does 5GHz on air today?
Waiting to hear some honest answers from someone who is so open and fair. One thing is for sure, we don't know how well Phenom II will run (yet) when it's released and that's a given. But we do know in general how core i7s run based on results from this forum and no one that I've seen has gotten 5GHz on air. So yeah you might have your statistic freak and that's all good. I don't really care for that because I can't buy it.
I can completely understand Dr.Who wanting intel to come out on top at all costs and anyone else that has a finacial interest in Intel. But for the rest of us it makes no sence to want AMD to stay at the bottom like allot of you seem to (I personaly think that its due to people having Intel CPU's in there PC and dont want to lose the satisfaction of having the best performing CPU, bit of an ego thing). AMD needs to make money in order to stay competitive, and we all need them to be competitive to keep the prices down.........also all of us here get turned on by Hardware performance increasing. We want to see advances and a side effect of that is our ubber fast hardware becomes not so ubber fast anymore, Its inevitable. If AMD were to come out on top with PH2 then we will all be wanting one and if Intel is on top we will all want one so what is the diffrence?
You guys are cracking me up :lol: Well, this thread needs some humor. Everyone just needs to relax. I for one, I'm having a blast. Maybe AMD would mount a challenge? I doubt it though, because they cannot afford to challenge Intel at clockspeed right now. AMD shot themselves in the foot with that demo, imho.
Edit: To the two posters, the counter argument can be made to what you're saying. DrWho has proven his point - that a cherry picked (forget disabled sensors) cpu can do amazing things. The fact is, if these weren't cherry picked, they'll have ended up in some home user's computer. Just imagine how many goldn chips are sitting inside PCs whose owners know nothing about overclocking? Francois, or Intel for that matter, NEVER promised anyone they could take their chips to 5Ghz on air. AMD WILL NEVER promise anyone they can take their chips to 4ghz on air. Yet they found time to invite a handpicked group and demonstrated high clock ocs for them. WHY? Why don't one of you tell me WHY bother to run such high clocks if you can't promise the consumer same clocks. The answer is: they do it for us, us enthusiasts. I for one, I'm very grateful and it doesn't matter if its AMD or Intel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
Uh Oh! heh :D Somebody just got :owned:
Hahaha. Spot on. It could be that chick from the "I just got married" thread and they still wouldn't waver. Well, at least we know AMD users are committed to personality. I'm shallow, so I'll take the hottest one. :rotf:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
I'll admit man.. I'm the Bald Eagle who mates for life, and my wife (AMD) has been a biatch for the last few years... But I still love her and she's giving it up again, so things are getting better. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
On that note, I'm not so sure you are the typical Henpecked Intel Hubby (from what I've seen in here). You might just be a slut dude!! :up::rofl:
It don't make ya bad.... Just a little annoying... :p:
Would you cut it out already. Stop taking every chance you can to blast AMD supporters please, it is getting tiring with your incessant flame-baiting :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
It's OK though, because Intel sends out lots of free goodies. :D :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by SparkyJJO
I for one don't care if the P2 clocks to 10GHz. If it is still not competative performance wise, then who cares.
some of those answers here.Quote:
Originally Posted by taurus_sel
7GHz? Dream on. Disabling sensors and playing games is meaningless, and the mere fact that 7GHz hasn't been achieved since the P4 days (or did Wolfdale finally hit 7GHz?) does not bode well for Nehalem hitting 7GHz. I understand Francois is an insecure little man and is awfully threatened by AMD, but this is a pure waste of time and money if true.
Necessary? :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by Omastar
Omastar maybe you didnt get the memo. This is AMD marketing, I have no details to what they want to do for CES or if it is even true.
I also heard AMD could do Crysis at 6.3Ghz on air and it was true. I also heard they all do that speed, confirmed fact.
Its all about hype, for me its about results. It became known that Intel was visiting and what they were bringing, add a little marketing spice and we have guys saying the stupidest things.
Francois is not little or insecure, insulting comments to anyone is frowned upon here.
Why don't you buy into the competitive spirit motivation for this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omastar
What would someone who is trying to invoke the "Olympic Spirit" in all this do differently?
I was hoping it wouldn't come to that. I'm in no way questioning it either, just hoping it wouldn't. I wish folks would get the fun attitude back. This is FUN. Everybody should be having fun with these things. The Olympic spirit should be high right now. Fugger did an amazing feat this weekend. That is a good thing.
Still not sure what to think about this one, half that news writeup is about me and this demo I have no clue about...Quote:
Plans Demonstration at CES '09
I had just woke up when I first read it and thought AMD was doing some demo at CES.
The scale could could be counted without using your toes.Quote:
The scale of binning could well be best of 100,000 units.
Houston we have a problem...
They are now writing about people without even contacting them. What in the world is going on?
No clue, thats what I am wondering.
:ROTF: I can't help it. Maybe somebody will let you in on it.
This is quite disturbing. Could it be fabricated news?
Yeah I was laughing because it's rediculous.
that'd be funny.. all this piss'n'whinge over nothing :rolleyes: :clap: :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by fireice2
Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Flight
OK... wait... what? So the "FUGGER will be doing the overclocking" part was published before you were even contacted? :wth:Quote:
Originally Posted by FUGGER
Oh, how splendid! Hooray for drama! If the sources are indeed official, this could get interesting. http://www.head-fi.org/forums/images...es/popcorn.gif
well obviously a pentium 2 isn't that competitive performance wise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aberration
*Breaking News*
Fugger will be present in 2 weeks for an Nvidia demonstration on overlocking one of their GPU's to 8Ghz on Liquid Helium Cooling.
Wait, what? Oh, Fugger here is your notice/invintation ;)
All I want to know is, does he get to keep the cpu? :D
The most surprised guy here would be none other than FUGGER himself. :D
dont worry u dont sound rude.. just.. intentionally.. nvmQuote:
Originally Posted by Miss Banana
hello!? - U are on ur 2nd account :stick: :poke:
u contradicted urself :poke:Quote:
Originally Posted by taurus_sel
OMG The news of AMD and Intels response actually has sparked me to to read XS again and to be excited once again about OCing. Looks like the fun in OCing may come back for me with this competetion and all the possiblilities. :woot:
I don't understand how any enthusiast can be upset about this, Unless they are hardcore fanboys? Is this not the competition we have been looking for? Is it a bad thing that Intel and AMD are taking an interest it ocing? Its just like porsche and Nissan trying to get the fastest around the ring, Good sport.
Competition needs rules and fair play.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
Don't think this is about competition, it's about trying to hurt the release of deneb.
hm I guess I missed that news about massive phenomII overclocking..
However didnt kingpin get a skulltrail system to 6.6 ghz several months back? Whats the big deal with a single cpu hitting 6ghz :O. There were even some p4's hitting around 8ghz, am I not right?
I dont really get it :x. This move seems a bit childish oO.
But why not, it could help the enthusiast at the end, so might as well go for it :D. Slap that i7 Fugger :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
So you are saying that Intel should stop trying to take the enthusiast market in case it hurts the sales of deneb? You do realise that Intel and AMD are company's don't you, Both would kill a kitten for an extra buck so its hardly a surprise that Intel want to steal deneb sales, Is it?
I suppose you were equally vocal about AMD going to every Intel conference and handing out books called "dual cores for dummy's" Or the "dual core dual" or the times square add about how much electricity Intel wasted etc etc etc etc.
These are fair in my book because AMD is a business and has to take sales from its competitor so don't set the morals bar to high.
Oh my! That avatar... its good old kassler who got owned and kicked around at HardForum. :ROTF:
That wasn't what I said, I informed about competition. Of course they do what they can to promote their products.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
Trying to pretend that this is some sort of competition rather than plain marketing is an insult to others intelligence.
If Intel want real competition then they probably know that it needs some sort of rules etc, maybe they have visit some sports event and learned how it is done there?
You did with Kyle and you already saw the outcome.. :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
Interesting... tell us more about these "rules"... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
Sports arent the best example. There is no fair competition as long as money or big recognition are involved. Its simply impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
Watch "Bigger, stronger, faster", it kind of illustrates my point :). Its a nice movie as well, shows a lot of hillariously ridiculous cases ;).
You are very OT know but yes, HardOCP is probably one of the most focused Intel forum. Say anything good about AMD in relation to Intel and you risk to be bannedQuote:
Originally Posted by Ghostbuster
And that was my pointQuote:
Originally Posted by Neuuubeh
If Intel could clock better they would already have showed it
I don't think that you even know what your point was any more, You just seem angry at Intel.Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
:ROTF: omfg... im in mirror universe again. :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
OTQuote:
Originally Posted by gallag
I think i7 is great, just like phenom. If it could advance on the market finally programmers are able to create threaded software without redesign the whole application or redesign big parts of the application. The market for these true quads is too small now.
So Amd's overclocking stunt had nothing to do with them trying to get people to hold off on buying i7 and wait to see how deneb overclocks? It seems that Amd knows they can't beat Intel clock for clock, so instead they are now pushing the we can overclock better card. Nothing wrong with Intel responding to this challenge is there?Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
Of course it was and I think it was a very smart move too. Hurting the contender on the contenders backyard is probably where it hurts most. Just the reaction from Intel here is proof enough for that. I think that the budget Intel is spending to counter this attack may be rather large. And I think they will use whatever trick they can to make it work for them. They probably need some time for this, and the CES 2009 when deneb should be released may be time enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by qurious63ss
If the processor is able to clock know, then it would be very easy for them to remove the focus from AMD just by inviting some people and show it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss
Oh really? How's that?
Kyle questioning kassler/gosh views...
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.ph...5&postcount=39
The post right before Kyle blew the top...
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.ph...3&postcount=48
Where gosh's avatar came from...
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.ph...0&postcount=50
Its truly a rare sight to see Kyle do that... :D
Amd has always been very brash since the atholon X2 days when they challenged Intel to some sort of benchmarking competition. Then the "We have a true quad" fiasco as well as the "dummy" book. It seems to me that they initiated all these challenges so why shouldn't Intel respond to the challenge? Because Intel is too big and has more resources?Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
OTQuote:
Originally Posted by qurious63ss
C2Q isn't a true quad but you need to know how software works on the processor to understand this. Create two threads on the c2q that shares memory and you probably get slower speed compared to one single thread, much slower. Creating threaded software needs planning on how memory is used on C2Q, this type of planning isn't necessary on phenom and i7 and the reason for this is the L3 cache. Maybe you will see new drivers soon, and games that used to use only one single thread is suddenly using four threads. If the driver is optimized for a true quad then this is possible, the same driver running on C2Q may be worse than a driver running on one single thread.
True quads are able to split work for much smaller tasks and gain speed.
This is also not as hard as designing the whole application for how the processor work.
I don't see any answers to my questions. All I see is a desperate attempt at trying to respond to the PII news. Come on guys, it's so apparent it's not even funny. :ROTF: Intel is pulling Fugger's strings here. They fly over with a cherry part, they do the work and Fugger is just the formality to try and legitimize the results to make it appear that it didn't come from Intel. They could have just shipped the part to someone else and let them go to it. Why didn't they do that? The same goes for the way Intel just claims Fugger is going to do something for them without even asking first.Quote:
Originally Posted by villa1n
Yeah like this is supposed to be convincing to anyone with more brain cells than fingers.
OTQuote:
Originally Posted by Ghostbuster
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1364502
Most people there thinks intel is a much better CPU, others have probably left the place
QFT!Quote:
Originally Posted by qurious63ss
But you're trashing Intel for doing what AMD always does. If one is wrong for doing it, shouldn't the other be wrong as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
Gallag nailed it when he said; "I don't think that you even know what your point was any more, You just seem angry at Intel."
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread....1069819&page=3
Also banned from [H] but Chris and Kyle are NOT Intel fans LO real L!:rofl::ROTF:
If I were you I'd be more than a little pissed that I was being used as a puppet.Quote:
Originally Posted by FUGGER
C2Q is a true quad... Why? Because it has quad cores.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
The operating system determines how memory is used and allocated... Example using "malloc()", so how do you know the memory you've just used is going to be in the cache? You can't because it will be loaded into the cache when needed.. This "planning" is really nonsense... :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
There you go again... more nonsense... :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
Perhaps you missed the news thread about NVIDIA having a quad core optimized drivers? :D
The point I was trying to make is that Amd was saying since K10 was a native chip that it would automatically make it superior to the "bolted on" C2 Quad. Well we all know how that turned out...Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
C2Q = 2 x C2DQuote:
Originally Posted by Ghostbuster
What happens if one thread is placed on one C2D and the other thread is placed on the other C2D, the are both reading from the same memory allocated by "malloc()"
This is what credibility is all about. Fugger has earned the respect of alot of people in the overclocking community and if you think he would risk that then you are in the minority here. The great thing about technology is that it involves science so it can always be proven with data.Quote:
Originally Posted by taurus_sel
Definition of TRUE Quad Core = have 4 physical cores. Thus, C2Q qualifies.. so did the QuadFather, as does a server board with 4 single core processors. :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
Not true quad core examples = Pentium XE and Atom 330 :D
Simple, both goes into each shared cache on each side. :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
That's the beauty of the "unelegant" design of C2Q, that even with these "drawbacks" non-native, FSB, shared cache, etc. that it was able to outperform an elegantly designed native chip like K10.Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
And that takes time and increases the burden on the FSB which is the main bottleneck on C2Q. The gain to create that type of threaded software isn't there, performance for smaller tasks will be negative compared to one single thread. Creating threads on C2Q, then you need to reallocate memory or design the software like separate applications with a minimum of shared resources between threads.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostbuster
If you have one application and want to split up some task that takes time in the application it isn't worth the effort compared to Phenom or i7 that handles this type of work very well.
I was a amd fan for years when they had intel beat, things changed im now running e8500. I hope amds chips are as good as they seem to be with what is floating around about them, good competition is always good, it gives you choices. I dont see how people can fight over processors :shrug:, to me its whoever has the best processor at the time of building a computer thats who you go with, i guess some people just have to much time on there hands, and nothing better to do.
Didn't tests shows that the FSB is hardly saturated with the C2Q? I guess you miss that.. Have you tried the cache to cache test? :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
Yups, maybe you can explain why C2Qs can be still faster despite the "bottleneck" you are hyping about? :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
And such is the luxury/problem with having >%80 marketshare. You can be sure software writers will tailor make their programs to benefit your architecture. Benchmark programs included.Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
check the market share for intel and also check the market share for quad core phenoms. Threaded software is hard, if the gain is negative for more than 90% do you think developers will do it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostbuster
Maybe you will see the big shift on how software is created at the end of next year. Libs other programmers are using may then be using threads internally etc.
A graph doesn't come from a single data point ...Quote:
Originally Posted by qurious63ss
I beginning to wonder if wading thru all this regurgitated spew is worth the tiny tidbits of real news you find here anymore...
Interesting discussion.
I think the competition is a marketing stunt. Plain and simple. Take the results as a data point, nothing more. Very little will be proven or disproven using vendor-cherry picked components. The market will determine the winners and losers. The "mere mortals" will rule the day, by using mass-produced components... I think it's great to see the two vendors going at it - lets hope they continue to listen to and court the enthusiast community.
As Kyle would say..Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
:ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle_Bennett
Anyway... here's your answer (%total units shipped * %total unit market share).
Phenom X4s = 3.52% x 17.9% = 0.63%
Core 2 Quads = 4.19% x 82.1% = 3.44%
These are for desktops.. The final percentage is of total units for 3Q 2008. :up:
There's nothing hard about creating a multi-threaded software... its just what jobs to run in those threads, how to split a task to each thread, cleanup, inter-thread communications, semaphores, etc... that's rather hard.. Furthermore some tasks can't be multi-threaded. And you don't really need any special libs, just the usual Win32 ones is sufficient.. :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
Fugger and I did meet for 2 days, and we were playing with this fantastic set of processors, over thanks giving day, and the day before.Quote:
Originally Posted by FUGGER
We had a lot of fun , getting to 5.0Ghz air cool WAS AND IS amazing, now, we did not speak about going to CES VEGAS to do an overclocking demo. The news was fabricated. Clear enough?
And by the way, If I was not a passionated crazy engineer, I would not have done this over thanks giving. I did not have time to do this over my working days, so, i used my day OFF of thanks Giving to get to Vegas and OC with one of the best OC master. If people can not understand that, they have fanboy blindfolding symdrome.
now, I am one of the 2 who did run at 5.0Ghz air cool Core i7!
Can we stop this FanBoy crap and have some fun competiting nicely?
If somebady think AMD is back, get a part, OC it to death, and less run the XtremeSystem set of Benchmarks, and see!
Fugger and I had a lot of fun, beat us if you can :)
OT
Ghostbuster "Talking" with you is a perfect example on how it is on HardOCP, thats the reason why the AMD section is almost dead there
Great quote! :shocked:Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Somone in the know get this info to Macci
:D
There is the challenge, maybe somebody get Macci to read that? This what all true enthusiasts should concentrate on instead of bashing the opoosing view left and right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Let the "parts" do the talking, that's what the TRUE enthusiast wnats to see.
Haha, you beat me to it!Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoled
Edit: Sigged!
Am I the only one who thinks his quote "AMD may have disabled several sensors on the cherry-picked chip used in its demonstration, which facilitated that overclock. In response to this, Intel would be disabling the same sensors, in its special demonstration chip." IS funny? He says AMD MAY have disabled some sensors, we don't know which ones, but we're going to disable them on our chip too. Now how can you disable the same sensors when you don't know what they are? So going on assumptions, we all know what happen when you assume, INTEL admitted to using production parts for their test yet they are going make them not production by disabling this and that. So what's the point of saying they are doing the test on hardware we'll be able to get?Quote:
Originally Posted by Blacky
Hey Francois, have you got any proof, or shall we just take your's and Fugger's word for it. If there's one thing I know for sure, it's that without proof, that sort of thing doesn't fly around here. Anway, i'm sure you do, so this is a non issue! :D
Oh, and how were the LN2 results? I know that is the main part of your original objections and cheating accusations, so i'm looking forward to those too. Thanks!
It has been pointed out the news was fabricated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Sz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
That was unequivocally NOT fabricated.
You are an example of why its hard for anyone to talk to you and discuss properly. Even Kyle and the rest got fed up with your endless nonsense, over-bias and going-in-circles. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
Code:#include <stdio.h>
#define failure 1
#define gosh failure
main()
{
while(gosh) printf("FAIL!");
}
// I'll be back with a multi-threaded version..
Proof/Source?Quote:
Originally Posted by flippin_waffles
Gosh is about to kill himself because C2Qs are faster than Phenoms.
FSB is bottleneck? C2Qs are fake quad cores? :rolleyes:
Calm down and stop making up BS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
Just make sure you don t use an unknow benchmark, use something famous ... something that both side can agree on.
just a cheap MCM quad,Quote:
Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129
those bottlenecks show up in servers with memory and multi socket, setups.
Mature respons...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostbuster
If I am going to create a lib (dll) that reads XML data (very common format), then this lib could be used by others. WIN32 have only basic windows functionality if you didn't know that. Taking advantage of threads may speed up the my lib. The user of the lib that I have done don't need to know how it works internally. I could release code that others add to their software (boost, MFC, wxWidgets etc are sample of this for C++ programmers) that is using threads internally for specific tasks.
Most applications can run on 1 GHz single core processors. But if you are running some applications that sometimes need speed even if they at 99% of the time sits and wait for user commands, those applications isn't going to be threaded today.
Do you understand what I am saying?
A cheap MCM quad thats 20% faster than Phenoms clock for clock. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
The bandwidth provided by FSB is more than enough for desktop applications and we are talking about desktop applications not server.
No max is 15%, average is 7-10%. clocks speeds help that number get bigger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129
I'm just pointing out facts the desktops wouldn't show it.
we already had the same discussion draged over 21 pages. :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostbuster
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=197423
forget about arguing with him, even when confronted with hard facts he
a) plays dump
b) ignores the data and brings up a new point, which had nothing to do with the current discussion.
Yes, stop feeding the troll already.
I ll follow MovieMan advise and leave this thread, it is a fan boy discussion, not interesting. (and the original claim of this thread was not accurate)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
OKay so first you say:
"I need the community to understand that Manufacturer demo is kind of not appropriate for OC, it is why i always let Charles and Co to do it."
And now you admit to going to Vegas and doing it with Charles. Man this is pathetic. Dude do you realize you are contradicting yourself over and over again. And as for the benchmarks, yipee, it ran 5.7GHz stable for 9 seconds running superpi. Awesome!
The last statement is just classic, "beat us if you can". Why don't you hand out some of those cherry samples and watch some of the real OCers here hand you your ass. Or are you challenging others to beat you with :banana::banana::banana::banana:ty production parts?
I think this is what we should do BUT in Germany a lot of guys are complaining you will never find a retail i7 chip doing that. I think that's more the problem of the things you just showed. it is simply a 1:100.000 chance beeing able to reproduce that and I think only few overclocks had this kind of "cherry-picking" until now. 1:100 or even 1:1000 is fine for me but I think these results are based of something far behind. correct me if I'm wrong of course ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
And if it comes out AMD's chip in the demonstration short before is the same they will have a lot of guys complaining as well.
I say we should not make overclocking based on such cherry picked pieces, even it is fun to see. We should still compare retail chips with each other...
lol wth?Quote:
Originally Posted by taurus_sel
care to read what he posted? :rofl: :shakes:
you are correct! Manufacturer demos are not be use, I warned about it. Why do you keep trying to find something wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by taurus_sel
I stop answering, it is turning to ridiculous.
Plane ignorant. Did this guy run over your cat or something? Why so hostile.Quote:
Originally Posted by taurus_sel
Did the Fugger chip have the same stepping as retail? We know it was cherry-picked but was it out of a production run or was it a special engineering sample? I am not implying that AMD's demo didn't do the same....
I think we will only get good comparisons when members can test retail samples without company involvement. Otherwise, we will continue to go round and round about details of the testing.
That is the entire point i was trying to make, you will know when you got the chip in the store, manufacturer demos are not what people should pay attention to, Manufacturer demos are fun, but it is not very meaning full.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazzman
The good news is that those chip exist, and they are going to stores :)
This is business and this is marketing. Companies in every market do this stuff. You make it sound like AMD is some hurt little animal that should get a free lunch. Competition does need some rules, but certainly none are being broken here.Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
I want some of what you're smoking dude, you're actually making his case and attacking his actions at the same time. It's ridiculous. Read Francois' statement you quoted again, and tell me it's not exactly what he accomplished. LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY:Quote:
Originally Posted by taurus_sel
INTEL COULD HAVE DEMO'ED A 5GHZ (AIR) HEHALEM IN SEPTEMBER. DO YOU DOUBT THAT?
Well indeed good point, we still have to compare what the big crowd finds in the shops... I seem to recall a Phenom on air at 3ghz on display, while still most peeps can hardly hit that with better cooling then that crappy stock cooler used then... And now many peeps are reversing this back on Intel because Dr WHO is suspicious about the results being leaked... And the fact that he told us something about cherry picking...Quote:
Originally Posted by SoF
C'mon guys this is somehow part of marketing...Just use plain logic here : if you are aware that the competition in the boot next to you can produce big numbers, would you just open a boxed CPU and let her rip... no way you want to equal that or better that.
That's what makes PC's fun , the competition and rivalry makes these rigs faster and faster... sometimes at a pace that my wallet absolutley not can dig lol
It's nice to see the big shots fight it out. But you, me and him will get good CPU's, but the luck to get one of these is pretty low... no matter if the prices evolve in the right manner we will have plenty of power to mess with even if it's an AMD or Intel product...
I'll await real numbers done on watercooling or so by the masses... 4Ghz and more on an I7 for folding seems to be amasing to me...
Bring it on !!!
Like said before 2009 might be very interesting with new CPU's and GPU's being released with promises of big leaps in performance :up: