Quote Originally Posted by TigeriS View Post
And talking about going "backwards" how much of a difference do you notice when you're using your computer on a daily basis?
I was waiting for that "argument" to show up. When your favorite company releases in 2009 a product that is competing head-to-head with a 2-year-old product from the Dark Side, it all comes down to arguments like "how much do we really need?" and "my S754 system performs as well as your S775 one"

And remember: a 2 year lag in this industry, is as big as the difference between remaining competitive and going out of business :/

Finally, I know that AMD going bankrupt is of no benefit for anyone in here, but there's no point in not saying things the way they are.
Intel will be shrinking their i7 line very soon, so if AMD are releasing their new product in 2009, a few quarters before the i7's 32nm shrink, it should be at least competitive with the 45nm i7's, not just struggling with the 65nm Core2's that were introduced in November 2006

Yes, we can start saying that "I only care about Quake 4 performance", "I'm happy with my 5200+" and "It's not a complete slaughter in the native 64-bit apps" but none of these excuses will change the fact that you cannot release a new CPU 5% faster than your previous one and 25% slower than the current competition. At this point, I am starting to wonder if AMD can ever design something better than Intel's product and the hints I have been getting in the last couple of year, are just plain disappointing...


Look at Vozer's table: Kentsfield beating Deneb in every single 3D rendering test. That shouldn't even be happening, it's not acceptable.

To put it in perspective, I'll use an analogy: how ridiculous would it look if ATI released their brand new 5870 and "in a few tests" it was scoring worse than an 8800GT. Just think about it...