Quote Originally Posted by RaV[666] View Post
snip
Your post is again full of I don't notice, I don't think, I can't see, I call BS... that's fine, nobody here is saying you must see those things. You can have your opinion, we all have one. But the facts are facts, and in some of your opinions you're going against facts. Benchmarks of real world scenarios prove that you don't need to run low settings to have higher fps on Intel CPUs in real games. I'm telling you I don't need to read any review to notice the same thing. You choose for whatever reason not to believe any of this. That's an opinion against a fact. If you want to go against facts go ahead, but I'll stop now because I don't like doing that.
60fps enough for the eyes? Oh noes, not the 60Hz stuff again. Yes, movies are shot at 24fps, that's why they stutter like if there were no tomorrow.

Quote Originally Posted by insurgent View Post
100% of consumers need the competition AMD brings, maybe that statement isn't so absurd?
Of course, but he wasn't talking about that. He said people need AMD cheap processors as if people need low end CPUs. While that's true, people don't need X or Y brand, they "need" what the stupid guy at the shop tells them is the fastest option for the money they want to spend.

Quote Originally Posted by dess View Post
Didn't you hear about the investigations against Intel for the illegal tricks to prevent AMD gaining marketshare?
And so those people usually get Intel from many vendors, for some reason...
Of course I heard about them, but no court is going to make AMD gain 60% market share, they're currently at 80%-20%. That's work for the marketing department, something AMD lacks in since forever. Everybody knows about Intel, Pentium, etc. You ask them about AMD, and usually the answer is: what's AMD? A new Chinese car maker?