Quote Originally Posted by BenchZowner View Post
And the point is ? AMD needs a 2 cores and 200MHz advantage to match the 1 1/2 year old i7 tech 960 ?
No matter how I try to have a look at it, I can't see any "miracles" or progress from AMD.
Intel's closing in on faster clock-per-clock processors than Gulftown and going to 8 and 10 cores ( 16 & 20 threads ) in Nov/Dec or Jan-March 2011.
AMD's at 12 Cores / 12 threads, but unless their performance clock per clock and on a core to core basis is the same with these, those will barely compete with the 8c/16t Intel CPU.

They need to work harder.

Nice performance and good prices are always nice, but they need to step up the game before they get down below ( performance-wise ).

I'm all in for performance.
Can we have an Opteron 146 and DFI LP nF4 SLI-DR de-javu anytime soon AMD please ?
To argue you switch your comparaison from i7 950 vs PII 1090T to i7 960 vs PII 1090T only to say the later have a 2 cores and 200MHz advantage...I find this funny.

After you speak about 1 1/2 year old i7 tech 960 but you forget PII is 1 year old tech.

After you argument using core count and thread count at your advantage. I find it a litte hyprocite.

Ultimately to show you don't favour Intel over AMD you say 'I'm all in for performance', a way to say price/performance is irrelevant.

So i think you'd better save words and just post i7 980X.