dgood wrote:well done, I like how you added stalker in there. It shows that AMD is still in competition for the normal market of gamers. AKA the people who don't overclock just spend there money for stock performance. In this case it show amd as the choice to be in my opinion from what you are showing in the tests. However knowing the true capability of the processors I would have to say the intel steals the show. Im glad you mentioned that at the end. I actually expected the intel at 1.86 to be dead even or better than the 2.8 amd. Guess pure GHz does help at times.
Apoptosis wrote:clock for clock Intel would be in the lead
mongol05 wrote:True enough, but since they're not free, I'm glad you guys compared them dollar for dollar. =)
DallasTexas wrote:This is one of those "reviews" to find a place where AMD can win. It makes for good fodder.. In fact Inquirer.Net already changed the nsame of the is reivew to " AMD demolished Core".. Goes to show you how pathetic this all is.
Clearly, comparing Intel low end Core 2 offering with AMD's top end offering is not implied. Instead, it is masked by the "Battle of the $200 processors".
Useless. The target audience for this is not interested in budget processor wars.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests