Another reason to go with AMD

Pluvious looked up from reading the entrails of
the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

On 7 Sep 2006 15:39:51 -0700, "shegeek72" wrote:

|Andrew wrote:
|
| By anyone who hasn't looked at benchmarks for Core 2 Duo, and as such
| shouldn't be trusted to make sweeping statements.
|
|The dual cores are new and I think it's premature to declare Intel the
|winner for gaming.

Wow.. I don't see how you can say that. The Core 2 Duo is blowing away the top
of the line AMD in benchmarks.

Since when are benchmarks games?

It's premature to call it a win for gaming until it's actually used (and
performs better) in actual games, both new and old.

Wouldn't be the first time something benchmarked great and fell down in
actual use.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr

On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 05:07:38 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

snip

Irrelevant to what is best value for gaming.

You are horribly confused, paying more value.
Since gamers are playing ok on CPUs costing less, your
"value" argument is nonsense.

I have no issue with using a Core 2 Duo for gaming, not at
all... it IS a good choice, for some people, but it is not
"good", "best" or anything of this sort until all the
applicable parameters are considered, not just "who has
highest performance level regardless of cost, regardless of
where the bottleneck was, or if that bottleneck was even
relevant to the user's needs".

One thing is for certain, "value" it is not. There are now
several CPUs under $100 that can provide acceptible
framerates. Let Core 2 Duo completely replace the older
CPUs and ramp up in speed and THEN it will be better
positioned as a value choice too.

kony wrote
Rod Speed wrote
kony wrote
Rod Speed wrote
kony wrote
shegeek72 wrote

The dual cores are new and I think it's
premature to declare Intel the winner for gaming.

It's premature to think "winner" means something too, unless
of course there's a false notion that only highest end parts sell.

Nope, its a winner in the sense that one is the best to buy for gaming.

Nope, "fastest to buy" maybe,

Gets sillier by the minute.

but then we'd have to arbitrarily assume that fastest is better,
that the framerate wouldn't be high enough otherwise- which
is obviously not true, people are in fact gaming right now w/o
Core 2 Duo.

Irrelevant to what is best value for gaming.

You are horribly confused,

We'll see...

paying more value.

Pity no one ever said it was.

Since gamers are playing ok on CPUs costing
less, your "value" argument is nonsense.

Nope, most obviously when it plays better on the better system.

I have no issue with using a Core 2 Duo for gaming,
not at all... it IS a good choice, for some people, but
it is not "good", "best" or anything of this sort until all
the applicable parameters are considered, not just
"who has highest performance level regardless of cost,
regardless of where the bottleneck was, or if that
bottleneck was even relevant to the user's needs".

Pity no one ever said anything about either.

One thing is for certain, "value" it is not.

Pity I never ever said that it was.

I JUST said that your stupid pig ignorant claim that

The real winner is the one that can
deliver the most in the value segment.

is just plain wrong.

There are now several CPUs under $100
that can provide acceptible framerates.

Irrelevant to your stupid pig ignorant claim that

The real winner is the one that can
deliver the most in the value segment.

Let Core 2 Duo completely replace the older
CPUs and ramp up in speed and THEN it will
be better positioned as a value choice too.

Irrelevant to your stupid pig ignorant claim that

The real winner is the one that can
deliver the most in the value segment.

On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 23:41:35 -0400, Xocyll
wrote:

Since when are benchmarks games?

It's premature to call it a win for gaming until it's actually used (and
performs better) in actual games, both new and old.

It does outperform AMD in actual games. Games can be used for
benchmarking as well as synthetic programs.
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.