Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Report this Comment
Use this form to report the selected comment to the moderators. Reporting should generally be used only if the comment breaks forum rules.

69. Re: Battlefield 4 Mantle Update Released Jan 31, 2014, 08:04 WaltC
 
JSP wrote on Jan 30, 2014, 14:51:


Mmmhmm, now let's hear from developers who AREN'T being paid by AMD to implement it. And you're trying to put words in HardOCP's mouth by taking that out of context -- it doesn't change the results of the tests. That's how CPU tests are done, by minimizing the graphics-related variables as much as possible. AMD CPUs are simply slower than Intel's, it's a fact. Not just in gaming, but all applications; at best they come within spitting distance at video conversion, but everything else is no contest.

AMD themselves know and publicly state that their intent is not to be competing with Intel on the high end of desktop processors, because they simply cannot. They would bankrupt themselves in trying right now. But I guess since that part of the article (basically the entire Conclusion) doesn't serve you and your frail argument, you just ignore it...

Mmmhmm, yea, let's *hear* from the developers who are being paid, first, shall we? Oh, there aren't any? Oh, and they always specifically state in public that AMD is *not* paying them to implement Mantle? Oh, I get it--you've got cotton in your ears or else your reading comprehension isn't so good...;) Or, maybe you think these developers are lying through their teeth? Is that it? Maybe you'd like to talk about which ones are lying...?

Speaking of performance, AMD's IGP's (that's a cpu with an integrated gpu, in case you didn't know) blow Intel's out of the water (this has been true for years) and nVidia makes nothing competitive, either.

As for straight cpus, AMD cpus easily (FX 6xxx and 8xxx, specifically) keep up with with i3's and i5's--no problem, and often out-perform them, while costing about the same, if not less. So, is it your contention that Intel sells no i3's and i5's and that there is no market there? (I doubt you've even thought about the subject that deeply.)

The *only* place where AMD isn't performance competitive is in the top-tier i7 Intel cpu category--you know, the consumer cpus costing $300 and up? (Intel cpus specifically made for people who can't enjoy a game running an AMD cpu at 130fps because they've been brainwashed by propaganda telling them they can't enjoy a game unless they can also run a benchmark telling them they are running that game at 150 fps--on their 30% more expensive Intel cpu. Lol...;) Intel can see these folks coming a mile away--they've got giant "SUCKER" targets painted on their backs.)

And to top it all off, we aren't talking about the fact that in the discrete 3d-card market, Intel doesn't even place and is not in the running, leaving nVidia as AMD's only competitor in that market space.

Your anti-AMD argument is no argument at all, just a load of half-baked Internet flotsam, but I think you already know that.
 
Avatar 16008
 
It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it!
 
Subject
  
Optional
Message
 
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.
 




footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo