add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

Comments (Continued)

  • 17 months ago
  • 2 points

25ghz single core proc, the dream! lol

I don't disagree with your mentality. I just hate how the majority of people swing the argument to price/performance when that is exactly the game AMD chose to play. What about performance vs performance?

If Intel suddenly matched the price of processors with the same amounts of cores and threads then what would AMD's argument be then?

  • 17 months ago
  • 3 points

Well, storage transfer went from serial, to parallel, and then back to serial; so maybe it is within the realm of possibility. :P

Performance v Performance and Performance v Price are very different ways to compare products. Most people choose Price v Performance, as their limiting factor is budget. That's why more people own Nissans to Ferraris, apartments to mansions; and it's why some people choose amd over Intel. Intel definitely packs more punch in each core, but amd just let's you get those cores cheaper.

If we didn't have budgets, amd would be dead; but until then, I'll still sick with my i7 series, but I can understand why others see amds as a good choice.

All seriousness though, fun chat.

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube