connchri
Daemon Poster
- Messages
- 1,025
- Location
- Scotland, UK
Well based on steam gaming user stats:
Intel stock is at $21 a share and Amd is at $7 a share. Amd is hardly number 2
Actually, that's exactly what AMD is, number 2. And what is the point in even mentioning share price???? Regardless, you are comparing CPU's only here... AMD also compete very competitively in the performance graphics market.
Not that as a consumer we should be bothered unless we really don't have a choice.
So if amd gets phased out what would there be? via does not have the resources to compete against intel and why fund a company thats all about the profit motive, atleast amd trys to save you money with what options they have, $180 for a six core processor, cheap motherboards, amazing graphics. its not about being a fan boi, its just recognizing a company with integrity.
As I stated in my post, the AMD 1100T is the same price as a i5-2500k where I am. Recognising a company with integrity??? you are having a laugh aren't you? They are a profit driven business no different to Intel with share holders breathing down the CEO's back with only one thing in mind. Also, anti-monopoly laws ensure that if it's only always going to be Intel and AMD, that both will exist. AMD will not phase out, neither will Intel. Unless, that is, another player enters the game with similar market shares. Think MS with Apple back in the '90's. Thats the only example I know of, but I'm sure there's plenty.
I stand corrected.
Right Dude_56013, no need for the attitude! I am only trying to help! Very convenient of you to radically edit your initial post removing your references to possible future overclocking (now reliability is paramount??), removing reference to cost not being an issue, removing reference to performance being the main issue (replacing it with an efficiency target instead - which btw, Intel would probably still win hands down), AND adding the additional info that you are planning AMD without a VERY good argument against it. You've completely changed your initial post making me look like a tit with my responses.
I was simply offering an alternative, no need for the sneekyness to paint me in bad light by quoting and shooting me down like that.
I also brought to the discussion additional things to think about with GPGPU acceleration with Adobe, even though I'm no Adobe vetran. But, if keeping one supplier is more important than the efficiency/performance by making sure that adobe will support your graphics card is your objective(I'm not sure what your objectives are, as you seem to change them to keep your hardware, rather than contemplate changing your hardware to meet the objectives) then go for it - who am I to say otherwise.
Also, what give's with Tomhardware not being a reliable source? It's been a decent source for years, is this just something someones pull out of thin air, or is there some decent reasons behind this bar hearsay? In addition, the zero'd results? come on, a bit of common sense here. Do you really think they are implying that the use zero energy? Or maybe, just maybe, they didn't test at the time due to some sort of constraint?
And yes, Intel promptly issued new silicon for all the P67 and such like chipset motherboard manufacturers and carried out a huge & costly recall, after they, themselves, highlighted the problem.
I don't know why I wasted the time. Again, I was only trying to offer help. Pure arrogance.