Originally Posted by airiox
the most trusted source on the internet for benchmarks proves the FX-53 is better for gamers.
The FX only looses once to the HT and that is only a 640x480 quake III game. no one is going to play quake at such resolutions.
The HT does win alot of the benchmarks for applications, encoding and such.
All this hook up on games! I will never understand it!
Give me a processor which can take 5, 10 minutes off a big encoding job and I'll go for it: but a processor that gives me 2, maybe 3 more frames per second on a game that is going to be obsolete in a year if its lucky?
Why buy a computer for games? Where the processor is not as tough, as hardwhereing as endurant as a gaming processor? Use a computer for Games; it should be so; but why buy it for games based on game benchmarks when game benchmarks show what it can do graphically - where the 64-Bit processors have the advantage of the 64-bitting and the HT Processors have a disadvantage of the Hyperthreading. Not really a fair test is it?
Are we not after Power anymore?