Originally Posted by Mossiac
Fist I have to say that I go for AMD as I have found tyhat Intel doen't live up to it's hype.
I also read that Intel invest a lot in tech that has no purpose* and a lot in advertising as well. That is why I begrudge paying out for an Intel processor.
* Things that are aheasd of their time. Like when apple had made Safari support HTML5 about 2 years ago and only now it is starting to take off properly. Intel getting their processors to support PCI 3.0 before any content was avalible to take advantage of it, instead of working on it and ironing out most of the bugs before releasing it to the market.
I will say though that I also heard a year or so ago that AMD were going to release a better performing chip that would compete properly with the Intel ones. And nothing.
I know that people aren't goning to like this next comment but still.
I would rather pay say £150 on a processor that performs at 80% of the capabillity of the top of the range costing £350.
Sorry if the last bit does't make any sense.
None of your argument makes any sense. Do this for me. Go to CPU Boss, and compare an i3-3250 to a Phenom II x6 1045. i3 = $150 Phenom = $300. i3 performs better for half the price. So much for "Pay 150 pounds on a processor that performs at 80% of the capability of the top of the range costing 350 pounds" This time, AMD costs more but performs less
Give some facts, because just saying you "Read" or you "Saw" or "Heard" doesn't mean anything