Reminds me of when I was a student back in the 80's, an American exchange student commented how in the UK people didn't wear their sweatshirts inside out. Apparently where he came from at that time you had to wear a sweatshirt and it had to be inside out, or you were a social outcast.
Perhaps i5 is the new fashion conformism
Does that mean I'm a computing hipster, with my house full of AMD and Core 2 products?Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
Perhaps i5 is the new fashion conformism
Only if you have a K series Core i5!!Reminds me of when I was a student back in the 80's, an American exchange student commented how in the UK people didn't wear their sweatshirts inside out. Apparently where he came from at that time you had to wear a sweatshirt and it had to be inside out, or you were a social outcast.
Perhaps i5 is the new fashion conformism
Its quite hilarious enthusiasts on some forums go on about how certain games won't run if you don't have an overclocked Core i5. Yet funnily,enough either I or mates have done fine on slower CPUs!!
Its all rather foolish as artificially raising the entry level cost of gaming would push more people to consoles anyway,and lead to more PC games being console ports,which the same enthusiasts complain about.
I'm sure there should be a limit on how many times that cartoon is used in a thread
None of the hardware e* on AT seem to buy that argument though. They constantly moan about consolitis and that PC games are just an afterthought but then if someone comes and asks about wanting to get a gaming PC on a budget it's like: well you need an i7-4770K and a $400+ graphic card plus...
I mean I do get that benching CPUs in games needs to show what a CPU is capable at low res but actual playing resolutions (mostly 1080P) are also important. Sure an i7 gaming PC is nice but aside from BF3/4, GTA and Skyrim (the last two of which were pretty poorly programmed on the PC), a CPU at a third of that price is usually fine. Truth is, you cannot build a future-proof PC and trying to do so is unlikely to get you good value anyhow.
*not sure if the e-word is enthusiasts or elitists here...
Damned if you do, damned if you don't though. There was a review linked on these forums where Hexus forumites were complaining because they were testing the CPU at gaming resolutions
IIRC BF3 (and presumably BF4) are fairly well threaded though, so are well-suited to a cheaper AMD alternative. GTA is somewhat similar; it's terribly inefficient, but it still likes a load of real cores (i.e. dual-core with HT doesn't cut it). Skyrim relies heavily upon the x87 codepath, but hopefully that sort of nonsense will no longer be a problem when the new consoles come along.
Edit: I think the word would be elitist - I think of myself as an enthusiast, but I'm also interested in budget stuff etc, and I won't scoff at someone if they don't want to spend two grand on a PC.
TBH,its got progressively worse since Intel locked out overclocking on lower end CPUs. I get the impression some of them would have been the types who would have gone for a Core i3 if it was still overclockable,but instead spent more than what they wanted to get a Core i5/Core i7 so need to shout from the roofs everything else is pointless.
The thing is any enthusiast worth their salt would realise the market changes,in terms of hardware and software. Hence,the value preposition of parts will change over time. I have no problem criticising my own purchases in light of new data at all.
However,they seem to not understand that.
True. In an ideal world reviews would bench at low res, high res, med res, with min/med/high settings and with twenty CPUs and twenty GPUs. 20 x 20 x 3 x 3 is 3,600 data points per game though so I can't see anyone doing those reviews then
Maybe if there was a machine which could do it: webenchforyou.com where you select the res, settings, CPU and GPU and it benches it for you and sends you a video of the game play.
Even an £80 APU can play most games at 720p on medium to high settings.
It's a little frustrating that on so many forums when someone wants a budget gaming machine it's instantly Intel i3s or i5s recommended only rather than a cheaper 6300/8320 system that would in most cases do just as well if not better.
Seriously, no-one should be recommending any i3 for a gaming system, especially a forward-looking one. I know it happens, people would rather give terrible advice than admit Intel is a poor choice for the price range, but the extra cores available on a similarly priced AMD build help *massively* with a lot of games.
It understandably varies between games with the likes of 8350 vs i5, but TBH it's fairly clean cut when comparing i3 price range (6300 for example). You're just strangling many games with two cores now.
On another forum I use, every low budget gaming spec request is met with an i3 3120, almost guaranteed. The fact that it runs a few artificial benchmarks well above an FX-8320 seems to be enough to say it's much better. I don't see the relevance either if an 8320 gets 200fps in a game while an i5 3770K gets 230fps, but I think a common reaction is just to see Intel CPUs at the top of a benchmark, AMD at the bottom, even if there's <10fps in the entire range, and conclude that the AMD CPUs are useless.
Last edited by teppic; 18-07-2013 at 09:00 PM.
It looks like AMD has made a smaller loss than expected:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/amd-re...201500544.html
Revenue is down year on year but increased since the last quarter.
Shares have gone up:
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q?s=AMD
The thing is all the major next generation game engines thread well or will thread well. So on certain forums they make a big deal about ST performance, but at the same time all of the people making the biggest deal have Core i5 and Core i7 CPUs,since they are more worried about MT performance!!
Edit!!
Some more analysis:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/amd...lts-2013-07-18
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07...than_expected/
It seems AMD CPU sales in all markets have gone up.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 18-07-2013 at 10:07 PM.
I assumed that as "e-peen", not sure what that says about me
Ha!Ha! It seems some on the Anandtech forums are not very happy that AMD managed to do a bit better than expected. They have got to justify their Intel CPUs and Nvidia graphics cards somehow!!
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 18-07-2013 at 11:56 PM.
intel sales go down , AMD go up.... ofc they wont be happy with that
There are currently 63 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 63 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
