MB Opinions

[Bang]

Good to know guys. I do appreciate the info, and I wasnt being a wiseguy when I asked for some evidence. I realised that links ratings were a bit out of whack when 690 scored lower than a 670, etc. Obviously their benchmark has some flaws in it. I would never troll anybody. I didnt join this forum to do that.

On any nerd site youre bound to get fans of one company or another. For example t he other night I did a youtube search on the 3970x. One idiot was putting it down so hard it was shocking, saying "6 cores? Come on! AMD has been putting out 8 for years. 6 is just pathetic. I would never buy Intel,blah blah blah."

So I sent him a nice little message telling him, its 6 cores 12 threads and it smashes anything AMD has ever made, and that he was a moron I know: nice of me to set him straight.

I bring this up because his opinion had no basis in fact/reality.

BTW +1 for MPower

 

[jamesriley94]

Good to know guys. I do appreciate the info, and I wasnt being a wiseguy when I asked for some evidence. I realised that links ratings were a bit out of whack when 690 scored lower than a 670, etc. Obviously their benchmark has some flaws in it. I would never troll anybody. I didnt join this forum to do that.

On any nerd site youre bound to get fans of one company or another. For example t he other night I did a youtube search on the 3970x. One idiot was putting it down so hard it was shocking, saying "6 cores? Come on! AMD has been putting out 8 for years. 6 is just pathetic. I would never buy Intel,blah blah blah."

So I sent him a nice little message telling him, its 6 cores 12 threads and it smashes anything AMD has ever made, and that he was a moron I know: nice of me to set him straight.

I bring this up because his opinion had no basis in fact/reality.

BTW +1 for MPower

Bad example...

The 3960x and 3970x are actually 8 core processors. But they have 2 of the cores physically disabled so they can overclock better. It's easier to put 8 cores on a chip and cherry pick the best six and disable the other two than it is than it is to put 8 cores on it and try and get it to run stably at any overclock. If AMD actually posed any threat to Intel, I think Intel would have tried harder to make the 3960x and 3970x 8 cores. He is an idiot for still buying AMD, however.
Opinions like that can never have a basis on fact/reality because they're future projections. But considering the only differences between a 3930k and a 3960x is 3MB of cache, and potentially getting 6 cores that are more likely to be better for overclocking, it definitely doesn't warrant the 90% increase in price.
My guess is that's why the new Xeons are completely locked down for overclocking. Because due to the number of cores, they wouldn't get stable at all if they were overclocked - but that is more of a guess.

Intel has definitely not put as much effort in as they could have done, because they aren't being pushed by competition. Regardless of whether they beat AMD, it would still be better for the consumer to them to go a bit further out of their way and give us more powerful chips and by putting 8 cores in a processor and disable 2 of them, I think that demonstrates my point entirely.

 

[Bang]

For sure. But as Intel rates it as a 6 core, thats what I will call it, regardless of whether 2 cores are disabled. 12 threads is still better than AMD's 8 threads..

The clip I saw is 3 months old, so right before Piledriver was released, due to his quote to the effective of "piledriver is going to smash anything intel makes." Was he ever wrong or what?

I honestly dont even remember the 3970x being released at that point. The best intel still had at the time was the 3960x. So double fooey on his 'so-called' review.
It wasnt really a review: it was just an anti-Intel rant.