Overclocking gives you freedom... now they're taking that freedom away, saying you must run their CPU exactly as intended. I don't like that. I'd rather buy a Phenom just to spite Intel.
You can only do so much with 775socket untill it does not become cost effective to work on thus using more pins. With that said I am interested in what amd has to offer.ghettoperson wrote:
Fuck LGA1160 then. How many times more expensive is LGA1366 going to be? Why can't they just keep it all to one socket, and make cheaper un-OCable chips?
Thinking about it though, that'd make sense with two sockets. That way, they can force mobo manufacturers to make mobos for LGA1160 that have a fixed FSB.If they start making some decent chips that OC well, Intel can get fucked.Nessie09 wrote:
So maybe this is not the end for AMD yet...http://news.softpedia.com/news/Intel-No-Overclocking-for-Mainstream-Nehalems-84019.shtml wrote:
While Intel is stripping down overclocking features, AMD is working to enhance the potential of its processors, and rumor has it that the upcoming Deneb processors will be extremely friendly to the users who plan to squeeze extra performance.
I don't mind a new socket; what I do object to is creating two different new sockets solely for the purpose of extracting more money out of people that want to overclock.The#1Spot wrote:
You can only do so much with 775socket untill it does not become cost effective to work on thus using more pins. With that said I am interested in what amd has to offer.ghettoperson wrote:
Fuck LGA1160 then. How many times more expensive is LGA1366 going to be? Why can't they just keep it all to one socket, and make cheaper un-OCable chips?
Thinking about it though, that'd make sense with two sockets. That way, they can force mobo manufacturers to make mobos for LGA1160 that have a fixed FSB.If they start making some decent chips that OC well, Intel can get fucked.Nessie09 wrote:
So maybe this is not the end for AMD yet...
Wow, and you are wondering why they are doing this?GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
I love overclocking. The current C2D/C2Q generation is the best bang for buck OC one that probably will ever be. Overclocking is sooo fun and gives a lot performance for zero cost when you know what you are doing. like 70% OC of my E2180.
No OC'ing + weak competition = more people buying more expensive CPUs = more money for Intel.
Think.
Exactly right. And Intel will not have to worry about having replace the CPU you had a warranty with after you've overclocked it without knowing what you were doing.nukchebi0 wrote:
No OC'ing + weak competition = more people buying more expensive CPUs = more money for Intel.
Basically, Intel is capitalizing on weak competition to improve their bottom line.
Yay, lets screw AMD.
Yay, lets screw AMD.
i had a lot of respect for Intel, this totally destroyed it, they still make good equipment but i lost my trust in them.
now did I wonder anywhere why they are doing it huh?nukchebi0 wrote:
Wow, and you are wondering why they are doing this?GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
I love overclocking. The current C2D/C2Q generation is the best bang for buck OC one that probably will ever be. Overclocking is sooo fun and gives a lot performance for zero cost when you know what you are doing. like 70% OC of my E2180.
No OC'ing + weak competition = more people buying more expensive CPUs = more money for Intel.
Think.
All I said was it sucks hard.
Intel clearly makes use of its superior situation on the CPU market. AMD needs to get back on its feet.
Last edited by GC_PaNzerFIN (2008-05-13 02:11:40)
3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8
Being loyal to CPU companies is....stupid.
well, when one of them is just plain better than the other, that's who i'm loyal to.kylef wrote:
Being loyal to CPU companies is....stupid.
"people in ny have a general idea of how to drive. one of the pedals goes forward the other one prevents you from dying"
The main difference perhaps not being in performance, but the ability to be faster from prototype to store shelf. AMD has quality stuff, but no supply.haffeysucks wrote:
well, when one of them is just plain better than the otherkylef wrote:
Being loyal to CPU companies is....stupid.
In my personal opinion.
I need around tree fiddy.
But compared to C2D/C2Q they suck balls. Hence I'm forced to buy Intel until AMD get their act together.DonFck wrote:
The main difference perhaps not being in performance, but the ability to be faster from prototype to store shelf. AMD has quality stuff, but no supply.haffeysucks wrote:
well, when one of them is just plain better than the otherkylef wrote:
Being loyal to CPU companies is....stupid.
In my personal opinion.
I was more trying to say 'swing where the market takes you'. I love AMD, I prefer them vastly to Intel...but I have a Core 2 Duo running on my main PC. Why? Because for the same price if I had of bought an AMD processor it wouldn't have been as good.
I always go with the flow. First it was Celeron when AMD was nobody, then i had three AMDs and now Intel again. I wish IBM would make desktop processors.
I had AMDs when they were nobody. I still have working K5-2 and K6-2 CPUs at home. My brother had Pentium. Then I got the Intel P2, AMD Duron, Intel celeron wilamette(P4), AMD Athlon 64 3500+, E6320, E6750, G6600 G0 and finally E2180..Sup wrote:
I always go with the flow. First it was Celeron when AMD was nobody, then i had three AMDs and now Intel again. I wish IBM would make desktop processors.
I have been swinging back and forth between AMD and Intel last years. I really want AMD to do well so I might get one of their CPUs again.
Because Intel starts to cut down CPU features like OC and stuff and AMD is making overclocking easier, I keep looking at the upcoming AMD Hydra 8-core CPU (Q2 2009). If Nehalems that have OC capabilities are rip off and Hydra is good, I will get the AMD.
3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8
Why? IBM is the most OEM, most cumbersome and most archaic computing company in existence. They'd compete in a segment wholly uninteresting for the performance enthusiast. Even as a business, they're undesirable to work with..Sup wrote:
I always go with the flow. First it was Celeron when AMD was nobody, then i had three AMDs and now Intel again. I wish IBM would make desktop processors.
Get what is best for your price...it's that simple.
Without IBM we would still be in tech stone age.mikkel wrote:
Why? IBM is the most OEM, most cumbersome and most archaic computing company in existence. They'd compete in a segment wholly uninteresting for the performance enthusiast. Even as a business, they're undesirable to work with..Sup wrote:
I always go with the flow. First it was Celeron when AMD was nobody, then i had three AMDs and now Intel again. I wish IBM would make desktop processors.
Ummm, that is not the point. I got E2180 for 65€, and now it just about outperforms a stock E6600. Overclocking really does wonders...kylef wrote:
Get what is best for your price...it's that simple.
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg
Was referring to companies, sorry if I didn't make that clear.DeathUnlimited wrote:
Ummm, that is not the point. I got E2180 for 65€, and now it just about outperforms a stock E6600. Overclocking really does wonders...kylef wrote:
Get what is best for your price...it's that simple.
You can't be serious. People, ideas and concepts, not companies, are brilliant. If IBM hadn't been there, another company would have been..Sup wrote:
Without IBM we would still be in tech stone age.mikkel wrote:
Why? IBM is the most OEM, most cumbersome and most archaic computing company in existence. They'd compete in a segment wholly uninteresting for the performance enthusiast. Even as a business, they're undesirable to work with..Sup wrote:
I always go with the flow. First it was Celeron when AMD was nobody, then i had three AMDs and now Intel again. I wish IBM would make desktop processors.
By the same token, you could say that without Ibn Al-Haytham, the Internet would be all copper. Even if that was true, you wouldn't go to Iraq for your fibre optics.
What he said =what you said. Get best for your money=E2180.DeathUnlimited wrote:
Ummm, that is not the point. I got E2180 for 65€, and now it just about outperforms a stock E6600. Overclocking really does wonders...kylef wrote:
Get what is best for your price...it's that simple.
Dude who invented HDD?mikkel wrote:
You can't be serious. People, ideas and concepts, not companies, are brilliant. If IBM hadn't been there, another company would have been..Sup wrote:
Without IBM we would still be in tech stone age.mikkel wrote:
Why? IBM is the most OEM, most cumbersome and most archaic computing company in existence. They'd compete in a segment wholly uninteresting for the performance enthusiast. Even as a business, they're undesirable to work with.
By the same token, you could say that without Ibn Al-Haytham, the Internet would be all copper. Even if that was true, you wouldn't go to Iraq for your fibre optics.
QFT. Damn this CPU will be remembered as the "best bang for buck for overclocker ever" now that the cheap future nehalems will be OC non-friendly....Sup wrote:
What he said =what you said. Get best for your money=E2180.DeathUnlimited wrote:
Ummm, that is not the point. I got E2180 for 65€, and now it just about outperforms a stock E6600. Overclocking really does wonders...kylef wrote:
Get what is best for your price...it's that simple.
3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8
I'm gonna UPgrade to E2180 soon.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
QFT. Damn this CPU will be remembered as the "best bang for buck for overclocker ever" now that the cheap future nehalems will be OC non-friendly....Sup wrote:
What he said =what you said. Get best for your money=E2180.DeathUnlimited wrote:
Ummm, that is not the point. I got E2180 for 65€, and now it just about outperforms a stock E6600. Overclocking really does wonders...