Anyone else tired of these stupid logo's?

Frostmourne said:

Inaccurate though - AMD will give you all the performance you need without the cost.

It used to be that Intel cost quite a bit more than AMD....however it seems that recently the AMD chips are not that much cheaper than the Intel offerings and while decent CPU's....the Intel line is a fair amount better. I apologize in advance to AMD fanboys that simply cannot stomach running Intel chips, but the last great superior chip from AMD was the Athlon X2 64 back in the day. Since the Core 2 Duo introduction, Intel has solidly been in the lead.

pparks1 said:

It used to be that Intel cost quite a bit more than AMD....however it seems that recently the AMD chips are not that much cheaper than the Intel offerings and while decent CPU's....the Intel line is a fair amount better. I apologize in advance to AMD fanboys that simply cannot stomach running Intel chips, but the last great superior chip from AMD was the Athlon X2 64 back in the day. Since the Core 2 Duo introduction, Intel has solidly been in the lead.

I used to have an X2 6000 it ran great, then I switched over to Intel's Duo Core chips....and still with Intel, AMD has a great line- up of chips, but they need to come out with something to give Intel a run for it's money.

Frostmourne said:

These logo's are starting to become ridiculous. I've got Resident Evil 5 and an ad proudly proclaims, "Runs great on i7". Really? I'm shocked. As for the quad-core recommendation, my Phenom X2 550 Black Edition has no issues at 1080p combined with a stock Sapphire 4890.

Then the even more idiotic, "Nvidia, the way it's meant to be played". That is just sloppy - if the developer builds a good, solid engine any gaming card (not integrated or mid range) should run fine. I can understand the need for quad-core and an upgrade will take a few minutes, but these logo's are stupid - anyone else?

At least Call of Juarez had an ad for ATI and AMD - .

Are you talking about the splash screen intro logos?

It's all about money. Developers get paid to use them. It's just marketing.

In game ads that get updated can be blocked by dis-allowing access through the firewall. It doesn't work for all games though.

pparks1 said:

Frostmourne said:

Inaccurate though - AMD will give you all the performance you need without the cost.

It used to be that Intel cost quite a bit more than AMD....however it seems that recently the AMD chips are not that much cheaper than the Intel offerings and while decent CPU's....the Intel line is a fair amount better. I apologize in advance to AMD fanboys that simply cannot stomach running Intel chips, but the last great superior chip from AMD was the Athlon X2 64 back in the day. Since the Core 2 Duo introduction, Intel has solidly been in the lead.

now the charts (and I) have to disagree with this...... a stock phenom II 965 and a stock I7 920 run almost neck in neck in games with only about a 10 or less fps difference, while the I7 is about $290 the Phenom II is about $195, making it much cheaper yet same performance also you have to remember a I7 is using its 8 hyper-threaded core, the Phenom II still only uses four so when you take that into account who really has the better processor? what would a four core Intel do against a phenom II now? well.... lose....

Thanks for the information on the Phenom II's. The original Phenoms were certainly nothing to write home about. When the Phenom II's came out, it seemed they were about $520 for the 940, while the Core i7 was about $580...however the Core i7 did surpass it in the benchmarks.

Hyperthreading is not a big deal, never was with Intel. Others might argue that the lower clock speed of the Intel versus the higher clock of the AMD....would mean that if you cranked up the clocks of the Intel to match AMD..it would really outperform it. But that's just nitpicking details to me.

My biggest concern with the AMD CPU's would be heat...as they are much hotter than Intel from what I have read, and much more heat usually indicates that they are consuming far more power.

pparks1 said:

Thanks for the information on the Phenom II's. The original Phenoms were certainly nothing to write home about. When the Phenom II's came out, it seemed they were about $520 for the 940, while the Core i7 was about $580...however the Core i7 did surpass it in the benchmarks.

Hyperthreading is not a big deal, never was with Intel. Others might argue that the lower clock speed of the Intel versus the higher clock of the AMD....would mean that if you cranked up the clocks of the Intel to match AMD..it would really outperform it. But that's just nitpicking details to me.

My biggest concern with the AMD CPU's would be heat...as they are much hotter than Intel from what I have read, and much more heat usually indicates that they are consuming far more power.

actually for most of the gaming benches i've seen they are neck and neck with the Phenom ahead sometimes and others the i7, and as far as heat the Phenom II's are very cool running processors which is why they take to overclocking so well right now (if i had the cash that is....) i could get a Phenom II 940 for about $150