Being on a CRT, i am happy to sacrifice resolution for buttery smooth gameplay and better textures/shadows/effects etc. If i cant get over 50fps i will drop from 2048x1536 to a minimum of 1600x1200 before i start dropping settings instead.
I only have two mandatory requirements when it comes to...
PS1/N64/Saturn era was by far the best. The leap from 16 bit to 32bit and 2d to 3d was visually amazing, and the use of CD-ROM allowed for comparatively massive games and excellent audio. But it wasn't just the hardware.. The PS1 era gave birth to brand new exciting, original never seen before...
I used to disable AV and close all internet browser tabs and running apps before gaming back when i was on a dual core e7500 @ 4ghz for maximum performance. Now that im running a quad core i2500k @ 4.4ghz with 8gb of ram there's no need.
Just get an AV that is known to have a small footprint...
I'd ask "How tight did your bumholes pucker up when you guys read the SB reviews over at AMD HQ?" :P
In seriousness no question asked is going to get a 100% straight answer, it is PR after all and no ones gunna stand up and see "look we F'd up ok? We'll try and do better next time"
I'd...
So pretty much the OP is asking us to be patient, give AMD the benefit of the doubt and have faith that they will deliver in a timely manner, while AMD remains completely tight lipped and gives no guarantees or indicators otherwise?
De je vu anyone?
We've been hearing the same thing from AMD...
So wake me up when all the things you mentioned have come into effect/been rectified. I'll enjoy the all round performance of my 2500k til then.
Maybe after Windows 8 comes out, in 18 months time or so, i might think about buying into AMD's chip design if advantages are to be had then, AND...
Yep, you either gotta feel sorry for the marketing guys at AMD for being forced to put a positive spin on and trying to sell a turd in a toilet bowl, or be annoyed at how out of touch they are with the sub par product they are pedaling.
"Unrivaled, Unlocked, Unbelievable?" Yeah unbelievable is...
Unless your 90 years old or you plan on dying in the next 10 years, then i think we will definitely see an 8 core Intel CPU under $250 in the next 10 years. Hell, in less than five years we've gone from the first ever quad core costing $1000 to paying less than $180 for Intel's latest offering...
AMD were right about not releasing early benchmarks in fear of cannibilizing their current sales. Except it wouldnt have been due to a halt of Phenom II sales because of people holding off buying and waiting for BD causing a backlog of unsellable inventory, but for people realizing that BD...
So if this slide is to scale AMD will have a processor equal to Phenom II next year, and finally a processor faster than Phenom II in 2013?
They need a hell of alot more than a 10-15% increase each year to stay competitive
As usual Intel provides in depth information about their next gen well in advance. Seems they aren't worried about "cannibalizing their own sales" or "handing information to their competitors" as jf amd is.
It's a strategy that works well, because now anyone in the market to build a new pc...
Bobby was so enraged he vowed never to use PC's again and the next day he applied to work at the local Genius Bar. The manager said he was the most over qualified applicant he had ever saw.
Hehe that ramp could also be referred to as a sandy bridge :P Notice it's complete, solid, has been around for a while yet is still perfectly useful.
Here is a ramp that better symbolizes AMD
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.