Thats a ludicrous argument. A bit like me saying, "lets pretend the athlon X4 is faster, which would you choose if both were the same price".
There is no difference to what you just said. When you consider what is "better" you need to take EVERY aspect of the chip into consideration.
IF he'd said "faster" then there would have been no argument. He didn't. It's my honest opinion that the athlon X4 is the "better" chip, for the vast majority of people, simply because it's more than good enough for what they need and it's 3x cheaper.
Which one would you buy for your mother or gran? Or a non gamer, or your neighbour or etc etc etc.
You're just annoyed because you can't handle the truth of your 2600K being somewhat less impressive than intels marketing made you believe. It's not AMD's fault you overpaid for what is basically a minor speed bump over 2 year old technology.
Where does it say it's an enthusiast forum?
My best mate knows almost nothing about pc's and he still has his chip overclocked.
Actually I had a Q6600 and sold it recently. It is no match for the Phenom II in anything. Like the rest of the people who tried to justify overclockability and power draw as being a good reason to upgrade to SB, the Phenom II was clearly ahead in both by a good 700-900 Mhz overclockability and half the power draw.
Maybe compared to a seriously cut down mobile Phenom II. The Q6600 can't even compete with the lowest spec Athlon II X4 which has no L3 and sucks about 1/3rd the power.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/105?vs=53
Athlon II wins 17, loses 9.
However, 4 of those wins came from Encoding but the i3 wasn't tested with QuickSync in that scenario.
Give up, you're not winning this argument. People posting during their spare time in a highly technical cpu site are "enthusiasts". If we weren't, we'd be out water skiing, skate boarding, picking up chicks at a bar, playing basketball, reading a book, etc etc. We are computer hardware enthusiasts. The commonly accepted definition of a better cpu is "faster", though "equal speed with lower power draw" could also be considered. However, "slower but also cheaper" is, at best, a better value, not "better" overall.
I paid $155 for my 2600k...
I paid $155 for my 2600k. Does AMD have something competitive for the same price? By blindly antagonizing everyone and assuming everyone is paid off by Intel, all you are doing is putting off people who are rooting hard for AMD to succeed. I want more than anything for 8 core BD to blow my 2600k out of the water, but that doesn't mean I will religiously defend uncompetitive products.
Actually, quicksync is pretty craptastic int erms of quality...
Pretty craptastic compared to what? The high quality x264 presets that take far more time? Because those are the only ones that best it currently in objective measurements. And about the only time that level of quality actually matters is if you have raw 1080p video for some reason where you want to have minimal losses on the encode... For that scenario the feeling that Quick Sync is crap is quite understandable, because that's not what the current generation was designed to do. The current Quick Sync was designed with the expectation that your content is going to be encoded already, which means the only reason to transcode is to reduce resolution, at which point a minor loss in quality is quite acceptable.
Previous response to claims of Quick Sync's inadequacy - http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31787869&postcount=177
That's ridiculous. Sacrificing quality for performance is never acceptable. That's like saying intel's graphics are as good as everyone elses if you lower image quality just to show charts with the same frame rates. It's only acceptable from intel apologists when the results in question are from an intel solution.
Thats not even close to real world pricing. Maybe for YOU it was a great bang/buck. 99% of us pays almost double what you payed for the cpu. :whiste:
That's ridiculous. Sacrificing quality for performance is never acceptable. That's like saying intel's graphics are as good as everyone elses if you lower image quality just to show charts with the same frame rates. It's only acceptable from intel apologists when the results in question are from an intel solution.
In November, YouTube challenged users to increase the number of videos uploaded per minute from 35 hours per minute to 48, and they have delivered. One year ago, YouTube reported 24 hours of video uploaded per minute, and 2 billion views per day.
I can also say that its never acceptable to buy an AMD CPU instead of SB to save a few measly bucks.
You can say it, but it has nothing to do with the point I was making.
While that's quite impressive I fail to see why anyone would need a hexcore to transcode a 10min vid (and most youtube vids are shorter than that) to 480p h264 or whatever (is the high quality option 720p or 1080p?). I mean even a lowly e8400 will do that just fine in a perfectly acceptable amount of timeImo, the biggest influx of new users interested (and doing) in video transcoding are the youtube/ smartphone/tablet crowd.
That was not my actual point. I understand I was vague. My point is more people are interested in standard low definition video manipulation and sharing. The new feature sets offered with the new cpu/gpu offerings mean something to new perspective buyers. Whether its AMD or Intel, they are both integrating this in new cpu's.While that's quite impressive I fail to see why anyone would need a hexcore to transcode a 10min vid (and most youtube vids are shorter than that) to 480p h264 or whatever (is the high quality option 720p or 1080p?). I mean even a lowly e8400 will do that just fine in a perfectly acceptable amount of time
Yes, I got the Intel employee discount. However, that wasn't my argument...
Sure it does. Just like my statement, you were using a personal opinion to make a global judgement, and then trying to impose it on everyone else as an universal truth. My statement is just as valid as yours.