I for one am not impressed. Let's see what happens when all the noise gets settled. Who will be who then. This kind of reminds me of the late 90's when AMD was going to topple Intel then. And AMD's processors were everywhere. What happened?
I like the competition, there was plenty in the late 90's as well, but in the end.... ???
I remember that time...those CPUs were not that good once Intel copied or made their own version of those innovations. Intel is the one with bigger pockets and more green in them. They played a quite dirty game at some point, and AMD had no chance in hell to survive or be the better one because they could not get the income they deserved.
AMD's issue was buying ATI for $5 Billion. 3 years later AMD and ATI combined was worth $5 Billion. It caused them to have to sell their Foundry (now Global Foundry). It's difficult to test and innovate without your own foundry. That's why they didn't have the money to compete. They are making much better products now and are becoming competitive again. I'm happy for them. Competition makes the consumer the winners.
My comment earlier about not believing everything you hear was not aimed at AMD or Intel. It was aimed at the 'professional' reviewers. They have consistently got it wrong for a lot of years. I recall when the 3770K came out. The reviewers said it wouldn't overclock and couldn't beat a 2600K. I happen to own a couple of both CPUs and can tell you that was just a bunch of crap. A 3770K is a far superior chip than the 2600K and will overclock much better. You can cherry pick a benchmark or a game where most any chip can beat another one. I've seen all the hype on both sides. I want to see what happens when all the chips are out and in the hands of the benchmarking and overclocking community. That's when we will find out which is the better CPU. I personally don't care which one wins. I just hope the competition is close. All of this 'who has the most cores' is a non starter in my book. That means little to most of us. The benchmarkers love it because it gives them higher scores in many benches. In real life it means very little unless you are doing 3D modeling, the server market or video encoding. It helps the average consumer and gamers none at all.
Ati had atrocious drivers before AMD took over. I think that AMD is making most money on GPUs used for Bitcoin mining. It's getting difficult to find decent AMD graphic cards, Soon after new one comes out, there's a lot of used ones from previous generation used for sale. I'm counting on that to grab a good use Rx 470 or 480 in few months providing Vega is good for mining.
Speaking of overclocking! Nothing has ever clocked as good as Celeron @366 (don't recall which batch it was) but I ran my dual Celeron system at 133MHz FSB on a i440BX chipset = Cellys @732MHz stable on watercooling. Darn that computer was fast. :)
In the end this is going to wind up hurting AMD and I hope it does. It's downright ridiculous in trying to find a new AMD card at a competitive non-price gouging price. Not sure what AMD can do about this, but something has to be done or a lot of AMD GPU users (me included) are going to go to NVidia due to AMD shortages.
This ^
And for now it really is all about the current benchmarking community; not about the everyday Jane/Joe Blow who just uses their PC to do everyday tasks such as email, net browsing, occasional job/office productivity tasks, and maybe some gaming where more cores means absolutely nothing.
When we actually do get games and apps that actually do take advantage of more cores, then we'll see what's what. Until then... ???
My two cents.
How much life do you guys think an i7 3770K and GTX 970 have left in it? I almost have all the parts for this build. Just waiting for the PSU and 970 to come in.
