All I see is a quad at 3.5GHz beating an octo at 5GHz in positions 2 & 3. And it's cheaper with much lower power consumption. Let the flamewar commence!
4770k isn't a quad. It's quad core with 8 threads. See the 9590 there? that runs at an actual 4.7ghz. The FX 8320 costs £110. It can easily do 4.7ghz. The 4670k costs £174 and loses, comprehensively, to a CPU costing £110. For £174 you can buy a FX 6300, AND a board, AND the ram. Intel are bloody laughable, flamewar well and truly on. Jokes aside though this just confirms what I've been saying. Another new game, and, quelle surprise ! another victory for AMD in the price department. Once again Intel have been completely shamed by CPUs costing half as much. Power consumption argument = invalid. We've done that one before. Best to leave it alone really.
Just trolling mate, I'm really not interested. My current processor is likely to remain in situ for years, don't really game enough any more to consider an upgrade.
Yup! Proves comprehensively that a modern 8 core AMD chip is on par with 2.5 year old 4 core threaded intel chip. Brand loyalty really is blind eh?
Angy, people would take your opinions more seriously if you didn't come across as a fan boy. What you say does have value but it never sounds like you are being objective.
I agree that the AMD CPUs are extremely good value for money and are darn quick to boot. Just a pity they are not really suitable for smaller form factor builds.
Oh good, another thread where AlienwareAngry types ridiculously long one sided replies that no one can be bothered to reply to.
Still loving my 2600k @4.6Ghz on a £30 cooler. When i upgrade i will pick the best cpu i can afford at the time be it AMD or Intel i dont really care.
I'm not talking about others interpretation of the information, I am talking about you present your points. Most have agreed with you but have also noted that what you have said is mainly about the future and not the present and that when talking about the future there are many variables to consider that we cannot possibly predict. Your main argument always seems to be BF4 BF4 BF4 as if this is all that PCs are made for.
I've bought dozens of CPUs over the years - some turkeys included. But you know what? Instead of succumbing to post-purchase rationalisation or evangelism I just get on and enjoy the damn thing. Or fail to enjoy it and replace it (I'm looking at you NetBurst architecture). Either way, the majority of CPUs in that chart either are or were good chips and if you own any of them there's no need to feel ashamed or confused.
