Intel paid Dell for not using AMD products

Intel is getting double **** on! However I am happy to see the end of a monopoly.

 

i always guessed intel did that

 

This is old news Mr. Radeon. Please, check past blogs before you post new ones.

 

bunch of queers...

 

Dell would'nt use that crap anyways.

 

yes they would (sadly)

 

This is why I don't buy intels CPUs anymore

 

Agreed, GreenSLi. If you aren't able to overclock AMD, it's crap.

 

well, you can overclock amd right now better than intel so i just don't see where you're coming from with that ridiculous argument. I've seen lapped phenom II 940's go from 3.0 to 4.3 on air, that's insane.

 

i wouldn't say they are better overclockers

 

the phenom II's are are just as good as the new Intel CPU's at overclocking, if not better.  Intel knows they cant win fairly so they have to cheat.

 

and what is this based on, in most of the reviews ive read the i7-920 and i5-950 overclock from 2.6 to roughly 4ghz as easily as the phenom IIs.

as far as the cant compete thing i cant say much as i dont know how well each is selling but it seems like intel is competing fine in performance.

 

i never said intel doesnt overclock or doesnt compete in performance.  My point was if intel never paid dell AMD would've been at much better position financially and most likely produce even better products than they currently are. At the time when Intel paid DELL,  AMD was dominating CPU market, but Intel instead of trying  compete by  producing better CPU's they decided to take the illegal root.  But It doesn't matter anymore as AMD caming back in the game with the Phenom II's and slowly  it will rise to the top and and once again domiate the CPU market.

 

i don't doubt that amd will get the top position again if the companies are really competing i would expect it to just be a matter of time. i dont really see them taking the majority of the market anytime soon though... but whats that really matter

 

They became a monopoly by playing fair, so maybe they maintain it by cheating but they certainly were winning hardcore at some point.

 

Still don't beat i7 920 4 GHz on air.

 

Well Core i7s are way hotter than phenom 2s, use more power and over all more expensive. If you are looking for a budget to enthusiast quad core, then Phenom 2 is where you'll find the best.

 

K, maybe the 80$ noctua cooler and the v10 can do that, but not the average cooler, an average lapped phenom II can hit 4.0, the average i7 does not. my point is, phenom IIs are better at ocing than i7s, that does NOT make them better. Your argument was ****ty, i never said that i7s were worse than phenoms.

 

what are you biasing this on, because roughly 4ghz is pretty much the standard overclock every reviewer gets with the cpu.

 

Well I don't know what cooler they are using, but I have a Thermaltake v1. There is no way I'm getting to 4 Jigahertz.

 

lol @ you saying biasing instead of basing


anyway, I'm basing it on a cooler that doesn't cost $60+. I could get a phenom II 940 to 4 ghz easily with a 60$ cooler, and if you think you CAN with an i7, even with a cooler that is 60$ on a 950/965 you're a sheep to the average intel fanboy's bull****. Only insanely good air and water cooling can get the low/middle end i7s to 4 ghz.

 

when i said that i didnt mean restate what you have already said, i was more looking for you to put some substance behind what you said. im completely ready to accept what you said, i just havent seen it for myself. i wasnt saying that you are wrong more sp just intrested in seeing what you are basing it on, like the physical evidence that it cant on a 60 dollar cooler.

 

I can care less if it's a 38739GHz Phenom 2000, or a 4GHz quad-core, right now.

The point is, that no system requires more than a 4GHz Core i7 (exept of Quad-SLI 295, and quad-fire HD5870?), so you wont need more.

And remember, Intel has more performance per clock, than AMD. A 4GHz Core i7 performs like a 4.4GHz PII.

And btw, Celeron got the world record :P over 8GHz!!!

---EDIT: a TRUE can easily handle Core i7 4.2 GHz.

 

Well no, that wasn't your point. You said if AMD can't overclock it's ****, so by that argument amd=intel which is false. I was just trying to point out that that was a silly argument because the i7's are obviously much better than phenom II's, but overclocking does NOT make a CPU better than another cpu.

"Agreed, GreenSLi. If you aren't able to overclock AMD, it's crap."


i7's destroy phenom II's, and intel is way ahead of amd in performance, but that doesn't mean amd cant overclock. Hell, celerons overclock well, that doesn't mean celeron>i7.

 

Sorry, words are flying out of my mouth.

You're right, but every non-overcloked AMD computer I've been working with, almost killed me. Too slow and stopped responding. But tweak it like 300MHz, and it ran acceptable.

We all know that overclocking is impossible on those "out-of-the-box" computers like Dell, HP, Acer, what so ever. And I KNOW that low-clocked AMD CPU's are weak, compared to Intel's. At this point I would say the ratio is 1:1, even price/performance.

 

yeah you have a point. I have a phenom 9950 2.6, which is like = to a q6600 and it overclocked like ****. amd have been doing better lately but intel is still champ

 

I have a 60 dollar cooler, I'll try to get my Core i7 940 to 4 Jigahertz at some point. It is unlikely that it'll happen at reasonable temps though.

 

Well lets hope that they pass the price save onto the consumer????